Communications Planning Commission April 19, 2017

Transcription

1 Communications Planning Commission April 19, 2017

2

3 Planning Commission, Permit Service Center 1947 Center Street 2 nd Floor Berkeley, Ca Re: PUBLIC HEARING TO CREATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN THE LIMITED TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-1A) DISTRICT. AMENDMENTS FOR SECOND UNITS IN THE R-1A DISTRICT I would like to draw your attention to the fact that many residential garages that were built in the 50 s and prior to that, were built on the property line or on two property lines. Perhaps the codes were different, and so this was permitted. But now, with existing codes, homeowners who would like to convert a garage to a cottage/in-law as a living space will be unable to do so. This will severely limit the ability of many homeowners to add an in-law to their property. I suggest that in the event that a garage is situated on a property line that is not too close to another home owner s building, that the code be changed according to each situation so that there is more flexibility with the result being that more home owners have the right to build on the property lines. I would like the planning commission to seriously consider new guidelines for the property line building codes to enable more homeowners to add an additional legal unit and to allow existing structures to remain in place without onerous changes or penalties. I also suggest that the parking requirements be relaxed so that homeowners do not have to provide off the street parking for these new small units. Thank your for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Dorothea Dorenz Berkeley, Ca

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 Wednesday, April 19, 2017 To: Planning Commission Colleagues and Planning Commission Staff From: Gene Re: I) Dates of R1A Council Referrals and Planning Commission consideration; II) Next Step in the R-1A process and III) Notice of Hearing specific items: -Lot size, Height of detached second units, Rear and side yard setbacks for detached second units, and Distance between main buildings. I) ) Dates of R1A Council referrals and Planning Commission consideration The issues of R-1A in terms of the problem of the second unit go back many years. The original R-1A when adopted in 1963 limited the second unit in size to 700 square feet. The following are the referrals and Planning Commission discussion of R-1A: 1) City Council Referral to Planning Commission. Councilmembers Moore, Capitelli and Wengraf, September 21, 2010; 2) Council Referral to Planning Commission. Councilmember Maio, July 14, 2015; 3) ZAB to Council and Planning Commission, March 31, 2016; 3) Planning Commission consideration, April 20, 2016 ; 4) Planning Commission consideration, September 21, 2016; 5) Planning Commission consideration, January 18, 2017; 8) Planning Commission consideration. February 15, 2017; and now tonight April 19, 2017, almost a year from the first Planning Commission consideration, April 20, II. Next Step for R-1A process--get R-1A issues to the City Council. The role of the Planning Commission must be to get issues and recommendations to the City Council. It is at the City Council where the real decisions are going to be made. This is not simply because the Council is where final decisions are made but also because it can be argued that the Council is much more experienced and knowledgeable concerning R-1A than the Planning Commission is at this time. The City Council has a wealth of relevant interest and experience with regard to R-1A. Councilmember Maio coauthored an R-1A referral to the Planning Commission and has in her Council District a large area of R-1A both East and West. Councilmember Davila represents District 2 which includes the other large R-1A West area. Council member Bartlett served on the Planning Commission in 2016 when the Planning Commission considered R-1A, Councilmember Hahn has a segment of R-1A (East) in her 6th District, and served for years on the ZAB when several of the R-1A projects were heard (ZAB experience is of major importance in evaluating amendments to the Zoning Ordinance). Councilmember Wengraf co-authored the original Council referral and served for over a decade on the Planning Commission. Mayor Arreguin served for several years on ZAB. III. Notice of Hearing specific items -1) Lot size; 2) Height of detached second units; 3) Rear and side yard setbacks for detached second units and (4) Distance between main buildings. 1) Lot size. Context: The lot size figures discussed with regard to this issue are changing minimum lot size from 4,500 SF to 5,000 SF for allowing a second dwelling unit. As it is now with 4,500 SF for a second dwelling unit, R- 1A is denser than R-2 which requires 5,000 SF.

16 My recommendation.: Change to 5,000 square feet. 2) Height of detached second unit. Context: The height of the second unit has been the most contentious issue in R-1A. Every referral involves this issue. There are two aspects involved, the height of the second dwelling unit and the limitation of this height to rear dwelling unit (where almost all the problems have occurred. ) A development standard of 14 feet, one story, for rear dwelling units would alleviate this serious problem. The 14 feet, one story is also the maximum height for the ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) by right figure. My recommendation: 14 feet for dwelling units in the rear yard. 3) Rear and side yard setbacks for detached second units (and the elimination of separate East and West R- 1A districts). Context: The second most contentious issue in R-1A zoning has been the reduction of the rear yard setback below 20 feet in the West R-1A. The East R-1A (as well as the R-1) does not allow a rear yard setback reduction. The elimination of the rear yard setback in the West R-1A has almost always been coupled in Planning Commission discussions with the elimination of the two R-1A residential districts, West and East. This is because the only difference between them is the rear setback. (The side yard setbacks should also be the same because to retain the reduction in side yard setbacks in West R-1A would mean to continue separate West and East districts.) My recommendation: Make one R-1A district with non-reducible setbacks 4) Distance between main buildings. (12, 14, or 16 feet) Context: The key relevance of this figure is that at the present time there is no development standard in R-1A for distance between buildings as there is in R-2 (8 feet) and even in R-2A and R-3. To have such a requirement would mean an enhancement of the usability of open space in R-1A which conforms to the first Purpose of the R-1A zoning. A. Recognize and protect the existing pattern of low medium density residential areas characterized by reasonable open and spacious type of development in Accordance with Master Plan Policy It should be remembered that this separation distance between R-1A dwelling units is the back yard of the front unit and also the front yard of the back unit. My recommendation: At least 14 feet.

