CC - Item 3A - Public Hearing on Accessory Dwelling Unit - Municipal Code Amendment 20-01ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GLORIA MOLLEDA, CITY MANAGER, , , O
DATE: JULY 14, 2020
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS - MUNICIPAL
CODE AMENDMENT 20-01
SUMMARY
On October 9, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed several bills into law (Assembly Bill 68,
Assembly Bill 881, and Senate Bill 13), which amended Government Code Sections 65852.2 and
65852.22 pertaining to the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior
accessory dwelling units (JADUs). These regulations became effective on January 1, 2020 and
pre-empt all local ordinances that do not comply with the new standards.
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 20-01) is intended to bring Title 17 (Zoning)
of the Rosemead Municipal Code up to compliance with State legislation regarding the
development and conversion of ADUs in the City. The proposed amendment would adopt new
standards for ADUs, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.2
and 65852.22. The amendment would also provide clarity and consistency for the regulation of
ADUs throughout Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implementing the
provisions of section 65852.2 of the Government Code, which is California's ADU law and
which also regulates JADUs, as defined by section 65852.22. Therefore, MCA 20-01 is
statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the proposed ordinance implements the State's ADU law.
DISCUSSION
On April 16, 2020, staff provided the City Council with an ADU memorandum (attached as
Attachment B), which provided a summary of the new State ADU laws and detailed the
proposed amendments to the Zoning Code. Staff did not receive any comments from the City
Council and proceeded to schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission.
AGENDA ITEM 3.A
City Council Meeting
July 14, 2020
Page 2 of 3
On June 15, 2020, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt Ordinance No.
995. Analysis of the proposed amendment is provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report.
The Planning Commission Staff Report, draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and
Planning Commission Resolution 20-03 are included in this report as Attachments "C," "D," and
"E," respectively. During the Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission
inquired on several clarifications relating to new State law regulations and the City's proposed
code amendments, which included:
• The City may no longer require that either the ADU or primary dwelling be owner -
occupied (until January 1, 2025);
• The City may no longer require replacement parking when a garage is converted to an
ADU;
• Sanitation and cooking facilities are required for ADUs;
• Maximum size of a detached ADU shall be 850 square feet for studio and one -bedroom
ADUs and 1,000 square feet for two or more bedrooms. In addition, the City cannot limit
the number of bedrooms;
• JADUs must be contained entirely within a single-family residence and shall have an
efficiency kitchen, however, sanitation facilities may be shared with the main house; and
• Floor area ratio (FAR) can no longer be used to prevent the construction of an ADU.
Once all questions were answered and receiving no public testimony, the Planning Commission
adopted Planning Commission Resolution 20-03, recommending that the City Council adopt
Ordinance No. 995 to approve Municipal Code Amendment 20-01, for the regulation of ADUs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and
2. Introduce the first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 995 (Attachment "A"), approving
Municipal Code Amendment 20-01.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - None
FISCAL IMPACT - None
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT - None
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
City Council Meeting
July 14, 2020
Page 3 of 3
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a
public hearing notice published in the Rosemead Reader on July 2, 2020 and posting of the
notice at the five (5) public locations.
Prepared by:
14n --
Lily Va4enzuela, Planning & Economic Development Manager
Submitted by:
(AZgelica 6austo-Lupo, Director of Community evelopment
Attachment A: Ordinance No. 995
Attachment B: Memorandum to City Council, dated April 16, 2020
Attachment C: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 15, 2020
Attachment D: Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated June 15, 2020
Attachment E: Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-03
Attachment A
Ordinance No. 995
EXHIBIT "B"
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 995
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 20-01, AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING)
OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH NEW
STATE PROVISIONS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs).
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed State laws (Assembly
Bill 68, Assembly Bill 881, and Senate Bill 13), which amended Government Code Sections
65852.2 and 65852.22 pertaining to local regulations for ADUs;
WHEREAS, local ordinances that are not compliant with the new state provisions are null
and void as of January 1, 2020, after which time such jurisdiction must apply the standards in
Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 until a compliant local ordinance is adopted;
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead's current Municipal Code conflicts with the standards
and language in Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22;
WHEREAS amendments to Title 17 (Zoning), specifically RMC Sections 17.04.050
(Definitions) and 17.30.190 (Accessory Dwelling Units) are necessary to update requirements for
the establishment of ADUs in conformance with Government Code Sections 65852.2 and
65852.22;
WHEREAS, Section 17.152.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria
for a Zoning Code Amendment;
WHEREAS, Sections 65854 and 65855 of the California Government Code and Section
17.152.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the Planning Commission to review and
make recommendations to the City Council regarding amendments to the City's Zoning Code;
WHEREAS, Section 17.152.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City
Council to approve amendments to the City's Zoning Code;
WHEREAS, adoption of Ordinance No. 995 for the approval of Municipal Code
Amendment 20-01, amends Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code to comply with
new State provisions for accessory dwelling units;
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2020, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing and recommended approval of Municipal Code Amendment 20-01 to the City Council;
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2020, a notice was published in the Rosemead Reader and notices
were posted in six public locations, specifying the availability of the proposal, and the date, time,
and location of the public hearing for Municipal Code Amendment 20-01; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2020, the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised public
hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Municipal Code Amendment 20-01; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them
in order to make the following determination;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. Under
California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implementing the
provisions of section 65852.2 of the Government Code, which is California's ADU law and which
also regulates JADUs, as defined by section 65852.22. Therefore, MCA 20-01 is statutorily exempt
from CEQA in that the proposed ordinance implements the State's ADU law.
SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that
facts do exist to justify approving Municipal Code Amendment 20-01, in accordance with Section
17.152.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan;
FINDING: The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan, as Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(8), provides that an accessory
dwelling unit that conforms to [the applicable] subdivision shall be deemed to be an accessory use
or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot
upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the
existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City; and
FINDING: The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, as ADUs are currently permitted in the Zoning Code.
The State legislature has identified that the California housing shortage is a significant statewide
issue. The State believes that increasing the development of ADUs and JADUs is one approach
to address the housing crisis. To comply with State law, the proposed revisions would bring the
ADU Ordinance into full compliance with State law.
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of
[the] Zoning Code.
FINDING: The City of Rosemead's current ADU Ordinance does not comply with the
new State provisions for ADUs, and is therefore, deemed null and void. MCA 20-01 is intended
to bring Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code up to compliance with State legislation
2
regarding the development and conversion of ADUs in the City. The proposed amendment would
adopt new standards for ADUs, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections
65852.2 and 65852.22. The amendment would also provide clarity and consistency for the
regulation of ADUs throughout Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
SECTION 3. Code Amendment. The code amendment will only modify the definition of
an accessory dwelling unit and add a definition for junior accessory dwelling unit in Rosemead
Municipal Code Section 17.04.050 (Definitions). Section 17.04.050 (Definitions) of Title 17 is
HEREBY AMENDED as follows:
17.04.050 Definitions — General.
For use in this Title certain terms are hereby defined. Words used in the present tense shall include
the past and future tense and vise versa. Words in the singular form shall include the plural form
and vice versa. The words "shall" and "will" are mandatory and the words "should" and "may"
are permissive.
Words and phrases used in the Zoning Code and not specifically defined shall be construed
according to the context and common usage of the language and as ultimately determined by the
Community Development Director.
For the purpose of carrying out the intent of this title, certain terms, words, and phrases are defined
and shall be deemed to have the meaning ascribed to them as follows:
"Dwelling" means a structure or portion thereof designed exclusively for permanent
residential purposes, but not including hotels, motels, emergency shelters, or extended stay
locations.
"Accessory Dwelling Unit" means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit;
-that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is
located on a lot with a proposed or existing_ primary residence. It shall include permanent
provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the
single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit
also includes the following:
1. An efficiency unit as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
2. A manufactured home as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety
Code.
"Dwelling Unit" means any structure or portion thereof designed for living and sleeping
purposes that contains independent cooking and sanitation facilities.
"Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit" means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in
size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A junior accessory dwelling
unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the
existing structure.
3
"Multi -Family Dwelling Unit" means a structure or portion thereof containing three or
more dwelling units designed for the independent occupancy of three or more households.
"Primary Dwelling Unit" means an existing single -unit residential structure on a single
lot with provisions for living, sleeping, eating, a single kitchen for cooking, and sanitation
facilities, and occupied by one household.
"Single -Family Dwelling Unit" means a detached structure containing no more than one
dwelling unit which, regardless of form of ownership, is designed and/or used to house
not more than one household, including all domestic employees for such household.
"Two -Family Dwelling (Duplex) Unit" means a building containing two complete
dwelling units designed for the independent occupancy of two households.
See also "Manufactured Housing" and "Mobile Housing Unit".
SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Section 17.30.190 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title
17 is HEREBY AMENDED as follows:
17.30.190 Accessory Dwelling UnitsA( DUs).
Sections:
A. Purpose.
B. Applicability.
C. ADUs.
C—.D. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs).
D -.E. Revocation.
F,. F. Existing ADUs.
A. Purpose.
The purpose of this section is to implement Government Code Section 65852.2, which allows
the City to adopt an ADU ordinance in lieu of being subjected to the
State requirements for such units. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Zoning Code to
the contrary, the provisions in this section shall govern the development of ffeeessel-y dwelling
tuts ADUs in the City of Rosemead.
B. Applicability.
The provisions in this section shall apply to ADUs, as defined in
Article 1, Section 17.04.050 (Definitions), and where allowed in compliance with Article 2
(Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses and Zone -Specific Standards) and the following City
standards.
C. City Staadar- ADUs.
The following provisions shall apply to ^ eeesser-y Dwelling T ait-ADUs:
4
1. In the R-1, R-2, sr -R-3 zone; or all other areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily
dwelling residential use, an attached or detached 'ADU shall be
permitted by the Community Development Director or the Community Development
Director's designee, subject to an administrative site plan and design review approval, if
the application satisfies all of the provisions set forth in this section. Except as provided
for in this section, all other applicable regulations of the underlying zone shall apply.
An ADU shall be deemed an accessory use. ADUs do not exceed
the allowable density for the lot upon which they are located.
a. A ma)mumF ene (1) aeeedwelling it fRay be e .., ti«u it4e,d N let.
The
y use of stieh lot must be single family dwelling.
L, A.1
,� ell;Np flit Shall er be le .,ted leo i„HG tae mefe than
r v
one (1) single ftimily dwelling unit-.
3 On a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling, the number of permitted ADUs
are:
a One attached ADU within the existing or proposed single-family dwelling or within
an existing accessory structure; or
b. One detached new construction ADU and one JADU.
4 On a lot with existing detached single-family dwellings, the number of permitted ADUs
are:
a. One detached new construction 800 square feet ADU.
b. One proposed ADU within an existing accessory structure.
5. On a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling unit or two-family dwelling (duplex) unit
the number of permitted ADUs are:
a Not more than two detached ADU on a lot with one existing multifamily dwelling
unit or two family- dwelling (attached duplex) unit.
b At least one attached ADU is permitted within the existing multifamily dwelling
unit or existing two-family (duplex) unit and up to 25 percent of the existing
dwelling units are permitted within the portions of the existing structure that are not
used as livable space including but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms,
passageways attics basements or garages if each unit complies with state building
standards for dwellings.
6 The ADU(s) must be served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing
primary dwelling unit unless the ADU(s) have access from a public alley contiguous to
the lot.
7. No ADUs shall be used as a short-term rental.
-3-.8.To the extent possible, the creation of an aeeessery dwelling unit ADU shall not alter the
single primary dwelling appearance of the lot. The
following shall apply:
Bea. lee„+e,1 a4 therear- e f the pr-ifnaryr-esidenee-.
b. Be 1,,,.4e,a within the r -ear- 50 oft e let.
a. For the construction of a new ADU, the ADU shall match or complement the
primary residence in architectural design, color, and materials.
e -b For the conversion of an existingaccessory ccessory structure into an ADU, the ADU shall
be permitted to remain as is. However, if an existing garage use is being converted
into an ADU, all garage doors shall be removed.
4.-c.An ADU shall have independent exterior access, and shall
not have interior access from the primary residence. If an ADU is located on the
second floor of the primary dwelling unit or accessory structure, the exterior stairs
shall be proposed in a location that limits visibility from the public right-of-way.
-5-.9.The ' ADUs13a-11 may not be fef sale separ-ate-sold separate from the
primary residence.
6. c .e+e utility mete: f . aeeessafy dwelling ___t shall be pr-el,_bite,1
X10. The legal e ft e ..h �: e basis,.. ,.,
r��p� shall 'p fall ���either- the rY �'
dwelling ttiiit r aeee'sser—y dwelling dmc-as permanent Fesiden
Owner- Oeetipaney GeveneAt shall be submitted to the Planning Divisien pr-ief! te issuanee
ef any building pei:fnit for- the aeeessei=y, dwelling unit. The said Owner- OeettPaney
Gevenant shall -in mel=pet ity and shall netbe released -.An owner -occupancy
requirement for an ADU permitted between January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2025 shall not
be required. However, the City may impose an owner -occupancy requirement after January
1, 2025.
5:11 The ADU shall comply with all Building Code and Fire Code requirements.
9:12. New ADUs or modifications of existing aeeessafy
dwelling ADUs shall conform to the standards in Table 17.30.190.1 (Ay
Dwelling ADU Development Standards).
Table 17.30.190.1: Aeeessory Dwelling Unit. ADU Development Standards
Attached Aeeesseff
I Detached Aeeesso.n=
Notes and Exceptions
' ADU
nip
M."
WWWWOTLI
-5-.9.The ' ADUs13a-11 may not be fef sale separ-ate-sold separate from the
primary residence.
6. c .e+e utility mete: f . aeeessafy dwelling ___t shall be pr-el,_bite,1
X10. The legal e ft e ..h �: e basis,.. ,.,
r��p� shall 'p fall ���either- the rY �'
dwelling ttiiit r aeee'sser—y dwelling dmc-as permanent Fesiden
Owner- Oeetipaney GeveneAt shall be submitted to the Planning Divisien pr-ief! te issuanee
ef any building pei:fnit for- the aeeessei=y, dwelling unit. The said Owner- OeettPaney
Gevenant shall -in mel=pet ity and shall netbe released -.An owner -occupancy
requirement for an ADU permitted between January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2025 shall not
be required. However, the City may impose an owner -occupancy requirement after January
1, 2025.
5:11 The ADU shall comply with all Building Code and Fire Code requirements.
9:12. New ADUs or modifications of existing aeeessafy
dwelling ADUs shall conform to the standards in Table 17.30.190.1 (Ay
Dwelling ADU Development Standards).
Table 17.30.190.1: Aeeessory Dwelling Unit. ADU Development Standards
Attached Aeeesseff
I Detached Aeeesso.n=
Notes and Exceptions
' ADU
ADU
Maximum
Height
Limited to number of
stories and height of
existing primary
residence*
Two -Story - 30 feet
One -Story - 17 feet
*If the height of the existing
primaa residence is less than
16 feet, the proposed ADU
shall be allowed a maximum
height of 16 feet
Minimum
Setbacks
Pr-avisieas—of the
SUbjeet-pr-epefty
shall apply
Side Yard Setback: 4
Side Yard Setback
-54 feet
Side Yard
Comer- Tet and Comer-
Le}
20 feet.
Rear Yard
Setback:
4-5 4 feet
n eaf Ya fd Sotbaek
(One st 10 feet.
Conversion of an existing
permitted structure to an
ADU
shall not be required to satisfy
the minimum setback
standards if the side and rear
setbacks are sufficient for fire
safety
The setback of the second
floor shall not be less than the
setback of the first floor
feet
Rear Yard Setback: 4
feet
Minimum
Distance
Between
Dwellings
Provisions of the
applicable underlying
zoning designation of
the subject property
shall apply
10 feet*
*If the minimum distance
between dwellings cannot be
met, an 800 square feet ADU
that is at least 16 feet in height
with four -feet side and rear
yard setbacks shall be
permitted provided that it is
constructed in compliance
with all other local
development standards
The distance between
dwellings of the second floor
shall not be less than the
distance between dwellings of
the first floor
Minimum
Landscape
Area
20% of lot area*
20% of lot area*
*If the minimum landscape
area requirement cannot be
met, an 800 square feet ADU
that is at least 16 feet in height
with four -feet side and rear
yard setbacks shall be
permitted provided that it is
constructed in compliance
with all other local
develo ment standards.
Minimum
Floor -Area
150 square feet
150 square feet
Maximum
Floor -Area
hessef of Up to 50%
of existing living area
of primary residences
1,200 quafe feet.
If the primary
Lesser- of SO-% of
existiiig living area e
1,200 squafe feet
If floor -area ratio
if 50- e f existing lu
is less tha" 150 SEttfafe
then 150 squafe feet.
o
be petmitted
*If the creation of an ADU
permits:*
• 150-850 square feet
residence is less than
1,600 square feet, an
results in a floor -area ratio that
800 square feet ADU
for a studio or one
is greater than what is
will be permitted.
bedroom
• 1,000 square feet for
permitted in the zone, an 800
square feet ADU that is at least
16 feet in height with four -feet
an ADU that provides
side and rear yard setbacks
more than one
shall be permitted provided
bedroom
An ADU built within
that it is constructed in
compliance with all other local
development standards.
an existing accessory
structure may include
an expansion of up to
150 square feet beyond
the physical
dimensions of the
existing accessory
structure to
accommodate in rg ess
and egress.
Where both a JADU
and a detached ADU
are constructed, the
ADU shall be no more
than 800 square feet.
Maximum
Number of
Bedrooms
Twe Bed .,.,..., s
Bedrooms shall
Twe Bea .,,ems
Bedrooms shall
Fer the pur-pese of this se
a den .,turfy, or ethef similar
beer-,..,..... (s), as detefmined by
Dir-eetef, shallbe eonsidered
bedroom -7),
conform to standard
conform to standard
Building Code
Building Code
requirements.
requirements.
Minimum
Off -Street
Parking
One parking space per
bedroom or ADU,
whichever is less
One parking space per
bedroom or ADU,
whichever is less
*Off-street parking standards
shall not be required for an
ADU in any of the following
instances:
These spaces may be I These
provided as tandem provi
parking on a driveway.
"Tandem parking"
means that two or more
automobiles are parked
on a driveway or in any
other location on a lot,
lined up behind one
another
spaces may be
ded as tandem
parking on a driveway.
"Tandem parking"
means that two or more
automobiles are parked
on a driveway or in any
other location on a lot,
lined up behind one
another
New uncovered off- I New uncovered off-
street parking spaces
shall have a minimum
dimension of nine feet
in width by eighteen
(18) feet in depth*
D. JADUs.
(1) The aeeessery dwelling
effk–ADU is located within
one-half mile of public transit.
(2) The aeeessef�, dwelling
e+k-ADU is located within an
architecturally and historically
significant historic district.
(3) The aeeesser-y dwelling
unk–ADU is part of the
proposed or existing primary
street parking spacesI residence or an accessory
shall have a minimum structure.
dimension of nine feet
in width by eighteen
(18) feet in depth*
(4) When on -street parking
permits are required but not
offered to the occupant of the
aeeessef�l dwelling w44 ADU.
(5) When there is a car share
vehicle located within one
block of the—aeeesser-y
dwelfing unit. ADU.
When aag_rage, carport, or
covered parking structure is
demolished in conjunction
with the construction of an
ADU or converted to an ADU,
those off-street parking spaces
The following provisions shall apply to JADUs:
a. The JADU shall comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 65852.22.
b. A maximum of one JADU shall be permitted on a residential lot zoned for single-family
residences with a single-family dwelling built, or proposed to be built, on the lot. If an
ADU is proposed in addition with a JADU, then the ADU shall be limited to a maximum
of 800 square feet.
c. The maximum size for a JADU is 500 square feet.
d. The legal property owner shall occupy, on a full-time basis, either the primary dwelling
unit JADU, or ADU (if applicable) as permanent residency. Owner -occupancy shall not
D
be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing
organization.
e An Owner -Occupancy Covenant shall be recorded and a copy shall be submitted to the
Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permit for the JADU. The said Owner -
Occupancy Covenant shall remain in perpetuity and shall not be released. The Owner -
Occupancy Covenant shall include the following language:
L A prohibition on the sale of the JADU unit separate from the sale of the single-family
dwelling including a statement that the deed restriction may be enforced against
future purchasers.
H. A restriction on the size and attributes of the JADU that conforms with Government
Code Section 65852.22.
f The permitted JADU shall be constructed within the walls of the proposed or existing
single-family residence.
g. The permitted JADU shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the
proposed or existing single-family residence.
h. The permitted JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, which shall include all of the
following:
L A cookingfacility with appliances.
idi. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation
to the size of the JADU.
E. Revocation.
The Community Development Director shall have the authority to revoke an aeeesser-y
dwelling ADU and/or a JADU permit if one or more of the requirements of this chapter
are no longer met. The decision of either the Community Development Director may be
appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in this code.
F. Existing ADUs. Aeeesser-y dwelling Units ADUs which have been
previously approved shall be allowed to remain in existence as a legally established
nonconforming use. This section shall in no way validate any existing illegal—aeeesset%y
dwelling unitADUs.
SECTION 5. Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly constructed in order to
achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council's intent that the provisions of
this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates
the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.
SECTION 6. Enforceability. Repeal of any provision of the RMC does not affect any
penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties
for any violation occurring before this Ordinance's effective date. Any such repealed part will
remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the
effective date of this Ordinance.
10
SECTION 7. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that, should any provision,
section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance or any part
thereof, be rendered or declared invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of
competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such decision or action shall not
affect the validity of the remaining section or portions of the Ordinance or part thereof. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have independently adopted the remaining provisions,
sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words of this Ordinance
irrespective of the fact that any one or more provisions, sections, subsections, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, phrases, or words may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its
adoption.
SECTION 9. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance
and shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and post a certified copy of the full Ordinance in
the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption and within 15 days after adoption
of the Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of the Ordinance with the names of the
Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty
(30) days after the date of its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rosemead,
County of Los Angeles of the State of California on July 14, 2020.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
11
Sandra Armenta, Mayor
Attachment B
Memorandum to City Council,
Dated April 16, 2020
5 E M 6
City of Rosemead
Memorandum
�PogA1E0 5459
Date: April 16, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor & Council Members
From: Gloria Molleda, City Manager
Re: Updates to Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to Comply with State Law
SUMMARY
On October 9, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed State laws (Assembly Bill 68, Assembly BIII
881, and Senate Bill 13), which amended Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22, and
Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12, pertaining to local regulations for accessory dwelling
units (ADUs). These regulations became effective on January 1, 2020 and pre-empt all local
ordinances that do not comply with the new standards, Over the last few months, Planning
Division staff has worked closely with the Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) and the City Attorney's Office to amend the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance,
DISCUSSION
The State has Identified that the housing shortage is a significant statewide Issue. The State
believes that increasing the development of ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) Is one approach to
Increase the housing supply in a way that can benefit renters and homeowners by providing more
rental opportunities and additional rental income for assistance with mortgage payment. The new
ADU and JADU laws have expanded on the previously proposed ADU State regulations, making it
easier to construct an ADU and JADU, A summary of the key components of Assembly Bill 68,
Assembly Bill 881, and Senate Bill 13 is listed below:
• A lot that contains a single-family dwelling is allowed one ADU and one JADU. A JADU is a
unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-
family residence that may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation
facilities with the existing structure.
