From the voiceofsandiego.org:
In 2002, the California legislature passed a law requiring cities to allow construction of “granny flats,” small apartments built as attached or detached additions to single-family homes.
The idea was to promote more affordable rental housing in existing residential neighborhoods and allow more room for extended families that wanted to stay together.
But then-Mayor Dick Murphy, concerned about neighborhoods becoming too dense, disliked the idea and led the San Diego City Council to approve restrictions that made it nearly impossible to actually build granny flats in the city. To get a building permit, for example, a person’s property had to be at least twice as large as the size of a typical single-family home parcel, effectively ruling out granny flats in many core neighborhoods because most parcels are not much larger than the minimum required size.
But a law change approved by the city’s Planning Commission last week would eliminate many of the restrictions if it’s ultimately approved by the City Council, making it easier for property-owners in many city neighborhoods to build granny flats as large as 700 square feet.
The proposed change is one among dozens the city’s Development Services Department is proposing as it updates its zoning laws.
The amendments would remove the double lot size requirement, and also allow a granny flat — formally known as a companion unit — to be built at the same time as a primary residence, which is not currently allowed. It would leave in place some rules, like a requirement that one off-street parking space be available for each bedroom in the unit.
At the Planning Commission’s Thursday meeting, commission Chairman Eric Naslund said the restrictions implemented under Murphy were “just crazy.”
“The notion of a companion unit is essentially to sort of create these situations for extended families, rentals, and so on,” he said. He added that the double-lot size requirement made no sense, because at that point a property owner would be allowed to subdivide a parcel and build a second house.
City planners believe the law change would benefit low-income residential neighborhoods like Barrio Logan where extended families often live together, and could help satisfy the neighborhood’s need for affordable housing.
Several members of the public, including development consultants and architects, told the Planning Commission they supported the law changes Thursday.
But others, including representatives from the College Area near San Diego State University, opposed them, citing concerns about higher density in single-family neighborhoods. Homeowners in the College Area have long been opposed to similar housing arrangements called mini dorms, which cater to SDSU students.
The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend the code amendments to the City Council, which will soon take the proposed changes under consideration.
Does anyone else see how this will benefit a homeowner besides its intended purpose to house family? Or do you think investors will further infiltrate said areas and squueze every dollar out of units per lot for rent?
This is an official game changer and neighborhoods will change down the line methinks.
I’m not sure this is a game changer. For years we’ve seen single family or duplexes in Centre city, PB, OB, College Area turned into Multi-Family apartments or condos. If you allow the change at every property then developers would be willing to pay top dollar for those home owners that would prefer to move into a less densely populated area. It’s not a perfect solution, but I think it’s the best solution for the common good.
I don’t know if this specific change in SD’s zoning is a game-changer, but granny flats in general are a very popular product among homebuyers now.
The cost of health care and assisted living will make the 2-4 unit properties more valuable in the future – not as rentals, but as family compounds!
This is not what PB needs. PB is over developed already. The real estate bubble hurt PB in this respect. So many SFR have been mowed down and 4 to 6 townhomes replaced it. PB is so congested, it is a nightmare getting in and out of there at rush hour.
I don’t know what the City has done w/permit fees it received from all the development, but they have not taken care of infrastructure in PB. There are frequent water and sewer main breaks and road closures, not to mention the very poor condition of the roads in general.
While it would be a good idea for families, the developers will abuse it and pervert properties.
All great points. JtR I hope you are right about
the family compounds, but I see that as a minority. lol
livinincali, your suggestion seems to imply that folks that do live in said areas would be happy to cash out thus giving room to developers? I dont know, with the non-native San Diegans that have basically infiltrated the Balboa Park neighborhoods I am not so sure if they prefer to ‘move’ up and out. For the prices they paid, they could have bought something new in Suburbia from JtR.
The reason I think it will be a game changer is from an infrastructure standpoint in a lot of the older neighborhoods. I just dont see how doubling up living spaces on aging infrastructure will do tax payers a favor in the long run. There is always something bursting or falling a part in OB or PB at least once a month I see on the news.
Areas like Barrio Logan? Rental city possibly bordering on slums?
That and the fact that it was voted at 5-0 is a little puzzling. Well not really when you see how the biggest supporters were.
Meh, just another guys opinion.
I think any additional detached structure is a huge selling point. People want them not just for caring for older parents but as home offices. My husband works from home a lot and can’t stand the noise from our kids in the house. Until we build something (or move) he’s stuck in our garage.