17

18

19 Stormwater Permit Update Green Infrastructure Planning and Approval Fact Sheet Summary The reissued Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP 2), which went into effect on January 1, 2016, includes a new requirement for each jurisdiction to prepare a Green Infrastructure Plan, in which each jurisdiction will show it can meet targets for the amount of impervious area to receive stormwater treatment by milestone years 2020, 2030, and The plan must be approved by each jurisdiction. Contents of This Fact Sheet This fact sheet provides the following information: What is green infrastructure? Purpose of Green Infrastructure Plans How this differs from previous requirements Countywide and regional collaboration Key required actions Schedule of key tasks for local agencies Contact information What is Green Infrastructure? Green infrastructure manages stormwater using vegetation, soils, cisterns, and natural processes. At the scale of a city or county, green infrastructure refers to the patchwork of natural areas that provides flood protection, cleaner water, and other benefits. At the scale of a neighborhood or site, green infrastructure refers to stormwater management systems that mimic nature by soaking up and storing water (also referred to as low impact development, or LID). Purpose of Green Infrastructure Plans Green Infrastructure Plans are intended to: Set goals for reducing, over the long term, adverse water quality impacts of urbanization on receiving waters; and Serve as an implementation guide and reporting tool to provide reasonable assurance that pollutant load allocations will be met. Rain garden -- Example of green infrastructure in Emeryville Relationship to Pre-Existing Requirements The previous version of the MRP required the implementation of stormwater treatment systems in development projects that meet certain size thresholds. Those requirements continue; the new Green Infrastructure Plan requirements add the need for agencies to seek opportunities for green infrastructure measures in projects smaller than the established size thresholds. Each agency s Green Infrastructure Plan will include projects that will meet goals for reducing water quality impacts of urbanization, and move towards the targets for the amount of impervious area to receive stormwater treatment, and targets for reductions for mercury and PCBs. The green infrastructure planning process will account for: Planned and potential projects required to include green infrastructure (private development and capital improvements) Past projects, as indicated in MRP 2 Additional projects may also be required in order to meet targets for the amount of impervious area to receive stormwater treatment Countywide Collaboration Many green infrastructure planning tasks that are not specific to individual agencies will be led by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (Clean Water Program), a consortium of the 15 municipalities in the County (including unincorporated County), the Flood Control District, and Zone 7 Water Agency. April 2016

20 Regional Collaboration Green infrastructure planning tasks with a regional focus will be implemented through the Clean Water Program s participation in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). Key Required Actions Anticipated Countywide Clean Water Program Tasks Prepare a Framework template that describes specific tasks and time frames for completing local Green Infrastructure Plans. Develop countywide data management mechanism to guide the identification, mapping, prioritization, implementation, tracking, and reporting of green infrastructure projects. Support the development of equitable agencyspecific targets for the amount of impervious surface to receive stormwater treatment by 2020, 2030, Prepare draft design and construction guidelines, standard specifications, and typical details for agency use. Provide guidance on funding options. Prepare a Green Infrastructure Plan template. Anticipated Local Agency-Led Tasks By June 30, 2017 the Framework for completing local Green Infrastructure Plans (drafted by the Clean Water Program and customized by the local agency) must be approved by the local agency s governing body, mayor, city manager, or county manager. Use the mechanism prepared by the Clean Water Program, or locally-developed mechanism or tool, to identify projects and complete a local Green Infrastructure Plan by September Evaluate, identify and prioritize funding options. Planted curb extension -- green infrastructure in Union City Rain garden example of green infrastructure in Albany Update existing planning documents to include green infrastructure requirements. Update capital improvement project planning and procedures to implement green infrastructure requirements. Establish an appropriate legal mechanism (such as an ordinance or policy) to require Green Infrastructure Plan implementation. Plan, prioritize, implement, track, and report on green infrastructure projects. Anticipated Regional BASMAA Tasks Develop a regional approach for small projects in which constraints preclude full hydraulic sizing required by the MRP. Develop regionally-consistent project tracking methods. Schedule of Key Tasks for Local Agencies Fall 2016 (suggested): Provide to local governing body for review a Draft Framework that describes specific tasks and time frames for completing the local Green Infrastructure Plan. Spring 2017 (required): Governing body must approve the Framework by June 30, September 30, 2019 (required): Deadline for submitting complete Green Infrastructure Plans to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Contact Information For more information, please contact: Local Agency Stormwater Manager Tracy Clay 510/ tclay@cityofberkeley.info Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program: 510/ , A Consortium of Local Agencies Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City, Alameda County, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 Water Agency