planning commission city of half moon bay agenda · rick hernandez, chair brian holt, vice chair...

Emergency Operations Center (EOC)537 Kelly AvenueHalf Moon Bay, California 94019

Rick Hernandez, ChairBrian Holt, Vice ChairJohn Evans, Planning CommissionerJames Benjamin, Planning CommissionerLes Deman, Planning Commissioner

AGENDA

CITY OF HALF MOON BAYPLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2018

7:30 PM

This agenda contains a brief description of each item to be considered. Those wishing to address thePlanning Commission on any matter not listed on the Agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the PlanningCommission to resolve, may come forward to the podium during the Public Forum portion of the Agendaand will have a maximum of three minutes to discuss their item. Those wishing to speak on an agenda itemare asked to fill out a speaker card. Speaker(s) will be called forward at the appropriate time during theagenda item in consideration.

Please Note: Please Provide a Copy of Prepared Presentations to the Clerk

Copies of written documentation relating to each item of business on the Agenda are on file in theOffice of the City Clerk at City Hall and the Half Moon Bay Library where they are available for publicinspection. If requested, the agenda shall be available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with adisability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132.)Information may be obtained by calling 650-726-8271.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, special assistance for participation in thismeeting can be obtained by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 650-726-8271. A 48-hour notification willenable the City to make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).

http://hmbcity.com/

MEETING WILL CONCLUDE BY 10:30 PM UNLESS OTHERWISE EXTENDED BY SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THEPLANNING COMMISSION.

1

http://hmbcity.com/

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

02.27.201802.27.2018

02.13.201802.13.2018

12.12.201712.12.2017

PUBLIC COMMENT

1. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS/STUDY SESSION

1.A 2017 HOUSING ANNUAL REPORT - Confirm Receipt of Housing Element Annual ReportSTAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT 1_Housing Element Annual Report

1.B POLICY DIRECTION FOR POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO CITY ORDINANCE REGULATINGACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS - A Study Session to provide policy direction to staff forpotential amendments to City ordinance regulating accessory dwelling units, also knownas second unitsSTAFF REPORT - Policy Considerations for Ordinance Regulating Accessory DwellingUnits.pdf

ATTACHMENT 1_State ADU Law and Current HMB ADU Standards.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2_ HMB CH 18.33

ATTACHMENT 3A_CCC_guidance_memo_re_ADUs.pdf

ATTACHMENT 3B_CCC_ADU_Follow_Up_Guidance_Memo_re_ADUs.pdf

ATTACHMENT 4_Chapter 22.5 - Second Unit -SMC Zoning Ordinance.pdf

1.C POLICY DIRECTION FOR POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF A CITY ORDINANCE REGULATINGSHORT-TERM RENTALS - A Study Session to provide policy direction to staff for potentialadoption of a City ordinance regulating short-term rentals.Staff Report - Policy Considerations for Ordinance Regulating short-term rentals.pdf

ATTACHMENT 1_CCC Guidance_STR

ATTACHMENT 2A_ San Mateo County Zoning 6161

ATTACHMENT 2B_San Mateo County Zoning 6181

ATTACHMENT 3_Half Moon Bay Home Occupation Standards2

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160255/DRAFT_PC_Minutes_02.27.18_bj_jde.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160256/DRAFT_PC_MINUTES_02.13.2018.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160257/DRAFT_PC_MINUTES_12.12.2017.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160224/PC_3-13-17_Housing_Element_Annual_Report.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160225/ATTACHMENT__1_Housing_Element_Annual_Report.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160573/Staff_Report_-_Policy_Considerations_for_Ordinance_Regulating_Accessory_Dwelling_Units.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160574/ATTACHMENT_1_State_ADU_Law_and_Current_HMB_ADU_Standards.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160575/ATTACHMENT_2__HMB_CH_18.33.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160576/ATTACHMENT_3A_CCC_guidance_memo_re_ADUs.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160577/ATTACHMENT_3B_CCC_ADU_Follow_Up_Guidance_Memo_re_ADUs.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160578/ATTACHMENT_4_Chapter_22.5_-_Second_Unit_-SMC_Zoning_Ordinance.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160529/Staff_Report_-_Policy_Considerations_for_Ordinance_Regulating_short-term_rentals.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160243/ATTACHMENT_1_CCC_Guidance_STR.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160245/ATTACHMENT__2A__San_Mateo_County_Zoning_6161.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160246/ATTACHMENT__2B_San_Mateo_County_Zoning_6181.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/160247/ATTACHMENT_3_Half_Moon_Bay_Home_Occupation_Standards.pdf

DIRECTOR'S REPORT

PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS

ADJOURNMENT

3

MINUTES

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2018

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC) / 537 KELLY AVENUE Vice Chair Holt called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. PRESENT: Vice Chair Holt, Commissioners Benjamin, Deman, and Evans ABSENT: Chair Hernandez I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL

Vice Chair Holt led the Pledge of Allegiance. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of December 12, 2017 and February 13, 2018 Postponed due to Lack of Quorum.

Motion: No Motion was taken, just agreed.

III. Elections: Continued to next Planning Commission session when all members are present.

IV. PUBLIC COMMENT

None

V. SAN MATEO COUNTY ADU (ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS) PRESENTATION BY PEGGY JENSON

Planning Commission Study Session on ADU/Short Term Rentals will be on the upcoming Planning Commission Meetings Agenda.

VI. PUBLIC COMMENT

None

VII. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS

ITEM 1A - Site Location: 390 Myrtle Street Study Session: Construction of a new single-story family residence. File Number: PDP-18-001

4

February 27, 2018

Planning Commission Minutes

Page 2 of 5

Applicant: Randy Ralston Project Planner: Scott Phillips Scott Phillips, Associate Planner presented project design and details. Randy Ralston, Applicant, spoke addressing the 21-foot-wide approach, and believes the project appropriate for the height and neighborhood. PUBLIC COMMENT

1. James Goulart, Neighbor believes the project to have no value. Claims to have been told the adjacent lot would not be buildable. Looked at County $8,000 assessment. Issues, “unique” in that it does not fit the neighborhood. Believes it to be non-conforming, by definition. The proposed house would block sunlight until 9:00am. Will this turn into a high-density housing area?

2. Jules Soffer, Neighbor initially nervous about 25 ft. wide property, but

pleased to see it turned out nicely. Concerned the proposed “loft” would constitute a second story.

3. Paul McGregor, 484 Poplar, knows the difficulty of building on smaller lots. Supportive of project, “too many restrictions create a difficulty to build.”

Planning Commission Discussion and suggestions:

• Site Plan and Architectural Design: o What constitutes a “2nd story?” o Pitch of the Roof? o Concerns the roof may be too steep o City ordinance for daylight planes, fits all of the requirements o Questions/concerns about setbacks. What are the front yard

setbacks? Front, Myrtle, 25’, west 3’, east 5’ rear? o House proportion is nice, 2 baths – luxurious for small house o Perhaps increase bay window depth o How much can the dormers overhang? o Consider skylights. It will brighten house. o Consider a deck on the second story o 1st floor consider flipping the layout of kitchen and dining room, if

garage is used for parking it would be nice to have kitchen close to garage. Principal living space would be next to the backyard which would make for a more pleasant space.

o Consider more variation on the Western exposure of the house. It looks monolithic. Consider articulation on 2nd Ave

o With respect to the loft, if greater than 70 square feet, CBC requires egress

o Is a double wide trailer an option? 5

February 27, 2018


Page 3 of 5

o Supportive of Solar access. o What is the outside space available?

• Neighborhood Compatibility: o Concerned of immediate impact on neighbor directly to West o What about negative screening? o Neighbor views would be from front of home, blocking side view. o Light impact issues? o Might make house fit in better if we do not require sidewalks and

allow landscaping or yard extend into the city right of way. o Challenging lot, due to context of the neighborhood

• Street Frontage and Access: o Concerned with loss of sidewalk o Look closely at the width of the driveway and make sure there is

sufficient space to turn around. o Need to design for a sidewalk and/or protect path for pedestrians. o There are no sidewalks, may impose they may participate in an

assessment in the future. o Would like to see curb/gutter lineup o Parking in the back?

• Subdivision and Lot Status: o Legal lot, was it ever split?

What is the building ratio factoring in abandoned ally? Questions about the alley and the 10’ wide sewer easement.

o What about 2nd Avenue?

• Utilities: o Where is the powerlines for the site? o Where are the water lines? Street? o May need to relocate or bury the utility pole.

VIII. ITEM 2A

Site Location: 555 Poplar Study Session: Resubmittal for construction of new Duplex. File Number: PDP-17-080 Applicant: Paul MacGregor Project Planner: Scott Phillips Scott Phillips, Associate Planner presented project design and details for 2 alternate designs: 1) detached garage; and 2) tandem parking Brian Brinkman, designer, spoke providing details and clarification about the project design. 6

February 27, 2018


Page 4 of 5

PUBLIC COMMENT

1. Jules Sofer, Neighbor, concerned with the Poplar Street traffic light, that speeding cars should be taken in consideration for the parking and driveway design.

2. Carlos Ruiz, Poplar, direct neighbor to the East, noted that there should be a Caltrans study on this property. City Engineer needs to be involved in this project. Requested the City provide pavement markings. No crosswalks going North to South in frontage of proposed project. Proposal does not show elevations/drainage plans of new building.

Planning Commission Discussion and items that need to be addressed:

• Site Plan and Architectural Design: o Concerned that the project is too close the house next house. It

appears out of proportion. Is it possible for us to modify the set back from the street?

o A larger space between this lot and the lot to the North Exterior detailing and rooflines do not match the massing of buildings

o North-West corner of Filbert and Hwy 1 are traditional California. o Entrance points to units seemed crammed. o Appreciate concern about 2 stories on Hwy 1. 2-story design is

workable. o Be mindful of deck over the garage, how usable will this deck be? Add

deck over covered parking space area. o Design is simple and fits into neighborhood.

• Drainage: o Lot drainage, have a steep slope down into a culvert o Concern/questions regarding an intelligent water retention plan o Suggestion for water recycling o Survey fails to show elevations of center line of Hwy 1 o Reference Filbert house’s impervious surfaces

• Noise: o Acknowledge potential noise impact o Questions regarding sound wall height, may not have much impact on

noise

• Parking: o Persuaded to support the tandem design o Supports detached garage, and prefers pervious paving

• Landscaping/Biological Resources: Check for invasive exotics on the site and would still propose screening benefits

• Street Improvements: Needs to see street improvements relative to site access, sight distance, and other safety concerns. 7

February 27, 2018


Page 5 of 5

IX. LUP SUBCOMMITTEE

The Director updated the Commission regarding the LCP update process and requested the Commission to consider forming an ad-hoc subcommittee. Motion: Commissioner Benjamin made motion to form a Planning Commissioner subcommittee and nominated Chair Hernandez and himself. M/S: Benjamin/Deman Motion Carried: 4-0

X. DIRECTOR REPORT

XI. PUBLIC COMMENT

None XII. ADJOURNMENT

M/S: Holt Motion Carried: unanimously Meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted: Approved: ____________________________ _________________________________ Joe Butcher, Admin. Assistant Brian Holt, Vice Chair

8

MINUTES


TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2018

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC) / 537 KELLY AVENUE Chair Hernandez called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PRESENT: Chair Hernandez, Commissioners Holt, and Deman ABSENT: Commissioners Benjamin and Evans

I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL Chair Hernandez led the Pledge of Allegiance.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of December 12, 2017 Chair Hernandez made a comment regarding clarification to his comments which he emailed to staff. Smith Field is going to continue to be good money spent on bad and we should evaluate relocating the entire park to a location more suitable and sustainable for such an active use. This will allow us to expand the park, provide facilities with proper drainage, and improve the view corridor to the Ocean.

Motion: To continue the minutes to include the changes brought up by Chair Hernandez and because there was not a quorum of Planning Commissioner’s present who attended the December 12, 2017 meeting. M/S Hernandez/Deman Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of November 14 & 28, 2017 M/S Holt/Deman Motion carried unanimously.

III. PUBLIC COMMENT

None

IV. Adopt Resolution P-18-01 denying the appeal and upholding the Director’s decision of PDP-17-040. 9

February 13, 2018


Page 2 of 3

Project: A new 4,301 square foot two-story residence and associated site improvements File Number: PDP-17-040 Permits/Approvals: Coastal Development Permit & Architectural Review Site Location: 525 Railroad Avenue / APN 056-133-350 Applicant/Property Owners: Anthony Taffera / Taffera Family Trust Project Planner: Scott Phillips; (650) 726-8299; [email protected] Zoning District: R-1 Single Family Residential LCP Land Use Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Scott Philips, Associate Planner, made presentation to the Planning Commission Gia Beverati, appellants representative - spoke on behalf of the appellant who could not attend the meeting in person. Written communication from the appellant, dated February 13, 2018, was provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting via email and with a hard copy at the meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT

None

The Planning Commission conducted a discussion stating that the character of the Railroad Avenue frontage is two-story homes; that the project conforms with all zoning requirements and the design guidelines and that there was no basis for the appeal.

Motion: To adopt Resolution P-18- denying the appeal and upholding the Director’s decision approving PDP-17-040 an application for a Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review to allow the construction of a new 4,301 square-foot, single-family residence on a 9,030 square-foot site at 525 Railroad Avenue, based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in Exhibit A of the Draft Resolution, and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B with an addendum to Exhibit B.2.b. to read:

Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B:

B.2.b. REQUIRED PLAN REVISIONS. Prior to issuance of building permits, the

applicant shall submit revised plans providing the following:

a) Lot Coverage calculation on the plans shall be modified to include the 74

square feet portion of the front porch beyond the second story balcony.

b) All landscaping within the following areas of the property shall be limited to 7

feet in height:

i. within the rear yard,

ii. within 14 feet of the north side property line, 10

February 13, 2018


Page 3 of 3

iii. within 12 feet of the south side property line. (Planning)

M/S: Deman/Holt Motion carried by Roll Call Vote unanimously.

V. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Jill Ekas, Community Development Director, reported updates to the Planning Commission.

VI. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS VII. ADJOURNMENT

M/S: Holt/Deman Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7.58 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted: Approved: ____________________________ _________________________________ Bridget Jett, Planning Analyst Rick Hernandez, Chair

11

MINUTES


JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2017

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC) / 537 KELLY AVENUE Vice Chair Holt called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Planning Commission: PRESENT: Vice Chair Holt, Commissioner Benjamin TELECONFERENCE: Chair Hernandez ABSENT: Commissioners Evans and Deman Parks and Recreation Commission: PRESENT: Chair Allshouse, Commissioners Eisen, Bacich, Rotty ABSENT: Commissioner Ramirez

I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL Vice Chair Holt led the Pledge of Allegiance.

II. PUBLIC COMMENT

None

III. ITEM #1 – DRAFT PARKS MASTER PLAN

Mindy Craig, Bluepoint Planning Design presented the draft Parks Master Plan to the Planning and Parks & Recreation Commissions. The intent of this study session was to receive input from the community and the Commissioners on the draft master plan in advance of bringing the Parks Master Plan to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their recommendation to City Council.

PC /PRC Discussion –

• Carter Park – what type seating wall or animal barrier? What would it look like?

• Funding mechanisms – are any of these projects already budgeted? o “Getting some points on the board”

• Look forward to seeing what financial impacts will be in relation to the listed projects. 12

December 12, 2017


Page 2 of 5

• What about San Mateo County trails, have we looked at them? o Bike/Ped Master Plan covers trials

• Study long term maintenance costs and potential relocation of ballpark to area with less drainage issues

• Bike parking should be in every park

• Need a clear definition of “Park.” o Purpose for citizens of Half Moon Bay vs. attraction for visitors to Half

Moon Bay. Do not treat regional resources as local resources. o Trying to find opportunity for a park for Sea Haven.

Public Comment –

1. Marcia Reilly, HMB Dog Park – Understanding of importance of maintenance. Half Moon Bay’s dog park is the only safe and legal off leash area between Pacifica and Santa Cruz. Need for the area to be increased. Important to keep stakeholders involved with the process.

2. Mike Ferreira – With respect to the County Landfill Site, in a past ballot

measure, active use lost by 2:1 to passive use concepts. There is an agreement between City and County about definition of passive/active. The speaker noted that Smith Field is an extremely challenging site due to how it has been developed over time. Be careful to preserve the view of the historic Johnston House saltbox in context with its hillside setting; ancillary buildings around Johnston House visible from Highway 1 could detract.

