The URL can be used to link to this page

02-05-2019 - AGENDA ITEM 09 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 18-02AGENDA ITEM NO.9 AGENDA STAFF REPORT City of West Covina I Office of the City Manager DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Freeland City Manager SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 18-02 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS GENERAL AND STATUTORY EXEMPTION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council introduce, waive further and give first reading of the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO.2449 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DIVISION 11 OF ARTICLE XII OF CHAPTER 26 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND SETBACK AND LOCATION RELATED ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS BACKGROUND: On June 5, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing to consider Code Amendment No. 17-03 to revise the standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). At that meeting, the City Council approved the proposed code amendment but requested that a new code amendment be initiated to consider the ADU development standards for minimum lot size and for rear yard setbacks. On June 19, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-86 initiating Code Amendment No. 18-02. The City Council directed notification to those who had been notified on the previous ADU code amendment. Additional individuals have since requested notification. Therefore, notices were mailed to ten individuals. A public hearing notice was also published in the newspaper on Thursday, January 24, 2019. The Planning Commission held study sessions on August 28 and September 11, 2018. At those study sessions, the Planning Commission reviewed three potential amendments to the Code; minimum lot size, rear setback and site location. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 9, 2018 and recommended retaining the current minimum lot size and rear setback, as well as separating the rear side yard and site location standards of detached and attached ADUs. The City Council held a public hearing on November 20, 2018 at which time the Council voted 3-2 (Spence and Wu) to approve the Planning Commission recommendation. A second reading on the ordinance was held at the December 18, 2018 City Council meeting, at which time the Council directed staff to schedule another public hearing and prepare a revised ordinance based on the following: Page 6 (3) The unit has independent exterior access from the existing residence; (4) The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety; (5) All development standards in this division are met (except that the accessory dwelling unit need not comply with minimum lot size requirements, no parking need be provided for the accessory dwelling unit, the minimum distance requirements between structures does not apply, and minimum setbacks for existing lawful walls does not apply); and (6) The structure being converted is not subject to any applicable covenant or other lurritation which prolubits the structure from being converted to a single-farrnly unit complies with all other applicable legal requirements. (7) All other applicable legal requirements are met. Municipal Code Sec.26-685.38. - Conditions of approval for an accessory dwelling unit. (a) The accessory dwelling unit may be rented but shall not be sold except in conjunction with the entire lot, including the primary unit. (b) Chapter 7 of this Code and all applicable building codes adopted by the city which apply to additions and construction of single-family dwellings shall apply to accessory dwelling units. (c) Adequate water and sewer services shall be available or supplied by the applicant for an accessory dwelling unit. (d) The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separate from the primary residence, but may be rented. The accessory dwelling unit and the primary residence cannot simultaneously be used by more than one family unless the owner resides in either the accessory dwelling unit or the primary residence. A deed restriction shall be recorded to memorialize these requirements. A covenant running with the land shall be recorded by an accessory dwelling unit applicant, permitting the city to enforce these provisions at the cost of the owner. Proof of recordation shall be sent to the planning director and kept on file. (e) Nothing in this section is intended to authorize circumvention of section 26-673(c)(3) of the Municipal Code (relating to rooming or boarding uses). Municipal Code Sec.26-685.39. - Reviewprocess. The applicant shall submit an application for an accessory dwelling unit review by the planning director for compliance with the provisions of this section. If it is determined that the application and evidence submitted show that the accessory dwelling unit complies with the requirements of this section, the application shall be approved; otherwise the application shall be denied. C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies\ewyPDF 7\@BCL@4410614D\@BCL@4410614D.doc Page 7 SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures, and is found to be exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as this ordinance cannot create any significant effect on the environment and pursuant to 15282(h), which states that "the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single -firmly or multifnnily zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of the Government Code" relating to "granny" housing and "second unit ordinances" are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. SECTION 4: INCONSISTENCIES. Any provision of the West Covina Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and or fiurther, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 5: SEVERABILITY. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 6: PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after the passage thereof, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its passage shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of West Covina or, in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned summary and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with the nabs and member of the City Council voting for and against the same. SECTION 7: COPY OF ORDINANCE TO HCD. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this ordinance to be provided to the California Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days of its final adoption. C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies\ewyPDF 7\@BCL@4410614D\@BCL@4410614D.doc Page 8 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5 day of February , 20199. Lloyd Johnson, Mayor k wYy.l Nickolas S. Lewis, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OFLOS ANGELES ) CITY OF WEST COVINA ) I, Nickolas S. Lewis, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 5_ day of February , 20199 and that, thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 20199. 1�13 NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: Nickolas S. Lewis, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott Porter, City Attorney CAWindows\TEMP\BCL Technologies\ewyPDF 7\@BCL@4410614D\@BCL@4410614D.doc ATTACHMENT NO.2 AGENDA ITEM NO. 14 xON AGENDA STAFF REPORT City of West Covina I Office of the City Manager DATE: November 20, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Freeland City Manager SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 18-02 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS GENERAL AND STATUTORY EXEMPTION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council read the title of the ordinance and waive further reading, and introduce (ie. "fast reading") the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO.2449 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DIVISION 11 OF ARTICLE XH OF CHAPTER 26 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND SETBACK AND LOCATION RELATED ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS BACKGROUND: The code amendment was initiated to consider amending the Municipal Code standards for minimum lot size and rear setback for Accessory Dwelling Units. On June 5, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing to consider Code Amendment No. 17-03 to revise the standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). At that meting, the City Council approved the proposed code amendment but requested that a new code amendment be initiated to consider the ADU development standards for minimum lot size and for rear yard setbacks. On June 19, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-86 initiating Code Amendment No. 18-02. The current standards (per Code Amendment No. 17-03) are provided in Attachment No. 2. Code Amendment No. 18-02 Accessory Dwelling Units Page 2 of 5 — November 20, 2018 The City Council directed notfcation to those who had been notified on the previous ADU code amendment and two individuals have since requested notification. Therefore, notices were mailed to nine individuals. A notice was also published in the newspaper on Thursday, November 8, 2018. The Planning Commission held study sessions on August 28 and September 11, 2018. At those study sessions, the Planning Commission reviewed three potential amendments to the Code; minimum lot size, rear setback and site location. The following information was presented to the Commission. Staff monitored potential legislative changes from the State for this calendar year, however, there were no changes to accessory dwelling unit regulations passed by the State. Mirummn Lot Size Code Amendment No. 17-03 revised the City standard for minimum lot size reducing the minimum lot size from a sliding scale of 12,000 to 46,000 square feet (depending on the Area District) to 12,000 square feet throughout the City. Utilizing GIS software, staff was able to estimate the number of residential properties in the City and categorize them by lot size. Based on that estimate, the chart below provides the estimated percentage of lots in the City at 1,000 square foot intervals. Lot Size Percentage of Lots Greater than 7,000 sf 79% Greater than 8,000 sf 67% Greater than 9,000 sf 43% Greater than 10,000 sf 32% Greater than 11,000 sf 27% Greater than 12,000 sf 25% This chart provides information on the percentage of lots in lot size categories from 7,000 to 12,000 square feet. It should be noted, that a large portion of the lots in Woodside Village are less than 7,000 square feet. Code Amendment No. 17-03 established the minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet, so that it is estimated that 21% of the residential properties are eligible to construct an entirely new ADU that is not within an existing structure. Staff did not research lot sizes smaller than 7,000 square feet as they comprise only 10 percent of the housing stock. Options available for recommendation include any of the lot sizes above or recommending that no minimum lot size be established. C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF7\@BCL@ECIADB90\@BCL@ECIADB90.docx Code Amendment No. 18-02 Accessory Dwelling Units Page 3 of 5 — November 20, 2018 If an ADU is proposed to be constructed in a single-family residential zone entirely within an existing structure, then the new ADU can be approved notwithstanding any lot coverage requirement. Rear Yard Setback The current development standards in the R-1 Zone require a rear yard setback of 25 feet, except in Area District IA, where a 15-foot rear setback is required. Additionally, the Code allows for an encroachment into the rear yard of 40 percent, no greater than 15 feet in height and no closer than 5 feet from the rear property line. Structures such as single-family houses, additions, and most accessory buildings (garages, workshops, sheds, etc.) can be constructed to comply with these standards. Historically, second units have required a 25-foot rear setback. In addition, accessory habitable quarters (formerly guest houses) are also required to comply with the 25-foot rear setback. The intent of this standard is to reduce privacy impacts to the neighboring properties that are adjacent to the rear yard. Most of the types of improvements allowed to encroach in the rear setback are non -habitable buildings, which generally do not have the same loss of privacy issues on an adjacent property. The current standards for accessory dwelling units require a 25-foot setback. In sununary, most types of improvements in the R-1 allow a one-story structure to be constructed as close as 5-foot from the rear property line. Only the accessory habitable quarters, accessory dwelling units and second -stories require a 25-foot rear setback to the property line. Options considered included no changes to the rear setback, changing the ADU setback to the 5-foot rear setback as is required for other improvements, and changing the ADU setback to 15-feet. Clarify Location Standards The current standards combine the allowed location standards for ADUs in the `Rear Yard" section of the Code. The location standards require that detached ADUs be located behind the back of the residence, while attached ADUs can be located anywhere in the structure. Staff had recommended separating the rear yard standards and the location standards, which would serve to provide distinct information on where detached ADUs can be located, as well as where attached ADUs can be located. In addition, the Commission considered including language to require that the door to the ADU not be located on the front elevation unless there is no other alternative due to topography. DISCUSSION: The proposed code amendment was initiated to address minimum lot size and rear yard setbacks. Based on issues during counter discussions, staff recommended the study of site location requirements. C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF7\@BCL@ECIADB90\@BCL@ECIADB90.docx Code Amendment No. 18-02 Accessory Dwelling Units Page 4 of 5 — November 20, 2018 At the Planning Commission study session of August 28, 2018, the Commission had asked for some analysis and discussion on issues surrounding ADUs and increased development in existing neighborhoods. That discussion is provided in the September 11, 2018 staff report (Attachment No. 4) and includes discussion on persons per household, street parking, sewer service, and utility upgrades for new development. The previous minimum lot size for ADUs was a sliding scale depending upon the Area District a property was located on, ranging from 12,000 to 46,000 square feet. The Planning Commission discussed the chart provided (shown above) that includes a potential minimum lot size and percentage of lots in the City above that lot size. At the conclusion of the review, the Planning Commission recommended that the minimum lot size remain at 12,000 square feet. The Commissioners also discussed the rear yard setback requirement. The Code requires a 25- foot setback for ADUs. There was discussion that a larger setback does provide for privacy to surrounding properties and encourages the ADU to be closer to the primary unit. The Commis ion considered reducing the setback to 15 feet, but ultimately detemruned to recommend that the 25- foot setback be preserved. Staff provided a background that there has been confusion on allowed site location for attached ADUs as the standards are included in the Municipal Code section under "Rear Yard". The Commission recommended that the Municipal Code be changed to separate rear yard requirements from site location requirements. Lastly, the draft code amendment includes editing some sections such as eliminating unused definitions and adding wording to clarify code standards. I � 1/:\�1�1 M,[KK�]►i I►i I �X�[�]��17 �CKIJt� lu I �1�117:� Y [�]�F The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 9, 2018. The Commission heard testimony from three individuals, all with concerns about expanding where ADUs are allowed. The Commission discussed the comments received and noted that most of the recent changes to the ADU regulations had been driven by state regulations. The Commission also discussed the need to consider how regulations affect the City as a whole. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission voted 5-0 to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-5964 and recommend approval of the code amendment to the City Council The resolution adopted by the Planning Commission includes the following; • Retaining the minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet • Retaining the rear yard setback of 25 feet • Separating rear yard setback and site location standards to clarify where detached ADUs and attached ADUs may be located. C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF7\@BCL@ECIADB90\@BCL@ECIADB90.docx Code Amendment No. 18-02 Accessory Dwelling Units Page 5 of 5 — November 20, 2018 LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attomey's Office has reviewed the proposed ordinance as to form and content, and has concluded that it is in compliance with both State and federal law. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures, and is found to be exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as this ordinance cannot create any significant effect on the environment and pursuant to 15282(h), which states that "the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of the Government Code" are Statutorily Exempt from the requirements of CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed code amendment would not have any direct fiscal impact to the General Fund. Prepared by: Jeff Anderson, AICP Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: Attachment No. 1 — Code Amendment Ordinance Attachment No. 2—Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-5964 Attachment No. 3 — Excerpt - Planning Commission Minutes, October 9, 2018 Attachment No. 4 — Planning Commission Staff Report, October 9, 2018 Attachment No. 5 — Excerpt - Planning Commission Minutes, September 11, 2018 Attachment No. 6 — Planning Commission Staff Report, Study Session, September 11, 2018 Attachment No. 7 — Excerpt - Planning Commission Minutes, August 28, 2018 Attachment No. 8 — Planning Commission Staff Report, Study Session, August 28, 2018 Attachment No. 9 — Letters from Residents C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF7\@BCL@ECIADB90\@BCL@ECIADB90.docx ATTACHMENT NO.3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 18-5964 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE XII OF CHAPTER 26 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Section 1. Findings. The Planning Commission finds as follows: A. This Code amendment allows ministerial approval of accessory dwelling units in the residential agricultural zone (R-A) and the single-family residential zone (R-1) where the property is developed with a single-family unit subject to development standards and specific requirements. B. As required by state law, under this ordinance, accessory dwelling units will not be considered as exceeding the allowable density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located, and that accessory dwelling units are a residential use consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. C. The existing residential character of the town is due, in large part, to regulations which ensure that lots are not overdeveloped. D. One of the best methods of ensuring that lots are not overdeveloped is to ensure that lots are of at least a minimum size before allowing additional density on the lots. E. The City should adopt ministerial procedures to allow for the development of accessory dwelling units in the City. F. On the 19th day of June 2018, the City Council initiated a code amendment to evaluate minimum lot size and rear setback standards relating to accessory dwelling units; and G. The Planning Commission held study sessions on the 281h day of August 2018 and on the 11 `" day of September 2018; and H. The Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 9th day of October 2018, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law; and Section 2. Resolution. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, and thereafter adopt the ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A. Page 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 9°i day of October 2018, by the following vote. AYES: Holtz, Redholtz, Heng, Castellanos, Jimenez NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None DATE: October 9, 2018 te J--,, r J$j Jimenez, Chaia n an Planning C---- Mn Jeff er on, Secretary Planning Director P:\Resos\2018 Resos\18-5964 CA 18-02 ADU Revisions.doc 1. Remove the required minimum lot size. 2. Revise the rear setback to be consistent with other additions for single family houses (generally allowing a 5-foot setback), and 3. Establish a maximum floor area size to parallel state law (for attached ADUs, the lesser of 50 percent of the size of the main house or 1,200 square feet; for detached ADUs 1,200 square feet). DISCUSSION: Based on the direction provided by the City Council, staff has prepared an ordinance to address the three issues discussed as well as some clarification. Minimum Lot Size Code Amendment No. 17-03 revised the City standard for minimum lot size reducing the minimum lot size from a sliding scale of 12,000 to 46,000 square feet (depending on the Area District) to 12,000 square feet throughout the City for new structures designed as ADUs. Utilizing GIS software, staff was able to estimate the number of residential properties in the City and categorize them by lot size. Based on that estimate, the chart below provides the estimated percentage of lots in the City at 1,000 square foot intervals. Lot Size JPercentage of Lots Greater than 7,000 sf 79% Greater than 8,000 sf 67% Greater than 9,000 sf 43% Greater than 10,000 sf 32% Greater than 11,000 sf 27% Greater than 12,000 sf 25% This chart provides information on the percentage of lots in lot size categories from 7,000 to 12,000 square feet. It should be noted, that a large portion of the lots in Woodside Village are less than 7,000 square feet. Code Amendment No. 17-03 established the minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet, so that it is estimated that 21 % of the residential properties are eligible to construct an entirely new ADU that is not within an existing structure. Staff did not research lot sizes smaller than 7,000 square feet as they comprise only 10 percent of the housing stock. If an ADU is proposed to be constructed in a single-family residential zone entirely within an existing structure, then the new ADU can be approved notwithstanding any minimum lot size requirement. Based on the discussion by the City Council at the December 18, 2018 meeting, the ordinance has been drafted to eliminate any minimum lot size and add that the lot must be a legally -created lot. Rear Setback Currently, the R-1 Zone requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet, except in Area District IA, where a 15-foot rear setback is required. Additionally, the Code allows for an encroachment into the rear yard of 40 percent, no greater than 15 feet in height and no closer than 5 feet from the rear property line. Structures such as single- family houses, additions, and most accessory buildings (garages, workshops, sheds, etc.) can be constructed to comply with these standards. Historically, second units have required a 25-foot rear setback. In addition, accessory habitable quarters (formerly guest houses) also require a 25-foot rear setback. The intent of this standard is to reduce privacy impacts to the neighboring properties that are adjacent to the rear yard. Most of the types of improvements allowed to encroach in the rear setback are non -habitable buildings, which generally do not have the same loss Page 3 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE XII OF CHAPTER 26 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds as follows: A. This Code amendment allows ministerial approval of accessory dwelling units in the residential agricultural zone (R-A) and the single-family residential zone (R-1) where the property is developed with a single-family unit subject to development standards and specific requirements. B. As required by state law, under this ordinance, accessory dwelling units will not be considered as exceeding the allowable density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located, and that accessory dwelling units are a residential use consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. C. The existing residential character of the town is due, in large part, to regulations which ensure that lots are not overdeveloped. D. One of the best methods of ensuring that lots are not overdeveloped is to ensure that lots are of at least a minimurn size before allowing additional density on the lots. E. The City should adopt ministerial procedures to allow for the development of accessory dwelling units in the City. F. On the 19th day of June 2018, the City Council initiated a code amendment to evaluate minimum lot size and rear setback standards relating to accessory dwelling units; and G. The Planning Commission held study sessions on the 28`h day of August 2018 and on the 11°i day of September 2018; and SECTION 2. Municipal Code Amendments. The City Council hereby amends the following sections of Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code as follows: P:\Resos\2018 Resos\18-5964 CA 18-02 ADU Revislons.doc Page 4 EXHIBIT A Article XII . - SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR UNIQUE USES DIVISION 11. - ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Municipal Code Sec, 26-685.30. - Purpose. The purpose of this division is to meet the need for new housing as declared by the state by reducing the barriers to the provision of affordable housing with the creation of accessory dwelling units on single-family lots, Municipal Code See. 26-685.32, - Definitions. Accessory dwelling unit means a dwelling unit detached from, or attached to, a primary unit on a lot zoned for single-family residence. Such units do not affect the density designation of any specific or general plan. n - di�,elling unif of means a lot ,.o tai inga_primary u4t-and unit-,i g nu t 1 n> a; .,,.lo c „,.ia'y_zone. Owner -occupant means that person or persons, who demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the planning director, a fee -ownership interest in the subject property and, in addition thereto, resides in the existing single-family dwelling upon said property and is the applicant for an accessory dwelling unit, Primary unit, hereafter referred to as "primary unit," means an existing or proposed to be built, dwelling unit that conforms to all regulations of this Code relating to section 26-391(a) prior to the addition of a an accessory dwelling unit. Municipal Code Sec. 26-685.34. - Development standards. (a) An accessory dwelling unit may be constructed or established only on a lot containing or which will contain a lawfully constructed primary unit located in a single-family residential zone, (b) An accessory dwelling unit shall have adequate water supply and sewer service. (c) An accessory dwelling unit review shall be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits for an accessory dwelling unit. (d) Only the owner of the property may file an application for an accessory dwelling unit on the lot of the primary unit, and only if the owner in which he or she resides or will reside on the Property. (e) The ministerial development standards of the R-1 zone and the area district in whicb the accessory dwelling unit is located shall apply (as specified in article VIII, division 2 of this chapter) unless this division specifically permits or prohibits otherwise. P:\Resos\2018 Resos\18-5964 CA 18-02 AeU Revisions.doc Page 5 EXHIBIT A (t) An accessory dwelling unit shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation. (g) Specific development standards: (1) The lot shall be a lawful lot and be at least 12,000 square feet. (2) Prior to any certificate of occupancy being issued for the accessory dwelling unit, the lot shall contain a primary unit conforming to all regulations of the single-family zone. (3) An accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the minimum unit size requirements of the California Building Standards Code. (4) Maximum Floor Area a. A detached accessory dwelling unit shall be in a structure that is a single story with a maximum dwelling area of eight hundred (800) square feet and limited to two bedrooms. b. All accessory dwelling unit that is attached to the existing primary unit shall only be located on the first story and be limited to a maximum exterior expansion of fifty (50) percent of the dwelling area of the primary unit up to a maximum of eight hundred (800) square feet. (5) Parking. In addition to the parking required for the primary dwelling unit (section 26- 402), an accessory dwelling unit shall require one (1) accessible off-street parking space if the accessory dwelling unit will have a bedroom. Parking spaces for accessory dwelling units shall be a minimum eight (8) feet by sixteen (16) feet. Access to such parking shall be paved, not less than twelve (12) feet in width, nor wider than the garage or carport for the primary dwelling unit, except as modified in section 26-402.5. Said parking may be located in all existing driveway, in a required setback, or as a tandem design, but shall not impede access to the required parking for the primary residence. However, no parking is required for accessory dwelling units in any of the following circumstances: a. Using city streets, from the accessory dwelling unit, a person would have to walk less no more than one-half a mile to a public bus stop or train station. b. The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. c. The accessory dwelling unit is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure, d. When on -street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit. e. When there is a car share vehicle located within five hundred (500) feet of the accessory dwelling unit, f. The accessory dwelling unit is solely created from existing habitable space within the primary residence. P:\Resos\2018 Resos\18.5964 CA 18-02 ADU Revisions.doc Page 6 EXHIBIT A (6) Garages. New or replacement garages or carports opening towards a side street shall be set back a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet from the property line. If a garage is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit, no setback is required for the portion of the garage which is converted. if a garage is converted to an accessory dwelling unit, the lot must still provide a garage for the single-family residence, per section 26-402. (7) Distance between structures. The distance between the primary unit and a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be no less than six (6) feet, /P Reaf yard. a. Attached aecessory dwelling units may be en4ely within the p-d-nary residence of oi-....1...d to the 7,aeli-.�y residence an „1...11 1,....o .. ,.o.l ,.rd as-presided.:se 4� �o.ions-24-.., 2 nn6,,,,,7��nm b. ! .7 Detarh+ 17•«b �J J nits , only be located behind the primary c^n.^xi-pr" .1-1 1:1:-- and a line. parallel t�h».h ,..1. V f the rimy eside-n8 . Detached p.,.,,..,,. Apr. r-g—r= dwellragunits ..hall 1y with rear rd. q i.