Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of July 24, 2018
Title
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 18-1 TO THE HERMOSA BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 17, TO ESTABLISH LOCAL
STANDARDS FOR STATE MANDATED ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS (ADU) IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
(Community Development Director Ken Robertson)
Body
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Recommendation
It is recommended that City Council:
1. Introduce the attached ordinance amending the text of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 17, to establish local standards for State mandated accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in residential zones, and making a determination that the project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2. Consider increased penalties for violations of the owner occupancy requirement.
3. Send a letter to the State legislature to oppose pending legislation that decreases local control over ADUs.
Body
Background:
At their meetings of May 15 and of June 25, 2018, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment and voted unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the amendment, with some modifications. The Commission also recommends that the Council consider increased penalties for violations of the owner occupancy requirement. Further, the Planning Commission recommends that the Council send a letter to the State legislature opposing the pending legislation that decreases local control over ADUs.
In 1992, the City added provisions to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) that effectively prohibit the creation of second units in single-family zones (with the exception of second units no larger than 640 square feet on lots greater than 8,000 square feet). Pursuant to the Government Code in effect at that time, authorization for such a prohibition was conditioned on findings acknowledging that such action may limit housing opportunities, as well as further findings that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare would result from allowing second units within the city. Because “second units” would negatively impact traffic, density, the school system, infrastructure, sewer, loss of open space, increased impervious surfaces, and increase of solid waste generation, the City established findings sufficient to prohibit “second units” under the state law provisions at that time.
California is now facing a state-wide housing crisis, with rising housing costs, and a shortage of affordable housing options. One of the State’s solutions to this crisis is to encourage accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) as a method of increasing the housing supply. To facilitate this approach, State laws related to ADUs went into effect January 2017 through adoption of AB 2299, SB 1069, and AB 2406 (JADUs) making significant changes to the manner in which local municipalities are required to regulate such units and replacing prior laws related to “second units”. These laws were further refined through the adoption of AB 494 and SB 229 which became effective January 2018. The goal of these new regulations is make local zoning codes more permissive in order to make it easier for owners of single-family residences to add ADUs.
The new State laws supersede the City’s existing prohibition of “second units.” Further, unless the City adopts its own “accessory dwelling unit” ordinance that complies with State standards, any applications for an ADU must be approved by the City pursuant to the new State laws. Since the new State ADU laws went into effect in January 2017, the City has received three applications for accessory dwelling units. One of the three applications has been approved thus far because it met the requirements of the State laws, and it was an application for a JADU.
The new State laws define an ADU as a secondary dwelling unit with complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and generally take three forms:
• Detached: the unit is separated from the primary structure
• Attached: the unit is attached to the primary structure
• Repurposed Existing Space: Space (e.g. master bedroom) within the primary residence is converted into an independent living unit.
JADUs are defined as ADUs that are no more than 500 square feet and are located within an existing single-family residence.
Included as attachments to this report is the full text of the State law for ADUs (State of California Government Code Section 65852.2) and JADUs (State of California Government Code Section 65852.22). The provisions of these State laws are summarized in the tables below.
These State laws allow local governments to take a variety of actions beyond these statutes that regulate ADUs. This can be accomplished through the adoption of a local ordinance that imposes reasonable development standards specific to ADUs, provided they do not overly burden the overall development of ADUs. For instance, the City can impose reasonable development standards that regulate parking, height, lot coverage, lot size, and maximum unit size, but it cannot regulate to the point where it would defeat the State law and discourage the creation of ADUs as additional housing stock for the region.
Planning Commission Review:
On May 15, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a draft ADU ordinance. The Commission asked staff to do some additional work and requested that additional public input be sought. Staff prepared a survey that was made available on the City’s community engagement platform, SpeakUpHermosa from May 17, 2018 through June 10, 2018. Access to the survey was provided via social media, the City’s website, the City’s June newsletter, and through the City’s e-notification system, where it was also noted that the Planning Commission would be considering ADUs at its June meeting.
In addition to providing the required public hearing notices, City staff reached out to the Easy Reader and Beach Reporter requesting their assistance with alerting the public, and both publications feature articles on this issue. Staff also reached out to the community for input via social media, the City’s website, the City’s June newsletter, and through the City’s e-notification system.
