HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1a - Accessory Dwelling Units and Development Code Cleanups
DATE: May 16, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
Prepared By: Lisa Flores, Planning Services Manager
Amanda Landry, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 2347 AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ARTICLE
IX, CHAPTER 1 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE (THE
DEVELOPMENT CODE), WITH AN EXEMPTION UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA"), TO UPDATE
THE CITY’S REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS,
AND TO ADDRESS MINOR TEXT CLEANUPS
Recommendation: Introduce
SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 2347 was presented to the City Council at the meeting of May 2, 2017.
The ordinance has been revised to address direction by the City Council to include
additional measures that would allow for an increased maximum size of an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (“ADU”), up to 1,200 square feet, based on specific property
characteristics. Revised Ordinance No. 2347 has been prepared to amend various
sections of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code to revise the regulations and
requirements pertaining to ADUs and to correct minor typographical errors and
inconsistencies that have been noted during the course of implementing the updated
Development Code that became effective in December of 2016. The Ordinance is
exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because the
amendments will not have any significant effect on the environment. It is recommended
that the City Council introduce the revised Ordinance No. 2347 (Attachment No. 1).
BACKGROUND
On May 2, 2017, the City Council considered Ordinance No. 2347 to update the
Development Code to be consistent with new state regulations pertaining to Accessory
Dwelling Units. At that time, the City Council considered the maximum permitted size
for ADUs, and indicated that the proposed maximum size of 800 square feet may, in
Ordinance No. 2347
Accessory Dwelling Units and Development Code Cleanup
May 16, 2017
Page 2 of 3
some cases, be overly restrictive. The City Council requested that the Ordinance be
amended with a revised development standard that offered a sliding scale of options
that would allow ADUs of up to 1,200 square feet in size, depending on the lot size and
the size of existing primary dwelling.
No changes were recommended to the minor text clean-ups to the Development Code.
DISCUSSION
The size and scale of ADUs can have a significant impact on neighborhood character.
An out-of-scale ADU could negatively affect neighborhood character, and the privacy of
neighbors. The new State law permits local jurisdictions to regulate the size of ADUs, as
long as they permit at least a 150 square foot efficiency unit, and allow a maximum size
of up to 1,200 square feet.
In all circumstances the underlying development standards for a primary structure,
including setbacks, lot coverage, and FAR still apply to new ADUs, in addition to the
other specific ADU development standards. Property owners must determine how
much square footage they wish to dedicate to the primary dwelling or to other structures
such as an ADU. For example, if a property already meets or is very close to the
maximum FAR limitations, a newly constructed ADU or other accessory structure may
not be possible. However, a property owner would still have the option to create an
ADU by converting existing square footage into an ADU.
ADUs contained within the existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory
structure would have the least impact on neighborhoods as they would not change the
appearance of the neighborhood. Detached and one-story attached ADUs may have a
greater impact as they are visible as new construction. Therefore, newly constructed
detached and attached ADUs will still be limited to 16 feet in height and one story, or
shall not exceed the height of the existing primary residence if it is less than 16 feet.
These development standards ensure an ADU will always be an accessory use to the
main home, and be consistent with the maximum height of other detached (accessory)
structures.
To provide for a broader range of options, the following revisions are proposed:
For ADU’s contained within the existing space of a single-family dwelling or
accessory structure: The ADU shall have a floor area of not more than 50
percent of the size of the existing primary residence, but in no case shall exceed
1,200 square feet.
For newly constructed detached and attached ADU’s, a sliding scale of options
with three tiers; 800, 1,000, and 1,200 square feet are proposed. The tiers allow
for the development of detached and attached ADUs that are proportional to the
size of the lot and the size of a house that could be built on the lot.
Ordinance No. 2347
Accessory Dwelling Units and Development Code Cleanup
May 16, 2017
Page 3 of 3
o Eligible properties up to 7,500 square feet in lot area:
An attached or detached ADU shall have a floor area of not more
than 50 percent of the size of the existing primary residence, but in
no case shall exceed 800 square feet.
o Eligible properties between 7,501 and up to 15,000 square feet in lot area:
An attached or detached ADU hall have a floor area of not more
than 50 percent of the size of the existing primary residence, but in
no case shall exceed 1,000 square feet.
o Eligible properties greater than 15,000 square feet in lot area:
An attached or detached ADU shall have a floor area of not more
than 50 percent of the size of the existing primary residence, but in
no case shall exceed 1,200 square feet.