3. Kerry Burke – resident it is critical time with General Plan – Maintenance is so key, it is essential. Like the ideas of having budget and/or set fund. Bathrooms are essential at parks. Kitty Fernandez Park – design elements do not speak to Pumpkin Festival – would need to be able to be available for community events - not a good location for community garden. Smith Field – what could we do better? Redondo Beach – do not short change this area. Proponent for an aquatic center.

4. Jo Chamberlain, Coastside Land Trust – something new has just happened –

planning for the Seymour Ditch. Working with the City about how to deal compressively with water. Long term goal is to slow water down, but there is currently poor water quality; would like large/permanent wetlands on Coastside Land Trust Property.

5. Peter Krouse, resident – volunteer with several organizations. Neighbors –

concerned about traffic/safety issues that could be created if a park is developed at the POST property next to Cypress Cove. Very excited to read about the Carter Park plans.

13

December 12, 2017


Page 3 of 5

6. John Callan, San Mateo Land Exchange – Redondo Beach Road – getting a short shrift – County had considered a park in that area. Currently it is a ‘rats nest,’ down there.

PC /PRC Discussion –

• Seniors—with limited mobility need a park on the south end of Main Street that satisfies them.

• Johnson House is too far to walk for many. It will need parking.

• The 1/4-mile rule should govern any new Central Park.

• Tourists come for beach or biking, so any park development should target these needs.

• Priorities – future/funding to get Half Moon Bay excited about what can be done here.

o Operations and maintenance is #1 priority o Poplar Beach – in the works o Carter Park – move it to #1 priority – would help Shakespeare people

– get ball rolling to get people excited –would give people a vision.

• Maintenance is a priority key issue.

• Smith Field is a family park but need to look into a community park that is a family park.

• Dogs – maybe need to increase dog parks – allow for diverse needs of dogs.

• PC – LCP relationship. o Ambiguity of visitors vs. residents – funding for Coastal Trail is readily

available.

• Do not set stage for development that would be injurious to neighborhoods

• Small inconsistencies (e.g. page 23 trail too close to bluff top)

• Horse trail – a linear function, but promotes erosion at Pilarcitos Creek

• Smith Field – good public comment

• Smith Field continues to be good money spent on bad. Evaluate relocating the entire park to a location more suitable and sustainable for such an active use. This will allow us to expand the park, provide facilities with proper drainage, and improve the view corridor to the Ocean.

• POST-acquisition of Halsted property – wants the plan to be opportunistic

• Trails don’t address erosion

• Johnston House – important for architecture to evoke landscape – Villa Montalvo’s build out crept up

• Community Parks – whatever development is proposed circulation impacts would need to be evaluated

• List of Projects – south of Highway 92 had a bond measure – why would north end of town go for it?

• Agrees with visual elements – fix showing the trail by bluff

• Johnston House – need a strength accommodation for Johnston House.

• Oak Avenue Park – trash – adjacent property on Jenna Lane 14

December 12, 2017


Page 4 of 5

• Beachwood – other purposes - parkland challenge

• Love the concept of mitigation bank

• Central park ¼ mile from downtown

• Practicality – long term vision

• Carter Park – make a #1 priority

• Increase Ocean View Park (our children’s park) to higher priority

• Mac Dutra is a “plaza” not a park, define appropriately

• Coastside has 3.8 million visitors per year – 30,000 residents live on the Midcoast including Half Moon Bay and the unincorporated communities – demand will not go down.

o Don’t limit finance strategies o Find creative funding solutions o Visitors need to pay

• Restoration = mitigation bank – o SB5 – State Parks Bond

Staff reviewed for confirmation of both commissions several of the key points of the Commissioners’ discussion:

• Flexibility o Beachwood – could have park components o Aquatic Park

• Concept of Community Park as Family Park

• Carter Park to be elevated as a priority

• Smith Field planning to be coordinated with Seymour Drainage planning

• Johnston House – improve the narrative to clarify the intent and protections of the plan

• Need to increase consideration of horses and dogs

• Broaden funding options

• Include and emphasize mitigation bank

Joint Study Session ends

IV. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Jill Ekas, Community Development Director reported updates to the Planning Commission.

V. PARKS AND RECREATION REPORT

None

VI. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None

15

December 12, 2017


Page 5 of 5

VII. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMUNICATIONS None

VIII. ADJOURNMENT M/S: Hernandez/Benjamin Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted: Approved: ____________________________ _________________________________ Bridget Jett, Planning Analyst Brian Holt, Vice Chair

16

BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT

For meeting of: March 13, 2018

TO: Chair Hernandez and Planning Commission FROM: Jill Ekas, Community Development Director TITLE: 2017 Housing Element Annual Report ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Confirm receipt of Housing Element Annual Report. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65400, each city and county is required to prepare an annual progress report (APR) on the status for implementation of the jurisdiction’s housing element. The APR must be prepared using forms and definitions adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The APR is meant to serve as a tool for implementing a jurisdiction’s Housing Element. Half Moon Bay’s 2015-2023 Housing Element was adopted by City Council in March 2015 and certified by HCD the following October. This element is on an eight year cycle as provided for by the regional planning oversight of the Association of Bay Area Government’s compliance with SB 375 the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. Without this structure, housing elements must be updated on five year cycles. The Bay Area’s sustainable communities’ strategy plan is referred to as “Plan Bay Area.” This plan was updated in 2017 (www.planbayarea.org). DISCUSSION: Half Moon Bay’s APR is attached. Table B indicates total housing production for the first two years of the current Housing Element. Year 1 is 2015, year 2 is 2016 and year 3 is 2017. Half Moon Bay has opted to count unit production based on issuance of certificates of occupancy. Typically, in other jurisdictions, production is counted when building permit applications are submitted. This has not been consistently applied in Half Moon Bay and because of the highly variable time involved in completion of projects, City and HCD staff agreed that certificate of occupancy is a better milestone for the City. Because the City consistently requires and issues such certificates upon project completion, it is also accurate. Progress on Housing Element program implementation is summarized at the end of the APR. A number of programs are being addressed on an on-going basis. At this same Planning Commission meeting of March 13, 2017, a study session on Accessory Dwelling Units is anticipated to lead to ordinance amendments that will implement Housing Element policy. ATTACHMENT:

1. Housing Element Annual Report

17

http://www.planbayarea.org/

�

$118$/�(/(0(17�352*5(66�5(3257+RXVLQJ�(OHPHQW�,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ

�&&5�7LWOH��

-XULVGLFWLRQ

5HSRUWLQJ�3HULRG

3XUVXDQW�WR�*&��ORFDO�JRYHUQPHQWV�PXVW�SURYLGH�E\�$SULO��RI�HDFK�\HDU�WKH�DQQXDO�UHSRUW�IRU�WKH�SUHYLRXV�FDOHQGDU�\HDU�WR�WKH�OHJLVODWLYH�ERG\��WKH�2IILFH�RI�3ODQQLQJ�DQG�5HVHDUFK��235��DQG�WKH�'HSDUWPHQW�RI�+RXVLQJ�DQG�&RPPXQLW\�'HYHORSPHQW��+&'��%\�FKHFNLQJ�WKH�³)LQDO´�EXWWRQ�DQG�FOLFNLQJ�WKH�³6XEPLW´�EXWWRQ��\RX�KDYH�VXEPLWWHG�WKH�KRXVLQJ�SRUWLRQ�RI�\RXU�DQQXDO�UHSRUW�WR�+&'�RQO\��2QFH�ILQDOL]HG��WKH�UHSRUW�ZLOO�QR�ORQJHU�EH�DYDLODEOH�IRU�HGLWLQJ�

7KH�UHSRUW�PXVW�EH�SULQWHG�DQG�VXEPLWWHG�DORQJ�ZLWK�\RXU�JHQHUDO�SODQ�UHSRUW�GLUHFWO\�WR�235�DW�WKH�DGGUHVV�OLVWHG�EHORZ�

��*RYHUQRU¶V�2IILFH�RI�3ODQQLQJ�DQG�5HVHDUFK��3�2��%R[��6DFUDPHQWR��&$��

+$/)�0221�%$<

��

ATTACHMENT 1

1 of 8

18

��7RWDO�RI�0RGHUDWH�DQG�$ERYH�0RGHUDWH�IURP�7DEOH�$� � ��

��7RWDO�E\�,QFRPH�7DEOH�$�$� � � � ��

��7RWDO�([WUHPHO\�/RZ�,QFRPH

8QLWV �

�


�&&5�7LWOH��

-XULVGLFWLRQ

5HSRUWLQJ�3HULRG

$IIRUGDELOLW\�E\�+RXVHKROG�,QFRPHV

9HU\�/RZ�,QFRPH

3URMHFW�,GHQWLILHU�PD\�EH�$31�1R��SURMHFW�QDPH�RU�

DGGUHVV�

8QLW�&DWHJRU\

1RWH�EHORZ�WKH�QXPEHU�RI�XQLWV�GHWHUPLQHG�WR�EH�DIIRUGDEOH�ZLWKRXW�ILQDQFLDO�RU�GHHG�UHVWULFWLRQV�DQG�DWWDFK�DQ�H[SODQDWLRQ�KRZ�WKH�MXULVGLFWLRQ�GHWHUPLQHG�WKH�XQLWV�ZHUH�DIIRUGDEOH��5HIHU�WR�LQVWUXFWLRQV�

�

+RXVLQJ�ZLWKRXW�)LQDQFLDO�$VVLVWDQFHRU�'HHG�5HVWULFWLRQV

�

7DEOH�$

�D

+RXVLQJ�ZLWK�)LQDQFLDO�$VVLVWDQFH�DQG�RU�'HHG�5HVWULFWLRQV

� �

+RXVLQJ�'HYHORSPHQW�,QIRUPDWLRQ

��

/RZ�,QFRPH

0RGHUDWH�,QFRPH

$ERYH0RGHUDWH�,QFRPH

7RWDO�8QLWVSHU�

3URMHFW

�

7HQXUH

5 5HQWHU2 2ZQHU

�

'HHG�5HVWULFWHG8QLWV(VW��,QILOO�

8QLWV

6HH�,QVWUXFWLRQV

6HH�,QVWUXFWLRQV

$VVLVWDQFH�3URJUDPV�IRU�(DFK�

'HYHORSPHQW

$QQXDO�%XLOGLQJ�$FWLYLW\�5HSRUW�6XPPDU\��1HZ�&RQVWUXFWLRQ�9HU\�/RZ��/RZ��DQG�0L[HG�,QFRPH�0XOWLIDPLO\�3URMHFWV

+$/)�0221�%$<

��

�1RWH��7KHVH�ILHOGV�DUH�YROXQWDU\

ATTACHMENT 1

2 of 8

19

�


�&&5�7LWOH��

-XULVGLFWLRQ

5HSRUWLQJ�3HULRG

��$FTXLVLWLRQ�RI�8QLWV

��3UHVHUYDWLRQ�RI�8QLWV�$W�5LVN

��7RWDO�8QLWV�E\�,QFRPH

$FWLYLW\�7\SH9HU\�/RZ�,QFRPH

$QQXDO�%XLOGLQJ�$FWLYLW\�5HSRUW�6XPPDU\��8QLWV�5HKDELOLWDWHG��3UHVHUYHG�DQG�$FTXLUHG�SXUVXDQW��WR�*&�6HFWLRQ��F��

��5HKDELOLWDWLRQ�$FWLYLW\

$IIRUGDELOLW\�E\�+RXVHKROG�,QFRPHV

3OHDVH�QRWH��8QLWV�PD\�RQO\�EH�FUHGLWHG�WR��WKH�WDEOH�EHORZ�ZKHQ�D�MXULVGLFWLRQ�KDV�LQFOXGHG�D�SURJUDP�LW�LWV�KRXVLQJ�HOHPHQW�WR�UHKDELOLWDWH��SUHVHUYH�RU�DFTXLUH�XQLWV�WR�DFFRPPRGDWH�D�SRUWLRQ�RI�LWV�5+1$�ZKLFKPHHW�WKH�VSHFLILF�FULWHULD�DV�RXWOLQHG�LQ�*&�6HFWLRQ��F��

/RZ�,QFRPH

7DEOH�$�

�1RWH��7KLV�ILHOG�LV�YROXQWDU\

��7KH�'HVFULSWLRQ�VKRXOG�DGHTXDWHO\�GRFXPHQW�KRZ�HDFK�XQLW�FRPSOLHV�ZLWK��VXEVHFWLRQ��F��RI�*RYHUQPHQW�&RGH�6HFWLRQ��727$/�

81,76

([WUHPHO\�/RZ�

,QFRPH

+$/)�0221�%$<

��

� � � �

� � � �

� � � �

� � � �

ATTACHMENT 1

3 of 8

20

�


�&&5�7LWOH��

-XULVGLFWLRQ

5HSRUWLQJ�3HULRG

��7RWDO

1R��RI�8QLWV�3HUPLWWHG�IRU�$ERYH�0RGHUDWH

��6LQJOH�)DPLO\

1R��RI�8QLWV�3HUPLWWHG�IRU�0RGHUDWH

��8QLWV

��8QLWV

��1XPEHU�RI�LQILOO�

XQLWV

��0RELOH�+RPHV

$QQXDO�EXLOGLQJ�$FWLYLW\�5HSRUW�6XPPDU\�IRU�$ERYH�0RGHUDWH�,QFRPH�8QLWV�QRW�LQFOXGLQJ�WKRVH�XQLWV�UHSRUWHG�RQ�7DEOH�$�

��6HFRQG�8QLW

7DEOH�$�

�1RWH��7KLV�ILHOG�LV�YROXQWDU\

+$/)�0221�%$<

��

� � � � � � �

��

ATTACHMENT 1

4 of 8

21

�


�&&5�7LWOH��

-XULVGLFWLRQ

5HSRUWLQJ�3HULRG

<HDU�

<HDU�

<HDU�

5HJLRQDO�+RXVLQJ�1HHGV�$OORFDWLRQ�3URJUHVV

5HPDLQLQJ�1HHG�IRU�5+1$�3HULRG��

<HDU�

7RWDO�8QLWV�WR�'DWH��DOO�\HDUV�

/RZ 1RQ�5HVWULFWHG

9HU\�/RZ

'HHG�5HVWULFWHG1RQ�5HVWULFWHG

<HDU�

1RWH��XQLWV�VHUYLQJ�H[WUHPO\�ORZ�LQFRPH�KRXVHKROGV�DUH�LQFOXGHG�LQ�WKH�YHU\�ORZ�LQFRPH�SHUPLWWHG�XQLWV�WRWDOV�

7RWDO�8QLWV��

'HHG�5HVWULFWHG

(QWHU�&DOHQGDU�<HDU�VWDUWLQJ�ZLWK�WKH�ILUVW�\HDU�RI�WKH�5+1$�DOORFDWLRQ�SHULRG��6HH�([DPSOH�

<HDU�

��$ERYH�0RGHUDWH

��0RGHUDWH

<HDU�

3HUPLWWHG�8QLWV�,VVXHG�E\�$IIRUGDELOLW\

5+1$�$OORFDWLRQ��E\�,QFRPH�/HYHO

7RWDO�5HPDLQLQJ�5+1$E\�,QFRPH�/HYHO<HDU

�<HDU�

7RWDO�5+1$�E\�&2*�(QWHU�DOORFDWLRQ�QXPEHU�

,QFRPH�/HYHO

7DEOH�%

+$/)�0221�%$<

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

ATTACHMENT 1

5 of 8

22

��+RPH�6KDULQJ�DQG�&RRSHUDWLYH�+RXVLQJ )DFLOLWDWH�KRPH�VKDULQJ�FRRSHUDWLYHV� 2Q�JRLQJ &RQWLQXH�WR�IDFLOLWDWH�KRPH�VKDULQJ�FRRSHUDWLYHV�

��%HORZ�0DUNHW�5DWH�3URJUDP &RQVLVWHQW�SURGXFWLRQ�RI�%05�XQLWV�ZLWKLQ

PDUNHW�UDWH�GHYHORSPHQW�

2Q�JRLQJ 8VLQJ�WHPSODWH�SUHSDUHG�LQ�SUHYLRXV�\HDU��ZRUNLQJ�ZLWK�WZR�VXEGLYLGHUV�RQ

DIIRUGDEOH�KRXVLQJ�DJUHHPHQWV�IRU�LQFOXVLRQ�RI�XQLWV�ZLWKLQ�PDUNHW�UDWH

SURMHFWV�

��6HFRQG�8QLWV��$FFHVVRU\�'ZHOOLQJ�8QLWV� 7ZR�DIIRUGDEOH�VHFRQG�XQLWV�SHU�\HDU�� 2Q�JRLQJ 7KUHH��DFFHVVRU\�GZHOOLQJ�XQLWV�UHFHLYHG�FHUWLILFDWHV�RI�RFFXSDQF\�LQ��

$WWHQGHG�ZRUN�VHVVLRQV�ZLWK�6DQ�0DWHR�&RXQW\�+RPH�IRU�$OO�SURJUDP�DQG

XWLOL]H�PDWHULDOV�IURP�WKDW�SURJUDP�WR�DVVLVW�DSSOLFDQWV�ZLWK�SURGXFWLRQ�RI

DFFHVVRU\�GZHOOLQJ�XQLWV�

��&RQVLVWHQF\�LQ�3ODQQLQJ�'RFXPHQWV ,GHQWLI\�DQG�UHVROYH�FRQIOLFWV�EHWZHHQ�WKH

YDULRXV�SODQQLQJ�GRFXPHQWV��/RFDO

&RDVWDO�/DQG�8VH�3ODQ��*HQHUDO�3ODQ

(OHPHQWV��DQG�=RQLQJ�2UGLQDQFH�

2Q�JRLQJ 7KLV�HIIRUW�FRQWLQXHV�DV�SDUW�RI�WKH�/&3�DQG�*HQHUDO�3ODQ�XSGDWH�SURFHVV�

��$QQXDO�5HSRUW &RQIRUPDQFH�ZLWK�$QQXDO�5HSRUW

UHTXLUHPHQWV�WR�LPSURYH�+RXVLQJ�(OHPHQW

LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ�

2Q�JRLQJ $QQXDO�UHSRUWV�SUHSDUHG�SXUVXDQW�WR�+&'�UHTXLUHPHQWV��SUHVHQWHG�WRWKH

3ODQQLQJ�&RPPLVVLRQ�DQG�&LW\�&RXQFLO�DQG�VXEPLWWHG�WR�+&'�RQ�WLPH�

�


�&&5�7LWOH��

-XULVGLFWLRQ

5HSRUWLQJ�3HULRG

3URJUDP�'HVFULSWLRQ�%\�+RXVLQJ�(OHPHQW�3URJUDP�1DPHV�

+RXVLQJ�3URJUDPV�3URJUHVV�5HSRUW��*RYHUQPHQW�&RGH�6HFWLRQ��'HVFULEH�SURJUHVV�RI�DOO�SURJUDPV�LQFOXGLQJ�ORFDO�HIIRUWV�WR�UHPRYH�JRYHUQPHQWDO�FRQVWUDLQWV�WR�WKH�PDLQWHQDQFH��LPSURYHPHQW��DQG�GHYHORSPHQW�RI�KRXVLQJ�DV�LGHQWLILHG�LQ�WKH�KRXVLQJ�HOHPHQW�

1DPH�RI�3URJUDP 2EMHFWLYH7LPHIUDPHLQ�+�(�

6WDWXV�RI�3URJUDP�,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ

3URJUDP�,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ�6WDWXV

7DEOH�&

+$/)�0221�%$<

��

ATTACHMENT 1

6 of 8

23

��0L[HG�8VH�'HYHORSPHQW�DQG�+RXVLQJ�6WRFN

'LYHUVLW\

3URYLGH�IRU�D�UDQJH�RI�XQLW�W\SHV�LQ

ZDONDEOH��DFFHVVLEOH�VHWWLQJV�WR�FRQWULEXWH

WR�RYHUDOO�DIIRUGDELOLW\�

2Q�JRLQJ $V�SDUW�RI�WKH�/&3�DQG�*HQHUDO�3ODQ�XSGDWH��WKH�&LW\�&RXQFLO�XSGDWHG�DQG

H[SDQGHG�D�FRUH�DUHD�ERXQGDU\�ZLWKLQ�ZKLFK�PL[HG�XVH�DQG�FRPSDFW�LQILOO

GHYHORSPHQW�RSSRUWXQLWLHV�DUH�WR�EH�HQFRXUDJHG��7LQ\�KRXVHV�DQG�RWKHU�W\SHV

RI�LQILOO�RSSRUWXQLWLHV�DUH�LQ�FRQVLGHUDWLRQ�LQ�/&3�XSGDWH�

��5HPRYDO�RI�&RQVWUDLQWV =RQLQJ�DQG�0XQLFLSDO�&RGH�XSGDWHV�WR

HQFRXUDJH�SURYLVLRQ�RI�GLYHUVH�KRXVLQJ

W\SHV��HVSHFLDOO\�IRU�VSHFLDO�QHHGV

SRSXODWLRQV�

2Q�JRLQJ %H\RQG�XSGDWLQJ�WKH�&LW\V�FRGH��D�QHZ�VWDII�PHPEHU�KDV�EHHQ�DVVLJQHG�WR

SURFHVVLQJ�DFFHVVRU\�GZHOOLQJ�XQLWV�DV�D�SULRULW\�SURMHFW��

��6SHFLDO�1HHGV�+RXVLQJ�&RRUGLQDWLRQ�DQG�5HIHUUDOV (VWDEOLVK�SDUWQHUVKLSV�ZLWK�KRXVLQJ

SURYLGHUV�

2Q�JRLQJ &LW\�VWDII�KDV�PHHW�ZLWK�PXOWLSOH�DIIRUGDEOH�KRXVLQJ�GHYHORSHUV��VXSSRUWV�D

ORFDO�+RPHOHVV�DQG�+RXVLQJ�&ROODERUDWLYH�ZRUNLQJ�JURXS��DQG�DWWHQGHG�WKH

6DQ�0DWHR�&RXQW\�+RXVLQJ�/HDGHUVKLS�'D\�FRQIHUHQFH�HYHQW�WR�IXUWKHU

QHWZRUN�DQG�HQFRXUDJH�SDUWQHUVKLSV�ZLWK�DIIRUGDEOH�KRXVLQJ�GHYHORSHUV��

��+RPH�6KDULQJ�DQG�&RRSHUDWLYH�+RXVLQJ )DFLOLWDWH�KRPH�VKDULQJ�FRRSHUDWLYHV� 2Q�JRLQJ &RQWLQXH�WR�IDFLOLWDWH�KRPH�VKDULQJ�FRRSHUDWLYHV�

��(TXDO�+RXVLQJ�2SSRUWXQLW\�3URJUDP $GPLQLVWHU�HTXDWH�KRXVLQJ�RSSRUWXQLW\

SURJUDP��

2Q�JRLQJ &RPPXQLW\�'HYHORSPHQW�'HSDUWPHQW�UHYLHZV�DQ\�FRPSODLQWV�RU�SURJUDP

GHILFLHQFLHV�

��1RQGLVFULPLQDWLRQ�&ODXVHV ,QFOXGHG�LQ�DOO�DJUHHPHQWV� 2Q�JRLQJ &LW\�SUHSDUHG�DIIRUGDEOH�KRXVLQJ�DJUHHPHQW�WHPSODWH�LQFOXGHV�WKHVH�FODXVHV�

&RPPXQLW\�'HYHORSPHQW�'HSDUWPHQW�DQG�&LW\�$WWRUQH\V�2IILFH�UHYLHZV�DOO

&LW\�KRXVLQJ�DJUHHPHQWV�

��$IIRUGDEOH�+RXVLQJ�5HVRXUFHV 3URYLGH�PDWHULDOV�LGHQWLI\LQJ�DIIRUGDEOH

KRXVLQJ�UHVRXUFHV�DW�&LW\�RIILFHV�DQG�WDNH

LQ�DSSOLFDWLRQV�IRU�WZR�DIIRUGDEOH�QHZ

KRXVLQJ�SURMHFWV�LI�WKHUH�LV�GHYHORSHU

LQWHUHVW�

2Q�JRLQJ 3DUWLFLSDWH�DV�D��3LORW�&LW\��JUDQW�UHFLSLHQW�IRU�WKH�6DQ�0DWHR�&RXQW\�+RPH�IRU

$OO�SURJUDP��7KH�SURJUDP�ZLOO�SURYLGH�PDWHULDOV�DQG�HQJDJHPHQW�IRU

FRPPXQLW\�GLDORJXH�DERXW�DIIRUGDEOH�KRXVLQJ�DQG�HVWDEOLVKLQJ�JXLGLQJ

SULQFLSOHV�IRU�D�SRWHQWLDO�DIIRUGDEOH�KRXVLQJ�SURMHFW�

&LW\�VWDII�DUH�DFWLYHO\�FRPPXQLFDWLQJ�ZLWK�DIIRUGDEOH�KRXVLQJ�GHYHORSHUV�DQG

DQWLFLSDWH�RQH�RU�PRUH�DSSOLFDWLRQV�ZLWKLQ�WKH�QH[W�WZR�\HDUV�

ATTACHMENT 1

7 of 8

24

)RU�WKH��WK�+RXVLQJ�(OHPHQW�&\FOH��+DOI�0RRQ�%D\�ZLOO�XVH�FHUWLILFDWH�RI�RFFXSDQF\�DV�WLPLQJ�IRU�KRXVLQJ�SURGXFWLRQ��7KLV�PHDVXUH�LVWKH�PRVW�FRQVLVWHQW�RSWLRQ�IRU�+DOI�0RRQ�%D\�DQG�ZDV�GLVFXVVHG�ZLWK�+&'�VWDII�SULRU�WR�VXEPLWWDO�RI�WKLV�UHSRUW�

7KH�&LW\�RI�+DOI�0RRQ�%D\�LV�ORFDWHG�IXOO\�ZLWKLQ�WKH�&DOLIRUQLD�&RDVWDO�=RQH�DQG�DV�VXFK�GRHV�QRW�KDYH�DQ\�VLWHV�VXEMHFW�WR�6%��'HVSLWH�WKLVFRQGLWLRQ��WKH�&LW\�&RXQFLO�KDV�SULRULWL]HG�DIIRUGDEOH�KRXVLQJ�SURGXFWLRQ��KLUHG�DGGLWLRQDO�VWDII��DQG�FRQWLQXHV�WR�LPSURYH�SURFHVVHV�DQG�SDUWLFLSDWHLQ�ORFDO�HIIRUWV�LQ�6DQ�0DWHR�&RXQW\�LQFOXGLQJ��(OHPHQWV�DQG�+RPH�IRU�$OO�

�


�&&5�7LWOH��

-XULVGLFWLRQ

5HSRUWLQJ�3HULRG

*HQHUDO�&RPPHQWV�

+$/)�0221�%$<

��

ATTACHMENT 1

8 of 8

25

MEMORANDUM


To: Chair Hernandez and Planning Commission From: Jill Ekas, Director of Community Development Sara Clark, Deputy City Attorney Date: March 13, 2018 TITLE: POLICY DIRECTION FOR POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO CITY ORDINANCE

REGULATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Provide policy direction to staff for potential amendments to City ordinance regulating accessory dwelling units, also known as second units. BACKGROUND: City’s Existing Code: The City’s Zoning Code currently regulates second dwelling units, which are defined as “a detached or attached dwelling unit on a single-family residential lot that contains a one-family dwelling.” These units are referred to in state law as accessory dwelling units or ADUs, and are also commonly referred to as granny flats. The Zoning Code permits ADUs in the R-1, R-2, R-3 residential zoning districts as well as the Commercial–Residential (C-R), Commercial-Downtown (C-D), Commercial-Visitor Serving (C-VS), and Commercial-General (C-G) mixed use districts on lots with existing single-family homes. Property owners must obtain an administrative coastal development permit, an administrative site and design permit, and a building permit (and in the C-R and C-D districts, a use permit) prior to construction. Existing City standards and criteria for ADUs are summarized in Attachment 1 and discussed further below. The City’s existing code is included as Attachment 2. State Law Regarding ADUs: In the 2016 and 2017 state legislative sessions, the Governor signed a number of bills intended to streamline local jurisdictions’ reviews of ADUs. The majority of changes are codified in Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 (State ADU Law). At times, language in the amendments is not clearly drafted, leading to uncertainty and ambiguity in what State ADU Law requires of cities. However, it is clear that the intent of the law is to force cities to streamline and relax regulation of ADUs to encourage their development. It is also clear that the state considers ADUs to be accessory uses to single-family residences, and not new residential units. As a result, State ADU Law reduces the ability of cities to impose requirements on ADUs related to certain potential impacts, specifically parking and utilities.

26

March 13, 2018 Accessory Dwelling Unit Study Session Planning Commission Meeting

Page 2 of 9

State ADU Law has a number of components. First, it greatly limits the conditions and requirements cities can impose on ADUs that are located wholly within existing single-family residences or accessory structures (such as garages, cottages, or pool houses). For purposes of this report, these ADUs will be referred to as “Wholly Within Existing Development” ADUs. Second, it imposes a number of basic standards for ADUs that require new square footage, including additions to an existing single-family residence or accessory structure, new detached structures, and ADUs proposed in conjunction with new single-family residences. For purposes of this report, these ADUs will be referred to as “New Development” ADUs. Cities can also impose additional standards and criteria on New Development ADUs, provided that they adopt an ADU ordinance that is compliant with the State ADU Law’s requirements. Finally, State ADU Law creates a third category of ADUs known as “Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.” Junior ADUs are small units created out of existing bedrooms, which contain only efficiency kitchens and retain direct access to the primary unit. State ADU Law is clear that cities can choose to allow Junior ADUs or not. However, if a city elects to allow them, the standards and criteria by which they can be evaluated are quite strict. Coastal Commission Guidance: One area of potential dispute is the extent to which State ADU Law (Section 65852.2) applies in the Coastal Zone. Subsection (j) states: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act . . . , except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units.” The Coastal Commission issued guidance on this issue in April and November 2017, stating that “[t]he Commission interprets the effect of subdivision (j) as preserving the authority of local governments to protect coastal resources when regulating ADUs in the coastal zone, while also complying with the standards in Section 65852.2 to the greatest extent feasible” (emphasis added). (Coastal Commission guidance included as Attachment 3). Specifically, the Coastal Commission recommends that cities streamline their review of ADUs through exemptions and waivers, especially for ADUs that are built within existing structures. The City currently requires administrative coastal development permits (CDPs), administrative site and design permits, and building permits for all ADUs, a process that was codified in the City’s ordinance and approved by the Coastal Commission in 2015. This existing process is in substantial compliance with the Coastal Commission’s recent guidance for processing New Development ADUs that are either detached or may pose a risk of adverse environmental effects. For New Development ADUs that would be attached to existing single-family residences and Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs, the City’s existing exemptions could be extended to better conform to Coastal Commission guidance. Note that the City’s local coastal program (LCP) does not include any categorical exclusion areas and therefore does not have a waiver process that could be easily modified to include ADUs.

27


Page 3 of 9

San Mateo County ADU Ordinance in the Coastal Zone: The County of San Mateo recently amended its zoning code to comply with State ADU Law. Details of the County’s new ADU requirements for the Coastal Zone are discussed throughout this memorandum and the County’s complete ADU ordinance is attached as Attachment 4. The County’s entitlement process is similar to the City’s current approach with an administrative review process for issuance of coastal development permits in some cases, such as for parcels located in the Coastal Commission appeals jurisdiction. The County has also provided for exemptions in other instances. DISCUSSION: This Memorandum highlights key policy considerations for the Planning Commission to consider in providing direction on the desired terms for updating the City’s ADU ordinance. Staff has provided initial recommendations on each policy item, as well as alternative options. Overall, these initial recommendations are proposed for two purposes: 1) to better conform the City’s ADU ordinance to State ADU Law; and/or 2) to clarify or improve the current code and review process for the sake of reducing barriers to the production of affordable housing. Generally, conformance to State ADU Law is recommended unless the City can demonstrate that the deviation from State ADU Law is necessary for implementation of the California Coastal Act through the City’s certified LCP. Examples of Coastal Act priorities that may allow for deviations include protection of coastal resources, coastal access, and visual resources. The three types of ADUs raise distinct issues:

• New Development ADUs: The City’s ordinance for this type of ADU already substantially

conforms to State ADU Law, with relatively minor exceptions. Suggestions to address

these areas of nonconformity and to improve the code are included in the discussion

below.

• Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs: This type of ADU is currently not covered in

the City’s zoning ordinance and needs to be addressed for the City’s ordinance to be

consistent with State ADU law.

