Loading...
2019-03-12 (Planning Commission Study Session Memo)To: Chair Hernandez and Planning Commissioners Date: March 12, 2019 From: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Via: Paul Kermoyan, Community Development Director Subject: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance Update (PLN2017-375) Planning Commission Study Session BACKGROUND Accessory dwelling units (ADU)—previously termed secondary dwelling units—have been allowed since the 1982 adoption of the Mello Act. The current regulatory environment was established with the passage Senate Bill (SB) 1069 and Assembly Bill (AB) 2299 in 2016. This legislative package required local jurisdictions to adopt new ADU provisions to ease parking requirements, increase unit sizes, remove fire sprinkler requirements, and simplify garage conversions. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2216 on December 16, 2016 to incorporate new Chapter 21.23 (Accessory Dwelling Units) consistent with State law. A second round of legislation (SB 229 and AB 494) was signed into law in October 2017 that clarified and further eased requirements for construction of ADUs, specifically: •Clarifies an ADU can be created through the conversion of a garage, carport or coveredparking structure. •Requires special districts and water corporations to charge a proportional fee scale based upon the ADUs size or its number of plumbing fixtures. •Requires ADUs be allowed in any zoning district where a single-family residence is permitted. •Reduces the maximum number of parking spaces for an ADU to one space. •Allows replacement parking spaces to be located in any configuration, as a result, of a parking structure conversion to an ADU. •Authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development to review and comment on ADU ordinances. •Defines the term "tandem parking" to mean two or more automobiles. In response to this legislation, as well as an October 17, 2017 City Council appeal hearing pertaining to a proposed "garage conversion", staff was directed to prepare an ordinance update to make the necessary revisions. A narrowly tailored ordinance update was presented to the Planning Commission on February 15, 2018. Many residents offered testimony regarding the need to reduce the minimum lot size (which is not a State mandate). Some felt it should be reduced to 8,000 square-feet while others felt it should be reduced even lower. The Commission asked staff to research the ADU policies of other area cities so they could understand how neighboring communities addressed this issue. MEMORANDUM Community Development Department Planning Division ITEM NO. 5 Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 2 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units. However, the Council requested that this matter be agenized for a public discussion so that specific direction could be provided to the Planning Commission on the minimum lot size requirement. The study session was held on June 5, 2018, wherein the Council provided guidance that the 10,000 square-foot minimum lot size was too high, with some Council Members commenting that no minimum should considered. The Council also asked to look at other variables such as unit size and open space. Nevertheless, no specific direction was provided leaving staff with the responsibility of researching how best to address the most appropriate minimum lot size. Following the Council meeting staff prepared a comprehensive rewrite of the ADU ordinance that was presented to the Planning Commission on November 27, 2018 (reference Attachment 1 –Staff Report). In response to public comment and Commission questions at the meeting, the public hearing was continued so that staff could conduct research on various development standards (e.g., setbacks, 2nd-story ADUs, etc.), an alternate affordable housing incentive, and Junior ADUs. Staff indicated that a study session would be scheduled so that the Commission may form a consensus on standards and requirements to be incorporated into a revised ordinance. Since that time, staff continues to process permit submittals for ADUs. In the last year, a dozen applications were submitted, and since the beginning of this year, an additional seven applications were received. DISCUSSION The following discussion provides a comprehensive overview of the potential standards and restrictions that may be applied to construction of ADUs, as well as a discussion on a below- market-rate (BMR) incentive, Junior ADU options, and potential creation of a broader ADU development policy. Development Standards Minimum Lot Size: At its June 5, 2018 study session, the Council indicated that the current 10,000 square-foot lot size is too high and was willing to reduce it and possibly eliminate it so long as there were "other controls" in place, such as Floor Area Ration (FAR), Lot Coverage, Minimum Open Space, etc. Options Descriptions Option 1 No Minimum Lot Size Simple elimination of the minimum lot size, as previously recommended by staff, would maximize the number of properties eligible to construct an ADU Option 2 6,000 Square- Foot Minimum Lot Size If the Commission believes eliminating the minimum lot size is too permissive, establishment of a 6,000 square-foot minimum lot size could be considered. This would create consistency with the City's residential zoning districts, none of which have a minimum lot size of less than 6,000 square- feet. Staff Note: The disadvantage of this option would be similar to the current 10,000 square-foot minimum lot size. There will always be properties that do not quite satisfy the minimum lot size, the owners of which inevitably will claim to be disenfranchised. Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 3 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units. Maximum ADU Size: State law allows ADUs to be constructed up to 1,200 square-feet or 50% of the primary dwelling's living area if attached or interior, whichever is less. The City's current standards comply with this limitation by tying the size of the ADU to the lot area as shown below: Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Maximum Size (Sq. Ft.) 10,000-10,999 700 11,000-11,999 800 12,000-12,999 900 13,000-13,999 1,000 14,000-14,999 1,100 15,000 or greater 1,200 However, with the elimination or reduction of the minimum lot size, the Commission must consider whether the size of the ADU should continue to be tied to lot area in some manner, be limited by some other metric, or simply be controlled by the development standards of the zoning district: Options Descriptions Option 1(a) Tiered by Lot Size If the Commission wishes to generally maintain the existing size limitation, the current tiering could be expanded by including an additional tier that would allow lots under 10,000 square-feet to have an ADU of no greater than 600 square-feet: Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Maximum Size (Sq. Ft.) >10,000 600 10,000-10,999 700 11,000-11,999 800 12,000-12,999 900 13,000-13,999 1,000 14,000-14,999 1,100 15,000 or greater 1,200 Option 1(b) Tiered by Lot Size The Commission could also establish a new tiering structure if the 15,000 square-foot top tier is deemed too high. For instance, the following table would allow a maximum sized ADU (1,200 square-feet) on a 12,000 square- foot lot and tier downward: Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Maximum Size (Sq. Ft.) > 6,000 500 6,000-6,999 600 7,000-7,999 700 8,000-8,999 800 9,000-9,999 900 10,000-10,999 1,000 11,000-11,999 1,100 12,000 or greater 1,200 Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 4 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units. Options Descriptions Staff Note: This option could also incorporate a smaller maximum size than 1,200 square-feet. For example, San Jose's top tier is 900 square-feet for lots larger than 10,000 square-feet. Option 2 State Maximum Allow an ADU up to the State maximum of 1,200 square-feet, as may be limited by the applicable Floor Area Ratio (FAR), lot coverage, and open space requirements of the property's zoning district, irrespective of lot area. Staff Note: Certain P-D (Planned Development) zoned properties in the South Downtown neighborhood do not have specific development standards, which would effectively allow a maximum sized ADU (1,200 square feet) irrespective of how large the primary dwelling is and/or whether other structures exist on the property, such as a detached garage, unless specific restrictions were established. Option 3 Local Maximum Similar to Option 2 (State Maximum), the City could establish its own local maximum size irrespective of lot area. For example, Mountain View and Sunnyvale have a maximum size of 700 square-feet. Staff Note: This option would be a return to the format that previously existed prior to 2016 when the City imposed a flat maximum size of 640 square-feet. Option 4 Proportional to Lot Area Restrict the size of the ADU relative to the size of the lot. For instance, Cupertino specifies the maximum size shall be no greater than 10% of the lot area. Such an approach maintains a relationship between lot area and ADU size, similar to Option 1 (Tiered Approach), but at a more granular scale. Staff Note: Because