I can speak with some experience on this. We built a granny flat – legally, at a time when the city was dead set against approving them. We were fortunate in our large lot size and the fact that my husband was extremely persistent, not taking no for an answer. But the permitting process was a nightmare and took almost a year to jump through all the hoops.
One thing that would be interesting to know – do they still have the weird “street wall” requirements for the offstreet parking. We had to jump through hoops to meet that requirement. It appears to be an odd setback requirement that specifically applies to companion units in the city of San Diego.
My in-laws live in the unit. It’s great. My kids get to spend time with their grandparents. We can help take care of my wheelchair bound father in law. They have their own space, but we are close enough to help out. It was designed to be handicap accessible and easy to take care of.
As far as resale value, or for that matter, getting comps when you try to refi… that’s an open question. There’s not a big market of comparables… (We had issues getting comps with our refi, but our low LTV helped.) But we built it for the long term needs of our family.
I noticed the proposal also removes one of the caveats that we had to agree to. We had to sign an agreement that we could not rent out BOTH units (primary house and companion unit). It appears from the planning department summary (linked in the linked article) that this will no longer be a requirement. In other words, if we relocate, we could rent out BOTH units, not just one. I wonder if this will be retroactive. Hmmmm
Thanks for posting this Jim.
re-reading. The owner occupying one of the units is still in there. As is the street wall parking thing. The street wall thing will eliminate all lots that don’t have wide side yards. It basically says there has to be X feet to the side of the house (not in front) for the off street parking. Most houses in San Diego are built less than 10 feet from the property line on the side…
I understand that some long time residents don’t particular care for multi unit expansion in their neighborhood. It’s effectively a NIMBY argument. My personal opinion is that a homeowner’s right to build a Granny Flat on their property outweighs any neighbor’s right to tell them they can’t. I know people will disagree, especially those long time homeowners that wish for the quite days when they bought their home 30 years ago, but gentrification is going to happen. It’s a necessity as the needs of society change.
Just want to make sure I am clear about one important thing. I’m not opposed to granny flats, as long as the City uses the money from the permits/property taxes, etc, to maintain the infractructure so that the residents don’t suffer from the congestion and sewer/water main breaks. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.
Granny flats are a very good idea. I just wish the City would take this into account when it comes to infrastructure/planning. Anyone that doubts this need to go to PB at about 5 pm or when the water/sewer main breaks.
Sadly it is just another way for developers toget around zoning and the City to pocket more money w/out taking care of the residents.
livinincali- I agree with you. While I dont think this measure will necessarily gentrify an area in of itself, it certainly has the potential to make certain neighborhoods more dense and more rent-able which can be good or bad thing.
I for one dont live in SD Proper so the direct impact is almost inconsequential. For folks that have high property values, its awesome.
I do hope that it doesnt create slums in the lower income areas. Investors buying cheap property and just packin in the renters to an 8k sq foot lot will be a breeding ground for trouble.
James @#12:
The city still requires the owner to sign an agreement that is filed with the county recorders office that states the owner will occupy either the main house or the companion unit. There are other restrictions for parking, building height, etc that remain in effect. As does the 700sf max size. And like in building additions -they look at impervious surfaces – and ensure that the entire lot isn’t covered with building/concrete… (In other words -some rain has to make it into the ground.) It seems unlikely that investors or going to take advantage of this rule change… They’d be better served buying lots that are zoned for multi-unit and don’t have the owner occupancy restrictions.
@ugal – good to know about the owner occupancy restrictions. However, do you think the City has the manpower to follow up on these things? After this last bubble, let’s just say that it wouldn’t shock me that someone would lie on paperwork.
UCGal- Good to know about those requirements. Whether they are enforced or not is another question, but at least it will be in writing.
With that being said I wonder what max floor space would be for two units on 7-8k sq fot lot. For example most of the post WWII tracts range from ~800sqft-1200. I cant imagine a 700sq fot 2nd unit in the backyard would be ok per the requirements.
hrmmm
James:
I can’s specifically address that. I know our 2k sf main house takes up less than 2k of our 10k sf lot – because it’s a 2 story. (It’s more than 1k because of the garage, though.)
We have a big backyard even with adding a 700sf granny flat.
I think Chula Vista scales the max sf for granny flats based on lot size. So a 10k sf lot can have 700sf. A 9k sf lot could have 0.9 * 700sf… etc… That solution made sense to me.
Chula Vista, at the time, also waived the permit application fee if you went with one of their pre-approved plan. But… alas… we don’t live in Chula Vista and couldn’t take advantage.
Anyone know a Clairemont builder familiar with granny flats? Selling a house and clients want to add space.