• Junior ADUs: Providing for this type of ADU is not required by State ADU Law, and

therefore the City’s zoning ordinance is consistent at this time; however, the Planning

Commission may wish to consider adding provisions for Junior ADUs.

The City’s existing ADU requirements are compared in a chart attached to this Memorandum as Attachment 1. The following discussion presents options for ADU regulations including designating areas where they are to be permitted, maximum size for New Development ADUs, policy options for addressing Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs, consideration of Junior ADUs, occupancy requirements for all types of ADUs, consideration of ADUs as part of the City’s annual growth limits (Measures D), and parking requirements for New Development ADUs.

28


Page 4 of 9

Areas Where New Development ADUs Are Permitted. State ADU law permits cities to designate areas where New Development ADUs are not permitted, so long as the designations are based on specified criteria. To conform with State ADU Law, it is important to continue to allow ADUs in all residential districts (R-1, R-2, R-3); and the mixed-use commercial zoning districts (C-R, C-D, C-VS, C-G), so long as the other criteria are met (i.e., parcel developed with a single family home, compliance with floor area ratio (FAR) requirements, etc.). State ADU Law specifies that ADUs should be considered an accessory use to virtually any single family home. Therefore, serious consideration should be given to allow ADUs in the Urban Reserve (UR), Open Space Reserve (OSR), and Planned Unit Development (PUD) districts, where single-family residential development is the primary land use. Covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) in some planned development neighborhoods may prohibit ADUs. It is the homeowners’ association (HOA) obligation to enforce CC&Rs, and not a City consideration. Staff recommends adding these three designations to be consistent with the intent of State ADU Law. ADUs could be explicitly prohibited in the industrial zoning district because of the potentially incompatible nature of industrial land uses in very close proximity to residential development; however, it is not necessary to specify a prohibition as these areas are not zoned for single-family use. These recommendations are based on the following:

1. The City currently permits ADUs in most of these districts. The only proposed change would be to add the UR, OSR, and PUD districts, which permit single-family development.

2. ADUs provide important housing flexibility, by allowing separate units for adult family members, or by allowing smaller, more inexpensive rental units that provide an income stream to existing home owners. Staff believes that the City can best accommodate a diversity of housing needs by allowing ADUs in all residential and mixed-use zoning districts.

3. The proposed restrictions on New Development ADUs (including size, setbacks, parking, prohibition on short-term rentals, etc.) are anticipated to reduce potential impacts to the community.

Options: The Planning Commission may consider identifying areas within these residential districts where New Development ADUs would not be permitted. State ADU law suggests that cities may consider growth limitations such as the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety. Other criteria are also allowed. The County has taken this approach, by permitting ADUs only in R-1 districts; it does not permit them in R-2, R-3 or RM districts. Some cities have limited ADUs based on lot size, although the California

29


Page 5 of 9

Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which will have the opportunity to review and comment on the City’s ordinance, has expressed concerns about this approach.1

Maximum Size for New Development ADUs. State ADU law contains somewhat conflicting requirements relating to maximum sizes, both setting forth maximum sizes to be included in city ordinances (1,200 square feet) and stating that cities may impose their own maximum sizes. HCD has offered some guidance, agreeing that while cities may impose their own maximum sizes, a “maximum unit size that unreasonably restricts opportunities would be inconsistent with the intent of the statute.” It states, however, that “typical maximum unit sizes range from 800 square feet to 1,200 square feet.” Because of HCD’s guidance, staff’s initial recommendation is that the ordinance limit New Construction ADUs to 800 square feet, a slight increase over the existing maximum of 700 square feet. The City’s lots tend to be fairly small; in staff’s experience, it is often infeasible for ADUs to be constructed to the current maximum 700 square foot size. Moreover, restricting the size to 800 square feet would promote housing diversity (by limiting larger, more expensive ADUs), while falling within the range noted by HCD. It is also important to note that the zoning ordinance imposes FAR requirements for each applicable district on the development of residential lots, which includes the floor area of ADUs. This may further limit their size. FARs will continue to be applied to development of these properties, which State ADU Law accepts as an allowable objective standard, and thus may affect the permitted size of a New Development ADU. Options: The Planning Commission may want to consider a larger maximum size, such as 1,000 or 1,200 square feet. The Planning Commission may also want to consider varying the maximum size based on whether the unit is attached or detached, or based on the size of the existing structure. San Mateo County has taken both approaches, by limiting attached ADUs to 750 square feet or 50% of existing floor area, whichever is larger, and limiting detached ADUs to 750 square feet or 35% of existing floor area, whichever is larger. It is noted that the County’s approach is well thought through and could be appropriate for Half Moon Bay. Adopting similar measures would provide some consistency on the midcoast; however, it does not fully conform to HCD guidance. Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs. The Coastal Commission has suggested that the City’s Zoning Ordinance should be amended to permit development of Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs in conformance with State ADU Law. These ADUs should be permitted in any existing single-family dwelling or accessory

1 According to HCD: “Utilizing approaches such as restrictive overlays, limiting ADUs to larger lot sizes, burdensome lot coverage and setbacks and particularly concentration or distance requirements (e.g., no less than 500 feet between ADUs) may unreasonably restrict the ability of the homeowners to create ADUs, contrary to the intent of the Legislature.”

30


Page 6 of 9

structure, even if the structure is non-conforming, provided the application meets minimal requirements related to exterior access, side and rear setbacks, and the building code. However, to reduce any incentive for a property owner to build an accessory structure without permits and then (legally) convert it into an ADU, the Planning Commission should consider including a requirement that the single-family residence or accessory structure be in existence as of the effective date of the ordinance or be legally constructed. This approach recognizes the Legislature’s understanding that converting existing space to another unit is likely to result in fewer impacts than new construction. Options: The Planning Commission may consider making modifications to these requirements, such as limiting the size of Wholly Within New Development ADUs, or imposing parking requirements. However, as stated above, we recommend that any deviations from State ADU Law are grounded in protection of coastal resources pursuant to the Coastal Act. Making such a finding for Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs may be difficult. Junior ADUs As explained in the background section and the included table, State ADU Law also provides for cities to adopt ordinances permitting Junior ADUs. The intent of this law was to streamline approval for a very specific type of low-cost ADU, in order to increase housing diversity. Staff does not recommend adopting a Junior ADU ordinance at this time. Units that would qualify as Junior ADUs can generally be built using the process for Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs. Consequently, adding a Junior ADU permitting scheme would be largely redundant and unnecessarily complex. Options: The Planning Commission may want to consider adopting a Junior ADU ordinance, to the extent the Planning Commission wants to prioritize development of these types of units. Occupancy Requirements for ADUs. While State ADU Law specifies that cities must allow ADUs to be rented, cities may elect to limit rented ADU occupancy in two ways. First, cities may prohibit the use of ADUs for short-term rentals. Second, cities may require the property owner to occupy either the single-family residence or the ADU. The City’s existing ordinance imposes the latter via a required deed restriction. The Planning Commission should consider imposing both limitations, by requiring owner occupancy of at least one unit as required by the existing code and prohibiting short-term rental of ADUs. Owner occupancy encourages a long-term connection to the community and may therefore reduce nuisance impacts associated with the ADU. Moreover, existing second unit owners have deed restricted their units to impose the owner-occupancy restriction and may view a reversal of this policy as unfair. Short-term rentals present a complex policy question. On the one hand, ADUs have been touted as a mechanism for increasing housing diversity by creating smaller, more affordable

31


Page 7 of 9

long-term rental properties. This benefit may not be realized if ADUs are used for short-term rentals. On the other hand, short-term rentals can provide both increased rental revenue and additional flexibility for property owners. These characteristics may increase housing affordability for single-family residences. Allowing short-term rentals also increases visitor-serving accommodations in the Coastal Zone. The City is concurrently considering a short-term rental ordinance, which may address some or most of the nuisance issues associated with short-term rentals if the Planning Commission wishes to recommend allowing them. However, most cities, as well as San Mateo County, do not allow use of ADUs for short-term rentals in order to promote housing diversity. Options: The Council may want to consider eliminating the owner occupancy requirement and/or allowing short-term rental of ADUs under very limited circumstances (e.g. in the mixed-use zoning districts, for very limited number of nights per year), provided that they meet the requirements of any new City ordinance regarding short-term rentals. Growth Limitations and Measure D Certificates. Staff is still researching the legislative history of Measure D, the various and conflicting references to Measure D in the City’s Municipal Code, and how Measure D interacts with State ADU Law and the Coastal Act, but preliminarily recommends that the proposed amendments clarify that ADUs must obtain a Measure D certificate as part of the approval process. This amendment would ensure that ADUs are counted toward overall residential growth, and matches the approach taken by San Mateo County, which counts ADUs toward the County’s total residential development quotas. However, to ensure that ADU development is encouraged, the Planning Commission may also want to consider:

• Reducing or eliminating Measure D related fees for ADU applications; and

• Further incentivizing development of ADUs in the allocation of points, in the event the growth cap is reached. The existing ordinance already allocates points to new single-family residences that include ADUs. Staff proposes to also allocate points to ADUs on lots with existing single-family residences.

By including ADUs in the Measure D allocations, ADUs will be incorporated into the City’s build-out assumptions pertaining to water supply and trip generation. It should be noted, however, that ADUs are not anticipated to add significant burden on resources, especially given the small demand. In calendar years 2016 and 2017, the City issued a total of six ADU permits. Even if the development of ADUs is encouraged and increased, as desired by City Council, their relative impact as compared to single-family homes and other development is likely to remain small.

Options: The Planning Commission may also consider other options for addressing ADUs with respect to Measure D.

32


Page 8 of 9

Parking Requirements for ADUs. Generally speaking, State ADU Law permits cities to require one parking space per New Development ADU, provided that the requirement can be met with virtually any type of on-site parking space, including within setbacks or in tandem. However, State ADU Law also prohibits any parking requirements for two kinds of New Development ADUs: (a) ADUs that are located within one-half mile of public transit and (b) ADUs that are part of proposed single-family residences.2 State ADU Law does not define “public transit,” though HCD has commented that it should be interpreted to include, at a minimum, bus and other transit stops. HCD has also opined that cities cannot impose a “tighter headway” requirement, such as limiting it to bus stops that are served every 15 minutes during peak hours. A significant portion of the City falls within a half-mile of Samtrans stops (generally, along Highway One and through the downtown core). The Planning Commission should consider bringing the City’s parking requirements into conformance with State ADU Law. The City’s existing ordinance already requires one parking space per ADU and permits property owners to locate these spaces in setbacks or as tandem spaces. This requirement appears to strike a reasonable balance between ensuring ADU-related traffic is accommodated on-site and not unduly burdening ADU development. Exempting ADUs within one-half mile of Samtrans bus stops from on-site parking requirements would provide some landowners with more flexibility and conform the City’s ordinance to State ADU Law. Options: Although contrary to HCD guidance, the Planning Commission may want to consider interpreting “public transit” more narrowly, such that some or all Samtrans stops do not qualify. In conjunction, the City could exempt the downtown core from the parking requirement, as this area is generally the most pedestrian and transit friendly. The Planning Commission may also consider eliminating the parking requirement for historic homes, in order to reduce potential impacts caused by development of an additional parking spot on-site. The City’s parking code already acknowledges that historic status is a reasonable finding to support reduced parking requirements. Finally, the Planning Commission may consider limiting the number of tandem spaces to two or three cars total. The County has adopted a three car limitation. Summary. Many other considerations pertain to ADUs. The scope of this study session is intended to focus on key policy issues that will ensure the City properly balances compliance with State ADU Law, the City’s Housing Element policy, and the City’s LCP. Staff is researching several other relevant policy and regulations including the water district’s water meter requirement, the fire district’s plan review process, the interaction of ADU regulations and density bonus laws for duplex developments, and other matters. Following this study session, a draft ordinance will be prepared addressing the policy issues described in this report, as well as other items. City Staff

2 Note that parking requirements also cannot be imposed on Wholly Within Existing Development ADUs.

33


Page 9 of 9

will also meet with Coastal Commission Staff to receive their input. The Planning Commission, along with the community, will be provided ample time to consider the draft ordinance, which will eventually be brought before the City Council.

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – State ADU Law and Current Half Moon Bay ADU Standards Attachment 2 – Half Moon Bay Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.33 – Second Dwelling Units Attachment 3 – Coastal Commission Guidance (April and November 2017) Attachment 4 – County of San Mateo Zoning Ordinance Chapter 22.5 – Second Units

34

Attachment 1 – State ADU Law and Current Half Moon Bay ADU Standards

Wholly Within Existing

Development ADUs (per state law)

New Development ADUs (per state law)

Junior ADUs (per state law)

Existing City Code (Highlights indicate potential

deviation from state law for New Development ADUs)

Applicable Zoning Districts All areas “zone[d] for single-family use”

Areas “zoned to allow single-family or multifamily use,”1 unless City designates areas where ADUs are not permitted based on objective criteria

Single-family residential zones

R-1, R-2, R-3, C-VS, C-G, C-D (with use permit), C-R (with use permit) Not permitted in UR, OSR, or PUD

Number of ADUs 1 ADU/Lot 1 ADU/Lot 1 JADU/Lot Not addressed

Single-Family Residence Required?

Yes

Yes, although ADU may be proposed in conjunction with new single-family residence

Yes

Yes, although ADU may be proposed in conjunction with new single-family residence

Floor Area Ratio

ADU does not increase FAR. City not permitted to impose additional standards, even if existing space is non-conforming

City can impose non-discretionary FAR limits

Existing space must be legal, but may be non-conforming

Single-family residence and ADU combined cannot exceed FAR

Attached or Detached? Either in existing structures

Either Within walls of existing structure, including an existing bedroom

Either

Kitchen and Bathroom Yes, required Yes, required

Efficiency kitchen only required (no gas or electric stove); may share sanitation facilities with primary dwelling

Yes, required

Exterior access Access must be independent from the existing residence

No passageway required, as defined in state law

Separate entrance AND interior entry to primary dwelling required

If ADU is located within standard setbacks, access must face interior of lot unless directly accessible from alley or public street; If ADU is attached to primary dwelling unit, access must be on side or rear of structure

35








Garage Setbacks (if ADU is proposed within or on top of existing garage)

Within garage: Setbacks “sufficient for fire safety,” which is not defined but may be less than existing code requirements

Addition to garage: * Existing structure: no setback requirements * Addition on top: 5 feet side and rear * Addition elsewhere: City can impose non-discretionary setbacks

N/A Not addressed

All other setbacks “[S]ufficient for fire safety,” which may be less than existing code requirements

City can impose non-discretionary setbacks


Detached: 5 ft (side); 10 ft (rear); 6 ft (other buildings on lot) Otherwise, same as single-family residences

Size Limits

City not permitted to impose size limits, even if existing space is non-conforming.

Attached ADU: Max: 50 percent of primary unit or 1,200 square feet, whichever is less, unless city imposes other maximum size

Max: 500 square feet Max: 700 square feet Min: 150 square feet or efficiency unit

Detached ADU: Max: 1,200 square feet, unless city imposes other maximum size

1 While the state law requires cities to allow ADUs in multi-family zones (unless specified findings are made), ADUs are only permitted on lots with existing or proposed single-family homes. Consequently, an ADU would not qualify for this streamlined process for a lot with a duplex.

36








Height

City not permitted to impose standards, even if existing space is non-conforming

City can impose non-discretionary height requirements


1 story detached: 13 feet 1.5 story detached: 22 feet Attached: same as single-family residences

Parking

City not permitted to impose parking requirements, even if existing space is non-conforming.

City can require 1 parking spot per ADU, except in certain areas (see below). Applicant can meet requirement through parking in setbacks or tandem parking.

No parking required

Minimum of 1 off-street parking space. Must be paved. No exceptions specified, but can be waived by Planning Commission.

City Reviews Ministerial review within 120 days, public hearing for CDP not required

Ministerial review within 120 days, public hearing for CDP not required

Ministerial review within 120 days, public hearing for CDP not required

Administrative CDP, Administrative Site and Design Permit, Building Permit Note: Although the City’s existing process is not specifically consistent with State ADU Law, the Coastal Commission guidance indicates that CDPs should still be required for some ADUs.

37

Half Moon Bay Municipal Code

Chapter 18.33 SECOND DWELLING UNITS

Page 1/6

The Half Moon Bay Municipal Code is current through Ordinance C-2017-01, passed April 18, 2017.