the size of an ADU would be so closely linked to lot area, staff would likely have to require boundary surveys for many properties to verify the exact lot size to determine the allowable ADU size, at the homeowner's expense. Option 5 Proportional to Primary Dwelling Limit the size to the percentage of the primary dwelling's living area. For instance, San Mateo County limits the maximum size to 750 square-feet or 35% of the primary dwelling's existing or proposed living area, whichever is larger, up to a maximum of 1,200 square-feet (requiring a 3,428 square-foot primary dwelling to maximize the size of the ADU). Staff Note: Similar to Option 4 (Proportional to Lot Area), staff would likely need to require measured floor plans of the primary dwelling to verify the existing size to determine the allowable ADU size, at the homeowner's expense. This option may also be seen as unfair to homeowners with smaller homes who would be disadvantaged. Primary Dwelling Type: Currently and as previously recommended by staff, the ability to construct an ADU would be limited to residential properties developed with a single detached single-family dwelling as the property's "primary dwelling". However, if the Commission wished to expand the ability to create an ADU, the definition of "primary dwelling" could be broadened, as noted below: Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 5 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units. Options Descriptions Option 1 Detached Single- Family As noted, only properties with a single detached single-family dwelling could construct an ADU, excluding P-D (Planned Development) properties that have already been developed with more than one primary dwelling unit. Option 2 Detached Single-Family and Townhomes In addition to single-family dwellings, attached townhome dwellings could also be afforded the ability to create an interior ADU (i.e., due to lot size and physical limitations such ADUs would need to be created from the existing rooms). Staff Note: Since all townhome developments are governed by CC&R documents, the ability to create an interior ADU would be contingent on securing Homeowner's Association (HOA) approval. State law does not prohibit any such private restrictions from being enforced. Setbacks: Another key consideration has been the establishment of new setback standards for ADUs. Historically, the City has required that ADUs comply with the setback standards applicable to the primary dwelling. However, this has created a significant burden in the San Tomas Area due to the 20- to 25-foot rear setback and 8- to 10-foot side setback requirements established by the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. For this reason, staff had previously recommended establishment of uniform setbacks for detached ADUs based on those adopted in Campbell Village Area Neighborhood Plan. In addition to reducing an existing constraint, it would also simplify the regulation of ADUs by creating City-wide uniformity. However, some residents expressed concern that the recommended standards were still too burdensome. The following table provides a comparison between current standards, the previous recommended standards, and a more permissive alternate option based in part on community feedback. Note that more permissive setbacks would not apply to the properties subject to the Campbell Village Area Neighborhood Plan, which incorporates its own standards that would supersede those adopted by a new ADU ordinance. The City Council would need to authorize an Amendment to the Neighborhood Plan to create City-wide uniformity, which they have not done. Development Standard Current Standards Previous Staff Recommendation Alternate (Permissive) Option Setbacks Front The same standard as for the primary dwelling The same standard as for the primary dwelling Rear 10 feet 5 feet Interior Sides 5 feet 5 feet Street Side 12 feet 5 feet Building Separation Behind Distance equal to building wall height of the taller of the two structures 10 feet 5 feet Side 5 feet 5 feet Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 6 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units. As requested by the Planning Commission, staff prepared various "fit plans" illustrating potential differences between the previous staff recommendation and the alternate option with regard to setbacks and building separation requirements. The fit plans are presented in four scenarios for "typical" properties found in the San Tomas Area (which would see the most significant changes) developed with average-sized homes. Two scenarios assume R-1-6 zoned, 6,000 square-foot lots (100-ft x 60-ft) and two others R-1-10 zoned, 10,000 square-foot lots (125-ft x 80-ft), with either attached or detached garages: Scenario 1 – 6,000 SQ FT Lot w/ Attached Garage (reference Attachment 2) Scenario 2 – 6,000 SQ FT Lot w/ Detached Garage (reference Attachment 3) Scenario 3 – 10,000 SQ FT Lot w/ Attached Garage (reference Attachment 4) Scenario 4 – 10,000 SQ FT Lot w/ Detached Garage (reference Attachment 5) The fit plans reveal that for the 10,000 square-foot lots, either the previous staff recommendation or the alternate option would allow a maximum sized ADU of up 1,200 square-feet with an attached garage while maintaining consistency with the applicable FAR, lot coverage, and open space requirements. In other words, simply due to the size of a 10,000 square-foot lot, either set of standards would allow maximization of development, in both the attached or detached garage scenarios. However, on smaller 6,000 square-foot lots the effect of the lesser lot area is more pronounced than that of the development standards. For instance, the largest ADU that could reasonably be constructed on a property with a primary dwelling with an attached garage is approximately 800 square-feet simply due to the FAR and Lot Coverage requirements. Similarly, on properties with detached garages, the need to maintain the minimum amount of open space (750 square-feet) further reduces the effective maximum size of an ADU to approximately 500 square-feet. Ultimately, the fit plan exercise demonstrates that the previous staff recommendations would not create an undue burden on development ADUs, although the alternate standards would provide greater flexibility in terms of ADU placement and configuration. However, a rear setback of 10- feet may provide more a functional rear yard/patio area for the ADU than a 5-foot setback and also provide a greater sense of privacy for abutting properties. This option is contrary to public comment that contended that such a setback would create "dead space" behind the ADU. Garage Size Restriction: Staff's previous recommendation would have placed a de-facto restriction of 400 square-feet for a garage attached to an ADU. This proposal was intended to maintain a proportional relationship between an ADU and attached garage. Some cities have taken a similar or more restrictive approach, such as Mountain View who restricts garages to 200 square-feet, while others simply include uninhabitable area in the allowable ADU size maximum. However, some community members have argued that 400 square-feet is not sufficient to accommodate a two-car garage. Although staff disagrees with this assertion, the status quo has not resulted in any indefinable harm such that a specific restriction may not be necessary. Even without a specific restriction, the size of a garage would nonetheless be restrained by the FAR and Lot Coverage maximums. Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 7 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units. Options Descriptions Option 1 No Restriction Maintain the status quo of allowing attached garages to be as large as the FAR and Lot Coverage would allow. Option 2 Specific Restriction The Commission may recommend a specific size restriction for an attached garage, such as staff's recommendation for 400 square-feet or a smaller or larger size, as the Planning Commission deems appropriate. Height: Historically, and in previous draft ordinances, the City has permitted ADUs at a maximum height of 14-feet consistent with the standard for other detached structures such as garages and workshops. However, as reflected in the development standard comparison table (reference Attachment 6), the height maximum can be increased. Generally speaking, increased height provides greater interior volume that can make an ADU feel "roomier," and also allow for more sunlight due to higher window placement. Of course, a taller structure is also more evident from neighboring properties. Options Descriptions Option 1 Current Standard Maintain the maximum 14-foot height standard. Option 2 Taller Height An increase in building height could be permitted and tied to a proportionally greater side and rear setbacks, in the same manner that the City controls the height other structures. Consistent with other cities, staff would encourage a maximum height of no greater than 16- to 18-feet. Option 3 Relative to Primary Dwelling The height of the ADU could be restricted by requiring the roof pitch to match the predominant roof pitch of the primary dwelling. In this manner, the maximum height would be defined by the building's width in combination with the roof pitch to create a proportional relationship between the dwellings. Second-Story: Some Commissioners expressed openness to allowing a second-story option for an ADU. The following (not-mutually exclusive) options may be considered, however, it must be noted that State law prohibits establishment of a setback greater than 5-feet for an ADU "that is constructed above a garage". Options Descriptions Option 1 Existing Second- Story Area The least impactful option would be to allow an ADU to be created from a primary dwelling's existing second-story living area. Since the second-story would already be in existence, it would comply with the applicable setbacks such that the State's 5-foot restriction would not be applicable. Staff Note: State law requires these ADUs to have "independent exterior access from the existing residence" such that an exterior stairway up to the ADU would be required. Option 2 New Second- Story Area An ADU could be permitted as a second-story addition to an existing primary dwelling. However, to bypass the State's 5-foot setback maximum, the allowance for a second-story ADU addition would have to be restricted to areas not above a garage. As noted above, an exterior stairway would also be required. Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 8 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units. Options Descriptions Option 3 Detached above Garage An ADU could be allowed above an existing or proposed detached garage at a five-foot setback. A corresponding height maximum would also need to be established, somewhere in the range of 22- to 28-feet. The height could be restricted by the height of the primary dwelling such that this option may only be utilized on a property with a two-story primary dwelling. Staff Note: An exterior stairway would generally be required, unless sufficient space exists inside the garage to allow creation of an interior stairway. Option 4 (Not Allowed) The Commission may recommend that ADUs on second-stories continue to be prohibited. Placement: As compared to accessory structures, the City has not generally limited the placement of an ADU relative to the lot or the primary dwelling. This means that an ADU can be constructed in front of, to the side, or behind the primary dwelling so long as the setback and separation standards are complied with. Staff's previous recommendations would have required that ADUs be located to the side or rear of the primary dwelling. This was intended to minimize visibility of the ADU as to maintain the "ancillary" nature of the ADU as well as to achieve a consistent development pattern along the street. Options Descriptions Option 1 No Restriction Since there is not an identified example where placement of an ADU has been found to be problematic, continuing the status quo may be appropriate in order to provide maximum flexibility to homeowners. Option 2 Behind and/or Side of the Primary Dwelling Staff's previous recommendation would prohibit an ADU from being placed in front of the primary dwelling. A stricter version of this option would require the ADU to be placed behind the primary dwelling to significantly minimize its visibility. However, such a restriction could limit the ability of a homeowner to create an ADU if the primary dwelling is unusually sited on the property. Option 3 Rear Half of the Lot A third option would be restricting the placement of an ADU to the rear half of the lot in the same manner the City governs detached garages and workshops. This would establish a spatial relationship between the lot and ADU rather than to the primary dwelling. Design Requirements: Staff had previously recommended elimination of design standards for detached ADUs for various reasons as noted in the November 27, 2018 staff report (reference Attachment 1). However, Commissioner Ching raised a valid point that if ADUs are to be allowed in the front of the house, then there probably is a need for design requirements if the City wishes to avoid poorly-designed ADUs. As such, a decision on potential design standards is directly related to the allowable placement of an ADU. Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 9 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units. Options Descriptions Option 1 (a) No Standards Citywide If ADUs are limited to the rear of lot and/or the primary dwelling, design standards could be eliminated entirely. Option 1 (b) No Standards Select Areas The City only regulates the design of homes in certain neighborhoods (i.e., San Tomas, Campbell Village, and Downtown). In other neighborhoods, a property owner may design their home however they wish so long as it complies with applicable setbacks, FAR, etc. In this regard, design requirements could be eliminated only those neighborhoods where the City does not regulate design. Option 2 Match the Primary Dwelling If ADUs are continued to be allowed in front of and/or the side of the primary dwelling, design standards could be established. Since design standards should be objectively defined, they would effectively require duplicating the appearance of the primary dwelling in terms of building form, roof pitch colors, and materials. Staff Note: This approach would significantly limit the ability of homeowners to utilize lower-cost prefabricated structures or design for the future in anticipation of construction of a new primary dwelling. Parking: SB 229 and AB 494 reduced the maximum number of parking spaces for a detached ADU to one space per unit or bedroom, whichever is less (except for certain limited circumstances where no parking is required). Currently, the City requires one space per bedroom, which requires the City to revise its parking requirement in some manner. Options Descriptions Option 1 Eliminate the Parking Requirement Since State law allows an existing or new driveway to satisfy the parking requirement, a parking requirement is now largely hypothetical. As most properties have a driveway, creation of an ADU would not generally require creation of an actual parking space unless a homeowner desired one. As such, eliminating the parking requirement outright may be seen as simply acknowledging this reality. Option 2 Conform to State Law As staff had previously recommended, the Commission may recommend modifying the parking requirement to one space per unit or bedroom, whichever is less, consistent with the maximum allowed by State law. Option 3 Require Parking in Limited Circumstances A compromise option could be to require parking only when the primary dwelling does not have its requisite two parking stalls, as Cupertino has implemented. Thus, if the primary dwelling has no parking or only one space the homeowner would either need to bring the primary dwelling into compliance or provide a parking space for the ADU. Staff Note: This approach may be viewed as inconsistent with Legislature's intent that cities treat ADUs as normal residential land use. In this regard, if the City would allow an addition without regard to existing parking, construction of an ADU should be given the same consideration Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 10 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units. Additional Discussion Areas Junior ADU: State Law provides for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU), which are quasi- independent living units created from a bedroom within an existing residence. A JADU is differentiated from an ADU by the lack of a private bathroom, but is required to have a small kitchenette. Further, State law limits the size of an ADU to no more than 500 square-feet and prohibits imposition of a parking requirement (reference Attachment 7 – HCD FAQ). In effect, a JADU provides homeowners the ability to take on a roommate with a greater degree of privacy without having to construct a fully independent dwelling. In the context of providing additional housing options, JADUs do not have a discernable downside in as much as they provide for greater housing choices. Options Descriptions Option 1 Prohibit ADUs State law does not require cities to allow JADUs. If the Commission does not believe that they are necessary they do not need to be allowed. Option 2 Allow either an ADU and JADU If the Commission wishes to allow JADUs, the Commission may recommend that either a JADU or an ADU be permitted, but not both. Of the cities that have allowed JADUs, nearly all have taken this approach. Option 3 Allow both an ADU and JADU The City may allow creation of both a JADU and ADU on the same property to maximize the degree of housing choice. Staff's inquiries have revealed the cities of Santa Rosa, Encinitas, and Sausalito have implemented this option. Below-Market-Rate (BMR) Incentive: The draft ordinance previously considered by the Planning Commission would have tied the allowable size of an ADU to a below-market-rate (BMR) incentive. Under the proposed standard, a homeowner would have been allowed a 700 square-foot (1 bedroom/1 bathroom) ADU by right. However, allowance for a larger ADU, up to 1,200 square-feet (2 bedrooms/2 bathrooms), would have been predicated on the homeowner voluntary deed restricting the ADU as a "lower-income" BMR unit. At the public hearing, residents and some members of the Planning Commission expressed concern that restricting the rental rates as a BMR unit would make constructing an ADU cost prohibitive. There was also a concern that income restrictions for occupants of a BMR ADU could potentially displace family members in certain situations. As requested, staff performed research on the financial implications of this approach. This research involved a return-on-investment comparison between construction of a market-rate 700 square-foot (1-bedroom) ADU to an 1,200 square-foot (2-bedroom) BMR ("lower-income") ADU, taking into account prevailing construction cost, market- and below-market-rate rental rates, and estimated loan cost amortized over 15 years (i.e., the typical term for a home equity loan).1 Based on this analysis, it is evident that even taking into account the higher amount of rent permitted for a larger size 2-bedroom ADU unit, the delta between construction/financing and restricted BMR rent would result in an ongoing monthly loss for the period of financing. 