Analysis:
Staff researched action surrounding cities have taken thus far with regard to the new State law. It should be noted that some cities, i.e., Redondo Beach and Torrance, have allowed second units in their single-family residential zones, and therefore the new State law does not reflect as much of a change as it does for cities that do not allow second units. Redondo Beach Planning staff advises that they are developing their own ADU ordinance. Manhattan Beach Planning staff intends to create their own ADU ordinance in the near future. The City of El Segundo adopted an ADU ordinance tailored to address the needs and unique characteristics of their community. While their ordinance prohibits garage conversions, El Segundo staff notes that they are dealing with numerous complaints from property owners and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that the prohibition is not consistent with State law. It is not clear how the City of El Segundo will respond; nevertheless, state law is quite clear that garage conversions must be permitted. One of the basic purposes of the ADU laws is to allow conversion of existing structures to ADUs on lots where single family homes exist. According to HCD, the stated purpose is to streamline and expand potential for ADUs where impact is minimal and the existing footprint is not being increased. By way of example, state law requires that the City ministerially approve an application for an ADU in a single family residential zone if it is within an existing accessory structure, has independent access and has setbacks sufficient for fire safety. This language is provided as just one example of where the state law requires the City to approve garage conversions, as they are existing space that state law deems appropriate for an ADU. There are currently amendments proposed to the State law, and El Segundo City Council has asked their staff to prepare statements of opposition. More information on those bills can be found below.
The City’s survey that was made available from May 17, 2018 through June 10, 2018 received a total of 157 responses, which is considered a good response rate in comparison to previous surveys in Hermosa Beach. While 94% of the respondents identified themselves as current residents (84% property owners), the distribution of responses for residents and non-residents was the basically the same, so there was no need to break the analysis down based on residency. The detailed survey results are attached, and the summarized results are as follows:
1. 57% are not interested in building an ADU on their property.
2. 69% are not interested in living in an ADU built in Hermosa Beach.
3. 51% are not okay with their neighbor building an ADU.
4. 42% indicate the City should adopt the State law minimum requirements for ADUs/ADUs; 34% indicated the City should adopt some additional local requirements while still allowing the creation of additional smaller unit housing options; and 24% indicated the City should adopt the maximum requirements allowed by the State to minimize the number of new ADUs that may be developed.
5. 41% indicated 640 square feet is the appropriate maximum size building to accommodate an ADU; 21% don’t know,
6. 26% don’t know what would be the appropriate minimum size lot to accommodate an ADU; 23% indicated 4,000 square feet; 23% indicated 8,000 square feet; 10% indicated 6,000 square feet; and 18% indicated it should be some other size.
7. 68% indicated ADUs should be required to be architecturally compatible with the primary structure.
Currently, Hermosa Beach is almost 98% built out; it is the densest community in terms of housing and population in the South Bay and is 9th in terms of population density in Los Angeles County. These statistics have not significantly changed over the years. However, because the legislature has determined that ADUs can provide for additional housing stock, and the ability for cities to make findings to opt out of allowing ADUs has now been repealed, the City’s current ordinance banning accessory dwelling units must be amended in order to conform to State law.
In considering a draft ADU ordinance for Hermosa Beach, it is important to be mindful of the strong community desire that was expressed during the General Plan update process to maintain control of density due to the small sizes of residential lots and high population density, and to desire to preserve and maintain the character of predominantly single-family residential neighborhoods.
While the HCD does not certify ADU ordinances like it does with Housing Elements, local jurisdictions do submit draft ordinances for review and comments to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. City staff received HCD comments on the May 2018 draft ordinance and worked with the City Attorney’s office to respond to the comments accordingly.
Rather than allowing ADUs and JADUs only on single-family residential lots, the proposal is to permit ADUs and JADUs in both single-family and multiple-family residential zoned lots that are conforming to the City’s minimum lot size requirement of 4,000 square feet and which contain an existing or proposed single-family residence. For context, approximately 68% of the total land area is zoned residential. Approximately 51% of residential uses are single-family uses, 47% multiple-family uses and 2% mobile home uses. There are approximately 3,682 residentially zoned lots, of which approximately 1,589 are at least 4,000 square feet in size. Therefore, approximately 43% of the city’s residential lots would be potential candidates for an ADU or JADU. While the State doesn’t require a specific percentage of total housing stock to be potential candidates for an ADU/JADU, the State wants to ensure cities are encouraging rather than discouraging them. The proposed ordinance would not limit ADUs to R-1 zoned properties, because there are R-2 and R-3 properties in Hermosa Beach currently developed with a single-family unit, and allowing ADUs in those zones would increase the opportunity to provide ADUs in the community without exceeding the allowed number of units for those zoning districts.
The 4,000 square foot minimum lot size is recommended because that is the minimum lot size required to create a residential lot in Hermosa Beach, a size that was established many decades ago. It should be noted that 4,000 square feet is small compared to most other cities; for example, lots in Los Angeles are commonly 50 feet by 125 feet (6,250 square feet). The 4000 square feet provides a reasonable threshold that is consistent with the City’s generally applicable rules for development. Lots smaller than 4,000 square feet are difficult to develop properly by providing adequate space for health and safety amenities such as trash bins, the bins and trash often end up in the alley or street and create safety and health hazards. Similarly, development on smaller lots is more likely to create impacts related to noise, odor, vibration, privacy and quality of life. Under the State Law, ADUs are considered accessory to and part of a single- family home use. Therefore, if a single-family home can be built on a 4000 square foot lot, it can include an ADU.
The proposal also limits the size of ADUs to a maximum of 640 square feet. Hermosa Beach residential lots are relatively small in comparison to those of many cities in California. For context, the Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1 requires an efficiency unit for occupancy by no more than two persons is required to have a minimum floor area of 150 square feet and can also have partial kitchen or bathroom facilities. As previously noted, the housing density in the city is already very high compared to most cities, and many lots currently permit multi-family units. As such, providing a maximum ADU size of 640 square feet is reasonable and compatible to the city’s smaller lot sizes and existing density, and is consistent with the ADU being considered “accessory” to the main unit, providing more housing stock, while also minimizing impacts. Because this size is consistent with HBMC provisions that permitted second units no larger than 640 square feet on R-1 lots greater than 8,000 square feet, any such existing second units would be consistent with the City’s ADU ordinance.
The draft ordinance includes provisions indicating that ADUs are subject to the development standards of the zoning district in which they are located (i.e., maximum building height, maximum lot coverage, etc.), unless otherwise indicated in the ordinance. One such exception is that the ordinance prohibits roof decks on ADUs. Since the conversion of an existing accessory structure into an ADU is allowed without a requirement that the existing structure conform to the setback requirements of a habitable structure, the prohibition of roof decks on ADUs will prohibit noise impacts associated with a roof deck located too close to another residence.
With regard to parking, State law does not allow parking requirements to be imposed for any JADU, but allows parking requirements to be imposed for an ADU if it is located more than one-half mile from public transit. The law permits the local jurisdiction some discretion to define public transit. Nearby, the City of El Segundo exempts from parking ADUs within a half-mile of a transit stop, but does not define what constitutes a transit stop. The City of Carlsbad exempts from parking ADUs within half-mile of a major transit stop as defined by California Public Resources Code 21155(b), which indicates “major transit stop” is defined in Section 21064.3. “’Major transit stop’ means an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” There are four public transit lines in Hermosa Beach, and pursuant to that definition, currently there are no major transit stops in the city because, although two of the major bus routes have a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less, they do not intersect.
• Metro Line 438 stop at Hermosa & 2nd has some 15-minute intervals during portions of both AM & PM peak commute periods.
• Metro Line 232 stop at PCH & 9th has some 15-minute intervals during portions of both AM & PM peak commute periods.
• Metro Line 130 stop at PCH & Artesia has no 15-minute intervals during AM or PM peak commute periods.
• BCT Line 109 stops at Hermosa & 10th and Hermosa & 11th has no 15-minute intervals during AM or PM peak commute periods.
As one of its primary goals, the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) has been working diligently to get more transit access for the South Bay cities. Approximately 95% of Hermosa’s employed residents commute out of the city to work and 1.1% use public transit to commute. Until such time as there is adequate access to commuter transit lines, it makes sense to provide parking for ADUs since Hermosa residents and employees are unable to rely on transit to get to work. As such, the proposed ordinance now includes a provision to exempt from parking ADUs within a half-mile to a major transit stop as defined in Public Resources Code 21155(b). The City will require the applicant to demonstrate that parking is not required under this standard.