Chapter 18.33

SECOND DWELLING UNITS

Sections:

18.33.010 Purpose.

18.33.020 Definitions.

18.33.030 Review and approval.

18.33.040 Standards for new second dwelling units.

18.33.050 Deed restrictions.

18.33.060 Incentives.

18.33.070 Requirements to legalize existing second dwelling units.

18.33.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to:

A. Increase the supply of smaller units and rental housing units by allowing second dwelling units to locate on

lots which contain a single-family dwelling in the R-1, R-2, or R-3 districts within the city; and

B. Establish standards for second dwelling units to ensure that they are compatible with existing neighborhoods.

(Ord. C-15-10 §1(Exh. A(part)), 2010: 1996 zoning code (part)).

18.33.020 Definitions.

A. Floor Area. “Floor area” of a second dwelling unit means the total enclosed area of all floors of a building

measured to the outside face of the structural members in exterior walls, but shall not include unenclosed porches,

balconies, or garages.

B. Second Dwelling Unit. The term “second dwelling unit” is defined in Section 18.02.040, Definitions. (Ord.

C-15-10 §1(Exh. A(part)), 2010: 1996 zoning code (part)).

18.33.030 Review and approval.

A. Principally Permitted Use. Second dwelling units are permitted in the residential districts and shall conform

to the development standards set forth in Chapter 18.06, except as modified by Section 18.33.040.

B. Review of Second Dwelling Units. A second dwelling unit shall require an administrative coastal

development permit, administrative site and design permit, and a building permit. Such an administrative coastal

development permit shall be processed as a “local coastal development permit” per Chapter 18.20 and Section

18.33.040 except that the community development director is the approval authority for the administrative coastal

development permits and the approval and local appeal of administrative CDPs for second dwelling units shall not

be subject to a public hearing.

C. Variance. A variance shall be required for any second unit which does not meet the development standards

set forth in Chapter 18.06, as modified by this chapter, or which extend existing nonconforming conditions on the

site. (Ord. C-2015-04 §1(part), 2015; Ord. C-2014-10 §6(A), 2014; Ord. C-15-10 §1(Exh. A(part)), 2010).

18.33.040 Standards for new second dwelling units.

New second dwelling units shall be subject to the same requirements as any single-family dwelling located on the

same parcel in the same zoning district, including but not limited to the requirements of coastal development permits

and general zoning provisions with the following differences:

A. Existing Development on Lot. A single-family dwelling exists on the lot or will be constructed in

conjunction with the accessory unit.

B. Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit required by the applicable

district shall not apply, provided the minimum building site requirements shall be met.

38

joeb

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 2



Page 2/6


C. Construction Within or Above Existing Buildings or Detached Accessory Buildings. A second dwelling unit

may be constructed within or above an existing building or detached accessory building.

D. Occupancy. The property owner must occupy either the primary or secondary dwelling unit.

E. Required Off-Street Automobile Parking Spaces. A minimum of one off-street parking space for the second

dwelling unit, in addition to the spaces required for the primary residence, shall be provided. All off-street parking

spaces for the second dwelling unit may be uncovered but must be paved per the city’s parking ordinance, provided

exceptions for off-street parking requirements shall be subject to the granting of an exception approved in

accordance with this title. Off-street parking shall be permitted in setback areas or through tandem parking, unless

specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon topographical

conditions, fire and life safety conditions, or that it is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction.

F. Maximum Unit Size. The floor area of the second dwelling unit shall not exceed seven hundred square feet.

G. Minimum Unit Size. The minimum floor area of the second dwelling unit shall be no less than one hundred

fifty square feet or the minimum required for an efficiency dwelling unit as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health

and Safety Code, as may be amended from time to time.

H. Setbacks for Detached Second Dwelling Units. Detached second dwelling units shall have a minimum side

setback of five feet and minimum rear setback of ten feet. The distance between buildings on the same lot must be

a minimum of six feet. If any portion of a second dwelling unit is located in front of the main building, then the

front and side yard setbacks shall be the same as a single-family dwelling in the zoning district.

I. Setbacks for Attached Accessory Dwelling Units. Attached accessory dwelling units shall meet the same

setbacks as a main building in the zoning district.

J. Building Height and Stories.

1. A one story detached second dwelling unit shall be no more than thirteen feet in height.

2. A one and one-half to two story detached second dwelling shall be no more than twenty-two feet in

height measured to the roof peak.

3. An attached second dwelling unit may occupy a first or second story of a main residence if it is designed

as an integral part of the main residence and meets the setbacks and height requirements for the main residence.

K. Adequate Public Services and Infrastructure. Second dwelling units shall not be approved absent a finding of

adequate water supply and wastewater treatment capacity. The second dwelling unit can be accommodated with

the existing water service and existing sewer lateral, insofar as evidence is provided that the existing water service

and existing sewer lateral has adequate capacity to serve both the primary residence and second dwelling unit.

L. Adequate Emergency Access. The second dwelling unit shall have adequate emergency access, as

determined by the fire district.

M. Architectural and Site Design Standards. Architectural and design standards are limited to the following:

1. The design of the second dwelling unit shall relate to the design of the primary residence by use of the

similar exterior wall materials, window types, door and window trims, roofing materials and roof pitch.

2. For second dwelling units located outside the standard side and rear yard setbacks for the district, the

entrance to the second dwelling unit shall face the interior of the lot unless the second dwelling unit is directly

accessible from an alley or a public street.

3. For second dwelling units attached to the main dwelling unit, new entrances and exits are allowed on the

side and rear of the structures only.

39



Page 3/6


4. Windows which face an adjoining residential property shall be designed to protect the privacy of

neighbors; alternatively, fencing or landscaping shall be required to provide screening.

5. The site plan shall provide open space and landscaping that are useful for both the second dwelling unit

and the primary residence. Landscaping shall provide for the privacy and screening of adjacent properties.

N. Conversion of Existing Residence. An existing residence, in conformance with the above regulations, may

be converted to a second dwelling unit in conjunction with development of a new primary dwelling unit.

O. Conformance with Certified LCP. All new second dwelling units shall conform to all applicable

requirements of the city of Half Moon Bay LCP/LUP, the zoning code and this chapter including that the proposed

second dwelling unit will not adversely impact any coastal resources including any of the following:

1. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or significant vegetation such as native trees, shrubs, riparian

areas, wetlands, riparian or wetland buffers or visually prominent trees as designated on the Habitat Areas and

Water Resources Overlay Map.

2. Significant topographic features, including but not limited to steep slopes, ridgelines or bluffs, water

courses, streams or wetlands or any areas as designated on the Geologic Hazards Map.

3. Significant public views including old downtown, scenic hillsides or ocean views from Highway 1 as

designated on the Visual Resources Overlay Map.

4. Areas of public access to the coastal trail or beach areas including those as designated on the Access

Improvements Map.

5. Archaeological resources.

6. Prime agricultural land or soil. (Ord. C-2014-10 §6(B), 2014; Ord. C-15-10 §1(Exh. A(part)), 2010:

1996 zoning code (part). Formerly 18.33.030).

18.33.050 Deed restrictions.

Before obtaining a building permit for a second dwelling unit the property owner shall file with the county recorder

a declaration of restrictions containing a reference to the deed under which the property was acquired by the present

owner and stating that:

A. The second dwelling unit shall not be sold separately.

B. The second dwelling unit is restricted to the approved size.

C. The second dwelling unit is a permitted use only so long as either the main residence or the second dwelling

unit is occupied by the owner of record as the principal residence.

D. The above declarations are binding upon any successor in ownership of the property; lack of compliance will

result in the second dwelling unit becoming an illegal, nonconforming use subject to the code enforcement and

abatement proceedings established by the city of Half Moon Bay Municipal Code.

E. The deed restrictions shall lapse upon removal of the second dwelling unit. (Ord. C-15-10 §1(Exh. A(part)),

2010).

18.33.060 Incentives.

The following incentives are to encourage construction of second dwelling units:

A. Affordability Requirements for Fee Deferral. Second dwelling units proposed to be rented at affordable

rents, as established by the city, may request deferral of building permit, plan check, and development impact fees,

subject to the sole discretion and approval of the city, until issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

40



Page 4/6


B. Parking. The covered parking requirement for the primary residence shall be limited to one covered parking

space and one uncovered parking space if a secondary dwelling unit is provided.

C. Front or Exterior Yard Parking. Two uncovered parking spaces, one for the primary residence and one for

the secondary dwelling unit, may be provided in the front or exterior yard setback under this incentive with the

parking design subject to approval of the community development director. The maximum impervious surfaces

devoted to the parking area shall be no greater than the existing driveway surfaces at time of application. Not more

than fifty percent of the front yard width shall be allowed to be parking area.

D. Tandem Parking. For a parcel with a permitted accessory dwelling unit, required parking spaces for the

primary residence and the accessory dwelling unit may be provided in tandem on a driveway. A tandem

arrangement consists of one car behind the other. No more than two total cars in tandem may be counted towards

meeting the parking requirement. (Ord. C-2015-04 §1(part), 2015; Ord. C-15-10 §1(Exh. A(part)), 2010).

18.33.070 Requirements to legalize existing second dwelling units.

Within three hundred sixty-five days of the effective date of this chapter for a specified zoning district(s), the owner

of each existing second dwelling unit constructed without required permits located in the specified zoning district(s),

may apply to the city to legalize such second dwelling unit. To qualify under this section, the second dwelling unit

must have been constructed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter.

A. Building Permit Application for Legalization. The building permit application for legalization of a second

dwelling unit shall be made by the record owner, or his authorized representative, in writing, and shall contain the

information set forth in this section, and any other information as may be required by the building official:

1. Name(s) and address(es) of the owner or owners and applicant;

2. A property description (lot and block number, assessor’s parcel number, street address);

3. A site plan showing streets, property lines (lot dimensions), setbacks, the location of the primary and

second dwelling units and all other structures, and the location of all vehicular parking and drives;

4. The floor area (square footage) of the second dwelling unit;

5. The floor plan and elevations of all buildings on the property;

6. Evidence of the date of establishment of the second dwelling unit, found acceptable by the community

development director;

7. The consent of the applicant to the physical inspection of the premises between the hours of eight-thirty

a.m. to five o’clock p.m., weekdays, upon reasonable notice prior to the legalization of the second dwelling

unit;

8. Appropriate fees shall be paid.

B. Required Findings for Certificate of Occupancy. A certificate of occupancy for the second dwelling unit

shall be issued; provided, the second dwelling unit meets the same requirements as a single-family dwelling located

on the same parcel in the same zoning district, including but not limited to the requirements of B districts and

general provisions with the following differences:

1. Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit required by the

applicable district shall not apply. The minimum building site requirements shall be met.

2. Minimum Yards Required. Reduction of the minimum yards required by the applicable district is

permitted for a second dwelling unit subject to the granting of an exception approved in accordance with this

title; provided, that the following findings are made:

a. The second dwelling unit will not significantly impact adjacent properties adversely; and

41



Page 5/6


b. The proposed second dwelling unit is approved by the Half Moon Bay fire protection district.

3. Required Off-Street Automobile Spaces. There shall be provided a minimum of one off-street parking

space for the second dwelling unit, in addition to the two covered spaces currently required for a one-family

dwelling. Off-street parking spaces for the second dwelling unit may be uncovered.

4. Modification of Off-Street Parking Requirements. Modification of the off-street parking requirements

are permitted, subject to the granting of an exception approved in accordance with this title:

a. To allow the required automobile spaces to encroach into the front yard when locating the parking

behind the front yard setback poses practical difficulties or unusual hardship; or

b. To reduce the number of parking spaces required when the granting of an exception in accordance

with subsection (B)(4)(a) of this section would result in significant portions of the front yard being paved

or landscaping removed.

5. Building Code Compliance. The building official has found the second dwelling unit to be in rentable

condition. A dwelling unit shall be deemed unrentable when it substantially lacks any of the following:

a. Effective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior walls, and sound windows and

doors in particular;

b. Plumbing facilities which conformed to applicable law in effect at the time of installation,

maintained in good working order;

c. A water supply approved under applicable law, capable of producing hot and cold running water, or

a system which is under control of the landlord, or owner, which produces hot and cold running water,

furnished to appropriate fixtures, and connected to a sewage disposal system approved under applicable

law;

d. Heating facilities which conformed to applicable law at the time of installation, maintained in good

working order;

e. Sufficient electrical lighting, with wiring and electrical equipment which conformed to applicable

law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order;

f. Building, grounds and appurtenances, clean, sanitary and free in every part from all accumulation of

debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodent and vermin;

g. An adequate number of approved receptacles for garbage and rubbish, in clean condition and in

good repair;

h. Floors, required floor covering, stairway and railings maintained in good repair;

i. One-hour fire protection between attached units;

j. In addition, any other condition, as determined by the building official, to the extent that endangers

the life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare of the public or occupants must be corrected per accepted

standards.

6. Exception Procedures. Application for an exception to any development standards shall be made to the

planning commission and an exception may be issued under the same procedures as that specified in this title

for the granting of a variance, except that no public hearing be held thereon, and the findings need include only

that the second dwelling unit as proposed is as nearly in compliance with the requirements set forth in this

section as is reasonably possible.

7. Noncompliance with Requirements. Existing second dwelling units unable to meet requirements set

forth in this chapter shall constitute a nuisance, subject to abatement at the direction of the building official.

42



Page 6/6


8. Filing Fees. Architectural review applications and building permit applications for legalization of

second dwelling units shall be accompanied by the standard application and building permit fees as set by

resolution of the city council. (Ord. C-2015-04 §1(part), 2015; Ord. C-15-10 §1(Exh. A(part)), 2010: 1996

zoning code (part). Formerly 18.33.040).

43

STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G BROWN, JR , GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT STREET, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 VOICE (415) 904- 5200 FAX ( 415) 904- 5400 TDD (415) 597-5885

TO: Planning Directors of Coastal Cities and Counties FROM: John Ainsworth, Executive Director RE: New Accessory Dwelling Unit Legislation DATE: April 18, 2017 New State requirements regarding local government regulation of “accessory dwelling units” (ADUs) became effective on January 1, 2017. The Legislature amended Government Code section 65852.2 to modify the requirements that local governments may apply to ADUs, most notably with respect to parking. The Legislature further specified that local ADU ordinances enacted prior to 2017 that do not meet the requirements of the new legislation are null and void. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(4).) Significantly, however, the Legislature further directed that the statute shall not be interpreted to “supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act . . . except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units.” (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (j).) The Legislature also enacted Government Code section 65852.22, which establishes streamlined review of “junior” ADUs in jurisdictions that adopt ordinances that meet certain specified criteria. Unlike Government Code section 65852.2, the junior ADU statute does not specifically address or refer to the Coastal Act.

The Coastal Act requires the Coastal Commission to encourage housing opportunities for low and moderate income households and calls for the concentration of development in existing developed areas. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 30250, subd. (a); 30604, subd. (f).) The creation of new ADUs in existing residential areas is a promising strategy for increasing the supply of lower-cost housing in the coastal zone in a way that avoids significant adverse impacts on coastal resources.

Some local governments have requested guidance from the Coastal Commission regarding how to implement the ADU and junior ADU statutes in light of Coastal Act requirements. This memorandum is intended to provide general guidance for local governments with fully certified local coastal programs (LCPs). The Coastal Commission is generally responsible for Coastal Act review of ADUs in areas that are not subject to fully certified LCPs. Local governments that have questions about specific circumstances not addressed in this memorandum should contact the appropriate district office of the Coastal Commission.

1) Update Local Coastal Programs The Coastal Commission strongly recommends that local governments amend their LCPs to address the review of coastal development permit (CDP) applications for ADUs in light of the new

44

joeb

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 3A

2

legislation. Currently certified provisions of LCPs, including specific LCP ADU sections currently in place, are not superseded by Government Code section 65852.2 and continue to apply to CDP applications for ADUs. Any conflicts between those LCP provisions and the new statutory requirements as they apply to local permits other than CDPs, however, may cause confusion that unnecessarily thwarts the Legislature’s goal of encouraging ADUs. Government Code section 65852.2 expressly allows local governments to adopt local ordinances that include criteria and standards to address a wide variety of concerns, including potential impacts to coastal resources, and thus the coastal resource context applicable to any particular local government jurisdictional area needs to be addressed in any proposed LCP ADU sections. Coastal Commission staff anticipates that LCP amendments to implement the ADU legislation will reconcile Coastal Act requirements with the ADU statutes, thus allowing accomplishment of the Legislature’s goals both with respect to coastal protection and encouragement of ADUs.