1This research involved identifying comparable ADUs for rental comparison, contacting various construction companies for estimated per/sq. ft. construction cost which was compared to the City's permit valuations, and accounting for various "soft cost" including design, permit, school, and park fees. Financing cost assumed home equity loans of $200,000 and $300,000 for a 700 sq. ft. and 1,200 sq. ft. ADU, respectively, at a 6.5% interest rate. Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 11 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units. Metric 700 SF (1-Bed) Market-Rate ADU 1,200 SF (2-Bed) BMR Unit Construction Cost $210,000 $336,000 Monthly Rent $2,500 $1,470 Average Monthly Financing Cost $1,575 $2,200 Monthly Gain/(Loss) $925 $(720) As an alternative, the Commission may wish to consider linking a BMR incentive to the existing owner-occupancy requirement. Currently and as previously proposed, a homeowner may only rent either the primary dwelling or the ADU at any given time. The other dwelling unit must either be owner-occupied or remain unoccupied. The intent of this restriction is to maintain an ADU as an accessory component of the primary dwelling, not to facilitate speculative development. However, the ability to be relieved from this restriction would provide homeowners the ability to retain their property should they need to move, which otherwise would not generally be possible.2 Elimination of this restriction would then be advantageous to the homeowner by providing flexibility that had not previously existed while creating a BMR unit that could potentially count towards the City's Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) obligation. This approach has several advantages over staff's previous recommendation: •Is entirely voluntary without imposition of a new restriction(s); •May be requested by a homeowner any time, not just at time of building permit issuance, allowing greater flexibility; •Can be applied to existing and future ADUs; and •Would be more financially viable since the market-rate rent of the primary dwelling would effectively subsidize the affordable BMR rent for the ADU. The City of Santa Rosa has recently implemented this incentive program with some success. In the year since it has been in effect, the City has executed six 30-year affordability contracts. The primary downside would be the increased oversight obligation necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable occupancy restrictions for both contracted properties and non-contracted properties alike. In terms of the concern that family members could be potentially forced to vacate a BMR unit if their income should exceed the State limit, Santa Rosa staff did indicate that their contracts have an opt-out clause should the homeowner wish to terminate the contract and resume occupancy of the property. However, such a provision would prevent the BMR ADUs from counting as affordable housing units for the City's RHNA obligation. ADU Development Policy: Creation of ADUs will generally be a minor component of housing production since their construction reflects the financial capacity of individual property owners. Although numerous homeowners may wish to construct an ADU, many will be unable to do so simply because of the cost of construction. In comparison, larger projects benefit from economies of scale that allow developers to construct housing at a lower cost-basis than individual homeowners. 2 Peterson, K. (2018) Backdoor Revolution. Portland, OR: Accessory Dwelling Strategies, LLC. Planning Commission Study Session – March 12, 2019 Page 12 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Units. As such, the Commission may wish to consider exploring whether new multi-unit projects over a certain size (e.g., 5-10 homes or more) should be required to include ADUs, in either an ordinance or adopted policy. Some developers, such as Lennar (Next Gen – Home within a Home), have already begun to do this. Such an approach would effectively double the number of housing units produced with new subdivision projects without. In addition to increasing the value of the new housing projects (a positive from a developer's perspective), the potential rental income from an ADU may also facilitate mortgage financing since prospective buyers may be able to point to future rent as a source of income. A variation of this concept, should a regulatory requirement be deemed too burdensome, would be to require certain housing projects to make the new units "ADU ready," such that the homes designed and outfitted with the requisite infrastructure (i.e., plumbing, electrical, etc.) to accommodate an ADU. In this manner, even if a developer opts not to construct an ADU with the initial construction, a future homeowner could create the ADU at a significantly lower cost. Fire Sprinkler Requirements: To lessen the cost of construction for ADUs, State law specifies that "accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence". Unfortunately, that language has not been entirely effective in relieving property owners from being required to provide fire sprinklers in new ADUs by the County Fire District, who has taken a conservative interpretation of this provision. However, since the fire sprinkler requirements are adopted locally the City may modify them for further clarity. The key component of this issue is the ability for Fire to access or serve the ADU. A future ordinance should include language that clearly explains when fire sprinklers are or are not required. Park Impact Fees: Currently, construction of an ADU incurs payment of a one-time park impact fee about approximately $7,500. Whether this fee remains appropriate—or whether it should be applied to JADUs—will be discussed as part of the comprehensive park fee study that is currently underway. It anticipated that the City Council will adopt a new park fee program before the end of the fiscal year. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 27, 2018 2.Fit Plan Scenario 1 – 6,000 SF Lot w/ Attached Garage 3.Fit Plan Scenario 2 – 6,000 SF Lot w/ Detached Garage4.Fit Plan Scenario 3 – 10,000 SF Lot w/ Attached Garage5.Fit Plan Scenario 4 – 10,000 SF Lot w/ Detached Garage 6. Development Standards Comparison 7. JADU Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report ∙ November 27, 2018 PLN2017-375 Zoning Code Amendment Public Hearing to consider a City-initiated Zoning Code Amendment (PLN2017-375) to amend Titles 18, 20, and 21 of the Campbell Municipal Code relating to the permitting, construction, affordability, and usage of accessory dwelling units. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following action: 1.Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), recommending that the City Council adoptan ordinance to amend Titles 18, 20, and 21 of the Campbell Municipal Code relating to the permitting, construction, affordability, and usage of accessory dwelling units. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Adoption of the proposed ordinance is Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21080.17 which exempts the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county to implement the provisions of Section 65852.1 or Section 65852.2 of the Government Code relating to the construction of accessory dwelling units. DISCUSSION Background: On December 16, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2216 to incorporate new Chapter 21.23 (Accessory Dwelling Units) into the City's Zoning Code. This chapter provided new provisions for construction of accessory dwelling units (ADU) in compliance with mandatory State legislation adopted in 2016 that eased parking requirements, increased allowable unit sizes, removed fire sprinkler requirements in some cases, and simplified garage conversions. Additional legislation signed into law in 2017, now codified in California Government Code Section 65852.2 (reference Attachment 2), clarified and further eased requirements for construction of accessory dwelling units. To address these recent changes, the Council directed staff to prepare a revised ADU ordinance. A draft ordinance update was presented to the Planning Commission on February 13, 2018. Many residents offered testimony regarding the need to reduce the minimum lot size. Some felt it should be reduced to 8,000 square-feet while others felt it should be reduced even lower. The Planning Commission continued the hearing for further review. However, the Council requested that this matter be agenized for a study session so that specific direction could be provided to the Planning Commission on the minimum lot size requirement. The Council held a study session on June 5, 2018 and provided guidance to staff that the existing 10,000 square-foot minimum lot size was too high, with some Council Members commenting that no minimum should considered assuming it is working in other cities. The Council also asked to look at other variables such as unit size, open space, and access, without elaborating on how to utilize such standards. As such, the Commission has latitude in making its recommendation to the City Council (other than respect to the minimum lot size). Attachment 1 Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of November 27, 2018 Page 2 of 9 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Proposed Ordinance: The attached ordinance (reference Attachment 3) would replace Chapter 21.23 and amend several sections of the Campbell Municipal Code, as summarized below: 1.Definitions/ADU Types. Various definitions would be amended for consistency withState law and to better align with definitions found in the California Government and Vehicle Codes. Additional definitions would be added or amended to provide for greater clarity, particularly with respect to conversion of accessory structures, as well as for improved internal consistency with other sections of the Zoning Code. The use of graphics would also help illustrate the three different types of ADUs ("attached," "detached," and "interior") recognized by the Zoning Code, as excerpted below. However, the draft ordinance does not provide for "junior" ADUs (JADU), which are a quasi-independent living units typically created from an existing bedroom (reference Attachment 4 – ADU/JADU Comparison), since this task was not in theoriginal scope of the update. The Commission, however, may continue the public hearing and direct staff to include JADUs in the new ordinance if so desired. "Attached accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed as a physical expansion (i.e., addition) of an existing primary dwelling unit, including construction of a new basement underneath a primary dwelling unit to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit. Figure 3.6(a) - Attached accessory dwelling unit "Detached accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit that is (1) constructed as a separate structure from the primary dwelling unit; or (2) contained within the existing space of an accessory structure (as defined herein). Figure 3.6 (b) - Detached accessory dwelling unit "Interior accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit that is (1) contained within the existing space of a primary dwelling unit, including within its living area, basement, or attached garage; or (2) constructed as part of a proposed primary dwelling unit. Figure 3.6 (c) - Interior accessory dwelling unit Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of November 27, 2018 Page 3 of 9 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance 2.Minimum Lot Size: As directed by the City Council, the new ordinance removes the current 10,000 square-foot minimum lot size altogether allowing any eligible parcel to be developed with an ADU. However, the ability to construct an ADU would be limited to residential properties developed with a detached single-family dwelling (i.e., nottownhomes, duplexes, etc.) as the property's "primary dwelling". 3.Affordability/Unit Size: State law allows ADUs to be constructed up to 1,200 square- feet or 50% of the primary dwelling's living area if attached, whichever is less. The City's current standards comply with this limitation by tying the size of the ADU to the lot size as shown below: Current Size Limitation Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) Maximum Size (Sq. Ft.) 10,000-10,999 700 11,000-11,999 800 12,000-12,999 900 13,000-13,999 1,000 14,000-14,999 1,100 15,000 or greater 1,200 However, because the community has expressed an understanding that ADU's provide "affordable" housing, the proposed ordinance takes a different approach to the allowable ADU size in order to incentivize creation of true deed-restricted below-market-rate (BMR) housing. The draft ordinance would permit by-right an ADU up to 700 square- feet (1 bedroom/1bathroom maximum) irrespective of lot size, subject to the applicable FAR and lot coverage maximums. If a homeowner wishes to construct an ADU larger than 700 square-feet, she would need to voluntary sign a covenant requiring the ADU (or the primary dwelling) to be rented to a "lower-income" household (as defined by State law). The covenant would last for a term of 30 years (consistent with a standard mortgage) and reset upon every sale of the property. Execution of an affordability covenant would allow an ADU up to 1,200 square-feet (2 bedrooms/2 bathroom maximum), subject to the applicable FAR and lot coverage maximums. Homeowners exercising this incentive would also provide an exemption from the Park Impact Fee (approximately $7,000). 4.Attached Garage Size Exception: The aforementioned size limitation (700 or 1,200 square-feet) is inclusive of the ADU's living area and uninhabitable spaces, with theexception of an attached garage not exceeding 400 square-feet. This limitation is intended to prevent construction of an attached garage or storage building that is disproportionate in size to an ADU. For example, there is currently no restriction that would prevent construction of a 700 square-foot ADU with an attached 1,500 square-foot garage/storage building other than FAR and lot coverage. 5.Allowable Zoning Districts: Currently, an ADU may be only created on a parcel within one of the "R-1" zoning districts. State law now requires the City to allow an ADU in any zoning district where a single-family home could be constructed. Since the Zoning Code allows single-family homes in all multi-family residential zoning districts, ADUs wouldbe allowed in the R-D, R-M, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts, as well as the P-D zoning district with a corresponding residential General Plan land use designation. Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of November 27, 2018 Page 4 of 9 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance 6.Setbacks: Historically, the City has required that ADUs comply with the setback standards applicable to the primary dwelling. However, this has created a significant burden for properties subject to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan (STANP) because of the 20- to 25-foot rear setback requirement. On the flip side, residentialproperties outside of the San Tomas Area only have a 5-foot rear setback which hasresulted in the opposite concern of placing ADUs too close to rear property lines. As such, the draft ordinance would establish uniform setbacks applicable throughout the City. These setbacks would only apply to ADUs that are detached from the main house.ADUs that are constructed as part of the primary dwelling (interior or attached) would continue to be subject to the applicable setback standards. The setbacks are based on those that were established in the Campbell Village Area Neighborhood Plan. Front The same standard as for the primary dwelling unit Interior Side (each) 5 feet Street Side 12 feet Rear 10 feet 7.Separation Between Structures: Currently, an ADU must be separated from the primary dwelling by the "distance equal to building wall height of the taller of the two structures". In practice this means that an ADU would need to be located upwards of 20-feet behind a2-story house. In combination with STANP rear setbacks of 20- to 25-feet, thisrequirement has created a significant burden for many homeowners. As such, the draft ordinance would apply the same separation standards for an accessory structure and a house (10-feet behind and 5-feet to the side) to ADUs. This would maintain consistency with other detached structures while providing suitable separation between buildings. 8.ADU Placement: As compared to accessory structures, the City has not generally limited the placement of an ADU relative to the lot or the primary dwelling. This means that an ADU can be constructed in front of, to the side, or behind the primary dwelling so long as the setback and separation standards are complied with. The draft ordinance wouldrequire that ADUs be located to the side or rear of the primary dwelling to minimize visibility from the street. However, the Planning Commission may eliminate this requirement or modify it (e.g., limit ADUs to behind the house or the rear half of the lot). 9.Height/Stories: Interior and attached ADUs would continue to be limited to the firstfloor of the primary dwelling. Detached ADUs would also continue to be limited to a single-story at a maximum height of 14-feet. 10.General Development Standards: Standards for FAR, building coverage, and open space would continue to apply to construction of ADUs. The draft ordinance would also apply the standards of the comparable zoning district for properties within the P-DZoning District that otherwise have no such standards. 