Wilson v. City of Laguna Beach

Opinion

SILLS, P. J.

I

More than a decade ago the state Legislature declared the supply of housing in California was insufficient to meet demand and the imbalance was likely to become worse in the foreseeable future.

1

In the space of two pages, the Witkin treatise on California law cites no less than 19 different sets of laws and programs as “illustrative” of the Legislature’s efforts to both increase the housing available to Californians and help make it affordable.

2

One of California’s more “innovative” efforts is section 65852.2 of the Government Code

3

—sometimes referred to as the “granny flat” statute.

4

That statute encourages local governments to enact their own ordinances allowing and regulating “second units” in single-family and multifamily

[546]

zones where they otherwise would be prohibited. If the local governments do not enact such an ordinance, then they

must

grant a “conditional use permit" for any second units which meet the requirements enumerated in the statute. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (b).)

It is what those requirements do not include that prompted numerous local governments to oppose the granny flat statute prior to its being signed into law by Governor Brown in September 1982. Specifically, they do not include assurance of adequate parking. As the statute is worded, if an existing second unit meets the requirements, the local government must grant the permit even if parking for the unit is inadequate.

It is thus not surprising that cities where finding a parking space can be the highlight of one’s day were less than enthusiastic about implementing the granny flat statute. This case arises out of the efforts of one such city, Laguna Beach, which, as the record shows, employed a number of artful bureaucratic devices to circumvent the statute in the time period before the adoption of its own (and, of course, somewhat stricter) ordinance—the interval when the city was required to process the requested permits under the statute.