ADU over new construction garage

[mark handler]

Because of tracking purposes for State and Federal Agencies, Many cities require Separate purposes.
If the garage was a part of and for the use of the ADU, They may allow one permit.
I require a separate permit for each building, not by occupancy.

Santa Barbara ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) GUIDE

https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Services/Planning%20Handouts%20-%20updated/Accessory%20Dwelling%20Unit%20Guide.pdf

Santa Barbara ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT APPLICATION

https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Services/Planning%20Handouts%20-%20updated/Accessory%20Dwelling%20Unit%20Supplemental%20Application.pdf

 

[Robert]

Because of tracking purposes for State and Federal Agencies, Many cities require Separate purposes.
If the garage was a part of and for the use of the ADU, They may allow one permit.
I require a separate permit for each building, not by occupancy.

Santa Barbara ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) GUIDE

https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Services/Planning%20Handouts%20-%20updated/Accessory%20Dwelling%20Unit%20Guide.pdf

Santa Barbara ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT APPLICATION

https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Services/Planning%20Handouts%20-%20updated/Accessory%20Dwelling%20Unit%20Supplemental%20Application.pdf

I'm working on one now, the city would require public Design Review for the garage (even though 3 sides of it are below grade), but the ADU is exempt from Design Review. The accepted solution was to call the garage a basement for the ADU....therefore no design review. We will convert it to the garage after the ADU is approved.

 

[ICE]

We will convert it to the garage after the ADU is approved.

Good luck with that.

 

[Mark K]

In such situations some general advice specific to California. Ask for the specific code provision that they are relying on.

Ask the Building Standards Commission for a copy of the filing of local modifications for the jurisdiction. If they did not file the local modifications to the building code with the commission they cannot enforce it.

Retain an attorney.

I would consider that what they are requiring on is a modification to the building code. California limits local modifications of the state building code only when there are local climatic, topographic or geologic conditions that make the changes reasonably necessary. In California we have a state building code, with only limited modifications allowed. Thus on the surface I suspect that they do not have the authority to do what they are requiring.

Another strategy is to not demolish the garage but rather treat it as an addition.

 

[mark handler]

In such situations some general advice specific to California. Ask for the specific code provision that they are relying on.

Ask the Building Standards Commission for a copy of the filing of local modifications for the jurisdiction. If they did not file the local modifications to the building code with the commission they cannot enforce it.

Retain an attorney.

I would consider that what they are requiring on is a modification to the building code. California limits local modifications of the state building code only when there are local climatic, topographic or geologic conditions that make the changes reasonably necessary. In California we have a state building code, with only limited modifications allowed. Thus on the surface I suspect that they do not have the authority to do what they are requiring.

Another strategy is to not demolish the garage but rather treat it as an addition.

Local ordinances and regulations necessary to carry out procedures by a city, county, or
city and county relating to civil, administrative, or criminal procedures, and remedies
available for carrying out and enforcing building standards, and that do not establish
building standards, may be enacted without meeting the requirements of the state laws
governing Title 24 building standards amendments.

• Requiring two permits is an "administrative procedure" for carrying out and enforcing building standards....

• Requiring two seperate applications is not an alteration to the CA Building Code

• If the existing is legal non-conforming, they may not be able to add to a legal non-conforming building. being able to Add onto a legal non-conforming building is not a building code requirement

 

[Mark K]

Local ordinances and regulations necessary to carry out procedures by a city, county, or
city and county relating to civil, administrative, or criminal procedures, and remedies
available for carrying out and enforcing building standards, and that do not establish
building standards, may be enacted without meeting the requirements of the state laws
governing Title 24 building standards amendments.

• Requiring two permits is an "administrative procedure" for carrying out and enforcing building standards....

• Requiring two seperate applications is not an alteration to the CA Building Code

• If the existing is legal non-conforming, they may not be able to add to a legal non-conforming building. being able to Add onto a legal non-conforming building is not a building code requirement

Am familiar with the provisions related to administrative units. but at the same time I suggest that the local policy has the effect of preventing something that would be allowed by the code. I consider this to be a code change.

Further it does not make sense to require two permits for what will ultimately be one structure. It would more appropriately be considered an addition.

Where is the rule of law when a bureaucrat can impose any requirement he wishes. While the purpose of the building code is to protect the public laws also protect the rights of individuals.

 

[Joe.B]

 

[Mark K]

View attachment 10050

What is wrong with suggesting that there are limits on the building official?

