To Gabriela Juarez from City Planning, call City Attorney Carmen Trutanich...he is waiting to talk to you.

About 60 community activists heard City Attorney Carmen Trutanich address the Accessory Dwelling Unit issue on Saturday at the Neighborhood Councils' PlanCheck meeting.   

In 2003, California passed AB 1866 which required cities and counties to allow the development of “ADUs” or “Granny Flats” to be built in R1 or single family zoning IF they conformed to nine specific criteria. 

There was nothing in this law that required  the city of Los Angeles to adopt or amend an ordinance for the creation of these units.  As for the criteria that was adopted by state law, there was no mention of minimum lot size or parking requirements or anything related to restrictions on residential density.

In fact, room was left for cities to narrow the state requirements. Pasadena, for example, adopted an ordinance that required that these units could only appear on lots with a size of 15,000 square feet or more. 

The California Board of Realtors was not happy with the restrictions that certain cities adopted. In 2004, they co-sponsored with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the Western Center on Law and Poverty, AB 2702, a bill that would limit local governments' ability to deny or place restrictions on the development of second housing units. While passing both houses,  Governor Schwartzenegger vetoed this bill on Sept. 30th, 2004. The veto was NOT overturned and, thus, restrictions regarding this issue has been turned back to local governments.

With this backdrop, it is fascinating to see that LA City planning is now claiming orally and in writing that the city is required to “codify standards to come into compliance” with AB1866.  Further, that the “previous departmental policy of letting it only be an option for lots 7,500 square feetin size was not legally substantiated and is part of the reason the City Attorney is directing a permanent ordinance.”

This is news to the City Attorney. 

According to what Trutanich told the Plan Check attendees Saturday, he first heard about this from his staff people at 5 pm on Friday. Moreover, he knows of no law that compels what city planning is saying is legally required. In fact, he invited Gabriela Juarez, the Planning Department's point person on ADUs to call his office to discuss this and has promised to take the call personally.

In the audience listening to Trutanich was Tom Rothman,  Juarez’s superior.  At no time during . Trutanich’s remarks at the Plan Check meeting did Rothman voice any objection or make any public comments to what the city attorney was saying. 

Yet, after the City Attorney departed,  Rothman passed out a sheet on City Planning Letterhead  that categorically states the city CANNOT:          

*Restrict ADUs based on residential density requirements.

*Require more than one parking space per unit or bedroom; parking shall be allowed in setbacks or in tandem (one behind the other) uncovered.

Additionally, Rothman stated that state law does not allow the city to impose “onerous” restrictions  on the permitting of ADUs. 

Rothman spoke again of having been challenged legally, which has led to the department point of view. According to Trutanich, no one from City Planning has spoken to the City Attorney’s office about any of this nor is there anything in state law that requires what Rothman asserts.

Trutanich, in his remarks, made the salient point that he is not a policy maker and that that is a role that is reserved to the City Council.

Yet, where the third most powerful elected city official fears to tread, the city Planning Department seems to feel no such reluctance. Nor do they seem to feel constrained by what state law requires nor the need to seek legal opinion in this matter from the city attorney. They seek public input while telling the public that certain things are mandated by state law, whether or not the same state law requires it.  Most interesting, is that they use the identical language from the very state law (AB 2702) that was vetoed by the governor.

After the public comment period for this matter closes on Dec.15t I imagine that City Planning  will report that the citizenry has no issue with ADUs allowed in anywhere in R1 zones. 

But, then again, I am just a community member with no legal background;  maybe I just don’t understand the nuances or this subject is too complicated to be left to mere citizens. The idea that city planning has taken on the role of policy maker and is attempting to manipulate the citizenry with false information is very uncomfortable to contemplate.

Click here to read the document Rothman handed out Saturday: