Zoning Code Text Amendments: Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations and Municipal Code Amendments: Development Impact Fees City Council December 11, 2017.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
City of San José Distinctive Neighborhood Program Policy Options Outreach Presentation.
Advertisements

Implementing State Density Bonus Law in Berkeley November 13, 2014 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Department.
Planning & Community Development Department 245 South Los Robles Avenue Predevelopment Plan Review City Council December 8, 2014.
October 4, 2004 Detrich B. Allen City of Los Angeles Environmental Affairs Department 1 Siting New Development Detrich B. Allen General Manager Environmental.
HRB Meeting June 9, 2015 City Council Remand of AP 14-02/ZC
Community Development Department GRAND HAVEN DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT City Council June 3, 2014.
Draft Zoning Code Residential Focus Neighborhood Meeting May 8, 2007.
City of New Brighton Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2005 Agenda Item: 6A (Public Hearing) Special Use Permit for Detached Garage Exceeding 624.
Planning & Community Development Department Hillsides Residential Care and Educational Center Master Plan City Council July 20, 2015.
Planning & Community Development Department 277 North El Molino Avenue Predevelopment Plan Review City Council Meeting May 5, 2014.
Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING Lake Avalon Rural Settlement Commercial Design Overlay District March 10, 2009 Board of County Commissioners.
Planning and Community Development Department Housing Element City Council February 03, 2014.
Subcommittee on Heights, Massing, and Alternate Standards    Third Report – January 20, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission.
Community Development Department GRAND HAVEN DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT Planning & Land Development Regulation Board May 21, 2014.
An Overview of Garrett Park Building Regulations Harry Gordon, FAIA Chairman GP Setback Advisory Committee May 2009.
Secondary Dwelling Units Orchard Park/Sherwood Forest Ratepayers Association Community Meeting January 29, 2014.
Planning Commission Second Unit Study Session. Tonight’s Conversation Project Background (10 minutes) Community Process (10 minutes) Council Direction—Ord.
Planning & Community Development Department Board of Zoning Appeals: Hillside Development Permit # Hillcrest Place City Council March 14, 2016.
Community Development Department May 2, 2016 RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY DWELLING AND HARDSHIP MOBILE HOMES TRAINING WELCOME.
Planning & Community Development Department Zoning Code Amendment: Neighborhood District Overlay Zone City Council April 25, 2016.
Town of Chapel Hill | 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. | Land Use Management Ordinance Update Planning Commission September 1,
4650 Alhambra Circle Building Site Separation. Request: The applicant is requesting consideration of a building site separation in accordance with Section.
Planning & Community Development Department Olivewood Village Project (530, 535 E. Union St., 95, 99, 119 N. Madison Ave. and 585 E. Colorado Blvd.) Predevelopment.
Narrow Lots & Skinny Lots or Land Divisions & Lot Confirmations Residential Infill Project Stakeholder Advisory Committee November 17, 2015.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS ZOA Tuesday, October 9, 2012.
Planning & Community Development Department Appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals Decision on Hillside Development Permit # Kaweah Drive City.
Applicant: Robert Ganem Addresses: 7304 & 7312 Black Oak Lane Planning Commission Meeting – August 21, 2015.
Planning & Community Development Department Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals’ Approval of Hillside Development Permit # Glen Holly Drive City.
Planning and Neighborhoods Committee of Council BRIEFING ON THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PRO GRAM May 18, 2015.
Public Hearing Amendments to Chapter 38 Horizon West Development Standards Orange County BCC May 24, 2016.
Voluntary Accessibility Program Ordinance/ LCP Amendment Coastal Commission Item #9b City of San Diego LCPA 3-11 November 4, 2011 Coastal Commission Item.
1 Villa Laguna MXD3 Site Plan Review. 2 Request: The applicant is requesting site plan review of a proposed mixed-use project pursuant to the recently.
Department of Sustainable Development and Construction Inclusionary Zoning Housing Committee August 1, 2016.
Zoning Code Text Amendment to the Second Dwelling Unit Regulations (Section of the Zoning Code) City Council January 30, 2017.
City of East Palo Alto Planning Commission
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: CLEARING UP THE CONFUSION
Zoning Code Amendment: Neighborhood District Overlay Zone
Animal Care Facilities
Water Efficiency Ordinance ZCA No. 750
Authorization to Enter Into Contract with Four Consultants for General Plan Implementation Services City Council February 6, 2017.
2602 Henry Street Council Presentation September 12, 2017
Mansionization and Neighborhood Compatibility
Zoning Code Amendment: Hillside District Overlay Zones
New Comprehensive Zoning By-law December 12, 2016.
8/23/2016 Luis N. Serna, AICP David, Healey, FAICP
“Palm Coast 145, LLC” Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezoning Planning and Land Development Regulation Board December 21, 2016.
Zoning Code Amendment: SL (Single-Level) Overlay District
Marina Del Palma Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Map Amendment
File No A request for a Site Plan Review to construct a 1,425 square-foot covered balcony, a 14.5 square-foot balcony and a 5,157 square-foot.
City Council Meeting October 23, 2017
Updates to the Traffic Reduction and Transportation Improvements Fee (TR/TIF) City Council July 24, 2017.
Palm Coast 145, LLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezoning City Council Public Hearing September 5, 2017.
Zoning Code Text Amendment to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations (Section of the Zoning Code) City Council June 19, 2017.
Community Development Department May 2, 2016
Appeal: Time Extension for Variance # East Walnut Street
Seekonk Board of Assessors
Consideration of Action Re: Commercial Cannabis Businesses
goldfarb lipman attorneys
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
Hotel Conversions Background
City Council Meeting August 27, 2018
City Council October 15, 2018.
City Council Meeting April 23, 2018
Early Experience with HAA & SB 35 Objective Standards Requirements
City Commission Workshop
Article XIII – Form Districts Community Meeting
Accessory Dwelling Units: Maximum Unit Size and Residential Impact Fee
Article XIII – Form Districts Community Meeting
12 D. Variance Request – 211 Jennifer Lane
Community Development Department May 2, 2016
Presentation transcript:

Zoning Code Text Amendments: Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations and Municipal Code Amendments: Development Impact Fees City Council December 11, 2017

Overview January 2017, City Council adopted initial amendments to the City’s accessory dwelling unit regulations Requested Planning & Community Development Department staff to conduct a comprehensive review of existing accessory dwelling unit regulations and return by end of June 2017 with potential revisions June 19, 2017, City Council considered and discussed a series of proposed amendments At the conclusion of the meeting, City Council directed staff to conduct additional research on a number of specific topics and conduct additional community outreach prior to returning to City Council

What is an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)? A self-contained residential unit that shares the same lot as the primary residential dwelling May be attached to the existing dwelling unit, or detached from the existing dwelling unit Generally includes a living room, sleeping area, kitchen, and a bathroom

Purpose of Proposed Amendments Ensure that City ordinance complies with intent of State Law Facilitate creation of accessory dwelling units to provide additional housing opportunities Provide appropriate standards and limitations as allowed by the State Law to maintain character of the single-family neighborhoods Focus on changes to regulations related to ADUs that are created by adding new square footage (“Newly Constructed ADUs) Respond to City Council direction from June 19, 2017 meeting .

City Council: June 19 City Council considered a series of proposed amendments for Newly Constructed ADUs Council concerned proposed amendments were not restrictive enough and could have negative consequences Proposed minimum qualifying lot size of 5,000 square feet too small and too much of a change from existing 15,000 square feet. Proposed rear and side yard setbacks allowed an ADU to be too close to rear and/or side property lines Negative impact on character of historic districts. Other concerns included loss of mature tree canopy, narrow streets, reduction of impact fees, and not enough opportunities for community input

Community Outreach Since June 19 Community Meetings September 21 & 25, 2017 (City Hall) Landmark and National Register District Representatives October 17, 2017 (Jackie Robinson Center) City-wide meeting October 19, 2017 (Pasadena Senior Center) Other Meetings October 11, 2017: Bungalow Heaven Annual Meeting October 26, 2017: Council District #5 Town Hall

Community Meetings Summary of Comments Majority of comments indicated support for less restrictive standards for “Newly Constructed ADUs”: Lower minimum lot size requirement (5,000 s.f. or no minimum) Allow such units in Hillside and Historic Districts under certain conditions Increase maximum unit size Comments also received in opposition to less restrictive standards based on preservation of single-family neighborhood character Other concerns related to enforcement, Residential Impact Fee, tree preservation, and impact of Accessory Dwelling Units on housing supply and affordable housing

