Attachment F
HCD Comment Summary
34-68
Table 1 below summarizes the comments received by HCD as part of their review of the City’s ADU ordinance and identifies how the City proposes to address those comments.
The comments received by HCD are intended to guide the City in addressing the State ADU law changes that went into effect on March 27, 2024, and January 1, 2025.
Table 1. HCD Letter Summary
Comment
# HCD Comment Proposed Revision
Explanation
1 Remove reference to
“legally established” from
the ordinance.
“Required to correct legally
established nonconforming
zoning condition(s), building
code violation(s), and/or
unpermitted structure(s) that
do/does not present a threat
to public health and
safety…”
State ADU Law prohibits cities
from denying a permit for an
ADU/JADU to correct
nonconforming violations
whether or not the
nonconformity was legally
established.
2 Add note of the
exception for units under
Government Code
Section 66323.
“…units as provided in this
section and California
Government Code Section
66323…”
66323 Units are protected and
not subject to additional
development standards
outside of State ADU Law.
3 Remove the restriction
on the combination of
66323 Units that can be
constructed.
“Maximum Number of
Accessory Dwelling Units
Allowed. Unless precluded
by Government Code
Section 66323 Tthe
following”
66323 Units are protected and
multiple ADUs/JADUs may be
built on a single property,
therefore, a reference to State
ADU Law is included.
4 Remove the restriction
on parcels for multi-unit
“lots” to align with the
Building Code definition.
No change required.
The NBMC already defines
“lot” for the purpose of a multi-
unit development. The building
code definition of “lot” is not
codified in State ADU Law and
therefore not applicable.
5 Remove requirements
that ADUs conform to
underlying zoning
standards, and ‘other’
unspecified provisions
not in the ADU
ordinance.
Development Standards.
Except as modified by this
subsection or authorized by
California Government Code
Section 66317 and 66323,
an accessory dwelling
unit…”
State ADU Law allows a local
jurisdiction to impose objective
standards on ADUs and
JADUs, with the exception of
ADUs and JADUs that are
specifically protected under
Section 66323 of the
Government Code (i.e. 66323
Units).
6 Specify that building and
demolition
permits are reviewed
and issued concurrently
No change required.
This section relates to the
replacement of existing
detached garages with ADUs.
34-69
for JADUs that replace
detached garages.
JADUs are not permitted to
replace detached garages,
therefore, this comment does
not apply.
7 Clarify the height
limitations to ensure
building heights and
stories for attached
ADUs are not restricted.
No change required.
The City’s existing ADU
Ordinance is more permissive
than State ADU Law.
Imposing the requested
amendment would impose a
height limit that is lower than
currently permitted by the
underlying zoning districts.
8 Add note of the
exception for units under
Government Code
Section 66323 to not
limit the size of detached
ADU on lots with
multifamily dwellings.
“Development Standards.
Except as modified by this
subsection or authorized by
California Government Code
Section 66317 and 66323,
an accessory dwelling
unit…”
66323 Units are protected and
not subject to additional
development standards
outside of State ADU Law.
9 Cite the California
Building Code to
regulate the minimum
size for ADUs and
JADUs.
“…minimum size of an
accessory dwelling unit or
junior accessory dwelling
unit shall be at least that of
an efficiency unit or as
required by the California
Building Code (CBC).”
JADUs may be smaller in
some cases than an
“efficiency unit” as defined by
the CBC. Therefore, a
reference to the CBC is
included to determine the
minimum size required for a
JADU.
10 Exclude JADUs from
replacement parking
requirements.
“No Replacement Parking
Necessary. Outside the
coastal zone, when a
garage, carport, or covered
parking structure covered or
uncovered parking space is
demolished in conjunction
with the construction of an
accessory dwelling unit at
the same location or
converted to an accessory
dwelling unit, those off-street
parking spaces are not
required to be replaced.
Outside the coastal zone,
when a garage is
demolished in conjunction
with the construction of a
junior accessory dwelling
unit at the same location or
converted to a junior
accessory dwelling unit, that
off-street parking space is
not required to be replaced.
Accessory dwelling units and
or junior accessory dwelling
Replacement parking for
JADU garage conversions is
not required per Government
Code Section 66334,
therefore, a new sentence is
introduced to provide clarity. In
addition, no changes to Title
21 are proposed given that
replacement parking in the
coastal zone is required for
both ADUs and JADUs (as
permitted by State Law).
34-70
unit shall not displace
required uncovered parking
spaces Refer to Section
21.48.200(F)(8)(e) for
replacement parking in the
coastal zone.”
11 Amend to allow for the
sale or separate
conveyance of ADUs
established by a non-
profit.
“No Separate Conveyance.
Except as authorized in
California Government Code
66341,. Aan accessory
dwelling…”
There is a very narrow
exception in State ADU Law
that requires cities to allow
separate conveyance (i.e.
separate sale) of ADUs for
non-profits.
12 Remove owner
occupancy restrictions
for ADUs.
No change required.
This revision is not necessary
given the existing ADU
ordinance does not require
owner occupancy of ADUs,
and specifies that owner
occupancy is only required for
JADUs.
13 Remove the requirement
of a deed restriction on
ADUs.
“Prior to the issuance of a
building and/or grading
permit for an accessory
dwelling unit and/or junior
accessory dwelling unit, the
property owner shall record
a deed restriction with..”
and
“This deed restriction shall
remain in effect so long as
the accessory dwelling unit
and/or junior accessory
dwelling unit exists on the
lot.”
Deed restrictions will no longer
be required for ADUs. State
ADU Law only allows deed
restrictions to be required for
JADUs.
34-71