• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

ADUs

conarb

Registered User
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
3,505
Location
California East Bay Area
On May 27th I started a thread titled "Legislation to Eliminate Codes Discussion in 'California' started by conarb, May 27, 2018."

SB-831 died in committee and there was an article on the front page of the paper on ADUs.

East Bay Times said:
This year, Megan Kellogg’s mother moved into a new in-law unit in her own backyard, freeing up the main house for Kellogg’s family of three. Building it was the easy part. Getting the blessing from a Bay Area city was another story.

“It was horrific,” said Kellogg. “The worst part of the entire process was dealing with the city. It took us almost a year to get the permit. It was awful.”

But bureaucratic headaches abound, homeowners say, despite new laws that took effect last year to ease local restrictions and shore up the supply of granny flats amid a severe shortage of housing that poor and middle-income Californians can afford.

From lot sizes to parking, cities are “all over the map” with their rules, fees and interpretations of the new state laws governing in-law units, said Karen Chapple, a professor of city and regional planning at UC Berkeley who has a pilot project to grade local governments on their policies.

For homeowners eager to build, the wide-ranging and evolving rules can be a recipe for confusion and unpleasant surprises.

Last year, Francis Schumacher, a retired engineer, bought a house on a large lot in San Jose with a granny-flat project — and his 20-something children — in mind. As he began planning a backyard unit, the city informed him that fire sprinklers were required, despite a new state law exempting granny flats at older homes that don’t have such systems, because of a local rule on any addition of its size. For the sprinklers to work properly, he had to connect them to a water main. The safety feature added $20,000 to the project, on top of $15,000 in other city fees.

“These things kind of really get you,” said Schumacher, who lives in Palo Alto. “That was a surprise to me.”

A sweeping proposal to further slash local fees and regulations on granny flats, Senate Bill 831, was stopped in its tracks late last month in an Assembly policy committee — a victory for cities and counties that protested the proposal as yet another Sacramento attack on local control.

SJM-L-GRANNYUNIT-0711-1.jpg

General contractor Curt Hanson (left) and designer Adam Mayberry discuss the backyard in-law unit being built by homeowner Francis Schumacher (back center) in San Jose, Calif., Monday, July 9, 2018. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)
But the power struggle is not over. Next month the Legislature will take up Assembly Bill 2890 from Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, which would require cities and counties to consider permits for accessory dwelling units within 60 days, rather than 120; prevent cities from banning backyard units on smaller lots; simplify approvals; and strengthen state oversight, among other changes designed to help homeowners.

Also pending is a proposal from Senate Republican Leader Pat Bates, of Orange County, to encourage the legalization of unpermitted units by authorizing local building officials to apply the standards that were in place when the unit was constructed, rather than the latest, more stringent standards. Bates crafted the bill with Encinitas Mayor Catherine Blakespear.

New laws that took effect last year prompted cities across California to rewrite their rules on granny flats. Many are continuing to refine them. San Diego in April stopped charging development fees for new accessory units, and San Jose has just approved changes allowing a second story and, on larger lots, a second bedroom. Campbell is reconsidering its rule banning in-law units on lots less than 10,000 square feet, a restriction affecting about 75 percent of the city’s single-family properties, according to data provided by senior planner Daniel Fama.

The city of Richmond, where Kellogg said she waited nearly a year for a permit, in late 2016 adopted “some of the most aggressive zoning ordinance changes” to encourage the development of in-law units and even tiny houses on wheels, said Mayor Tom Butt. But the city has had few takers, he said — so few that he planned to present the first applicant for an attached in-law unit with a $250 gift card to a home supply store at a city council meeting.¹

The article goes on to give the city's sides, which is understandable when the legislature is being flooded with new bills addressing the problem:

East Bay Times said:
But cities and counties are not keen to deal with another set of state mandates just as the ink has dried from the last changes. “I don’t think the folks at the state have any idea how long it takes to draft, vet and implement a new ordinance,” said Christina Horrisberger, a senior planner for Alameda County, who stressed that she was speaking for herself personally and not the county when she said she was relieved that Wieckowski’s bill failed.

And some residents are wary that unfettered growth of second units will lead to yet more short-term rentals and competition for street parking. Jimme James said the Oakland neighborhood where her family has owned a home for decades is “unrecognizable,” with landlords renting out houses at rates that few families can afford.¹

They are b_tching about one year for a permit as opposed to our average 7 years to permit a new home, this begs two questions:
  1. If the cities can permit a small home in one year why can't they permit a large home in a year?
  2. If codes can be "relaxed" for an ADU why can't they be relaxed for all homes? After all codes are supposed to be minimum standards for health and safety, are residents of ADUs living in less-safe homes than residents of other homes?
 
As has been said ad nauseam........I don't have specifics, I would speculate that the areas that take that long......are less than 5% of the jurisdictions in the US.

A year is beyond ridiculous.........

The absolute worst case around here, if there is a land use process, six months.

Platted subdivisions......20 working days.

Period
 
As has been said ad nauseam........I don't have specifics, I would speculate that the areas that take that long......are less than 5% of the jurisdictions in the US.

A year is beyond ridiculous.........

The absolute worst case around here, if there is a land use process, six months.

Platted subdivisions......20 working days.

Period

Fatboy:

With it being on the front page of the paper I was peppered with questions today, people wanting to know why it's taking so long, and what is being eliminated to reduce costs? At least building inspectors are making the front pages now, of course we will be seeing more demands for more building inspectors to alleviate the backlogs.

My dad built a new home in 1939, the house cost $3,500 with the land being $500 of that cost, it had a separate double garage. Last week I took a detour coming out of a market and went by, at the time they were converting the garage to living quarters, I assume an ADU. Judging by Walnut Creek prices they will probably get $3,000 to $3,500 for that ADU, as much rent in one month as it cost to build the entire house 79 years ago, there was no earthquake bracing other than 45° 2x4 cut-in blocking, I know because as a kid I would run between ths studs, no sheathing, it was covered with 1x10 clear-heart redwood, in good shape today.
 
We had a couple provinces legislate a maximum turn around time of 2 months for any building permit once the department accepts an application. This was to deal with the urban centers where it was taking 4-5 months to get some projects approved.

The solution is an easy one. Get the state legislature to stipulate what a "reasonable" time frame is for approvals and cities must staff to meet it. Or they can stop doing things that are not mandated by law and no one really wants. Focus on Value Added services.
 
Top