These changes are reflected as bolded green text in the revised Exhibit “A” of
Ordinance No. 2347.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 2347 amending
various sections of Article IX, Chapter 1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code (The
Development Code), with an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”), to update the City’s regulations for accessory dwelling units, and to address
minor text cleanups.
Attachment No. 1: Ordinance No. 2347
Attachment No. 2: May 2, 2017 City Council Staff Report (with Attachments)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Recommendation: Introduce
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
Development Code Cleanup
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
FINDINGS
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any
applicable specific plan(s).
Facts to Support the Finding:
2. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City.
Facts to Support the Finding:
3. For Development Code amendments only, the proposed amendment is
internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Development
Code.
Facts to Support the Finding:
PUBLIC NOTICE
Arcadia Weekly
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATION
From:bthompson@mason2.com
To:Amanda Landry
Cc:Jim Kasama; Jason Kruckeberg; Lisa Flores
Subject:Re: FW: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Date:Tuesday, March 14, 2017 2:25:25 PM
Amanda:
Thank you for the timely and thorough response.
See you tonight.
Brad
Bradford D. Thompson, MAI, AI-GRS, SR/WA
www.mason2.com
Add Brad Thompson to your address book.
This message is sent for the benefit of or on behalf of a lawyer or Law Firm. This message is intended for the exclusive use of the
individual or entity that is the named addressee, and may contain information that is privileged or confidential or otherwise legally
exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, discard any paper copies and delete all electronic files of this
message.
From: Amanda Landry <alandry@arcadiaca.gov>
To: "'bthompson@mason2.com'" <bthompson@mason2.com>,
Cc:Jim Kasama <jkasama@arcadiaca.gov>, Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov>, Lisa Flores
<lflores@arcadiaca.gov>
Date: 03/14/2017 01:12 PM
Subject: FW: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Brad,
Thanks for reaching out to me ahead of time, I appreciate it. I understand the disappointment regarding the
balance between State and local control. This text amendment effort is intended to preserve the City’s limited
ability, to the extent possible, to ensure that future development is compatible with the community.
For clarity, I have responded to your questions below in bold italics.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks,
Amanda
Amanda Landry, AICP | Senior Planner
City of Arcadia | 240 W. Huntington Drive | Arcadia, CA 91007
626.574.5447| 7 626.445.9173| alandry@ArcadiaCa.gov
Amanda:
I have several questions and/or comments regarding the ADU Agenda Item.
Before I get to my points, I want to say that it is disappointing, but not unexpected, that the State is
dictating local land use by proxy.
The City of Arcadia Planning Department, City Council, and its residents have specific local knowledge
and expertise to create and enforce police powers relative to land use, as opposed to the State.
1) In the Staff Report, Page 6 of 8, pertaining to findings, the report states "Policy LU-3.5: Require that
new construction, additions, renovations, and infill developments be sensitive to neighborhood context,
building forms, scale, and colors. The proposed amendments also reduce barriers to the development
of ADU's, which can contribute to the overall variety of available housing choices in Arcadia." I do
not show that the portion that I have underlined as being part of the General Plan. Was this finding
meant to quote the GP, or expand upon it?It is intended to be discussion related to the
General Plan policies, and was intended to be in the above paragraph, but was
inadvertently carried down to this policy below.
2) What constitutes a "car-share" vehicle? Does Uber or Lift qualify?Page 11 of the draft code
text, included as part of the resolution, includes the revised definition of “car-share”,
which the city defines as a the provision of a designated parking space for a membership
based car sharing vehicle that charges a use-based fee related to a specific vehicle. This
does not include Uber of Lyft.
3) Section 9102.01.080: With the addition of an ADU, can the total FAR (including the main residence
and ADU) exceed the maximum FAR of the particular zone in which it is located?
Perhaps 9102-01.080, Page 4 answers my question "Accessory dwelling units are subject to all
development standards for the underlying zoning, as set forth in Table 2-2 . . ." The total FAR of
all buildings on the lot cannot exceed the maximum FAR of the underlying zoning
designation.
4) In the Draft development standards, 9102.01.080, Page 4, Development Standards Heading is
identified as Section "BA", should that read "A"?Yes. The B has a strikethrough. It looks like
the scanned in copy has made this strikethrough appear somewhat faint, and for that we
apologize.
