3A Public Hearing 2012 1001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of San Leandro Meeting Date: October 1, 2012 Staff Report File Number: 12-456 Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS – CITY COUNCIL Agenda Number: 3.A. TO: City Council FROM: Chris Zapata City Manager BY: Luke Sims Community Development Director FINANCE REVIEW: Not Applicable TITLE: Staff Report for the Ordinance Amending Section 2-576 of Article 5 of the City of San Leandro Zoning Code Related to Secondary Dwelling Units, to Allow for an Increase in the Allowable Floor Area in Relation to Lot Size and Floor Area of Main Dwelling SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff has developed a set of draft revisions to the San Leandro Zoning Code related to Secondary Dwelling Units (Section 2-576) in order to implement the policies of the 2010 Housing Element update, as well as to respond to a series of inquiries from both residents and the City Council related to the current restrictions on the size of a secondary dwelling unit. The current policy allows for a second unit to comprise up to 450 square feet, or 30 percent of of the main dwelling, whichever is less. Staff proposes an amendment to the current policy to allow for proposed second units to range from a maximum of 450 to 750 square feet, depending on the size of the lot, and to comprise up to 50 percent of the main dwelling. Planning Division staff recommends that the City Council take public testimony on the proposed amendments, consider the Planning Commission’s comments and recommendations on the proposed amendments, and adopt the proposed Zoning Code Amendments. BACKGROUND In July 2003, the City Council established Zoning Code regulations to allow a secondary unit by right, i.e. via ministerial action of a building permit, if a proposal meets parameters related to size, height and building coverage, setbacks, parking, occupancy, etc. After an extensive public process, the maximum floor area of a secondary dwelling unit was established at a maximum of 450 square feet or 30 percent of the main dwelling’s floor area, whichever was less. City of San Leandro Page 1 Printed on 9/25/2012 File Number: 12-456 Subsequently, in the April 2010 update of the Housing Element of the San Leandro General Plan, a new goal for secondary dwelling unit policy was established to eliminate constraints to the establishment of new housing units, including a recommendation to increase the size allowed for a secondary dwelling unit with an amendment to the Zoning Code. The State of California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) encourages cities to be flexible with its secondary dwelling unit policies in order to meet housing demand, especially for affordable housing. Staff research on existing secondary unit policy in Alameda County revealed that the majority of neighboring cities allow for secondary dwelling units to reach up to 50 percent of the main dwelling unit. Several cities allow the size of the second unit to vary in proportion to the lot size or the floor area of the main dwelling, per the table in Attachment A. Analysis With reference to San Leandro’s neighboring cities’ policies, staff formulated a policy to allow for a flexible floor area limit, based on the context of the subject parcel as well as to increase the allowable proportion of the secondary dwelling unit to the main home. Staff proposes to allow for proposed second units to range from a maximum of 450 to 750 square feet, depending on the size of the lot, and to comprise up to 50 percent of the main dwelling. The units would not be able to exceed either the square footage limits or the proportionality limits. The current policy found in the Design and Development Standards under Zoning Code Section 2-576 (C)(1) allows for a secondary dwelling unit to range from 300 to 450 square feet or thirty (30) percent of the heated floor area of the main dwelling. The proposed amendment would establish the following floor area parameters in square feet (sf) for a secondary dwelling unit, up to fifty (50) percent of the heated floor area of the main dwelling, whichever is less. (A table representing the policy proposal is found in the Exhibit A to the draft ordinance attached to this staff report.) Lot Area: Up to 4,500 sf -Secondary Dwelling Unit: up to 450 sf; Lot Area: 4,501 to 6,000 sf -Secondary Dwelling Unit: 451 to 600 sf; Lot Area: 6,001 sf and above -Secondary Dwelling Unit: 600 to 750 sf No changes are proposed to the existing regulations governing occupancy, prohibition of garage conversions, required setbacks, height or building coverage, parking, or subordination to the existing dwelling, as set out in Section 2-576 (C)(2 through 6). However, staff notes that, under Section 2-576 (C)(7), “Attached and Detached Units Allowed,” current policy allows for a proposed secondary dwelling unit to be a detached accessory structure under certain lot size conditions. In the Accessory Structure section of the Zoning Code, Section 2-546, an accessory structure is limited to a maximum area of 500 square feet, unless an Administrative Exception is approved. (The Administrative Exception review process provides for noticing of adjacent neighbors with copies of plans for the project, as well as a ten-day comment period prior to an administrative decision by the Zoning Enforcement Official.) Under the existing policy, which limits the size of a secondary dwelling unit to 450 square feet, property owners have rarely been required to obtain an Administrative Exception. While the City of San Leandro Page 2 Printed on 9/25/2012 File Number: 12-456 amendment under consideration would allow for secondary units up to 750 