 

[Joe.B]

What is wrong with suggesting that there are limits on the building official?

Nothing I guess...

What's wrong with me offering you a soap box?

 

[mark handler]

What is wrong with suggesting that there are limits on the building official?

And It may not be the BO's policy. Could be the Community Directors requirement because of planning setback issues.. We don't know.

 

[Mark K]

And It may not be the BO's policy. Could be the Community Directors requirement because of planning setback issues. We don't know.

The question is does this requirement have the effect of modifying the building code? If it does it does not matter whether we are talking about the BO or the Community Directors. The state has preempted the adoption of building codes and how local modifications can be adopted. Thus the local jurisdiction must comply with state law.

If you consider it to be an addition, then the issue of setbacks is not an issue.

 

[mark handler]

The question is does this requirement have the effect of modifying the building code? If it does it does not matter whether we are talking about the BO or the Community Directors. The state has preempted the adoption of building codes and how local modifications can be adopted. Thus the local jurisdiction must comply with state law.

If you consider it to be an addition, then the issue of setbacks is not an issue.

WHAT CA State law or CA Building Code section requires ONE PERMIT FOR A MIXED USE BUILDING?
What code/state law are you accusing the BO of Violating? Code? Law? Section and verse.....

 

[Mark K]

WHAT CA State law or CA Building Code section requires ONE PERMIT FOR A MIXED USE BUILDING?
What code/state law are you accusing the BO of Violating? Code? Law? Section and verse.....

What code provision requires separate permits? The building code does not provide a specific provision that deals with this special case but it seems that city policy effectively provides a code provision thus modifying the building code. But this local modification does not satisfy the criteria for local modifications. So this local requirement is not consistent with state law.

This is an interesting case on how the building code can be interpreted. It seems that this interpretation is driven by the desire to support City officials not to support the law or to be consistent with what is typically done. The strategy is to make it so difficult to comply that the applicant will give up. Somebody might assume that the fix is in.

To comply with the building code the structural system of the completed two story building needs to comply with the code provisions for a two-story building. The two stories cannot be treated separately in isolation.

What about the building code provisions for mixed use buildings, are they no longer applicable? In my experience other jurisdictions allow multiple use buildings under one permit. In analogous situations what has been done is to leave some portion of the lower level in place and then add other construction to deal with the enhanced loads.

Does this jurisdiction always require multiple permits for mixed use buildings?

 

[steveray]

Not sure what Cali does, but it gives some leeway here:

(Amd) 104.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of
this code. The building official shall have the authority to adopt policies and procedures to clarify the
application of its provisions. Such policies and procedures shall comply with the intent and purpose of this
code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided
for in this code, nor shall they have the effect of establishing requirements in excess of those set forth in
this code.

 

[steveray]

Is there something weird in Cali where the ADU needs to be in an "existing" building and that is why the garage has to be built first, therein requiring the 2 permits?

 

[Mark K]

Not sure what Cali does, but it gives some leeway here:

(Amd) 104.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of
this code. The building official shall have the authority to adopt policies and procedures to clarify the
application of its provisions. Such policies and procedures shall comply with the intent and purpose of this
code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided
for in this code, nor shall they have the effect of establishing requirements in excess of those set forth in
this code.

But such discretion is limited by State law.

 

[Mark K]

Is there something weird in Cali where the ADU needs to be in an "existing" building and that is why the garage has to be built first, therein requiring the 2 permits?

The assumption is that it was not possible or desirable to construct the ADU as a separate building.

The garage is existing but the original proposal was to demolish the existing garage and to rebuild it with the ADU. Demolishing the existing garage is not necessary if you keep the existing garage and supplement the existing garage framing. This would mean treating the ADU as an addition.

As to whether California is weird that is subjective. I would consider requiring 2 permits to be weird.

My focus is on what is state law, what is typically done, and what makes sense.

 

[mark handler]

Is there something weird in Cali where the ADU needs to be in an "existing" building and that is why the garage has to be built first, therein requiring the 2 permits?

In CA an ADU does not "...need to be In an existing Building..."

 

[mark handler]

The issue may "make sense" if we had the full unbiased reason/facts.
We do not have all the facts, we do not know the reason for the phased permitting....
The garage may not conform to the Zoning code and may need separate action. An ADU may cloud the Zoning issue....
They may need to submit the Garage for discretionary review.
We just do not know......