Jessica Cejnar Andrews / Thursday, Aug. 10, 2023 @ 4:20 p.m. / Infrastructure, Local Government
Crescent City's ADU Ordinance Gets First Reading; Councilors Uphold Short-term Rental Restrictions
Photo: Joiedevivre123321 via Wikimedia Commons. Creative Commons License.
Previously:
###
Just before he voted to approve an ordinance prohibiting most accessory dwelling units, or granny flats, from being used as vacation rentals, Blake Inscore brought up property rights, local control and “the responsibility of good governance.”
Earlier at Monday’s Crescent City Council meeting, the mayor pro tem introduced his colleagues to California Assembly Bill 399, which adds an extra step for water agencies trying to get out from under the umbrella of a larger governing body. Inscore urged his colleagues to oppose the bill, saying there’s already an established process — the County Water Authority Act — that’s worked well since 1943.
Inscore pointed out that the Crescent City Council has always favored local control and any overlap with county and state government that affects what the city can do “is not the way we think governance should be.”
In the case of accessory dwelling units, Inscore and his colleagues said while they would normally champion for private property rights, they can’t ignore the dire need for affordable housing.
“We’re losing high paying professionals in our community who cannot find a place to live,” Inscore said. “The whole purpose of the ADU law was to create housing stock and I just feel like I need to be honest and transparent. At one level, I say we got to keep local control. But we also need local regulation and sometimes finding that balance isn’t always easy. But, boy do we need housing.”
Inscore and his colleagues unanimously approved the new accessory dwelling unit regulations. A local ADU ordinance was initially discussed in November 2022 after councilors learned that the city’s 6th Cycle Housing Element recommended an approach that would allow property owners to check certain boxes for them to receive a permit.
The draft ordinance City Attorney Martha Rice introduced councilors to in June and revised in July is based on that ministerial approach with some caveats.
The new regulations allow ADUs to be principally permitted in residential areas outside the coastal zone. For property owners with ADUs that already exist, they must obtain a post-construction permit. ADUs built after Jan. 1, 2018 must be modified to comply with the new ordinance, though a property owner can apply to the Planning Commission for a variance if they can’t meet the new requirements.
Owners who built ADUs without a permit could be subject to nuisance abatement proceedings that include administrative fines. But they can request a delay in enforcement up to five years as long as their violation doesn’t violate the Health & Safety Code, Rice said.
“We give them the ability to comply (with the ordinance) so as to create more housing units,” she said.
In July, City Councilors directed Rice to include deed restriction requirements in the final ADU ordinance.
These restrictions prohibit most ADUs from being used as short-term rentals of less than 31 days. The only exception to this rule is with junior accessory dwelling units, which are built within an existing structure and can be no larger than 500 square feet.
JADUs must have an efficiency kitchen and an exterior entrance. The property owner must either live in the JADU or the primary dwelling, and if the JADU doesn’t have a bathroom the occupant must have access to bathroom facilities in the primary dwelling. Under the city ordinance, JADUs can be used as vacation rentals.
Separate utility connections for water and sewer are allowed, but not encouraged for ADUs. However, the city will charge a proportional fee to connect units to their water and sewer systems.
In July, Rice noted that hookup, or capacity fees, are not the same monthly charge the city’s water and sewer customers pay.
The ADU ordinance will come before the Crescent City Council for a second reading Sept. 5 and will take effect Oct. 4.
Last year when discussing the 6th Cycle Housing Element, which establishes goals, objectives and policies toward creating affordable housing, councilors learned the city needed space for at least 189 living units between 2022 and 2030.
Though no one spoke during the public comment portion of Monday’s discussion, Councilor Kelly Schellong said residents Susan Roberts, Tamera Leighton and Natalie Fahning were against short-term rentals and were in favor of restricting them because of the housing shortage.
Schellong pointed out that people making “good money” often struggle to pay their rent, which she said was ridiculous.
“Recently I was looking for a fellow friend that is looking for a home and rent for a two-bedroom is $1,700 and a 3-bedroom is $2,500,” she said. “People can’t afford that.”
Greenough, who has promoted the rights of property owners and business owners in the past, said that he’s still torn on the city’s approach to regulating short-term rentals.
“But I understand why we’re doing what we’re doing and I will support how this is written,” Greenough said Monday. “I will echo the same frustration: Housing is way too expensive and I think part of fixing that issue is creating more housing. I think this will help with that.”
As for AB 399, Greenough, Inscore and the rest of the City Council voted to send a letter of opposition to State Sen. Anna Caballero, chair of the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.
Currently, under the County Water Authority Act, if a water agency wants to detach itself from a larger county water authority, approval from a majority of its voters is needed to make that happen.
Under AB 399, majority approval from the larger authority is required in addition to the vote from the detaching water agency in order for it to become independent of the larger governing entity.
Inscore said the bill stems from a conflict in San Diego County, saying the assembly bill gives broader control over a smaller entity.
“This is not good legislation because it’s taking away that right for the people who elected the representatives and paid into this water district,” he said. “If they don’t want to be part of this any longer, they ought to have that right.”
CLICK TO MANAGE