HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-22 Supplementals - PC-HPC (2)0:':CALIFORNIANS FOR
HOMEOWNERSHIP
January 22, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Email: c/o Rancho Cucamonga City Clerk's Office (city.clerk@cityofrc.us)
MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
MATT@CAFORHOMES.ORG
TEL: (213) 739-8206
RE: January 22, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Item D5.
To the Planning Commission:
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to using
legal tools to address California's housing crisis. I am writing as part of our work monitoring local
compliance with California's laws regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
At your January 22 meeting, you will discuss an ordinance intended to address recent
changes to state ADU law. These changes broadly overhaul the rules regarding ADUs, and they
nullify any local ordinance that does not strictly comply with their requirements.' If the City
adopts a compliant ordinance, it will be able to maintain certain controls on ADU development.
Unfortunately, we have some concerns about the draft ordinance, including:
Lt
Although the ordinance has generally been modified to allow standard ADUs (i.e.,
ADUs do not qualify under Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1)) on lots zoned to allow
multifamily use, it still has several references limiting those ADUs to lots with an existing single-
family dwelling. This is unlawful. Standard ADUs are allowed on lots with existing multifamily
structures. See Gov. Code § 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(ii) (prior language that allowed an ADU on a lot
that "includes a proposed or existing single-family dwelling" has been replaced with language
allowing an ADU on a lot that "includes a proposed or existing dwelling").
• The draft ordinance limits attached ADUs to the height of the main dwelling. The City
must allow at least a 16-foot ADU regardless of the size of the main dwelling. Gov. Code
§ 65852.2(c)(2)(C).
• The draft ordinance applies unlawful setbacks to ADUs that are not located in the rear
yard. For all ADUs, the maximum side setbacks are four feet. Gov. Code § 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(vii).
' A previous version of AB 68 provided that a conflicting local ordinance would be "null and void to the
extent of such conflict." That provision was struck from the final bill, which provides for complete invalidation.
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020
January 22, 2020
Page 2
• The draft ordinance does not provide that ADU parking may be located in setback areas
or as tandem parking, as is required by Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(x). Unless
this would otherwise be allowed by the City's parking regulations, it should be made explicit in
the ADU ordinance.
• The draft ordinance's requirements that ADUs "maintain the scale and appearance of
a single-family dwelling" and that some ADUs "incorporate features to match the scale ... of the
main dwelling unit" are concerning, because they could be interpreted to create unlawful size
restrictions on ADUs. These requirements should be deleted.
• The draft ordinance purports to apply the City's normal historic review processes to
ADUs. Unless this review is a totally ministerial process, based on objective standards, with no
hearing or discretionary review, that can be completed within 60 days, this is not allowed. Gov.
Code § 65852.2(a)(3). This language should be clarified to exempt ADUs from any standards that
do not fall within these limits.
• Proposed Municipal Code Section 17.100.090 properly accounts for the special process
applicable to the categories of ADUs listed in Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1). Because
the failure to account for these procedures has been a leading reason that other localities have
received non-compliance letters from the Department of Housing and Community Development,
the City's inclusion of this provision will serve it well. However, the draft ordinance improperly
excludes animal -keeping buildings from this treatment. Because the draft ordinance separately
handles unenclosed structures, we assume this is intended to refer to fully -enclosed barns, stables,
and similar structures. Because these structures qualify as "accessory structures" under
Government Code Section 65852.20)(2), their conversion must be allowed under Government
Code Section 65852.2(e)(1)(A) if it can be accomplished under the relevant building, fire, and life
safety standards.
• The draft ordinance sets a maximum of two bedrooms per ADU. We understand that
HCD's interpretation is that the law does not allow bedroom count limitations.
Staff should revisit the draft ordinance and bring back a compliant ordinance for the
Commission's consideration at a later meeting. We request that you include us on the notice list
for all future public meetings regarding the City's ADU policies, and we request that this letter be
included in the correspondence file for those meetings.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: Anne McIntosh, Planning Director (by email to anne.mcintosh@cityofrc.us)
Jennifer Nakamura, Management Analyst (by email to jennifer.nakamura@cityofrc.us)
City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department (by email to planning@cityofrc.us)
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP