Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Roseville planning commission recommends council approve changes to ADU rules
Loading...
Summary
The Roseville Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve amendments to Title 19 (File PL26-0134) to align accessory dwelling unit rules with recent state law, switch size limits to interior livable space and clarify local standards including a new half-size limit for attached ADUs and removal of an administrative variance process.
The Roseville Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve an amendment to Title 19 of the Roseville Municipal Code (File PL26-0134) that updates the city’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules to reflect recent state law.
Lauren Hawker, senior planner, told the commission the amendments were designed to “make us consistent with state law or otherwise clarify and improve the readability” of the ADU chapter and highlighted two key state-driven changes: basing ADU size on interior livable space rather than gross square footage, and changes to which combinations of ADU types must be permitted. Hawker said those changes can allow larger ADUs in some cases; she gave one example in which a house with 1,400 gross square feet translates to about 860 square feet of interior livable space and would therefore qualify under the new size standard.
The staff-drafted ordinance would also clarify terms such as “separate entrance,” delete the administrative permit that previously allowed deviations from development standards, and add a new local restriction allowing the city to limit an attached ADU to half the size of the primary dwelling where permitted. Hawker said those local limits are proposed because the new state rules are generally more permissive.
Commissioners pressed staff on implementation and enforcement. A commissioner asked whether failure to update the ordinance could affect Roseville’s pro-housing designation; Hawker and Assistant City Attorney Joe Speaker said the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is actively reviewing local ADU ordinances, has sent letters to jurisdictions, and can find local ordinances inconsistent with state law (which could leave a jurisdiction subject to state law rather than its own local standards). Speaker said HCD’s interpretations and enforcement authority have become a central issue for cities.
On parking and neighborhood impacts, Hawker said state ADU law generally limits the city’s ability to require parking, though some detached ADUs near transit may still be subject to parking requirements; she also noted other municipal code provisions (for example, temporary parking or nuisance restrictions) remain enforceable. During public comment, resident James Frederick asked the commission for clarity about multiple nearby affordable housing developments (including work he said was planned near 4950 Uplands and Baseline Road), citing traffic and policing concerns and asking who would manage the new properties. Chair advised Frederick to speak with planning staff and with the assistant development services director after the meeting.
Staff said they had circulated the draft ordinance to HCD and were told the draft, as submitted, complies with the law; staff recommended adoption of two findings of fact and that the commission recommend council approval. A motion to consider the two findings of fact and recommend council approval passed on a roll call vote with five affirmative votes.
The commission also heard routine staff reports, including a correction to future meeting dates and a staff announcement that the public comment period for the Philip Road draft environmental impact report was extended to April 30 after some reference links were fixed and documents were posted to the city website. The planning commission’s recommendation moves the ADU ordinance amendment to the City Council for final consideration.
