3A Public Hearing 2012 1001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

for them the way they’re currently caring for their grandfather. Approving the proposed Zoning Code changes would enable them to increase the size of their cottage and solve a problem for their family as well as many others, he concluded. Vice Chair Abero asked about the home’s lot size. Chair Collier said many Broadmoor Boulevard homes sit on 15,000-to 25,000-square-foot lots. Shannon Thompson, 517 Broadmoor Boulevard, said the home is on a double lot. She said she and Daniel are two of Clifford and Beverly Thompson’s three children. The Thompsons want their grandfather to be able to live in the cottage and care for him, and eventually it’s her parents’ dream to move back into the cottage where they lived as newlyweds, with her or one of her brothers in the main home. At its current size, she said the cottage isn’t large enough to be habitable for a couple. In response to Chair Collier, Ms. Thompson said she didn’t know the cottage’s square footage, only that it’s really tiny. She added that the main dwelling was built in the 1920s as a single-story home, and the back cottage probably was built at the same time. George Teebay, 324 Breed Avenue, said the Thompson’s cottage is about 400 square feet on a lot in the range of 10,000 to 11,000 square feet. He complimented Ms. Barros for her presentation and the Commissioners for their questions. He said he’s lived or owned property in San Leandro for 24 years, and as a close friend of the Thompsons, has been involved in their family discussions about their situation. He emphasized that they aren’t looking for an exception for themselves, but consider their circumstances are an excellent example of what applies to many other families in the community. All of them would benefit from the proposed changes in the Zoning Code, he said, urging the Commission to approve the proposal. Attachment B: Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 16, 2012 Page 5 of 6 Joe Collier, 694 Douglas Drive, addressed the parking issue. He said he and Mrs. Collier have a neighbor who’s paved over his entire front yard with concrete, leaving zero lawn and garden. He regularly parks five cars across the front of his house, Mr. Collier said, and brings in other cars and works on them there. Mr. Collier also discussed a home on Halcyon Drive, across the street from the 7-Eleven store on Hesperian Boulevard, which has a circular driveway sometimes occupied by as many as nine cars. The resident there, a mechanic, works on cars in the garage as well as the driveway, which Mr. Collier said is not a very good thing for San Leandro to see. Referring to the Thompsons’ situation, he said they could do what Mrs. Collier did for him. Because he has trouble climbing stairs, she had a stair-climber installed to take him upstairs and down with ease. Motion to close public hearing Hernandez/Hernandez/Abero: 6 Aye, 0 No, 1 Absent (Dlugosh) Commissioner Hernandez asked whether it would be appropriate to contact the ZEO to address situations such as those Mr. Collier described. Secretary Liao said when neighbors are concerned about a possible illegal activity, including whether a business license has been issued, it’s a code enforcement issue. In San Leandro, he said, that comes under Police Department jurisdiction. Commissioner Fitzsimons, who said his concern with secondary units centers on the parking issue, noted that a house on his street clearly has unregistered rental units that cause parking problems in the area. His concern has been alleviated because he understands that any negative impact of the proposed Zoning Code changes would be relatively negligible due to the fact that not many properties in the City would meet eligibility criteria for secondary units, particularly in terms of the parking requirements. He said he appreciates the Thompsons’ story of the multigenerational occupation of their property, but at the same time, the Planning Commission must defend against situations in which homeowners would squeeze too many people into a small unit and cause problems accommodating their vehicles. [Note: Commissioner Fitzsimons made a motion at this point, seconded by Commissioner Rennie. The motion follows the additional discussion below.] Commissioner Rennie also expressed concern about the parking issue. Secondary units are a valuable housing asset, he said, but added that caution is necessary to avoid creating what’s tantamount to a duplex rental market in single-family residential districts. He said it may be appropriate to allow more duplexes in some places, but that’s not the matter before the Commission now. Commissioner Rennie said that on the basis of what he’s heard tonight, he opposes waiving parking requirement at this time. He said that’s a subject for future discussion. Vice Chair Abero, too, talked about parking concerns. She said her situation is similar to that of Commissioner Fitzsimons, with several neighbors having established rental units on their properties. At one point, she said, there were 13 vehicles between two homes. Vice Chair Abero also pointed out that if the only way to deal with illegal rental units and related parking violations is via contact with the Police Department, it places an onerous burden on an already limited police staff. She said she’s concerned that making the proposed Zoning Code changes would impose an even greater burden the Police Department. The underlying idea