Revised Amendments Significant changes to ADU ordinance (mostly for Newly Constructed ADUs): Location Requirements Minimum lot size Historic Districts Base Zoning Setbacks for Detached Newly Constructed ADUs Tree Preservation Maximum Unit Size

Revised Amendments: Location Requirement for Exterior ADUs - Minimum Lot Size Re-evaluated Minimum Lot Size Requirements Analysis of property profiles in Pasadena Existing 15,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement is restrictive Majority of public comments supported lower minimum lot size, ranging from 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet, with some support for no minimum Not consistent with the intent of the State Law

Revised Amendments: Location Requirement for Newly Constructed ADUs – Minimum Lot Size 7,200 square feet: Approximately 9,901 out of 20,331 recommended RS- zoned properties would be eligible (~49%) Includes Historic Districts Does not include Hillside Districts

Revised Amendments: Location Requirement for Newly Constructed ADUs – Minimum Lot Size 7,200 square feet Minimum lot size required for new lots in RS-6 zoning Consistent with other cities practice of utilizing the minimum lot size required of a typical single-family property Staff’s original recommendation to the Planning Commission Recommendation: Lower the minimum lot size from 15,000 to 7,200 square feet for Newly Constructed ADUs So, Staff then considered 7,200 square feet, which is the min lot size required for new lots in RS-6 zoning district in the City, which is the most typical SF zoning district in the City. Based on the analysis, a min lot size requirement of 7,200 square feet provides sufficient opportunity to the community to create ADUs since it includes approximately 73% of all RS-zoned properties. Also, it is consistent with the practice of a number of other cities, as the min lot size requirements for ADUs in other cities if there is such standard, were generally consistent with the min lot size required of a typical SF zoning district in respective cities. For these reasons, staff originally recommended the minimum lot size requirement for Exterior Accessory Dwelling Units be lowered to 7,200 square feet.

Revised Amendments Location Requirement for Newly Constructed ADUs – Historic Districts Landmark and other historic districts restrictions Approximately 3,500 properties (~17% of RS-zoned properties) In order to ensure new construction does not detract from the integrity of a district, a “Certificate of Appropriateness” (COA) permit is required COA required for any exterior work that is visible from public right- of-way to ensure compatibility with historic character Historic districts today permit the construction of new accessory structures, additions etc. without a COA if not visible from public right-of-way State Law: no discretionary review for ADUs

Revised Amendments Location Requirement for Newly Constructed ADUs – Historic Districts Recommendation: Prohibit Newly Constructed ADUs in historic districts (Landmark, State and National Register Districts) unless it is not visible from the street and does not require a Certificate of Appropriateness Accessory Dwelling Units are not allowed on individually designated properties

Revised Amendments: Location Requirements for Newly Constructed ADUs Existing Recommended Minimum Lot Size 15,000 sq. ft. 7,200 sq. ft. Zoning Districts Any RS zoning district Any RS or RM zoning district Historic Districts (Landmark, state, national) Prohibited Prohibited unless not visible from the street and not subject to a COA and Prohibited on individually designated historic property Hillside Overlay District No change

Map of where Newly Constructed ADUs are Proposed to be Permitted # of properties RS zones ~9,901 RM zones ~1,178 Total ~11,079 *Note ADUs prohibited in Landmark Overlay Districts if visible from the street

Other Revised Amendments: Setbacks and Size Existing Recommended Setbacks Side: 10% of the lot width, but no less than 5 ft., with a maximum requirement of 10 ft. Rear: 25 ft.   Exception: side / rear setback for attached Newly Constructed ADUs constructed over an existing garage is 5 feet (Required per State Law) Side: No change Rear: 10 ft. (Same as RM-12) Exception: No change Maximum Size for Newly Constructed ADUs Detached: 800 square feet Attached: Lesser of 800 square feet or 50% of the existing living space Detached and Attached: Lesser of 800 square feet or 50% of the existing living space

Other Revised Amendments: Trees Tree Protection Ordinance Protects trees on adopted list of ‘specimen’ and ‘native’ trees whose diameter at breast height (dbh) meets or exceeds specific threshold RS: Trees must also be in a ‘protected zone’ Established front and/or corner yard setback; Required side yard setback (5-10 ft.); or Required rear yard setback (25 ft.) If protected, Private Tree Removal Permit required Mature trees (≥19” dbh, regardless of species) are exempted for RS properties