- nts, _ uda.i_:,,_tnetion 7�v. Fo revemed e -4et.. •vnvr-e-a liousv-.sfacing and 4eeatea A-ont: nb on » St.o... side pr61i.. eoessm�.7..,011: rg n-met ..hall et be I-R-eated ,::t4,i., the between tie M d a line 1 alle1 to t7 most distant part of the house-fi em 4 ie (8) Rear yard. Detached accessory dwelling units shall comply with rear yard requirements provided in section 26-406. Attached accessory dwelling units shall have a required rear yard as provided in sections 26-406 and 26-407, (9) Site location. A new accessory dwelling unit may be established in the R-1 or R A zone as following. a. Attached accessory dwelling units may be entirely within the existing primary residence or attached to the back of the primary residence. b. Detached accessory dwelling units may not be located within the area between the front property line and a line parallel to the back of the primary residence. For reversed corner lots where a house is facing and located fronting on a street side property line, an accessory dwelling unit shall not be located within the area between the street side property line and a line parallel to the most distant part of the house from the street side property line. (910) The entrance to an accessory dwelling unit shall be separate fi-om the entrance to the primary unit and shall not be on the front elevation. if topography restricts access P:\Resos\2018 Resos\18-5964 CA 18-02 ADU Revisions.doc Page 7 EXHIBIT A from all side and rear elevations the accessory dwelline unit door may be on the front elevation provided it is not prominently visible from the right-of-way. a. No overhead utility lines are permitted to service the accessory dwelling unit. If existing overhead utility lines are to be relocated or otherwise modified to permit construction of an accessory unit, such lines shall be converted to underground services. b. The numerical street address of the lot shall remain as one (1) number with the primary unit being designated as "A" and the accessory dwelling unit being designated as "B." c. Utility services to the accessory dwelling unit may remain and are encouraged through single source points except where not permitted by the utility company. d. Park development fees for the accessory dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with section 26-204. (4-011) The architectural style of the accessory dwelling unit in design features, such as, but not limited to, materials, colors, roofing, scale, exterior treatment and details shall match the primary unit. (4412 An accessory dwelling unit shall not be allowed on a lot with an accessory habitable -quarters as allowed in section 26-391.5. (4-213) A six-foot-bigh wall or solid fence shall be provided and maintained on the rear yard boundary of any lot containing an accessory dwelling unit. Said wall or solid fence shall be-4n eornplia nee comply with this Code in relation to height and location as approved by the planning director. (4314 Windows on property lines. Windows on detached accessory dwelling unit are only allowed when the structure is located a minfinurn of ten (10) feet from a side property line. (h) Conversion of Existing Permitted Floor Area. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section to the contrary, the city will approve an application for a building permit for an accessory dwelling unit if all of the following apply: (1) The application is to create an accessory dwelting unit within either the residential agricultural (RA) zone or the single-family (Rl) zone one (1) accessory dwelling unit per single-family lot; P:\Resos\2018 Resos\18-5964 CA 18-02 ADU Revislons.doc Page 8 EXHIBIT A (2) The accessory dwelling unit is contained entirely within the existing space (i.e. within four existing walls) of a legal single-family residence or a legal accessory structure (excluding garages); (3) The unit has independent exterior access from the existing residence; (4) The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety; (5) All development standards in this division are met (except that the accessory dwelling unit need not comply with minimum lot size requirements, no parking need be provided for the accessory dwelling unit, the minimum distance requirements between structures does not apply, and minimum setbacks for existing lawful walls does not apply); and (6) The structure being converted is not subject to any applicable covenant or other limitation which prohibits the structure from being converted to a single-family unit complies with all other applicable legal requirements. (7) All other applicable legal requirements are met. Municipal Code Sec. 26-68538. - Conditions of approval for an accessory dwelling unit. (a) The accessory dwelling unit may be rented but shall not be sold except in conjunction with the entire lot, including the primary unit. (b) Chapter 7 of this Code and all applicable building codes adopted by the city which apply to additions and construction of single-family dwellings shall apply to accessory dwelling units. (c) Adequate water and sewer services shall be available or supplied by the applicant for an accessory dwelling unit. (d) The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separate from the primary residence, but may be rented. The accessory dwelling unit and the primary residence cannot simultaneously be used by more than one family unless the owner resides in either the accessory dwelling unit or the primary residence. A deed restriction shall be recorded to memorialize these requirements. A covenant running with the land shall be recorded by an accessory dwelling unit applicant, permitting the city to enforce these provisions at the cost of the owner. Proof of recordation shall be sent to the planning director and kept on file. (e) Nothing in this section is intended to authorize circumvention of section 26-673(c)(3) of the Municipal Code (relating to rooming or boarding uses). Municipal Code Sec. 26-685.39. - Review process. P:\Resos\2018 Resos\18-5964 CA 18-02 AeU Revisions.doc Page 9 EXHIBIT A The applicant shall submit an application for an accessory dwelling unit review by the planning director for compliance with the provisions of this section. If it is determined that the application and evidence submitted show that the accessory dwelling unit complies with the requirements of this section, the application shall be approved; otherwise the application shall be denied. SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures, and is found to be exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as this ordinance cannot create any significant effect on the environment and pursuant to 15282(h), which states that "the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of the Government Code" relating to "granny" housing and "second unit ordinances" are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. SECTION 4: INCONSISTENCIES. Any provision of the West Covina Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and or further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions ofthis ordinance. SECTION 5: SEVERABILITY. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable, SECTION 6: PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after the passage thereof, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its passage shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of West Covina or, in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned summary and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with the names and member of the City Council voting for and against the same. SECTION 7: COPY OF ORDINANCE TO HCD. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this ordinance to be provided to the California Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days of its final adoption. P:\Resos\2018 Resos\18-5964 CA 18-02 A0U ReAsions.doc Page 10 EXHIBIT A PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2018. Lloyd Johnson Mayor ATTEST: Nickolas S. Lewis City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF WEST COVINA ) I, Nickolas S. Lewis, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _ day of , 2018. That, thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _ day of 2018. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Nickolas S. Lewis City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kimberly Hall Barlow City Attorney P:\Resos\2018 Resos\18-5964 CA 18-02 ADU Revisions.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 - October 9.2018 ATTACHMENT NO.4 N4 [W41Fl-PP1911itPd the t _ J +`J ^YY •. L... ♦�ii:« 1. !'� L ^ J the wAqiers of the J Y J questiC#�I�al.-a. mid.-d 1' .,.a lA h� .:....a as the .. ra• •n a rits 1. n :. and the owners o«1_. sve1 • •,1 o for ♦1.,.ir ,.....4.. th&- hist@Fy of to ...l...w/. @r ♦ho .1..:.... : s in Y > ,.«.1 ♦1..,. ice/ ' t- ncmi-lsrkv}1:�. �ra:...:n,.� ,._.:.,:.,...� �...,,..,. «......t., u� ..1..,. _..«_�..,.�a v.• r 1- with Gammission— r - J J onl o r a H �s6ld ff6 PEE iEr £££d CODE AMENDMENT NO. 18-02 GENERAL EXEMPTION AND STATUTORY EXEMPTION APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: The proposed code amendment consists of certain amendments to the Zoning section of the West Covina Municipal Code to modify standards for Accessory Dwelling Units. The proposed code amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) and 15282(h). Planning Director Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation he reminded the Commission that this code amendment was initiated by the City Council. He also spoke about the discussions at the study sessions and presented the proposed code amendment that will be reviewed by the City Council. Chairman Jimenez opened the public hearing. \\Storagel\plandata\PLANCOM\M1NUTES\2018 MINUTES\l 0.9. 18 minutes.doc Planning Commission Minutes Paee 4 — October 9, 2018 PROPONENTS: No one spoke in favor of this matter OPPONENTS: Dale Duncan, Marietta Spillone and Marcel Van Lierde spoke in opposition to the code amendment. Each of the opponents expressed their opposition due to the negative impact additional dwelling units would have due to residents having to park on the street, possible infringement of the views for neighboring residents, overcrowding in residential neighborhoods due to increased density and possible loss of property values, Mr. Van Lierde asked why this code amendment was being considered. Chairman Jimenez closed the public hearing. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the comments in opposition to the code amendment. During the discussion the Commission said they had amended the code to conform with new requirements adopted by the State of California, to address the housing crisis. Commissioner Redholtz said cities were required to amend their codes to comply with State requirements. Commissioner Heng added that, when the code is amended to comply with State requirements, the Commission should also consider residents' needs and how the amendments would affect the entire city. Chairman Jimenez added that amendments to the West Covina Code to comply with State requirements would enable staff to review applications more effectively. The Planning Director commented that the City Council had initiated this code amendment for the study of minimum lot size and rear setbacks. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Holtz, to waive farther reading and adopt Resolution No. 18-5964 recommending to the City Council, approval of Code Amendment No. 18-02. Motion carried 5-0. Chairman Jimenez said that final action on this matter will take place at a public hearing before the City Council on a date to be determined. PAPLANCOMWINUTESr2018 MINUTES\10.9.18 minutes,doc of privacy issues on an adjacent property. The current standards for accessory dwelling units require a 25-foot setback. In summary, most types of improvements in the R-1 allow a one-story structure to be constructed as close as 5- foot from the rear property line. Only the accessory habitable quarters, accessory dwelling units and second - stories require a 25-foot rear setback to the property line. Options considered included no changes to the rear setback, changing the ADU setback to the 5-foot rear setback as is required for other improvements, and changing the ADU setback to 15-feet. Based on the discussion by the City Council at the December 18, 2018 meeting, the ordinance has been revised to require the same setback for accessory dwelling units that is required for single-family house additions. It should be noted that the current Code standards do not allow windows on side elevations that are closer than 10 feet to the property line. Since 10 feet is the distance currently in the Code for side yards, the proposed ordinance would also prohibit windows on rear elevations closer than 10 feet to the rear property line. Maximum Floor Area The allowed size of accessory dwelling units in the Municipal Code currently is 800 square feet, which was changed from 640 square feet in April of 2017 through Code Amendment No. 17-01. At that time it was noted that State documents referred to units ranging from 800 to 1,200 square feet. That document is titled "Accessory Dwelling Unit Memorandum, December 2016" and can be found at http:/hvww.hcd. ca.gov/policy-researchldocsl2Ol6-12-12-ADU-TA-Memo.docx.pdf. The relavant section in that document is titled "Can Local Governments Establish Minimum and Maximum Lot Sizes" (Page 9). The following is a citation of that section. Yes, a local government may establish minimum and maximum unit sizes (GC Section 65852.2(c). However, like all development standards (e.g., height, lot coverage, lot size), unit sizes should not burden the development ofADUs. For example, setting a minimum unit size that substantially increases costs or a maximum unit size that unreasonably restricts opportunities would be inconsistent with the intent of the statute. Typical maximum unit sizes range from 800 square feet to 1,200 square feet. Minimum unit size must at least allow for an efficiency unit as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1. ADU law requires local government approval if meeting various requirements (GC Section 65852.2(a)(1) (D)), including unit size requirements. Specifically, attached ADUs shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing living area or 1,200 square feet and detached ADUs shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. A local government may choose a maximum unit size less than 1,200 square feet as long as the requirement is not burdensome on the creation ofADUs. State law allows cities to restrict the size of attached ADUs to 50 percent of the existing house size up to 1,200 square feet. The local government can select the maxium size of ADU allowed. Based on the discussion by the City Council at the December 18, 2018 meeting, the ordinance has been drafted to allow attached ADUs up to the lesser of 50 percent of the square footage of the primary dwelling or 1,200 square feet, and attached ADUs, and detached ADUs up to 1,200 square feet. It should be noted that the existing Code standards also limit the number of bedrooms to two in an accessory dwelling unit and no changes have been made on the proposed ordinance. Accessory Habitable Structures Historically, the City of West Covina has had restrictive standards for second units (now called ADUs) and very liberal standards for guest houses (now called accessory habitable quarters). That situation changed in 2015 when the City adopted the standards to comply with state law for ADUs. Prior to that time a second unit required the approval of a conditional use permit (public hearing by the Planning Commission) and a guest ATTACHMENT NO.5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 DATE October 9, 2018 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CODE AMENDMENT NO.18-02 GENERAL EXEMPTION AND STATUTORY EXEMPTION APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide I. SUMMARY The code amendment was initiated to consider amending the Municipal Code standards for minimum lot size and rear setback for Accessory Dwelling Units. II. BACKGROUND On June 5, 2018, the City Council held a public bearing to consider Code Amendment No. 17-03 to revise the standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). At that meeting, the City Council approved the proposed code amendment but requested that a new code amendment be initiated to consider the ADU development standards for minimum lot size and for rear yard setbacks. On June 19, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-86 initiating Code Amendment No. 18-02. The current standards (per Code Amendment No. 17-03) are provided in Attachment No. 2. The Planning Commission held study sessions on August 28 and September 11, 2018. At those study sessions, the Planning Commission reviewed three potential amendments to the Code; minimum lot size, rear setback and site location. The following information was presented to the Commission. Minimum Lot Size Code Amendment No. 17-03 revised the City standard for minimum lot size reducing the minimum lot size from a sliding scale of 12,000 to 46,000 square feet (depending on the Area District) to 12,000 square feet throughout the City. Utilizing GIS software, staff was able to estimate the number of residential properties in the City and categorize them by lot size. Based on that estimate, the chart below provides the estimated percentage of lots in the City at 1,000 square foot intervals. P:\CaseFiles\CODEAMEND\2018\18-02ADURevisions\PC 10.9.18\StaffReport.doc Code Amendment No. I8-02 Accessory Dwelling Units October 9, 2018 - Page 2 Lot Size ____Percentage of Lots Greater than 7,000 sf 79% Greater than 8,000 sf 67% Greater than 9,000 sf 43% Greater than 10,000 sf 32% Greater than I i LOOKsf 27% Greater than 12,000 sf 251A This chart provides information on the percentage of lots in lot size categories from 7,000 to 12,000 square feet. It should be noted, that a large portion of the lots in Woodside Village are less than 7,000 square feet, Code Amendment No. 17-03 established the minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet, so that it is estimated that 21% of the residential properties are eligible to construct an ADU. Staff did not research smaller lots sizes than 7,000 square feet as there are so few lots that are smaller than 6,000 square feet, Options available for recommendation include any of the lot sizes above or recommending that no minimum lot size be established. Rear Yard Setback The current development standards in the R-1 Zone require a rear yard setback of 25 feet, except in Area District 1A, where a 15-foot Tear setback is required, Additionally, the Code allows for an encroachment into the rear yard of 40 percent, no greater than 15 feet in height and no closer than 5 feet from the rear property line. Structures such as single-family houses, additions, and most accessory buildings (garages, workshops, sheds, etc.) can be constructed to comply with these standards. Historically, second units have required a 25-foot rear setback. In addition, accessory habitable quarters (formerly guest houses) are also required to comply with the 25-foot rear setback. The intent of this standard is to reduce privacy impacts to the neighboring properties that are adjacent to the rear yard. Most of the types of improvements allowed to encroach in the rear setback are non -habitable buildings, which generally do not have the same loss of privacy issues on an adjacent property, The current standards for accessory dwelling units require a 25-foot setback. In summary, most types of improvements in the R-1 allow a one-story structure to be constructed as close as 5-foot from the rear property line, Only the accessory habitable quarters, accessory dwelling units and second -stories require a 25 feet rear setback to the property line. Options include recommending no changes to the rear setback or changing the ADU setback to the 5-foot rear setback as is required for other improvements, Clarify Location Standards The current standards combine the allowed location standards for ADUs in the "Rear Yard" section of the Code. The location standards require that detached ADUs be located behind the back of the residence, while attached ADUs can be located anywhere in the structure. To clarify, staff is recommending separating the rear yard standards and the location PACase Piles\COD& AMGND\2018\18.02 ADU Revisions\PC 1e9.18\Stufr Report.dac Code Amendment No. 18-02 Accessory Dwelling Units October 9, 2018 - Page 3 standards, this will serve to provide distinct information on where detached ADUS can be located and where attached ADUs can be located. In addition, staff is recommending including language that the door to the ADU not be located on the front elevation unless there is no other alternative due to topography. Noticing for the code amendment public heating was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on September 27, 2018, City Council requested noticing of property owners within the Downtown Plan area, Notices were therefore mailed to 9 interested parties owners on June 27, 2018, III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS The proposed code amendment was initiated to address two development standards, including minimum lot size and rear yard setbacks and a third issue was recommended for study by staff, site location. At the Planning Commission study session of August 28, 2018, the Commission had asked for some analysis and discussion on issues surrounding ADUs and increased development in existing neighborhoods. That discussion is provided in the September 11, 2018 staff report (Attachment No. 4) and includes discussion on persons per household, street parking, sewer service, and utility upgrades for new development. The previous minimum lot size for ADUs was a sliding scale depending upon the Area District a property was located on, ranging from 12,000 to 46,000 square feet. The Planning Commission discussed the chart provided (shown above) that includes a potential minimum lot size and percentage of lots in the City above that lot size, At the conclusion of the review, the Planning Commission recommended that the minimum lot size remain at 12,000 square feet. The Commissioners also discussed the rear yard setback requirement. The Code requires a 25-foot setback for ADUs. There was discussion that a larger setback does provide for privacy to surrounding properties and encourages the ADU to be closer to the primary unit. The Commission considered reducing the setback to 15 feet, but ultimately determined to recommend that the 25-foot setback be preserved. Staff provided a background that there has been confusion on allowed site location for attached ADUs as the standards are included in the Municipal Code section under "Rear Yard". The Commission recommended that the Municipal Code be changed to separate rear yard requirements from site location requirements. Lastly, the draft code amendment includes editing some sections such as eliminating unused definitions and adding wording to clarify code standards. P;\Casefiiles\CQDEAMEND\2018\18-02 ADU Revisions\PC 10.9.18\Staff Report.doc Code Amendment No, 18-02 Accessory Dwellhrg Units October 9, 2018 - Page 4 IV. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment has been drafted and the code text is attached to the resolution for your review (Attachment No. 1). If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment, the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider adopting the proposed amendments, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures, and is found to be exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as this ordinance cannot create any significant effect on the environment and pursuant to 15282(h), which states that "the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 658523 and 65852.2 of the Government Code" are Statutorily Exempt from the requirements of CEQA, VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 18-02 to the City Council. Jef deison, AICP Planning Director Attachments: Attachment No. 1 — Code Amendment Resolution Attachment No. 2 — Existing ADU Municipal Code Section Attachment No. 3 — Planning Commission Minutes, September 11, 2018 (Unofficial) Attachment No. 4 — Planning Commission Staff Report, Study Session, September 11, 2018 Attachment No. 5 — Planning Commission Minutes, August 28, 2018 Attachment No. 6 — Planning Commission Staff Report, Study Session, August 28, 2018 Attachment No. 7 — Letters/Emails from the Community PACaw Piles\CODE AMEND\2018\I&02 ADU Revisions\PC 10.9.1Mlaff Retrortdoc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 — September 11, 2018 ATTACHMENT NO.6 R 1 No. I o cnc� n�_a: M i r r n Nr i o cn Z r. ,r rr rm'" enar'rzo"ira�-aas£enr��rYis�a-tea cisH e€�rxea-� NON -HEARING ITEMS 4. (Continued from August 28, 2018) STUDY SESSION — CODE AMENDMENT NO. 18-02 Accessory Dwelling Unit Revisions Planning Director Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation he provided the Commission with information on minimum lot size, rear setbacks and site location regulations. Marietta Spillone and Jim Grivich spoke against changing the Municipal Code regulating Accessory Dwelling Units. Jeri Potras submitted letters from herself and her neighbors expressing their opposition as well. The opponents expressed their concern that additional housing would cause additional cars parked on the streets, have a negative impact on sewers and infrastructure, increase the density in West Covina neighborhoods and infringe on the privacy of their neighbors. They also expressed concern that too many people will be living on properties with accessory dwelling units. Tom Chang, Jamie Lee and Brian Tabatabai spoke in favor of changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit code. The proponents said they were in favor of ADUs because it would allow them to care for their elderly relatives and add value to their properties. Ms. Lee also disagreed that ADUs cause more street parking in neighborhoods. There was a lengthy discussion regarding possible options to allow ADUs to be built on smaller lots than the current regulation of 12,000 square feet. The options discussed were reducing the minimum lot size and reducing the rear yard setback. In addition, the Commission considered locations standards for ADUs. During the discussion the Commission also discussed the differences between ADUs that are 800 square feet and 1200 square feet and how to deal with an increase of on -street parking if there is not sufficient space for all residents to park their cars on the property. Commissioner Heng expressed her support of recommending that the rear setback be reduced to 15 feet. The Commission also considered the placement of attached ADUs and detached ADUs. Staff recommended that attached ADUs be allowed anywhere on the property, but to not allow two entrances on the front elevation. Detached ADUs would be required to be to the rear of the main house. \\StorageI\plandataTLANCOM\MINUTES\2018 MINUTES\9.11.18 rainutes.doc Planning Commission Minutes Pape 5 — 5entember 11, 2018 At the end of the discussion Chairman Jimenez suggested that the Commission decide upon the recommendations they will make to the City Council by making a motion and voting on each matter discussed. Motion by Holtz, seconded by Redholtz, to recommend to the City Council that the minimum lot size for ADUs remain the same. Motion carried 4-1, (Castellanos opposed.) Motion by Heng, seconded by Castellanos, to recommend to the City Council that the minimum rear yard setback for ADUs be 15 feet. Motion failed 2-3, (Jimenez, Holtz, Redholtz opposed.) Motion by Holtz, seconded by Redholtz, to recommend to the City Council that the minimum rear yard setback for ADUs remain the same. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Jimenez, seconded by Holtz, to allow attached ADUs to be placed anywhere within the building. Motion carried 5-0. Staff was directed to draft an ordinance for consideration by the Planning Commission at a public heating. S CTTT Ti1�T Ci1CC�T/1TT !'+ODE A T.fAND ENT K) 1 U 03 ATTACHMENT NO.7 City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA TO: Planning Commission ITEM NO. 4 DATE: September 11, 2018 FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION CODE AMENDMENT NO.18-02 Accessory Dwelling Unit Revisions DESCRIPTION On June 5, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing to consider Code Amendment No. 17-03 to consider revisions to standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). (See Attachment No. 2) At that meeting, the City Council approved the proposed code amendment but requested that a new code amendment be initiated to consider the ADU development standards for minimum lot size and for rear yard setbacks. On June 19, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-86 initiating Code Amendment No. 18-02. This study session was continued from the meeting of August 28, 2018 to allow for all Commissioners to be included in the discussion. II. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted Code Amendment No. 17-01 on April 18, 2017 and Code Amendment No. 17-03 on June 5, 2018. The State of California passed two bills in 2017 regarding accessory dwelling units including Senate Bill 229 (Wieckowski) and Assembly Bill 494 (Bloom). These bills, effective January 1, 2018, clarify and modify various provisions of the law to promote the development of ADUS. The previous two code amendments were completed to address the various bills passed over the last two years and were reviewed by the City Attorney's office. Staff is aware that additional bills may pass this calendar year that the City may need to address. Code Amendment 17-03 amended the Municipal Code in the following manner. 1. Minimum Lot Size. Changed from 12,000 to 46,000 square foot lots (depending on Area District) to 12,000 square feet. 2. Required parking based on number of bedrooms. Require zero or one space in compliance with state law. 3. Required parking for attached ADUs. When a new house is constructed that includes an ADU no parking would be required for the ADU, in compliance with state law. 4. Conditions of Approval. Require the same conditions of approval to apply to all types of ADU's including conversions of existing legal buildings. PACase Files\CODE AMEND\2018\18-02 ADU Revisions\PC SS 9.11.18\Study Session.SR.doc Code Amendment 18-02 Accessory Dwelling Unit Revisions September 11, 2018 - Page 2 5. Accessory Buildings, Remove ADUs from the list for administrative use permit (AUP) when accessory buildings are greater than 1,000 square feet. ADU's would be exempt from the 1,000-square foot accessory building calculation as they cannot require a discretionary review per state law. 6. Detached Structure Conversions, Require a covenant to be filed stating that the proposed structure will not be converted to atr ADU for new accessory structures with four walls, 7. Windows on Side Property Lines, Require the 10—foot window distance for detached units for windows only. 8. Terminology modifications. The term "guest house" changed to accessory habitable quarters, and the tern "second unit" changed to "accessory dwelling unit". 