11.Design Requirements: Detached ADUs must presently "incorporate the same or similar building materials and colors as the primary dwelling unit, except for manufactured homes which shall be required to incorporate only the same or similar building colors as the primary dwelling unit." In addition to the disparity between traditionally constructedstructures and manufactured homes, the imposition of subjective design review is not Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of November 27, 2018 Page 5 of 9 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance procedurally appropriate for a ministerial permit. Moreover, it is likely that more ADUs in the future will be pre-manufactured—due to lower cost and faster construction— meaning that design consistency with the main dwelling will be challenging to achieve. As such, the draft ordinance removes the design standards for detached ADUs for the following reasons: •To provide parity between traditionally constructed structures and pre- manufactured homes; •Recognizing that pre-manufactured ADUs are increasingly well designed (seePrefab ADU as an example); •Staff has found that requiring detached ADUs to mimic the appearance of the primary dwelling limits creativity and can result in substandard design if the primary dwelling is not particularly attractive; and •Homeowners often do not want to mimic the design of the primary dwelling because they have plans to remodel/expand/rebuild their home after construction of the ADU (so that they can live in it during construction); However, ADUs that are constructed as part of primary dwelling (attached and interior) will continue to need to maintain design consistency (i.e., the same wall cladding, roofing material, building color(s), window frames, and roof form and pitch). Additionally, attached garages that are converted to ADUs must include replacement of the garage door with consistent architectural features (e.g., wall, windows, trim, etc.). 12.Parking Requirements: The following changes reflect changes made in State law aswell as additional changes recommended by staff for greater clarity: •Provide that parking for an ADU is "one parking space per unit or per bedroom, whichever is less," meaning that a studio ADU (i.e., without a separate bedroom) would not require additional parking and that an ADU with one or two bedroomswould only require one parking space (unless an exception otherwise applies). •Allow that parking may be provided within an existing or proposed driveway, such that a new driveway may be created to satisfy the parking requirement. Additionally, as required by State law, the driveway parking may be located within a requiredfront- or street-side setback, which would otherwise be prohibited for a single-family residence. •Merge the standards for "required" parking (to meet the Code requirement) and "replacement" parking (to restore lost spaces) so that all uncovered parking spacescreated as part of an ADU project are treated the same in terms of configuration andplacement. New carports and garages would continue to be subject to standard setback requirements. •Remove the requirement that the primary dwelling must currently have twocompliant parking spaces (i.e., one covered space and one uncovered space notlocated within a setback) in order to be eligible to construct an ADU. Although not required by State law, this requirement may be viewed as inconsistent with Legislature's intent that cities treat ADUs as normal residential land use. In this regard, if the City would allow a homeowner to construct a 1,000 square-foot addition Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of November 27, 2018 Page 6 of 9 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to a house that only has a one-car garage, construction of an ADU should be given the same consideration.1 •Specifically allow tandem parking as required by State law, but limit the number tono more than two vehicles to ensure the functionality of the parking stalls. •Specifically allow car lifts as required by State law, but require their installation only within a garage so that they are not placed outdoors. In practice this would require homeowners to construct new garages specifically designed to accommodate car liftssince normal garages do not have the necessary interior height. 13.Accessory Structure Conversions: State law allows "existing space" within an accessory structure (e.g., garages, storage buildings, etc.) or a single-family home to be converted to an ADU without provision of additional setbacks. To specifically address this allowance, a new exception to setbacks provision would clearly indicate that the useof "existing space" means to remodel a structure, not to reconstruct it so that it constitutesa new building. A new definition for the term "existing space of an accessory structure" would also clarify that this exception applies to lawfully permitted structures. The definition wouldalso close an apparent loophole that could allow construction of an accessory structureunder less permissive setbacks only for it to be converted later by limiting the exception to structures that were lawfully constructed with permits prior to January 1, 2017 and which had not been expanded after that date. Similarly, since the setback exception is intended to allow the functional reuse of an existing building area, an ADU createdthough this provision could not be expanded beyond its current size. ANALYSIS Effect of Changes: Consistent with the intent of the State legislation, the draft ordinance is likely to further facilitate construction of accessory dwelling units in the community: 1.Affordable Housing Incentive: By allowing an increase in allowable unit size and bedroom/bathroom count in exchange for an affordability restriction, the City may see an increase in BMR unit construction that would contribute to the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation. The affordability covenant would require that anindividual or household occupying the ADU have an annual income equal to or less thanthe "low-income" limit established by the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), currently set at $85,050 (for a 2-bedroom unit). The income limits are adjusted annually based on Santa Clara County's area median income (AMI). Based on this income-level, rent would be limited to $1,470 per month (andadjusted annually based on HCD's annual AMI calculations). A homeowner may rent to any individual or household satisfying the income maximum with confirmation by the City. Although the ordinance cannot provide exceptions for family members, the income maximum is well above the average Social Security benefitor minimum wage, which should generally allow occupancy by elderly parents or 1 CMC Sec. 21.28.040.D.2 states that when a structure is expanded "only the number of parking spaces required for the addition needs to be provided". Since parking for residential uses is based on the dwelling units—not square- footage or bedrooms—additions to single-family homes do not require additional parking. Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of November 27, 2018 Page 7 of 9 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance recently graduated children. As such, the affordability restriction should not overlay discourage homeowners who wish to rent to a family member(s). Staff did consider other incentives, including monetary (e.g., fee reductions), FAR "bonuses", and relief from the owner-occupancy requirement of the primary dwelling (allowing both units to be rented concurrently). However, this recommended approach provides a desirable and easily understood benefit (more square-footage and an additional bedroom/bathroom). It may also have a secondary benefit of limiting the size of new ADUs as many homeowners may opt to build below the 700 square-foot threshold. 2.Setback/Building Separation Reduction: Relaxing the setback and building separation standards will allow a significant number of properties in the San Tomas Area to construct an ADU. As such, this neighborhood is likely to experience a greater proliferation of ADUs as compared to the City's other neighborhoods that have not beenas restricted. 3.Accessory Structure Conversions. The ability of homeowners to convert lawfully constructed garages, pool houses, workshops, studios, and similar structures will likely become an increasingly common approach to creating an ADU due to both the lower costof construction and setback exception. It can also be expected that this effect will be particularly noticeable in the San Tomas Area, and to a lesser extent Campbell Village, by virtue of larger lots and greater prevalence of accessory structures that were often built in the County's jurisdiction. However, the ability of some older accessory structures to be converted to ADUs may be limited by their poor condition. As noted, these structuresmay only be "converted" not rebuilt, such that if the structure's existing roof framing and/or walls are no longer structurally sound it may not impossible to convert the structure. 