Other Revised Amendments: Trees Recommendation: Require a one-for-one replacement of mature trees in a protected zone if they are being removed in order to construct an ADU

Proposed Amendments: Other Standards Existing Recommended Building Separation Six feet (eave-to-eave) 10 feet (eave-to-eave) if entry door faces a structure 6 feet from any structure (eave-to-eave) 2nd Story Newly Constructed ADUs Attached: Allowed if existing house is two stories in height Detached: Not allowed No change Height of detached Newly Constructed ADUs 17 feet to the highest point 12 feet to the top plate

Proposed Amendments: Other Standards Existing Recommended Windows and doors for Converted ADUs within Historic Districts No regulation Windows and doors that are original to the structure are generally required to be retained, unless this requirement prevents creation of the ADU Minimum Unit Size for Newly Constructed ADUs None 150 sq. ft. (consistent with the State Law)

Zoning Code Amendment: Required Findings Consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.1 (Housing Choices) Policy 7.1 (Compatibility) Policy 8.1 (Identify and Protect Historic Resources) Policy 8.5 (Scale and Character of New Construction in a Designated Landmark and Historic Districts) Policy 21.1 (Adequate and Affordable Housing) Policy 21.3 (Neighborhood Character) Policy 21.5 (Housing Character and Design) Policy 22.1 (Appropriate Scale and Massing) Policy 22.2 (Garages and Accessory Structures)

Zoning Code Amendment: Required Findings Consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan Housing Element Policy 1-1 (Neighborhood Character) Policy 2-1 (Housing Diversity) Implementation Program 13.2 Not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City

Recommendation Acknowledge the proposed Zoning Code Amendments are exempt from environmental review (CEQA) Adopt the findings of consistency Approve the proposed Zoning Code Amendments Direct the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance

Development Impact Fees Significant community interest in reducing City fees for construction on an ADU Residential Impact Fee (charged per bedroom) Studio ($18,472.73) to ≥ 5 bedrooms ($34,193.81) Traffic Reduction & Transportation Improvement Fee $2,889.70 If new unit is covenanted-restricted affordable Residential Impact Fee $957.30 Adjusted per Consumer Price Index No fee

Example Current Fees – Newly Constructed ADU Example: 600 SF ADU, 1-bedroom, valuation of $68,310 FEE TOTAL FEE AMOUNT Residential Impact Fee $19,494.61 C&D Admin Review Fee $193.24 Traffic Reduction & Transportation Imp. Fee $2,889.70 Building Permit Fee $1,014.00 PUSD- Residential New Development $1,344.00 Construction Tax $1,311.55 Building Plan Check $1,379.00 SMIP: Residential $8.88 Fire Department Plan Check $290.00 Processing Fee $62.00 Design & Historic Plan Check $40.00 CA Building Standards Fee $4.00 Current Planning Plan Check $119.00 General Plan Maintenance $341.55 Public Works Plan Check $179.00 Technology Fee Sidewalk Damage Public Works $646.43 Records Mgmt 3% Surcharge $92.49 C&D Performance Security Deposit $2,049.30 TOTAL FEES $31,800.30

Example Current Fees – Converted ADU Example: 600 SF ADU, 1-bedroom, valuation of $20,493 (30% of valuation) FEE TOTAL FEE AMOUNT Residential Impact Fee $19,494.61 C&D Admin Review Fee $193.24 Traffic Reduction & Transportation Imp. Fee $2,889.70 Building Permit Fee $384.00 PUSD- Residential New Development n/a Construction Tax $393.47 Building Plan Check $514.00 SMIP: Residential $2.66 Fire Department Plan Check $103.00 Processing Fee $62.00 Design & Historic Plan Check $21.00 CA Building Standards Fee $2.00 Current Planning Plan Check $49.00 General Plan Maintenance $102.47 Public Works Plan Check $74.00 Technology Fee Sidewalk Damage Public Works $646.43 Records Mgmt 3% Surcharge $36.21 C&D Performance Security Deposit $614.79 TOTAL FEES $25,685.05

Development Impact Fees Purpose of ADUs is to increase housing supply/options High fees are a deterrent for many homeowners At least one building permit application has been withdrawn and several have not yet been issued due to high fees Recommendation: Residential Impact Fee for an ADU $957.30 Traffic Reduction & Transportation Improvement Fee for an ADU No fee Incentive for Affordable ADU (Covenanted) Waive both Residential Impact Fee and Traffic Reduction & Transportation Improvement Fee