When evaluating what specific changes to make to an LCP, consider whether amendments to the land use plan component of the LCP are necessary in order to allow proposed changes to the implementation plan component. LCP amendments that involve purely procedural changes, that do not propose changes in land use, and/or that would have no impact on coastal resources may be eligible for streamlined review as minor or de minimis amendments. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30514, subd. (d); Cal. Code Regs., § 13554.)

2) Review of ADU Applications A) Check CDP History for the Site. The ADU statutes apply to residentially zoned lots that

currently have a legally established single-family dwelling. Determine whether a CDP was previously issued for development of the lot and whether that CDP limits, or requires a CDP or CDP amendment for, changes to the approved development or for future development or uses of the site. In such cases, previous CDP requirements must be understood in relation to the proposed ADU, and they may restrict the proposal. If an ADU application raises questions regarding a Coastal Commission CDP, including if an amendment to a CDP issued by the Coastal Commission may be necessary, instruct the applicant to contact the appropriate district office of the Coastal Commission.

B) Determine Whether the Proposed ADU Qualifies As Development. The Coastal Act’s permitting requirements apply to development performed or undertaken in the coastal zone. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30600, subd. (a).) Minor changes to an existing legally established residential structure that do not involve the removal or replacement of major structural components (e.g., roofs, exterior walls, foundations) and that do not change the size or the intensity of use of the structure do not qualify as development with the meaning of the Coastal Act. A junior ADU that complies with the requirements of an ordinance enacted pursuant to Government Code section 65852.22 generally will not constitute development because it will not change the building envelope and because it must contain at least one bedroom that was previously part of the primary residence. Such minor changes do not require a Coastal Act approval such as a CDP or waiver unless specified in a previously issued CDP for existing development on the lot. If questions arise regarding whether a

45

3

proposed ADU qualifies as development, please contact the appropriate district office of the Coastal Commission.

C) If the Proposed ADU Qualifies As Development, Determine Whether It Is Exempt.

Improvements such as additions to existing single-family dwellings are generally exempt from Coastal Act permitting requirements except when they involve a risk of adverse environmental effects as specified in the Coastal Commission’s regulations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30610, subd. (a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13250.) Improvements that qualify as exempt development under the Coastal Act and its implementing regulations do not require Coastal Act approval unless required pursuant to a previously issued CDP. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13250, subd. (b)(6).)

An improvement does not qualify as an exempt improvement if the improvement or the existing dwelling is located on a beach, in a wetland, seaward of the mean high tide line, in an environmentally sensitive habitat area, in an area designated as highly scenic in a certified land use plan, or within 50 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff. Improvements that involve significant alteration of land forms as specified in section 13250 of the Commission’s regulations also are not exempt. In addition, the expansion or construction of water wells or septic systems are not exempt. Finally, improvements to structures located between the first public road and the sea or within 300 feet of a beach or the mean high tide line are not exempt if they either increase the interior floor area by 10 percent or more or increase the height by more than 10 percent. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13250, subd. (b).) To qualify as an exempt improvement to a single-family dwelling, an ADU must be contained within or directly attached to the existing single-family structure. “[S]elf-contained residential units,” i.e., detached residential units, do not qualify as part of a single-family residential structure and construction of or improvements to them are therefore not exempt development. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13250, subd. (a)(2).) Again, if questions arise regarding CDP exemption requirements, please contact the appropriate district office of the Coastal Commission.

D) If the Proposed ADU Is Not Exempt From CDP Requirements, Determine Whether A

CDP Waiver is Appropriate. If a proposed ADU qualifies as an improvement to a single-family dwelling but is not exempt, a local government may waive the requirement for a CDP if the LCP includes a waiver provision and the proposed ADU meets the criteria for a CDP waiver. Such provisions generally allow a waiver if the local government finds that the impact of the ADU on coastal resources or coastal access would be insignificant. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13250, subd. (c).) In addition, they generally allow a waiver if the proposed ADU is a detached structure and the local government determines that the ADU involves no potential for any adverse effect on coastal resources and that it will be consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 30624.7.) Some LCPs do not provide for waivers, but may allow similar expedited approval procedures. Those other expedited approval procedures may apply. If an LCP does not include provisions

46

4

regarding CDP waivers or other similar expedited approvals, the local government may submit an LCP amendment to authorize those procedures.

E) If a Waiver Would Not Be Appropriate, Review CDP Application for Consistency With

Certified LCP Requirements. If a proposed ADU constitutes development, is not exempt, and is not subject to a waiver or similar expedited Coastal Act approval authorized in the certified LCP, it requires a CDP. The CDP must be consistent with the requirements of the certified LCP and, where applicable, the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act, except that no local public hearing is required. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (j).) Provide the required public notice for any CDP applications for ADUs, and process the CDP application according to LCP requirements. Once a final decision on the CDP application has been taken, send the required final local action notice to the appropriate district office of the Coastal Commission. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 13565-13573.) If the ADU qualifies as appealable development, a local government action to approve a CDP for the ADU may be appealed to the Coastal Commission. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30603.)

47

STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 VOICE (415) 904- 5200 FAX ( 415) 904- 5400 TDD (415) 597-5885

TO: Planning Directors of Coastal Cities and Counties

FROM: John Ainsworth, Executive Director

RE: Implementation of New Accessory Dwelling Unit Law

DATE: November 20, 2017

On April 18, 2017, we circulated a memo intended to help local governments interpret and implement new state requirements regarding regulation of “accessory dwelling units” (ADUs) in the coastal zone. Following the enactment of AB 2299 (Bloom) and SB 1069 (Wiekowski), changes to Government Code 65852.2 now impose specific requirements on how local governments can and cannot regulate ADUs, with the goal of increasing statewide availability of smaller, more affordable housing units. Our earlier memo was intended to help coastal jurisdictions and members of the public understand how to harmonize the new ADU requirements with LCP and Coastal Act policies. This memo is meant to provide further clarification and reduce confusion about whether and how to amend LCPs in response to these changes.

Although Government Code Section 65852.2(j) states that it does not supersede or lessen the application of the Coastal Act, it would be a mistake for local governments with certified LCPs to interpret this as a signal that they can simply disregard the new law in the coastal zone. The Commission interprets the effect of subdivision (j) as preserving the authority of local governments to protect coastal resources when regulating ADUs in the coastal zone, while also complying with the standards in Section 65852.2 to the greatest extent feasible. In other words, ADU applications that are consistent with the standards in Section 65852.2 should be approved administratively, provided they are also consistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act as implemented in the LCP. Where LCP policies and ordinances are already flexible enough to implement the provisions of Section 65852.2 directly, local governments should do so. Where LCP policies directly conflict with the new provisions or require refinement, those LCPs should be updated to be consistent with the new ADU statute to the greatest extent feasible while still complying with Coastal Act requirements.

Bear in mind that Section 65852.2 still preserves a meaningful level of local control by authorizing local governments to craft policies that address local realities. It allows local governments to designate areas where ADUs are allowed based on criteria such as the adequacy of public services and public safety considerations. It also explicitly allows local governments to adopt ordinances that impose certain standards, including but not limited to standards regarding height, setbacks, lot coverage, zoning density, and maximum floor area. In the coastal zone, local governments can incorporate such standards in LCP policies in order to protect Chapter 3 resources while still streamlining approval of ADUs.

Therefore, the Commission reiterates its previous recommendation that local governments amend their LCPs accordingly, using Section 65852.2 as a blueprint for crafting objective 48

https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/rflg/CCC_guidance_memo_re_ADUs.pdf

joeb

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 3B

2

standards related to design, floor area, parking requirements and processing procedures for ADUs in a manner that protects wetlands, sensitive habitat, public access, scenic views of the coast, productive agricultural soils, and the safety of new ADUs and their occupants. Depending on the individual LCP, such amendments might include:

• Updating the definition of an ADU (variously referred to in existing LCPs as second units, granny units, etc.)

• Implementing an administrative review process for ADUs that includes sufficient safeguards for coastal resources

• Re-evaluating the minimum and maximum ADU floor area and related design standards • Specifying that ADUs shall not be required to install new or separate utility connections • For ADUs contained within existing residences or accessory structures, eliminating local

connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, water and sewer services. • Providing for ministerial approval of Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) • Clarifying that no more than one additional parking space per bedroom is required • Eliminating off-street parking requirements for ADUs located within a ½ mile of public

transit, an architecturally significant historic district, an existing primary residence or accessory structure, one block of a car share vehicle, or where on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of an ADU

This is just a partial list, as specific changes will depend on existing LCP policies as well as unique local resource constraints. See our earlier memo for additional recommendations.

We are currently conducting a survey to identify the number of local governments which have already initiated the amendment process. For those that have not, Commission staff strongly urges those jurisdictions to do so in the very near future.

To expedite the process, the Commission will process ADU-specific LCPAs as minor or de minimis amendments whenever possible. We realize that procedural requirements for public review and participation can be time consuming, and will strive to complete the Commission’s review process expeditiously. In the interim, we urge local governments to consider which provisions of Section 65852.2 might be implemented administratively, through existing procedures, definitions, or variances. Because each LCP is distinct and unique to its particular jurisdiction, some are inherently more flexible than others. We strongly suggest applying any existing discretion in a manner that conforms to Section 65852.2 as well as your LCP.

We acknowledge that because of the nature of our state/local partnership the Commission cannot compel local governments to undertake these amendments. The foregoing advice is offered in the spirit of our mutual goals and responsibilities of preserving both Coastal Act objectives and local control of planning and permitting decisions. We are grateful that the Legislature elected to preserve the integrity of the Coastal Act when it passed these bills. We are also mindful that this did not reflect any intent to discourage ADUs in the coastal zone, but rather to ensure that new ADU incentives are implemented in a way that does not harm coastal resources. In order to maintain the Legislature’s continued support for this approach, and avoid the imposition of unilateral coastal standards for ADUs in the future, it is essential to demonstrate that these housing policies can and will be responsibly implemented in the coastal zone.

My staff and I remain ready and available to assist in this effort.

49

22.5.1

CHAPTER 22.5. SECOND UNITS

SECTION 6425. PURPOSE. Second units are a residential use that provide an important source of housing. The purpose of this Chapter is to:

1. Increase the supply and diversity of the County’s housing stock, inparticular the number of smaller and more affordable units, by allowingsecond units to be built on existing residential properties, while preservingthe neighborhood character.

2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that hasless impact on the environment than development of housing inundeveloped areas.

3. Allow more efficient use of existing residential areas and supportinginfrastructure.

4. Provide a means for residents to remain in their homes andneighborhoods.

5. Provide opportunities for homeowners to earn supplemental income fromrenting a second unit.

6. Establish standards for second units to ensure that they are safe,habitable, and compatible with existing development.

SECTION 6426. DEFINITIONS.

1. Primary Residence. A “primary residence” is the main residence located orproposed to be located on the parcel on which a second unit is located orproposed to be located.

2. Second Unit. A “second unit” is a dwelling unit located or proposed tobe located on a lot which contains, or will contain, a primary residence.Second units may be detached from or attached to the primary residenceon the property. Second units may also be (1) efficiency units, asdefined in Section 17958.1 of the California Health & Safety Code, or(2) manufactured homes, as defined in Section 18007 of the CaliforniaHealth & Safety Code. Second units are “accessory dwelling units” as thatterm is used in Government Code Section 65852.2. Second units are not“accessory buildings” as defined in Section 6102.19. Any secondarystructure that provides independent facilities for living, sleeping, eating,cooking, and sanitation shall be considered a second unit, unless anapplicant can provide compelling evidence to the contrary, to thesatisfaction of the Community Development Director.

San Mateo County Zoning Ordinance ATTACHMENT 4

1 of 8

50

22.5.2

3. Detached Second Unit. A “detached second unit” is a unit that is an independent structure, entirely separated from the structure of the primary residence.

4. Attached Second Unit. An “attached second unit” is a unit that is built as

an addition to, extension of, or within the primary residence. 5. Floor Area. For purposes of this Chapter, the “floor area” of a primary

residence or second unit is the area of each floor level included within the walls enclosing each dwelling unit. The floor area shall be measured from the outside face of the walls enclosing each dwelling unit including all closet space and storage areas contained within the unit, including habitable basements and attics, but shall not include unenclosed porches, balconies, or enclosed garages or carports.

SECTION 6427. LOCATIONS PERMITTED. Second units shall be allowed in

the R-1, R-2, R-E, RH, RM and TPZ Districts outside the Coastal Zone and in the R-1 District within the Coastal Zone.

SECTION 6428. APPROVAL. Second units meeting all of the requirements of

Section 6429 shall be approved ministerially, without public notice, public hearing, or discretionary review.

Second units not meeting the standards set forth in Section 6429 will be con-

sidered a conditionally permitted use within the districts specified in Section 6427 and may be permitted by a conditional use permit pursuant to a public hearing before the Zoning Hearing Officer, as described in Section 6431.

SECTION 6429. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SECOND UNITS.

New second units shall be subject to the same requirements as any dwelling unit located on the same parcel in the same district, including but not limited to the requirements of Chapters 20 and 22 of the Zoning Regulations, with the following exceptions:

1. Minimum Lot Area. Second units shall be exempt from the minimum lot

area per dwelling unit provisions in the applicable district. 2. Maximum Density of Development. Second units shall be exempt from any

and all provisions limiting the maximum density of development in the applicable district.

3. Setbacks. Notwithstanding the required setbacks in the applicable district,

minimum setbacks for second units shall be:


2 of 8

51

22.5.3

a. Detached Second Units of Sixteen (16) Feet or Less in Height. Side Setback: Five (5) Feet Rear Setback: Five (5) Feet

b. Detached Second Units Greater Than Sixteen (16) Feet in Height.

Side Setback: Five (5) Feet Rear Setback: Ten (10) Feet

c. Setbacks Between Attached Second Units and Property Lines.

Attached second units shall be subject to the same setback requirements as a primary residence in the same district, except as described in 6429.14, below. Second units constructed entirely within an existing garage shall not be subject to setback requirements. Second units constructed above an existing garage, regardless of height, will be subject to the setbacks in 6429.3(a).

d. Setbacks Between Detached Second Units and Property Lines. The

setbacks required between a detached second unit and any property lines shall be as specified in this Chapter. If different setbacks to property lines are required by any other section of the Zoning Regulations, those requirements shall be disregarded, and the standards of this Chapter shall govern.

e. Detached Second Units in Front Of Primary Residence. If any portion

of a second unit is located in front of the primary residence, then the front and side setbacks applicable to the second unit shall be those required of a primary residence in the same zoning district.

f. Distance Between Detached Second Units and Other Buildings. The

distance required between a detached second unit and any other building on the same parcel must be a minimum of five (5) feet, measured from foundation to foundation. If a separation distance greater than five (5) feet is required by any other section of the Zoning Regulations, it shall be disregarded, and the standards of this Chapter shall govern.

4. Floor Area. The floor area of a detached second unit shall not exceed

seven hundred fifty (750) square feet or thirty-five percent (35%) of the floor area of the existing or proposed primary residence, whichever is larger, up to a maximum of one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet. The floor area of an attached second unit shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet or fifty percent (50%) of the floor area of the existing or proposed primary residence, whichever is larger, up to a maximum of one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet. The floor area of a second unit shall count against the total floor area allowed on a parcel, such that


3 of 8

52

22.5.4

the total floor area of the second unit and the primary residence shall not exceed the maximum floor area allowed within the zoning district.

5. Height. The maximum height of the second unit shall be twenty-six (26)

feet. Building height shall be measured as the vertical distance from any point on the lower of (a) finished grade, or (b) natural grade, to the topmost point of the building immediately above. Chimneys, pipes, mechanical equipment, antennae, and other similar structures may extend up to eight (8) feet beyond the building height, as required for safety or efficient operation. Second units built entirely within an existing building shall be subject to the height limit applicable to that building in the relevant district.

6. Balconies and Decks. Second units that do not meet the setback

requirements that would apply to a primary residence in the same district shall have no rooftop decks, and no portion of any balcony or deck shall be located above ten (10) feet in height, measured in the same manner as height in Section 6429.5 except on the side of the second unit facing the primary residence. Second units that meet the setback requirements that would apply to a primary residence in the same district may have rooftop decks and balconies to the extent otherwise allowed in the relevant district.

