Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2b - Accessory Dwelling Units and Development Code Cleanups DATE: June 6, 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: Adopt SUMMARY At its regular meeting of May 2, 2017, the City Council conducted a public hearing and discussed regulations pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADU’s”) and minor text cleanups to the Development Code. The public hearing was continued to the May 16 meeting, with direction for staff to return with a revised “sliding scale” pertaining to the size of allowable ADU’s based on lot size. At its regular meeting of May 16, 2017, on a 3-2 vote, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 2347, with an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), to amend various sections of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code to revise the regulations and requirements pertaining to ADU’s 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 2016. Attached are Ordinance No. 2347, the Notice of Exemption, and the Staff Reports from both the May 2 and May 16 meetings. RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the City Council adopt 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. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2347 June 6, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Attachment No. 1: Ordinance No. 2347 Attachment No. 2: Notice of Exemption Attachment No. 3: May 16, 2017 and May 2, 2017, City Council Staff Reports California Environmental Quality Act TO: FROM: County Clerk City of Arcadia (Public County of Los Angeles 240 West Huntington Drive Agency) Environmental Office, Room 101 Post Office Box 60021 12400 East Imperial Highway Arcadia, CA 91006-6021 Norwalk, CA 90650 Contact: Amanda Landry, Senior Planner Phone: (626) 574-5447 1. Project Title: Ordinance No. 2347 - An Ordinance to amend various sections of Article IX, Chapter 1 of the Arcadia Accessory Dwelling Units and to address minor text cleanups. 2. Project Applicant: City of Arcadia 3. Project Location Identify street address and City-wide cross streets or attach a map showing project topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 4. (a) Project Location City: Arcadia (b) Project Location County: Los Angeles Ordinance No. 2347 to amend various sections of 5. Description of nature, purpose, and Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code to revise the beneficiaries of Project: 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 6. Name of Public Agency approving project: City of Arcadia Amanda Landry, Senior Planner - Development 7. Name of Person or Agency undertaking the Services Department project, including any person undertaking an 240 W. Huntington Drive - P.O. Box 60021 activity that receives financial assistance from the Public Agency as part of the activity Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 or the person receiving a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement of use from the Public Agency as part of the activity: 8. Exempt status: (check one) (a) Ministerial project. (b) Not a project. Notice of Exemption (c) Emergency Project. (d) Categorical Exemption. Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines Class 3 State type and section exempts, in general, the development of second dwelling number: units from review and Section 15061(b)(3) (e) Declared Emergency. (f) Statutory Exemption. Section 15282(h) pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units State Code section number: (g) Other. Explanation: 9. Reason why project was exempt: Ordinance No. 2347 has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The Ordinance is exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to several CEQA exemption provisions, including CEQA Guidelines Section 15282(h) as set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code that pertains to the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multi-family residential zone to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of the Government Code, and Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides that where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the project is not subject to CEQA. The Ordinance provides protections from the development of ADUs that would be out of scale in single-family neighborhoods. Furthermore, per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the development of second dwelling units is a Class 3 exemption from environmental review. The proposed minor cleanups to the Development Code are also exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which provide that where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the project is not subject to CEQA. The proposed Ordinance does not create or substantially alter any existing development standard 10. Lead Agency Contact Person: Amanda Landry, Senior Planner Telephone: (626) 574-5442 11. If filed by applicant: Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form 12. 13. If yes, the date of the public hearing was: City Council: June 6, 2017 Signature: Date: Title: Notice of Exemption Signed by Applicant Date Received for Filing: (Clerk Stamp Here) Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21100, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. Notice of Exemption 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 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 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: 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. , 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 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.