square feet, any detached unit that is proposed over 500 square feet would still be subject to a discretionary review for its impact due to its size. To make the potential for a discretionary review clear, staff is proposing to amend subsection 2-576 (C)(7) to add the following text to ensure that applicants understand that the floor area limitations described above are still in effect: Detached secondary dwelling units are required to meet the building coverage requirements of Section 2-546, “Accessory Structures,” in the RS, RD and RM Districts. Detached secondary dwelling units in the RO District shall comply with the requirements in Section 2-552 RO District -Accessory Structures. With the inclusion of the above clarification of maximum area allowed for a detached secondary dwelling unit, staff believes that the increase in size allowed for secondary units would result in a balance between the need to create more more opportunities for additional dwelling units to be established within the City’s residential districts, while still providing for a review for those larger structures that might impact adjacent neighbors. Committee Review and Actions · City Council Community Development Committee reviewed the proposal on July 17, 2012 and recommended approval. Applicable General Plan Policies The proposed amendment is supported by General Plan policy, with minor exceptions in terms of the floor area size and percentage of the main dwelling. The proposed policy implements the broad General Plan and Housing Element goals to remove barriers for housing: Goal 59: Elimination of Housing Constraints: Reduce potential constraints that increase the cost or feasibility of new housing development. On the specifics of size and proportion to the main dwelling, staff is recommending a few modifications to the stated Housing Element policies and actions, in order to build in more flexibility and to be more sensitive to the local context and community needs. The General Plan Land Use Element contains a policy suggestion as follows: Policy 1.10 Second Units: Allow second units in appropriate residential zones, subject to conditional use permit requirements which ensure that parking, design, and other neighborhood impacts are fully addressed and that other criteria and standards established by the City are met. This policy, from the 2001 General Plan update was established prior to the 2003 change in State law that required that second units be allowed by right (as discussed in the Background section above.) The April 2010 Housing Element that has been certified by HCD contains the following recommendation related to secondary dwelling units: City of San Leandro Page 3 Printed on 9/25/2012 File Number: 12-456 Policy 56.11 Grandfathered Second Units: Continue to recognize second units established prior to the adoption of the 1961 zoning code as legal dwelling units. Second units should be recognized as an important form of market rate housing that is affordable to smaller low-and moderate-income San Leandro households Furthermore, the 2010 Housing Element Update established additional policy that encourages flexibility in Zoning regulations to encourage new housing units: Policy 59.01 Zoning Regulations: Ensure that the development standards, use restrictions, parking requirements, and other regulations contained in the San Leandro Zoning Code enable the production of housing for all income groups. Overly restrictive or redundant requirements should be strongly discouraged. Specific to secondary dwelling units, the following action is a recommended action in the General Plan Housing Element: Action 59.01-C: Amendments to the Second Unit Standards: Consider amending the second unit provisions in the Zoning Code to allow units ranging from 450 to 700 square feet, with a conditional use permit. The requirement that the unit may not exceed 30 percent of the total floor area should be retained. This change should be considered as a way to increase the supply of one-bedroom in-law units. The proposed changes would allow detached secondary dwelling units up to 750 square feet (or 50 percent of the main dwelling) without the need for a conditional use permit, provided that the application meets the development standards including lot coverage and setback requirements. Staff believes that imposition of the development standards will address the impact and design for a detached secondary dwelling unit without the burden of a conditional use permit. The increase in allowed floor area will also further the State’s intent to streamline local secondary dwelling unit regulations. Staff believes that the limit of 30 percent of the main dwelling would also place an unreasonable burden upon a typical homeowner to establish a secondary dwelling unit. For example, in order to build a 750 square foot secondary unit, the main dwelling would need a floor area of 2,250 square feet, which is well above the typical single-family home floor area in San Leandro of approximately 1,500 square feet. In many cases, there are smaller homes (less than 2,000 square feet) found on large lots in the North San Leandro and Mulford Gardens area, where a larger secondary dwelling could be accommodated. Staff believes that the above recommended action in the Housing Element was created as guidance, subject to reasonable modifications based on current circumstances. Subsequent research into policies of neighboring jurisdictions, combined with public and City Council requests for additional flexibility, lead to the policy recommendation of an increase of allowable floor area to reach 50 percent of the main dwelling area. Environmental Review This item is considered exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines as a minor amendment to a Zoning City of San Leandro Page 4 Printed on 9/25/2012 File Number: 12-456 Code section that will not have a significant effect on the environment. Furthermore, future secondary dwelling unit projects would be exempt from CEQA review under Section 15303(a) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects. Board/Commission Review and Actions · At the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) meeting of August 9, 2012, the BZA reviewed the changes and provided support for the proposed amendments. In their discussion the BZA raised the issue of relaxing parking standards for secondary units and asked that their comments be transmitted to the Planning Commission through a formal motion. The draft minutes of their discussion is attached to this staff report. · At the Planning Commission meeting of August 16, 2012, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed amendments with a vote of 7-0. The Planning Commission considered the BZA comments on parking but upheld staff’s recommendation that the current requirements for one additional parking space for a new secondary unit be maintained. The draft minutes of their discussion is attached to this staff report. Summary of Public Outreach Efforts · Notification of the Planning Commission August 16, 2012 and the City Council October 1, 2012 meetings included a legal advertisement in the Daily Review and posting of a notice of the meeting at City Hall a minimum of 72 hours in advance of the meeting dates. In addition, a courtesy notice was sent to all San Leandro registered homeowner’s associations. · Public comment was registered at the Planning Commission meeting from several San Leandro residents of the Broadmoor neighborhood that were in support of the proposed amendments to increase the size of a secondary dwelling unit. Legal Analysis The proposed Zoning Code amendments were analyzed by the City Attorney’s Office and found to be in conformance with the California Government Code as well as the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. ATTACHMENTS · · Attachment A: Table of Neighboring Alameda County Jurisdictions’ Policy on Secondary Dwelling Units · Attachment B: Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 16, 2012 · Attachment C: Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting of August 9, 2012 City of San Leandro Page 5 Printed on 9/25/2012 File Number: 12-456 PREPARED BY: Sally Barros, Senior Planner, Community Development Department City of San Leandro Page 6 Printed on 9/25/2012 Attachment A: Neighboring Jurisdictions’ Policy on Secondary Dwelling Units Jurisdiction Minimum Lot Size Size of Unit % Main Dwelling Hayward None 400 to 640 sf 50% Oakland None up to 900 sf 50% Berkeley 4,500 sf 300 to 640 sf 25% Alameda 7,500 sf 350 to 600 sf 50% Fremont None 700 sf for 5,000 sf lot n.a. 800 sf for 8,000 sf lot 900 sf for 10,000 sf lot Newark None 275 for 2,750 sf home 10% Santa Cruz 5000 sf 500 sf for up to 7,500 sf lot 640 sf for 7,500 to 9,999 sf lot 800 sf for 10,000 or greater lot Attachment B: Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 16, 2012 Page 1 of 6 Item 7A: Public Hearing Proposed Zoning Code amendments to Article 5, Section 2-576, “Secondary Dwelling Units,” to allow for an increase in the allowable floor area in relation to lot size and floor area of main dwelling. (Barros) Secretary Liao pointed out a correction to the staff report and resolution. The CEQA citation for infill development project exemption should be Section 15332 rather than 15322. Ms. Barros presented the staff report for this item, said the proposed Zoning Code amendments follow up on public inquiries and City Council direction regarding more flexibility in regulations governing secondary dwelling units. In terms of background, she explained that: In 2003, the San Leandro Zoning Code was amended in response to State law that required cities to allow secondary units by right rather than with conditional use permits. At that time, the Zoning Code specified a size range of 300-300-450 square feet, up to 30% of the main dwelling. In 2010, as part of the Housing Element update in the San Leandro General Plan, the City enacted a policy allowing removal of constraints on secondary dwelling units in Goal 59, including grandfathering second units established before the 1961 Zoning Code was adopted. A majority of neighboring jurisdictions allow larger secondary units, both in terms of square footage and as a proportion of the main dwelling unit. Ms. Barros said the formula staff proposes for San Leandro would allow secondary units of up to 50% the size of the main dwelling or a certain square footage based on lot size, whichever is smaller. Thus, secondary units under the proposed amendments could be as large as: 450 square feet on lots up to 4,500 square feet. 600 square feet on lots ranging from 4,501-6,000 square feet. 750 square feet on lots larger than 6,001 square feet. The proposed amendments exceeded the Housing Element Update recommendations, Ms. Barros said, but she emphasized emphasized that they would not change regulations in terms of parameters for parking, garage conversions and required setbacks. She also pointed out that regulations governing accessory structures would remain intact. These are covered in Section 2-546 for RS, RD and RM Districts, and in Section 2-552 for the RO District. Ms. Barros explained that according to these regulations, any secondary unit larger than 500 square feet would require an administrative exception, involve the Zoning Enforcement Official (ZEO) and prompt notification of neighbors in the vicinity of the subject site. Ms. Barros