Apr 22, 2025 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Re: Proposed Amendments to the City Parking Requirements to Implement AB 2097 Dear Santa Clarita City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter as a public comment concerning
item
2 on
the
agenda
for
the
Council
meeting
scheduled
for
April
22,
2025.
This
comment
specifically
concerns
the
amendments
to
the
City’s
parking
requirements
to
implement
AB
2097.
CalHDF
applauds
the
City
for
making
changes
to
its
municipal
code
to
keep
pace
with
changes
in
state
law.
However,
the
proposed
ordinance
fails
to
comply
with
state
law
,
and
the
City
should
address
these
problems
before
approving
the
ordinance.
Background Code section 17.51.060(N)(4)(a) requires that projects that take advantage of AB 2097 must provide
a
parking
demand
study
showing
that
“there
is
not
a
negative
impact
and
identify
the
amount
of
on-site
parking
required
to
prevent
a
negative
impact.
The
parking
demand
study
is
a
requirement
of
the
City’s
entitlement
submittal
checklists,
and
a
project
application
may
not
be
deemed
complete
until
a
satisfactory
parking
demand
study
is
submitted
to
and
approved
by
the
Director
of
Community
Development.”
Requiring a parking study to show that there is not a negative impact is tantamount to requiring
enough
off-street
parking
to
guarantee
that
there
will
be
no
impact.
This
subverts
the
intent
and
plain
language
of
AB
2097.
Government Code, section 65863.2, subdivision (i) (emphasis added): “The Legislature finds and
declares
that
the
imposition
of
mandatory
parking
minimums
can
increase
the
cost
of
housing,
limit
the
number
of
available
units,
lead
to
an
oversupply
of
parking
spaces,
and
increased
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
Therefore,
this
section
shall
be
interpreted
in
favor
of
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610 [email protected]
the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this section.”
Required Exceptions While it is true that under certain circumstances the City may make findings in order to impose
parking
requirements
on
projects
otherwise
eligible
for
AB
2097.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65863.2,
subd.
(b)(3.)
However,
there
are
other
circumstances
under
which
the
City
is
absolutely
prohibited
from
imposing
any
offstreet
parking
requirements.
Government
Code,
section
65863.2,
subdivision
(c):
For a housing development project, subdivision (b) shall not apply if the housing development
project
satisfies
any
of
the
following:
(1) The development dedicates a minimum of 20 percent of the total number of housing
units
to
very
low,
low-,
or
moderate-income
households,
students,
the
elderly,
or
persons
with
disabilities.
(2)
The
development
contains
fewer
than
20 housing
units.
(3)
The
development
is
subject
to
parking
reductions
based
on
the
provisions
of
any
other
applicable
law.
The City may not subject such housing development projects to offstreet parking requirements,
regardless
of
what
the
required
parking
study
shows.
As an example, a project that takes advantage of the state Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915;
“DBL”)
is
entitled
to
a
parking
reduction
(
Id
.
at
subd.
(p)).
This
means
that
the
City
may
not
impose
any
parking
requirement
on
DBL
projects
that
are
eligible
for
AB
2097,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
a
parking
study
demonstrates
negative
impacts.
⧫
⧫
⧫ CalHDF appreciates the City’s thorough effort to implement state law governing offstreet parking.
However,
the
City
should
amend
its
ordinance
to
ensure
that
it
complies
with
state
law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased
access
to
housing
for
Californians
at
all
income
levels,
including
low-income
households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. 2 of 3
Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3
Apr 22, 2025 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Re: Proposed Amendments to the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Regulations
Dear Santa Clarita City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter as a public comment concerning
item
2 on
the
agenda
for
the
Council
meeting
scheduled
for
April
22,
2025.
This
comment
specifically
concerns
the
amendments
to
the
City’s
regulations
for
ADUs
and
JADUs.
CalHDF
applauds
the
City
for
making
changes
to
its
ADU
regulations
to
keep
pace
with
changes
in
state
law.
However,
the
proposed
ordinance
fails
to
comply
with
state
law
in
a
few
ways,
and
the
City
should
address
these
problems
before
approving
the
ordinance.
CalHDF notes that the California Department of Housing and Community Development brought up many of the below deficiencies in its letter dated March 24, 2023. Background The law gives local governments authority to enact zoning ordinances that implement a variety
of
development
standards
on
ADUs.
(Gov.
Code,
§
66314.)
The
standards
in
these
local
ordinances
are
limited
by
state
law
so
as
not
to
overly
restrict
ADU
development.
(See
id.)
Separately
from
local
ADU
ordinances,
Government
Code
section
66323
establishes
a
narrower
set
of
ADU
types
that
local
governments
have
a
ministerial
duty
to
approve.
“Notwithstanding
Sections
66314
to
66322
...
a
local
agency
shall
ministerially
approve”
these
types
of
ADUs.
(
Id
.
at
subd.
(a).)
This
means
that
ADUs
that
satisfy
the
minimal
requirements
of
section
66323
must
be
approved
regardless
of
any
contrary
provisions
of
the
local
ADU
ordinance.
(
Ibid
.)
Local
governments
may
not
impose
their
own
standards
on
such
ADUs.
(Gov.
Code,
§
66323,
subd.
(b)
[“A
local
agency
shall
not
impose
any
objective
development
or
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610 [email protected]
design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that meets
the
requirements
of
any
of
paragraphs
(1)
to
(4),
inclusive,
of
subdivision
(a).”].)
In addition, ADUs that qualify for the protections of Government Code section 66323, like other
ADUs,
must
be
processed
by
local
governments
within
60 days
of
a
complete
permit
application
submittal.
(Gov.
Code,
§
66317,
subd.
(a).)
State law also prohibits creating regulations on ADU development not explicitly allowed by state
law.
Government
Code
Section
66315
states,
“No
additional
standards,
other
than
those
provided
in
Section
66314,
shall
be
used
or
imposed,
including
an
owner-occupant
requirement,
except
that
a
local
agency
may
require
that
the
property
may
be
used
for
rentals
of
terms
30 days
or
longer.”
Impermissible Limitation on ADUs in High Fire Hazard Severity Zones Code section 17.57.040(L)(1)(b) limits impose additional standards on ADUs developed in high fire
hazard
severity
zones
as
defined
by
the
Los
Angeles
County
Fire
Department.
Specifically,
these
standards
require
two
distinct
means
of
vehicular
access
to
a
highway
and
each
access
road
must
be
24 feet
in
width.
However, this regulation is not permitted for ADUs that qualify for the provisions of Government
Code
section
66323
subdivision
(a)
(See
Gov.
Code,
§
66323,
subd.
(b)).
From
page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook: “A local agency may not impose development or design standards, including both local standards and standards found in State ADU Law, on 66323 Units that are not specifically listed in Government Code section 66323. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subds. (a), (b).) This includes, but is not limited to, parking, height, setbacks, or other zoning provisions (e.g., lot size, open space, floor area ratio, etc.).” Requirements regarding road width and access are undoubtedly development standards, and
the
City
therefore
may
not
impose
them
on
section
66323
ADUs.
Impermissible Maximum Unit Size Code section 17.57.040(L)(2)(a)(ii) limits ADUs to 850 square feet if they are up to one bedroom
and
1000
square
feet
if
they
are
up
to
two
bedrooms.
While the code may limit the size of new construction, detached ADUs in conjunction with a single
family
home
pursuant
to
Government
Code
section
66314,
the
City
may
not
impose
any
size
limitations
developed
on
multifamily
properties
and
eligible
for
the
protections
of
Government
Code
section
66323,
subdivision
(a)(4).
See pages 18-20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook for more information on section 66323 ADUs. 2 of 8
Impermissible Front Setback Requirement Code section 17.57.040(L)(2)(c) requires new detached ADUs to obey underlying front setback regulations
as
well
as
corner
and
reverse
corner
setbacks.
However, Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a) does not permit any imposition of front
setback
requirements
if
the
ADUs
qualify
for
the
protections
of
that
section
of
law.
There
are
many
policy
reasons
for
this.
For
instance,
a
homeowner
may
prefer
to
preserve
a
private
backyard
space
while
redeveloping
the
less
useful
front
yard.
While
children
may
play
in
the
backyard,
the
front
yard
is
closer
to
the
street
and
less
safe
for
a
variety
of
activities.
The
City
therefore
must
allow
front
yard
ADUs
that
comply
with
the
standards
in
Government
Code
section
66323,
subdivision
(a)
both
on
single
family
and
on
multifamily
properties.
HCD has issued guidance under its authority in Government Code section 66327 (that guidance is located in the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook, page 18) affirming the duty of local agencies to allow ADUs protected by Government Code section 66323 in the front setback under all circumstances. This applies whether the property is a single family home or
a
multifamily
building. Impermissible Parking Requirements Code section 17.57.040(L)(2)(f) imposes parking requirements on all ADUs, less certain exceptions.
However,
as
discussed
supra,
the
City
cannot
require
parking
for
ADUs
that
conform
to
the
requirements
of
Government
Code
section
66323,
subdivision
(a),
as
section
66323,
subdivision
(b)
specifically
exempts
such
ADUs
from
all
local
requirements.
