Bay Area cities continue the process of updating their local ordinances governing “accessory dwelling units” to conform to new state laws that give cities less control over what they allow.
City councils in Walnut Creek and Piedmont are set to address the issue at their respective meetings Tuesday night.
Changes being considered in these two cities and elsewhere come via several bills signed in October by Gov. Gavin Newsom meant to increase affordable housing stocks statewide. ADUs, sometimes called “mother-in-law” units or “granny flats,” are one part of the state’s ideal formula for providing such housing.
One new law, AB 68/AB 881, will limit cities’ ability to prevent homeowners from building second and third units less than 16 feet tall provided there is enough space to build them at least four feet from property lines. It also prohibits replacement off-street parking when a “garage, carport or covered parking structure” is demolished or converted into an ADU.
Walnut Creek planners say the new state laws “would have nullified the entirety” of that city’s existing zoning regulations for ADUs, because some of its provisions conflicted with those in the new state law. The City Council on Dec. 17 adopted an urgency ordinance that removed these conflicting provisions, but further action is needed to comply with state law.
Between a significant update of Walnut Creek ADU regulations in 2017, and the new state law that “leaves very little else for the city to regulate in regards to ADUs,” the City Council is being urged to make its urgency ordinance permanent over the next several months.
The Walnut Creek City Council meeting begins at 6 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall, 1666 N. Main St. The Piedmont City Council meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 120 Vista.
We did not work for 10 years to save a downpayment to purchase a house in a quiet single family residential neighborhood, and spend 25 years improving it only to see the neighborhood converted to multiple family rentals. The character of a neighborhood changes when it is converted from home owners only to owners and renters, The noise level increases, there’s more traffic, and parking becomes congested, Politicians need to address the real problem – too many people. They’ve never determined the true human carrying capacity of an area and in their ignorance continue to allow growth to continue unimpeded.
Nothing in life is guaranteed. And you don’t like, perhaps another area is better for you.
One unit will have to remain owner-occupied. This will not create multiple rental situations. This allows homeowner who resides in main dwelling to lease out an ADU.
I whole heartedly agree, John P.
Too many people. Kitties are at maximum capacity. Not to mention Mother Earth. Where are to eco nuts on this?
I totally agree with you, John P. All we wanted was a quiet little single family home neighborhood. But with multiple zone living come even more cars parked on the streets. Sometimes these cars sit for weeks while their owners enjoy one month vacations.
The people who say, “If you don’t like it, move” have no pride. And people who have home pride are the best.
Kitties?? I am actually laughing at that one.
@Justify – where are the “eco-nuts”? Paul Ehrlich published “ The Population Bomb” in 1968. It accurately predicted many of the crowding problems we are experiencing now. Too bad nobody did anything about it. Where have you been on this?
Typical gaslighting from “concord ygnacio”…..shame on all of you for wanting to maintain your nice things!!!
Overplay your communism and watch the people show up to the Capitol like they just did in Virginia.
@Justifiable languor Actually, I think you have a point about the kitties. They’re at capacity in my neighborhood with or without in-law units. 😀
Ignacio: perhaps you should offer a better solution than telling me to leave. I fought for my country overseas and I’ll fight to protect it here.
I guess one suggestion is either adapt or move. When you can determine the “true human carrying capacity of an area” let us all know….
Really? The Fire Marshal doesn’t seem to have a problem with Building Maximum Occupancies….
Like the frog in the pot? Have a spine, stand and fight.
The market determines the carrying capacity of an area as the government is not interfering with the market.
The market determines people sitting 3 hours in their cars on YVR trying to get to and from the freeway???
I don’t like the provision that replacement of off-street parking is prohibited. That’s going to lead to parking problems in residential neighborhoods. We already have a problem with some homes having 4-6 cars… new people across the street have at least 6 cars, park along other homes, and then complain when someone else parks in front of their house.
I agree and will suggest something equally unpopular, but logical.
The CNWS is the perfect place for pod living. LA already has experimental group housing, 6 to a unit. Strict codes of cooperation required, for snowflakes or younger working class. Close to BART, they won’t require autos. The community will have have service, ready to eat food, and other conveniences. An open space area also a senior citizen housing. Theater, restaurants, gym.
The CNWS could be an excellent example for futuristic living. Where are the local or internationals donating to this project? What a bunch of phonies. Of core we would have to include Bill Gates innovative waste system. I can’t believe a supposedly wacky conservative is the only one with modern vision.
John P., agree 100%. This won’t stop until all of the “suburbs” surrounding SF and Oakland are their spitting image. Change or remove existing cities regulations and codes until none exist then we can build multi-unit boxes, fill them with a dependent voting base, and control the masses.
I love the use of “mother-in-law” units and “granny flats”. Sounds quaint, doesn’t it? Now who could possibly be against nothing but mothers-in-law or grandparents living side by side with their families? Priceless.
On another note, I bet the Oakland neighbors are completely thrilled with the idea that Moms 4 Housing get to be their new neighbors without having to buy the house.
A granny unit soon to be rented out to a family of five. Why do they pass laws under false pretenses that cannot be enforced. What happens when granny dies? This should be stopped.
Ahhh, the delicious tears of entitlement. Get used to it people, you wanted more people in this state and even welcomed illegal immigration. Reap what you sow.
Sorry, but taxpaying Homeowners still gave a say about what is going to bring blight or decrease the value of their neighborhood or block a view. That is the way it has been for the past 100 years and one whipper snapper in office is not going to override that.
Before I have a bunch of renters parking in front of my house with their litter and loud cars…..I’ll park a Pinto or Old truck in front of my house.
Perhaps they should be for family members only. Not for rentals.
If you marry an orphan these problems can be avoided. Tell your children, “Always marry an orphan”.