9. Separation Requirement. Require a separation of 6-feet between the accessory dwelling unit and the primary unit. The existing standards (per Code Amendment No. 17-03) are provided in Attachment No. I. III, ANALYSIS The proposed code amendment was initiated to address two development standards, including minimum lot size and rear yard sotbacics. The following is a discussion of each issue, Minimum Lot Size Code Amendment No, 17-03 revised the City standard for minimum lot size reducing the minimum lot size from a sliding scale of 12,000 to 46,000 square feet (depending on the Area District) to 12,000 square feet throughout the City. Utilizing GIS software, staff was able to estimate the number of residential properties in the City and categorize them by lot size. Based on that estimate, the chart below provides the estimated percentage of lots in the City at 1,000 square foot intervals. Lot Size Percentage of Lots Greater than 7,000 sf 79% Greater than 8,000 sf 67% Greater than 9,000 sf 43% Greater than 10,000 sf 32% Greater than 11,000 sf 27% Greater than 12,000 sf 25% This chart provides information on the percentage of lots in lot size categories from 7,000 to 12,000 square feet. It should be noted, that a large portion of the lots in Woodside Village are less than 7,000 square feet, Code Amendment No, 17-03 established the minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet, so that it is estimated that 21% of the residential properties are eligible to construct an ADU, Staff did not research smaller lots sizes than PACase. ail ACODE AMEND\2018\18-02 ADU RevislonA\PC SS 9.11.18\Study Smsion.SR.doo Code Amendment 18.02 Acoessory Dwelling Unit Revisions September 11, 2018 - Page 3 7,000 square feet ag there are so few lots that are smaller than 6,000 square feet. Options available for recommendation include any of the lot sizes above or recommending that no minimum lot size be established. Rear Yard Setback The current development standards in the R-1 Zone require a rear yard setback of 25 feet, except in Area District 1A, where a 15-foot rear setback is required, Additionally, the Code allows for an encroachment into the rear yard of 40 percent, no greater than 15 feet in height and no closer than 5 feet from the rear property line. Structures such as single- family houses, additions, and most accessory buildings (garages, workshops, sheds, etc) can be constructed to comply with these standards. Historically, second units have required a 25-foot rear setback. In addition, accessory habitable quarters (formerly guest houses) are also required to comply with the 25-foot rear setback, The intent of this standard is to reduce privacy impacts to the neighboring properties that are adjacent to the rear yard. Most of the types of improvements allowed to encroach in the rear setback are non -habitable buildings, which generally do not have the same loss of privacy issues on an adjacent property. The current standards for accessory dwelling units require a 25-foot setback. hi summary, most types of improvements in the R-1 allow a one-story structure to be constructed as close as 5-foot from the rear property line. Only the accessory habitable quarters, accessory dwelling units and second -stories require a 25 feet rear setback to the property line, This code amendment is being processed for accessory dwelling units. Options include recommending no changes to the rear setback or changing the ADU setback to the 5-foot rear setback as is required for other improvements. Clarify Location Standards The current standards combine the allowed location standards for ADUs in the Rear Yard section of the Code, The location standards require that detached ADUs be located behind the back of the residence, while attached ADUs can be located anywhere in the structure. To clarify, staff is recommending separating the rear yard standards and the location standards. In addition, staff is recommending including language that the door to the ADU not be located on the front elevation unless there is no other alternative due to topography. Issues Discussed at the Previous Study Session There was some discussion at the previous meeting on reasons why minimum lot sizes might be considered appropriate. Code standards allow for larger house sizes on larger lots than on smaller lots. For demographic calculations, the number of residents is generally based on the number of units and persons per household. in West Covina that statistic is 3.34 persons per unit for the 2010 Census, It is generally assumed then that a lot with one unit would average 3.34 persons per unit while a lot with two units would PACase PileACODE AMEND\2018\18-02 ADU Revisions\PC SS 9.11.18\Study Session.SR.doe Code Amendment 18-02 Accessory Dwelling Unit Revisions September 11, 2018 - Page k average 6.68 persons on the lot. While that is an average and will not always hold true, it is logical that a lot with two units will have more individuals living on the lot than a lot with one unit. In terms of the effect on utilities, it is logical to assume that there may be impacts by doubling the number of units on a lot. The main issue for City standards is parking. Some neighborhoods, such as those near older multi -family units, are already experiencing streetparking issues. Single-family houses are generally required to provide a two -car garage, and based on the required setback, generally provide at least two parking spaces in the driveway. Many houses provide excess spaces in the garage or the driveway. Based on recent state law requirements, the City is only allowed to require parking for an ADU if the property is more than a half mile from a bus stop, which is most of the properties in the City. Even in cases where it is more than half mile, the City is only allowed to require one open parking space. In neighborhoods where there is already a significant amount of street parking, even the addition of a few ADUs could cause significant parking issues for those residents. In neighborhoods with smaller lot sizes, there is typically a narrower street frontage on properties reducing the street parking available per property. While neighborhoods in the City vary, marginal increases in parking demand in some neighborhoods may lead to lack of available parking and push parking issues onto neighboring streets, It is not possible for the City to estimate issues that might arise from utilities like gas and electric as we do not have the information necessary. Water is another utility that the City does not have much information regarding. To date, the water companies within the City have all expressed that they have sufficient water to provide to new developments. Sewer service to properties is provided via a main line that mostly runs down the center of streets, These main lines have a variety of sizes. When a new development is proposed, the Fngineering Division will require a sewer study to determine if the main line is near capacity. If it is, a condition of approval would be placed on that project to increase the sewer line size. Conditions of approval are allowed where there is a discretionary review process. In the case of ADUs, state law prohibits requiring a discretionary review process. If, over several years or decades, many ADUs are constructed on one street, there could be impacts to the sewer system. This discussion is not meant to be a thorough analysis of these issues. The purpose is to show that there may be appropriate reasons for a city to establish a minimum lot size, even if that city decides that the majority of the properties should have the capability of constructing a detached ADU. IV. CONCLUSION The City Council discussed reducing the minimum lot size at the hearing, however, since there had been no evaluation of a range of minimum lot sizes, a new code amendment was initiate. The Council had expressed some concerns about the minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet and how many residents in the City would be allowed to construct an P:\CasoFi1os\C0DE AMBND\2018\18.02 ADU RevisionAPC SS 9.11.18\Study Session.SR.doo house was allowed by right. In 2014 and 2015 Code Amendments were adopted that begin requiring an administrative use permit (noticing required) for guest houses and ADU's became allowed uses. Generally, in the past, ADUs were reserved for comparatively large lots while anyone could build a guest house. If the City Council determines to allow all lots in the City to have an ADU, it may be appropriate to delete accessory habitable quarters standards from the Code, as it is much easier to build an ADU (no discretionary review, no garage required, reduced rear yard setback). If the Council determines to adopt the proposed ordinance, staff would recommend initiating a code amendment to consider eliminating the accessory habitable quarters standards. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proposed ordinance as to form and content, and has concluded that it is in compliance with both State and federal law. OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options: 1. Approve staffs recommendation; or 2. Provide alternative direction. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures, and is found to be exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as this ordinance cannot create any significant effect on the environment and pursuant to 15282(h), which states that "the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of the Government Code" are Statutorily Exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Prepared by: Jeff Anderson, Community Development Director Attachments Attachment No. 1 - Ordinance No. 2449 Attachment No. 2 - Staff Report, 11/20/18 Attachment No. 3 - Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-5964 Attachment No. 4 - Excerpt - Planning Commission Minutes, 10/9/18 Attachment No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report, 10/9/18 Attachment No. 6 - Excerpt - Planning Commission Minutes, 9/11/18 Attachment No. 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report, 9/11/18 Attachment No. 8 - Excerpt - Planning Commission Minutes, 8/28/18 Attachment No. 9 - Planning Commission Staff Report, 8/28/18 Attachment No. 10 -Letters from Residents Code Amendment 18-02 Accessory Dwelling Unit Revisions September 11, 2018 - Page 5 ADU, as well as the required setback being a different standard than most other types of improvements. The purpose of the study session is to provide the Planning Commission with discussion points. After discussion on the issues, the Commission may ask for additional information to be provided which may necessitate another study session. Once the Planning Commission agrees on the standards to be implemented, the next step will be to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission, Subsequent to Planning Commission review, a public hearing will be scheduled for the City Council to determine if changes to the code are appropriate. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Plarming Commission review the information in the staff report and attachments and provide appropriate direction to staff regarding standards to be included in the code amendment, PREPARED BY: Je erson, AICP Planning Director Attachments: Attachment No, 1 - Existing ADU Municipal Code Section Attachment No. 2 — Excerpt of City Council Minutes, June 19, 2018 P:\CmFHes\C0DE AMEND\2018\18-02 ADU RevisionAlIC SS 9.11.18\Study Session.SR.doc 4. STUDY SESSION — CODE AMENDMENT NO. 18-02 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REVISIONS Planning Director Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation he told the Commission that other amendments will potentially need to be considered in the future to conform to State regulations under consideration addressing accessory dwelling units. Jeri Potras submitted a letter to the Commission expressing her opinion on the code amendment. Jamie Lee addressed the Commission and submitted letters from her neighbors regarding their support of amending the code to make it easier to add an accessory dwelling unit. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding amendments to minimum lot size for ADUs, rear yard setbacks and clarification of location standards for ADUs. During the discussion, Commissioner Castellanos expressed his desire to discuss amendments and to maintain the integrity of neighborhoods. Commissioner Heng said she would like to amend the code to allow older family members to stay in their homes and have younger family members living on the property to take care of them. Commissioners Holtz and Redholtz both expressed support of the current code and their desire to have some restrictions where it was possible. Since Chairman Jimenez was absent, it was suggested that the consideration of this matter be continued so the entire Commission should be present for this discussion. Motion by Castellanos, seconded by Holtz, to continue the study session for Code Amendment No. 18-02, Accessory Dwelling Units, to the September 11, 2018 \\StorageI\plandataTLANCOMWINUTES\2018 MINUTES\8.28.18 minutes.doc Planning Commission Minutest Pape 5 — August28 2018 Motion by Castellanos, seconded by Holtz, to continue the study session for Code Amendment No. 18-02, Accessory Dwelling Units, to the September 11, 2018 regular Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0 (Jimenez, absent, excused.) one ATl O TU T_ThA ADOPTED AS SUBMITTED ON: September 11, 2018 \\Storagel\plandata\PI.,ANCOM\MINUTES\2018 MINUTES\8.28.18 minutes.doc ATTACHMENT NO.9 City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA TO: Planning Commission ITEM NO. 4 DATE: August 28, 2018 FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION CODE AMENDMENT NO.18-02 Accessory Dwelling Unit Revisions L DESCRIPTION On June 5, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing to consider Code Amendment No. 17-03 to consider revisions to standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). (See Attachment No. 2) At that meeting, the City Council approved the proposed code amendment but requested that a new code amendment be initiated to consider the ADU development standards for minimum lot size and for rear yard setbacks. On June 19, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-86 initiating Code Amendment No. 18-02. II. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted Code Amendment No. 17-01 on April 18, 2017 and Code Amendment No. 17-03 on June 5, 2018. The State of California passed two bills in 2017 regarding accessory dwelling units including Senate Bill 229 (Wieckowski) and Assembly Bill 494 (Bloom). These bills, effective January 1, 2018, clarify and modify various provisions of the law to promote the development of ADUs. The previous two code amendments were completed to address the various bills passed over the last two years and were reviewed by the City Attorney's office. Staff is aware that additional bills may pass this calendar year that the City may need to address. Code Amendment 17-03 amended the Municipal Code in the following manner. 1. Minimum Lot Size. Changed from 12,000 to 46,000 square foot lots (depending on Area District) to 12,000 square feet. 2. Required parking based on number of bedrooms. Require zero or one space in compliance with state law. 3. Required parking for attached ADUs. When a new house is constructed that includes an ADU no parking would be required for the ADU, in compliance with state law. 4. Conditions of Approval. Require the same conditions of approval to apply to all types of ADU's including conversions of existing legal buildings. 5. Accessory Buildings. Remove ADUs from the list for administrative use permit (AUP) when accessory buildings are greater than 1,000 square feet. ADU's PACase Files\CODE AMEND\2018\I8-02 ADU Revisions\PC SS 8.28.18\Study Session.SR.doc Code Amendment 18-02 Accessory Dwelling Unit Revisions August 28, 2018 - Page 2 would be exempt from the 1,000-square foot accessory building calculation as they cannot require a discretionary review per state law, 6. Detached Structure Conversions, Require a covenant to be filed stating that the proposed structure will not be converted to an ADU for new accessory structures with four walls. 7. Windows on Side Property Lines. Require the 10—foot window distance for detached units for windows only. 8. Terminology modifications. The term "guest house" changed to accessory habitable quarters, and the term "second unit" changed to "accessory dwelling unit". 