From page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added): A local agency may not impose development or design standards, including both local
standards
and
standards
found
in
State
ADU
Law,
on
66323
Units
that
are
not
specifically
listed
in
Government
Code
section
66323.
(Gov.
Code,
§
66323,
subds.
(a),
(b).)
This
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
parking
,
height,
setbacks,
or
other
zoning
provisions
(e.g.,
lot
size,
open
space,
floor
area
ratio,
etc.).
Separately, Code section 17.57.040(L)(3)(b)(ii) requires replacement of required parking on multifamily
buildings
if
the
parking
has
been
converted
to
an
ADU.
However,
Government
Code
section
66314,
subdivision
(d)(11)
plainly
states,
“When
a
garage,
carport,
covered
parking
structure,
or
uncovered
parking
space
is
demolished
in
conjunction
with
the
construction
of
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
or
converted
to
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
the
local
agency
shall
not
require
that
those
offstreet
parking
spaces
be
replaced.”
the
City
therefore
may
not
require
replacement
of
this
parking.
3 of 8
Impermissible Design Regulations Code sections 17.57.040(L)(2)(g) and (i) imposes design requirements on ADUs, including color,
materials,
roof
incline,
the
City’s
design
guidelines,
and
construction
materials,
including
a
prohibition
on
metal
siding.
However,
the
City
may
not
impose
any
design
requirements
on
Section
66323
ADUs.
From page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added): A local agency may not impose development or design standards , including both local
standards
and
standards
found
in
State
ADU
Law,
on
66323
Units
that
are
not
specifically
listed
in
Government
Code
section
66323.
(Gov.
Code,
§
66323,
subds.
(a),
(b).)
This
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
parking,
height,
setbacks,
or
other
zoning
provisions
(e.g.,
lot
size,
open
space,
floor
area
ratio,
etc.).
Impermissible Rear Yard Coverage Regulation Code section 17.57.040(L)(2)(h) imposes rear yard coverage regulations on ADUs. However, the
City
may
not
impose
any
such
lot
coverage
requirements
on
Section
66323
ADUs.
From page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added): A local agency may not impose development or design standards, including both local
standards
and
standards
found
in
State
ADU
Law,
on
66323
Units
that
are
not
specifically
listed
in
Government
Code
section
66323.
(Gov.
Code,
§
66323,
subds.
(a),
(b).)
This
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
parking,
height,
setbacks,
or
other
zoning
provisions
(e.g.,
lot
size,
open
space,
floor
area
ratio,
etc.).
Impermissible Distance Between Structures Requirements Code section 17.57.040(L)(2)(k) a six foot distance between structures regulation on ADUs.
While
the
City
may
regulate
building
to
building
separation
for
ADUs
subject
only
to
its
local
standards
pursuant
to
Government
Code
section
66314,
it
may
not
regulate
building
to
building
separation
for
ADUs
eligible
for
the
protections
of
Government
Code
section
66323,
as
discussed
supra
.
Impermissible Owner Occupancy Requirement Code section 17.57.040(L)(2)(n)(i) requires owner occupancy as a condition of ADU development
for
ADUs
developed
after
Janaury
1,
2025.
This requirement is plainly unlawful. As discussed supra , Government Code section 66315 states (emphasis added), “No additional standards, other than those provided in Section 4 of 8
66314, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requiremen t, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for rentals of terms 30 days or longer.”
The fact that owner-occupancy requirements are prohibited by state law is discussed on pages 16, 22, 34, and 48 of the January 2025 ADU Handbook. From page 34 of the handbook: “Can local agencies require owner-occupancy for an ADU? No. A local agency cannot impose an owner-occupancy requirement on any ADU (Gov.
Code,
§
66315).”
Impermissible Open Space Requirement Code section 17.57.040(L)(2)(o) imposes open space replacement regulations on ADUs.
However,
the
City
may
not
impose
any
such
requirements
on
Section
66323
ADUs.
From page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added): A local agency may not impose development or design standards, including both local
standards
and
standards
found
in
State
ADU
Law,
on
66323
Units
that
are
not
specifically
listed
in
Government
Code
section
66323.
(Gov.
Code,
§
66323,
subds.
(a),
(b).)
This
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
parking,
height,
setbacks,
or
other
zoning
provisions
(e.g.,
lot
size,
open
space
,
floor
area
ratio,
etc.).
Impermissible Tree Preservation Requirement Code section 17.57.040(L)(2)(p) imposes oak tree preservation requirements on ADUs.
However,
the
City
may
not
impose
any
such
requirements
on
Section
66323
ADUs.
From page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added): A local agency may not impose development or design standards , including both local
standards
and
standards
found
in
State
ADU
Law,
on
66323
Units
that
are
not
specifically
listed
in
Government
Code
section
66323.
