Foothills Sentry March 2021

Foothills Sentry Page 2 March 2021 Gary Sheatz advised that the Mu- nicipal Code did not contain ad- equate definitions of ADUs, and that an ordinance was needed to boost the city’s ability to legally prohibit the remodeling of houses into dorms. The state had given local jurisdictions a little wiggle room on ADUs, and the ordi- nance would reflect that. Emergency response The day before the Planning Commission was slated to approve the new ADU ordinance, the city called an emergency council meeting to enact a second ordinance to limit the number of bedrooms and bathrooms that could be added to homes on small lots, provide legal definitions of “dormitory,” “primary residence” and “student housing,” and revise the definition of “bedrooms” and “boarding houses.” The urgency ordinance, passed by a unanimous vote, was effec- tive immediately and will extend for at least 45 days to give the city time to consider and adopt stan- dards to curb the “mansioniza- tion” of homes in single-family neighborhoods. The ordinance is essentially a moratorium on re- modeling activity. “Addressing this issue calls for a multi-faceted approach,” City Manager Rick Otto explained. “The urgency ordinance is one spoke in the wheel.” Another spoke is the city’s tailored ADU ordinance, reflect- ing allowable “deviations” from state regulation. Those deviations include size, height, setbacks, number of bedrooms, design stan- dards, building separation and deed restrictions. Elbow room Orange’s ordinance limits two bedroom ADUs to 1,000 sq. ft., and one-bedroom units to 850 sq. ft. They cannot exceed 16 feet in height; structures larger than 800 sq. ft. must be set back in accor- dance with current city code. All ADUs are limited to 50% of the size of the primary dwelling, or 800 sq. ft., whichever is larger. Junior ADUs (separate living quarters inside the primary struc- ture) must have separate sani- tation and a separate entrance. While the state does not require parking spaces for ADUs, the city can insist that a Junior ADU built in a converted garage must have a replacement parking space. In addition, Orange is expand- ing the definition of ADU to pro- hibit exterior access, wetbars, sinks or microwaves in multiple bedrooms. An ADU must have a common living area and kitchen. Individual rooms cannot be ad- vertised for rent. Anything that does not comply will be consid- ered a boarding house. Call it what it is The term “accessory” is de- fined to ensure that the ADU re- mains secondary to the primary residence. An ADU cannot be sold as a separate property. The new ordinance is intended to reflect the state’s intent to increase affordable housing. City staff reported that four ADU permits were issued in 2019, and over 40 in the last year. Some are for the intended purpose, others are by “bad actors.” “There are always players who will work the system to their ad- vantage,” Sheatz advised. “We have to zig when they zag.” See "Dorms" continued from page 1 Short-term rentals in Orange get a policy pardon By Tina Richards The Orange City Council re- versed its decision to ban short- term rentals in the city during a special meeting, Feb. 23, opting instead to regulate them. The council’s 4-3 vote to res- urrect a regulatory ordinance ap- proved by the planning commis- sion last August came at the end of a marathon five-hour meeting, wherein a barrage of written and live public comments displayed overwhelming support for STRs. The topic was the sole item on the February 23 agenda. It had been continued from Jan. 12 to Feb. 8 and then again because the coun- cil ran out of time to address it during those meetings. Because this meeting was a continuation from January, written public com- ments were read aloud as they had been at that time. The purpose of the meeting was to flesh out the details of a com- plete prohibition of STRs, how that would work, how it would be enforced and who would enforce it. A software company that al- ready does work for the city had been selected to track them. The prohibition option was the council’s default position last No- vember when it was preparing to approve an ordinance that regu- lated, not banned, STRs. With only four members on the council at that time, the vote in favor of the ordinance was 2-2, with Mark Murphy and Kim Nichols giving it the nod and Mike Alvarez and Chip Monaco opposing it. Since a majority vote was needed, the tie tabled the ordinance. The al- ternative, which Alvarez and Mo- naco firmly supported, was a ban. Now with a council of seven, the tide turned again. Instead of pursuing the prohibition, staff was directed to rework the ordi- nance that the council could have approved last fall. Modifications would include a ceiling for the number of STRs permitted and priorities for permits granted. Rental owners who lived on the premises would be top priority, with landlords who live in Or- ange, second. The rationale for Orange residency is that owners could get to the rental faster if needed. Shutting down “bad actors,” the percentage of rental owners whose properties draw the most complaints, is also a priority. In fact, getting rid of the problem properties was the one thing the council members agreed on. They just had different ideas about how to do that. Say no or let go Alvarez and Monaco stuck to the total ban option, with both noting that STRs were already illegal in the city and did not belong in residential neighbor- hoods. Nichols wanted to allow them, with restrictions against noise, parties, and limits on the number of guests. “Regulations would give us the mechanism to stop houses that are abusing our neighborhoods,” she said. “Ban- ning them would just exchange one problem for another.” Councilman Jon Dumitru sug- gested a one-year moratorium instead of creating a “piecemeal” policy. The city would then have time to develop a vetted, legally supportable and thoughtful ap- proach to STRs, followed by a systematic phase out if called for. Arianna Barrios agreed that the city needed more time to collect data and “figure it out.” “The trouble,” she said “is that staff let the horse out of the barn by issu- ing permits and collecting occu- pancy taxes until 2017. And then the city looked the other way.” She recommended launching a pi- lot program based on the planning commission ordinance. “Give it a year,” she offered, “and then make a considered final judgment to help all residents.” Ana Gutierrez asked City At- torney Gary Sheatz if the pilot program was viable. He said it was, but he preferred to “defend the position we’re in now rather than allow it to continue for a year.” “The risk,” he said “is how to put the genie back in the bot- tle.” Gutierrez suggested that the ge- nie was already out of the bottle. “We looked the other way. We allowed it to happen,” she noted. “That’s why we’re here now. We did nothing.” “I don’t believe we can outright ban this,” Mayor Mark Murphy advised. “We need the ability to deal with bad actors and pare down the number of STRs.” He ultimately recommended modify- ing the tabled ordinance with sug- gestions made during the coun- cil’s discussion. Murphy, Nichols, Gutierrez and Barrios voted yes; Alvarez, Monaco and Dumitru voted no. The revised ordinance will likely go back to the planning commission.