Meeting Date: April 25, 2017 Agency: City of Belmont Staff Contact: Damon DiDonato, Community Development Department, (650) 637-2908; ddidonato@belmont.gov Agenda Title: Amendments to Sections 24 (Secondary Dwelling Unit), 2 (Definitions), 4 (Residential), 8 (Parking), and 9 (General Regulations) of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 360), related to the development standards and review process for accessory dwelling units and accessory buildings; CEQA: Statutorily Exempt, Section 15282 (d) Agenda Action: STAFF REPORT Ordinance (First Reading) Recommendation Consider Planning Commission recommendations and read the title, waive further reading, and introduce ordinance. Background In March of 2014, the City Council initiated amendments to the Belmont Zoning Ordinance and Tree Ordinance known as the Single-Family Home and Tree Regulation Updates Project. A complete background for the project is included as Attachment C. A brief summary of the project relating to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) is provided below. September 2016 - The City Council adopted amendments to Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) Section 24 (Secondary Dwelling Unit), which modified the development review process and standards for second units. The summary/intent of the adopted amendments and the text of the adopted Ordinance are included as Attachments E, and F, respectively. Late September 2016 - The State of California adopted State and Assembly bills (SB1069 - Wieckowski, AB2299 Bloom, and AB2406 -Thurmond), which significantly reorganized and modified the second dwelling unit standards provided in Section 65852.2 of the Government Code (second unit law). Overall, the amendments to Section 65852.2 of the Government Code substantially reduce the discretion of local governments to regulate ADUs, but allow for some City discretion with adoption of a local ADU Ordinance (i.e., within limitations the City can regulate parking for ADU additions, require owner occupancy, and enforce other development standards with adoption of a local ordinance). A summary of key modifications and Section 65852.2 of the Government Code (second unit law) with track changes are provided in Attachment G. December 2016 The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provided a technical assistance memorandum for ADUs (see Attachment H). The memorandum interprets/explains the changes made to state law and provides guidance on the discretion of local jurisdictions to regulate ADUs by local ordinance. Page 1 of 9
January 1, 2017 - State and Assembly bills (SB1069, AB2299, and AB2406) became effective, making the City s adopted second unit ordinance null and void (currently only state ADU standards may be applied). February 28, 2017 The City Council directed staff to prepare a local ADU Ordinance. The Council provided specific direction related to the inclusion/exclusion of discretionary ADU standards for a City ADU Ordinance (see Table 1, below). Table 1- Discretionary ADU Provisions Type of Unit Exclude Include Interior Unit No parking required for transit line within ½ mile (not just transit stop per state Replacement Parking required for converted garages (with state limitations) allowance) Owner Occupancy Required Prohibit short-term rentals Junior Accessory All None Dwelling Unit Attached and Detached Units Discretionary review provisions for larger units or exceptions to zoning standards No parking required for transit line within ½ mile (not just transit stop per state allowance) Ministerial Size limitation modified by City Ordinance (within limits see HCD memo) Parking one space per unit or per bedroom (with limits) Owner Occupancy Required Prohibit short-term rentals Architectural Review (Objective) Zoning Standards (within limits) April 4, 2017 - The Planning Commission reviewed potential amendments to the development standards and review process for accessory dwelling units and accessory buildings at a Public Hearing. The Commission found that the proposed project was consistent with the City s General Plan, and recommended that the City Council introduce amendments as described beginning on page 3 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & RECOMMENDATIONS Recent changes in state law substantially reduce the discretion of local governments to regulate ADUs, but allow for some City discretion with adoption of a local ADU Ordinance. As such, the proposed amendments to the development standards and review process for accessory dwelling units and accessory buildings include both the required state measures (identified in Government Code Section 65852.2) and the discretionary measures identified in Table 1 of this report. Planning Commission Review As previously discussed, the Planning Commission reviewed potential amendments to the development standards and review process for accessory dwelling units and accessory buildings Page 2 of 9
at a Public Hearing on April 4, 2017. The Commission review of the proposed amendments were informed by the following: The requirements (standards/intent) of state law for ADUs. Recommendations from planning staff and the City Attorney. Direction from the City Council. Testimony from the public (including public testimony and correspondence received from the Single-family Home and Tree Regulation Update Project). The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council introduce amendments that would: 1) reduce the maximum size for second units; 2) prohibit short term rentals; 3) require owner-occupancy, as defined, of one of the units on site; 4) establish height limitations for ADUs constructed over garages; 5) require replacement parking for converted garages; 6); establish a parking standard for attached and detached ADUs; and 7) include objective architectural review standards for ADU additions. A description of the proposed amendments is provided below. A draft ordinance with specific text language (with recommended modifications in track changes) is provided in Attachment A. 1) Reduction in Unit Size (Attached and Detached ADUs) Section 65852.2(b)(1) of the Government Code requires the city to ministerially approve the creation of an ADU for attached units - up to 50% of the living area of the existing home or 1,200 sq. ft., whichever is less, and detached units up to 1,200 square feet. The language in the government code does not appear to allow for a reduction in the size of a ministerial unit; however, HCD provided a technical assistance memorandum for ADUs that interprets/explains the changes in state law and provides guidance on the discretion of local jurisdictions to regulate ADUs by Ordinance. A portion of the HCD document includes answers to frequently asked questions. In response to the question whether local governments may establish minimum and maximum unit sizes, the HCD memorandum responds as follows: Yes, a local government may establish minimum and maximum unit sizes (GC Section 65852.2(c). However, like all development standards (e.g., height, lot coverage, lot size), unit sizes should not burden the development of ADUs. For example, setting a minimum unit size that substantially increases costs or a maximum unit size that unreasonably restricts opportunities would be inconsistent with the intent of the statute. Typical maximum unit sizes range from 800 square feet to 1,200 square feet. Minimum unit size must at least allow for an efficiency unit as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1. The Planning Commission determined that an 800 sq. ft. ADU would allow for a reasonable size one or two bedroom apartment. An 800 sq. ft. ADU is also consistent with the City s previously adopted maximum size unit (with an exception). Thus, the Commission recommended the maximum unit size for ADU additions would be 50% of the living area or up to 800 sq. ft. (whichever is less) for attached units, and 800 sq. ft. for detached units. Page 3 of 9
2) Prohibition of Short Term Rentals Unlike Bay Area cities that are tourist destinations (i.e., San Francisco), there have not been significant neighborhood issues identified with short term rentals in Belmont (i.e., complaints of noise or parking impacts, etc.). In addition, review of listings on the short term rental site Airbnb.com for a late July to early August of 2017 timeframe (peak vacation period) found that there were only twenty short-term rentals advertised for Belmont (approximately 0.3% of single family residentially zoned lots). There were only seven units advertised for that same period on the Vacation Rental by Owner (VRBO) website. However, the intent of the state ADU law is to increase access to long-term affordable housing for people that live in a particular area (i.e., family members, caregivers, and renters that work locally), and not to increase short term rentals for visitors. In addition, the potential to yield greater short term rents would provide an economic incentive for property owners with ADUs to remove housing from the long-term rental market in favor of offering it for rent in the short-term rental market. The Planning Commission was not in complete agreement on this issue. Three Commissioners indicated that a short-term rental prohibition would be appropriate, one Commissioner noted that such a prohibition would only be appropriate when parking was not provided for the unit, and two Commissioners indicated that additional study of this issue may be warranted prior to prohibiting short term rental of ADUs (one Commissioner was absent). Therefore, staff and the majority of the Planning Commission recommend a prohibition on short term rentals (terms less than 30 days) for sites that contain an ADU. This prohibition would extend to both the main unit and the ADU on site. 3) Require Owner Occupancy State law does not require owner-occupancy for ADUs, but allows the City to make it a requirement by local ordinance. Owner occupancy (ADU or main unit) is a typical requirement in local second unit ordinances, and is a major distinction between ADUs and duplexes (a duplex allows rental of both units without owner occupancy). An ADU under state law/city Ordinance would not operate like a duplex, which requires dedicated parking (two off-street spaces per unit). Also, a duplex would typically be located/designed with clear delineations for passageways to each unit (not required for an ADU), and separate amenity areas. Therefore, there is greater potential for issues to occur between occupants of main units, ADUs and/or neighboring sites (i.e., noise, privacy, parking conflicts, etc.) than for duplexes. An on-site owner would be better-positioned to solve these issues than an owner living off site, particularly if the property owner lives outside of the local area. The Planning Commission was predominately in favor of requiring owner occupancy, but raised concerns about the way the owner-occupancy requirement would be implemented/defined. Commissioners specifically indicated concerns related to maintaining the ability for property owners to lease an entire project site (primary and ADU units) to one family; they noted that this arrangement would operate in compliance with the intent of the owner-occupancy requirements, but it would be prohibited. As such, staff has modified a development standard and included a Page 4 of 9
new definition for owner-occupied, which would be required if more than one family occupies the site. The new definition and development standard for owner occupancy are as follows: Owner Occupied - Owner Occupied means the owner currently resides on the property. Development Standards. Either the single-family home or the accessory dwelling unit must be owner-occupied, if the home and accessory dwelling unit are occupied by different families. 4) Height Limitations for Detached ADUs State law allows the City to require that ADU additions meet the zoning standards of the underlying district, except when not required by state law (i.e., rear and side yard setbacks for ADUs over existing detached garages can be required to be no more than 5 feet). Staff reviewed the state legislative record for ADUs and concluded that it is clearly the intent of state law to allow for the addition of an ADU over an existing detached garage; however, the City s current height limit for detached accessory buildings is fifteen feet, making the addition of a second floor not possible. As such, staff proposed potential height standards for ADUs over detached garages for the Planning Commission to review. The proposed standards limited ADUs over detached accessory buildings up to seventeen feet in height for flat roofs and twenty feet in height for sloped roofs. These standards would have allowed for a garage and ADU with seven to eight foot plate heights, one foot between floors, and either a flat roof (one foot of additional building height) or a sloped roof (four feet of additional building height). These are the minimum dimensions necessary for the construction of an ADU over a detached garage. The Planning Commission agreed with staff that additional height would be necessary to allow for the addition of an ADU over a garage. The Commission acknowledged the minimum dimensions proposed by staff, but determined that it would be appropriate to allow for more height to address varying site conditions and potentially achieve better designs (twenty feet in height for flat roofs and twenty-four feet in height for sloped roofs); however, the Commission raised concerns about the potential for large building wall areas within close proximity (five feet) of the property line, and recommended that the minimum height be allowed with minimum setbacks (five feet setbacks for the front or rear), and that taller buildings be allowed with additional setbacks (setbacks of the underlying zoning district). Staff has incorporated the Commission s recommendations into the attached ADU Ordinance. 5) Replacement Parking for Converted Garages State law allows the City to require replacement parking when an existing garage, carport or covered space is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU (i.e., replacement parking for the main unit). The Planning Commission recommended requiring replacement parking for converted garages (interior units). The replacement parking would be required for the same number of parking spaces removed from the main unit, and pursuant to state law the parking could be covered, uncovered, tandem or via a mechanical lift. Page 5 of 9
6) Parking Standard for Attached and Detached ADUs State law allows the City to require parking for ADU additions (within limitations). Specifically, the City may require up to one parking space per unit or per bedroom for ADU additions, and the City must allow for parking that is provided in tandem on an existing driveway and/or in setback areas (unless not feasible due to fire or life safety issues); however, the City cannot impose parking standards when an ADU is; 1) Located within ½ mile of public transit (bus or train stop); 2) Located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district; 3) Part of the existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure; 4) Located in an area with on-street parking permits that would not be offered to the ADU occupant; and 5) Located within one block of car share. The Planning Commission recommended requiring one parking space per unit up to four total spaces for the project site, consistent with the parking standards required under the Single-family Home and Tree Regulation Update Project. 7) Objective Architectural Review Standards for ADU Additions State law provides that ministerial ADUs cannot be subject to discretionary review (i.e., Single- Family Design Review), but may be required to conform to objective architectural design standards. As such, staff recommended to the Planning Commission that ADU additions be subject to Residential Design Criteria (RDC) requirements, which provide objective design measures to address the bulk of upper floor additions and increases in plate height. Staff also recommended measures that would require that ADU additions be designed with similar features (materials, colors, roof from, etc.) as the principal unit. The Planning Commission agreed with the required architectural measures, but recommended modifications to the language of the requirements to allow for greater design flexibility. Staff modified the requirements in accordance with the Commission recommendations. The modifications are provided below in track changes (new language underlined and deleted language in strikeout). The ADU must comply with the Residential Design Criteria (RDC) if the new construction includes: i) a ground floor plate height that exceeds 12 feet or roof height that exceeds 18 feet (as measured from finished grade); or ii) creates or expands an upper floor. The ADU must be constructed with compatible/complementary facade materials, generally within of the same color palette, and similar in texture and appearance to the primary dwelling, including but not limited to roofing, siding, windows, and doors. The ADU roof pitch/form must match the be compatible with the roof pitch/form of the primary dwelling necessary to blend with the architecture of the primary dwelling. Amendments to Other Sections Amendments are proposed to other sections of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance (Definitions, Parking, Residential and General Regulations) for consistency with the proposed modifications for ADUs. In general, these amendments make reference to the modifications in Section 24. For Page 6 of 9
