Council approves new rules for ‘granny flats’ in Hermosa Beach
Residentially zoned properties containing a single-family home on a lot size of 4,000 square feet or greater will be allowed to have an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), under an ordinance approved by the Hermosa Beach City Council Tuesday night.
Tuesday’s vote reestablishes local standards for vetting so-called ADUs, small units either within an existing home or located on the same lot, which is also known as “in-law units” or “granny flats.” State statutes passed over the last two years had largely voided existing regulations on the subject throughout California, forcing cities to rely on default rules the State had designed in an effort to encourage the spread of ADUs as a way to address the state’s housing crisis.
The Council also agreed to draft a letter to Sacramento opposing further erosion of local government authority in zoning decisions. Some residents and councilmembers have inquired about going a step further and joining a lawsuit over the law, but City Attorney Michael Jenkins said that such a suit would have “no basis.”
Planning Manager Kim Chafin said the new ordinance was important because the state’s default rules did not reflect conditions in Hermosa. Hermosa is among the dozen densest of Los Angeles County’s 88 cities, has an unusually large number of nonconforming residential properties, and an unusually small median lot size, factors she said make it more challenging to accommodate the additional people and units that would be potentially be built under the State’s ADU policies.
The default rules from the state law would have allowed all residentially zoned properties with only a single-family home to apply for an ADU. According to the city planning department, there are just over 2,600 lots in the city that are zoned for single-family residential use. But fewer than 1,600 of these parcels are over 4,000 square feet, qualifying them for ADUs.
The council voted 4-1 to approve the updated ordinance. The lone “no” vote came from Councilmember Justin Massey, who questioned whether the revised ordinance’s approach to parking issues was consistent with state law. One of the state bills introducing new ADU rules said that cities may not require parking for ADUs “within a half-mile of public transit.”
When the issue first came before Hermosa’s Planning Commission in May, staff interpreted that to mean that parking requirements could not be imposed on any ADU within the city, because the entirety of Hermosa’s 1.4 square mile land area is within a half-mile of stops on one of the four bus lines that run through the city. But the prospect of more competition for scarce parking spots was one of several aspects of the proposed ordinance that Planning commissioners objected to, and they rejected the draft rules. When the item returned in June, staff presented a new ordinance that relied on the definition of “major transit stop,” from elsewhere in the California code. The result was that, instead of none of Hermosa’s potential ADUs being eligible for parking requirements, all of them would be. That requirement, consisting of one parking space per bedroom, was approved Tuesday.
But following the Planning commission’s June vote, Greg Nickless, a housing policy analyst with the state Housing and Community Development Department, said in an interview that the parking requirement likely inconsistent with the intent of state law, in part because requiring parking discourages the proliferation of ADUs by making them more expensive. At least one other city in California has adopted the more restrictive definition, but the legislature appears to be catching up. SB 831, from Bay Area senator Bob Wieckowski, would explicitly define “public transit” more broadly than Hermosa’s proposed law. “‘Public transit’ means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public,” the bill reads.
Staff acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding the issue but said they were comfortable with the ordinance after consulting with the City Attorney’s office. They also said they wanted to get the city’s rules in place to address pending applications for ADUs. There have been five applications filed since the beginning of the year.
Jenkins pointed out that the issue was of growing concern to Sacramento, and that the legislature took a very different perspective on the issue than the council. He alluded to measures like SB 827, which would have significantly reduced municipalities’ power over certain zoning issues. Although the measure died in committee, Jenkins said that the progress it did make was a sign of how serious legislators were taking housing. Other bills, including those crafting new rules for ADUs, have passed with nearly unanimous support, often including the votes of local representatives Senator Ben Allen and Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi.
“There is a very aggressive movement in the legislature to really take charge of housing at the expense of local control. The League of California Cities and other city groups have been aggressively challenging those laws. I mean, you can call our state senator and our state assemblyman and ask what they think the prospects are,” Jenkins said.
“Just don’t hold your breath, right?” joked Councilmember Mary Campbell.