Recommendation Find the proposed Municipal Code Amendments are not subject to environmental review (CEQA) Approve the proposed Municipal Code Amendments (Section 4.17 and 4.19) Direct the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance

Zoning Code Text Amendments: Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations and Municipal Code Amendments: Development Impact Fees City Council December 11, 2017

State Law Amended State Law (AB 2299 and SB 1069) Adopted to address the housing crisis (e.g. lack of supply in the rental market) Intended to encourage creation of ADUs and ensure local regulations do not unreasonably restrict ability of homeowners to create ADUs Cities must allow an ADU that is converted from an existing space in all single-family residential districts New Legislation Passed in September 2017 (AB 494 and SB 229) Intended to clarify the previously enacted bills Gives HCD authority to review local ADU ordinances

New Legislation: AB 494 and SB 229 September 2017 Intended to clarify the previously enacted bills related to ADUs AB 494 makes a number of changes to the ADU review process and standards Parking requirements HCD authority to review local ordinances SB 229 makes various clarifying and technical changes to ADU law Utility connections ADUs located on the same lot as primary dwelling

“Converted Accessory Dwelling Units” State Law: AB 2299 and SB 1069 State Law regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (AB 2299, SB 1069) to address housing crisis Intended to ensure local regulations do not unreasonably restrict their creation Notable provisions of amended State Law: Accessory dwelling units created by converting existing space (“Converted ADUs”) must be allowed in all zoning districts that permit single-family use “Converted Accessory Dwelling Units” New ADU within existing space Existing

State Law: AB 2299 and SB 1069 Parking Standards Development Standards One parking space per unit can be required in any form with exceptions Based on the exemption for lots located within ½ mile of public transit stop, no parking can be required for ADUs in most areas of the City If a garage or carport is demolished to accommodate an ADU, the required replacement parking can be in any form (e.g. on the driveway) Development Standards A setback cannot be required for an existing garage that is converted into an ADU Rear and side setbacks of no more than five feet can be required for an ADU constructed above an existing garage

City’s Existing Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations: Converted ADUs Allowed on all zones that permit single- family residential uses Both attached and detached units are permitted New ADU within existing space Existing “Converted ADUs” Operational Standards One unit must be owner-occupied Cannot be sold separately from primary dwelling Units created after January 1, 2017 cannot be used for short-term rental Development Standards Must contain exterior door, and side and rear yard setbacks must be sufficient for fire safety Five-foot setback required if located above a garage

City’s Existing Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations New ADU within existing space Existing “Converted ADUs” Existing “Newly Constructed ADUs” New ADU Explain the diagram – It should be noted that many provisions in the City’s regulations can’t be changed since these provisions are mandated by the State Law – these include parking requirements, certain setback requirements, and location where Interior ADUs are permitted. Staff will go over existing regulations for both types of the units.

“Newly Constructed ADUs” City’s Existing Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations: Newly Constructed ADUs Allowed on all single-family zoned properties (RS) and that are at least 15,000 square feet in size Exception: Prohibited in Hillside and Landmark Overlay Districts Existing “Newly Constructed ADUs” New ADU Both attached and detached units are permitted

City’s Existing Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations: Newly Constructed ADUs Development Standards Newly Constructed ADUs are subject to the development standards applicable to the primary dwelling (e.g. floor area, lot coverage, setbacks, etc.), except: Standards Maximum Unit Size Attached: lesser of 800 sq. ft. or 50% of the primary dwelling Detached: 800 sq. ft. Number of stories Limited to one-story unless ADU is attached to existing two-story primary dwelling Building Separation 6 ft. or 10 ft. Entry Door Cannot be visible from the public right-of-way Parking One parking space per unit unless exempt (e.g. located within ½ mile of public transit stop) Setback for ADUs located above existing garage 5 ft.