4.Parking Changes. In combination, the proposed parking changes virtually eliminate theneed to provide parking for an ADU. Even when parking would be required— construction of a new detached ADU that is not eligible for a parking exception—such parking may be provided within an existing driveway within a front- or street-side setback. Similarly, existing covered parking spaces that may be removed through a garage conversion may also be replaced on a driveway or uncovered parking pad. As aresult, creation of an ADU will no longer require construction of a garage or carport unless a homeowner desires it, further reducing the cost of construction. Additionally, eliminating the need to have compliant parking for the main house (i.e., one covered space and one uncovered space not located within a setback) in order to be eligible to construction an ADU will eliminate an existing barrier for homeowners who only have aone-car garage. 5.Allowable Zoning Districts. The Zoning Code Amendment will allow ADUs in all of the multi-family residential zoning districts, affecting upwards of 4,000 parcels. Most of the R-D, R-M, R-2, and R-3 zoned properties are fully developed with duplex/trip-plex/four-plex structures or apartment buildings, which would preclude construction of an ADU. However, there are numerous P-D zoned properties in in the South Downtown neighborhood (i.e., Rincon, Sunnyside, South 4th-1st streets) that would potentially accommodate an ADU. Currently, these properties can only construct a second dwelling through Planned Development Permit process that requires City Council approval. Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of November 27, 2018 Page 8 of 9 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Comparison to Other Cities: Attachment 5 includes a chart that compares the City's current and proposed standards to those of several area cities. However, it should be noted that as compared to environmental regulations (e.g., stormwater, grading, tree protection, etc.), many land use issues such as ADU standards do not have agreed upon "best practices". How a community wishes to regulate ADUs is a local issue for which there is no clear right answer. For instance, the City can require up to one parking stall per ADU, but it could also eliminate the parking requirement if so desired. Which choice is right? It depends how a community weighs housing production as compared to adequate parking. The same calculus applies to size, placement, affordability, design, etc. The Planning Commission should consider what is right for Campbell as the determining factor in making its recommendation to the City Council General Plan Conformance: Pursuant to CMC Section 21.60.070, an amendment to the Municipal Code may only be approved if the decision-making body finds that: (1) the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan; (2) the proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the city; and (3) the proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. Staff believes that these findings can be favorably established, as discussed below: 1.The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan; The General Plan Housing Element includes Program H-5.3a, below, which directs the City to encourage production of secondary units. The proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment would further ease regulatory requirements consistent with State law. Additionally, the affordability incentive provision would result in creation BMR units consistent with policy's direction of providing "modestly priced rental housing". Program H-5.3a: Secondary Dwelling Units: Provide for the infill of modestly priced rental housing by encouraging secondary units in residential neighborhoods. Program H-5.3a: Secondary Dwelling Units: A secondary dwelling unit is a separate dwelling unit that provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons. It includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, eating, and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary unit is situated. Given the limited developable land remaining in Campbell, integrating secondary dwelling units in existing residential neighborhoods presents an opportunity for the City to accommodate needed rental housing. The development of secondary dwelling units is effective in dispersing affordable housing throughout the City and can provide housing to lower-income persons, including seniors and college students. Approximately 1,000 single-family parcels in Campbell are of sufficient size to add a secondary dwelling unit. Implementation Objective: The City will facilitate the construction of new secondary dwelling units by making information available to the public. Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of November 27, 2018 Page 9 of 9 PLN2017-375 ~ Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance 2.The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the city; State law is established to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Adopting an ADUordinance in compliance in State law, which still maintains locally-appropriate restrictions, would serve to protect the public interest, health, safety, convenience or general welfare. 3.The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code. In addition to revisions to Chapter 21.23 (Accessory Dwelling Ordinance), the proposed ordinance also revises other existing code section as necessary to ensure internal consistency within the Zoning Code. PUBLIC COMMENT This public hearing was noticed in the Campbell Express newspaper and on the City's website. Additionally, staff has maintained an email interest list of approximately 75 interested individuals who were informed of the public hearing. Various housing organizations (e.g., Housing Trust, SV@ Home, etc.) were also informed of the hearing via email. Staff received two emails at present (reference Attachment 6). Attachments: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 2. Government Code Section 65852.23.Draft City Council Ordinance 4. JADU Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 5. Comparison Chart 6. Public Correspondence Prepared by: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Approved by: Paul Kermoyan, Community Development Director 5 Lot Size: 6,000 SF Zoning: R-1-6 (STANP) Existing House: 1,200 SF Existing Garage: 400 SF Existing Total: 1,600 SF New ADU: 800 SF New Total: 2,400 SF 6,000 SF Lot / Attached Garage (Staff Option) Proposed setbacks for detached ADUs 10-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides), 10-ft/5-ft (behind/side house) Required setbacks for primary dwelling (per STANP) 20-ft (front), 25-ft (garage), 20-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides) NEW ADU Existing House 60 Feet 100 Feet Street Existing Garage 10-ft 20-ft 25-ft 10-ft 5-ft Dev. Standard Actual Requirement Floor Area Ratio .40 .45 (Max) Lot Coverage 40% 40% (Max) Open Space 1,825 SF 750 SF (Min)    5 Lot Size: 6,000 SF Zoning: R-1-6 (STANP) Existing House: 1,200 SF Existing Garage: 400 SF Existing Total: 1,600 SF New ADU: 800 SF New Total: 2,400 SF 6,000 SF Lot / Attached Garage (Alt Option) Alternate setbacks for detached ADUs 5-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides), 5-ft (behind/side house) Required setbacks for primary dwelling (per STANP) 20-ft (front), 25-ft (garage), 20-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides) NEW ADU Existing House 60 Feet 100 Feet Street Existing Garage 20-ft 25-ft Dev. Standard Actual Requirement Floor Area Ratio .40 .45 (Max) Lot Coverage 40% 40% (Max) Open Space 1,675 SF 750 SF (Min) 5-ft 5-ft    5-ft 5 NEW ADU Existing House Street Existing Garage 10-ft 20-ft 10-ft 5-ft 5-ft 60 Feet 100 Feet Lot Size: 6,000 SF Zoning: R-1-6 (STANP) Existing House: 1,200 SF Existing Garage: 400 SF Existing Total: 1,600 SF New ADU: 500 SF New Total: 2,100 SF Proposed setbacks for detached ADUs 10-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides), 10-ft/5-ft (behind/side house) Required setbacks for primary dwelling (per STANP) 20-ft (front), 25-ft (garage), 20-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides) Dev. Standard Actual Requirement Floor Area Ratio .35 .45 (Max) Lot Coverage 35% 40% (Max) Open Space 800 SF 750 SF (Min) Required setbacks for accessory structures 5-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides), 10-ft/5-ft (behind/side house) 6,000 SF Lot / Detached Garage (Staff Option)    5-ft 5 NEW ADU Existing House Street Existing Garage 20-ft 5-ft 5-ft 60 Feet 100 Feet Lot Size: 6,000 SF Zoning: R-1-6 (STANP) Existing House: 1,200 SF Existing Garage: 400 SF Existing Total: 1,600 SF New ADU: 750 SF New Total: 2,350 SF Alternative setbacks for detached ADUs 5-ft (rear), 5-ft (side), 5-ft (behind/side house) Required setbacks for primary dwelling (per STANP) 20-ft (front), 25-ft (garage), 20-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides) Dev. Standard Actual Requirement Floor Area Ratio .39 .45 (Max) Lot Coverage 39% 40% (Max) Open Space 150 SF 750 SF (Min) Required setbacks for accessory structures 5-ft (rear), 5-ft (side), 10-ft /5-ft (behind/side house) 6,000 SF Lot / Detached Garage (Alt Option) 5-ft    