• ADUs are now allowed on lots with multifamily dwellings (not just single-family dwellings).
This Includes the residential component of a residential/commercial mixed-use
development. A City must allow up to two detached ADUs, plus conversion of uninhabited
spaces for multiple ADUs (up to 25% of units in multifamily buildings).
• A setback of no more than four (4) feet can be required for the interior side and rear yards
for a new ADU.
• The City may no longer require that either the ADU or primary dwelling be owner -occupied
(until January 1, 2025), Cities may then impose occupancy requirements, but only to ADUs
created after that date.
• Floor area ratio (FAR), lot size, open space, and density can no longer be used to prevent
the construction of an ADU.
• Maximum size of a detached ADU shall be 850 square feet for studio and one -bedroom
and 1,000 square feet for two or more bedrooms. In addition, the City cannot limit the
number of bedrooms. Furthermore, the City must permit at least an 800 square foot
accessory dwelling unit.
• Minimum height of an ADU is 16 feet.
• Converted ADUs may now include an expansion of the existing structure of up to 150
square feet for ingress and egress.
• Attached ADUs are no longer limited to 1,200 square feet, just 50 percent of the existing
primary dwelling.
• The City may no longer require replacement parking when a garage is converted to an
ADU.
• State law now adds a definition for "public transit" and includes bus stops. "Public transit"
means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public
may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set
fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.
• A City must ministerially approve a compliant ADU and a JADU as well, within 60 days of
receiving a complete application (was previously 120 days).
• Impact fees are prohibited for ADUs smaller than 750 square feet. They're allowed for
large ADUs, but only proportional to the primary dwelling.
OVERVIEW OF ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE WITH NEW STATE LAWS REGULATING ADUs
Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC), carries out the policies of the
Rosemead General Plan by classifying and regulating uses of land and structures within the
City. RMC Section 17.30.190 governs the development of ADUs in the City of Rosemead. The
City's existing ADU development standards currently conflict with the standards and language in
the new State laws. To comply with new State laws, the summary below provides the code
amendments that will be applied to Title 17 (Zoning), specifically RMC Sections 17.04.050
(Definitions) and 17.30,190 (Accessory Dwelling Units). A draft copy of the proposed code
amendments can be found in Attachment A.
ADUs and JADUs in Residential Zones; The City's current code allows for one ADU on a lot but
does not provide for JADUs. To comply with new State laws, the code amendment will redefine the
definition of an ADU and add a definition and code section for a JADU, Specifically, the definitions
will state:
"Accessory Dwelling Unit" means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that
provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a
lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for
living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or
multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the
following:
1. An efficiency unit. unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety
Code.
2. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code
means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit, which provides
complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, It shall include
permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the
same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated,
"Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit" means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size
and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A junior accessory dwelling unit
may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing
structure.
In addition, the code amendment will allow an ADU and a JADU on a lot with a single-family
dwelling within a residential zone (R-1, R-2, and R-3) [Government Code Section 65852.2(d)(A),
subsections (i) through (iv); Section 65852,2(b)(B), subsections (i) and (fi)].
Multiple ADUs within Multifamily Buildings: To comply with new State laws, the code
amendment will allow at least one ADU within an existing multifamily dwelling (includes the
residential component of a residential/commercial mixed-use development) and allow up to 25
percent of the existing multifamily units on a lot (with a minimum of one) to provide an ADU within
non -livable spaces (e.g, boiler rooms, storage rooms, attics, basements, garages, laundry rooms,
etc.) of existing dwelling units [Government Code Section 65852.2(b)(C)(1)]; and permit up to two
detached ADUs on any property that has an existing multifamily structure (includes the residential
component of a residential/commercial mixed-use development) [Government Code Section
65852,2(b)(D)].
FAR Requirements: The City's current code requires that an ADU cannot exceed the FAR
requirements for both single-family and multifamily zones, To comply with new State laws, the
code amendment will no longer impose standards related to FAR that would otherwise prohibit the
creation of an ADU of at least 800 square feet [Government Code Section 65852.2(c)(2)(C)],
Setbacks: The City's current code requires a flve-feet side yard setback for interior lots, a 20 -feet
street side yard setback for corner lots, and a ten -feet rear yard setback for one story homes and
15 -feet rear yard setback for two-story homes, To comply with new State laws, the code
amendment will reduce the interior side and rear yard setbacks to four feet for all ADUs
[Government Code Section 65852,2(e)(1)(B)],
ADU Unit Size: The City's current code allows an ADU to have a floor area maximum of 50
percent of the primary residence or 1,200 square feet, whichever is less. To comply with new State
laws, the code amendment will allow attached ADUs to be a maximum of 50 percent of the primary
building. The code amendment will also allow detached ADUs to be a maximum size of 850
square feet for studio and one -bedroom and 1,000 square feet for two or more bedrooms. In
addition, the City cannot limit the number of bedrooms. [Government Code Sections
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(Iv) and 65852.2(c)(2)(B)(i-11)].
Height of ADUs: The City's current code allows ADUs at 17 feet for one-story ADUs and 30 -feet
for two-story ADUs. Since new State law requires that a City must permit a maximum height of at
least 16 feet, the City can continue to impose the current height maximum for one- and two-story
ADUs. The City may choose to apply a more stringent requirement by limiting ADUs to one-story
at 16 feet; limiting detached ADUs from exceeding the height of the primary home with a maximum
allowable height of 16 -feet, or requiring a Design Review for two-story ADUs with a maximum
height of 30 -feet [ Government Code Section 65852.2(c)(2)(C)].
Replacement Parking: The City's current code requires that when a parking structure (garage) is
demolished or converted In conjunction with the construction of an ADU, that parking must be
replaced somewhere on the lot, such as the driveway. To comply with new State laws, the code
amendment will no longer require the replacement of parking on the lot [Government Code Section
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(xi)].
Owner Occupancy: The City's current code requires the legal property owner to enter into a
covenant with the City, agreeing to occupy either the primary dwelling or ADU as permanent
residency. To comply with new State laws, the code amendment will no longer require owner
occupancy between January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2025. However, the City may impose an owner
occupancy requirement after January 1, 2025 [Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(6) and
Section 65852.2(a)(6)(B)], For JADUs, the new State law allows the City to require owner
occupancy in the single-family residence In which the JADU will be permitted. The owner may
reside In either the remaining portion of the structure or the newly created JADU. Owner -
occupancy Is not required If the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing
organization. The code amendment will require the legal property owner to occupy, on a full-time
basis, either the primary dwelling unit, JADU, or accessory dwelling unit (if applicable) as
permanent residency. In addition, an Owner -Occupancy Covenant shall be recorded, and a copy
shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permit for the JADU
[Government Code Section 65852.22(2)],
Project Review Time Reduced: Time to complete the review of an ADU application has been
reduced from 120 days to 60 days [Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(3)].
Development Impact Fees (DIF): The City's current code allows the collection of development
impact fees for all ADUs. To comply with new State laws the City cannot collect impact fees for
ADUs that are less than 750 feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit greater
than 750 square feet shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the
primary dwelling unit. [Government Code Section 65852.2(f)(1)(3)(A)]. Currently, the City's DIF is
a flat fee of $5,197 for multifamily in single -use zones. To comply with new State laws, the City will
charge DIF proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit, but will not
exceed $6,500 (Single -Family DIF), $5,197 (Multifamily DIF) or $5,126 (Mixed -Use Multifamily
DIF), The Fee Calculation are as follows:
a. Fee Calculation for Single Family in Single Use Zones (Single Family): $6,500
Primary Home Square Feet = $/Square Feet. x ADU Square Feet = Fee Due.
b. Fee Calculation for Multifamily In Single Use Zones (Single Family): $5,197 _ Primary
Home Square Feet = $/Square Feet. x ADU Square Feet = Fee Due.
c. Fee Calculation for Multifamily in Mixed -Use Zones (Single Family): $5,126 = Primary
Home Square Feet = $/Square Feet, x ADU Square Feet = Fee Due,
ADDITIONAL NEW STATE LAWS
The following State laws do not require code amendments, however, shall also be applied:
Code Enforcement: The City's current code does not prohibit the City from enforcing
development standards on a structure that has been Illegally converted for human habitation. New
State law allows for a property owner to request that enforcement of a violation be delayed for five
years to correct the violation for ADUs for cities that had a non-compliant ADU ordinance. This
provision of the code is effective until January 1, 2035 [Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12
et seq.].
State Department of Housing and Community Development: New State Law requires that each
local jurisdiction submit a copy of their ADU ordinance to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) 60 days after adoption for verification that the adopted ordinance
is in compliance with the State law. Failure to provide an ordinance that is in compliance with the
State law is grounds for HCD to notify the Attorney General that the local jurisdiction is in violation
with State law [Government Code Section 65852.2(h)(1) through Section 65852.2(h)(1)(3)(A)].
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed code amendments and provide staff
with questions or comments.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Lily T. Valenzuela �' ngelica rausto-Lupo
Planning & Economic Development Manager Community Development Director
Attachment A: Draft Amendments to Title 17 (Zoning), specifically RMC Sections 17.04.050
(Definitions of Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit) and
17.30.190 (Accessory Dwelling Units)
17.04.050 - Definitions—General.
***Tlr.e code amendment will only modify the definition of an accessory dwelling unit and add
a definition for junior accessory dwelling unit in Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.04.050
(Definitions). ***
For use in this Title certain terms are hereby defined. Words used in the present tense shall
include the past and future tense and vice versa. Words in the singular form shall include the
plural form and vice versa. The words "shall" and "will" are mandatory and the words "should"
and "may" are permissive.
Words and phrases used in the Zoning Code and not specifically defined shall be construed
according to the context and common usage of the language and as ultimately determined by the
Community Development Director. Application of definitions within the Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan shall be consistent with the Specific Plan goals, objectives, and the purpose and
character of each land use district.
For the purpose of carrying out the intent of this Title, certain terms, words, and phrases are
defined and shall be deemed to have the meaning ascribed to them as follows:
"Dwelling" means a structure or portion thereof designed exclusively for permanent
residential purposes, but not including hotels, motels, emergency shelters, or extended stay
locations.
"Accessory Dwelling Unit" means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that
provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a
lot with a Rroposed or existing -primary residence It shall include permanent provisions for
living sleeping eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or
multifamily dwelling_ is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the
following:
1 An efficiency unit. unit as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety
Code.
4-.2. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety
Code.nreans an a#a "�-or- a-detaehed--residential dwelling gni, whieh pfevides
semplete independent lid-feelitiesfer- one -e ere pefsen . it shall ifielude
pennaeee f - Hying, sleeping, eating,-eeekinr , and sanitmieH on the
same -par-eel icrthe Tsingle iuHiaiiTa`vi'ouiirSis-s:cucsc
"Dwelling Unit" means any structure or portion thereof designed for living and sleeping
purposes that contains independent cooking and sanitation facilities.
"Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit" means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size
and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A junior accessory dwelling unit
may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing
structure.
"Multifamily Dwelling Unit" means a structure or portion thereof containing three or more
dwelling units designed for the independent occupancy of three or more households.
"Primary Dwelling Unit" means an existing single -unit residential structure on a single lot
with provisions for living, sleeping, eating, a single kitchen for cooking, and sanitation
facilities, and occupied by one household.
"Single -Family Dwelling Unit" means a detached structure containing no more than one
dwelling unit which, regardless of form of ownership, is designed and/or used to house not
more than one household, including all domestic employees for such household.
"Two -Family Dwelling (Duplex) Unit" means a building containing two complete dwelling
units designed for the independent occupancy of two households.
See also "Manufactured Housing" and "Mobile Housing Unit."
(Ord. No. 931, § 5(Exh. A), 10-22-13; Ord. No. 978, § 5(Exh. A), 2-27-18; Ord. No. 979, §
3(Exh. A) 6-12-18; Ord. No. 980, §§ 2.A, 2.B., 7-10-18)
17.30.190 - Accessory dwelling unitf s (ADU).
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to implement Government Code Section 65852.2,
which allows the City to adopt an ADU ordinance in lieu of being
subjected to the State requirements for such units. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Zoning Code to the contrary, the provisions in this section shall govem the
development of ^^^ess^- .walk., anitsADU in the City of Rosemead.
B. Applicability. The provisions in this section shall apply to aeeesse:; dwelling tiflitSADU,
as defined in Article 1, Section 17.04.050 (Definitions), and where allowed in compliance
with Article 2 (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses and Zone -Specific Standards) and
the following City standards.
C. City Standards. The following provisions shall apply to AeeesseFy Dwelling UaitsADU:
1. In the R-1, R-2,-er--R-3 zone or other applicable zones; an attached or detached
aesessefy dwelling ADU shall be permitted by the Community Development
Director or the Community Development Director's designee, subject to an
administrative site plan and design review approval, if the application satisfies all of
the provisions set forth in this section. Except as provided for in this section, all
other applicable regulations of the underlying zone shall apply.
2—An ADU shall be deemed an accessory use. ADU do not
exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which they are located.
2.
3. a. ^ maximum of a aeoesseff dwelling n may be -permitted- per -let he
. . .7 1 use ef sueh lot must be single family dwelling.
b. A a9eessefy a, ail: k shall et be l` ate on aRy zl + eRtaining Ineve fluln
one single family dwelling unit.
3. On a lot with a vrovosed or existing single-family dwelling, the number of
permitted ADU is:
a. One attached ADU within the existing or proposed single-family dwelling or
within an existing accessory structure; or
b. One detached new construction ADU and one junior accessory dwelling unit
JADU .
4. On a lot with existing detached single-family dwellings (maximum two units), the
number of permitted ADU is:
a. One detached new construction 800 square feet ADU.
b. One proposed ADU within an existing accessory structure.
5. On a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling unit or two-family dwelling (duplex)
unit, the number of pennitted ADU is:
a. Not more than two detached ADU on a lot with one existing multifamily
dwelling unit or two family- dwelling (attached duplex) unit.
b. At least one attached ADU is permitted within the existing multifamily
dwelling unit or existing two-family (duplex) unit and up to 25 percent of the
existing dwelling units are permitted within the portions of the existing
structure that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to,
storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if
each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.
6. The ADU must be served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing
primary dwelling unit, unless the ADU has access from a public alley contiguous to
the lot.
7. No ADU shall be used as a short -tern rental.
8. To the extent possible, the creation of an ADU shall not alter the primary dwelling
appearance of the lot. The followingsall appy
a. For the construction of a new ADU, the ADU shall match or complement the
primary residence in architectural design, color, and materials.
b. For the conversion of an existing accessory structure into an ADU, the ADU
shall be permitted to remain as is. However, if an existing_ garage use is being
converted into an ADU, all garage doors shall be removed.
c. An ADU shall have independent exterior access and shall not have interior
access from the primary residence. If an ADU is located on the second floor
of the primary dwelling unit or accessory structure, the exterior stairs shall be
proposed in a location that limits visibility from the public right-of-way.
9. The ADU may not be sold separate from the primary residence.
10. An owner-occupancv reauirement for an accessory dwelling unit permitted
between January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2025, shall not be required. However, the
City may impose an owner -occupancy requirement after January 1, 2025.
11. The ADU shall comply with all Building Code and Fire Code requirements.
New ADU or modifications of existing ADU shall conform to the standards in Table
17.30.190.1 (ADU Development Standards).
iwelling nit shalt net after- the single family _d
K—Eiiiii; P3
Maximum
Height
ACCESSORY DWELUNG UNI ADU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Attached Aeeessei:y
Dwelliag-Uni4ADU
Limited to number of
stories and height of
existing primary residence*
Provisions of the
Minimum applicable underlying
Setbacks zoning designation of the
subject property shall apply
Detached Aeeesser-y
Dwelling U- ADU
Two -Story - 30 feet
One -Story - 17 feet
Side Yard Setback:
(Iate. ieF gide. 43 feet
Side Yard Setbae (S+.-eo
Sides—ReyeFse GemeF be
and Cerner Lei)! 20 feet
Rear Yard Setback: 4 feet
stel:y).! 15 e+
stel-y). 10 feet
Notes and Exceptions
*If the height of the
existing orimary residence
is less than 16 feet, the
proposed ADU shall be
Tallowed a maximum
height of 16 feet.
Conversion of an existing
permitted structure to an
asee
ia+i4ADU shall not be
required to satisfy the
minimum setback
standards if the side and
rear setbacks are sufficient
for fire safety.
The setback of the second
floor shall not be less than
the setback of the first
Minimum
Provisions of the
Distance
applicable underlying
Between
zoning designation of the
Dwellings
subject property shall apply
Minimum
Landscape
Area
Minimum
Floor -Area
10 Feet *
floor_
*If the minimum distance
between dwellings cannot
be met, an 800 square feet
ADU that is at least 16
feet in height with four -
feet side and rear yard
setbacks shall be
permitted provided that it
is constructed in
compliance with all other
local development
standard s.The-distanse
between dwellings efthe
Sewmfld fleffflr- shall not be
less than the distanee
betweea dwellings ef the
r, st gee
*If the minimum
landscape area
requirement cannot be
met, an 800 square feet
ADU that is at least 16
feet in height with four -
20% of lot area 20% of lot area* feet side and rear yard
setbacks shall be
permitted provided that it
is constructed in
compliance with all other
local development
standards.
150 square feet 150 square feet
Maximum
Floor -Area
Maximum
Number of
Bedrooms
Un tobessee ef-50% of
existing living area of
primary residenceor- 1,200
Rttffir-O feet
Twe edreenxsBedrooms
shall conform to standard
Building
requirements.
If floor -area ratio
pennits*:
• 850 square feet for
a studio or one
bedroom
• 1,000 square feet
for an ADU that
provides more than
one
bedroom.Lesser-e€
5094 e€exist
ide
or- 1,299 square
feet
An ADU built within an
existing accessory
structure may include an
expansion of up to 150
square feet beyond the
physical dimensions of the
existing accessory
structure to accommodate
ingress and arg ens
Where both a JADU and a
detached ADU are
constructed, the ADU shall
be no more than 800
square feet.
*If the creation of an
ADU results in a floor -
area ratio that is areater
than what is permitted in
the zone, an 800 square
feet ADU that is at least
16 feet in height with
four -feet side and rear
yard setbacks shall be
permitted provided that it
is constructed in
compliance with all other
local development
standards.
FeF the pwpese of this
seefien, ., de study,
ether similar a fn th .t
Bedrooms shall conform
to standard Building Code
requirements.T-we
Bedrooms
may be used
by the l e ffi,, unity
as
shall be eensider-ed
bedr,eefn(s).
Minimum
Off -Street
Parking
One parking space per
bedroom or ADU,
whichever is less
These spaces may be
provided as tandem
parking on a driveway.
"Tandem parking" means
that 2 or more automobiles
are parked on a driveway
or in any other location on
a lot, lined up behind 1
another
New uncovered off-street
parking spaces shall have a
minimum dimension of 9
feet in width by 18 feet in
depth *
One parking space per
bedroom or ADU,
whichever is less
These spaces may be
provided as tandem
parking on a driveway.
"Tandem parking" means
that 2 or more automobiles
are parked on a driveway
or in any other location on
a lot, lined up behind 1
another
New uncovered off-street
parking spaces shall have a
minimum dimension of 9
feet in width by 18 feet in
depth *
*Off-street parking
standards shall not be
required for an ADU in
any of the following
instances:
(1) The accessory
dwelling unit is located
within %2 mile of public
transit.
(2) The accessory
dwelling unit is located
within an architecturally
and historically significan
historic district.
(3) The accessory
dwelling unit is part of the
proposed or existing
primary residence or an
accessory structure.
(4) When on -street
parking permits are
required but not offered tc
the occupant of the
accessory dwelling unit.
(5) When there is a car
share vehicle located
within 1 block of the
accessory dwelling unit.
When a garage, carport, o�
covered parking structure
is demolished in
conjunction with the
construction of an ADU o:
converted to an ADU,
those off-street parking
spaces are not required be
replaced.
D. City Standards. The following_ provisions shall apply to JADU:
a. The JADU shall comRlly with the requirements of Government Code Section
65852.22.
b. A maximum of one JADU shall be permitted on a residential lot zoned for single-
family residences with a single-family dwelling built, or proposed to be built, on
the lot. If an ADU is proposed in addition with a JADU, then the ADU shall be
limited to a maximum of 800 square feet.
c. The maximum size for a JADU is 500 square feet.
d. The legal property owner shall occupy, on a full-time basis. either the primary
dwelling unit, JADU, or accessory dwelling unit (if applicable) as permanent
residency. Owner -occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another
governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.
e. A Owner -Occupancy Covenant shall be recorded, and a copy shall be submitted
to the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building_ permit for the JADU.
The said Owner -Occupancy Covenant shall remain in perpetuity and shall not be
released. The Owner -Occupancy Covenant shall include the following language:
i. A prohibition on the sale of the JADU unit separate from the sale of the
single-family dwelling, including a statement that the deed restriction may
be enforced against future purchasers.
ii. A restriction on the size and attributes of JADU that conforms with
Government Code Section 65852.22.
f. The permitted JADU shall be constructed within the walls of the proposed or
existing single-family residence.
g. The permitted JADU shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to
the 2roposed or existing single-family residence.
h. The permitted JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, which shall include all
of the following:
i. A cooking facility with appliances.
ii. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size
in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit.
D -.--Revocation. The Community Development Director shall have the authority to revoke an
aeeessevy dwellingani-ADU permit if one or more of the requirements of this chapter are
no longer met. The decision of either the Community Development Director may be
appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in this
Code.
E.
F. Existing ADU. ADU which have been previously approved shall be allowed to remain in
existence as a legally established nonconforming use. This section shall in no way
validate any existing illegal accessory dwelling unit.
E.
E. Existing
pr-evie,sly approved shall be allowed to Feam—ain iR aixistenee as a legally eIi hed
neneenfetming use. This seetien shall in ne wet), validate any existing illegal fteeesser�,
dwelliRg unit.