example, the definition for Second Unit would reference the change in term to Accessory Dwelling Unit, and direct the reader to Section 24 for the new definitions. Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that side yard setbacks for detached accessory buildings (garages) be modified to five feet for interior lots; detached buildings are currently allowed with no side yard setback for interior lots. This change would provide one standard for all detached accessory buildings (habitable and non-habitable), and would prevent the construction of new garages with no side yard setbacks, which then could be converted to an ADU. The Commission concurred with this modification, which has been included in the attached Ordinance. Additional Considerations Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that habitable detached accessory buildings and detached garages be permitted in front of the primary single family dwelling without a Variance, provided that the building conforms to the front setback of the underlying zoning district and specified design standards. The Planning Commission raised significant concerns about the potential aesthetic impacts of this provision, indicating that detached accessory buildings in front of the main unit would benefit from some level of Single-Family Design Review (discretionary review). As such, staff is not recommending this modification and it has not been included within the draft ADU Ordinance. REQUIRED FINDING ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS Section 16 of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) requires the following: Section 16.1 (Justification) - When in the opinion of the Council a change in this Ordinance is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Plan and the General Plan for the City, this Ordinance may be amended by changing the boundaries of any district or by changing any provision hereof in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this Section. Section 16.5 (Action By The Commission) - Within 30 days following the public hearing, or such longer time period as the Council may prescribe, the Commission shall make a specific finding as to whether the change in the district boundaries or of the district regulations is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Plan and the General Plan for the City. Staff notes that there are no Objectives identified in the Belmont Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Plan); however, the BZO contains a purpose statement (Section 1.1) that represents the objectives of the City s zoning regulations: 1.1 PURPOSE The following regulations for the zoning of land within the City are hereby adopted to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and to provide a precise guide for the physical development of the City. Essentially the above two findings speak of the same issues in determining appropriateness of a Rezoning (and whether it is required), there must be General Plan consistency. Thus, in Page 7 of 9
determining General Plan consistency, applicable goals and policies of the Belmont General Plan must be considered in light of the proposal. The City Council must ultimately determine that such goals and objectives are achieved by the proposed amendments. The objectives of the Belmont General Plan are contained in its Goals and Policies, several of which are affected by this proposal. The Planning Commission recommends that the General Plan Goals and Policies are achieved by the proposed amendment language. A complete General Plan consistency analysis is provided as an attachment to this report (see Attachment D). Environmental Clearance Public Resources Code section 21080.17 exempts from CEQA "the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county to implement the provisions of Section 65852.1 or Section 65852.2 of the Government Code" (the Second Unit Law). The proposed text amendments related to accessory dwelling units include provisions adopted under Section 65852.2. Because the proposed modifications involve "the adoption of an ordinance... to implement the provisions of [the Second Unit Law]," the portions of the Project related to second units (accessory dwelling units) are exempt from CEQA by statute. Alternatives 1. Refer back to staff for additional information. 2. Take No Action. Attachments A. Draft City Council Ordinance introducing Text Amendments (First Reading) - Redline with Recommendations B. Planning Commission Resolution and Staff Report, dated April 4, 2017 C. Project Background D. General Plan Consistency Analysis E. Summary and Intent of Null and Void City Ordinance F. Null and Void Ordinance G. State and Assembly Bill with Track Changes H. California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) Memorandum I. Comparison of Potential City ADU Ordinance and State Law J. Summary of Community Meetings K. Public Correspondence Page 8 of 9
Fiscal Impact No Impact/Not Applicable: The additional workload associated with implementation of the Zoning Text Amendments may require additional staff resources. The Department will monitor this effort to ensure efficiency in the permitting process and should a change in staffing level be necessary, a budget correction will be forwarded to the Council for consideration. Funding Source Confirmed: Permit fees would be collected to cover the costs associated with processing Accessory Dwelling Units, as applicable. Source: Purpose: Public Outreach: Council Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda Staff Council Vision/Priority Other* Citizen Initiated Discretionary Action Other Plan Implementation * The City placed a public notice display ad in the Examiner/Redwood City Tribune (local newspaper of general circulation) as per Section 16.4.1 (Amendments) of the BZO on April 14, 2017 for the scheduled public hearing by the City Council on April 25, 2017. The City also conducted the following outreach: E-Notification of City Council agendas, City Manager s Weekly Update, Next Door, City and Public Works Department Facebook and Twitter Pages, Chamber of Commerce E-Notification, Channel 27 Notification, and Project Website Meeting Announcement www.belmont.gov/remodel Page 9 of 9