CC SR 20220920 02 - ADU Ord Update Continuation
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: September 20, 2022
Subject:
Consideration and possible action to amend Section 17.10.020 (Accessory dwelling unit and junior
accessory dwelling unit development standards) and Chapter 17.96 (Definitions) of Title 17 (Zoning) of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to clarify applicability of objective architectural standards
(Case No. PLCA2022-0004).
Recommendation:
Continue the public hearing to the October 4, 2022 City Council meeting.
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Bradley
3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Bradley
4. Staff Report & Recommendation: Steven Giang, Associate Planner
5. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
6. Testimony from members of the public:
The normal time limit for each speaker is three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer may grant additional time to a representative speaking
for an entire group. The Mayor also may adjust the time limit for individual speakers depending upon the number of speakers who
intend to speak.
7. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Bradley
8. Council Deliberation:
The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or to clarify matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer
questions posed by speakers during their testimony. The Council will then debate and/or make motions on the matter.
9. Council Action:
The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additional
testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 09/20/2022
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to amend Section 17.10.020 (Accessory dwelling unit
and junior accessory dwelling unit development standards) and Chapter 17.96
(Definitions) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to clarify
applicability of objective architectural standards (Case No. PLCA2022-0004).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Continue the public hearing to the October 4, 2022 City Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Steven Giang, Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ken Rukavina, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. HCD Letter dated August 29, 2022 (page A-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Amendments to Section 17.10.020 (Accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling
unit development standards) were considered and recommended by the Planning
Commission on August 23, 2022, which clarify applicability of objective architectural
standards. The public hearing notice for City Council consideration of the subject code
amendments was issued for the September 20, 2022 City Council meeting; however, staff
requests that this hearing be continued to October 4, 2022, in order to review and analyze
the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) comment letter received
on August 29, 2022 (Attachment A), related to their review of the City’s ADU ordinance
and the City’s response letter; and to allow Staff time to further examine the proposed
amendments with respect to HCD’s comments.
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
August 29, 2022
Ken Rukavina, Director of Community Development
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear Ken Rukavina:
RE: City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance –
Letter of Technical Assistance
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) thanks the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) for submitting accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
Ordinance Number 640 (Ordinance) and for its response to HCD’s May 21, 2021,
written findings of non-compliance. HCD appreciates the time and effort the City took in
crafting its June 18, 2021, response.
Nevertheless, HCD has significant concerns with the City’s response as it fails to
address substantial inconsistencies between the City’s zoning code and State ADU
Law. Per the City’s request, HCD is providing this Letter of Technical Assistance in
hopes that it will serve as a guide to outline the steps the City must take to comply with
state law.
HCD requests that the City respond to this letter no later than September 28, 2022,
with a detailed plan of action, with dates and deadlines, to bring its ordinance into
compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (h)(2)(B).
Specifically, to bring its ADU ordinance into compliance, the City must either amend
the Ordinance according to HCD’s findings, pursuant to Government Code section
65852.2, subdivision (h)(2)(B)(i), or readopt the Ordinance without changes and
make express findings via resolution explaining the reasons the City believes it has
complied with State ADU Law despite HCD’s findings pursuant to Government Code
section 65852.2, subdivision (h)(2)(B)(ii). HCD understands that the City has recently
begun the process of making some amendments, including a Planning Commission
hearing on August 23, 2022. While HCD has not substantively reviewed the proposed
amendments, this letter may offer additional guidance to help the City make updates
consistent with HCD's prior findings.
Background and Summary of Issues
In its May 21, 2021, findings, HCD found that Municipal Code section 17.10.020.C
violates Government Code section 65852.2, subdivisions (a) and (e). Those
A-1
Ken Rukavina, Director of Community Development
Page 2
Government Code sections were intended to facilitate the ministerial development of
ADUs in residential areas to address critical housing needs and the housing crisis.
(Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (a)(3), (a)(4), and (e)(1).)
In its June 18, 2021, letter, the City indicated that it would explore textual revisions to
address a number of HCD’s findings. While the City does not appear to have made
those changes yet, it is HCD’s understanding that once the City receives this letter, it
will begin the process of adopting them.
However, the City rejected HCD’s findings related to Municipal Code section
17.10.020.C., which prohibits ADUs on lots that are located in a Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) unless the lot has two distinct means of vehicular access. The
Ordinance goes on to state that ADUs located in a VHFHSZ may be allowed with a
conditional use permit (CUP), and the City’s letter clarifies that the CUP is needed to
“assure that ADUs proposed to be located within a [VHFHSZ] are on streets with two
distinct means of vehicular access….”
To explain its position, the City stated in its letter that it is asking for “a means to
manage and control the development of ADUs in a manner that can ensure the safety of
the public.” Although it does not cite the statute, the City seems to be relying on
Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(1)(A), which states that a local
agency may adopt an ordinance that designates areas where ADUs may be permitted
“based on … the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety.”
As explained below, the City has not adequately demonstrated that ADUs will impact
public safety in the VHFHSZ and that the prohibition and CUP requirement is therefore
justified. Furthermore, even if the City does provide adequate justification for this
restriction on ADUs that fall under Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a),
the City may not justify such a restriction on ADUs that fall under subdivision (e). In
addition, a CUP is discretionary, thus violating the state requirement that ADUs be
approved ministerially. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (a)(3) and (4); (b); and (e)(1).)
Finally, the City has not taken the necessary steps to bring its ordinance into
compliance with State ADU Law either by amending the Ordinance or by adopting
findings explaining why the City believes the Ordinance complies with State ADU Law
despite HCD’s findings. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (h)(2)(B).)
The City must either demonstrate that ADUs are a public safety risk to justify
restrictions in the VHFHSZ or remove the prohibition and CUP requirement for
subdivision (a) ADUs
Under Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a), the City is permitted to
designate areas in which ADUs may be developed. However, the City has not
adequately demonstrated the impact that ADUs will have on public safety so as to justify
prohibiting ADUs without two means of vehicular access and requiring a CUP for all
A-2
Ken Rukavina, Director of Community Development
Page 3
ADUs in the VHFHSZ, which covers virtually the entire city, potentially prohibiting or
delaying ADU construction in large swaths of the city.1
To be clear, HCD does not take issue with the existence of the VHFHSZ itself, as
suggested by the City in its June 18, 2021, letter. Rather, HCD is concerned about
added requirements that may effectively prohibit ADU development in the majority of the
city, especially given the lack of evidence that these restrictions are needed or will fulfill
their intended purpose.
Note that the VHFHSZ mapping was not intended to serve as a development
moratorium. Rather, according to Cal Fire, these maps are intended to be used for
planning purposes and mitigation measures, namely:
• Implementing wildland-urban interface building standards for new construction
• Natural hazard real estate disclosure at time of sale
• 100-foot defensible space clearance requirements around buildings
• Property development standards such as road widths, water supply and signage
• Consideration in city and county general plans2
Further, in consultation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,
HCD has confirmed that ADU development in a VHFHSZ must conform with standards
set forth in Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 49 of the
California Fire Code (CFC), and the Minimum Fire Safe Regulations in the Public
Resources Code Section 429 (14 CCR 1270 et seq.). These codes establish and/or
strengthen development standards that govern residential development within a
VHFHSZ and Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas. Both CBC Chapter 7A and CFC
Chapter 49 require compliance with the requirements for defensible space and building
in wildfire prone areas of Government Code sections 51175-51189.
HCD observes that the City’s General Plan Land Use, Housing, and Circulation
Elements raise no concerns about housing in the VHFHSZ and propose no housing
restrictions or access concerns with regard to fire safety. The City’s Safety Element is
likewise silent. Furthermore, the City has placed no similar restrictions on the
construction or expansion of any other residential structures in the VHFHSZ, such as
single-family homes. Aside from the VHFHSZ maps, the City cites no evidence that its
infrastructure is insufficient to handle ADUs or that two distinct means of vehicular
access are necessary in every case where an ADU is added in a VHFHSZ. For
instance, it appears that neither the Los Angeles County Fire Department nor Cal Fire
recommended that ADUs be limited in this manner, despite the City’s efforts to consult
with them on access and restrictions.3 Finally, HCD is unaware of any traffic or other
studies that indicate that the City’s infrastructure is inadequate to support the
1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Agenda Report, September 1, 2020 (Case No. PLCA2020-0001), p. 5.
2 Office of the State Fire Marshal, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, available at
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildfire-
preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/.
3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Agenda Report, September 1, 2020 (Case No. PLCA2020-0001), p. 6.
A-3
Ken Rukavina, Director of Community Development
Page 4
development of ADUs in the VHFHSZ or that evacuation would be impacted by ADUs in
any material way.
In addition, on page 7 of its June 18, 2021, letter, the City states, “Development of
ADUs and JADUs will have cumulative impacts over time if most homes in a community
add on one ADU that exceeds lot coverage and one JADU and eliminate all off-street
parking.” However, the City provides no evidence to support its assumption that “most”
homes will do these things. The City goes on to state, “As the ADUs, housing density,
and population increase (potentially more than doubling the population), neighborhoods
will become even more congested with vehicles parked on both sides of the streets.”
Again, the City provides no evidence to support its assumption that the city will
experience such a significant population increase as a result of ADU construction.
In sum, the City can limit where ADUs may be located based on “the impact of
accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety.” (Gov. Code § 65852.2, subd.
(a)(1)(A).) The City cited fire safety as the purported basis for the restrictions set forth in
Municipal Code section 17.10.020.C, but the City does not provide adequate supporting
documentation to demonstrate that ADUs in these areas would in fact impact public
safety, or that adopting these expansive restrictions would mitigate these potential
issues. For these reasons, as currently applied, Municipal Code section 17.10.020.C
violates Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a). To bring its ADU ordinance
into compliance, the City must either remove these restrictions or provide additional
evidence that demonstrates that ADUs would impact public safety if allowed to be built
in the VHFHSZ without going through the CUP process.
The City must remove the prohibition and CUP requirement for subdivision (e)
ADUs
Even if the City could justify such a “public safety” restriction on ADUs under
Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a), whereby a “local agency may, by
ordinance, provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units,” such a restriction is not
available for ADUs that fall under subdivision (e). ADUs described in subdivision (e) fall
into four categories, and ADUs within those four categories must be allowed in any
residential or mixed-use zone and are not subject to any local development standards
other than those specifically listed in subdivision (e). These ADUs tend to be smaller,
may be within an existing structure, and may have to meet other specified criteria such
as minimum setback requirements.
The City must make other amendments to bring its ADU ordinance into
compliance with State ADU Law
As noted above, the City must either amend the Ordinance or adopt findings to justify
additional requirements related to ADUs developed in the VHFHSZ under the provisions
of Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a). It must also amend its ordinance
to ensure that ADUs meeting the requirements of an ADU found in Government Code
section 65852.2, subdivision (e), are exempt from these and any other additional local
development standards.
A-4
Ken Rukavina, Director of Community Development
Page 5
In addition, with respect to the following concerns identified in HCD’s May 21, 2021,
letter, the City appeared to concede in its June 18, 2021, letter that the City’s ordinance
is inconsistent with State ADU Law and agreed to explore potential amendments to its
ordinance:
• “Section 17.10.020 should be revised to clarify that an ADU ‘within an existing
space’ may be a unit that is located within a proposed or existing primary
dwelling.” (City of Rancho Palos Verdes letter to HCD, dated June 18, 2021 (City
Letter), p. 4, quoting HCD and indicating a textual revision will be explored.)
• “Section 17.10.20.B should be revised to make clear that ADUs are allowed on
all lots with a proposed or existing single family or multifamily structure, and that
[Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs)] are allowed only where there is a
proposed or existing single-family unit on the lot. Section 17.10.040.E.3 should
also be revised to make clear that JADUs are only allowed in a proposed or
existing single-family dwelling.” (City Letter, p. 4, quoting HCD and indicating a
textual revision will be explored.)
• “The language in Section 17.10.030.A requiring JADUs to comply with ADU
standards ‘in addition’ to JADU standards should also be removed, as it is overly
broad and confusing.” (City Letter, p. 4, quoting HCD and indicating a textual
revision will be explored.)
• “… parking for ADUs may be provided as tandem parking spots or in a driveway.
There can be no ‘required garage space’ as stated in Section 17.10.20.B.4.” (City
Letter, pp. 4-5, quoting HCD and indicating a textual revision will be explored.)
• “Section 17.10.20.B.6.c and e should be revised to include the phrase ‘where
feasible’ at the beginning of the first sentence . . . . JADUs are exempt from local
design and development standards, and thus these privacy standards would not
apply to JADUs under any condition.” The ‘lighting requirements’ under Section
17.10.020.B.6.g should also be elucidated and required only ‘where feasible’.”
(City Letter, p. 5, quoting HCD and indicating a textual revision will be explored.)
• “State Fair Housing Law prevents local jurisdictions from limiting the number of
bedrooms in a residence.... Section 17.10.020.B.8 therefore needs to be
removed.” (City Letter, p. 6, quoting HCD and indicating a textual revision will be
explored.)
• “Section 17.10.020.B.14 of this ordinance will need to be revised to require 4-foot
rear and side yard setbacks instead of five (5)-foot side and rear yard setbacks.
Section 17.10.020.C.4 should be revised in the same manner.” (City Letter, p. 6,
quoting HCD and indicating a textual revision will be explored.) Please note that
any “mitigation measures” in VHFHSZs would still have to comply with State
ADU Law. This essentially means that no additional fire safety standards can be
required of a new ADU that would not be required for a primary dwelling being
A-5
Ken Rukavina, Director of Community Development
Page 6
built on the site. In other words, ADU development must not be limited any more
than any other type of residential development.
• “Section 17.10.020.D.3 of this ordinance [pertaining to replacement parking
provisions] should thus be removed. The same is true for 17.10.020.C.5.” (City
Letter, p. 8, quoting HCD and indicating a textual revision will be explored.)
• “JADUs can be created in an attached garage. This should be elucidated in
Section 17.10.030.A.4 of this ordinance.” (City Letter, p. 8, quoting HCD and
indicating a textual revision will be explored.)
Additionally, HCD requests further information on Section 17.10.050.A.3 related to
revocation of ADU Permits. (City Letter, p. 9.)
Conclusion
Given the deficiencies described above and in HCD’s May 21, 2021, letter, the City’s
ADU ordinance is inconsistent with State ADU Law. HCD hopes that the City finds the
additional technical assistance provided in this letter useful and looks forward to
receiving the City’s plan of action to bring its ordinance into compliance pursuant to
Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (h)(2)(B), by September 28, 2022.
Should the City decide not to take steps to modify its ordinance in the manner outlined
in this letter, it should be aware of the impacts that would flow from an ADU ordinance
that does not comply with State ADU Law.
First, Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(4), states that if “a local
agency has an existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance that fails to meet the
requirements of this subdivision, that ordinance shall be null and void and that agency
shall thereafter apply the standards established in this subdivision for the approval of
accessory dwelling units, unless and until the agency adopts an ordinance that complies
with this section.” Pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (h)(1),
HCD previously issued its findings as to whether the ADU ordinance complies with
State ADU Law. If HCD finds the City fails to meet the requirements of Government
Code section 65852.2, subdivision (h)(2)(B), the City should consider its ordinance null
and void from the date HCD issues its formal notice of violation pursuant to Government
Code section 65852.2, subdivision (h)(3)(A) until such time as HCD finds the City has
adopted an ordinance that complies with this section.
Second, Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (h)(3)(A), authorizes HCD to
notify the California Office of the Attorney General that the City is in violation of this
state law. As noted above, HCD will not take action authorized pursuant to subdivision
(h) before allowing the City an opportunity to respond to this letter and attempt to revise
its ordinance to bring it into compliance.
Third, the City would not be able to rely on ADUs to meet its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA). The City has been assigned a RHNA from the Southern California
Association of Governments in the amount of 638 units, of which 253 must be
A-6
Ken Rukavina, Director of Community Development
Page 7
affordable to very low-income households, 139 to low-income households, 125 to
moderate-income households, and 122 to above moderate-income households.
Pursuant to the adopted housing element received for HCD review on August 15, 2022,
the City is projecting construction of 40 ADUs to meet its RHNA. Government Code
section 65852.2, subdivision (m), allows a city to rely on the potential for ADUs in its
housing element site analysis only where the local ordinance complies with this section
and is authorized by HCD. Thus, until the City has a compliant ADU ordinance, it must
look elsewhere for appropriate sites to meet its RHNA.
HCD appreciates the City’s efforts in the preparation and adoption of the Ordinance and
welcomes the opportunity to assist the City in fully complying with State ADU Law.
Please feel free to contact Reid Miller, of our staff, at Reid.Miller@hcd.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
A-7