(Ord. No. 931, § 5(Exh. A), 10-22-13; Ord. No. 979, § 3(Exh. A), 6-12-18)
Attachment C
Planning Commission Staff Report
Dated June 15, 2020
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: JUNE 15, 2020
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 20-01
SUMMARY
On October 9, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed several bills into law (Assembly Bill
68, Assembly Bill 881, and Senate Bill 13), which amended Government Code Sections
65852.2 and 65852.22 (attached as Exhibit "C") pertaining to the development of
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). These
regulations became effective on January 1, 2020 and pre-empt all local ordinances that
do not comply with the new standards.
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 20-01) is intended to bring Title 17
(Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code up to compliance with State legislation
regarding the development and conversion of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the City.
The proposed amendment would adopt new standards for ADUs, in accordance with the
provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. The amendment would
also provide clarity and consistency for the regulation of ADUs throughout Title 17
(Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
The public hearing for MCA 20-01 was originally scheduled on June 1, 2020, however,
the meeting was cancelled due to the County of Los Angeles' issued curfew. For this
reason, the public hearing was not held by the Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a
city or county implementing the provisions of section 65852.2 of the Government Code,
which is California's ADU law and which also regulates JADUs, as defined by section
65852.22. Therefore, MCA 20-01 is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the proposed
ordinance implements the State's ADU law.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 2020
Page 2 of 10
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-03 with findings (Exhibit "A"), a
resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 995 (Exhibit
"B") for the approval of MCA 20-01.
DISCUSSION
The State legislature has identified that the California housing shortage is a significant
statewide issue. The State believes that increasing the development of ADUs and JADUs
is one approach to address the housing crisis. The adoption of Assembly Bill 68,
Assembly Bill 881, and Senate Bill 13 into law limits the City's ability to regulate ADUs
and JADUs, by reducing regulatory barriers and costs, streamlining the approval, and
expanding the potential capacity for ADUs. To comply with State law, the proposed
revisions would bring the ADU Ordinance into full compliance with State law. The
provisions listed below represents the key changes to State law that must be incorporated
into the City's ADU Ordinance (Exhibit "B"):
• ADUs and JADUs in Residential Zones: The City's current code allows for one
ADU on a lot but does not provide for JADUs. To comply with new State laws, the
code amendment will redefine the definition of an ADU and add a definition and
code section for a JADU. Specifically, the definitions will state:
"Accessory Dwelling Unit" means an attached or a detached residential dwelling
unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons
and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include
permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the
same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. An
accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
1. An efficiency unit. unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and
Safety Code.
2. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety
Code means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit, which
provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It
shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and
sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated.
"Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit" means a unit that is no more than 500 square
feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A junior
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 2020
Page 3 of 10
accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share
sanitation facilities with the existing structure.
In addition, the code amendment will allow an ADU and a JADU on a lot with a
single-family dwelling within a residential zone (R-1, R-2, and R-3) [Government
Code Section 65852.2(d)(A), subsections (i) through (iv); Section 65852.2(b)(B),
subsections (i) and (ii)].
Multiple ADUs within Multifamily Buildings: To comply with new State laws,
the code amendment will allow at least one ADU within an existing multifamily
dwelling (includes the residential component of a residential/commercial mixed-
use development) and allow up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily units on a
lot (with a minimum of one) to provide an ADU within non -livable spaces (e.g. boiler
rooms, storage rooms, attics, basements, garages, laundry rooms, etc.) of existing
dwelling units [Government Code Section 65852.2(b)(C)(i)]; and permit up to two
detached ADUs on any property that has an existing multifamily structure (includes
the residential component of a residential/commercial mixed-use development)
[Government Code Section 65852.2(b)(D)].
• FAR Requirements: The City's current code requires that an ADU cannot exceed
the FAR requirements for both single-family and multifamily zones. To comply with
new State laws, the code amendment will no longer impose standards related to
FAR that would otherwise prohibit the creation of an ADU of at least 800 square
feet [Government Code Section 65852.2(c)(2)(C)].
Setbacks: The City's current code requires a five -feet side yard setback for
interior lots, a 20 -feet street side yard setback for corner lots, and a ten -feet rear
yard setback for one story homes and 15 -feet rear yard setback for two-story
homes. To comply with new State laws, the code amendment will reduce the
interior side and rear yard setbacks to four feet for all ADUs [Government Code
Section 65852.2(e)(1)(B)].
ADU Unit Size: The City's current code allows an ADU to have a floor area
maximum of 50 percent of the primary residence or 1,200 square feet, whichever
is less. To comply with new State laws, the code amendment will allow attached
ADUs to be a maximum of 50 percent of the primary building or 800 square feet if
the primary building is less than 1,600 square feet. The code amendment will also
allow detached ADUs to be a maximum size of 850 square feet for studio and one -
bedroom and 1,000 square feet for two or more bedrooms. In addition, the City
cannot limit the number of bedrooms. [Government Code Sections
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(iv) and 65852.2(c)(2)(B)(i-ii)].
Height of ADUs: The City's current code allows ADUs at 17 feet for one-story
ADUs and 30 -feet for two-story ADUs. Since new State law requires that a City
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 2020
Page 4 of 10
must permit a maximum height of at least 16 feet, the City can continue to impose
the current height maximum of 17 -feet for one-story and 30 -feet for two-story
ADUs. [ Government Code Section 65852.2(c)(2)(C)].
Replacement Parking: The City's current code requires that when a parking
structure (garage) is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction
of an ADU, that parking must be replaced somewhere on the lot, such as the
driveway. To comply with new State laws, the code amendment will no longer
require the replacement of parking on the lot [Government Code Section
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(xi)].
Owner Occupancy: The City's current code requires the legal property owner to
enter into a covenant with the City, agreeing to occupy either the primary dwelling
or ADU as permanent residency. To comply with new State laws, the code
amendment will no longer require owner occupancy between January 1, 2020 to
January 1, 2025. However, the City may impose an owner occupancy requirement
after January 1, 2025 [Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(6) and Section
65852.2(a)(6)(B)]. For JADUs, the new State law allows the City to require owner
occupancy in the single-family residence in which the JADU will be permitted. The
owner may reside in either the remaining portion of the structure or the newly
created JADU. Owner -occupancy is not required if the owner is another
governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization. The code amendment
will require the legal property owner to occupy, on a full-time basis, either the
primary dwelling unit, JADU, or accessory dwelling unit (if applicable) as
permanent residency. In addition, an Owner -Occupancy Covenant shall be
recorded, and a copy shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance
of any building permit for the JADU [Government Code Section 65852.22(2)].
Project Review Time Reduced: Time to complete the review of an ADU
application has been reduced from 120 days to 60 days [Government Code
Section 65852.2(a)(3)].
Development Impact Fees (DIF): The City's current code allows the collection of
development impact fees for all ADUs. To comply with new State laws the City
cannot collect impact fees for ADUs that are less than 750 feet. Any impact fees
charged for an accessory dwelling unit greater than 750 square feet shall be
charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling
unit. [Government Code Section 65852.2(f)(1)(3)(A)]. Currently, the City's DIF is
a flat fee of $5,197 for multifamily in single -use zones. To comply with new State
laws, the City will charge DIF proportionately in relation to the square footage of
the primary dwelling unit, but will not exceed $6,500 (Single -Family DIF), $5,197
(Multifamily DIF) or $5,126 (Mixed -Use Multifamily DIF).
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 2020
Page 5 of 10
The fee calculation is as follows:
a. Fee Calculation for Single Family in Single Use Zones (Single Family):
$6,500 = Primary Home Square Feet = $/Square Feet. X ADU Square Feet
= Fee Due
b. Fee Calculation for Multifamily in Single Use Zones (Single Family): $5,197
T Primary Home Square Feet = $/Square Feet. X ADU Square Feet = Fee
Due
c. Fee Calculation for Multifamily in Mixed -Use Zones (Single Family): $5,126
Primary Home Square Feet = $/Square Feet. X ADU Square Feet = Fee
Due
In addition to the key changes above, the following do not require a code amendment,
however, shall also be applied:
Code Enforcement: The City's current code does not prohibit the City from
enforcing development standards on a structure that has been illegally converted
for human habitation. New State law allows for a property owner to request that
enforcement of a violation be delayed for five years to correct the violation for
ADUs for cities that had a non-compliant ADU ordinance. This provision of the
code is effective until January 1, 2035 [Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12
et seq.].
State Department of Housing and Community Development: New State Law
requires that each local jurisdiction submit a copy of their ADU ordinance to the
State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 60 days after
adoption for verification that the adopted ordinance is in compliance with the State
law. Failure to provide an ordinance that is in compliance with the State law is
grounds for HCD to notify the Attorney General that the local jurisdiction is in
violation with State law [Government Code Section 65852.2(h)(1) through Section
65852.2(h)(1)(3)(A)].
MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS
Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060, amendments to [the] Zoning Code
may be approved only if all the following findings are first made:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan;
The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan, as the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to comply with the
amended provisions of Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65858.22. The
amendment will provide general standards for the development of ADUs and
JADUs in the City.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 2020
Page 6 of 10
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and
The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, as ADUs are currently permitted in the
Zoning Code, The State legislature has identified that the California housing
shortage is a significant statewide issue. The State believes that increasing the
development of ADUs and JADUs is one approach to address the housing crisis.
To comply with State law, the proposed revisions would bring the ADU Ordinance
into full compliance with State law.
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions
of [the] Zoning Code.
The City of Rosemead's current ADU Ordinance does not comply with the new
State provisions for ADUs, and is therefore, deemed null and void. MCA 20-01 is
intended to bring Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code up to
compliance with State legislation regarding the development and conversion of
ADUs in the City. The proposed amendment would adopt new standards for ADUs,
in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.2 and
65852.22. The amendment would also provide clarity and consistency for the
regulation of ADUs throughout Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which
includes publication in the Rosemead Reader and postings of the notice at five public
locations.
Prepared by:
—%�a
Lily Valenzuela
Planning & Economic Development Manager
Submitted by:
Angelica Frausto-Lupo
Director of Community Development
EXHIBITS:
A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-03
B. Draft Ordinance No. 995
C. Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22
Attachment D
Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Dated June 15, 2020
Minutes of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 15, 2020
To adhere to the Los Angeles County Health Officer's March 21, 2020, Revised Safer at Home Order, this Planning
Commission Meeting will be held via teleconference and the public will have access to observe and address the
meeting telephonically and to watch online. Please note that, in accordance with Governor Newsom's Executive Order
N-29-20, there will not be a physical location from which the public may attend. If you have a request for an
accommodation under the ADA contact: Ericka Hernandez (626) 569-2100.
Agenda: Planning Commission agenda materials may be viewed online at
Streaming: The meeting will be streamed live on the City's meeting web
Listen to the meeting only by phone by dialing:
1(267)866-0999, Code ID:624-607-9406
Remote Public Comments: Public comments will be receN
publiccomment@cityofrosemead.org by 6:00 p.m. You also have
email address. Please identify the topic you comment in
record and will be recorded in the official record ofhe�ty
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission
Chambers.
PLEDGE OF
INVOCATION — Commi§sftr Berry
ROLL CALL
irg (626) 569-2100 or via email at
to email your comment to the provided
s subject line. All comments are public
Chair g.jat 7:00 pm in the City Hall Council
and Chair Eng
STAFF. <� t N T — CitYA",, Burr s�Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo, Planning & Economic
De ent Manager Val s� a, Ass ie Planner Lao, Assistant Planner Wong, and Commission Secreta
g r!� � g Secretary
1. EXPLANIANION OF HEARINGRPAOCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS
City Attorney BurroWsente procedure and appeal rights of the meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTSOM THE AUDIENCE Public comments will be received by calling (626) 569.2100
or via email at publiccomment@cityofrosemead.org by 6:00 p.m. You also have the option to email your
comment to the provided email address. Please identify the topic you wish to comment in your email's
subject line. All comments are public record and will be recorded in the official record of the City.
None
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. MODIFICATION 20.02 — Emily Young has submitted a Modification Application to amend Design Review
18.04, which was approved by the Planning Commission on February 4, 2019, to construct two new
two-story single-family dwelling units, each with a three -car garage. The Modification includes
relocating the driveway, revising the floor plan layout, redesigning the exterior facades of both single-
family dwelling units, and amending Condition of Approval No. 20, by modifying the original design
incentives. The subject site is located at 3917 Muscatel Avenue (APN: 5930-010.051) in the Single -
Family Residential (R-1) zone.
The public hearing for Modification 20.02 (MOD 20.02) was originally scheduled on June 1, 2020,
however, the meeting was cancelled due to the County of Los Angeles" issued curfew. Forthis reason,
the public hearing was not held by the Planning Commission.
PC RESOLUTION 20-04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING; CORMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFQRNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 20.02,
AMENDING DESIGN REVIEW 18.04, BY RELOCATING THE,DKIVEWAY, REVISING THE FLOOR PLAN
LAYOUT, REDESIGNING THE EXTERIOR FACADES OFtBOTH SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, AND
AMENDING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 20, BY MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL:DESIGN INCENTIVES.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3917 MUSCATEL AVENUE (.APN: 5390.010.01)",,1N THE SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No.
20.04 with findings and APPROVE Modification 20-02, subject to the 36 conditions.
Assistant Planner Wong presented the staff report.
t
Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission had any questionsorrcomments forstaff.
Vice -Chair Lopez asked if the single-family dwellings will, b�e,occupied by the owners or separated.
l
Assistant Planner Wong �re'lied one of tho'bomes will be dwner,occupied, one may be a rental, but the applicant can
confirm that question.
Commissioner Tang asked,if there.was a change of ownership since the Planning Commission approved the original
plans on/ February 4, 2019.1
Assistant Planner Wong replied�yes.
Commissioner, Tang asked if the 'new owner wanted to modify the plans and that is why this Modification is being
presented.
Assistant Planner Wong replied that is correct.
Commissioner Tang referred to page 7 of 17 in the staff report, under Residential Design Incentives, there are two
struck out bullet points sentences in the design incentives and asked what that means in the overall condition for the
applicant, to take advantage of those incentives.
Assistant Planner Wong explained that some of the design incentives no longer apply to the project, so they were
crossed out. In addition, they were replaced with other design incentives.
Chair Eng asked if the applicant is still exercising the incentives for the extra square footage and if there is not a
reduction in square footage.
Assistant Planner Wong replied that is correct.
Chair Eng asked if the main modification is the garage relocation from the north side of the lot to the south side.
Assistant Planner Wong replied it is not only the garage, it is like a mirror, they have relocated the driveway, as a result
the placement of the homes and garage are on the opposite side.
Chair Eng stated the prior approved plans did not include a balcony on the second floor and she noticed the plans now
include balconies on the second floor for both units. She asked for clarification what, size are the balconies, are they
L-shaped, and if they are accessible from the bedrooms and loft area.
Assistant Planner Wong replied it is only accessible through the loft area not the bedroom. He added there is only a
sliding window in the bedroom.
Chair Eng asked if it is a L -shape balcony, what is the size of tltie _balcony, and does it go from the�north to the west.
Assistant Planner Wong replied it goes northbound and to the east and clarified it is like an L -shaper
Chair Eng asked if it is an open balcony or will it" have a covering' .
Assistant Planner Wong replied it is open balcony_,
Chair Eng asked if the homes to the north and west are single -story.
Assistant Planner Wong replied yes.
Chair Eng questioned if,46eprivacy of neighbors was taken into consideration while designing the homes.
Assistant Planner Wong replied the adjoining neighbor had inquiries, but did not express any concerns in regard to the
balcony.
Chair Eng asked if staff 'had received, any comments or concerns from neighbors in regard to the balcony's or privacy
issues,
Assistanf P,Iannor Wong replied no.
Chair Eng asked aspart of this Modification, is the applicant contemplating on constructing an ADU in the future.
Assistant Planner Wong replied discussion/plans has not taken place for a future ADU.
Chair Eng commented that it appears that the design of the building was changed, it complements the other two -stories
in the area and asked if that was correct.
Assistant Planner Wong replied yes, and the designer can elaborate a little more on the reasoning of the new materials,
and architectural features of the single-family dwellings.
Chair Eng asked if this project is the same designer as the last approved project.
Assistant Planner Wong replied yes.
Vice -Chair Lopez asked if the balcony is overlooking the neighbor's backyard or to the side of their homes.
Assistant Planner Wong replied the front unit faces the north side and potentially the balcony would be in view to the
properties to the north. He added the rear unit there would be potential view into the properties to the west, but the
three -car garage would provide some blockage.
Chair Eng asked if there were any further questions for staff. With no further questions, she opened the Public Hearing
and welcomed the designer of the project.
Eric Tsang, Architect, via teleconference stated he would be happy to answer.aray giiestions the Planning Commission
may have.
Chair Eng thanked Mr. Tsang for joining the meeting and asked what inspired his design changes.
Eric Tsang presented a brief summary of the design of the homes; including architectural elements, balcony details,
and landscaping details.
Chair Eng asked if both units are five -bedroom suites and haveJhree-car garages.
Eric Tsang replied yes.
Chair Eng asked if there is extra space in case more,parking is needed.
Eric Tsang replied yes, there is space between the garages. He explained currently it is considered as a walkway and
landscaping, but in the future, it can be paved if needecl, V "
Chair Eng asked if the owner is intending for one of the unjts'to be as owner -occupied.
Eric Tsang stated the owner. isintending to use both units as,owner-occupied because they have a large family with
three generations.
Commissioner"Tang noted,thattheprevious applicant was asked if the units would be owner -occupied, and they said
yes, however, then put the property on the market to sell.
Eric Tsang,pommented at that time the ownerhad been planning to live there.
Chair Eng asked i=,questions
were any'`further questions or comments for this item. See none, Chair Eng closed the Public
Hearing. With no Chair Eng asked for a motion.
Commissioner Tang made a/motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Lopez, to ADOPT Resolution No. 20.04 with
findings and APPROVE Modification 20.02, subject to the 36 conditions.
Vote resulted in:
Ayes:
Berry, Eng, Lopez, Tang, and Vuong
Noes:
None
Abstain:
None
Absent:
None
4
Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. She
explained the 10 -day appeal process and reminded the applicant to remove the on-site Public Hearing Notice.
B. DESIGN REVIEW 20-02 - Anna Chow has submitted a Design Review application, requesting to
construct a new 2,883 square -foot, two-story single-family dwelling unit with an attached two -car
garage. The granting of a Discretionary Site Plan and Design Review is required for any dwelling unit
to be constructed that equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of developed
living area. The subject site is located at 3139 Burton Avenue (APN: 5289-004-061) in the Single -Family
Residential (R-1) zone.
PC RESOLUTION 20.05 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 20-
02, PERMITTING A NEW, TWO-STORY, 2,883 SQUARE -FOOT SINGLE`FAM lLY DWELLING UNIT, WITH
AN ATTACHED TWO -CAR GARAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE, IS'LOCATED,,AT` 139 BURTON AVENUE
(APN: 5289.004.061), IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommende,011hatAhe Planning.Commission ADOPT.Resolution No.
20.05 with findings and APPROVE Design Review,, 20.02, subjerct'to'the 34 conditions:.
Associate Planner Lao presented the staff report.
Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if there,,were any questions orcomments for staff. None at this time.
Chair Eng asked if this flag lot was approved before the passing of the ordinance that prohibits flag lots and if this is
the front unit of the subdivided flag lot.
Associate Planner Lao repli0d yes, that is c orrect. '
Chair Eng asked how long the,current property owner has owned the lot.
Associate Planner -Lao replied'the owner/ has owned -the property before the flag lot was subdivided.
Chair Eng, apked if the property,owner,is'contemplating an ADU in the future and how big it will be.
Associate Planner Lao replied`oureently the' ADU is in the preliminary stage, once the plans are finalized, they will
submit them, and staff will reviewthem.
Chair Eng stated,du'ring the Public Hearing she would like to know if the development will be owner -occupied. She
referred to the planns prid.confirmed that balconies are not being proposed on the second level.
Associate Planner Lao stated that is correct.
Chair Eng stated she drove by the site and there are several two-story flag lots and asked if the total height of this
development will complement the other two-story flag lot developments.
Associate Planner Lao replied yes, it is at 30 feet or just under it.
Commissioner Vuong asked in regard to the ADU, will the applicant be subject to the new ADU requirements being
discussed this evening or will they be subject to the existing requirements.
Associate Planner Lao explained that the applicant will not be subject to the new ADU requirements if their plans are
submitted to the Building and Planning Divisions, and if they are approved.
Chair Eng asked so basically if the proposed zoning amendment takes into effect after the applicant submits their
plans, then they would follow the existing ADU requirements.
Associate Planner Lao replied that is correct.
Chair Eng asked it there were any further questions or comments for staff. With no further questions she opened the
Public Hearing and welcomed the designer to the meeting.
City Attorney Burrows recommended the meeting be recessed for five minutes dueto technical issues.
Chair Eng called the meeting back to order and welcome Dat Wong, Desi ner for this project.
Dat Wong stated he is the Designer for this project, thanked staff`for;all�their help, and he is -available to answer any
questions the Planning Commission may have. He gave a beef summary of the elements,b-eing proposed into the
home.
Chair Eng thanked Mr. Wong for joining the meeting and asked once the'deyelopment is completed will it be owner -
occupied.
Dat Wong replied he believes so.
Chair Eng asked if the four bedrooms are suites.
Dat Wong replied yes.
i
Chair Eng stated the owner js'contemplatin'g adding an ADU"in the future and asked if that was correct.
Dat Wong replied that is correct.,
Chair Eng,asked if there has been,any/,Oiscussion in regard'to the size of the ADU the owner is contemplating.
Dat Wong replied the currerit,makimum size is 1,200 square feet and they plan on meeting that requirement. He added
staff has let them know new requirements rRaygo into effect, so they will meet all the requirements from the City and
State.
Chair Eng asked,if there is any vacant space left on the lot for extra parking.
Dat Wong replied yes; a4explained his plan is to build the ADU in the rear and there will room for parking and a
driveway.
Chair Eng asked there were any further questions or comments for this item. With no further questions she announced
staff did receive an email, which included a letter from Sonja Trauss, Executive Director of YIMBY LAW in support of
Design Review 20-02. Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there were any
further questions or comments for staff. See None. Chair Eng commented her only concern in regard to this item is
that the street is narrow, and parking will be impacted.
M
City Attorney Burrows addressed Chair Eng and Planning Commission and recommended the letter sent in by Sonja
Trauss, Executive Director of YIMBY LAW must be read aloud and read the letter regarding "California Government
Code § 65589.5 the Housing Accountability Act" for the record.
Chair Eng thanked City Attorney Burrows for reading the letter and requested a motion.
Commissioner Vuong made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Lopez, to ADOPT Resolution No. 20.05 with
findings and APPROVE Design Review 20.02, subject to the 34 conditions.
Vote resulted in:
Ayes: Berry, Eng, Lopez, Tang, and Vuong
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo stated the rnotion,passes with a vote of 5vAyirts,and 0 Noes. She
explained the 10 -day appeal process and reminded the applicaptto remove the on-site Public Hearing, Notice.