5) Are there, or can the Code establish maximum occupancy limits?The Development Code
cannot establish occupancy limits for residential dwelling units, doing so would run afoul
of various State and Federal housing laws.
6) Can the main residence and the ADU have an interior connection? If so, I would suggest a
prohibition against an interior connection.Yes, attached or fully contained ADUs may have an
interior connection. In the instances where an ADU is occupied by family members, such
as grandparents or adult children, this could be seen as important access. However, it is
possible to include a development standard prohibiting such a connection.
7) Would it be advantageous to include a standard similar to the City of Pasadena, Section 17.50.275
(B) (1) (a) (2) "There is an independent exterior access from the existing residence"
The proposed text amendment does includes this provision in Section 9102.01.080.B.1.c
for ADU’s that are created within an existing living area.
The revised definition of an ADU (Page 11 of the resolution) allows the City to determine
that an addition to an existing dwelling without independent exterior access is not
considered “independent” and therefore would not meet the Development Code
definition for an ADU. If it is not an ADU it wouldn’t be eligible for streamlined review.
It is certainly possible to add a provision requiring independent exterior access for new
attached ADU’s to re-emphasize this point if you feel it is necessary.
My comments relative to Items 6 and 7 try to establish barriers to main residence additions disguised
as ADU's for streamlined permitting purposes. The definition for ADUs requires independent
permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. Staff would be
able to quickly distinguish an ADU from a standard addition via the presence of these
facilities as well as an independent exterior access during the plan check process. An
extra provision to codify a requirement for an independent exterior access point for new
attached ADU’s is certainly possible and as a Planning Commissioner it is appropriate to
suggest that this change be added to the motion if you feel it is necessary.
8) The Pasadena Code also requires that "A detached accessory dwelling unit shall be located behind
the rear building line of the primary residence, and be clearly subordinate by location and size." It
further states "No entry to an accessory dwelling unit shall be visible from the public right-of-way."
The addition of similar language within the Arcadia Code may reduce non-compatible development
trends.The definition for ADUs in the Arcadia Development Code specifically includes the
following “Accessory Dwelling Units are subordinate in size, location, and appearance to
the main dwelling.” The existing and proposed regulations are intended to reduce non-
compatible development. An ADU would be subject to the same development standards
(setbacks, FAR, Lot Coverage) as a primary dwelling, but it is limited in size to 800 square
feet (roughly the size of a four-car garage). Further, the proposed ADU regulations limit
detached structures to one story and 16 feet in height, which will ensure that the ADU is
subordinate in size, but compatible with the development trend of other residential
dwelling units in single-family zoned properties. ADU’s will also be subject to limited
design review to ensure compatibility in design.
It is a good idea to tighten up regulations if the opportunity exists. It is certainly possible
to add provisions requiring that for detached ADUs, the entries not be visible from the
public right-of-way and that the detached ADU’s be located behind the rear of the
building. As a Planning Commissioner it is appropriate for you to suggest these changes
as part of the motion if you feel it is necessary.
Or, this issue can be a factor that is determined on an individual basis through the design
review process. Staff is also considering incorporating design guidelines for ADUs into the
Residential Design Guidelines to further emphasize compatibility.
9) It appears that the City must make the finding that "The proposed amendment is consistent with the
General Plan and any applicable specific plan(s)".
I see Resolution 1990, TA 17-02 and TA 17-03 as having a cause and affect. The initial adoption may
not be inconsistent with the GP, but the future land use trend may evolve to be inconsistent with the
GP. For example, the GP includes land use designation requirements, such as Page 2-10: "LDR - Low
Density Residential . . . Typical Population Density: 12-17 persons per acre". A proliferation of ADU's
may affect this type of compatibility.Staff does not disagree with this logic, however the State
has specifically determined, via AB 2299 and SB 1069, that ADUs do not exceed the
allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and that accessory dwelling units
are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning
designation for the lot.
Regards,
Brad
Bradford D. Thompson, MAI, AI-GRS, SR/WA
www.mason2.com
Add Brad Thompson to your address book.
This message is sent for the benefit of or on behalf of a lawyer or Law Firm. This message is intended for the exclusive use of the
individual or entity that is the named addressee, and may contain information that is privileged or confidential or otherwise legally
exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, discard any paper copies and delete all electronic files of this
message.