What is the real truth behind the current law regarding "granny flats" or Accessory Dwelling Units on R-1 lots?
In 2002 community activists, homeowner association leaders, and others fought vigorously against a State law, AB 1866, that would require local communities to accept Accessory Dwelling Units" (ADU's) on residential lots. Activists feared that AB 1866 would transfer control from local officials, where homeowners and residents can voice their concerns about their neighborhoods and move it to a State bureaucracy permitting ADU's on single-family residential lots. This would void local building codes, permitting "granny flats," and second dwellings on sub-standard lots.
Community activists feared that AB 1866 would over-ride local parking requirements, building set-back rules, and other zoning restrictions without the benefit of hearings. AB 1866 in effect would double the residential density of R-1, single family lots in one stroke of the legislative pen!
AB 1866 was opposed by responsible planners, including the American Planning Assn., the California Chapter of the California Coastal Commission and the League of California Cities. They and others objected because it would add unsustainable housing density, without the benefit of public hearings. It would ride rough shod over local zoning laws.
In 2003 the California legislature passed AB 1866 which required all cities and counties to permit "ADUs," or "granny flats" to be constructed in R-1 neighborhoods, zoned for single family dwellings.
Pro-housing density forces were not satisfied with the restrictions that were adopted by various cities to control and limit ADU’s. In 2004, they sponsored AB 2702, a bill that would limit local governments' ability to place restrictions on the development of second housing units. The bill passed the California Senate and Assembly.
When Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger realized the negative impacts of AB 2702, he vetoed it on Sept. 30, 2004. The veto was not overturned thereby allowing cities to place significant controls and restrictions on ADUs.
In vetoing AB 2702. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated, "This bill limits the say of local governments, homeowners, and local communities regarding second units being constructed in their neighborhoods. In effect, this bill dictates unilateral decisions by the state regarding what type of development is appropriate for local communities without any community participation."
He went on to conclude, "As a strong proponent of local control, I believe that government is most responsive and accountable to people when it is close to the people. This bill removes that control away from local officials, where homeowners and residents can voice their concerns about their neighborhoods and moves it to a state bureaucracy in Sacramento. Additionally, with the unanticipated growth from second units on single family properties, this bill does not take into consideration the impact and ability for local governments to provide adequate water, sewer and schools.
On Saturday, November 14, 2009, a group of community activists, homeowner association leaders and Neighborhood Council representative heard City Attorney Carmen Trutanich speak at a planning meeting on Accessory Dwelling Units.
After Mr. Trutanich spoke, attendees concluded that there was nothing in AB 1866 that required the City to adopt or amend ordinances for the creation of these ADUs. AB 1866 did not make mention any minimum lot size or parking requirements or other restrictions on these second residential units.
In fact, AB 1866 gave flexibility to cities to narrow the State requirements. That is exactly what the City of Pasadena did. They adopted an ordinance that required that ADU’s could only be built on lots that were 15,000 square feet or more in size. They saw the negative impact on water, sewer and schools capacity, etc.The LA Planning Dept. now believes that Los Angeles is required to pass an ordinance to bring Los Angeles into compliance with AB 1866. They claim the City must respond to the provisions of AB 1866 by writing an ordinance that mandates a by-right process for allowing ADUs in single family zones.
The Planning Dept. claims a City ordinance would provide direction for implementing the State requirements. They see ADUs as any granny flat, secondary dwelling unit, elder cottage, mother-daughter residence, apartment located within the walls of a single-family home, an addition to an existing house, or any free-standing structure on the one lot.
The pro-housing density forces in the Planning Dept. claim that the State regulations mandate that all residentially zoned properties allow ADU's as a by-right option for the property owner. They believe that AB 1866 does not permit the city to impose "onerous" restrictions on the permitting of ADUs.