Examples – 5,000 sq. ft. Lot Maximum Floor Area: 2,000 sq. ft. Street Existing House 2-Car Garage 50 ft. 100 ft. NEW ADU Maximum Floor Area: 2,000 sq. ft. Maximum Lot Coverage: N/A Existing house: 1,200 sq. ft. Existing garage: 400 sq. ft. Total: 1,600 sq. ft. New Exterior ADU: 400 sq. ft. New Total: 2,000 sq. ft. Existing House Alternative setback allowed for detached structures (under certain circumstances) Required setback for primary dwelling

Examples – 5,000 sq. ft. Lot Street Existing House 2-Car Garage 50 ft. 100 ft. NEW ADU Maximum Floor Area: 2,000 sq. ft. Maximum Lot Coverage: N/A Existing house: 1,200 sq. ft. Existing garage: 400 sq. ft. Total: 1,600 sq. ft. New Exterior ADU: 400 sq. ft. New Total: 1,780 sq. ft. Existing House (180 sq. ft. new + 220 sq. ft. conversion) Alternative setback allowed for detached structures (under certain circumstances) Required setback for primary dwelling

Examples – 7,200 sq. ft. Lot (2,520 to 2,880 sq. ft.) Existing 2-Car Garage NEW ADU House Maximum Floor Area: 2,660 sq. ft. Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% to 40% Existing house: 1,600 sq. ft. Existing garage: 400 sq. ft. Total: 2,000 sq. ft. New Exterior ADU: 600 sq. ft. New Total: 2,600 sq. ft. Existing House (2,520 to 2,880 sq. ft.) 120 ft. Alternative setback allowed for detached structures (under certain circumstances) Required setback for primary dwelling Street

Examples – 7,200 sq. ft. Lot (2,520 to 2,880 sq. ft.) Existing 2-Car Garage NEW ADU House Maximum Floor Area: 2,660 sq. ft. Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% to 40% Existing house: 1,600 sq. ft. Existing garage: 400 sq. ft. Total: 2,000 sq. ft. New Exterior ADU: 600 sq. ft. New Total: 2,600 sq. ft. Existing House (2,520 to 2,880 sq. ft.) 120 ft. Alternative setback allowed for detached structures (under certain circumstances) Required setback for primary dwelling Street

Examples – 10,000 sq. ft. Lot (3,500 to 4,000 sq. ft.) Existing House 2-Car Garage 64 ft. 155 ft. Street NEW ADU Maximum Floor Area: 3,500 sq. ft. Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% to 40% Existing house: 2,200 sq. ft. Existing garage: 400 sq. ft. Total: 2,600 sq. ft. New Exterior ADU: 800 sq. ft. New Total: 3,400 sq. ft. Existing House (3,500 to 4,000 sq. ft.) Alternative setback allowed for detached structures (under certain circumstances) Required setback for primary dwelling

Examples – 10,000 sq. ft. Lot (3,500 to 4,000 sq. ft.) Existing House 2-Car Garage 64 ft. 155 ft. Street NEW ADU Maximum Floor Area: 3,500 sq. ft. Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% to 40% Existing house: 2,200 sq. ft. Existing garage: 400 sq. ft. Total: 2,600 sq. ft. New Exterior ADU: 800 sq. ft. New Total: 3,400 sq. ft. Existing House (3,500 to 4,000 sq. ft.) Alternative setback allowed for detached structures (under certain circumstances) Required setback for primary dwelling

Existing Accessory Dwelling Units Between 2004 and 2016: Two building permit applications were approved and units constructed January 1, 2017 – December 7, 2017 15 building permit application for a new ADU were submitted None issued So in terms of existing ADUs in the City – Between 2004 and 2016, 2 new ADUs were built in the City. After January 1 of this year, which is the date that the State Law became effective, 12 building permit applications for a new ADU was submitted

Existing Accessory Dwelling Units Existing RS-zoned properties with two residential units Approximately 740 properties (Los Angeles County Assessor data) It is likely that many of these properties are developed with legally non-conforming duplexes Unpermitted Accessory Dwelling Units No reliable database available to estimate the number of unpermitted accessory dwelling units 16 active Code Compliance cases involving illegal conversion of existing space into a dwelling unit (November 20)

All Single-Family Zoned Properties (~20,331)

Single-Family Zoned Properties with 2 units (~20,0331) (~740)

Map of where Converted ADUs are Currently Permitted # of properties RS zones ~20,331 RM zones Total

Map of where Newly Constructed ADUs are Currently Permitted # of properties RS zones ~1,275 RM zones Total Approximately 6% of RS zoned properties

Revised Amendments: Location Requirement for Newly Constructed ADUs – Minimum Lot Size 15,000 square feet: Approximately 1,277 out of 20,331 recommended RS- zoned properties eligible (~6%) Includes Historic Districts Does not include Hillside Districts

Revised Amendments: Location Requirement for Newly Constructed ADUs – Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet: Approximately 4,060 out of 20,331 recommended RS- zoned properties eligible (~20%) Includes Historic Districts Does not include Hillside Districts A 10,000 square-foot min was analyzed, but it was determined that it would not be consistent with the intent of the State Law as only 22 percent of RS zoned properties would be eligible under this category.

