The city of Santa Clarita formally amended its policies for accessory dwelling units on Tuesday, mandated updates to keep the city in compliance with state law.
Council members lamented the changes, which were required due to a series of changes in the state’s housing laws.
Ultimately, the City Council again passed the ordinance during the second reading, 4-1, again with one no vote — from Councilwoman Marsha McLean, who previously stated she knew the city had to make the changes, but she just couldn’t support it.
During the city’s second discussion of the changes Tuesday, Mayor Pro Tem Patsy Ayala asked about the impacts to the city’s infrastructure, such as parking and traffic.
“How, in the future, (can we) track the real impacts about parking density and infrastructure over time — do we have to wait until we have the Census every 10 year?,” asked Ayala, a former planning commissioner, after the item was pulled for discussion from the consent calendar. “We need to be thinking about the future and having more services, with having more people in ADUs.”
City Manager Ken Striplin said the number of structures can be tracked through the city’s permit process.
He also said more specific information, such as how many people are actually living in an ADU, can be difficult. He said the only way the city currently would be able to tell if an ADU was being used as an AirBNB, for example, “would be if we’re getting complaints.”
If the city received complaints about a home business, he said, that would trigger a possible code-enforcement process.
Residents recently brought similar concerns to the city over these issues regarding a growing number of homes that have high-occupancy permits in Placerita Canyon. In both cases, the city has said the state gives little room for regulation.
City leaders have tried to slow the growth of ADUs in the area, with “neighborhood integrity” and fire danger the two biggest factors listed, according to planning officials.
Santa Clarita planners had been engaged in correspondence with the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development over changes to its rules for ADUs, which are also known as granny flats, when the city was hit with a lawsuit from two housing-advocacy organizations.
Previous court records indicated the lawsuit’s status was pending feedback from the state’s HCD, which the city indicated it recently received.
The new changes include a 60-day “shot clock” to approve such plans when they’re presented, and oak trees cannot be a consideration. Generally, the City Council has described the situation as the Legislature taking control out of their hands.
During a first reading of the changes, to demonstrate how little local control there is to impact ADUs, the city’s attorney mentioned a countywide request to restrict ADUs, specifically for areas in the burn scars of the Eaton and Palisades fires, which was denied.
That means that, for one single-family property, the city must allow up to one conversion ADU, which is one created within an existing home’s footprint; one JADU, or junior ADU, which are generally attached and no more than 500 square feet; and one detached ADU, up to 800 square feet, with 4-foot side and rear setbacks.
During an explanation of the rules at the March Planning Commission meeting, Associate Planner Andrew Olsen said state law did not allow for the city to create rules that could infringe on the ability to put up an ADU, i.e. if an oak tree needed to be removed in order to build an ADU, the city could not stop the property owner.
For multifamily properties, there are two types the city must permit: a conversion ADU, at least one per, and for detached ADUs, up to eight for existing multifamily-unit properties, as long as there are at least that many units on the site.
What the city can control, he said, are impact development fees that can be assessed on ADUs greater than 750 square feet, and a prohibition on using the ADU’s for short-term rentals, meaning it must be at least a 30-day rental.
At that meeting, Olsen also said the new laws essentially require the city to approve any lot split for a single-family home property. The city must also approve any “urban lot splits,” which Olsen said also were mandated over city concerns regarding fire severity zones and its oak tree ordinance.
Dylan Casey, executive director for the California Housing Defense Fund — one of the organizations that sued — said letters were sent last year to cities up and down the state where the local government was found to have policies that violated the new housing laws.
He said in December that about half the cities that receive such letters “just go ahead and make the changes to come into compliance,” but the city chose to litigate.
Casey also mentioned at that time there was a moving target with respect to state laws and housing.
In a previous agenda report, the city of Santa Clarita said after a series of responses from the HCD, it hadn’t heard back at all for most of 2023 and all of 2024, until several changes were again proposed last year.
