New law on in-laws

Most days homeowner Dusty Wakefield likes what his neighbors have to say. Still, the Burbank resident is glad the city can now issue permits for second dwelling units without public hearings.

A new state law took effect July 1 to ease restrictions on second dwelling units, also known as in-law units or granny flats, in single-family and multifamily neighborhoods. The law, known as Assembly Bill 1866 before it was signed, requires local agencies to approve or deny second-unit applications and related appeals without public notice and hearings before an administrative review board.

Some view it as a step toward alleviating California’s affordable housing crunch. Others see it as a threat to the character of residential neighborhoods, increasing density and demand for parking.

Wakefield expects the law to streamline his request to convert a 500-square-foot bonus room off his detached two-car garage into a one-bedroom, one-bath living space for family members who visit monthly from Northern California.

Though he first planned to start the project in February, the DreamWorks animator held off until the law went into effect. Wakefield thinks it has been worth the wait: “It means less paperwork, less hassle and less money spent.”

Before the new law, California residents hoping to add a second unit had to seek approval through a process of public notice, typically to neighboring property owners within 300 feet, and public hearings before a planning commission, city council or board of supervisors.

The hearings often became contentious and led to neighborhood opposition, lengthy delays and denial of the permit, according to Ron Kingston, a lobbyist for the California Assn. of Realtors, which cosponsored the bill.

Will silencing the neighbors make approval easier? In Burbank it will at least make it quicker and cheaper. The previous permit process took up to five months and cost $608. Under the new law, applications should be completed in less than three months and cost $480.

In addition to removing the public hearing process, the law allows second-unit applications that meet established local standards for parking, setback, architectural review, lot coverage, maximum size and other criteria to be reviewed and approved at an administrative level by planning or zoning staff.

Burbank, which averaged three or four applications a year during the 1990s, received five applications from July 1 through September of this year, according to Art Bashmakian, a city planner. Still, Bashmakian does not expect the simpler application process will significantly increase the numbers.

How much the law will affect the rest of Los Angeles is difficult to determine, said Con Howe, director of planning for the Los Angeles Department of City Planning. “It’s hard to predict the number of applications.”

The law means applicants who meet the city standards for second dwelling units cannot be denied, Howe said, but the city of Los Angeles still has stringent requirements for legal second units, “and the new state law doesn’t change that.”

Although second dwellings are not tracked at the state level, Marc Brown, a staff attorney for the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, which cosponsored the bill with CAR, hopes the new legislation will increase the supply of affordable housing. “My guess is that several thousand units may get built as a result of AB 1866 that otherwise would not have been built.”

But the one-size-fits-all law fails to address the individual needs of California cities, said Dan Carrigg, a legislative representative for the League of California Cities, a grass-roots network of city officials that opposed the bill. Carrigg said he believes land-use issues are better settled at the local level.

Torrance resident Sandi Monda, who served on that city’s planning commission for eight years, agrees that second units should be under local control.

“My husband and I bought in our neighborhood because we did not want to live in an area that had duplexes, townhomes or rentals,” Monda said, “where I wouldn’t have to worry if I was going to be able to park in front of my own house.”

Parking issues aside, Monda said second units undermine the character of single-family neighborhoods by creating multifamily rental zones with transients, absentee landlords, increased noise, crowding and lowered home values.

But Kingston, the CAR lobbyist, said local ordinances address these issues. “You’re not talking about placing 15 people in a 600-square-foot unit.”

Helene Cob purchased her 1,200-square-foot Los Angeles home with a second unit in 1990. The one-bedroom unit, off a detached garage, provided the perfect living space for her then college-age daughter. She now rents the unit to a teacher for $450 a month.

Cob said she believes that even with the lure of extra income, most owners are going to be selective about the person living in their own backyard and that it’s not about making money. “It’s about meeting the needs of the people.”

Though Burbank has no rent restrictions on second units, Santa Clarita prohibits leasing out second units. Meanwhile, San Dimas requires second units not occupied by immediate family to be slated for low-income households and affordable, with rents of about 35% of the tenant’s annual income.

The new law is not the first statewide word on second dwellings, nor is it likely to be the last. In 1982, the Legislature allowed second-unit requests to require a conditional use permit that had to be approved by an administrative board, such as the city council, and encouraged cities to develop ordinances to promote the dwellings.

The statute was amended three times, from 1986 to 1994, to include current space restrictions -- 1,200 square feet for a detached unit and not more than 30% of the existing living area when the unit is attached -- and to establish parking requirements of one parking space per unit or per additional bedroom.

In 1984, the Superior Court annulled a Fresno County zoning ordinance requiring second-unit occupants to be related to the main property owner. Similarly, in 2001, the California Court of Appeal struck down a Santa Monica ordinance that restricted occupants of the second unit to the property owner, a dependent or a caregiver.

Will the new law open the floodgates for second dwelling units? Probably not. Ironically, city planner Bashmakian noted, the elimination of public hearings and administrative review is forcing many cities to implement stricter regulations. In fact, as long as cities stay within the framework of the law and don’t ban second units or implement unreasonable standards, jurisdictions can to a certain extent play by their own rules.

Cities without second-unit codes are instructed to follow state guidelines. And local jurisdictions have a 120-day grace period from July 1 to bring city codes in line with state legislation.

Still, Kingston said he believes not everyone is playing fair.

“Even though the law says you are not required to have a public hearing, in Moraga, the city is still requiring public hearings for the purposes of seeing if the public believes that the proposed second unit is in compliance with their own city codes,” he said. “That is a pretty outrageous response.”

Moraga Associate Planner Richard Chamberlain said that after consulting with their attorneys, the city determined they could have two ordinances. The first allows for routine approvals for second-dwelling projects that meet specific criteria. But if a project doesn’t meet those strict guidelines, the second ordinance, which could be approved later this month, presents an opportunity for further review at a public meeting.

“If a project doesn’t meet the guidelines for ministerial approval and you still want to have a second living unit, it’s your option to apply,” Chamberlain said. “But you then have to go through the public hearing process.”

Growing concern that local governments are making it almost impossible to add a legal second unit by imposing excessive restrictions has resulted in Assembly Bill 1160. This bill, expected to be heard in January, seeks to remove limitations that specify the maximum size of a unit, restrict the rent or income of second-unit occupants or mandate unreasonable parking requirements and other criteria.

AB 1160’s broad guidelines don’t sit well with Torrance City Council member Michael Mauno, who plans to fight it. “The concern we have is the state circumventing the local planning process altogether and giving the right to anyone to build a granny flat without taking things into consideration like parking.”

But in Burbank, for example, local density limitations restrict the number of units in a given area. In Wakefield’s case, a 300-foot minimum separation is required between each second dwelling unit.

“If you fit that strict criteria, it enables you to be the lucky neighbor,” Wakefield said. “But it still protects the neighborhood as a whole.”

If it is approved, Wakefield believes the in-law unit will increase his home’s value by $100,000. He estimated the conversion will cost less than $10,000. However, builders and architects quote typical construction costs for a 500-square-foot unit at between $20,000 and $45,000.

Shorewood Realtors agent Candice Carpenter, who covers the Manhattan Beach area, said a second dwelling unit could increase a property’s value there by 10% to 20%.

In addition to added value, Carpenter said second units are often an incentive to buyers looking to offset their mortgage payments through rental income. Though regional rents on second units range from $450 to $1,900 per month, Carpenter has seen two-bedroom units in the beach area rent for $3,000 a month.

Torrance resident Monda sees the high rents negating second units as a source of affordable housing.

“Property owners who are building or adding these units are doing it for the income,” she said. “If I wanted my wonderful granny to live with me, I’d put her in a spare bedroom with her stuff, where I’d be able to keep an eye on her and not charge her any rent. That’s a true granny unit.”

Michelle Hofmann can be reached at michellehofmann@earthlink.net.