Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission this week voted 4-0 to recommend that the City Council approve new updates to the city’s Municipal Code concerning accessory dwelling units.
The matter will now go to the City Council.
Most of the changes in the proposed Zoning Text Amendment were state-mandated.
However, one controversial proposal was removed from the amendment: a prohibition on interior access to Junior ADUs. The commission received 24 emails, of which 23 argued on either side of the interior access issue.
Thirteen members of the public, and District One Council Member Joe Kalmick, sat in the audience during the meeting.
Definitions:
• “A JADU shall be a minimum of 150 square feet and a maximum of 500 square feet of gross floor area,” according to the draft of the proposed ordinance.
An accessory dwelling unit (or “granny flat”) must be at least 850 square feet, according to the California Housing and Community Development Department’s ADU Handbook.
• ADUs and JADUs may be attached or detached.
Interior access to JADUs
This is the issue that triggered a strong community turn out at the Monday, July 17, Planning Commission meeting.
“State law now requires that JADUs that do not include a separate bathroom must have a separate entrance from the main entrance to the primary residence, and must also have an interior entry to the main living area,” according to the staff report by Planning Manager Shaun Temple and Community Development Director Alexa Smittle.
“It is left to the discretion of the cities as to whether or not interior access between the primary residence and an ADU would be allowed or prohibited,” according to the Temple-Smittle report.
“Under the proposed Ordinance, interior entrances between the primary unit and ADU would be prohibited in order to more clearly maintain the primary unit and ADU as separate units, which is the intent [of] State law,” according to the Temple-Smittle report.
Temple told the commission that the city had discretion to prohibit or allow interior access.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Amy Greyson said the occupancy of an ADU or JADU could be rented to a family member, a caretaker, or someone who read an advertisement.
The hearing
Several people spoke to the issue, arguing both sides of the proposed prohibition of interior access to JADUs.
Ginnette Neal was one of the opponents. Neal read a letter that she said she had submitted to the city.
She described herself as her mother’s caregiver. She said her mother had lived in the Bridgeport development for more than 40 years. Neal specifically opposed language in the draft of the proposed law that would restrict interior access.
“At the time of its original construction in the Bridgeport development in the late 1970s, the single family dwelling was designed, as many in the neighborhood are, with a well-apportioned room built above the attached garage and set back from the front of the lot by approximately two-thirds the overall length of the house,” Neal said.
With advancing age, her parents eventually moved into a first floor room. Access to the room above the garage is available through a staircase in the living room. “I cannot begin to imagine if, according to the present wording in the draft being considered by the commission, if this room had been had been added to the existing structure as an ADU, with the language that states ‘interior access between the primary unit and the ADU shall be prohibited,’ regardless of whether an ADU is occupied by a caregiver or the individual requiring assistance, regardless of whether that ADU attached—located above the primary structure or adjacent to it,” Neal said.
“Timely, convenient access is crucial when an ADU is for the purpose of caregiving,” Neal said.
She said access was essential in matters of medical care or emergency situations. Neal also argued that if there is interior access to an ADU, the ADU would less likely be used as a rental.
Robert Goldberg, a Bridgeport resident and former member of the Planning Commission, argued in writing and in person to support the proposal.
“While the revised ADU regulations would allow additional 2nd stories to be added, the proposed prohibition of interior access into the primary home would ensure that these state-mandated regulations would not be used by a homeowner to simply circumvent the restriction on the number of 2nd story homes,” Goldberg wrote, referring to limits unique to the Bridgeport neighborhood.
According to Planning Manager Temple, there would be a certain number of second-story homes allowed in the development.
The commission
The commission members discussed the matter. District Five Commissioner Margo Wheeler argued that allowing interior access would allow for greater flexibility for the property owners. District One Commissioner Calvin Mingione wanted to know where exterior staircases would be built. He argued that allowing interior access would not give an incentive to build a second story.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Amy Greyson said if the interior access prohibition were approved, an applicant to the city could request a reasonable accommodation for a disability.
Senior Planner Temple said that internal access for a JADU would be allowed if there were no restroom available.
Community Development Director Smittle advised the commission that a junior ADU would have to be built within the existing structure.
According to District Four Planning Commissioner Patty Campbell, the state’s goal was to pack as many bodies as possible without regard to parking because everyone should take public transportation that the public doesn’t have.
District Three Commissioner Richard Coles said the parking issue needed to be addressed. He wasn’t quite sure how to do that in the document.
Smittle said the city was precluded from requiring parking spaces, the city will take into consider the number of ADUs in the Housing Element of the General Plan.
“The spirit of state law is to create new units,” Smittle said. She said she was concerned that if interior access were allowed, the unit would no longer function as an ADU.
“It functions as an expansion of the home,” Smittle said.
At length, Mingione moved to adopt the resolution to recommend that the council approve the Zoning Text Amendment, while striking the prohibition on interior access.
The vote was 4-0. District Two Commissioner Dominic Massetti had an excused absence from the meeting.
Background
In October 2022, the City Council amended the code to conform to California Planning and Zoning Law, according to the staff report by Planning Manager Shaun Temple and Community Development Director Alexa Smittle.
In February 2023, the city received comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development suggesting changes to the ordinance. These changes were based on two laws that went into effect on New Year’s Day 2023: Assembly Bill 2221 and Senate Bill 897.
Space doesn’t allow a list of every change or the reasons for them.
Among the other new rules are:
“A height of 16 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit,” according to the Temple-Smittle report.
“A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit that is within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code,” according to the Temple-Smittle report.
“A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling,” according to the Temple-Smittle report.
“A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in the local zoning ordinance that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary dwelling,” according to the Temple-Smittle report.
“The local agency is not required to allow an accessory dwelling unit to exceed two stories,” according to the Temple-Smittle report.
“Staff has checked Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) maps and has verified that there is not a Major Transit Stop or High Quality Transit Corridor within Seal Beach. However, for purposes of remaining compliant with State Law, it is recommended that the zone text be amended to include these definitions and standards,” according to the Temple-Smittle report.
“Under previous law, a local agency may not establish limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and minimum lot size that do not permit the construction of at least an 800 square foot ADU, that is 16 feet in height, with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks if constructed in compliance with all other local development standards,” according to the Temple-Smittle report.
“In proposing amendments to the zone text as it relates to front yard setbacks, special consideration has been taken in drafting the ADU standards for the Bridgeport neighborhood, which was developed with a unique urban design to fit residences into smaller lots (approximately 3,000 square feet), with reduced setbacks including 2-foot rear yard setbacks and a zero-lot line on one interior side,” according to the report.
“In order to ensure that the second-floor step-backs are maintained to the best extent possible when an ADU is proposed on the second floor, the Ordinance requires that within the RLD-15 zone, when an ADU is proposed on the second floor and this front yard setback exemption occurs, the ADU shall be placed above the rear portion of the primary structure to maintain an equivalent and consistent development pattern within the Bridgeport neighborhood,” according to the report.
“Previous law prohibited local agencies from imposing owner-occupancy requirements on ADUs. Pursuant to SB 897, a local agency may require owner-occupancy of either a primary dwelling or an ADU on a single-family lot after January 1, 2025. Staff proposes to include this provision in the Zone Text,” according to the staff report.
