From: Matthew Gelfand on behalf of matt@caforhomes.orgTo: Emmett Badar; Denis Bertone; Eric Weber; John Ebiner; Ryan Vienna; publiccommentsCc: Brad McKinney; Ken Fichtelman; jmalawy@awattorneys.comSubject: Correspondence from Californians for HomeownershipDate: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 6:57:35 PMAttachments: 2020-7-28 - Californians Letter to City Council.pdf

CAUTION: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.

To the City Council: Please see the attached correspondence regarding Agenda Item 4.a. being considered at yourupcoming meeting. TO STAFF: In light of the length of the letter, we are not asking that it be read into the record. Instead, we ask that you read this short statement: “Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. You havebeen provided with a letter we submitted as part of our work monitoring local compliance withCalifornia’s laws regarding accessory dwelling units. We commend staff for their work to addressthe vast majority of the concerns we had about the prior draft of the ordinance. Our two remainingconcerns are detailed in our letter, which we encourage you to review closely. Thank you for yourconsideration.” Sincerely, Matthew Gelfand -- Matthew GelfandCounsel, Californians for Homeownership525 S. Virgil AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90020matt@caforhomes.orgTel: (213) 739-8206 Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that works to address California’s housingcrisis through impact litigation and other legal tools.

mailto:admin@caforhomes.orgmailto:matt@caforhomes.orgmailto:ebadar@sandimasca.govmailto:dbertone@sandimasca.govmailto:eweber@sandimasca.govmailto:jebiner@sandimasca.govmailto:rvienna@sandimasca.govmailto:publiccomments@sandimasca.govmailto:bmckinney@sandimasca.govmailto:kfichtelman@sandimasca.govmailto:jmalawy@awattorneys.commailto:matt@caforhomes.org

MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL MATT@CAFORHOMES.ORG

TEL: (213) 739-8206

July 28, 2020

VIA EMAIL

City Council City of San Dimas 245 East Bonita Ave. San Dimas, CA 91773 Email: ebadar@sandimasca.gov; dbertone@sandimasca.gov; eweber@sandimasca.gov;

jebiner@sandimasca.gov; rvienna@sandimasca.gov; publiccomments@sandimasca.gov

RE: July 28, 2020 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 4.a.

To the City Council:

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).

This letter follows up on our January 28 letter, which provided comments on the City’s ADU ordinance. At your July 28 meeting, you will again consider the ordinance. The ordinance being presented to you today is drastically improved from the City’s prior draft, and we appreciate staff’s diligent work to address our concerns.

We have two remaining concerns.

First, the draft ordinance’s application of special setback rules for neighboring equestrian uses is unlawful. For any ADU that is not a conversion or rebuild, the maximum side and rear setbacks that the City may apply are four feet. And equestrian use is not one of the four enumerated allowable justifications for area-specific ADU restrictions. See Gov. Code § 65852.2(a)(1)(A). The City of Los Angeles recently considered equestrian-related restrictions on ADUs, and in consultation with its City Attorney determined that such restrictions would be unlawful.

The changes the City made to address this concern are helpful, but they do not get the City all the way to a compliant ordinance. A homeowner may elect to develop an ADU within the special equestrian setback, even if there are other feasible locations for development. Homeowners are in the best position to determine where to locate their ADUs.

Second, the draft ordinance still does not provide the required special treatment for the categories of ADUs listed in Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1). These ADUs must be

July 28, 2020 Page 2

ministerially permitted “notwithstanding” the provisions allowing cities to pass local ADU ordinances, meaning that these ADUs must be approved without applying any local development standards, such as front-yard setbacks. According to guidance from the Department of Housing and Community Development, these ADUs “do[] not necessitate a zoning clearance and must not be limited to certain zones or areas or subject to height, lot size, lot coverage, unit size, architectural review, landscape or parking requirements,” and the Department has issued non-compliance letters to cities that have improperly applied local development standards to these ADUs. To assist the City in crafting appropriate language, we are providing (below) example language based on ordinances adopted by other cities.

We hope this information is helpful to you as you develop the City’s ADU ordinance.