9. Separation Requirement. Require a separation of 6-feet between the accessory dwelling unit and the primary unit. The existing standards (per Code Amendment No. 17-03) are provided in Attachment No. 1. III. ANALYSIS The proposed code amendment was initiated to address two development standards, including minimum lot size and rear yard setbacks. The following is a discussion of each issue. Minimum Lot Size Code Amendment No. 17-03 revised the City standard for minimum lot size reducing the minimum lot size from a sliding scale of 12,000 to 46,000 square feet (depending on the Area District) to 12,000 square feet throughout the City. Utilizing GIS software, staff was able to estimate the number of residential properties in the City and categorize them by lot size. Based on that estimate, the chart below provides the estimated percentage of lots in the City at 1,000 square foot intervals. Lot Size Percentage of Lots Greater than 7,000 sf 79% _ Greater than 8,000 sf 67% Greater than 9,000 sf 43% Greater than 10,000 sf 320/0 Greater than 11,000 sf 27% Greater than 12,000 sf 25% This chart provides information on the percentage of lots in lot size categories from 7,000 to 12,000 square feet. It should be noted, that a large portion of the lots in Woodside Village are less than 7,000 square feet. Code Amendment No. 17-03 established the minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet, so that it is estimated that 21% of the residential properties are eligible to construct an ADU, Staff did not research smaller lots sizes than 7,000 square feet as there are so few lots that are smaller than 6,000 square feet. Options P:\Case HeACODE AMEND\2018\I8.02 ADU Revisions\PC 83 8.28.18\Stady Sessim.SR.doc f Code Amendment 18-02 Accessory Dwelling Unit Revisions August 28, 2018 - Page 3 available for recommendation include any of the lot sizes above or recommending that no minimum lot size be established. Rear Yard Setback The current development standards in the R-1 Zone require a rear yard setback of 25 feet, except in Area District 1A, where a 15-foot rear setback is required. Additionally, the Code allows for an encroachment into the rear yard of 40 percent, no greater than 15 feet in height and no closer than 5 feet from the rear property line. Structures such as single- family houses, additions, and most accessory buildings (garages, workshops, sheds, etc) can be constructed to comply with these standards. Historically, second units have required a 25-foot rear setback, hi addition, accessory habitable quarters (formerly guest houses) are also required to comply with the 25-foot rear setback. The intent of this standard is to reduce privacy impacts to the neighboring properties that are adjacent to the rear yard. Most of the types of improvements allowed to encroach in the rear setback are non -habitable buildings, which generally do not have the same loss of privacy issues on an adjacent property. The current standards for accessory dwelling units require a 25-foot setback. In summary, most types of improvements in the R-1 allow a one-story structure to be constructed as close as 5-foot from the rear property line. Only the accessory habitable quarters, accessory dwelling units and second -stories require a 25 feet rear setback to the property line. This code amendment is being processed for accessory dwelling units. Options include recommending no changes to the rear setback or changing the ADU setback to the 5-foot rear setback as is required for other improvements. Clarify Location Standards The current standards combine the allowed location standards for ADUs in the Rear Yard section of the Code. The location standards require that detached ADUs be located behind the back of the residence, while attached ADUs can be located anywhere in the structure. To clarify, staff is recommending separating the rear yard standards and the location standards. In addition, staff is recommending including language that the door to the ADU not be located on the front elevation unless there is no other alternative due to topography. IV. CONCLUSION The City Council discussed reducing the minimum lot size at the hearing, however, since there had been no evaluation of a range of minimum lot sizes, a new code amendment was initiato, The Council had expressed some concerns about the minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet and how many residents in the City would be allowed to construct an ADU, as well as the required setback being a different standard than most other types of improvements. P:\Case Files\COD13 AMLNM2018\18-02 ADU RovisionsWC SS 8.28.18\Study Sessiou.SR.doc Code Amendment 18-02 Accessory Dwelling Unit Revisions August 28, 2018 - Page 4 The purpose of the study session is to provide the Planning Commission with discussion points. After discussion on the issues, the Commission may ask for additional information to be provided which may necessitate another study session. Once the Planning Commission agrees on the standards to be implemented, the next step will be to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Subsequent to Planning Commission review, a public hearing will be scheduled for the City Council to determine if changes to the code are appropriate. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the information in the staff report and attachments and provide appropriate direction to staff regarding standards to be included in the code amendment. PREPARED BY; Je / rderson, AICP Planning Director Attachments: Attaclunent No. I - Existing ADU Municipal Code Section Attachment No. 2 — Excerpt of City Council Minutes, June 19, 2018 Z:\Cnse Files\CODE AMEND\2018\I8-02 ADU Revisions\PC SS 8.28.18\Study Scssion.SR.dac Jeff Anderson From: JKENNETH LUND <JKENLUND@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2019 3:59 PM To: Lloyd Johnson Cc: Tony Wu; lettylopez@westcovina.org; Dario4WC@gmail.com; Jeff Anderson Subject: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Dear Mayor Johnson I have lived in West Covina for a number of years, 44+ to be exact, and am active in Rotary, the West Covina Historical Society and other community organizations. I understand that our City Council is now proposing to make changes to the codes that govern the building of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's), allowing them to be both substantially larger and located very much closer to the property lines. I very much believe that allowing these changes to take place is much to the detriment of our City and to the homeowners who would be faced by added -on dwelling(s) in adjacent properties. No, we are not a rural community with lots of ground between neighbors, nor are we an intentionally, tightly packed urban one. We didn't choose West Covina so that we could live in a private residence next to neighbors who have jam-packed their property with multiple dwellings that ruin our sense of privacy and pride in where we live. My wife and I are opposed to making any changes in our City's ordinances that control the building or location of ADU's in West Covina. Respectfully, J. Kenneth Lund 1300 Hollencrest Drive West Covina, CA 91791 626-918-0670 Robert and Linda Gomez 1256 S. Montezuma Way West Covina, CA 91791 Dear Mayor Johnson: We live at the above address and have been at this residents of West Covina for 14 years. We are aware that the City Council is currently proposing to make changes to the ordinance governing ADUs despite conflicting recommendations from its Planning Commission, and in advance of final regulations issued by the State of California. I/we am/are opposed to any changes to the City's existing ordinance governing ADUs. Sincerely, y Sincerely, (Z4,1 Robert Gomez Linda Gomez cc: Mayor Pro-Tem Tony Wu: tony.wu@westcovina.org Councilwoman Letty Lopez-Viado: lettylopez@westcovina.org Councilman Dario Castellanos: Dario4WC@gmail.com Jeff Anderson, Planning Director: janderson(oo)westcovina.org West Covina Planning Commission room 208 Jeff Anderson 1444 West Garvey Ave. South West Covina CA 91790 (626) 939-8422 office Michael Randazzo January 9, 2019 Honorable Mayor Lloyd Johnson City of West Covina 1444 W. Garvey Avenue South Dear Mayor Johnson: Irene and I have lived at the above address for over forty years. Recently we have learned the City Council is proposing to make changes to the ordinance governing ADUs despite conflicting recommendations from it's Planning Commission, and in advance of final regulations issued by the State of California. We are opposed to any changes to the City's existing ordnance governing ADUs. Sincerely, Michael Randazzo Irene Randazzo cc: Lloyd Joh nson@westcovino.org tony.wu(@westcmina.org LLopez-Viado@westcovina.org DCastellanos@westcovina orR Jeff.a nderson@westcovina.org /:UWII:�yrlur�l�Yli�[I][I CI t 1 1► AM81-301 t, n1 l AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DIVISION 11 OF ARTICLE XH OF CHAPTER 26 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND SETBACK AND LOCATION RELATED ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council fords as follows: A. This Code amendment allows ministerial approval of accessory dwelling units in the residential agricultural zone (R-A) and the single-family residential zone (R-1) where the property is developed with a single-fannly unit subject to development standards and specific requirements. B. As required by state law, under this ordinance, accessory dwelling units will not be considered as exceeding the allowable density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located, and that accessory dwelling units are a residential use consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. C. The existing residential character of the town is due, in large part, to regulations which ensure that lots are not overdeveloped. D. One of the best methods of ensuring that lots are not overdeveloped is to ensure that lots are of at least a minimum size before allowing additional density on the lots. E. The City should adopt ministerial procedures to allow for the development of accessory dwelling units in the City. F. On the 19th day of June 2018, the City Council initiated a code amendment to evaluate minimum lot size and rear setback standards relating to accessory dwelling wets. G. The Planning Commission held study sessions on the 281h day of August 2018 and on the I Ith day of September 2018. H. The Planning Commission, upon giving required notice, did on the 9th day of October, 2018, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 18-5964, recommending to the City Council approval of Code Amendment No. 18-02. I. The City Council considered evidence presented by the Planning Commission, Planning Department, and other interested parties at a duly advertised public hearing on the 20th day of November, 2018 and on the 5th day of February, 2019. SECTION 2. Municipal Code Amerxhnents. The City Council hereby amends the following sections of Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code as follows: October 4, 2018 Mr, Jose Jimenez West Covina Planning Commission, Room 208 1444 West Garvey Ave, South West Covina, CA 91790 Fax: (626) 939-8667 Dear Mr. Jimenez: My name is Martha Flores. I have resided at 1102 So. Shasta Street in West Covina, California for 30 years. This letter is to address the issue of ADUs (hereinafter "dwelling") - In 2014, my neighbors on pircroft put up the dwelling (pictures attached). The dwelling is 5 feet from my back wall! My husband and I were never informed by anyone at West Covina City Planning Department that our neighbors were planning, and had been approved, to build. a dwelling behind their house. Had anyone fiom City Planning contacted us we would have informed them that our lot on Shasta sits much lower than the neighbor's lot on Fircroft. As a result, the dwelling is much bigher than our wall. City Planning did not consider the impact it would have onus and my neighbors on the north and south side on Shasta. Although the dwelling may look great from our neighbor's perspective, it does not look great from our perspective. We have a beautiful back yard shadowed by an eyesore. We open our sliding door from our family room and that's what we see. There is hardly any room behind the dwelling for landscaping to cover the back of the dwelling facing our yard. Moreover, I am concerned that any landscaping between the dwelling and my back wall could eventually disturb the foundation, particularly close to our pool. I know this is old news and there is nothing that can be done about it now. Unfotunnately, once a dwelling goes up it doesn't come down. We are stuck with this view, but we would like to prevent this from happening to anyone else. I couldn't attend the September 11, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, but I watched the video. Commissioner Sheena Heng addresses a property on Inspiration Point on how extending towards the back and any future additions would block the neighbors view and would impact the neighbors' yard. She mentions how the majority of home owners bought their homes for the view. frankly, it is a slap in our face. So because we live at the bottom of the hill and don't have a view of DTLA we don't matter? Our homes may not be over a million dollars, but they are easily half a million. Ms. Hong also mentioned the re -sale value and how one neighbor had to sell their house because of the obstructed view. The dwelling on Fircroft wilt most likely affect the future sale of our home. We used to be able to see trees and mountains. Who wants a view of a dwelling? Mr. Jose Jimenez West Covina Planning Commission, Room 208 September 26, 2018 Ms. Lee mentions "property value is dependent on the aesthetics of my property and converting my home to a duplex by attaching an ADU that's not the way that we are going to preserve the charm of West Covina. Realtors can tell you a detach guest households more property value than a duplex." Adding an extra bedroom with a bathroom also adds more property value. If the setback is changed from 25 fee to 5 feet a homeowner could potentially be staring at 3 dwelling walls. After my father passed away, 20 years ago, my mother came to live with us. I have a 3-bedroom home. My boys were Sand 10 at that tune, each with their own bedroom but without hesitation shared a bedroom so my mother could have the third bedroom. We could have built a dwelling for her when she first came to stay with as. She was still independent and able to move around. Mr. Tabatabai (sp?) says that in his culture it is shameful to put parents in a home and Ms. Lee is concerned about her grandmother being elderly, but either one has any issue with moving them into a dwelling away from the main house. What happens when the parent/grandparent can no longer take care of themselves, or dies? Who is going to live in the dwelling? My mom still lives with us. She is 97 years old and yes in our culture it is frowned upon to put a parent in a home, but sometimes there is no other choice for their own safety and well-being. It is not shameful if they are going to be provided with 24/7 care. Fortunately, I have a wonderful caregiver who comes and stays with her while my husband and I are at work, but once we get home it is up to us to care for her. She is where we can keep an eye on her, not across our yard. It is a well-known fact that most dwelling are used as rentals. homeowners started by renting bedrooms in their home to supplement their income. The idea of adding a dwelling means additional income. Ms. Lee not: only wants the setback changed but also wants the current 800 sq, ft. changed to 1200 sq. ft. That is not the size of a dwelling, it is the size of a single family home! If you're lucky enough to have the square footage, then add a bedroom for your aging parent/grandparent. Don't use the "I need to have a place for my parent/grandparent) as an excuse to build a dwelling when in reality it is most likely to be used as a rental. Mr. Jimenez, I appreciate you taking the time to read this letter. Should you wish to contact me, I can be reached via email at mflores858 gtuail.com or at (626) 826-5692. Sincerely, Martha Flores Franklin J. Love Irma Love 420 S. Charvers Ave West Covina, CA 91791 Re: Accessory Dwelling Units Dear City Council, October 9, 2019 We have resided in West Covina for the past 21 years. It has come to our attention that consideration is being given to a proposal to modify the existing restrictions on Accessory Dwelling Units. Any relaxation on the current restrictions would result In parking problems, overcrowded neighborhoods and invasion of the adjoining neighbor's privacy. With respect to Invasion of privacy issues, this will invite lawsuits to abate nuisances. If the City Council relaxes these restrictions, there would be plenty of opportunity for an aggrieved plaintiff to include the city as a codefendant. The history of this City demonstrates that it does not need to be a party to any more lawsuits. We sincerely hope that you will maintain the current restrictionson Accessory Dwelling Units Respectfully, l Franklin & Irma Love 9 Lorraine Switzer 1020 South Shasta Street West Covina, CA. 91791 Phone 06-919-3219 E-mail Lswitzor ci juna.com October 2, 2018 To the West Covina City Council aftd the West Covina Planning Comm ssibn, Dear Sit It is jibpotlant to irie not t6 change the Accessory Dwelling Units policy and codes. I am an owner anti resident of West Covina . since 195.4. The policy acid cedes the way they stand protects the value ofmp.property. Thank you for your oonsideration of this matter. Lorraine Switzer 1029 Sout15 Shasta Skeet West Covina, California 91791 0 October 9, 2018 Dear City Councilmembers, I am writing to comment on agenda #14 (Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment 18-02). 