C. DESIGN REVIEW 20.03 - Anna Chow has submitted. a Design Review application, requesting to
construct a new 3,429 square -foot, two6story single -faintly `dwelling unit with an attached three -car
garage. The granting of a Discretion ry�Site Plan and Design Review is required for any dwelling unit
to be constructed that equals or excedds,two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of developed
living area. The subject site is located a'tF3143 Burton Avenue (APN; 5289.004.062) in the Single -Family
Residential (R-1) zone.
PC RESOLUTION 20-.06 - A RESOLUTIONv�OEITHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COLIFY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE,,OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 20-
03, PERMITTING,A,NEW, TWO-STP.AY, 3,429 SQUARE -FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT, WITH
AN ATTACHED THRE&CAR.,GARAG E. THE ,SUBJgQT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3143 BURTON AVENUE
(APN: 528,9-004-062); IN THE�SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONy Itis recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No.
20,•66 with findingiand`APPROVEDesign Review 20.03, subject to the 33 conditions.
Associate°I?lanrter Lao presented,,th6\staff report.
4 �
Chair Eng asked,if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. See None. Chair Eng asked
if this development'is on the same flag lot, but is the back unit, which is owned by the applicant.
Associate Planner Lao replied.
yes.
Chair Eng asked if an ADU is being contemplated in the future.
Associate Planner Lao replied yes.
Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and welcomed Dat Wong, Designer of the project. She asked if the Planning
Commission had any questions or comments for Mr. Wong. With no further questions she asked if the unit will be
owner -occupied.
Dat Wong replied he believes so.
Chair Eng asked if an ADU is being contemplated and in the design has it been taken into consideration for extra
parking within the lot.
Dat Wong replied yes, the flag lot has plenty of space, and his intent is for the ADU to have its own garage, so parking
is not an issue for these two homes.
Chair Eng asked if there will be any open porches or balconies on the second floor.
Dat Wong replied no, that is correct.
Chair Eng asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak on this item. See,None.,Chai�r Eng closed the Public Hearing
and thanked Mr. Wong for joining the meeting. She asked the Planning Commission if they had any further questions
or comments for staff. With no further questions she requested a motion.`, �,��
Vice -Chair Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tang, to ADOPT Resolutign No. 20-06 with
findings and APPROVE Design Review 20-03, subject to the 33 conditions.
Vote resulted in:
Ayes: Berry, Eng, LopeTang, and Vuong
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Nonet
Community Development Director Frausto Lupo stated th pNotion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. She
explained the 10 -day appeal process and,,rem jnded the "applicant to remove the on-site Public Hearing Notice.
D. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 20.01.On October 9,, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed several bills
into law (Assembly Bill v6$, Aesembly Bill '881, and Senate Bill 13), which amended Government Code
Sectiops 65852.2 a'hd.;65852:22�(attached as Exhibit "C") pertaining to the development of accessory
dweil(egdinits (ADUs)and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). These regulations became effective
on ,anu-'ary 1, 2020 and pre=emptall Focal ordinances that do not comply with the new standards.
The proposed Municipal Q
Rosemead Municipal Code
conversion of accessory dv
standards for ADUs, in accor
The amendment wouidralse/
(Zoning) of the Rosemead M
Amendment (MCA 20-01) is intended to bring Title 17 (Zoning) of the
to compliance with State legislation regarding the development and
ig units (ADUs) in the City. The proposed amendment would adopt new
ce with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22.
ride clarity and consistency for the regulation of ADUs throughout Title 17
;ipal Code.
The public hearing for MCA 20-01 was originally scheduled on June 1, 2020, however, the meeting was
cancelled due to the County of Los Angeles' issued curfew. For this reason, the public hearing was not
held by the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 20.03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 995 FOR THE APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 20-
8
01 (MCA 20.01), AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH
NEW STATE PROVISIONS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - That the Planning Commission:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-03 with findings, a resolution recommending that
the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 995 for the approval of MCA 20-01.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela presented the staff report,,
Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff.
Commissioner Tang asked staff to explain the section regarding converted -garages ,
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela provided en'example that if someone has a single-family
home and a two -car garage, and they want to convert it into an'ADU','they will not be requiretl to..replace those parking
spaces.
Commissioner Tang asked if the applicant already has a converted garege and if they want to certify"that as an ADU,
can it be that same process.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuelereplied yes.
Commissioner Tang asked staff to explain the owner -occupancy section.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela, explained that the -'prior ADU ordinance required owner -
occupancy in either the mein house or th�e�ARU. She added" the new state law states that is no longer required, and
they may both be rentals up
,;to year 2025. a
Commissioner Tang askedwhat happens after that.
Planning &,F-conomic DevelopmentManager Valenzuela replied a new law will probably be issued.
Commiss(oner Vuong referred to converting, garages and asked how a property owner becomes compliant with
ensuring parking spaces on a property or issitnolonger a requirement.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied it is no longer a requirement.
Commissioner Vuong asked so,"any/single-family home would potentially not be required to have any parking spaces.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied if the garage is converted to an ADU, then yes, it
would not be required.
Commissioner Vuong asked how it would be differentiated or defined an attached ADU verses an extension to a home.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied the attached ADU would have its own cooking and
sanitation facilities and that would be the difference.
Commissioner Tang stated going back to that question and asked if a detached ADU would also have its own cooking
and sanitation facilities.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes.
Commissioner Tang stated so an extension would an extra room, whereas, an attached ADU would require having its
own kitchen.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, it would have to have its own living quarters. She
explained so, if you are doing an addition to a home, you do not necessarily want to add a kitchen as part of the single-
family home.
Commissioner Tang asked if in that scenario does that mean an ADU would have,'to..have a separate entrance.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes.
Vice -Chair Lopez asked for an ADU to be used as a rental, it is required to'have a kitchen'and sanitation facility.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied, yes.
Vice -Chair Lopez asked if a carport will no longer be required,in the substitution for a garage 'or will it just be a
driveway. He added in the past, it was required to make-up tfie differenge;if,you wanted to convert your garage into a
den or something.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valemuela�explained with'the old law, if you converted your garage, you
would still have to provide parking on the driveway. .
Vice -Chair Lopez commented as long as it would just be�for parking.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated with this new state law and you do not have to provide
parking. She added driveway parking is aloo not required'.',
Commissioner Tang stated it seems like the new -law that we are amending to comply with is less restrictive on parking,
but more restrictive on the amount;of square footage that -can -be constructed on an ADU. He adds in the old law it is
a maximum=offiftypercent, of the primary residence or 1,200 square feet but the new one breaks it down to 850-1,000
square feet,;
Planning tEconomic Development,Manager Valenzuela stated the new law is more lenient because you can build at
least an 800,spare foot ADU.
Commissioner4Tartg'asked for clarificPtion.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained that if fifty percent of the main house is at 500
square feet, you can build up;to 800 square feet, so it is more lenient.
Commissioner Vuong asked what the minimum requirement for a regular single-family dwelling unit is, because the
way he reads this is an ADU could be potentially be more than 800 -1,200 square feet, so how would you differentiate
this ADU from a regular dwelling unit.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained for example if the single-family home is 1,000
square feet and they are building an attached ADU, fifty percent of 1,000 square feet is 500 square feet, so technically
they can build up to 800 square feet for the ADU, and the single-family home would have to comply with the city
standards of R-1 and R-2.
10
Chair Eng referred to the Draft Ordinance No.995 and stated there are some corrections that are needed. She referred
to page 4 of the draft ordinance 17.30.190 and read the title "Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and asked staff if Junior
ADU's should also be addressed in this section.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied no, because staff has added an additional section
towards the end that addresses it.
Chair Eng read the titles of sections A -F and asked if section "D" is JADUs and if section "E" was Revocations.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that is correct.
Chair Eng asked if item "F" is for existing ADUs.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes:
Chair Eng stated that will need to be added back into the sectionand is a mechanical correction needed.
Panning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela agreed::,,
Chair Eng asked if the difference between an ADU and a JADU is�that a JADU is limited to a maximum of 500 square
feet and must be attached to an existing dwelling��
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valen uela replied that is correct.
Chair Eng asked if it is required to have -a_separate entea(nce,
Planning & Economic Devel 'pmdnt Manager`Valenzueia replied it does.
Chair Eng asked if the JADU, would require a,separate sanitatlon facility or can they share from the existing structure
and inquired about cookingvfacdities.
Planning Development Manager Valenzuela replied that the JADU would require an efficiency kitchen and
the sani66 facility can be shared by the,main home.
Chair Eng,asked what an efficienj ,kitchen-is.v >
Planning & )Ecoriomic Developmept Manager Valenzuela replied that Associate Planner Lao can read the State's
definition of an efficient kitchen and commented that the State has reviewed the city's draft ordinance, which is a
requirement, and is,safrsfied with it-/
Associate Planner Lao \read.* efficiency kitchen would include cooking facilities with appliances, and a food
preparation counter with storage cabinets, that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU.
Chair Eng asked under this draft ordinance and new state law, is there a maximum total combined square footage for
an ADU plus a JADU.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied for a regular ADU the maximum if allowed is 800
square feet, which must be allowed. For the JADU it is 500 square feet and must be attached to the existing home. For
example, if they meet the standards, they can build bigger, and cities can allow up to 1,200 square feet.
11
Chair Eng asked if that is for the ADU plus the 500 square feet for the JADU.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes.
Chair Eng asked if the ADU and JADUs under the existing state law are they subject FAR requirements or are they
outside.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied ADUs and JADUs cannot be restricted from being
constructed if they do not meet FAR.
Chair Eng asked if they are subject to the FAR of a property. ,
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied they are,not.
Commissioner Tang stated but a single-family home is.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela gave`an�example, if a house is at forty percent FAR with the
design incentives, the city must still allow them to build an80Q�sq'uare feet ADI .
Commissioner Tang asked what if they do not meet the setbacks.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied they will'still have to meet the four feet setbacks.
Chair Eng commented that the setbacks are the guiding'factor o see if it is,feasib�e to build an 800 square feet ADU.
Commissioner Tang stated so it,cannot,be restricted because of;, FAR, but you cannot build a house that is abutting
against your neighbor's house,
Planning & Economic Development Manager Walenzuela'rteolied that is correct and it must be four feet.
r
Commissioner Tang gave a scenario regadng.the FAR on an 000 square foot home and asked if it meets the setbacks,
it does not really natter.
Planning &. Economic Development Manager Valenzuela agreed.
Chair Eng�::asked if any feedback has been,received from property owners or developers since the Public Notice has
been senttout regarding this proposed ordinance.
Planning & Economic,pevelopment MlanagerValenzuela replied that because more than 1,000 properties are impacted
a Public Notice was -publicized in a newspaper and it is not required to be mailed out.
Commissioner Tang commented that it will be interesting and incumbent for staff to help design developments, so that
it flows with the community character.
Planning & Economic Development Manger Valenzuela stated that is something staff has been doing and luckily the
designers and property owners have been working with them.
Commissioner Tang asked if it would then be too restrictive if we say we need to add design requirements to it.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated that the state allows them to incorporate some design
12
criteria's and some of things are like making sure the ADU matches the single-family home. She added other
requirements like increasing the setback is not allowed.
Chair Tang asked what the process is if staff would ever run into a situation where there is a nonconforming property
and they wanted to construct an ADU.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that the first step is compliance, however, this new
law has helped with Code Enforcement cases, such as garage conversions.
Chair Eng asked if a property can have both an ADU and a JADU.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, if it is a.single=family home.