Sincerely,

Matthew Gelfand cc: Brad McKinney, Interim City Manager (by email to bmckinney@sandimasca.gov) Kenneth Fichtelman, Assistant Planner (by email to kfichtelman@sandimasca.gov) Jeff M. Malawy, Esq., City Attorney (by email to jmalawy@awattorneys.com)

July 28, 2020 Page 3

Example Language For Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1) ADUs Units Subject to Limited Standards. Notwithstanding [the other sections of the local ADU ordinance], accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit permits shall be issued based solely on the standards set forth in this section and all applicable Building Code standards, as follows: (a) Internal ADUs. One accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if all of the following apply:

(1) The ADU or JADU unit is within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress. (2) The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling. (3) The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. (4) The JADU complies with the requirements of Section 65852.22.

(b) Detached ADUs. One detached, new construction, ADU that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. The ADU may be combined with a JADU described in subsection (a)(1) of this section. A local agency may impose the following conditions on the accessory dwelling unit:

(1) A total floor area limitation of not more than 800 square feet. (2) A height limitation of 16 feet.

(c) Multifamily Dwelling ADUs (1) Multiple ADUs within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings. (2) A local agency shall allow at least one ADU within an existing multifamily dwelling and shall allow up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units.

(d) Not more than two ADUs that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to a height limit of 16 feet and four-foot rear yard and side setbacks. (e) Rentals of ADU and JADU permitted pursuant to this section shall be for a term longer than 30 days. (f) Installation of fire sprinklers are not required in an ADU or JADU if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. (g) ADUs and JADUs permitted under this section shall not be required to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility nor shall a related connection fee or capacity be charged unless the ADU or JADU is proposed to be constructed with a new single-family home.

From: Austin Ryan FuentesTo: publiccommentsSubject: Tonight"s public comments - please submitDate: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 4:59:53 PM

CAUTION: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.

Dear Council,

I am the last of my native american tribe. For many moons this city has given me greathappiness. Initially as a cowboy town I was worried I'd be discriminated but alas just theopposite, instead of being hunted down for sport I was embraced, welcomed and beloved. Mypeace pipe has been passed many times. The San Dimians touched the hem of my cloth andthe tip of my bow..... I just wanted to thank the council for great management for all people....It is obvious the great spirit is strong with this tribal council. Lastly I'm happy you've ensuredthat you've endured to prevent this town to become lawless shithole.... Second lastly, let's havea pow-wow at the local park!!!!

Best,Austin Longbow

mailto:austin.fuentes@cirrusav.commailto:publiccomments@sandimasca.gov

From: Ibaraki, Kathlyn S.To: publiccommentsCc: "jmalawy@awattorneys.com"; "jmalawy@awattorneys.com"; Reznik, Benjamin M.Subject: 226 W Allen Avenue/Accessory Dwelling Unit Covenants/Agenda Item 4(a) - Municipal Code Text Amendment 19-

0004/HEARING DATE July 28, 2020Date: Monday, July 27, 2020 4:29:00 PMAttachments: 226 Allen Ave. - Accessory Dwelling Unit Covenants.pdf

CAUTION: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.

Mayor Badar and Honorable Members of the City of San Dimas CityCouncil,Please find attached Benjamin M. Reznik’s July 27, 2020 letter regardingthe subject matter. Thank you.

Kathlyn Ibaraki | Secretary to attorney Benjamin M. ReznikJeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP | JMBM1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067T: (310) 201-3572 | F: (310) 203-0567 | E: ki2@JMBM.com

This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged.Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or attachments without proper authorization isstrictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify JMBM immediately bytelephone or by e-mail, and permanently delete the original, and destroy all copies, of this messageand all attachments. For further information, please visit JMBM.com

mailto:Ki2@JMBM.commailto:publiccomments@sandimasca.govmailto:jmalawy@awattorneys.commailto:jmalawy@awattorneys.commailto:BMR@JMBM.commailto:ki2@JMBM.com

68140653v1

A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations / Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange County

Benjamin M. Reznik bmr@jmbm.com

1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067-4308 (310) 203-8080 (310) 203-0567 Fax

www.jmbm.com

Ref: 71715-0001

July 27, 2020

BY EMAIL ONLY

Mayor Emmett Badar and Hon. Members of

the City of San Dimas City Council

San Dimas Council Chamber

245 East Bonita Avenue

San Dimas, CA 91773

E-Mail: publiccomments@sandimasca.gov

Re: Agenda Item 4(a) - Municipal Code Text Amendment 19-0004

Accessory Dwelling Unit Covenants

Hearing Date: July 28, 2020. 7:00 p.m.

