City Att'y Says Sac'to Density Dictates Mean New LB "Granny Flats" Ordinance Coming To Council Hearing Dec. 12 Can't Require Parking In Some Ways Council Wanted And In Much Of City Except On These Terms is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.
(Dec. 5, 2017, 8:45 a.m.) -- In a formal hearing item agendized for City Council action on December 12, city staff informs Councilmembers and the public that despite the Council's publicly voted action earlier this year, recently-enacted Sacramento laws [vote details below] now prevent the City from requiring parking for "Accessory Dwelling Units" ("ADUs" or "granny flats") nearly anywhere in Long Beach except within the Coastal Zone and in areas legally-designated by the City as "parking impacted" (or unless it's "replacement" parking anywhere in LB where garages are converted into dwelling units.)

That means despite a Council vote earlier this year, LB's new ordinance on "Granny Flats" (required to replace LB's previous ordinance that Sacramento laws invalidated) can't require parking for ADUs (except for "replacement" parking for garages converted to ADUs) in LB neighborhoods that require "permit parking" (mainly affects parts of the 4th and 5th Council districts but aren't legally designated "parking impacted areas. In other words, if an area has permit parking but isn't an explicitly designed "parking impacted," it will be treated in the same way for ADU parking requirements as most of the rest of the city. (The City Attorney's office notes differences between "parking impacted areas" and "permit parking areas," a distinction with significance under Sac'to's new laws.) (See map below w/ detailed pdf in city staff memo page 74.)

As a practical matter, ADU's can become de facto rental units (beyond "Grannies") for residential property owners. At a previous Council meeting, Councilmembers specified that the ordinance text (coming to the first of two enacting votes on Dec. 12) allow ADUs on parcels of 5,200 sq. ft or larger and allow ADUs of up to 800 sq. ft

[Scroll down for further.

A very detailed city staff report signed by (now-outgoing) Dir. of Development Services, Amy Bodek, is at this link.

Map from Mobility Element, p. 100, incl. in city staff memo at pdf page 74.

In addition, in areas where the Council can require parking for ADUs (within the Coastal Zone and "parking impacted areas"), the Council can only require one parking space per ADU (not two) regardless of the size of the ADU. Earlier this year, the Council voted to require two spaces for ADUs above 640 sq. ft. but Sac'to's laws prevent that, city staff's memo says.



In all cases where a property owner converts a garage into an ADU, the Council can (and the new city ordinance coming to the Council on Dec. 12 does) require "replacement" parking (which may include carport, tandem and the like.)

The net effect: single family and multi-family neighborhoods can now become more dense. City staff's memo doesn't detail the Sac'to votes on these local land use matters...but does below.


AB 494 and SB 229 [a memo typo calls the latter SB 22] were enacted in 2017. Both measures were both supported by Sacramento's current Democrat majority leadership. Both measures passed with the "yes" votes of LB-area state Senator Ricardo Lara (D, LB-Huntington Park) and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D, NLB-Lakewood-Paramount) [both of whom also voted for SB 35 earlier this year.]

AB 494 was opposed on final passage by Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell (D, LB-San Pedro). O'Donnell voted "yes" on AB 494 earlier in the session but was the only "no" vote on final Assembly passage (76-1, with 2 not voting.] On AB 494, State Senator Janet Nguyen (R, SE LB-west OC) voted "yes" (with Senate passage 40-0). (Full AB 494 votes are at this link.)

On SB 229, Senator Nguyen voted "yes" on the measure twice (final Senate passage was 40-0.) Assemblyman O'Donnell was one of only two "no" votes on SB 229 on final Assembly passage (76-2, 1 not voting) (Full SB 229 votes are at this link.)

As previously reported by, Sen . Nguyen, a Repub, joined Senate Dems in voting "yes" on SB 35 (on which Dem O'Donnell voted "no" and most Repubs voted "no.") Sen. Nguyen is currently seeking re-election and faces a challenge from former LB Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske, a Dem who's spoken out against Nguyen's vote on SB 35.






blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend to your Facebook friends:

Follow with:




Return To Front Page

Contact us:

Adoptable pet of the week:

Carter Wood Floors
Hardwood Floor Specialists
Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050

Copyright © 2017, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here