of what the Thompsons want to do is great, Vice Chair Abero concluded, but the problem lies in the fact that so many areas already lack adequate parking. Commissioner Hernandez raised a point of order, noting that parking and enforcement are separate issues. Because the matter before the Commission involves proposed Zoning Code changes rather than enforcement, he said the discussion should be closed. Attachment B: Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 16, 2012 Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Rennie agreed that code enforcement is a separate issue, but the concern is about creating an environment in which more code violations would occur with insufficient resources to handle those violations. He said it’s not the legal secondary dwelling units that create a parking problem, but rather the illegal ones. In that sense, he said, the proposed Zoning Code changes could unintentionally provide more cover for unlawful activities because the City has neither the metrics nor the resources necessary for enforcement. He noted, for instance, that a certain amount of investigation would be required to determine whether a property owner actually occupies either a main dwelling or a secondary unit on any given property. It’s a conundrum the City faces, he concluded, with parking only a symptom of a larger problem. Commissioner Hernandez suggested that the Planning Commission schedule a work work session to discuss zoning enforcement. Chair Collier said a work session also could address other issues that affect the quality of life in San Leandro. Commissioner Fitzsimons said that quality-of-life issues are important, but not within the purview of the Planning Commission. Even so, he added, individual Commissioners certainly could let the City Council know that these concerns should be addressed in some way, even in times of constrained resources. Secretary Liao pointed out that most items on the Planning Commission are based on project applications and requests by the City Council. [Note: Motion referenced above follows.] Motion to forward to the City Council a recommendation to approve the resolution proposing Zoning Code amendment changes related to Secondary Units Fitzsimons/Rennie: 6 Aye, 0 No, 1 Absent (Dlugosh) Ms. Barros, commenting on the code enforcement issue, said that the Police Department doesn’t carry the entire burden. For example, building inspectors are the ones who follow up when converted garages are reported. Vice Chair Abero explained her point related to the number of vehicles more than the burden of enforcement. As an example, she pointed out that the Thompson siblings probably have vehicles. Their parents probably have at least one vehicle as well. The grandfather may or may not drive, she said, but already the family has several vehicles on that property. She said it’s important to remember that more people mean more vehicles, particularly when those people are college students, people looking for work, young people moving back to their parents’ home to help make ends meet, etc. Attachment C: Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the Board of Zoning Adjustments Meeting of August 9, 2012 Page 1 of 5 Item 8A: Miscellaneous Information on Proposed Zoning Code Amendments to allow for an increase in the allowable floor area in relation to lot size and floor area of main dwelling (Barros) Acting Secretary Liao indicated that the proposal to increase the maximum floor area of second units on residential properties in relation to lot size and the size of the main dwelling unit is based on a stipulation in the General Plan’s Housing Element to reassess the ordinance as it relates to second units and in response to resident and City Council inquiries about the ordinance. The goal, he explained, is to create more flexibility in the policy. He explained that BZA member comments would go to the Planning Commission in time for its August 16, 2012 meeting, and then to the City Council on October 1, 2012. Established in 2003, the City’s current policy on secondary units is such that the second unit can be 450 square feet, or 30% of the dwelling unit, whichever is smaller. The Code allows secondary units by right if such units meet particular parameters. The proposed amendment, according to Acting Secretary Liao, would increase allowable floor area to the lesser of: A maximum of 450 square feet to 750 square feet in relation to the three proposed lot size ranges, or An increase of up to 50% of the main dwelling unit. Other communities surveyed in Alameda County allow secondary units as large as 50% of the main dwelling unit and unit size depending on lot size, Acting Secretary Liao said. In addition to flexibility, he said staff has tried to make the Code changes simple and clear without modifying the provisions that pertain to occupancy, garage conversions, setbacks, height, building coverage, parking or subordination to existing dwelling units. Acting Secretary Liao said staff also recommends amending Zoning Code Section 2-576 to conform with Section 2-546, which deals with accessory units. In summary, he he said, more flexible and streamlined policies governing second units would help the City address the State’s intent in terms of secondary unit policies by removing barriers to housing in communities such as San Leandro. Member Daly asked whether a property owner with a 2,000-square-foot home on a 6,000-square-foot lot could create a 750-square-foot second unit within