5-ft 10,000 SF Lot / Attached Garage (Staff Option) 80 Feet 125 Feet Street 25-ft 25-ft 10-ft 10-ft NEW ADU Existing House Existing Garage 8-ft 10-ft Existing Garage Lot Size: 10,000 SF Zoning: R-1-10 (STANP) Existing House: 1,500 SF (1st) 400 SF (2nd) Existing Garage: 400 SF Existing Total: 2,300 SF New ADU: 1,200 SF New Garage: 400 SF New Total: 3,900 SF Dev. Standard Actual Requirement Floor Area Ratio .39 .45 (Max) Lot Coverage 35% 35% (Max) Open Space 2,900 SF 750 SF (Min)    Proposed setbacks for detached ADUs 10-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides), 10-ft/5-ft (behind/side house) Required setbacks for primary dwelling (per STANP) 20-ft (front), 25-ft (garage), 20-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides) 5-ft New Garage 2nd Story 10,000 SF Lot / Attached Garage (Alt Option) Existing House 80 Feet 125 Feet Street Existing Garage 25-ft 8-ft 25-ft NEW ADU 10-ft 5-ft 5-ft Lot Size: 10,000 SF Zoning: R-1-10 (STANP) Existing House: 1,500 SF (1st) 400 SF (2nd) Existing Garage: 400 SF Existing Total: 2,300 SF New ADU: 1,200 SF New Garage: 400 SF New Total: 3,900 SF Dev. Standard Actual Requirement Floor Area Ratio .39 .45 (Max) Lot Coverage 35% 35% (Max) Open Space 2,600 SF 750 SF (Min)    Proposed setbacks for detached ADUs 10-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides), 10-ft/5-ft (behind/side house) Required setbacks for primary dwelling (per STANP) 20-ft (front), 25-ft (garage), 20-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides) 5-ft New Garage 2nd Story 10,000 SF Lot / Detached Garage (Staff Option) 80 Feet 125 Feet Street 25-ft 25-ft 8-ft 5-ft 10-ft Existing Garage Existing House 10-ft 5-ft 10-ft NEW ADU Lot Size: 10,000 SF Zoning: R-1-10 (STANP) Existing House: 1,500 SF (1st) 400 SF (2nd) Existing Garage: 400 SF Existing Total: 2,300 SF New ADU: 1,200 SF New Garage: 400 SF New Total: 3,900 SF Dev. Standard Actual Requirement Floor Area Ratio .39 .45 (Max) Lot Coverage 35% 35% (Max) Open Space 2,250 SF 750 SF (Min)    Proposed setbacks for detached ADUs 10-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides), 10-ft/5-ft (behind/side house) Required setbacks for primary dwelling (per STANP) 20-ft (front), 25-ft (garage), 20-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides) Required setbacks for accessory structures 5-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides), 10-ft/5-ft (behind/side house) 5-ft New Garage 2nd Story 10,000 SF Lot / Detached Garage (Alt Option) 80 Feet 125 Feet Street 25-ft 25-ft 8-ft 5-ft Existing Garage Existing House NEW ADU 5-ft Lot Size: 10,000 SF Zoning: R-1-10 (STANP) Existing House: 1,500 SF (1st) 400 SF (2nd) Existing Garage: 400 SF Existing Total: 2,300 SF New ADU: 1,200 SF New Garage: 400 SF New Total: 3,900 SF Dev. Standard Actual Requirement Floor Area Ratio .39 .45 (Max) Lot Coverage 35% 35% (Max) Open Space 1,900 SF 750 SF (Min)    Alternative setbacks for detached ADUs 5-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides), 5-ft (behind/side house) Required setbacks for primary dwelling (per STANP) 20-ft (front), 25-ft (garage), 20-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides) Required setbacks for accessory structures 5-ft (rear), 5-ft (sides), 10-ft/5-ft (behind/side house) 10-ft 5-ft New Garage 2nd Story 10-ft ADU Standards Comparison City Min Lot Size* Max ADU Size Detached ADU Setbacks Detached ADU Height Max Stories Parking Campbell (Current) 10,000 SF Up to 1,200 SF(based on lot size) Same as main house 14‐feet 1st‐story only 1 Space Campbell (Proposed) None 700 SF (by‐right) 1,200 SF  (with BMR restriction) 5‐ft side | 10‐ft rear  14‐feet  1st‐story only 1 Space San Jose 3,000 SF 600‐900 SF(based on lot size) 0‐ft side/rear (1st story) 5‐ft side/rear (2nd story) 18‐feet (1 story)22 feet (2nd story) 2nd‐story  allowed 1 SpaceSunnyvale 5,000‐8,000 SF 700 SFSame as main house Same as main house 2nd‐story allowed 1 Space Cupertino None 10% of the lots size,up to a maximum of 1,000 SFSame as main houseSame as main house 1‐story only (except for conversion of existing 2nd‐story areas) 1 Space (only if the main house is not code‐complaint) Mountain View None 700 SF 5‐ft side | 10‐ft rear  Same as main house for 2nd story 16‐feet (1‐story) 28‐feet (2nd‐story over garage) 2nd‐story 1 Space Redwood City  None 700 SF 900 SF (lots 10,000 SF+) 6‐ft side |10‐ft rear  5‐ft side (if above garage) 14‐feet (1‐story) 28‐feet (2nd‐story over garage) 2nd‐story allowed None Palo Alto 5,000 SF 900 SF 6‐ft side | 6‐ft rear  17‐feet 1‐story only (except for conversion of existing 2nd‐story areas) None San Mateo County None 750 SF or 35% of the floor area of the main house, whichever is less 16‐ft > in height: 6‐ft side | 6‐ft rear 16‐ft < in height: 6‐ft side | 10‐ft rear 26‐feet 2nd‐story allowed 1 Space *For new structuresAttachment 6 16 Frequently Asked Questions: Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Is There a Difference between ADU and JADU? Yes, AB 2406 added Government Code Section 65852.22, providing a unique option for Junior ADUs. The bill allows local governments to adopt ordinances for JADUs, which are no more than 500 square feet and are typically bedrooms in a single-family home that have an entrance into the unit from the main home and an entrance to the outside from the JADU. The JADU must have cooking facilities, including a sink, but is not required to have a private bathroom. Current law does not prohibit local governments from adopting an ordinance for a JADU, and this bill explicitly allows, not requires, a local agency to do so. If the ordinance requires a permit, the local agency shall not require additional parking or charge a fee for a water or sewer connection as a condition of granting a permit for a JADU. For more information, see below. ADUs and JADUs REQUIREMENTS ADU JADU Maximum Unit Size Yes, generally up to 1,200 Square Feet or 50% of living area Yes, 500 Square Foot Maximum Kitchen Yes Yes Bathroom Yes No, Common Sanitation is Allowed Separate Entrance Depends Yes Parking Depends, Parking May Be Eliminated and Cannot Be Required Under Specified Conditions No, Parking Cannot Be Required Owner Occupancy Depends, Owner Occupancy May Be Required Yes, Owner Occupancy Is Required Ministerial Approval Process Yes Yes Prohibition on Sale of ADU Yes Yes Courtesy of Lilypad Homes and Photo Credit to Jocelyn Knight Attachment 7 17 Why Adopt a JADU Ordinance? JADUs offer the simplest and most affordable housing option. 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, reducing development costs. This provides flexibility and an insurance policy in homes in case additional income or housing is needed. They present no additional stress on utility services or infrastructure because they simply repurpose spare bedrooms that do not expand the homes planned occupancy. No additional address is required on the property because an interior connection remains. By adopting a JADU ordinance, local governments can offer homeowners additional options to take advantage of underutilized space and better address its housing needs. Can JADUs Count towards the RHNA? Yes, as part of the housing element portion of their general plan, local governments are required to identify sites with appropriate zoning that will accommodate projected housing needs in their regional housing need allocation (RHNA) and report on their progress pursuant to Government Code Section 65400. To credit a unit toward the RHNA, HCD and the Department of Finance (DOF) utilize the census definition of a housing unit. Generally, a JADU, including with shared sanitation facilities, that meets the census definition and is reported to the Department of Finance as part of the DOF annual City and County Housing Unit Change Survey can be credited toward the RHNA based on the appropriate income level. Local governments can track actual or anticipated affordability to assure the JADU is counted to the appropriate income category. For example, some local governments request and track information such as anticipated affordability as part of the building permit application. Can the JADU Be Sold Independent of the Primary Dwelling? No, the JADU cannot be sold separate from the primary dwelling. Are JADUs Subject to Connection and Capacity Fees? No, JADUs shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit for the purposes of fees and as a result should 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. Local governments may adopt requirements for fees related to parking, other service or connection for water, sewer or power, however, these requirements must be uniform for all single family residences and JADUs are not considered a new or separate unit. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home or trailer, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied, or, if vacant, is intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. 18 Are There Requirements for Fire Separation and Fire Sprinklers? Yes, a local government may adopt requirements related to fire and life protection requirements. However, a JADU shall not be considered a new or separate unit. In other words, if the primary unit is not subject to fire or life protection requirements, then the JADU must be treated the same.