1 object to a minimum lot size requirement of 12,000 sq feet. As well as a rear setback for 25 feet and side setback of 10 feet for detached ADUs because they are unreasonably restrictive and not in compliance with the intent of the state law to reduce barriers to ADU build per government code section 65852.150. setbacks should mirror the primary home. Minimum lot size serves no other function except to exclude smaller lots from opportunity. I also feel strongly that people should be allowed to build to a maximum of 1200 sq feet for a detached ADU, which is allowable by state standards. Limiting West Covina residents to 800 sq feet when they still have lot coverage and can meet setbacks is robbing them ofthe ability to build on their land. This is a grave assault on property rights. At the core of this issue is an extreme housing crisis. Because the city has not met their housing obligations, the state has stepped in. Last week, SB 1226 was signed into law paving a way for unpermitted guesthouses to find a legal pathway. If you approve this code amendment, you will be forcing 75%of property owners to convert their garages and homes into a duplex because they have no other choice. They do not meet the arbitrary 12,000 sq ft requirement to build a new ADU. If you approve this code amendment, you will force additional people, like myself, who meet the 12,000 sq feet minimum, but do not meet the 25 feet rear setback, to attach an ADU, thereby converting their home to a duplex. There is inherent property value in homes that have a detached guesthouse. That is why you don't see homes in more affluent neighborhoods attaching their guesthouses to their primary home. This is strictly a design decision that should be left to the owner as long as they stay within their lot coverage and setback requirements. The city should consider forward thinking measures to promote ADU build, sensible and fair opportunity for all property sizes, and help champion property rights. That would be in the best interest of the public. Sincerely, Jamie Lee West Covina Resident ,p f SEP 7f 2018 PLANNIN9 U6pT, Members of the planning Commission I am writing to oppose changing the city code regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). If residents need more room for additional family members, current plans already exist: they are called room additions, If the occupants want privacy, simply submit plans that would shield the new addition from the existing structure, such as a common wall or a locked door, I understand that the lay terminology for these ADU's is "granny flats". This terminology renders a description of a quiet, elderly woman as the ADU's occupant. How quaint. But what happens when "granny" dies? Who will occupy the ADU ? Another "granny", or perhaps another family member? Or perhaps several people who don't mind sharing facilities in a trade-off for low rent? Where will these people park? Probably on city streets that are already being used by current residents and home -owners as public parking structures and storage units. West Covina was conceived as a suburb of single family residences. Although times change, YOU have the capacity to retain that concept: by not allowing high - density housing in our neighborhood. Just because a minority of the population figures if they are vocal enough, adamant enough and persistent enough in their effort to modify current rules, that YOU will grant them their request. We have lived in West Covina for 65 years. We ask that you please keep our current building code and keep West Covina beautiful. Thank you Robert W. Kirk and Noreen F. Kirk Inff Ondarann From: Angie Gillingham <angjasol@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 9:43 PM To: Jeff Anderson; herbredholtz@hotmail.com Subject: Fwd: Population control in West Covina Jeff & Herb, My neighbor Jean Gipe would like to submit her views on the subject discussed at 9/11 commissioners meeting. She has an 95 yr old mother who lived with her until a week ago that she has now placed in Grand Regency for around the clock care. She loves her mother just like the rest of us. Thanks for listening, Angie Subject: Population control in West Covina Hi Angie — Does this help? Edit as you wish. J. I have lived in West Covina since 1975 both in a townhouse and a single family home. My choice to live here was based on my work ( a professor at Cal Poly) and the beauty and openness of the area. In looking at any plans to develop more housing and increase population density for West Covina I am strongly opposed. It completely changes the nature of the community in appearance and live ability. If one looks at LA County statistics for population density (ham'//maps latimes com/neighborhoods/population/density/neighborhood/list/) many of the surrounding towns are lower than West Covina (Azusa, Glendora, Diamond Bar, Rowland Heights, La Verne and Walnut). Our closest neighbors of Covina and Pomona are only slightly higher. A sizeable change for West Covina will decrease the desirability as a place to live and cause all the negative impacts that brings to property values, etc. long term. Jean Gipe, Professor Emeritus Apparel Merchandising & Management Cal Poly Pomona University Bldg. 45-Room 106 3801 W. Temple Ave., Pomona CA 91768 jgipe(a,cpp.edu 909-869-4772 http7/fwww.opp.edu/—aqri/appar 1-merchandising-and-management/indexshtml Page 2 Article XII . - SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR UNIQUE USES DIVISION 11. - ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Municipal Code Sec. 26-685.30. - Purpose. The purpose of this division is to met the need for new housing as declared by the state by reducing the barriers to the provision of affordable housing with the creation of accessory dwelling units on single-family lots. Municipal Code Sec. 26-685.32. - Definitions. Accessory dwelling unit means a dwelling unit detached from, or attached to, a primary unit on a lot zoned for single -fairly residence. Such routs do not affect the density designation of any specific or general plan. Owner -occupant mans that person or persons, who demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the planning director, a fee -ownership interest in the subject property and, in addition thereto, resides in the existing single-family dwelling upon said property and is the applicant for an accessory dweling unit. Primary unit, hereafter referred to as "primary unit," mans an existing or proposed to be built, dwelling unit that conforms to all regulations of this Code relating to section 26-391(a) prior to the addition of a an accessory dwelling unit. Municipal Code Sec. 26-685.34. - Development standards. (a) An accessory dwelling unit may be constructed or established only on a lot containing or which will contain a lawfully constructed primary unit located in a single-family residential zone. (b) An accessory dwelling unit shall have adequate water supply and sewer service. (c) An accessory dwelling unit review shall be obtained prior to the issuance of bolding permits for an accessory dwelling unit. (d) Only the owner of the property may file an application for an accessory dwelling unit on the lot of the prinary unit, and only if the owner in which he or she resides or will reside on the property. (e) The ministerial development standards of the R-1 zone and the area district in which the accessory dwelling unit is located shall apply (as specified in article V111, division 2 of this chapter) unless this division specifically permits orprohibits otherwise. C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies\ewyPDF 7\@BCL@4410614D\@BCL@4410614D.doc Jeff Anderson From Jerri Potras <lerripotras@outloolccom> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 9:22 AM To: Jeff Anderson Subject: Public Comment Submission Planning Commission Sept. 11 Meeting Agenda Item 4 - Accessory Dwelling Unit Mr. Anderson, I am unable to attend tonight's Planning Commdssion. I would, however, like to submit the following public comment on Agenda Item 4 — Accessory Dwelling Units: This morning's on-line edition of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune has an article (copied below) that very clearly describes one of my concerns regarding minimum lot size set -backs in neighborhoods such as mine: the smell of marijuana smoke wafting from one backyard to another. In the areas of the city such as South Hills marijuana smoke drilling from one yard to another may not be a concern. In other neighborhoods of the city, I know it is an issue —and it is an issue that negatively impacts the quality of life of people who do not use, or wish to use, marijuana. A 5' foot set -back will, by its very nature, "push" activities closer to property lines. The impact to neighboring lots of will understandably vary according to neighboring lot sizes and shapes. I urge the Planning Commission to recommend a larger than 5' set -back for neighborhoods such as mine and to recommend to the city council that the city use phase -in approach to adopting state mi umtu t standards. Our options should not be stay in the house with closed windows because our neighbors enjoying smoking marijuana in their backyard or move. Thank you. Jen-i Potras Resident 1055 E. Eckerman Ave. West Covina, CA 91790 ht�'//s�vhibune. ca.newsmemory_corn/token=JArn7BTsnMandy4i2Etva9jmJl�y16%2bi'1 e&product=eEdition SGVT Tuesday, September 11, 2018 Marijuana stinks, and it's a problem ENVIRONMENT By Brooke Staggs hstag sgscng.cona. WournoBrook n Twitter Even the most ardent marijuana lovers can't deny it: The plant, at least to some noses, stinks. Marijuana odors have triggered lawsuits against cannabis companies. They've led residents to try to block commercial operations firom coining to California and the other eight states where recreational cannabis is legal and, increasingly, big business. Odor even has sparked some neighborhood friction as marijuana smoke drifts from one apartment or yard to the next. There are products on the market that claim to test for smells, block all odors from wafting out of indoor operations, and even help control the stench of outdoor marijuana farms. Long before legalization, the cannabis industry grew accustomed to working underground, making growers and processors and distributors pretty good at hiding the smells associated with their businesses. While that might case the possibility of odorrelated friction, it doesn't foster industrywide communication about new ideas for tackling the issue, even as new anti - odor technologies are coming to market. Only now, with odor control an area that's both problematic and ripe for technical solutions, are marijuana entrepreneurs starting to share ideas about their industry's stink factor. "That's probably the biggest hurdle now, for everybody involved, is knowing what's available as best practices, and what's feasible," said Dana Pack of Fogeo, an Arizona -based company that makes systems to neutralize unwanted smells. Cities can mandate odorcontrol systems for home growers or as a condition for approval of marijuanarelated business permits. But some in the industry note that odor requirements aren't yet universal and that odor control is yet another element of the marijuana business in which regulators aren't keeping pace with the spread of legalization. "The licensing agencies are still in a learning cruvo," said Chuck McGinley, technical director of St. Croix Sensory, a lab in Minnesota that tests for odors and makes products that help others do so in the fiel! d. "This is a very young industry." Residents claim the stench of weed disrupts their quality of life, lowers their property values and causes problems for people with respiratory issues such as asthma. In June, after the city of P alm Springs issued what might be the first permit for a cannabis lounge in Southern. California, the owner of a spa next door threatened to leave town. Since January 2011, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which monitors air quality issues for most of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, has received 11 complaints of odors allegedly created by marijuana growers, dispensaries or processing facilities, according to spokesman Sam Atwood. Santa Barbara County and cities within its boundaries have received more permits to grow marijuana than any otl her county in California. Now residents of the beach town Carpentelia say they're stuffing pillows under their doors to block odors coming from nearby cannabis farms. a in Colorado, three years ago, owne If a residential property sued a marijua' corm that was set to open next door, claiming cannabis- related odors would ruin their horse rides and harm weir property values. The lawsuit cited racketeering laws, typically used to prosecute organized crime rings, since marijuana remains illegal under federal law. A federal district court initially dismissed the Colorado claim, but an appeals court in 2017 cleared the case to move forward. That paved the way for a number of other lawsuits that raise racketeering charges while also citing odor and other nuisance concerns, and similar suits have been filed in Massachusetts and Oregon. Some of those suits have been settled or dismissed. Others are pending, raising concerns within the industry about how state -legal marijuana programs might be upended by legal battles that often start with simple complaints about smell. Most odor control solutions for the marijuana industry involve tweaking products that are already used by landfills, wastewater treatment plants and other businesses that generate offensive smells. The most common fix is to add carbon filters, or "scrubbers," to ventilation systems. As air passes through, odor molecules bind to the activated charcoal. As long as everything is properly installed and maintained, McGinley said the air that comes out of the vents should be virtually odorless. But carbon filters have to be replaced often, making them pricey for large operators. Carbon filters also rely on a lot of electricity, making them less than ideal for many environmentally conscious greenhouse owners. And, of course, air filters can't do anything about the smell generated by outdoor farms. That's where fog systems might come into play. These systems involve placing nozzles at the spot where air from a grow operation will be expelled. The system mixes water with an odor -neutralizing chemical and forces that mixture through the nozzles at high pressure. The water instantly evaporates, leaving the chemical in the au to attract and neutralize any cannabis smells. "The idea is to build a barrier of fog between the odorous air and ! community," said Fogeo's Pack. Such systems don't need to be in constant use, so Pack said energy use and maintenance are "a fraction" of what's required to use carbon filters. Mark Stanley, a vice president with Palm Springsbased MicroCool, which also makes a fog odor -control system, said marijuana growers are showing enough interest in his company's products that it's hard to keep up with demand. Pack of Fogeo said that while greenhouse operators are his company's biggest clients, his company also sets up systems to control odors from outdoor farms. They line the perimeter of the farm with nozzles, which they can turn on when plants are flowering and monitors show that wind speed and direction might carry the scent to neighbors. Some online grower forums recommend "ozone generators," which can disrupt! smells by converting oxygen into ozone. But the California Air Resources Board advises against using the devices with people around since, to remove odors, they have to create ozone molecules at levels that aren't safe for humans to breathe. With such a wide range of techniques available, Santa Monica -based cannabis attorney Michael Jensen said it's key to write odor -control regulations that leave room for innovation. Currently, California law doesn't dr zcb to address odors, requiring only tb iarijuana businesses limit emissions fiom generators and from the solvents used in the extraction of certain marijuana compounds. Otherwise, state agencies overseeing cannabis have said odor control is a local