also pointed out that the proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review per several sections in the CEQA guidelines. Because the changes proposed would be effective city-wide, noticing of specific neighborhoods was not required but courtesy notices went to all homeowners’ associations and the proposal was also presented to the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) at its meeting on August 9, 2012. Recorded in in the draft minutes of that meeting, BZA Member comments were distributed to Planning Commissioners. According to Ms. Barros, BZA Members voted on a general recommendation of support to forward to the Planning Commission, but wanted particular comments passed along as well. BZA members expressed concern about setbacks of less than five feet for detached secondary dwelling units, she said, but she pointed out that the five-foot rule still would apply to accessory structures with a roof height of at least 12 feet. In most cases, she said, the average roof height of detached Attachment B: Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 16, 2012 Page 2 of 6 secondary dwelling units would exceed that threshold. Accessory structures up to eight feet in height and not requiring a building permit under the San Leandro Building Code may be built on the property line with no setback, but as Ms. Barros pointed out, most residents choose a setback of two to three feet even for small sheds, so they’re able to maintain those structures. Further, she said that a livable unit must reach at least 7.5 feet in height and that flat roofs would be unlikely on secondary units. BZA members also discussed the grandfathering issue. Ms. Barros explained that the City would adhere to its policy of requiring formal permits, even for grandfathered units, because that’s the only way to evaluate whether a structure is sound and incorporates proper construction techniques. In response to Commissioner Rennie’s question about whether this applies to legal nonconforming uses, Ms. Barros explained that this requirement would apply to structures that were established unlawfully as dwelling units rather than sheds and workshops. Secretary Liao elaborated, indicating that although BZA Vice Chair René Mendieta made a point of considering flexibility in terms of the permitting requirement for illegal units, it was not a recommended consideration overall by the BZA. Parking for secondary units also concerned BZA Members, some of whom said they’d like the requirement waived in areas close to public transit. Ms. Barros said that the TOD Strategy implementation has already relaxed parking standards in transit corridors, and most secondary structure activity takes place in residential neighborhoods. For those reasons, she explained that no further changes in parking regulations are appropriate at this time. She also pointed out that the secondary units would not require covered parking, and even the driveway would be appropriate provided parking is behind the 20-foot front setback. While independently accessible parking is preferable, she said tandem parking would be allowed. BZA members also expressed concern about the Zoning Code amendments triggering a rush of secondary unit activity. Secretary Liao added that each single-family dwelling could add only one secondary unit. In response to Commissioner Fitzsimons’ question about how many secondary units exist in San Leandro now, Ms. Barros said that because City records don’t track the information, there’s no practical way to calculate that information, although if second units are rented, homeowners must register with the City and obtain a business license. She said although several homeowners have indicated that structures as small as 450 square feet wouldn’t work for them, she doesn’t expect a significant increase in secondary-unit activity as a result of the Zoning Code amendments proposed. She also confirmed that secondary units would be confined to residentially zoned districts and to lots that contain single-family homes, even if the parcel is is zoned to accommodate multi-family residential dwellings. Commissioner Rennie said that without empirical information such as a map indicating lot sizes, he doesn’t know which properties would be affected and which would be able to add secondary dwelling units. Ms. Barros said that 1950s tract developments, primarily in the southern part of the City, all have 5,000 square feet lots. The north area, Bay-O-Vista, and Mulford Gardens have larger lots that could accommodate larger secondary units. Accordingly, Commissioner Rennie noted, the 600-square-foot maximum size would apply throughout most of the City. Noting that site layouts in many parts of the City would prevent properties from meeting the parking requirements, Ms. Barros cited Washington Manor as an example. She said that staff discussed allowing parking within the 20-foot front setback in those areas, but decided against it because the parking situation in those areas already is severe. Commissioner Rennie asked whether the City requires homeowners to use garages to meet parking requirements. Ms. Barros cited restrictions on laundry facilities, demising walls and Attachment B: Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 16, 2012 Page 3 of 6 home-based businesses in garages, but homeowners aren’t told whether they can use their garages for storage. Commissioner Rennie said he’s concerned about homeowners technically meeting the parking requirements because they have garages, but they actually park on the apron and/or on the street because they use their garages for something other than their vehicles. Thus, he said the parking standard may not take into account the