ADU Setbacks - California Senate Considering New ADU Setbacks
UPDATE: we succeeded! This law was not passed! Thank you everybody who wrote into the state senate.
Get ahead of a new state law that threatens to change ADU setbacks
You can send a templated email to protect ADUs - the text for the email is at the bottom of this post.
The video has a lot of detail about the proposed law and what it means for ADUs around California.
You can help
It’s very easy to email our state senate.
Copy the text of this letter
Paste it into an email and change the name at the bottom to your own name
Address your email to SHOU.Committee@senate.ca.gov
If you can, use CC to copy ryan@how-to-adu.com on the email
Hit send!
It's that easy!
85% worried about this law
In recent polls of our Facebook group, YouTube community, and Twitter, we have seen 85% of respondents worry that this law will restrict their ability to build ADUs.
In fairness, I think most jurisdictions will preserve our current 4 foot side and rear yard setbacks. But the way this law is worded leaves a lot of room for local city and county government to be MUCH more restrictive - as restrictive as they want to be.
And it’s almost certain that some agencies would use the new rules to make it impractical to build ADUs.
If you're like 85% of people who worry about the impact, then use the templated letter!
Feel free to amend the letter in any way and remove the reference to How To ADU and Inspired ADUs at the top. It should reflect your advocacy as a voter.
For example, here's a version of the letter that opposes the law without any compromise. Here's a version with compromise language.
This letter is based on a draft written by the Casita Coalition, an incredible advocacy organization that lobbies for ADUs in California.
If you know anybody else who would appreciate knowing about the law, feel free to forward this email to them and encourage them to share their project with How To ADU for free.
Send this letter with your own name at the bottom:
March 27, 2021
The State Housing Committee
California State Senate
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Oppose – SB 765 – Accessory dwelling units: setbacks
Senators,
I write as a concerned resident of California, in cooperation with Inspired ADUs and How To ADU, to express our opposition to SB 765 the way it is currently worded. It would allow local agencies to determine setback requirements for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), making it possible to unreasonably prevent the construction of ADUs in an entire jurisdiction.
Overly restrictive and unthoughtful setback requirements can make it impossible to build a dwelling unit, even when a large amount of space is available on the property.
Local ADU setback requirements could completely prevent ADU construction in a jurisdiction the same way that FAR, lot coverage, open space, and minimum lot size requirements are sometimes put in place to completely eliminate ADU adoption.
As such, I would suggest the state either rejects SB765 or adopts a similar approach to alternative ADU setbacks as it has adopted for FAR, land coverage, open space and minimum lot size requirements. That is to say that a homeowner can build an ADU up to 800 square feet respecting 4 foot side and rear yard setbacks and less than 16 feet in height, regardless of alternative ADU setbacks created by a local agency. If the homeowner wishes to exceed 800 square feet, then the alternative setbacks of a local agency can be enforced and require the homeowner to respect an alternative ADU setback.
This would allow for local agencies and communities to put common-sense rules in place that don’t completely disallow the creation of small ADUs. Local communities gain back some control over ADUs, while homeowners retain the ability to develop reasonably sized housing units in a way that is safe for their neighbors and their community.
California has a statewide housing shortage of nearly 3.5 million homes.[1] Low- and middle-income households face historic rent burden in California, and the problem worsens by the day as middle-income households move into housing previously occupied by low-income renters – forcing these households to move further away from their jobs, and in some cases, onto the streets. Undersupply of “Missing Middle” housing, or medium density housing near jobs and transit, such as ADUs, contributes to the displacement and rent burden of Californians across the state. Smaller lots in medium density housing near jobs and transit are the most likely to lose if SB 765 is passed with its current wording.
For far too long, in large part due to overly restrictive setback requirements, the construction an ADUs was an opportunity only available to very wealthy families with large homes on even larger lots. That is no longer the case. Current State ADU laws are among the most effective housing laws ever adopted in California—19,000 ADUs in just 3 years, in every part of the State, in all kinds of neighborhoods, built primarily by home owners at every income level to take care of their families WITH NO SUBSIDY (Sightline Institute 2020). UC Berkeley named the tremendous success of these bills an “ADU Revolution” in 2020.
Current State ADU law is extremely significant in helping California redress its undersupply of housing. In fact, since the Legislature adopted the reforms that this bill seeks to repeal in part, ADU law has built tens of thousands of new homes, homes that research shows are typically below market rate,[2] even though ADUs are often unsubsidized. According to the UCB Terner Center ADUs increased from 6,000 to 16,000 from 2018 and 2019,[3].
