Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission recommends ADU zone-text amendment to align San Gabriel code with recent state laws
Summary
The commission recommended that the City Council approve ZTA26-002, a citywide zone text amendment to update San Gabriel's ADU and junior ADU rules to implement recent state statutes; the commission also asked staff to analyze a letter submitted to the record and present any recommended ordinance language to Council.
The San Gabriel Planning Commission on Feb. 9 voted to recommend the City Council approve ZTA26-002, a citywide zone text amendment that would revise the municipal code's treatment of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs to implement recent state law.
Associate Planner Marlon Cervantes summarized the proposed changes: updated definitions to clarify which structures qualify as multifamily for ADU limits; a revised gross-floor-area definition that excludes ADU exterior walls; an increase in the maximum number of detached ADUs allowed on lots with existing multifamily structures; removal of certain local owner-occupancy requirements for junior ADUs in accordance with state law; and new timelines and completeness requirements for application processing. Cervantes told the commission that the amendment is intended to implement multiple state bills and to make the city's code consistent with current law, including ministerial approval requirements.
Cervantes described specific provisions in the staff presentation, stating, "Senate bill 12 11 increases the maximum number of detached ADUs allowed on lots with an existing multifamily dwelling from 2 units to 8, not to exceed the number of units existing on the lot." He also described the timelines from another state measure that require a city to determine application completeness within 15 business days and to list missing items when an application is incomplete.
Staff told commissioners they had reviewed the amendment under CEQA and concluded, pursuant to the CEQA guidelines cited in the packet, that the zoning text amendment is not a project as defined in the guidelines and would not have a significant effect on the environment.
The city attorney informed the commission that staff had received a letter (submitted to the record before the meeting) raising several points about the proposal and recommended the commission, if it chose to forward the amendment, also direct staff to analyze the letter's points and present any suggested wording changes or responses to the City Council. Commissioners included that direction in the motion. The commission approved the recommendation by roll call (Commissioner Tang, Vice Chair McMorris and Chair Kratman voting yes; Commissioner Lee absent).
Next steps: The commission's resolution, the draft code language, and staff's analysis of the correspondence will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration and any final ordinance adoption.