reality of what takes place. Chair Collier pointed out that 50% of the front setback can be hardscaped for parking, which means 25 feet of a 50-foot wide front yard. In reply to further questions from Commissioner Rennie, Ms. Barros confirmed that: In terms of lot coverage, secondary dwelling units would be counted along with the primary building envelope. The Floor Area Ratio would also contain the living area of the secondary dwelling unit. In all areas where secondary dwelling units would be allowed, either the main house or the secondary unit must be owner-occupied. Commissioner Rennie also raised the issue of San Leandro’s vision in terms of housing density. He said he doesn’t oppose second units, but doesn’t want regulations that encourage turning properties into duplexes and income opportunities for owners who don’t live in them. Referring to the attachment to the resolution, Ms. Barros pointed out that among the findings necessary for approval in RO, RS and RS-VP Districts, one of the dwellings must be owner-occupied and eligible for a homeowner’s exemption for state tax purposes. She also affirmed that a recorded deed restriction is required. Commissioner Hernandez noted that the 50% maximum provision is described in terms of proportion to the main dwelling in the staff report but as percentage of heated floor area in the resolution attachment. Ms. Barros explained that the reference to heated floor area is to make it clear that the livable area counts, either one or two two stories, but not the square footage of a garage. She also indicated that if a homeowner wants to add a second-story secondary unit, another section of the Zoning Code calls for design review to ensure compatibility. Expressing concern about potential traffic and population impacts of secondary units, Commissioner Hernandez asked whether the ZEO would have the authority to review requests for secondary dwellings. Ms. Barros said yes, and further stated that the Code changes are intended to minimize constraints to creating new secondary dwelling units in keeping with the City’s General Plan and to support State efforts to achieve affordable housing goals in diverse neighborhoods and generally meet housing needs. Commissioner Rennie requested clarification on setbacks, asking specifically about requirements for a 12-foot flat-secondary structure. Ms. Barros said the setback could be three feet instead of five feet. He asked why secondary units, regardless of height, shouldn’t be required to be set back five feet from side and rear property lines. Ms. Barros said staff reviewed setbacks when working on accessory structure revisions to the Zoning Code, and found that preserving as much yard space as possible was important. She also pointed out that a more stringent requirement on a dwelling unit wouldn’t make sense, considering that homeowners are allowed to have workshops within three feet of a neighbor’s property. Commissioner Hernandez requested clarification about building coverage requirements described in the staff report and qualifications for administrative exception procedures. Ms. Barros explained that detached secondary dwelling units exceeding 500 square feet in the RS, RD and RM Districts require the administrative exception process involving the ZEO and notifications to neighbors. She explained that the size isn’t stated specifically for two reasons. In Attachment B: Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 16, 2012 Page 4 of 6 part, it’s because the size also is covered in the cross-referenced section of the Zoning Code that deals with accessory structures, and may be changed in the future. In addition, though, regulations applicable in the Residential Outer (RO) differ from the other residential districts. The reason for that, she said, is because when the City annexed what’s now the RO District from Alameda County in 1950, it agreed to leave intact zoning provisions that were in effect then. Vice Chair Abero, voicing concern about converting single-family homes into duplexes, sought verification that additional parking for any second unit must be behind the 20-foot setback. She said many homeowners who now have duplexes in the Washington Manor area park three vehicles within the 50-foot frontage of the property to which Char Collier alluded. She said they’d need only a single-car garage to satisfy secondary unit requirements because they could use the space that’s in front instead. Ms. Barros said they would not be allowed to count the parking within the 20-foot front setback, if they formally request a secondary dwelling. Chair Collier opened the public hearing. Daniel Thompson, 517 Broadmoor Boulevard, said as a recent college graduate it’s hard to find affordable, comfortable housing either in San Leandro or in neighboring communities. Although his parents could not attend the meeting, he said they’ve lived on their Broadmoor Boulevard property throughout their 30-year marriage. He said that his 88-year-old grandfather, also in the audience, is no longer in the best of health, The family wants him to remain on the family property, but the only option is a second-floor spare bedroom, and it would be unsafe to have to climb up and down a flight of stairs every day. The cottage behind the house is too small to accommodate his possessions. The high rate of unemployment and underemployment and the difficulty in finding affordable senior care are driving more families everywhere to keep extended families together. He described his family situation as a microcosm of what’s happening across the country. He said when his parents retire, they want to be able to move to the cottage, with children living in the main house and caring