AgdaPkt 2020-02-10 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

A - Page 14 of 23 21 Elements • Sheds are enclosed structures. Does State ADU lazy, allowing conversions of accessory structures into AD Us, include sheds? Wle assume that something like a tuff shed could not be converted into an ADU because it would take extraordinary means to convert it to meet fire and building codes. Wlhat about other sheds? Seems like some would be fine, others not. This is a particularly challenging type of accessory structure because sheds don't need to meet setbacks, rarely require permits, etc. and can be poorly located to be used as AD Us. They make for a tricky starting position. In many cases it makes much more sense to just start fresh. AD Us can now be accommodated on almost all sites. • State ADU law defines an accessory structure as "a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot," so would include most sheds. Some communities limit these conversions to structures that were legally built. Homeowners can convert accessory structures to ADUs or incorporate the structure's footprint into an ADU. Likely the cost of meeting building codes will deter conversion of existing sheds, but homeowners may be able to use the footprint of the shed to claim the right to build part of an ADU where it would not otherwise be allowed. HCD takes a more pragmatic view, saying that the intention of the law was to include legally permitted units and not buildings like Tuff Sheds. They caution that older buildings built before permits were issued may be covered under the bill's rules. 5. 150 Foot Additions • Streamlined AD Us: State ADU law provides for a type of streamlined AD U that is whollyl mostly within existing development (either the main dwelling or an accessory structure. It also allows for up to a 150 sq. ft addition to the accessory structure proposed for conversion, but does not provide for a similar addition to the main dwelling. An AD U mostly within the main dwelling with an addition could still be established, just not streamlined. Did we read this right? Is this the intent? The intent of this language was to allow an exterior staircase to a house or structure to accommodate an ADU, but the language does not reflect this intent. This may be cleaned up this year. Procedurally, an option for jurisdictions would be to allow homeowners to add the stairs and still treat the ADU as if it were covered under section (e). Otherwise, jurisdictions have to make an argument that the homeowner is allowed to build the ADU, just not allowed to have a stairs to get to it. 6. Clean Up Legislation • Is clean up anticipated? What doyou think it will include? Yes, the authors promise clean up with no additional changes (see AB 953 and SB 773). However, one of the cleanups is specifying that an ADU and a jADU are allowed on every property, which many would consider a significant change. (The authors would argue the original intent was to do this.) Specific topics mentioned are fixing typos and fixing the 150 sf rule staircase language. While the current bills are not -urgency ordinance, many believe this will change. The conventional wisdom is to expect a fast processes Ab 953, SB 773. 60 days now deemed approved. 7. Other Rules • Can a localjurisdiction apply locali.Zed development standards to ADUs just as they would apply to other structures, such as: Prohibition on developing on steep slopes of a certainpercentage; Prohibition on developing in locally designated stream corridor areas or other environmentally sensitive areas; and, Prohibition of 362