It should be noted that Hermosa Beach also has a large number of residential properties that are nonconforming to the HBMC regulations regarding the building and/or the use. State law is silent on ADUs on properties with nonconforming structures/uses. The City’s minimum lot size requirement is based on a 4,000 square foot minimum. To keep in line with the City’s regulations for single-family residences, the ordinance proposes that regulations with respect to nonconforming structures/uses for the primary structure be followed. It is not intended that adoption of the proposed ADU ordinance exempt the primary residence on the lot from complying with HCMC Section 17.52 regulations for nonconforming buildings and uses. For example, if a building is nonconforming to parking requirements, an ADU/JADU may be allowed, but will be limited to 100 square feet if less than one parking space is provided for the primary residence, and will be limited to 500 square feet if less than two parking spaces are provided for the primary residence. While this may impact the size of the ADU, it does not impact the ability to provide an ADU on the lot.
Both survey respondents and the Commission expressed an interest in requiring ADUs to be architecturally compatible with the primary residence, and the proposed ordinance does include such a provision.”
The following table summarizes the proposed ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission:
The ordinance also cleans up outdated references that are not consistent with the ADU ordinance.
Proposed Amendments to State ADU Law
Notwithstanding that the state law has been amended at least four times in the past two years, more bills are pending that would further limit local authority over ADUs. For example, SB 831 would do all of the following:
1. Revise the standards for the local ADU ordinance to, among other things, delete the authority to include lot coverage standards, include a prohibition on considering the square footage of a proposed ADU when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio or lot coverage ratio for the lot.
2. Require that a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit be approved or disapproved within 60 days and would specify that if a local agency does not act on an application for an accessory dwelling unit within 60 days, then the application shall be deemed approved.
3. Prohibit a local agency from requiring that off-street parking spaces be replaced when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit.
4. Prohibit another local ordinance, policy, or regulation from being the basis for the delay of the issuance of a building permit or use permit for an accessory dwelling unit.
5. Delete provisions authorizing a local agency to require owner occupancy by the permit applicant and would declare an agreement with a local agency to maintain owner occupancy as void and unenforceable.
6. Prohibit an ADU from being considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating fees charged for new development, except in certain circumstances when a new or separate utility connection between the ADU and the utility may be required and except for certain fees charged by a school district that the bill would limit to $3,000 per accessory dwelling unit.
7. Require the local ADU ordinance to designate areas where accessory dwelling units may be excluded for health and safety purposes, as specified.
8. Authorize the HCD, upon submission of an adopted ADU ordinance, to submit written findings to the local agency regarding whether the ordinance complies with statutory provisions.
AB 2890 also proposes changes to local authority related to ADUs. This bill would prohibit the imposition of lot coverage standards or requirements on minimum lot size, lot coverage, or floor area ratio, and would prohibit an ordinance from establishing size requirements for accessory dwelling units that do not permit at least an 800 square foot unit of at least 16 feet in height to be constructed.
The League of California Cites has opposed these bills.
Three other ADU bills (AB 2939, SB 431 and SB 1469) were proposed this year; but, have died in their various legislative committees and will not proceed. Given the interest in Sacramento with ADUs as a potential solution to the housing crisis, we may see more bill proposals next legislative cycle. Staff will monitor the proposed legislation.
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council send a letter to the State legislature to oppose pending legislation that decreases local control over ADUs.
General Plan Consistency:
PLAN Hermosa (the City’s combined General Plan and Local Coastal Program) was recently adopted in August 2017. In developing policies for the PLAN, community feedback was strong regarding the need to maintain control of density due to the small sizes of residential lots and high population density. Land Use policies that reflect this need include:
• LU 2.2 Variety of types of neighborhoods. Encourage preservation of existing single density neighborhoods within the city and ensure that neighborhood types are dispersed throughout the city.
• LU 2.4 Single density neighborhoods. Preserve and maintain the Hermosa Hills, Eastside, Valley, North End, and Hermosa View Neighborhoods as predominantly single-family residential neighborhoods.
The General Plan also contains policies which encourage balanced neighborhoods and a diversity of building types, including:
• LU 2.6 Diversity of building types and styles. Encourage a diversity of building types and styles in areas designed for multi-family housing ranging from duplex/triplex/fourplex to courtyard housing to multi-family housing projects.
• LU 2.3 Balanced neighborhoods. Promote a diverse range of housing unit types and sizes, within the allowed densities.
The City’s General Plan Housing Element, updated in 2012, is effective from 2013-2021 and identifies strategies and programs that focus on: 1) providing diverse housing sites and opportunities; 2) conserving and improving the existing affordable housing stock; 3) removing governmental and other constraints to housing development; and 4) promoting equal housing opportunities. The Housing Element contains a specific policy to encourage removal of governmental and other constraints:
• Policy 4.4 The City will continue to evaluate its Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and remove governmental constraints related to development standards. These may include, but not be limited to, parking requirements, allowing affordable housing on commercial sites, new standards for mixed-use development, lot consolidation incentives, and senior housing requirements.
Given the mandates of the new State law and the community’s desire to maintain control of density due to small lot sizes and high population density, the proposed ordinance strives to create a balanced approach to meet the State requirements and remove governmental restraints related to development standards, while recognizing the unique attributes of the community. This approach includes design standards that address both state requirements and community needs by implementing regulations such as minimum lot sizes, maximum ADU/JADU size, and maximum number of ADU/JADU per lot. Further, the state law expressly states that:
(8) An accessory dwelling unit that conforms to this subdivision shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. Cal. Gov't Code § 65852.2.
As such, the proposed ordinance is consistent with the General Plan.
Environmental Analysis:
Under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of section 65852.2 of the Government Code, which is the State Accessory Dwelling Unit law. Therefore, the proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the proposed ordinance implements the State accessory dwelling unit law.
PENALTIES:
Violations of the ADU ordinance would result in an administrative citation. The associated penalty for most administrative citations is $100 as established by the penalty schedule for administrative fines. However, certain administrative citations are subject to higher penalties, such as citations for violations of the Social Host Ordinance and violations of the ordinance requiring rental of residential properties (aka short-term vacation rentals or STVRs) for a minimum of 30 days.
At its June 25th meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concern that a $100 penalty would be an insufficient to deter violations of the owner occupancy requirement of the ordinance and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council consider increased penalties for violations of the owner occupancy requirement. One suggestion made was to consider implementing penalties similar to those for violations of the Social Host Ordinance or STVR ordinance. With respect to the Social Host Ordinance, fines were based on fines imposed by other cities, with the intent that the fines be high enough to serve as a strong deterrent. For STVRs, the penalties are roughly commensurate to rates advertised for a weekend at a STVR property at or near the beach. Those penalties are as follows:
Staff requests that the Council provide direction on what penalties are preferred, and staff will report back with an amendment to the master fee schedule.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Summary:
Until and unless the City adopts its own ADU ordinance that complies with State standards, any applications for an ADU must be reviewed/approved by the City pursuant to the new allowances under recently adopted State laws. Given the mandates of the new State law and the community’s desire to maintain control of density due to small lot sizes and high population density, the proposed ordinance strives to create a balanced approach to meet the State requirements and remove governmental restraints related to development standards, while recognizing the unique attributes of the community through design standards that are intended to minimize negative impacts.
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Resolution
3. Link to Planning Commission Meeting of 5-15-18
4. Link to Planning Commission Meeting of 6-25-18
5. Link to HBMC Section 17.52 Nonconforming Buildings and Uses
6. Link to HCD Technical Assistance Memo regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
7. Link to Government Code Section 65852.2 - Accessory Dwelling Units
8. Link to Government Code Section 65852.22 - Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
9. Map identifying Hermosa Beach residentially zoned lots 4,000 square feet or greater
10. Results of City’s survey on ADUs
11. Link to California Public Resources Code 21155 regarding distance from major transit stop
12. Link to California Public Resources Code 21064.3 regarding definition of major transit stop
13. Link to Hermosa Beach Bus Route information
Respectfully Submitted by: Kim Chafin, Planning Manager
Concur: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director
Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney
Approved: John Jalili, Interim City Manager