Commission reviews ADU code changes needed to comply with new state law; staff to refine draft ordinance

Planning staff presented draft amendments to Cathedral City’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations on Sept. 3 to conform local rules with recent state legislation effective Jan. 1, 2025.

Staff explained two primary bills that prompted the changes: Assembly Bill 2533 (normalizing permitting of pre‑2020 unpermitted ADUs unless substandard) and Senate Bill 1211 (expanding ADU definitions, requiring limited allowable development standards for certain ADU types and allowing up to eight ADUs on some multifamily lots under specified conditions). “This bill provides a new definition for livable space,” staff said, and clarified which ADUs are exempt from additional local design or development standards under Government Code §66323.

Key proposed amendments include adding the state’s new definitions (including “livable space”), limiting local design requirements (such as requiring exterior materials that match the primary dwelling) to detached ADUs larger than 800 square feet that are accessory to single‑family homes and visible from public view, and revising front‑yard setback, lot‑coverage, unit size and parking rules to reflect state limits. Staff also proposed allowing up to eight ADUs on lots with existing multifamily dwellings — but no more ADUs than the number of existing dwelling units — and up to two detached ADUs on lots with proposed multifamily buildings.

Commissioners asked technical questions about fire and safety exceptions to setbacks, addressing whether substandard units could be denied and how conversions are treated. Commissioner Malacoff asked whether a clear fire or safety hazard could prevent an approval; staff said certain conversions allow flexibility for fire‑safety setbacks and agreed they would consult Housing and Community Development guidance where necessary. Commissioner Bedard questioned whether architectural matching requirements would increase costs for modest, prefabricated ADUs; staff said the draft limited that matching requirement so it would not apply to most ADUs under the state’s exemptions.

Staff noted two late items: a letter from the California Housing Defense Fund (Cal HDF) submitted the day before, and staff’s proposed edits responding to that letter; staff will continue to refine the red‑line ordinance and bring a formal zoning ordinance amendment to a future public hearing. Cal HDF’s letter, provided to commissioners, expressed support for the proposed amendments.

Commissioners generally agreed the draft represented the minimum changes required by state law and asked staff to refine definitions and ensure clarity in the final ordinance; staff said a public hearing on a final draft could be scheduled after revisions.