Revised Amendments: Location Requirement for Newly Constructed ADUs – Minimum Lot Size 5,000 square feet: R-S and R-M zones Includes Historic Districts Does not include Hillside Districts

Areas Where Parking can be Required (Newly Constructed ADUs) Properties where parking can be required for a new Exterior ADUs (~236)

RS zoned Properties Larger than 10,000 sq. ft. (~6,858)

Map of Historic Districts Individually Designated Properties

Map of Open Space

Public Transit and Car Share Public Transit: Any public transit stop that is accessible from the public right-of-way Gold Line stations Bus stops Pasadena Transit (10, 20, 31, 32, 40, 51, 51s, 52, 6), Commuter Express (549), Foothill Transit Lines (690, 187), Metro Bus (177, 180, 181, 256, 260, 264, 266, 267, 268, 485, 487, 686, 687, 762, 762s, 780), Glendale Bee (3), Montebello Bus (20) Approximately 600 public transit stops in the City Car Share: Any commercial car share vehicle drop-off point (e.g. Zip Car, eRideShare) Approximately 25 drop-off points in the City

CEQA Exemption Under California Public Resources Code (CPRC) Section 21080.17, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implement the provisions of Section 65852.2 of the Government Code, which is State accessory dwelling unit law. Therefore, the proposed Zoning Code text amendments to the City’s accessory dwelling unit regulations are statutorily exempt from the CEQA in that the proposed amendments consists of provisions that further implements the state accessory dwelling unit law.

Development Impact Fees New Residential Impact Fees Based on number of bedrooms Ranges from $18,472.73 to $34,193.81 Traffic Reduction and Transportation Improvement Fee $2,889.70 per unit S.M.I.P. Tax $0.00013 of project valuation Construction Tax 1.92% of valuation PUSD Construction Fee (School District fee) $2.24 per sq. ft.

Accessory Structures: Existing Development Standards Limitation on Location May not occupy a required front or corner side setback May not be located in a required side or rear setback; provided it is more than 100 feet from the front property line or in the rear 25 feet of the site. A lot abutting on the front 100 feet of a key lot shall maintain a minimum four-foot rear setback

Accessory Structures: Existing Development Standards Height and Setback Requirements Height limits Cannot exceed nine feet in height if the structure is located two feet from a property line If located more than two feet from a property line: 9-foot top plate limit Must comply with Encroachment Plane requirements 15-foot overall height limit

Accessory Structures: Existing Development Standards Length of structure walls  Any portion of the structure that exceeds 22 feet in length and is less than five feet from the property line, shall be required to be set back a minimum of five feet from the property line

Definition of “Lot” (or parcel) “Lot” is defined in the Zoning Code as “a legally established lot of land under one ownership with frontage upon a street” Types of lots include the following: Corner Lot, Double Frontage Lot, Flag or Corridor Lot, Interior lot, Key Lot, Reversed Corner Lot, Substandard Lot  A legally non-conforming substandard lot (i.e. a lot that is smaller than the required minimum lot size for the applicable zoning district) is not an illegal lot

Tree Protection Ordinance (PMC 8.52)

Tree Protection Ordinance (PMC 8.52) Findings for Removal: There is a public benefit as defined in Section 8.52.024(R), or a public health, safety or welfare benefit, to the injury or removal that outweighs the protection of the specific tree; or The present condition of the tree is such that it is not reasonably likely to survive; or Tree is an objective feature of the tree that makes the tree not suitable for the protections of this chapter; or There would be a substantial hardship to a private property owner in the enjoyment and use of real property if the injury or removal is not permitted; or

Tree Protection Ordinance (PMC 8.52) Findings for Removal: To not permit injury to or removal of a tree would constitute a taking of the underlying real property; or The project, as defined in Section 17.12.020, includes a landscape design plan that emphasizes a tree canopy that is sustainable over the long term by adhering to the replacement matrix adopted by resolution of the city council and included in the associated administrative guidelines. Shall not apply to permits or approvals seeking removal of a landmark tree and landmark-eligible trees.