The result of the state laws that went into effect in 2020 has led to an unprecedented surge in ADU construction, creating and sustaining thousands of safe, socially distanced jobs through the pandemic and wildfires. Many of these ADUs have been built in existing structures or yard areas that would be eliminated by local agencies empowered by this bill.
This bill proposes to repeal key sections of recently adopted ADU laws by re-allowing local agencies to re-create setbacks that would prevent ADU development. Current State law allows local agencies to determine front setbacks and special setbacks for corner lots, through lots and flag lots. Allowing local agencies to enforce different setbacks for ADUs would create the possibility for ordinances that make ADUs completely infeasible and in enforcement act very similarly to minimum lot size requirements which are not enforceable according to current state law.
These existing State law specifying rear and side yard setbacks are a critical piece of why State ADU law has been effective. Allowing local agencies to impose local alternative setbacks will noticeably eliminate ADU permitting and construction in entire jurisdictions, causing a noticeable and measurable effect on housing numbers that the public can trace back to SB 765.
This bill reinforces exclusion by zoning and undermines concerns for equity and inclusion in every community. This bill allows wealthy cities to thwart home construction by allowing them to set frivolously high setback rules---and takes State ADU law all the way back to 2015 where the number of ADUs built annually in California was in the low 100’s, not in the tens of thousands like it is today, due to standards that effectively prevented ADUs on all but a few lots in any community. For example, the City of Hidden Hills would be allowed to impose its previous standards[4] for ADU setback (25 feet[5] on each side of the ADU) which would effectively ban ADUs on all but the most opulently wealthy very large lots.
There is no public safety problem with the setback rules in existing law.
State law highlights safety, and leaves decisions in the capable hands of local fire and building officials who are able to condition projects to meet building and safety codes.
State law additionally requires (i) side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire/safety (ii) rear and side setbacks for new construction ADUs of at least 4 feet from the side and rear lot lines sufficient to enough for people and equipment to move between buildings, with no setback in existing spaces that can be safely converted to residential use (such as garages) allowing homeowners to cheaply convert disused existing space in a way that prevents demolishing the structure.
Local agencies can also enforce setbacks between two structures, as well as setbacks created by power lines, easements, natural formations like creeks, and so on.
In truth, if a local agency has a reasonable setback concern, and they have a law that applies to all structures, current state law allows for that law to be enforced. SB765 allows local agencies to enforce different setback rules specific to ADUs, while allowing other structures to be built with less stringent setback requirements. This allows communities to permit structures like pool houses, yoga studios and wine cellars in backyards, while preventing the construction of housing in the same footprint.
At Inspired ADUs, we’ve designed and completed dozens of ADUs, many of them along the four foot rear and side yard setbacks without creating issues for the property owners or their neighboring community. In our experience, the four foot side and rear yard setbacks are very appropriate, and work well with city planning and specific plans developed by local agencies where Inspired ADUs have been built.
This bill would undo four years of hard work in Sacramento to allow ADUs in every community in California, creating more equitable and affordable housing choices everywhere in the State.
Communities that understand the importance of housing and allow for ADUs will still build ADUs, but many communities will be left behind because a handful of city council members will have the power to enforce unfair and frivolous alternative setbacks.
Please protect California’s unique and highly effective ADU laws and ensure that every community equally allows for this small, affordable, inclusive and more equitable housing form and OPPOSE this bill.
Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]
Ryan O’Connell
Housing Advocate
Inspired ADUs and How To ADU
[1] https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/urbanization/closing-californias-housing-gap
[2] https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/ADU_Update_Brief_December_2017_.pdf
[3] https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ADU-Brief-2020.pdf
[4] https://hiddenhillscity.org/wp-content/uploads/2nd-Unit-Flyer.pdf
[5]https://library.municode.com/ca/hidden_hills/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT5LAUSDE_CH2ZO_ARTEZO_5-2E-4YASE
[1] https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/urbanization/closing-californias-housing-gap
[2] https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/ADU_Update_Brief_December_2017_.pdf
[3] https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ADU-Brief-2020.pdf
[4] https://hiddenhillscity.org/wp-content/uploads/2nd-Unit-Flyer.pdf
[5]https://library.municode.com/ca/hidden_hills/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT5LAUSDE_CH2ZO_ARTEZO_5-2E-4YASE