Dear Honorable Members of the San Dimas City Council:

Our office represents Mr. Robert T. Mathis II, the owner of the property located at

226 W. Allen Avenue, in the City of San Dimas ("Property"). Our client's Property is improved

with a single-family home and a second unit in the rear of the Property. As described in the July

28, 2020, staff report, in connection with Mr. Mathis's second unit, the City required him to execute

and record onto title a "Covenant and Agreement Limiting Use of Property." This covenant

restricts the use of the second unit, by requiring it be owner-occupied, or otherwise used for

affordable housing (the "covenant").1 As discussed in the staff report, such limitations on the use

of accessory dwelling units and/or second units (collectively, "ADUs") are illegal under state law,

and may not be included in the ADU ordinance being contemplated by the City. Moreover,

because such covenants are unenforceable, we urge the City Council establish a procedure to

facilitate their termination. Such procedure is not only appropriate under state law, but – for the

reasons set forth below – the only means of fairly regulating ADU use among and between your

City's residents.

First, as noted previously, these covenants are not permitted under state law. This

is clarified by Assembly Bill 881, which expressly prohibits local agencies and/or Homeowners

Associations from requiring them as a condition of obtaining an ADU permit. This law also

restricts local agencies from enforcing these covenants on existing ADUs. This is clear from the

text of the bill and its analysis, which states that the bill "eliminates… authority for local agencies

1 Although Mr. Mathis signed the covenant and recorded it on title, he did so under duress and

protest, and maintains that the covenant should not have been required for his second unit in the

first place.

Mayor Emmett Badar and Hon. Members of the

City Council

July 27, 2020

Page 2

68140653v1

to require owner occupancy for either [an] ADU." (See AB 881, Office of California Senate Floor

Analysis.) In this respect, we disagree with the staff report's conclusion that the state law "does

not invalidate existing [covenants]." (Staff Report, Item 4, Pg. 2) These covenants are

unenforceable as a matter of law. As a result, the City may not rely on them to restrict and/or limit

the use of an ADU.

Moreover, given this state law, the covenant primarily constitutes an unfair and

unreasonable cloud on title for individuals who obtained permits for ADUs during a particular

period of time. For instance, an individual who obtained a second unit on January 1, 2020, was

able to build the same ADU as someone who obtained their permit a day earlier on December 31,

2019, however only the latter was required by the City to execute an owner-occupancy covenant

and record it on their title. This is obviously both an arbitrary and unfair distinction for San Dimas

residents. It will also inevitably produce the absurd result of encouraging ADU owners - who

obtained permits prior to January 1, 2020 - to demolish and/or re-permit their ADUs under the new

ordinance, simply so they can clear the covenant from title and be treated equally as residents

permitting new ADUs. This would obviously be an absurd result. It would also create unnecessary

costs for City residents, and would create a strain on City resources as residents realize they have

the option of applying for "new" ADU permits, just for the purposes of clearing these covenants

from their property's title.

In consideration of these issues, and in the spirit of treating City residents fairly and

equally, we urge the City Council to direct staff to establish a procedure to facilitate the removal

and termination of these illegal and unenforceable owner-occupancy and affordability covenants.

Such direction would be consistent with the mandates of state law, and would be the only fair and

equitable result for the residents of the City of San Dimas. Thank you in advance for your

consideration, and we look forward to addressing the City Council at tomorrow's hearing.

Sincerely,

BENJAMIN M. REZNIK and

DANIEL F. FREEDMAN of

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP

BMR:df

cc: Jeff Malawy, City of San Dimas City Attorney

Debra Black, City of San Dimas City Clerk

226 Allen Ave. - Accessory Dwelling Unit CovenantsAustin Ryan FuentesCalifornians for Homeownership (ADU's)