Chair Eng asked if only the JADU has an owner -occupied requirement.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes,'and a covenant he eds,to be recorded as an
added requirement. She explained that is to ensure that the owner `ill occupy the home.
Vice -Chair Lopez asked how the city will monitor this.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied we will just'do our best.
Chair Eng referred to the Impact Fee and under,** current state law if an ADU is less than 750 square feet an Impact
Fee may not be imposed, however if it exceeds thatstaff has come up with\a formula. She stated the square footage
is subject to the Impact Fee and asked if the 750 is subtracted from the proposed ADU and if the portion that exceeds
the 750 is when the Impact Fee is calculated. She \ feered to page four, in the staff report under Development Impact
Fees.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela' explained that if it is less than 750 square feet, Development
Impact Fees may not bet6heFted.
'1
Chair Eng asked staff _how thatfee:is calculated ifit exceeds:7$0 square feet.
Commissioner'Tang asked,lif credit will be,given for the 750 square feet.
Planning &Economic Develop%erit Manager Valenzuela replied they do not get credit. She referred to page five of
the staff report\pnd read the fee calculations."
Chair Eng askedif someone is building an ADU for 900 square feet, because it exceeds 750 square feet the whole
900 square feet would be subject toa Development Impact Fee.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes.
Chair Eng referred to the chart regarding bedrooms and asked if the number of bedrooms will no longer be indicated
for ADUs and JADUs.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that is correct.
Chair Eng read under the Proposed Ordinance it states, "Bedrooms shall conform to standard Building Code
requirements" and asked under the Building Code what qualifies as a bedroom.
13
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied Building Code requires a bedroom size to be a
minimum of 70 square feet.
Chair Eng asked if the new state law combined the square footage of an ADU (800 sq. ft.) and JADU (500 sq. ft.) to
add up to 1,300 square feet.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied they can technically. She added staff would like to
clarify although the state allows 1,200 square feet, they are limiting 850 square feet for a one bedroom and anything
more than a one bedroom is limited to 1,000 square feet. She explained the state does allow the city to have a
maximum size.
Chair Eng asked staff the reason for that proposal.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained this Would alloWjor more open space, more
distance between buildings, and more setbacks.
Commissioner Tang asked if it is fifty percent, 850, or 1,000, or whichever is lower.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied,whichever, is lower, if it is attached
Commissioner Tang asked which is it if it is detached.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied it is 850.or 1,.000 square feet.
Associate Planner Lao added that it can be 800 square feet also.
Chair Eng added it is 500 square feet if they,pre adding a\JADU:
t
Vice -Chair Lopez stated that/is based on what}is available orltheir lot size.
Commissioner Tang commented thatIs not what is stated in the definition, the definition in the staff report on page
three, states whichever is less �follolwirtg the 1,200 square, feet.,
Planning.A.Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated the Ordinance has specific requirements.
Chair Eng -asked the Planning Commissiowif there were any other questions or comments for staff.
Commissionbr,Berry commented that this will allow staff to make sure ADUs and JADUs are in compliance and address
illegal units. r
Vice -Chair Lopez commented his doncern is that setbacks and abutting walls may be problematic.
Commissioner Tang asked Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo if it would be possible to have an informal
update in six to eight months, so that the Planning Commission may be better informed on what these impacts may be
in the future.
Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo replied yes.
Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and asked if there is anyone on-line wishing to speak on this item. See None
and Public Hearing was closed. She asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments for
staff.
14
Commissioner Tang asked where the Development Impacts Fees go, is there is a special fund it goes to, or how does
it work.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied the Development Impact Fees go towards open
space, parks, and a little is allocated to traffic. She added QUIMBY is also calculated into the DIF Fees now.
Commissioner Tang asked if it is then designated into a special fund or is it part of a general fund and gets allocated
in that way.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied it goes into a fund incase the city would like to build
a park or something.
Chair Eng asked if there are any other follow-up questions or comments ,Vvith,,norie,she asked for a motion for
Municipal Code Amendment 20-01.
Vice -Chair Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tang, to Adopt ReW, 9n No. 20.03 with
findings, a resolution recommending that the City Cou`ncil' adopt Ordinance No. 995�foi a Approval of
Municipal Code Amendment 20-01.'�`
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Berry, Eng, Lopez"Ting, and Wong
No: None
Abstain: None
Y
Absent: None
Community Development Director Frausto7LUpo stated�the,motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes and
explained the 10 -day appe, l[ rocess. r A.
i
4. CONSENT CALENDAR �
A. P.0 MINUTES 3w2-20
Commissioner Berry made�4 motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Lopez, to approve PC Minutes 3-2-20 as
presefi d
Vote resulted�jin
1,
Ayes: �' �, Berry, Eng, Lopez, Tang, and Wong
Noes: No"
Abstain: '-Norte
Absent: None
Community Development Director stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes
5. MATTERS FROM STAFF
A. PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT LIST
15
Chair Eng thanked staff for the Planning Division Project List and commented COVID-19 has not stopped staff from
working hard. She referred to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and there are a couple of projects looking at six -stories
and 70 feet in height, she asked if that is the maximum height permitted under the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied the maximum height is 75 feet and it allows for a five
feet architectural feature.
Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo announced this is Chair Eng's last Planning Commission meeting,
thanked her commitment for serving as a Planning Commissioner, and presented her with a Certificate of Appreciation
for her service.
6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Berry thanked staff for working during the Covid-19 pandemic -and wished, everyone well.
Vice -Chair Lopez congratulated Chair Eng and wished her well.
Commissioner Tang asked staff what the city can do to aggressively attract and,improve more development. He asked
if it would be possible to get some one-on-one meetings in, regard to CDBG+Unds and Block Grarlf; how they are
obtained, and what they are used for, to get a better understanding, He asked,since Redevelopment Funds are not
available, how can the city get more creative and aggressive'to encourage more development, and suggested
brainstorming to come up with ideas/incentives to see what will work. He addressed Chair Eng and told her it has been
quite a journey working with her for the past tvvo years, hues to see he�go, and thanked her for her service.
Chair Eng thanked Commissioner Tang. She commented that,she has served the Planning Commission for eleven
years and it is time to allow someone else to have the oppoqunity:to serve and have an impact.
Commissioner Vuong asked staffif any small businesse have requested to participate in the CDBG Funds Programs
during this pandemic, are, there efforts to �,0 it more readily available, and changing the requirements to make it a
little bit more attractive because a lot of smalhusinesses are struggling right now. He also asked if the city also uses
CDBG Funds for First-Tirne,.Homebuyers;Program, is there apypne that has used that program, and it is really been
maximizing the use of. CDBG Fgnds: Helthanked` Chair.Eng for serving the community, wished her luck, and stated it
has been apleasure working with her.
Chair En`g��thanked Commissioner Vuor�g"'staff, and her fellow Planning Commissioners for their support. She
expressed,Jt,has been an honor te,,serve as the Chair for the past year, acknowledged and stated she appreciates
staffs hadwork, and for making their job as a Planning Commissioner rewarding. She stated most importantly, thank
you staff for helping property and business owners realize their dreams and goals in Rosemead. She added without
staff, their hard'work>and constantly;being there for them, their dreams and visions would not have been able to be
realized. She shared that this is/,hef last Planning Commission meeting and stated it has been great privilege to work
with all past and present Plannjng Commissioners. She has learned a lot from staff in the last eleven years and
cherishes the opportunity to'have been a small part of the progress in making Rosemead better and prettier. She
wished the new prospective Planning Commissioner applicants' good luck and thanked them for taking the time to
serve. Chair Eng stated best wishes to everyone, stay safe, stay healthy, and take care of each other.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:21 pm.
W.
The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, July 6, 2020, at 7:00 pm in the
Council Chamber.
Nancy Eng
Chair
ATTEST:
Rachel Lockwood,
Commission Secretary
17
�t
17
Attachment E
Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-03
PC RESOLUTION 20-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.
995 FOR THE APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 20-01
(MCA 20-01), AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD
MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH NEW STATE PROVISIONS FOR
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs).
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed State laws
(Assembly Bill 68, Assembly Bill 881, and Senate Bill 13), which amended Government
Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 pertaining to local regulations for ADUs;
WHEREAS, local ordinances that are not compliant with the new state provisions
are null and void as of January 1, 2020, after which time such jurisdiction must apply the
standards in Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 until a compliant local
ordinance is adopted;
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead's current Municipal Code conflicts with the
regulations specified in Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22;
WHEREAS, amendments to Title 17 (Zoning), specifically RMC Sections
17.04.050 (Definitions) and 17.30.190 (Accessory Dwelling Units) are necessary to
update requirements for the establishment of ADUs in conformance with Government
Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22;
WHEREAS, Section 17.152.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the
criteria for a Zoning Code Amendment;
WHEREAS, Sections 65854 and 65855 of the California Government Code and
Section 17.152.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the Planning
Commission to review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding
amendments to the City's Zoning Code;
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2020, a notice was published in the Rosemead Reader
and notices were posted in five public locations, specifying the availability of the proposal,
and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for MCA 20-01;
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2020 the Planning Commission meeting was cancelled
and the duly noticed and advertised public hearing was postponed due to the County of
Los Angeles' issued curfew;
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2020, a notice was published in the Rosemead Reader
and notices were posted in five public locations, specifying the availability of the proposal,
and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for MCA 20-01;
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2020, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to MCA 20-01; and
WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all
testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Rosemead as follows:
SECTION 1. Under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the adoption of an
ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of section 65852.2 of the
Government Code, which is California's ADU law and which also regulates JADUs, as
defined by section 65852.22. Therefore, MCA 20-01 is statutorily exempt from CEQA in
that the proposed ordinance implements the State's ADU law.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that
facts do exist to justify approving Municipal Code Amendment 20-01, in accordance with
Section 17.152.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any
applicable specific plan;
FINDING: The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, as Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(8), provides that
an accessory dwelling unit that conforms to [the applicable] subdivision shall be deemed
to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed
the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a
residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations
for the lot.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and
FINDING: The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, as ADUs are currently permitted in the
Zoning Code. The State legislature has identified that the California housing shortage is
a significant statewide issue. The State believes that increasing the development of
ADUs and JADUs is one approach to address the housing crisis. To comply with State
law, the proposed revisions would bring the ADU Ordinance into full compliance with
State law.
2
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable
provisions of [the] Zoning Code.
FINDING: The City of Rosemead's current ADU Ordinance does not comply with
the new State provisions for ADUs, and is therefore, deemed null and void. MCA 20-01
is intended to bring Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code up to compliance
with State legislation regarding the development and conversion of ADUs in the City. The
proposed amendment would adopt new standards for ADUs, in accordance with the
provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. The amendment would
also provide clarity and consistency for the regulation of ADUs throughout Title 17
(Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS City Council
adoption of Ordinance No. 995 for the approval of MCA 20-01, an amendment to Title 17
(Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code comply with the new State provisions for
accessory dwelling units.
SECTION 4. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on June 15, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
BERRY, ENG, LOPEZ, TANG, AND WONG
NOES:
NONE
ABSENT:
NONE
ABSTAIN:
NONE
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall
transmit copies of same to the Rosemead City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of June, 2020.
Nancy Eng, Chair
3
CERTIFICATION
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 15th day of June,
2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
BERRY, ENG, LOPEZ, TANG, AND VUONG
NOES:
NONE
ABSENT:
NONE
ABSTAIN:
NONE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Angelica Frausto-Lup , Secretary
Christina Burrows, Planning Commission Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
4