Hat tip to Peter for sending in this article:
CARLSBAD — The city finalized its policy regarding accessory dwelling units to reflect changes in state law.
During its Sept. 1 meeting, the City Council approved amendments to the zoning and municipal codes, in addition to the Village and Barrio Master Plan and Local Coastal Program.
The changes to the city’s municipal code align with six new state laws aiming to spur construction of ADUs, or “granny flats,” and create more affordable housing options for residents.
Don Neu, Carlsbad city planner, said ADUs are secondary residential units on an existing property and the city’s recent approval is keeping in line with the new state laws.
The latest California laws (AB 68, AB 881, SB 13, AB 587, AB 670 and AB 671) allow for ADUs on any lot with single-family or multi-family dwellings to include junior ADUs — units within the walls of a single-family home with a maximum size of 500-square feet — along with ADUs, which are detached units up to 1,200-square feet.
Other changes include setbacks, heights, lot coverage allowing for 800-square-foot units and prohibiting ADUs being used as short-term rentals, Neu said. Also, homeowner’s associations must allow both types of ADUs and state-mandated Housing Elements must include incentives for ADUs, Neu said.
“The processing time to act on a permit request for an accessory unit has been reduced from 120 days to 60 days,” Neu said.
The council also approved the attached ADUs to be 50% of the main dwelling or a maximum of 1,200-square feet, whichever is less. For detached units, 1,200-square feet is the maximum, which is in line with state law, Neu said.
These new guidelines also regulate height limits, which are 16 feet for both detached and attached units, and the city will default to the height allowed by the current zoning. As for landscaping, city ADUs must apply the same requirements as applied to the development of the property, while the architecture must be consistent with the main dwelling.
As of Nov. 2019, Neu said there were 425 ADUs in the city with rent running between $1,416 for a studio and $1,618 per month for a one-bedroom unit. Of the 425, there are 184 that are deed-restricted for lower-income residents and the rest are counted as affordable to moderate-income households.
“These were accessory units that were constructed to satisfy the inclusionary ordinance,” he said.
According to the staff report, the new state law also includes a requirement for the California Department of Housing and Community Development to review the city’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance for compliance.
The city will be given 30 days to respond and indicate if it will either change the ordinance to comply with the state housing department’s findings or adopt it as-is. If no response is made within 30 days, the state may notify the attorney general the city is in violation of state law.
Peter also noted this detail which should help to appease the NIMBYs:
Title 21 Zoning Chapter 21.10.030 ADUs has a unique permit requirement:
2g. An owner signed and notarized a notice of restriction, to be recorded against the property, declaring that:
- The property owner(s) shall reside in either the primary dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit, unless a lessee leases both the primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling unit; and
- The obligations and restrictions imposed on the accessory dwelling unit per the chapter are BINDING ON ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERS.
Option 1: density and cheaper housing.
Option 2: homeless under every bridge.
The cheaper part is the problem.
They are building new apartments all over Vista, but they are all $1,800 for a one-bedroom.
It’s the same everywhere. The government might insist upon a portion of the new-builds be dedicated to lower-income people, but the amount is never close to satisfying the demand – and the rent really isn’t that low either.
I suspect the city’s decision to impose an owner occupancy requirement (which is not required per AB 68), will significantly reduce the number of ADUs/PADUs built for the purpose of renting. Thus, limiting the impact of the program.
Agree, and just the stipulation of the restriction lasting forever will make homeowners think twice about doing it.
“Will it impact value, and the ability to sell later? Oh geez, we better not. We don’t need it that bad.”
> prohibiting ADUs being used as short-term rentals,
> owner occupancy
While both “reasonable” they are impractical. For but one example, an owner-occupant of a primary residence is thus prohibited from selling to an investor.
Cheaper is going to be hard because of the lopsided supply/demand equation. But more density is the only hope at slowly chipping away at it.
It never ceases to amaze how many people think denser = cheaper.
I eagerly await an example worth living in.
Rob’s statement is a logical fallacy that confused population growth with supply and demand fundamentals. Cities in high demand will always have high rents. Even when they’re dense. But to pretend like adding a substantial number of rental properties to San Diego wouldn’t slow rental rates is incorrect and Adam Smith would like to have a chat with anyone who thinks differently.
Meanwhile, I’d love to hear Rob’s pithy solution to the homeless problem in cities with sky high rents. (Spoiler alert: he doesn’t have one.)
But nobody has one, do they?
> “But nobody has one, do they?”
Shhh. He’s on a roll.
Rezoning for increased density is a slap on the face of people who are there already who invested in the existing density.