it. Mr. Penaranda said yes, a homeowner may remodel such a home to create an additional dwelling, but the homeowner also may keep the existing 2,000-square-foot home and construct an independent 750-square-foot addition as a secondary dwelling unit. When Member Daly said this essentially allows converting a single-family home into a duplex, Mr. Penaranda said yes, but the second unit would be small, with a maximum of 750 square feet, and it would have to satisfy a number of other requirements. He added that the inquiries received about the current size limit on secondary units suggest that the 450 square feet now allowed is inadequate in terms of living space. Attachment C: Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the Board of Zoning Adjustments Meeting of August 9, 2012 Page 2 of 5 In response to a further question from Member Daly, Mr. Penaranda said that the requirement for a minimum of one independently accessible off-street parking space, in addition to any parking spaces required for the main dwelling, would remain within the standards for any secondary dwelling units. Member Daly cited Washington Manor properties as an example, noting that most of the neighborhood has 1,200-square-foot houses on lots of 5,000-6,000 square feet, with driveways in front leading to twocar garages. He asked where the owner of one of these properties would put the additional parking space if adding a secondary dwelling unit. Mr. Penaranda said that it would be problematic on a typical Washington Manor lot, because there’s nowhere to accommodate that additional parking space. The homeowner could conceivably come to the BZA for a parking exception in those instances, he added. Most of the the inquiries about secondary units have come from the Broadmoor neighborhood, he said. Member Palma said that she’s thrilled about the proposed changes because there are many large lots in her neighborhood, Davis West. She said that her home, located on a cul-de-sac, has a buffer all around her house, with a driveway on one side and the potential to add a driveway on the other side if she chose to add a secondary dwelling unit behind the gate there. She said that despite her large lot, her house contains less than 1,000 square feet, which would limit her to a secondary unit of less than 500 square feet. Mr. Penaranda agreed that she could build a larger secondary unit if she first increased the size of the principal dwelling. Member Palma asked what setbacks would be required for the secondary unit. Mr. Penaranda said it would be the same as it is for detached accessory structures, which is minimum five-foot setbacks from the property lines and minimum six-foot separation from the main house. Member Palma described an open house in Berkeley for a secondary dwelling unit. Member Palma said the unit had a loft, and was amazed how second units can be put together. While the size varies, she said, the standard is probably in the 450-600-square-foot range. In terms of inquiries, Acting Secretary Liao said that it may be due to economic conditions, but most requests are driven by homeowners’ desires to accommodate family members. In response to Member Palma, however, he confirmed that homeowners could indeed rent the units to non-family members. Member Daly, referring to a discussion in a previous BZA meeting about building accessory structures right on the property line, asked whether different setbacks would apply. Mr. Penaranda said that if the secondary dwelling is attached to the main house, applicable setbacks would be five feet and 15 feet for side and rear yards, respectively. For a detached unit on an interior lot, the setbacks would be five feet from the property lines. Further, Mr. Penaranda said that a 15-foot maximum height restriction is built into the accessory structure provisions. Accordingly, these units will be limited to a single story. On the other hand, twostory secondary units could be attached to an existing primary dwelling. Noting that the Code now allows accessory structures up to eight feet tall to be constructed right on the property line, Member Daly asked whether a residential unit could be built within that eight-foot limit. Mr. Penaranda said that with a flat roof, the eight-foot height would be conceivable, but it’s unlikely because homeowners would want pitched roofs, and a livable height is about 7.5 feet. Member Daly Attachment C: Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the Board of Zoning Adjustments Meeting of August 9, 2012 Page 3 of 5 said while he assumes in most instances secondary dwelling units in accessory structures would be set back from the property line, he is concerned about the possibility for exceptions and would like assurance that these units be required to meet the five-foot setback standard from property lines. Mr. Penaranda noted that the Code specifies a three-foot setback for an accessory structure that’s between eight and 12 feet in height. He said the assumption is that secondary units would stand 12-15 feet tall, requiring five-foot setbacks from side and rear property lines. As Chair Houston noted, what Mr. Penaranda described is not a change to setback standards now in place. Member Makin asked whether the proposed changes would affect any previously nonconforming buildings. Mr. Penaranda said that existing structures would be grandfathered in, provided that they were permitted and property taxes are are being paid. He added that some of these units also may lack the