San Marcos City Council
September 10, 2024

ATTACHMENT A

PUBLIC COMMENT AND CITY RESPONSE

Jul 30, 2024
SanMarcosPlanningCommission1CivicCenterDriveSanMarcos,CA92069 ByEmail:[email protected]
CC:[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected] Re:ProposedAmendmenttotheCity’sAccessoryDwellingUnitRegulations DearSanMarcosPlanningCommission,
TheCaliforniaHousingDefenseFund(“CalHDF”)submitsthisletterasapubliccommentconcerningitem3ontheagendafortheAugust5, 2024,PlanningCommission meeting.Speciically,CalHDFwritestoflaganumberofareaswherethe proposedaccessorydwellingunit(“ADU”)andjunioraccessorydwellingunit(“JADU”)ordinanceviolatesstatelaw.

ImpermissibleNon-ObjectiveDevelopmentStandards
Gov.Code,§§66314and66315establishclearlythatonlyobjectivestandardsmaybeimposedonADUs.Section20.410.050oftheproposedordinanceviolatesstatelawbyimposingnon-objectivestandards,suchasbyrequiringthat“AllaccessorystructuresandADUsshallbearchitecturallycompatiblewithanyexistingdwellingunitonthesamelot”andthatthe“exteriordesignofallaccessorystructuresandADUsshallbeinharmonywithandmaintainthescaleoftheneighborhood.”Asitisimpossibleforanapplicanttoknowexantewhataplanexaminerwillconsider“architecturallycompatible,”“inharmonywith,”or“mainain[ing]thescaleoftheneighborhood,”thesearenotobjectivestandards.

ADUsProtectedbyGov.Code,§66323
Gov.Code,§66323createsaclassofADUsandJADUsthatmustbeallowedbytheCitywithouttheimpositionofdevelopmentstandardsotherthanbuildingcodestandardsandbasicheightandsetbackstandards.UnderGov.Code,§66323,localgovernments“shall 360GrandAve#323,[email protected]

ministeriallyapproveanapplication”foranADUsthatmeetfoursetsofcriteria. 1 Thisdutyapplies“NotwithstandingSections66314to66322,”whichimposesaministerialdutywithoutapplicationofdevelopmentstandardsallowedunder§§66314to66322.Theword“notwithstanding”indicatesalegislativeintenttooverrideallcontrarylaw.(Peoplev.Tillman(1999)73Cal.App.4th771,784–785.)Thereforeapplyinganydevelopmentstandardsnotcontainedin§66323toqualifyingADUsconflictswiththeministerialdutytoapproveestablishedunderthatsection.

Designstandards
Proposedcode§20.410.050violatesGov.Code,§66323byapplyingimpermissibledesignstandardstoADUsandJADUsotherwiseprotectedbyit. Code§20.410.050:

AllaccessorystructuresandADUsshallbearchitecturallycompatiblewithanyexistingdwellingunitonthesamelot.

1.AllaccessorystructuresandADUsshallusethesamebuildingmaterialsastheexistingprimarydwellingunitonthelotbyincorporatingthesameorsimilararchitecturalfeatures,buildingmaterials,andcolorastheprimarydwellingunitontheproperty.Thesefeaturesshallincluderooingmaterial,roofdesign,fascia,exteriorbuildinginish,color,exteriordoorsandwindows(includingratiosofwindowdimensions[i.e.,widthtoheight]andwindowareatowallarea),garagedoor,andarchitecturalenhancements.IftheaccessorystructureorADUdoesnotusethesamebuildingmaterialsastheexistingprimarydwellingunitonthelot,thearchitecturalfeaturesoftheprimarydwellingunitmaybemodiiedtomodernizethestructure,aslongastheaccessorystructureorADUmaintainsthesamebuildingmaterialsasthemodiiedprimarydwellingunit.

2.TheexteriordesignofallaccessorystructuresandADUsshallbeinharmonywithandmaintainthescaleoftheneighborhood.

Gov.Code,§66323doesnotpermittheimpositionofanylocaldevelopmentstandardsbeyondbasicsideandrearsetbackrequirementsandheightlimitsdelineatedbystatelaw.Thevariousdesignstandardsandnon-objectivecriteriainCode§20.410.050arethereforeprohibitedbyGov.Code,§66323.

BecauseoftheclearstandardswithinGov.Code,§66323,andtheprohibitionagainstthelocalimpositionofstandardsregarding architecturalstyles,roofpitches,siding,etc.forADUsthatmeetsuchstandards,buildershavebeenabletoproducepre-fabricatedADUsthatitthestandardsofGov.Code,§66323andcanbeinstalledinanyjurisdictioninthe 1 Thesefourcategoriesare: (1) ADUsconvertedfromspaceinexistingstructuresonsinglefamilylots,(2) one detached ADU per single family lot that meets certain requirements, (3) multiple ADUsconverted from nonresidential space in multifamily buildings, and (3) two detached ADUs permultifamilylotthatmeetscertainrequirements. 2of5
state.Thishasresultedinlowerper-unitcoststhanwhatcanbeachievedthroughtraditionaldesignandconstructiontechniques.

ByillegallyimposingdesignstandardsonADUsprotectedbyGov.Code,§66323,notonlyisSanMarcosbreakingthelaw,itisalsodenyingitsresidentstheopportunityaordedtotheresidentsofeveryotherjurisdictioninthestate-theabilitytodevelopapre-fabricatedADUandhousearelativeor atenant(orgetextralivingspaceforthefamily)atthelowestper-unitcostavailableinCalifornia.

ADULocation
AdditionallyWhileGov.Code,§66323allowsfourfootsideandrearsetbacksfornewconstructionADUs,itdoesnotpermitacitytorequirethatanADUbeplacedtothesideorrearofaprimarydwellingunit,regardlessofwhetherornotitispossibletobuildanADUelsewhereontheproperty.Proposedcode§20.410.060(E)(4)thereforeviolatesGov.Code§66323byonlyallowingADUsinthefrontsetbackareaifthereisnootherfeasiblelocation(emphasisadded):

NofrontsetbackorlocationrestrictionnotedinthissectionshallberequiredforADUspursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection66323(a)(2)ifnootherfeasiblelocationontheparcelisavailable… Thepolicyreasonforthisissimple:frontyardsaretypicallyunderutilized,ornamentalspaces.Backyardsaremoreprivateandcanbeusedformanyactivitiesthatareunsafeinthefrontyard.Forinstance,withafenced-inbackyard,childrenorpetscanplayorotherwiserecreatewithoutfearthattheywillgointothestreet.AhouseholdmayprefertosacriicetheunderutilizedfrontyardforanADUratherthanthemuchmoreusefulbackyard.

MaximumSize
Proposedcode§20.410.060(C)(1)(a)violatesGov.Code,§66323,subd.(a)(1)byimposingasquarefootagemaximumonADUsprotectedbythissectionofstatelaw(emphasisadded):

ThetotalfloorareaofanADUshallnotexceediftypercent(50%)ofthelivingareaoftheproposedorexistingprimarydwelling,provided,however,thatthemaximumsquarefootageallowedmustbeatleasteighthundredandifty(850)squarefeetofgrossfloorarea.

StatelawdoesnotpermitasizelimitationonADUsthatarewithintheproposedspaceofasingle-familydwellingorexistingspaceofasingle-familydwellingoraccessorystructure,donotincludeanexpansionofnotmorethan150squarefeetbeyondthesamephysical 3of5
dimensionsastheexistingaccessorystructureforingress/egress,haveexterioraccess,andhavesuficientsideandrearsetbacksforireandsafety.(Gov.Code,§66323,subd.(a)(1).) ParkingStandards
Proposedcode§20.410.060(J)imposesparkingstandardsonADUs.Ofnote,parkingstandardsmaynotbeimposedonADUsthatcomplywithGov.Code,§66323,asthelawexplicitlyforbidsimpositionofanyofthestandardsallowedby§§66314through66322,includingparkingstandards.

RidgelineOverlay
Section20.410.060(N)readsasfollows:

RidgelineOverlayZoneRestrictions.ADUsintheRidgelineOverlayZonemustcomplywithcertainsectionsofChapter20.260,includingSubsections20.260.050.E(BuildingPlacement,MaximumHeight,andBasements),20.260.050.F(Architecture),20.260.050.H(ColorandMaterials),and20.260.050.J(FireFuelModiication),exceptasprohibitedbystatelaw.However,ADUsintheRidgelineOverlayZoneshallnotbesubjecttoanyrequirementsthatconflictwiththerequirementssetforthinthischapter.