(Gov.
Code,
§
66323,
subds.
(a),
(b).)
This
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
parking,
height,
setbacks,
or
other
zoning
provisions
(e.g.,
lot
size,
open
space,
floor
area
ratio,
etc.).
Impermissible Ecological Area Regulation Code section 17.57.040(L)(2)(q) imposes the requirements of the significant ecological area overlay
zone
on
ADUs.
However,
the
City
may
not
impose
any
such
requirements
on
Section
66323
ADUs.
5 of 8
From page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added): A local agency may not impose development or design standards , including both local
standards
and
standards
found
in
State
ADU
Law,
on
66323
Units
that
are
not
specifically
listed
in
Government
Code
section
66323.
(Gov.
Code,
§
66323,
subds.
(a),
(b).)
This
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
parking,
height,
setbacks,
or
other
zoning
provisions
(e.g.,
lot
size,
open
space,
floor
area
ratio,
etc.).
Impermissible Ban on Separate Conveyance Code section 17.57.040(L)(2)(r) imposes a blanket ban on all separate conveyance of ADUs.
However,
Government
Code
section
66341
allows
for
such
separate
conveyance
under
certain
circumstances,
and
the
City
must
allow
such
conveyance
under
those
circumstances.
Impermissible Deed Restriction Requirement Code section 17.57.040(L)(2)(s) requires a deed restriction to be placed on the property as a condition
of
developing
an
ADU.
This
is
a
clear
violation
of
Government
Code
section
66323,
which
prohibits
any
standards
not
explicitly
authorized
in
that
section.
Deed restrictions are also not permitted by Government Code section 66315, which forbids standards not listed in section 66314. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) has communicated that such deed restrictions are unlawful. The January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook specifically forbids deed restrictions as a condition of ADU development (see page 22). Additionally, such deed restrictions imposed on ADUs (or on other accessory structures) are unenforceable. This is due to the absence of horizontal privity between the City and the applicant. In other words, since the City does not own the applicant’s property at the time of the application, and does not own a neighboring property to whose benefit the proposed restriction(s) redound, black letter property law bars the restrictions from binding future property owners. (See, e.g., Scaringe v. J. C. C. Enters (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1536 [describing the types of privity relationship between covenanting parties that allow enforcement of a deed restriction]; see also Civ. Code, §§ 1460 et seq.) The City should therefore amend the proposed ordinance to remove the deed restriction Requirement. 6 of 8
Impermissible Restrictions on Multifamily ADUs Code section 17.57.040(L)(3)(b) imposes impressible restrictions on ADUs developed on multifamily
parcels.
First, the code restricts new construction ADUs to 16 feet in height. However, Government Code
section
66323,
subdivision
(a)(4)(i)
plainly
allows
ADUs
to
take
advantage
of
the
“height
limitation
in
subparagraph
(A),
(B),
or
(C)
of
paragraph
(4)
of
subdivision
(b)
of
Section
66321,
as
applicable
…”
This
means
that
such
ADUs
could
be
up
to
20 feet
in
height
in
some
circumstances.
Second, code section 17.57.040(L)(3)(b) only allows a multifamily property to have either conversion
ADUs
or
multifamily
ADUs,
not
both.
This
disregards
the
plan
language
of
Government
Code
section
66323,
subdivision
(a)
(emphasis
added):
“Notwithstanding
Sections
66314
to
66322,
inclusive,
a
local
agency
shall
ministerially
approve
an
application
for
a
building
permit
within
a
residential
or
mixed-use
zone
to
create
any
of
the
following
…”
And from the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook, page 19: “The local agency must allow the four categories of ADUs [referencing the four types of section 66323 ADUs] listed above to be combined
as
allowed
by
the
site
and
lot
conditions.”
The City must amend its code to allow a multifamily development to have both conversion ADUs
and
new
construction
ADUs
pursuant
to
Government
Code
section
66323,
subdivision
(a).
Duty to Exempt Certain ADUs from Impact Fees Code section 17.57.040(L)(5) states that impact fees shall be levied on ADUs as established by City
Council
resolution.
However,
Government
Code
section
66324,
subdivision
(c)(1)
obligates
the
City
to
not
charge
impact
fees
on
ADUs
smaller
than
750
square
feet
in
size.
⧫
⧫
⧫ CalHDF appreciates the City’s thorough effort to implement state law governing ADU construction.
However,
the
City
should
amend
its
ordinance
to
ensure
that
it
complies
with
state
law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased
access
to
housing
for
Californians
at
all
income
levels,
including
low-income
households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. 7 of 8
Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 8 of 8