currently required setbacks, particularly in the City’s North Area. Member Palma asked how people received permits in those cases. Mr. Penaranda said that some of the units were built in the 1950s and 1960s, when the standards weren’t in place. Some detached cottages behind primary residences, he added, show up on the Alameda County rolls as non-income secondary dwelling units. He said that if staff researches a particular building and finds no permit was issued, the building would not be grandfathered in. Vice Chair Mendieta commended staff for the direction taken on secondary units, particularly in the context of the current economy. Following up on the issue of non-permitted buildings, however, he suggested that judgments be based on sound construction, conformance to building codes, with proper foundation work, plumbing and electrical systems, roof and windows, etc., rather than whether a permit was issued. He said the City should be flexible in these instances. For safety purposes, he would hold construction to high standards, but as a realtor, he often sees instances in which homeowners have bent the rules for economic reasons. Member Daly said we tend to think of secondary dwelling units as in-law units, but in today’s economy, more of them might be for adult children. Acting Secretary Liao added that the State considers secondary units as a form of affordable housing as well. In terms of parking requirements, Vice Chair Mendieta also suggested more flexibility. He commented that San Leandro is definitely moving in a green direction, with two BART stations, AC Transit and the LINKS shuttle, and because some secondary units would be in areas where homeowners couldn’t provide the additional parking required, it would be worthwhile to explore whether the parking requirement is still appropriate in areas near public transit. Member Daly asked about additional parking spaces for second units as it relates to areas in the City where long, narrow driveways of approximately 80x10 feet are common. Could there be tandem parking in Estudillo Estates, for example, he asked, where lots are often 46-49 feet wide and 103 feet long. Mr. Penaranda said yes, the City allows tandem parking as long as the additional space does not impinge on the 20-foot front setback. In addition to Estudillo Estates, he said, this alternative might be applicable in the Broadmoor neighborhood and on Orchard and Pacific Avenues, where properties also are characterized by deep lots. Attachment C: Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the Board of Zoning Adjustments Meeting of August 9, 2012 Page 4 of 5 Member Palma said that it could be awkward to use location as a basis for flexibility in terms of parking. Provided that it need not be a covered garage, she said it’s important that property owners be required to provide additional parking if they add a second unit. As Member Palma explained, requirements for covered parking don’t make sense, because many of them were never designed to accommodate vehicles people now drive. She said she would like to see the City remove the requirement for covered parking. Vice Chair Mendieta asked how residents would learn about the Zoning Code changes. In addition to published legal notices, Acting Secretary Liao said homeowners associations would be notified prior to the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. In response to Member Abelee, Mr. Penaranda confirmed that only one secondary unit would be allowed on any property and there would be no possibility of multiple secondary units. Chair Houston asked whether any neighborhoods not already discussed also are likely locations for additional secondary units. Mr. Penaranda said second units on Huntington Park homes were automatically approved as part of its planned unit development (PD) and these units are attached above the garages. Member Daly asked whether a carport attached to an existing garage is considered covered parking. Mr. Penaranda said the metal carports attached to L-shaped homes with deep setbacks in Washington Manor and Bonaire meet the covered parking requirement. However, he pointed out that carports must meet building code standards. Acting Secretary Liao added that the carport assemblies purchased at stores such as Home Depot don’t typically meet these standards. Vice Chair Mendieta asked when the changes proposed are likely to take effect. Assuming approval by the Planning Commission at its August 16, 2012 meeting and City Council on October 1, 2012, Acting Secretary Liao indicated early November 2012 possibly. Acting Secretary Liao said the Planning Commission would receive detailed draft minutes of this BZA meeting. Motion to recommend that the City move forward with proposed Zoning Code changes regarding Secondary Units Mendieta/Palma: 7Aye, 0 No Member Daly asked whether BZA member comments also would be taken into consideration by the Planning Commission and if the prior motion could be reconsidered. Motion to reconsider prior motion to consider BZA Member comments Attachment C: Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the Board of Zoning Adjustments Meeting of August 9, 2012 Page 5 of 5 Daly/Mendieta: 7Aye, 0 No Motion to recommend that the Planning Commission move forward with proposed Zoning Code changes regarding Secondary Units, subject to consideration of BZA Member comments Mendieta/Daly: 7Aye, 0 No City of San Leandro Meeting Date: October 1, 2012 Ordinance File Number: 12-457 Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS – CITY COUNCIL Agenda Number: TO: City Council FROM: Chris Zapata City Manager BY: Luke Sims Community Development Director FINANCE REVIEW: Not Applicable TITLE: PASS TO PRINT: An Ordinance Amending Section 2-576 of Article 5 of the City of San Leandro Zoning Code Related to Secondary Dwelling Units (allows for an increase in the allowable floor area in relation to lot size and floor area of main dwelling) WHEREAS, in 2002, the City of San Leandro adopted a new General Plan, which states in Chapter 3, Land Use, that the City “plan for a variety of housing types, matching the needs of diverse groups”; and WHEREAS, in 2010, the City of San Leandro adopted a revised Housing Element with the goal to “conserve the City’s existing housing stock while providing opportunities for new housing for a variety of income groups”; and WHEREAS, the adopted Housing Element states further in its Goal 59: Elimination of Housing Constraints, “Reduce potential constraints that increase the cost or feasibility of new housing development”; and WHEREAS, the City of San Leandro Planning Division continuously reviews and periodically recommends updates to the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 2012, the City of San Leandro Board of Zoning Adjustments met, reviewed, and commented upon Planning Division proposed amendments to Article 5, Section 2-576 of the Zoning Code, entitled “Secondary Dwelling Units,” and such comments were provided to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on August 16, 2012, the Planning Commission passed Resolution No. 2012-004PC, recommending to the City Council adoption of Zoning Code amendments to Section 2-576 of Article 5 of the San Leandro Zoning Code relating 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; and City of San Leandro Page 1 Printed on 9/25/2012 File Number: 12-457 WHEREAS, on October 1, 2012, the City Council conducted a properly noticed public hearing to consider approval of the proposed Zoning Code amendments pursuant to Section 5-2712 of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code are exempt from CEQA because (1) the proposed amendments are a minor change in existing policy to provide for an increase in allowable floor area that will not have a significant effect on the environment and (2) the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code do not approve or allow the construction of any project. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code will have no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. Therefore, adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21065 based on the finding that the proposed amendments are not a “project” within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines and section 15061(b) as minor changes to an existing Zoning Code section. 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; and WHEREAS, the documents incorporated herein by reference are available for review in the City Planning Services Division at San Leandro City Hall, during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the Notice of Exemption and other documents that constitute a record of proceedings for the Project is the City of San Leandro, 835 E. 14th Street, San Leandro, CA 94577. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Leandro does ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Incorporation. The recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. Findings for the Zoning Code amendment. As required under State law, the City Council finds as follows: a. The proposed Zoning Code amendments are consistent with the City’s General Plan, pursuant to Government Code section 65855 and Section 5-2708 of the Zoning Code, as established by the Planning Commission. The proposed amendments are consistent with the following policies of the General Plan: Goal 59: Elimination of Housing Constraints: Reduce potential constraints that increase the cost or feasibility of new housing development. 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. Policy 56.11 Grandfathered Second Units: Continue to recognize second units City of San Leandro Page 2 Printed on 9/25/2012 File Number: 12-457 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 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. 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. b. The proposed Zoning Code amendments are internally consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The amendments meet the requirements and standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the procedural requirements of Article 27, “Amendments”. c. The proposed amendments are reasonably related to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the amendments uphold the General Plan goals and policies that emphasize maintaining and improving the attractiveness of the City's neighborhoods. Section 3. Adoption of the Zoning Code Amendments. Based on the entirety of the record, as described above, Section 2-576 of Article 5 of the San Leandro Zoning Code is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated into this Ordinance by this reference. Section 4. Effective Date of Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption. The City Clerk of the City of San Leandro is directed to publish the title of the Ordinance once and post a complete copy thereof on the City Council Chamber bulletin board for five (5) days prior to adoption. Section 5. Severability. If any provision