# Need help with California SB1069, City is requiring separate water meter for ADU construction



## dmitryponv (Jan 7, 2019)

Hello,

Firstly, I apologize if this was supposed to be posted in pluming codes, not in residential codes. 

I am building an ADU in the city of San Bruno, California. 

The question is specific to SB1069, signed by Gov Brown in 2016, which authorizes ADU construction and limits city regulation on public utilities.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1069

I will post an excerpt of the specific lines of code I am referring to at the end of the post

We are building an Accessory Dwelling Unit on top of an existing garage structure, which is separate from the main house. According to the SB1069 bill, I believe that this still falls under "contained within the existing space … of an accessory structure" clause below. 

The problem is the city is making us add a second water meter to supply water to this ADU, and possibly add another sewer lateral, as well as get a second address and separate mailbox, etc for the purposes of making this ADU an independent property that for renting out. This poses a lot of problems for us, because: 
1. We are not renting it out, but using it to house our grandparents. 
2. This forces us to pay thousands of dollars in encroaching permits and unnecessary excavation of cement
3. We have very narrow streets and already not great relationships with neighbors and any street closure due to construction will exacerbate this
4. We already have water connection running to the existing structure. 
5. Both the city planning and building department and the public works agree that this is very unnecessary and don't want to make us do it. 
6. I can show that the existing 3/4 water pipe can provide enough water supply for this structure. 


This is somewhat of a grey area, because the writing of the bill could be interpreted differently, i.e. if we are building On Top, it can be considered Within the existing accessory structure Space if you are looking at a 2D site plan, but it's not Within the Space if you are looking at 3D building space. 

The second grey area is that the law doesn't specifically force the city to make us pay for the utility, it says they May Require us to do so, if it doesn't meet the above requirement of being constructed within an existing space. 

The building department already added in the conditions of approval that we need to apply for a separate water utility. However, they said that if public works gives us in writing that we don't need to, they will not require us to do so. And they completely agree that it is unnecessary. The problem is building department wants public works to give them something in writing, and public works wants building to give them something in writing. And neither of them can make up their mind.


I am planning on attending a city council meeting tomorrow and a planning commission meeting next week, but I don't know whom I need to talk to in order to get written verification.
For now, I still have the leverage of not paying for a permit application if the city does not want to work with us. This would prevent the city from receiving tens of thousands of dollars of permit fees if they are not willing to work with us. 

I'd like to know how to proceed with and whom I can talk to about:
1. Getting this law clarified. 
2. Getting a written explanation as to why we must or must not be required to do this. 
3. Explaining our particular situation and why the law should apply to us.
4. Possibly helping other residents, many of whom cancelled their permit applications because of being forced to connect a second utility.

Thanks,

And yes, this is the same city that neglected their aging gas pipelines until an explosion in 2008 killed 8 people and destroyed an entire city block a 1/4 of a mile away from our house, and they still continue to neglect them, but they're happily charging people to dig up the street to put in second water meters, even though we are in a serious drought. 
​
(f) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit to create within a single-family residential zone one accessory dwelling unit per single-family lot if the *unit is contained within the existing space of a* single-family residence *or accessory structure*, has independent exterior access from the existing residence, and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.
(g) (1) Fees charged for the construction of accessory dwelling units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012).
(2) Accessory dwelling units shall not be considered new residential uses for the purposes of calculating local agency connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service.
(A) *For an accessory dwelling unit described in subdivision (f), a local agency shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge.*
(B) For an accessory dwelling unit that is not described in subdivision (f), a local agency may require a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. Consistent with Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its size or the number of its plumbing fixtures, upon the water or sewer system. This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.


----------



## cda (Jan 7, 2019)

welcome

And sorry you have to build in Calif.

There are some Californians on the site and should be able to help you


----------



## Mark K (Jan 7, 2019)

First the failure  of the gas lines in the street was not the responsibility of the City since they do not own I and the PUC not the City regulates it.

It seems that the resolution will be driven by two considerations, politics or the law.  If it is truly at the discretion of the city then your focus is on a political solution.  If there is a question that the law is faithfully being followed it may make sense to retain an attorney familiar with this type of situation.


----------



## cda (Jan 7, 2019)

I am thinking either a real estate attorney, that understands this or a building code consultant that understands this.


----------



## cda (Jan 7, 2019)

Does your city have this:::


*65852.2.* (a) (1) A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. The ordinance shall do all of the following:


----------



## cda (Jan 7, 2019)

Not sure if these people can help or not:::

http://www.bsc.ca.gov/


You might call a few times, might just get different answers


----------



## dmitryponv (Jan 7, 2019)

Ok, I spoke to Senator Wieckowski office and Housing Community Development 

The "within space" requirement is literally applying to an existing structure whose walls are not demolished. I.E. if I were to build within the existing garage, not on top of it.

Another problem, according to a calculator online, the existing 3/4 inch pipe is actually not enough to supply water, we require around 39.5 plumbing fixture units, or around 30 gpm, and the pipe is only able to supply 23. 

However, we do have some laws in our defense. Particularly some listed below.

What are our options? I don't want to pay another monthly fee for a second water, I don't mind changing pipes to a larger diameter. 

The text below specifically states that " Accessory dwelling units shall not be considered new residential uses for the purposes of calculating local agency connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service. " but the city is trying to charge us a monthly fee for the new water meters.


Government Code Section 65852.2 
"(5) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. "
"(6) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate proposed ADUs on lots a proposed accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for residential use which contain that contains an existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision or subdivision (a), subdivision, shall be utilized or imposed."

As explained to me by the Housing Policy Analyst, this section of code states that unless the city has a separate ADU ordinance that requires a separate water utility connection, they may not require us to add this utility. They cannot use the text of SB1069, AB2299, SB229, AB494 to impose a second utility connection. 
Government Code Section 65852.2 
(2) Accessory dwelling units shall not be considered new residential uses for the purposes of calculating local agency connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service. 

Even if we do put in a second water meter, we don't have to pay monthly fees for a new service because it is not considered a new residential uses. 


2015 California Code, Title 7, Section 65852.150 
"It is the intent of the Legislature that any second-unit ordinances adopted by local agencies have the effect of providing for the creation of second units and that provisions in these ordinances relating to matters including unit size, parking, fees and other requirements, are not so arbitrary, excessive, or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create second units in zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance."
This section is more open to interpretation. It states that no excessive, or arbitrary, and unreasonable burdens, such as a second utility connection if the first one satisfies the water use requirement, shall be imposed.


----------