7. Windows. Second units that do not meet the setback requirements that

would apply to a primary residence in the same district shall have no windows located above or extending above ten (10) feet on the second unit except on (1) the side(s) of the second unit facing the primary residence, and (2) the side(s) of the second unit that comply with the normal setback requirements of the district. On the sides of the second unit that do not meet the normal setback requirements of the district, clerestory windows located above ten (10) feet on the second unit shall be allowed, if they have a lower sill height of no less than seven (7) feet from the nearest interior floor of the second unit, and a total window height no greater than twenty-four (24) inches. Skylights shall be allowed.

8. Ingress and Egress. Second units shall have an independently accessible

entrance that does not require passage through the primary residence. For second units attached to the primary residence, any new entrances and exits shall face the side and rear of the parcel only.

9. Parking. Second units meeting any of the following criteria shall not be

required to provide any parking in addition to that already provided on the parcel, or in the case of a concurrent application for a new primary and second dwelling unit, that required for the primary unit only:

a. Second units located within one-half (1/2) mile of a public transit stop

or station.


4 of 8

53

22.5.5

b. Second units located within a designated architecturally and historically significant historic district.

c. Second units that are part of the existing primary residence or an

existing accessory structure. d. Second units located within one (1) block of a car share vehicle

pick-up/drop-off location. For all other second units, the following parking standards shall apply: One (1) new parking space, in addition to those already existing on the

parcel, shall be provided on-site for each studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom second unit. Two (2) new parking spaces shall be provided on-site for each second unit with three or more bedrooms.

If the parking already existing on the parcel exceeds that required for

existing development on the parcel, excess parking spaces shall be counted against the new parking required for the second unit. Parking spaces shall be provided in the following manner:

a. Pervious Surfaces. All new parking spaces created for the second

unit must be provided on pervious surfaces. The maximum amount of impervious surfaces designated to satisfy the second unit parking requirement shall be no greater than the amount of impervious surfaces existing at time of application.

b. Uncovered Parking. All parking required for the second unit may be

uncovered. c. Front or Side Yard Parking. Two (2) parking spaces may be provided

in the front or side yard. Not more than 600 square feet of the front yard area shall be used for parking.

d. Tandem Parking. Required parking spaces for the primary residence

and the second unit may be provided in tandem on a driveway. A tandem parking arrangement consists of one car behind the other. No more than three total cars in tandem may be counted toward meeting the parking requirement.

e. Compact Spaces. All parking required for the second unit may be

provided by compact parking spaces, as defined in Section 6118.a. f. Parking Exceptions. If the required parking for a second unit cannot

be met in accordance with this Section, an application may be submitted for a parking exception, as specified in Section 6120.


5 of 8

54

22.5.6

10. Design Review. Second units shall not be subject to design review, except

to the extent that they are located in the County’s Coastal Zone, and are subject to design review requirements incorporated in the County’s Local Coastal Program.

11. Concurrent Application for Development of Primary Residence and Second

Unit. In the case of a concurrent application for development of a new primary residence and new second unit on the same parcel, whichever unit is first issued a certificate of occupancy must conform to all applicable regulations for the primary residence in the relevant district.

12. Conversion of Existing Residence. An existing residence may be

converted to a second unit in conjunction with development of a new primary residence, if the existing residence, once converted, will meet all the standards applicable to development of a new second unit described in this Chapter.

13. Conversion of Accessory Building. A second unit may be constructed

within or above an existing, detached accessory building provided the resulting unit conforms to all applicable provisions of this Chapter.

14. Creation of Second Unit Entirely Within a Non-Conforming Primary

Residence. In the case of an existing primary residence that does not conform to one or more zoning regulations, creation of a second unit that will be entirely within the existing primary residence shall not, in itself, create a requirement that the nonconformities be rectified. However, no other provisions that may require rectification of existing nonconformities are waived merely due to approval of a second unit, unless specifically described in this Chapter.

SECTION 6430. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SECOND

DWELLING UNITS.

1. Building permits may be issued for existing second units which were constructed without required permits, under the following conditions:

a. The second unit conforms to all applicable provisions of this Chapter,

and all other applicable required standards for habitability. b. All applicable fees for construction completed without permits have

been paid. Second units constructed without permits that do not meet the provisions

of this Section may apply for a conditional use permit, as described in Section 6431.


6 of 8

55

22.5.7

SECTION 6431. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED

SECOND UNITS. Second units not meeting all applicable standards of this Chapter may be

conditionally permitted, subject to a conditional use permit. The process for application for and issuance of a conditional use permit for a second unit shall be that set forth in Section 6503 of the County Zoning Regulations, except that the granting of the permit shall be at the determination of the Zoning Hearing Officer. The determination of the Zoning Hearing Officer shall be appealable to the County Planning Commission, as specified in Chapter 30 of the Zoning Regulations. Second units requiring a conditional use permit which are within the CD District shall require a Coastal Development Permit that is appealable to the Coastal Commission.

In the case of second units meeting all applicable standards of this Chapter

except those related to parking requirements, a parking exception may be requested as provided in Section 6429.9(f), and a conditional use permit shall not be required.

SECTION 6432. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. In the CD District, all second units shall comply with all of the applicable

regulations of the district, including but not limited to the Sensitive Habitats, Visual Resources, and Hazards policies of the Local Coastal Program. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act, the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program, or the CD District regulations, except that no public hearing shall be required for second units that meet all relevant standards of this Chapter, and approval of such second unit applications shall be made at the staff level. Second units shall count toward the total residential development quotas described in Section 1.23 of the County’s Local Coastal Program.

SECTION 6433. DECISIONS. Applications for second units, except for those requiring a conditional use permit

as specified in Section 6431, shall be approved or denied ministerially, on the basis of the objective criteria included in this Chapter and other applicable regulations as defined in Section 6434. Consideration of other permits associated with development of the proposed second unit only, that might otherwise be discretionary, including but not limited to Tree Removal, Coastal Development, Resource Management, Use Permits and Variances, shall also be ministerial, except as provided in Section 6431. No public notice or public hearing shall be required for review and approval or denial of a second unit, unless an applicant requests exceptions to the standards set forth in this Chapter.


7 of 8

56

22.5.8

SECTION 6433. APPEALS. Decisions to approve or deny an application for a second unit that meets all

relevant standards set forth in this Chapter are not subject to appeal, except if located in the Coastal Commission appeals area of the CD District, in which case the decision may be appealed as provided in the CD District Regulations, Section 6328.3(s).

SECTION 6434. APPLICABILITY OF COUNTY REGULATIONS. With the exception of specific standards and exemptions described in this

Chapter, all second units must comply with all applicable provisions in the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, including the Zoning Regulations (Section 6100 et seq.) and the Building Code (Section 9000 et seq.).

(Chapter 22.5 - Added by Ordinance No. 2876 - January 24, 1984) (Section 6427 - Amended by Ordinance No. 3039 - June 18, 1985) (Section 6427 - Amended by Ordinance No. 3057 - March 4, 1986) (Section 6427.5 - Repealed by Ordinance No. 3039 - June 18, 1985) (Section 6428 - Amended by Ordinance No. 3039 - June 18, 1985) (Section 6428.2 - Amended by Ordinance No. 3537 - January 25, 1994) (Section 6428.5 - Added by Ordinance No. 3039 - June 18, 1985) (Section 6429 - Amended by Ordinance No. 3057 - March 4, 1986) (Sections 6425 - 6434 repealed and replaced in their entirety by Ordinance No. 04768 - January 10, 2017)


8 of 8

57

MEMORANDUM


TO: Chair Hernandez and Planning Commission FROM: Jill Ekas, Community Development Director

Sara Clark, Deputy City Attorney TITLE: POLICY DIRECTION FOR POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF A CITY ORDINANCE

REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Provide policy direction to staff for potential adoption of a City ordinance regulating short-term rentals. BACKGROUND: The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not expressly address short-term rentals. However, the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (“TOT”) Ordinance imposes TOT obligations on hotels, which include “any structure or facility . . . which is occupied by transients for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes, [including any] tourist home or house, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, . . . wherein overnight accommodations are offered for hire” (Municipal Code § 3.12.020). Consequently, the City requires existing short-term rental uses within residential zones to satisfy TOT requirements. However, the City is interested in adopting more comprehensive regulations for short-term rentals. Developing a comprehensive short-term rental program will also ensure the City’s ongoing compliance with the Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission advised municipalities that “vacation rental prohibitions unduly limit public recreational access opportunities inconsistent with the Coastal Act” (Attachment 1 - California Coastal Commission Guidance: Short-Term/Vacation Rentals in the California Coastal Zone, Dec. 6, 2016). For that reason, the Coastal Commission recently refused to certify a local coastal program amendment proposed by the City of Laguna Beach that banned short-term rentals in the Coastal Zone, finding that such a ban improperly impeded public access. However, the Coastal Commission has encouraged municipalities to adopt reasonable regulations regarding short-term rentals. Examples given by the Coastal Commission include limiting the number of occupants, limiting the number of days that a unit can be rented in a given year, and adopting mechanisms to encourage compliance with existing local laws regarding parking, garbage, noise, and other nuisance issues.

58

March 13, 2018 Short Term Rental Study Session Planning Commission Meeting

Page 2 of 6

San Mateo County recently adopted a short-term rental ordinance, included as Attachment 2. In December 2017, the Coastal Commission approved the County’s proposed local coastal program amendment necessary to implement the ordinance. The County is in the process of updating its fee schedule, but implementation of the ordinance is expected soon. DISCUSSION: Staff seeks the Planning Commission’s guidance on land use policy and implementation considerations associated with short-term rentals. Key topics include Coastal Act consistency, neighborhood compatibility, housing affordability, economic development, and program administration. This memo presents options that the Planning Commission may wish to consider given these primary policy and implementation considerations. The proposed ordinance will ultimately include additional regulations related to registration, nuisance issues (such as parking, garbage, noise, and events), public safety, business licenses, TOT registration, suspension and revocation, insurance, and indemnification, among other issues. The Planning Commission will have the opportunity to consider these details during review of any proposed ordinance. However, in order to ensure adequate attention on the important land use considerations involved, this study session focuses on where short-term rentals may be appropriate, the types of short-term rentals compatible with various locations, and other associated land use controls. Where should short-term rentals be allowed? Permitting short-term rentals in the City’s residential and mixed-use neighborhoods would be consistent with Coastal Commission guidance, provide homeowners with an income source which could improve their housing affordability, and support the City’s economic development efforts. Short-term rentals are situated within existing dwelling units in existing residential and mixed-use neighborhoods. Nevertheless, considerations for single-use residential areas and mixed-use zones are different and described as follows: Residential Zoning Districts: Zoning designations for these areas include R-1, R-2, R-3, Planned Unit Development (PUD), and Mobile Home Park (MHP) districts. The impacts associated with short-term rentals can be similarly addressed across these residential zoning districts, with some exceptions. Three housing types located within the City’s residential areas tend to provide more affordable housing options including accessory dwelling units (ADUs), mobile homes, and rental multi-family housing (duplexes, triplexes, and apartments). Of note, staff specifically recommends against allowing short-term rentals within ADUs (as discussed in the ADU Memorandum also to be considered at the March 18, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting), in the MHP zoning district, or in rental multi-family units in order to preserve these housing types for long-term occupancy by lower income households. With respect to multi-family ownership housing and planned developments, homeowner’s associations (HOAs) may disallow short-term rental use in their covenants, conditions and

59


Page 3 of 6

restrictions (CC&Rs). Thus, it is possible that future City regulations for short-term rentals may conflict with some CC&Rs. This is not an especially unusual circumstance, and it is the obligation of the HOA, and not the City, to enforce the CC&Rs in such a case. However, it is City practice to advise applicants seeking planning or building permits to first consult with their HOA and to review their CC&Rs. From review of the various short-term rental platforms (e.g. Airbnb and VRBO), it appears that most existing short-term rentals in Half Moon Bay are located in the R-1 and PUD zoning districts. This indicates market viability in these areas. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission consider the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PUD zoning districts as potentially appropriate for short-term rentals. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts: Residential development in the City’s mixed-use zones is primarily located in the old Downtown area around Main Street. The Commercial-Downtown (C-D) and Commercial-Residential (C-R) zoning districts allow for both single-use residential and mixed use. Because these areas are already characterized by a range of commercial and residential uses, including lodging and other visitor-serving commercial uses, they may also be appropriate for permitted short-term rental use. Very little residential development is located in the Commercial-General (C-G) or Commercial-Visitor Serving (C-VS) Zoning Districts and they do not appear to be especially viable for short-term rentals at this time. Other Zoning Districts: Additional residential development is located in the Urban Reserve (UR) and Open Space Reserve (OSR) districts, as well as nonconforming residential uses in other zones. The Planning Commission may wish consider if short-term rentals are appropriate uses in the UR or OSR districts on lots with existing homes. Options: The Planning Commission should consider which parts of town or zoning districts are appropriate for short-term rentals. As an example, San Mateo County’s regulations will permit short-term rentals in the R-1 and R-3 zones, but not in residential uses located in their Neighborhood Commercial or Coastside Commercial Recreation zones. What types of short-term rentals should the City allow? Short-term rentals can be broken down into two categories. “Hosted” rentals are those for which the property owner or tenant remains on site during the rental period. The short-term rental guest then occupies a room or other separate area. “Unhosted” rentals are those for which the short-term rental guest occupies the entire property. A number of short-term rentals are currently operating in Half Moon Bay. Complaints from neighbors tend to be about unhosted rentals in residential neighborhoods. Large groups, noise, trash, traffic, and an overall lack of property oversight have been cited as detrimental to the neighborhood living environment. In consideration of the overall purpose and intent of the City’s residential zoning districts, zoning regulations must be designed to ensure that

60


Page 4 of 6

commercial uses in residential zones are compatible. Home occupation standards are especially strict (Attachment 3, Municipal Code 18.06.025). Hosted Short-Term Rentals: Because of the recent history of complaints and in context with the City’s other standards for residential zones, staff’s initial recommendation is that the ordinance require all short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods to be hosted. In other jurisdictions, this approach has been found to reduce nuisance impacts (such as large parties or events, loud noise, and other problematic guest behavior), as the property owner is onsite to monitor the guests’ behavior. This approach also reduces the likelihood that properties will be sold to investors for exclusive short-term rental use, as hosted rentals are generally less viable as an investment property. Finally, this approach partially addresses concerns raised about operating “commercial” properties in residential areas. While hosted rentals still create a potential revenue stream for property owners, the use is more akin to a home occupation rather than a hotel. A drawback of this approach is that it gives property owners fewer opportunities to provide short-term rentals and will likely decrease the amount of TOT revenue that would otherwise be collected (hosted rentals are generally less expensive, as the guest lacks exclusive access). Moreover, enforcement of any hosted rental requirement may be difficult, as it requires ongoing monitoring by the City. Unhosted Short-Term Rentals: The City’s mixed-use C-D and C-R districts are already characterized by commercial uses near homes. Consequently, unhosted rentals may be compatible provided that various land use controls and other regulations are in place. For example, for any type of short-term rental, regulations in other jurisdictions require that owners provide contact information for a local responsible party, regardless of the direction on hosted versus unhosted rentals. For implementation of a short-term rental ordinance, this information will allow the City to quickly get in touch with a responsible party in the event complaints are made. Options: The Planning Commission should consider options for hosted and unhosted rentals in different parts of the City and in different neighborhoods. The Planning Commission may also want to consider allowing unhosted rentals subject to additional land use controls, such as for a limited number of nights per year, as discussed in the next item. Should additional land use controls be applied to short-term rentals? In the event the Planning Commission recommends allowing unhosted rentals (either in all or some zoning districts), staff suggests that the Commission consider pairing regulations allowing unhosted rentals with regulations intended to ensure single-family residences are not used exclusively for short-term rental use. Allowing such exclusive use will reduce the City’s existing housing stock and reduce affordability. Staff wishes to emphasize that Half Moon Bay’s residential neighborhoods are almost exclusively inhabited by full-time residents. Half Moon

61


Page 5 of 6

Bay is not a community of second/vacation homes as is the case is some other coastal locations. Thus, conversion of a significant number of residences to vacation properties would produce a marked change in the character and function of the community. Limit Nights per Year: First, the City could limit the total number of rental nights per year for unhosted rentals (potentially while leaving unlimited the number of hosted nights). For instance, the County allows unhosted rentals, but only for up to 180 nights per year. Likewise, San Francisco allows unhosted rentals for 90 nights and Redwood City allows unhosted rentals for 120 nights. All three jurisdictions do not count hosted nights towards these limits. By imposing night limits, the jurisdictions intend to ensure that the primary use of residences remains either occupancy by the owner or long-term rentals. The major downside of these types of night limits is the difficulty of enforcement. The City will need to be involved in constant monitoring or rely on self-reporting, which rewards property owners who are willing to risk non-compliance. Proof of Primary Residency: Another option for consideration is to require the property owner to submit proof of primary residence with the short-term rental application, such as documents demonstrating that the property qualifies for the state principal place of residence property tax exception. This approach helps ensure that the property is used primarily as the owner’s main residence, with any short-term rental activity as an ancillary use. It also reduces the enforcement burden, as the information is only collected during registration and renewal. The City of Portland has taken this approach. Limit Occupancy: A common land use control is to limit the total number of guests (including both daytime or overnight) to two adults per bedroom, plus two. Children under twelve would be excluded from this limit. The County adopted such occupancy limits in its ordinance; moreover, according to the City’s consultant (21 Elements), this approach is common throughout the state. Staff recommends this approach to reduce the potential nuisance impacts associated with short-term rentals. For instance, noise, parking, and property damage concerns are all likely reduced if short-term rentals cannot be used for parties or other large gatherings. Although there are concerns about the enforceability of such a provision, occupancy limits nevertheless may reduce nuisance issues. First, as the City will require occupancy limits to be included in rental contracts and advertisements, such limits may deter potential renters who are interested in using short-term rentals for parties, weddings, or other large events. Second, in the event a short-term rental draws complaints, the City can use violations of occupancy limits as grounds for suspension or revocation of the short-term rental registration.

Limit the Number of Short-Term Rentals: Some local jurisdictions have attempted to curb the impacts associated with short-term rentals by limiting the total number of short-term rentals

62


Page 6 of 6

on a street, within a neighborhood, or within the jurisdiction. For example, the City of Santa Cruz limits short-term rentals to 20 percent of a given block. The City of Napa set a city-wide limit of 60 permits. Staff’s initial recommendation is to not pursue this approach for three reasons. First, staff does not believe that the right to operate a short-term rental should be given on a first-come, first-served basis. Second, staff is concerned about the ability of the City to enforce numerical limits. Finally, absolute limits may encourage operation of short-term rentals without compliance with the City ordinance, thereby increasing potential impacts and reducing TOT revenue. Conclusion This memorandum and associated attachments are intended to support the Planning Commission’s review of options for regulating short-term rentals from a land use perspective. The context for evaluating options is Coastal Act consistency, neighborhood compatibility, housing affordability, economic development, and program administration. Community input and Planning Commission direction are expected to provide guidance for preparation of a draft ordinance for future Planning Commission, and eventual City Council, oversight. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – California Coastal Commission Guidance: Short-Term/Vacation Rentals in the

California Coastal Zone, December 6, 2016 Attachment 2 – County of San Mateo Zoning Ordinance Sections 6161, 6181 and 6401.3 Attachment 3 – Half Moon Bay Home Occupation Standards, Municipal Code Section 18.06.025

976750.6

63

STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 VOICE (415) 904- 5200 FAX ( 415) 904- 5400 TDD (415) 597-5885

December 6, 2016

TO: Coastal Planning/Community Development Directors SUBJECT: Short-Term/Vacation Rentals in the California Coastal Zone Dear Planning/Community Development Director: Your community and others state and nationwide are grappling with the use of private residential areas for short-term overnight accommodations. This practice, commonly referred to as vacation rentals (or short-term rentals), has recently elicited significant controversy over the proper use of private residential stock within residential areas. Although vacation rentals have historically been part of our beach communities for many decades, the more recent introduction of online booking sites has resulted in a surge of vacation rental activity, and has led to an increased focus on how best to regulate these rentals. The Commission has heard a variety of viewpoints on this topic. Some argue that private residences should remain solely for the exclusive use of those who reside there in order to foster neighborhood stability and residential character, as well as to ensure adequate housing stock in the community. Others argue that vacation rentals should be encouraged because they often provide more affordable options for families and other coastal visitors of a wide range of economic backgrounds to enjoy the California coastline. In addition, vacation rentals allow property owners an avenue to use their residence as a source of supplemental income. There are no easy answers to the vexing issues and questions of how best to regulate short-term/vacation rentals. The purpose of this letter is to provide guidance and direction on the appropriate regulatory approach to vacation rentals in your coastal zone areas moving forward.

First, please note that vacation rental regulation in the coastal zone must occur within the context of your local coastal program (LCP) and/or be authorized pursuant to a coastal development permit (CDP). The regulation of short-term/vacation rentals represents a change in the intensity of use and of access to the shoreline, and thus constitutes development to which the Coastal Act and LCPs must apply. We do not believe that regulation outside of that LCP/CDP context (e.g., outright vacation rental bans through other local processes) is legally enforceable in the coastal zone, and we strongly encourage your community to pursue vacation rental regulation through your LCP. The Commission has experience in this arena, and has helped several communities develop successful LCP vacation rental rules and programs (e.g., certified programs in San Luis Obispo and Santa Cruz Counties going back over a decade; see a summary of such LCP ordinances on our website at: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/la/Sample_of_Commission_Actions_on_Short_Term_Rentals

64

https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/la/Sample_of_Commission_Actions_on_Short_Term_Rentals.pdf

joeb

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 1

Short-Term/Vacation Rentals in the California Coastal Zone Page 2

.pdf ). We suggest that you pay particular attention to the extent to which any such regulations are susceptible to monitoring and enforcement since these programs present some challenges in those regards. I encourage you to contact your local district Coastal Commission office for help in such efforts. Second, the Commission has not historically supported blanket vacation rental bans under the Coastal Act, and has found such programs in the past not to be consistent with the Coastal Act. In such cases the Commission has found that vacation rental prohibitions unduly limit public recreational access opportunities inconsistent with the Coastal Act. However, in situations where a community already provides an ample supply of vacation rentals and where further proliferation of vacation rentals would impair community character or other coastal resources, restrictions may be appropriate. In any case, we strongly support developing reasonable and balanced regulations that can be tailored to address the specific issues within your community to allow for vacation rentals, while providing appropriate regulation to ensure consistency with applicable laws. We believe that appropriate rules and regulations can address issues and avoid potential problems, and that the end result can be an appropriate balancing of various viewpoints and interests. For example, the Commission has historically supported vacation rental regulations that provide for all of the following:

Limits on the total number of vacation rentals allowed within certain areas (e.g., by neighborhood, by communitywide ratio, etc.).

Limits on the types of housing that can be used as a vacation rental (e.g., disallowing vacation rentals in affordable housing contexts, etc.).

Limits on maximum vacation rental occupancies.

Limits on the amount of time a residential unit can be used as a vacation rental during a given time period.

Requirements for 24-hour management and/or response, whether onsite or within a certain distance of the vacation rental.

Requirements regarding onsite parking, garbage, and noise.

Signage requirements, including posting 24-hour contact information, posting requirements and restrictions within units, and incorporating operational requirements and violation consequences (e.g., forfeit of deposits, etc.) in rental agreements.

Payment of transient occupancy tax (TOT).

Enforcement protocols, including requirements for responding to complaints and enforcing against violations of vacation rental requirements, including providing for revocation of vacation rental permits in certain circumstances.

These and/or other provisions may be applicable in your community. We believe that vacation rentals provide an important source of visitor accommodations in the coastal zone, especially for larger families and groups and for people of a wide range of economic backgrounds. At the same time we also recognize and understand legitimate community concerns associated with the potential adverse impacts associated with vacation rentals, including with respect to community character and noise

65

https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/la/Sample_of_Commission_Actions_on_Short_Term_Rentals.pdf

https://www.coastal.ca.gov/address.html

Short-Term/Vacation Rentals in the California Coastal Zone Page 3

and traffic impacts. We also recognize concerns regarding the impact of vacation rentals on local housing stock and affordability. Thus, in our view it is not an ‘all or none’ proposition. Rather, the Commission’s obligation is to work with local governments to accommodate vacation rentals in a way that respects local context. Through application of reasonable enforceable LCP regulations on such rentals, Coastal Act provisions requiring that public recreational access opportunities be maximized can be achieved while also addressing potential concerns and issues.

We look forward to working with you and your community to regulate vacation rentals through your LCP in a balanced way that allows for them in a manner that is compatible with community character, including to avoid oversaturation of vacation rentals in any one neighborhood or locale, and that provides these important overnight options for visitors to our coastal areas. These types of LCP programs have proven successful in other communities, and we would suggest that their approach can serve as a model and starting place for your community moving forward. Please contact your local district Coastal Commission office for help in such efforts.

Sincerely,

STEVE KINSEY, Chair California Coastal Commission

66

https://www.coastal.ca.gov/address.html

6.1

CHAPTER 6. “R-1” DISTRICTS (ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT)

SECTION 6160. REGULATIONS FOR “R-1” DISTRICTS. The following regulations shall apply in all “R-1” districts and shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 22 of this Part. SECTION 6161. USES PERMITTED. (a) One-family dwellings. (b) Public parks and public playgrounds. (c) Crop and tree farming and truck gardening. (d) Home occupations. (e) Accessory buildings and accessory uses appurtenant to a residential use,

provided, however, that such accessory buildings shall not be constructed until the main building shall have been constructed.

(f) (1) Keeping of pets in association with a one-family dwelling. (2) Limited keeping of pets in association with a second unit. (g) (1) Animal Fanciers in association with a one-family dwelling, subject to an

animal fanciers' permit issued in accordance with County Ordinance Code, Division III, Part Two, Chapter 6.3.

(2) Catteries in association with a one-family dwelling, subject to a

kennel/cattery permit issued in accordance with County Ordinance Code, Division III, Part Two, Chapter 12.

(3) On parcels of at least 2,500 sq. ft. in size, and in compliance with the

conditions set forth in Section 6401.1.1 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, the keeping of no more than six (6) of the following domestic poultry: chicken and ducks. Roosters are prohibited.

On parcel sizes exceeding 7,500 sq. ft., and in compliance with the

conditions set forth in Section 6401.1.1 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, the keeping of no more than ten (10) of the following domestic poultry: chicken and ducks. Roosters are prohibited.

(h) Reverse vending machines at public facilities.

San Mateo County Zoning Ordinance ATTACHMENT 2A

1 of 3

67

6.2

(i) Small collection facilities for recyclable materials at public facilities, subject to obtaining a building permit, provided that there is no additional mechanical processing equipment on site, that collection facilities shall not be located within 50 feet of a residence, nor decrease traffic or pedestrian circulation or the required number of on-site parking spaces for the primary use, and all litter and loose debris shall be removed on a daily basis.

(j) Large Residential Day Care Facilities for Children (Family Day Care Homes; 7-12

children), subject to a large family day care permit issued in accordance with the County Zoning Regulations, Chapter 22, Section 6401.2.

(k) The following uses subject to securing a use permit in each case:

1. Churches, schools, libraries and fire stations. 2. Golf courses with standard length fairways and country clubs. 3. Non-commercial clubs. 4. Nurseries and greenhouses used only for the propagating and cultivating of

plants, provided that no retail sales shall be allowed. The granting of such use permits shall generally be confined to those areas of the County in which the nurseries and greenhouses are already established, and use permits granted to applicants presently operating such greenhouses and nurseries shall normally cover the proposed future development of all property owned or controlled by the applicant.

5. A second residential unit on a parcel at least 7,000 sq. ft. in size in the

Coastal Zone. (l) Keeping of confined animals. SECTION 6162. SECOND DWELLING UNITS. See Chapter 22.5 for provisions to allow second dwelling units to locate in the R-1 Zoning Districts. (Section 6161(f) - Amended by Ordinance No. 3423 - November 10, 1992) (Section 6161(g) - Amended by Ordinance No. 3423 - November 10, 1992) (Section 6161(g)(3) - Added by Ordinance No. 4511 - July 27, 2010) (Section 6161 (h) - Amended by Ordinance No. 1427 - September 27, 1960) (Section 6161 (h)(5) - Added by Ordinance No. 2705 - December 16, 1980) (Section 6161(h) - Amended/Added by Ordinance No. 3131 - December 15, 1987) (Section 6161(i) - Amended/Added by Ordinance No. 3131 - December 15, 1987) (Section 6161(h), (i), and (j) - Amended/Added by Ordinance No. 3157 - September 13,

1988) (Section 6161(j) - Amended by Ordinance No. 3791 - October 21, 1997) (Section 6161(j) - Added by Ordinance No. 3791 - October 21, 1997)


2 of 3

68

6.3

(Sections 6162, 6163, 6164 - Repealed by Ordinance No. 1483 - October 10, 1961) (Section 6162 - Added by Ordinance No. 2877 - January 24, 1984) (Section 6162 - Amended by Ordinance No. 3057 - March 4, 1986) (Section 6161(l) - Added by Ordinance No. 4075 - December 6, 2001) Chapter 6 (R-1 District).doc (9/14/12)


3 of 3

69

8.1

CHAPTER 8. “R-3” DISTRICTS (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT)

SECTION 6180. REGULATIONS FOR “R-3” DISTRICTS. The following regulations shall apply in all “R-3” Districts and shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 22 of this Part. SECTION 6181. USES PERMITTED. (a) (1) All uses permitted in “R-1” and “R-2” districts, except catteries. A use

permit, as provided in Chapter 24 of this Part, shall be required for any use which requires a use permit in an “R-1” district.

(2) Limited keeping of pets in association with multiple-family dwellings. (b) Multiple-family dwellings and dwelling groups. (c) Fraternity, sorority houses, and dormitories. (d) The following uses subject to the securing of a use permit in each case as

provided in Chapter 24 of this Part: 1. Hospitals, rest homes, sanitariums, clinics. 2. Philanthropic and charitable institutions. 3. Automobile courts. 4. Hotels. (e) Large Residential Day Care Facilities for Children (Family Day Care Homes; 7-12

children), subject to a large family day care permit issued in accordance with the County Zoning Regulations, Chapter 22, Section 6401.2.

(Section 6181 - Amended by Ordinance No. 1813 - February 7, 1967) (Section 6181(a) - Amended by Ordinance No. 3425 - November 10, 1992) (Section 6181(e) - Added by Ordinance No. 3791 - October 21, 1997) (Section 6182 - Amended by Ordinance No. 1483 - October 10, 1961) (Section 6182 - Repealed by Ordinance No. 1706 - June 22, 1965) (Sections 6183, 6184 - Repealed by Ordinance No. 1483 - October 10, 1961) Chapter 8 (R-3 District).doc (10/10/12)

San Mateo County Zoning Ordinance ATTACHMENT 2B

1 of 1

70

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 1 of 1

Half Moon Bay Home Occupation Standards - Zoning Ordinance 18.06.025. F

Home Occupations. Home occupations are permitted in all residential districts and shall comply

with the following:

1. Resident Only. No one other than a resident of the dwelling shall be employed on site

or report to work at the site of a home occupation. This prohibition also applies to

independent contractors.

2. No Inconsistent Activity. There shall be no interior or exterior activity related to the

home occupation inconsistent with or interfering with residential use of the property or

detrimental to property in the vicinity.

3. Entirely Within. A home occupation shall be conducted entirely within a building,

either the main residence or an accessory building, and shall occupy no more than five

hundred square feet of floor area. No outdoor storage of materials or supplies shall be

permitted in conjunction with the home occupation.

4. No Visibility. The existence of a home occupation shall not be apparent beyond the

boundaries of the site, and no home occupation shall involve the use of a sign, nor the

display of products visible from the street.

5. No On-site Retail. The home occupation shall not involve on-site retail business,

interior or exterior alterations, nor construction features not normally found in dwellings.

6. No Traffic. A home occupation shall not create pedestrian, automobile, or truck traffic

detrimental to property in the vicinity.

7. Submittal Required. Prior to the issuance of a business license for a home occupation,

the applicant shall submit to the community development director a written description of

the operational characteristics of the proposed home occupation. The community

development director shall determine that the proposed home occupation complies with

the requirements of this section. Decisions of the community development director may

be appealed to the planning commission by the applicant or by any interested party.

8. Complaints. In the event a complaint is received regarding a home occupation, the

community development director shall refer the issue to the planning commission to

review the operational characteristics of the use. Both the complaining party and the

operator of the home occupation shall be notified of the time, place, and date of the

planning commission meeting. In the event it is determined that the home occupation is

detrimental to the neighborhood, the planning commission may impose any conditions

necessary to maintain consistency with the provisions of this chapter.

71

planning commission city of half moon bay agenda · rick hernandez, chair brian holt, vice chair...

Documents