Calimesa planning commission recommends City Council review ADU zoning update (Ordinance 4 19)

The Calimesa Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council consider adoption of Ordinance 4 19, a zoning update that aligns the city's ADU, density-bonus and certain residential provisions with state law.

Kelly (staff) told the commission the city received one piece of public comment from the California Housing Defense Fund raising legal objections specific to the ADU provisions. "We did receive 1 item of public comment on tonight's public hearing. It was received from the California Housing Defense Fund, and they have a number of concerns regarding the ordinance's compliance with various provisions of state law, specifically as it relates to ADUs," Kelly said. The City Attorney will compare those objections to the proposed ordinance and suggest any necessary revisions prior to the council hearing.

Catherine, the City Attorney, outlined the commission's recommended action: "The recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend City Council adoption of ordinance 4 19, subject to necessary changes as recommended by the City Attorney after review of the legal objections raised during the public hearing tonight," she said. Catherine emphasized that the commission's vote is a recommendation; final action belongs to the City Council.

Staff presentation described the ordinance as largely aligning local code with state requirements rather than removing existing local safeguards. The presentation noted that residential care facilities would be allowed within residential zones and treated as residential uses while retaining the facilities' licensing and care requirements; large residential care facilities that serve seven or more residents would still be required to hold state licenses. The update also clarifies density-bonus processing to conform with state law.

The staff package also includes implementation materials intended to streamline permitting: an ADU guide that lists what is required and allowed for accessory units, a counter checklist tied to state streamlining (referred to in the transcript as "s p 35") to speed processing for qualifying projects, and a replacement-housing form that applicants must complete for projects that replace existing units; the transcript notes projects replacing five or more units may trigger replacement requirements.

During discussion, Commissioner Lewis and others expressed local-control concerns. "One of my concerns is that, you know, they're gonna be stacking up these ADUs ... they're stacking them up 2, 3 stories and, you know, these little residential lots have anywhere, like, 15 units on them sometimes," Lewis said, referencing development patterns he described seeing in San Diego. Another commissioner said a top concern is "the state stripping the power from the city" on zoning decisions.

After the discussion, an unidentified commissioner moved to adopt the City Attorney's recommended language as the Planning Commission's recommendation and another commissioner seconded the motion. The commission recorded a voice vote of "Aye" and the motion carried. Staff and the City Attorney said any revisions needed in response to the California Housing Defense Fund's letter will be made before the ordinance is presented to the City Council.

The item is scheduled for City Council consideration on Feb. 2. The Planning Commission's action is advisory; any final adoption decision will be made by the City Council at that hearing.