Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 - 2745 ADU Policy Discussion Page 1 of 6 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: July 16, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Accessory Dwelling Units Policy Discussion Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider and evaluate Staff's proposals for future City policies to encourage the production of accessory dwelling units in Dublin. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive presentation and direct to Staff to proceed with the policy matters as outlined in the report to encourage the production of accessory dwelling units in Dublin. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impacts related to this discussion. DESCRIPTION: Background The State Legislature has found that California fac es a severe housing crisis and determined that second units or accessory dwelling units (ADU) are a valuable form of housing in California which provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. It is the intent of the Legislature that local ordinances do not unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create second units through its regulations. In 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance 01-17 amending the Zoning Ordinance regulations pertaining to second units in response to Senate Bill (SB) 1069 and Assembly Bill (AB) 2099 requiring cities to relax certain development standards for second units including, setbacks, parking standards and unit size. That same year, Governor Brown signed a 15-bill “Housing Package” aimed at addressing the state’s housing shortage and high housing costs. The Housing Package Page 2 of 6 included the Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB 2) which provides funds available to local governments to update planning documents in order to streamline housing production. SB2 provides planning grants through a noncompetitive process to eligible local governments that meet the specified requirements. The City of Dublin is eligib le for a maximum of $310,000. Applications that propose projects in one of the State’s pre - determined priority policy areas are automatically deemed to accelerate housing production. Encouraging ADUs through actions above State law such as, outreach, fee waivers, pre-approved plans, website zoning clearance assistance, and other homeowner tools or finance tools is one of those pre-determined priority policy areas. Staff will bring back an item to the City Council in late summer/early fall to comply with t he requirements of this grant, including a recommendation to focus some of these grant funds on streamlining ADU production. Some of the policy items outlined in this staff report will inform that discussion. Streamline Accessory Dwelling Units ADUs have the potential to increase housing affordability (both for homeowners and tenants), create a wider range of housing options within the community, enable seniors to stay near family as they age, and facilitate better use of the existing housing in established neighborhoods. The City’s regulation of ADUs is consistent with current State law. ADUs are allowed in the single-family residential zoning district (R-1) and similar Planned Development zoning districts subject to certain development standards. Currently, there are approximately 185 accessory dwelling units in the City of Dublin – 122 of these are designated as below market rate units that were created by market rate developers as a method to satisfy their inclusionary zoning obligation. If the City were to go forward with the proposed SB 2 grant application, Staff would propose a work program in the grant that would further streamline the process for ADU permitting. The program would go beyond the requirements of State law and take a closer look at the City’s regulations, goals and policies in an effort to facilitate the construction of additional accessory dwelling units by homeowners. Table 1 below provides an overview of various opportunities to facilitate the production of ADUs for the City Council’s consideration. The projects included in the table would, through a variety of methods, encourage and streamline the development of ADUs. Table 1. Potential ADU Streamlining Projects PROJECT STATUS OF CITY POLICY NEW ELIMINATION MODIFICATION Architectural Prototypes X Building Permit Plans X Floor Plans for Garage Conversions X Impact Fee Reduction X Owner Occupancy Requirements X Parking Standards X Front Entry X Deed Restriction (affordability level) X Junior ADUs X Page 3 of 6 These potential projects are described in further detail below. Architectural Prototypes Pre-approved architectural plans for detached ADUs have the potential to save the homeowner money, expedite the permit process, and result in well -designed ADUs. This project would provide a range of prototypes that are pre -approved by the City, potentially eliminating any design fees encumbered by the property owner. The Pre-Approved Plans would be designed in a variety of sizes consistent with the development standards and regulations as provided in Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.80 and include, but not limited to: 1. 499 square foot detached structure 2. 1,200 square foot detached structure with identified alternative floor plans aimed to seamlessly reduce the size Building Permit Plans Similar to the architectural prototypes, this takes the concept one step further and involves the creation of construction-level documents which can be used for obtaining a building permit. Custom plans for an ADU can cost between $10,000 and $20,000, which adds significant additional cost to construction of an ADU. There may be liability issues associated with this opportunity that would be evaluated by the City Attorney’s Office and the City’s risk manager. Floor Plans for Garage Conversions While there are many ways to incorporate an ADU into an existing home, some find it desirable to convert the garage into living space since it does not disrupt the living space of the existing home. The use of pre-approved construction documents would eliminate the need for the City to complete a plan review prior to issuing a building permit thus saving the project proponent time and money preparing plans and paying to have the City review those plans. The City’s Municipal Code already address es garage conversions and allows for them through a ministerial process so long as two full -size unenclosed parking spaces will be available on the parcel following the conversion. Even through this process, there is time and money associated with the crea tion of construction plans and obtaining a building permit. This project would provide an efficient layout for an ADU in a standard two -car garage as well as structural review that can be applied to most homes within the City. Parking Standards State law generally prohibits cities from imposing parking requirements on ADUs that are located within one-half mile of public transit. Consistent with State law, the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires one off-street parking space be provided for second units located more than one-half mile from public transit, in addition to the two off -street parking spaces required for the existing single-family home. It is proposed to eliminate the off-street parking requirement for ADUs. In general, the reason for a parking requirement is to address