ByimposingvariousstandardsonallADUs,thissectionviolatesGov.Code,§66323.Additionally,thecaveat“exceptasprohibitedbystatelaw”issonon-speciicthatitisimpossibletoaskaplanexaminertointerpretthistomeanthatsuchstandardscannotbeimposedonADUsprotectedbyGov.Code,§66323. ◄►
WhileitislaudablethattheCityisamendingitsADUordinancetokeepuptodatewithstatelaw,theCityshouldmakesureitslawsactuallycomplywithstatelaw,ascommittedtobytheCity’s6thcycleHousingElement.

TheCityisrelyingonADUsfor48unitsofitsRHNAallocation.Furthermore,Program9oftheadoptedHousingElementcommitstheCitytopromotingthedevelopmentofADUsthatareaordabletolowerincomeandmoderateincomehouseholdsandthedevelopmentofADUsinareasofopportunity.Thedraftordinance,byimposingillegalstandardsonADUs,failstopromotethedevelopmentofADUsanddeinitelyfailstopromotethedevelopmentofADUsaordabletolowerincomeandmoderateincomehouseholds.WethereforeencouragetheCitytoamendthedraftordinancetobringitintocompliancewithstatelaw.

CalHDFisa501(c)(3)non-proitcorporationwhosemissionincludesadvocatingforincreasedaccesstohousingforCaliforniansatallincomelevels,includinglow-incomehouseholds.YoumaylearnmoreaboutCalHDFatwww.calhdf.org. 4of5
Sincerely,
DylanCaseyCalHDFExecutiveDirector
JamesM.LloydCalHDFDirectorofPlanningandInvestigations
5of5

DATE: August 5, 2024
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Division
RE: Item 3 - Response to HDF Letter (Attached)

San Marcos received a letter from the California Housing Defense Fund (HDF), a non-profit housing advocacy group, with comments regarding the proposed ADU ordinance. Below are the City’s responses to their comments.

Design Standards
HDF Comment
HDF contends that a local government may not impose any development standards beyond basic side and rear setbacks requirements and height limits delineated by state law. HDF further asserts that state law prohibits local imposition of standards regarding architectural styles, roof pitches, siding, etc.

Specifically, HDF argues that §20.410.050 of our proposed ADU ordinance includes impermissible design standards relating to building materials and architectural review in violation of Cal. Gov. Code §66323. Objections are also made to non-objective review criteria within the subsection.

Reply
A local government is not limited to setback and height limitations. Objective standards may be imposed. Cal. Gov. Code §66314(b)(1) states that a local agency may “Impose objective standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review . . .” No changes to the noted subsection are required to comply with state law.

Any references to non-objective criteria were removed from the subsection.

ADU Location
HDF Comment
HDF asserts that a local government may not require an ADU to be placed to the side or the rear of the primary dwelling unit regardless of where an ADU is feasibly possible on the property. Specifically, HDF believes that § 20.410.060(E)(4), which limits ADUs to the back or side yards unless an ADU is only feasibly located in the front yard is a violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 66323.

Reply
Limiting ADU location to back and side yards is an objective standard permitted by Cal. Gov. Code 66314(b) (1). Under certain circumstances pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 66323, the City cannot impose location requirements if such requirements would deem the ADU infeasible.

ADU Size
HDF Comment
HDF asserts that Cal. Gov. Code §66323 prohibits local governments from imposing square footage maximums and that the 850 square footage maximum in SMMC §20.410.060(C)(1)(a) violates state law.

Reply
Cal. Gov. Code §66321(b)(2)(A) permits the imposition of size maximums. . . . “(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a local agency shall not establish by ordinance any of the following:
(1) A minimum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that prohibits an efficiency unit.
(2) A maximum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that is less than either of the following:
(A) Eight hundred fifty square feet.”

Parking Standards
HDF Comment
HDF writes that an ADU pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 66323 may not impose parking standards.

Reply
Cal. Gov. Code §66314(D)(10)(A) permits parking requirements unless an exception applies. The proposed ordinance accurately reflects the limits and exceptions of state law.

Ridgeline Overlay
HDF Comment
HDF writes that imposing various standards from the Ridgeline Overlay Zone on all ADUs is prohibited by Cal.Gov. Code §66323.

Reply
The requirements of the Ridgeline Overlay Zone are objective standards that may be imposed. Cal.

Gov. Code §66314(b)(1) states that a local agency may “Impose objective standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit…” No changes to the noted subsection are required to comply with state law.