issue. Most California jurisdictions ban all marij uana businesses. And many cities and counties that do permit the! in simply include a line or two in their regulations that say marijuana odors can't be noticeable. Los Angeles's marijuana regulation rules run 33 pages, only three sentences of which address odor control. The rules state that air vented from marijuana businesses must be filtered so that odors can't be detected outside, or in adjoining sites, by a person with a "normal sense of smell." Long Beach requires businesses to submit odor control plans when they apply for local permits, and the system must be certified by a licensed engineer. Local authorities are also the go -to source for complaints about marijuana odors. While it's legal in California for adults 21 and over to consume marijuana, and grow up to six plants at home, residents bothered by the smell can report it as a nuisance to their local code enforcement office. I£ the neighbor lives in an apartment, under a homeowner's association or has a landlord, residents might have better luck reporting complaints through those entities, since they can ban smoking and cultivation in their units. Odor complaints are tricky to investigate, according to Alan Abbs, executive director of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. Smells tend to dissipate quickly, and the offensiveness of certain smells can be subjective. One way to remove some of that subjectivity is to use devices called field olfactometers, which offer science - backed data about the intensity of odors. McGinley's lab makes a field olfactometer called the Nasal Ranger. It looks like a telescope with a mask on the shinny end and a rotating dial on the fatter end. Users adjust that dial, then hold the Nasal Ranger up to their nose and breathe in. Carbon filters purify some of the air. Then, based on the dial's setting, the device mixes the filtered air with the air coming in from outside before it gets to the user's nose. The more dilution required to get rid of the smell, the stinkier the outside air would be. A Artury Gonzalez nesident of Woot Covina 14-14 E. ftkorman Avo: Wotg Covirim, CA 91791 P ,30ptqmboy 9, 2018 Mr.. Jeff Anderson Planning Dirfirtor city of West Govina 1444 Wolf: GAFV9Y AvOnUO SOL191 WoAlCovinmi CA 9,1790 nit ftrining Commkolon; Study Gossion Code Arneridmant No. 1-4�02 koeesory Owelling Unit Revision I am-greatty concerned with The PoSsIbIRY of Vies, Covina ADU standards Mai are currently in place being revised. The changog proposed to tho planning oommlOiD11 will have a nogcdIve Impact to homeownersthat do NOT Wish to have second dwellings built In their neighbodloods. The revisions will effect the newly formed districts of West Covirld Intl OSPRYPOMOnatG way, Tills, disproportion will have al-.1 adverse effect on previously or ourrep.jjy proilled ac, low in oonie elre15, The currvilt ADU .standards provides w8afeguard against MOM population density bald Provides the, corl.tInLia a d re V .1 suburban filo style. The prapo e Islon should be rejaater1 Any revision Is unacceptable. The Proposed ADU figures being presented to the Pjandrig Qornmjsslon is cloite alarming The roductlor) Of 101 8i7e requirement of 12,000 square foot, Dooreasing the minimorn rear 80thad(frOm 26 feet to 5 foot. Increasing ille, allowed -ske of dwelling unit from 600 square feet to -1,2{lO square feat.Me, landscape of klestCovina is distinct. Housing situated Or, b1j[5ide8, in valleys, on flat lands, and In gated communities, Hom(,�& arid tot sizes vary from one neighborhood to another in each district, According to om� 6tortietic 25 p - entla properties aroprit of the reold �l properij: � In Wes! Covina are at least 12,000 foot. The oxplitittridaning of this statistic is the, 75 percent of The city's residential property Is Potential tot untetter exploitation- I have strong resel-valiono that an equitable outcome will he realized e$peclalfy toy a city with five newly oreated districts and whoee domog -I f, HO yaphics are quite diverse. How can the ohaigeu proposed nut effect one dl t I I In an adverse way while having the .oppostte eftea on another distflot, one of lKe topics,for changinq ADD standards is the thetbrIc, on housing Shortage. Stale goveenment And husinegagroup8 are expounding that Soutile-M California has all affordable he using orists. Uoral city governments are taslwd to develop plans that aftues the houolhg allortagu-ID tho form of a `$IlOrl term fix 10 SOU010M OVA1110nila's affordable ljousingarlsle. in bmflmc*.s there is a term uVed for "short torn fix"; it'ucallod t,parmanoot fw'. Providing a mewng, to permit more strugotures to be Wit on existing propefty loo.3 tilml '12,000 SOMMare feel is an ill Goriceived pjaoit. aflawa for increase population density that will aciveits* lmpnc3t Vvest Covina resident's quality of life. DKrjso population piaoasa burden on residents and the city's intrastructure. Tile standards of "quality, which the ofty of We8l Covina embraces will qUickly orode wq "quantity" continues to be the destred ".9tiaki twill" solukii for both business and government, ftea7lng more qlruclurev� Info limited spaco is a disservice to residents of Wo8t Govinvj.Code Amendment Mm 18-02 Awessory Dwellina UnItIt'lovisiOns Is unacceptable. t moved from Los Angeles 26 YOM agm I relowltod becaugO I wanted to remove nlysolf froty, tile problems that we inherent with poor governance in V( dblle.Oly pOpUlated city, I pupollets9d my house in West Covina 25 years qgco because I wanted to live M a city where "quality of life" is first The fact thfat I dAn eillaY family ionotions on my propoity withoW arty n egativig inlipact an my nalghbof'r vvell b6ing is ItYlportan-L In 25 Y& ars of Whig In tllaaarrie neighborhood not one comp?oltit from my n4sighbors. Tbio isone of Mo bonolltg Inherent I 0 M oily with low 9c)putatiort. UVing P suburlaan life {style) in West 00villa alai; �,)oot) a-tromondow bloc -sing! I do norkwafit to 60 this dream that I have worj<oa so 1-terd to attain taken away. I -do shQngdy oppose amending the rurrentADU atandardu, Arturo Gonzalez boovdVow MR "�£dL�: •Zit4wg,�;, �Sk4{5�.3�.7�i;:�F3iU'}?e�k$',i.� .. �.P,r�'L �411'§'�sQ7171C7.� 4aok)pu ian� to aeka,alak k w 1�,tYvua a e,au k uy'ratt OR wwu iAi�rea:a;�X�a�il`svala��h�nv�:�•�r7��h ,�1�8�2f�� ' Brian Tabatabai ADU 1 message Brian Tabatabai <bmteducator@yahoo.com> Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:01 PM To: tommie50@gmail.com For a child to take in their parents, to house them, to support them Is the highest honor in my culture. It is an expectation we understand and embrace. I had the pleasure of being raised with my grandmother in my childhood home. Many nights were spent listening to our families, eating ancient recipes, having someone who loved me waiting for me, as both my parents worked. It Is now my time to do the same. In 2008, my parents, like many others lost a large portion of their retirement. In 2015 it lead to the selling of their home. From this tragedy came wonderful opportunity. With our home we planned to build a beautiful place for my mother. A place where she could live with family, where we could care for her, where she could pass on our families legacy to my son. ADU are an opportunity to keep families together, to keep our village from falling apart. We hope the city can see the Importance. We hope the city can realize at close to $200K, they are not a cheap way to make an extra buck. They are a child's obligation. Thankyou Sent from my !Phone 'A JERRI POTRAS August 2S, 2018 i&UrfAnd&$O)i pl'axinitg Oit� .0 140. West Ggvoy Ayen4e,Sbiftb West Covhia,, CA 91790 a OQ $2SJQN;.. $T(JDYSFSS-ION QODI'AMMOAMTNO,-18:.02ACCESSORY DWELLINo.tmt,T,uv$ffm. CV g s4�4 wox p , lmity toptopbrty RnM d6bodtfa mike Tam; therefoze, guestihg the PWffiffi`CQMfbJ .4p ..?I VNIM6 xevislugtk Acoess6zy ]3we11zn UWS(ADU' niazuzex thafiresezes tizequality ofliving iz A nelkhb6thooA. In m-yilelghbbfh'(j6d. 16t§l&svaij.qVl:tq abIt. mine most gke ,ly;WWd—ifstAte.AU riviii>zi'�ni4(pp#Wsare ado ,pted These are host of issues, iffsoolaf4y*h it jripw ,slowly bakso noggativu Impacts on yw-ox"Vle, wbA people 4 property. Lo"t size zs a variable oii gifality of lifd. With ftom 4 d. me situation also or smoke x-' mllg db� MR to 4 U019 40f Yam., PVDA The same aFdjje*o Who donwish t6, 'small grb:Ad ,qlie r hoirq bjA to.stq -ibsildbitheir own homevwAi activitiesoan b666fde 64-1 ggile. Th lie OpeftY. I i he: Will A"Ijj� MdgQ issue $ b 0 dau g b ftv �fwvlff 0 vvw -0�c ot Op" sor.pop. qr ty "lip it is my-uhdd9taAd!hg that state iaV allot 4 dtY to have 90me disetPn'yzesiilents> my 5I-Pet 't p:6.'u.ett of Page 3 (f) An accessory dwelling unit shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation. (g) Specific development standards: (1) The lot shall have been created legally. he a lka*A l IRt a„a be at least 12,000 . e feet. (2) Prior to any certificate of occupancy being issued for the accessory dwelling unit, the lot shall contain a primary unit conforming to all regulations of the single-family zone. (3) An accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the mininum unit size requirements of the California Building Standards Code. (4) Maximum Floor Area a. A detached accessory dwelling unit shall be it a structure that is a single story with a maximum dwelling area of one thousand two eight hundred (1,200NO) square feet and be limited to two bedrooms. b. An accessory dwelling unit that is attached to the existing primary unit shall only be located on the first story and be limited to a maximum exterior expansion of fifty (50) percent of the dwelling area of the primary unit up to a nx xinum of one thousand two eight hundred (1,200-S00) square feet and shall be limited to two bedrooms. (5) Parking. In addition to the parking required for the primary dwelling unit (section 26- 402), an accessory dwelling unit shall require one (1) accessible off-street parking space if the accessory dwelling unit w1Il have a bedroom Parking spaces for accessory dwelling units shall be a milirnnn eight (8) feet by sixteen (16) feet. Access to such parking shall be paved, not less than twelve (12) feet in width, nor wider than the garage or carport for the primary dwelling unit, except as modified in section 26-402.5. Said parking may be located in an existing driveway, in a required setback, or as a tandem design, but shall not impede access to the required parking for the primary residence. However, no parking is required for accessory dwelling units in any of the following circumstances: a. Using city streets, from the accessory dwelling unit, a person would have to walk less no more than one-half a mile to a public bus stop or train station. b. The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. c. The accessory dwelling unit is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure. d. When on -street parking pemvts are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit. e. When there is a car share vehicle located within five hundred (500) feet of the accessory dwelling unit. f. The accessory dwelling unit is solely created from existing habitable space within the primary residence. CAWindows\TEMP\BCL Technologies\ewyPDF 7\@BCL@4410614D\@BCL@4410614D.doc Page 4 (6) Garages. New or replacement garages or carports opening towards a side street shall be set back a minimurn of twenty-two (22) feet from the property line. If a garage is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit, no setback is required for the portion of the garage which is converted. If a garage is converted to an accessory dwelling unit, the lot must stiff provide a garage for the single-family residence, per section 26-402. (7) Distance between structures. The distance between the primary unit and a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be no less than six (6) feet. (9) a. Aft -ached ..ecessory dwelling unks may be entirely within «l.e ..«:.. any «esidenee of or .,ehod to the hnok of d.e p sidene@ and ..1..,11 1..,.,e a FOquired yafcl b. 11etcmcxacarl.ed ae eessefy dwelling u4s may vial`, be L.,.a*d bel iRd «L.e ..:.le....e and. ..l...11 not by 1..r ted .414 tl.e a .. l.et...eer, d.e f......t .. 1:..e all@1 w die 1. v f the pp4nary r@sidennee. Detached�ssesser3 ,4...e11:.lg ..P4S Shall 60-....1.. ...:d. F@af .,..«d :«eFa@F s -.roN4ded in se, 0,6e-. 36 406 For- ..ed s r l..t.. lyhp'«e ., is f....:....and leeete.l f......«:..,...n a ..:.le pmline, an aeeess dwelling . « q14-RI1 met ti,e IssAted .. WWR d.e .. (8) Rear yard netaehpd nevomeryd-Ael fin pwits shall nm*, t a Fear- Few&effwnts 4dea eetion _26- nnc Attached and detached accessory dwelling units shall have a required Year yard as provided in sections 26406 and 26-407. (9) Site location. A new accessory dwelling unit may be established in the R-1 or R-A zone as following. a. Attached accessory dwelling units may be entirely within the existing primary residence or attached to the back of the primary residence. b. Detached accessory dwelling units may not be located within the area between the front property line and a line parallel to the back of the primary residence. For reversed corner lots where a house is facing and located fronting on a street side property line, an accessory dwelling unit shall not be located within the area between the street side property line and a line parallel to the most distant part of the house from the street side property line. (910) The entrance to an accessory dwelling unit shall be separate from the entrance to the primary unit and shall not be on the front elevation. If topography restricts access C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies\ewyPDF 7\@BCL@4410614D\@BCL@4410614D.doc Page 5 from all side and rear elevations, the accessory dwelling unit door may be on the front elevation provided it is not prominently visible from the right-of-way. a. No overhead utility lines are permitted to service the accessory dwelling unit. If existing overhead utility lines are to be relocated or otherwise modified to pemrit construction of an accessory unit, such lines shall be converted to underground services. b. The numerical street address of the lot shall remain as one (1) number with the primary unit being designated as "A" and the accessory dwelling unit being designated as T." c. Utility services to the accessory dwelling unit may remain and are encouraged through single source points except where not permitted by the utility company. d. Pi4c--�Development impact fees for the accessory dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with section 1726-204. (1-911) The architectural style of the accessory dwelling unit in design features, such as, but not limited to, materials, colors, roofing, scale, exterior treatment and details shall match the primary unit. (4-12) An accessory dwelling unit shall not be allowed on a lot with an accessory habitable -quarters as allowed in section 26-391.5. (�213) A six -foot -high wall or solid fence shall be provided and maintained on the rear yard boundary of any lot containing an accessory dwelling unit. Said wall or solid fence shall be in eoffVliawe comply with this Code in relation to height and location as approved by the plaruiing director. (4-14) Windows on side or rear property lines. Windows on detached accessory dwelling unit are only allowed on side or rear property lines when the structure is located a minimum of ten (10) feet from a side or rear property line, respectively. (h) Conversion of Existing Pemiitted Floor Area. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section to the contrary, the city will approve an application for a building permit for an accessory dwelling unit if all of the following apply: (1) The application is to create an accessory dwelling unit within either the residential agricultural (RA) zone or the single-family (Rl) zone one (1) accessory dwelling unit per single-family lot; (2) The accessory dwelling unit is contained entirely within the existing space (ie. within four existing walls) of a legal single-family residence or a legal accessory structure (excluding garages); CAWindows\TEMP\BCL Technologies\ewyPDF 7\@BCL@4410614D\@BCL@4410614D.doc