concerns that inadequate parking may negatively impact a neighborhood. ADUs are only allowed on parcels with single -family Page 4 of 6 detached homes. These homes are required to have a two -car garage and a corresponding two car driveway for access. While it is possible that one of those parking spaces may be used by the occupant(s) of the second unit, it is assumed that the occupant of the ADU will utilize on-street parking if an additional off-street parking space is not provided. Impact Fees The payment of development impact fees may constitute a barrier for the construction of affordable housing. The City has discretion over some of the impact fees, but others such as water, sewer and school fees are imposed by outside agencies. Those impacts fees in which the City has direct control over are: ➢ Public Facilities Impact Fee ➢ Fire Impact Fee ➢ Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) ➢ Western Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (WDTIF) ➢ Dublin Crossing Transportation Fee ➢ Noise Mitigation Fee ➢ Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee ➢ Dublin Ranch West Side Storm Drain Benefit District ➢ Dublin Ranch East Side Storm Drain Benefit District The City Council could consider reducing impact fees for all ADUs or only for ADUs where the owner agrees to a deed restriction creating an affordable rental unit. In addition, the City Council could support a fee reduction for homeowner constructed ADUs and not for those constructed through the developer. Owner-occupied unit(s) The Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires owner-occupancy for the primary dwelling or the second unit. There are benefits and potential concerns with this requirement. The requirement creates an additional constraint which may be burdensome; however, such requirements could help preserve the residential character of the neighborhoods. Proposed AB 68, introduced early this year, would prohibit the City from imposing owner occupancy requirements. Given that this is difficult to enforce, and the Legislature is continuing to move towards reducing the requirements o n ADUs, the elimination of this requirement would certainly encourage the permitting of ADUs. Front entry The Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires that the front entry of a second unit is not visible from the street. This requirement is particularly difficult to satisfy on corner lots or where the second unit converts a portion of the front of the home or garage. After years of implementing the Ordinance, it does not appear that the benefits of this requirement outweigh any negative impacts. The best solution is to ensure that the entrance is well integrated into the design and architecture of the home, which may be in a location that is visible from the street. Visibility of the front entry is also an important tool in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design or CPTED which utilizes natural surveillance, walkways, lighting, and landscape to clearly guide people and vehicles to and from the proper entrances. An update to the City Ordinance reflecting the design goals for the front entry would resolve this issue. Page 5 of 6 Deed Restriction for Affordability Many jurisdictions link the allowable size of the ADU to the affordability level. While it is assumed that ADUs are “affordable by design”, the City does not restrict the affordability level of an ADU, with the exception of developer built ADUs that are intended to satisfy their Inclusionary Zoning requirement. For example, the Dublin Zoning Ordinance allows up to a maximum unit size of 1,200 square feet, which is the size of many modest homes in the Bay Area. The City could require ADUs over a specified size to be deed restricted to low or very low-income occupants. While this provision does not encourage the creation of an ADU itself, it does encourage the development smaller and more affordable ADUs. Junior ADUs State law creates another category of ADUs known as “Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.” Junior ADUs are small units created out of existing bedrooms. A JADU must have cooking facilities, including a sink, but is not required to have a private bathroo m. They bridge the gap between a roommate and a tenant by offering an interior connection between the unit and main living area. The doors between the two spaces can be secured from both sides, allowing them to be easily privatized or incorporated back into the main living area. These units share central systems, require no fire separation, and have a basic kitchen, utilizing small plug in appliances, thereby reducing development costs. State ADU Law is clear that cities can choose to allow Junior ADUs or not. However, if a city elects to allow them, the standards and criteria by which they can be evaluated are quite strict. These standards include: ➢ JADUs shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit for the purposes of fees and as a result shou ld not be charged a fee for providing water, sewer or power, including a connection fee. These requirements apply to all providers of water, sewer and power, including non -municipal providers. ➢ Owner occupancy is required ➢ No parking can be required ➢ Maximum size of 500 square feet ➢ Must be approved through a ministerial permit process. Other Policy Matters to Consider In addition to the policy areas above, there are several other ways in which ADUs are regulated; however, the current standard seems to provide enough flexibility so no changes in policy are suggested. They are provided below for your reference and possible discussion. Lot Coverage The allowable lot coverage in the R-1 Zoning district is 35% for two-story homes and 40% for single-story homes. If the property has an ADU, the allowable lot coverage is increased. The principal residence and second unit combined shall not cover more than 60% of the lot. No change is suggested. Required setbacks Generally speaking, an ADU is required to conform to the setback standards of the R-1 zoning district. For an attached ADU, the setback requirements are the same as the Page 6 of 6 primary dwelling requiring a rear setback of 20 feet and a side yard setback ranging from 5-10 feet. A detached ADU can be 3-5 feet from the rear and side property lines depending on the size of the lot. The distance of a detached accessory structure from any other structure on the same lot (including the primary dwelling) is determined by the Uniform Building Code. If all required setbacks were to be solely based on the Uniform Building Code, the setback requirements would be 0-5 feet from the property line and 6-10 feet from the primary dwelling. The setback range is based on various construction factors including the location of windows, fire sprinklers and the fire rating for exterior walls. Given that the existing setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are minimal, no change is suggested. Conclusion Staff is seeking direction from City Council on whether to pursue the policy matters as outlined in Table 1. More specifically: 1. Is the City Council willing to pursue all of them at this time? 2. Or, is the City Council wishing to exclude any of the items listed in Table 1 from future consideration? 3. Is the City Council interested in reviewing other policy matters, such as lot coverage and required setbacks at this time? ATTACHMENTS: None.