Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts first‑reading changes to municipal code to comply with new state ADU and fee laws
Summary
City staff summarized several state bills affecting accessory dwelling units, right‑of‑way dedications and timing for impact fees; the council introduced the ordinance by title, waived first reading and later adopted a related resolution finding the amendments exempt from CEQA and scheduling a second reading.
El Segundo City Council on Feb. 4 moved to update local zoning and fee rules to comply with a set of California laws that affect accessory dwelling units (ADUs), public‑right‑of‑way dedications, public notice for zoning changes and the timing of residential development impact fees.
Paul Samara of the Community Development Department presented the proposed zone text amendment as the first reading of an ordinance. Samara summarized major state bills passed in the prior September and how the city’s municipal code would change to conform. Highlights included: allowing property owners to legalize certain unpermitted ADUs built before 2020 (AB 2533) without triggering some local development standards or development impact fees; Senate Bill 1211 changes that extend ADU allowances on multifamily properties and create categorical exemptions for certain ADU types to be processed ministerially; AB 3177 limits when cities may require dedications for road widening on housing projects; AB 2904 lengthens public‑notice requirements to 20 days for ordinances that alter permitted uses in a zone; and SB 937 delays collection of development impact fees for residential developments until time of occupancy.
Samara said the amendments would bring the municipal code into compliance with state law, align with the general plan and housing element and that staff believed the changes were exempt from further California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. Council members asked for precise wording to reflect that many of the state laws themselves remove or limit local discretion and to ensure the staff memo did not overstate the city’s independent CEQA findings.
After discussion, council authorized introduction and waiver of the first reading of the ordinance and scheduled a second reading for Feb. 18. Later in the meeting the city attorney placed a revised statement in the record finding the proposed ordinance revisions exempt from CEQA pursuant to state CEQA guidelines and the determinations by the Department of Housing and Community Development and the state legislature. Council then voted to adopt the related resolution that memorialized those findings (motion carried, recorded vote: ayes; no opposition).
Council members asked several technical questions about implementation. Samara said the ADU provisions will require staff to examine permit records and aerial imagery to verify whether a structure existed before Jan. 1, 2020, for fee exemptions. On right‑of‑way dedications staff said the new state law makes it harder to require dedications going forward unless the city can demonstrate a specific safety or traffic study need; staff noted existing, previously approved projects could potentially be affected depending on project findings.
City attorney and planning staff agreed to refine ordinance language to more clearly attribute CEQA‑exemption reasoning to the state mandates and to return with the second reading for formal adoption on Feb. 18.
