Sacramento’s top officials have recently passed a series of laws to relax restrictions on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to address the growing need for housing throughout the state.
These laws include Senate Bill 13 (SB 13), Assembly Bill (AB 881) and Assembly Bill 68 (AB 68), which all focus on relaxing restrictions for ADUs or commonly called granny flats.
Corliss Lee, president of neighborhood activist group Eastside Voice, told the Signal Tribune during an interview last month that she is concerned the new bills will negatively impact population density in Long Beach.
Her group, Eastside Voice, formed in 2017 after a group of residents in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Council Districts opposed legislation of the city’s Land-Use Element legislation.
“Traffic and parking will be impacted, and we can expect an increase in the crime rate–– more people means more crime,” Lee said.
She said local agencies previously had control over zoning limits for ADU developments. She claims these laws will remove that control.
“No one was too worried when the city approved our ADU ordinance, because it had controls on it that maintain the rights of neighborhoods,” Lee said. “These new laws go a step further and they basically say, ‘You can have two ADUs on a property–– a regular ADU and a junior ADU,’ and it takes away things like all the work that we did on trying to determine what’s good for this city.”
Patrick O’Donnell, 70th District State assemblymember, voted against passing these bills, his concerns with the bills seemed to echo Lee’s worries about local agencies losing control.
During an interview with the Signal Tribune on Sept. 23, O’Donnell said that although he supported “legislation that does address the housing crisis” in the state, he feels each city should tackle the issue individually.
“I believe cities plan cities–– Sacramento shouldn’t plan cities,” he said. “Cities can already have multiple ADUs in a backyard if they so desire. I don’t believe it’s the role of Sacramento to mandate that they have multiple ADUs in a backyard.”
At the Senate level, Lena Gonzalez, 33rd District State senator and former Long Beach councilmember, voted to approve all three bills, according to the California legislation website.
In an emailed statement to the Signal Tribune, Gonzalez said, “the bills push back against local ordinances that limit ADUs, and instead support the development of multiple ADUs, remove owner-occupancy requirements, and limit fees.”
“At the heart of the issue is that we need to build more housing—not just in Long Beach, but throughout the state,” Gonzales said when asked about the concerns of negative density in Long Beach. “With any type of housing construction— whether it’s ADUs, single-family homes, or multi-family developments— many people have shared concerns about increased traffic flow and parking impacts. While parking is certainly a challenge in many neighborhoods, housing is also a top priority. ADUs are often used to house family members, students, or older adults and we need to ensure we are building housing for all these residents.”
The bills will not take effect until Jan. 1, 2020– until then, the city will keep a watchful eye to see how these bills will impact local projects, Diana Tang, Mayor Robert Garcia’s chief of staff, said.
“You’re going to find folks on both sides of the issue on that, and so our priority, in the interest of the local government, is to make sure that we are following state law,” Tang said. “We will work with the community to develop an ADU program that is compliant with state law but then also is congruent with our LUE as well.”
I’ve never been opposed to denser cities, however the attached link is worrisome. is precisely what’s going to happen with cities doing away with the current requirement for an owner-occupancy covenant in relation to ADUs. Just as we had hedge funds buying properties in distress during the economic downturn, and flippers with cash on hand turning over single family homes for a quick profit. Now we’re going to see developers with a lot of cash buying up single family residences (and if I understand the law correctly, even condos), then adding or splitting into ADUs and turning them into rental properties. Is there a requirement to rent to low-income tenants? Section 8? It doesn’t look like it. It just seems like one more way to favor corporate developers and corporate landlords. No wonder developers were in support of the current ADU legislation.
The traffic congestion is real, unfortunately there is no holistic way of looking at this. Are any of the bills waiting for signature addressing the need for efficient and affordable mass transit, like one sees almost everywhere outside of the US? No.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/how-large-corporations-took-over-single-family-homes/ar-AAIig1t?ocid=sf
California is a lost cause in the hands of Democrats.
New ADU laws.
Can I rent a single unit in Los Angeles without a parking space?
I strongly believe that making ADU’s more accessible by easing restrictions tor property owners is a very good and and expedient way to solve some of our housing crisis, particularly, in urban areas, cities, towns, etc. Those that oppose removing the restriction on owner occupancy for new construction and existing ADUs, in my opinion, need to consider that it is one of the most accessible and doable solutions for quickly adding much needed lower cost housing for people who work in urban areas. Anyone who pays attention to the “working force” of people in urban areas, will clearly see that much more housing is needed to eliminate the need of workers spending their time and money in commute hours simply to reach their jobs. I strongly believe there should be no restriction on having an owner occupant on the property. The proposed development properties and the existing inventory of single family homes with ADUs are needed as an integral step toward the solution to lower cost housing in urban areas. Eliminating the owner occupancy restriction is one of the most important changes to the rules regarding ADUs. I understand that some property owners will object to this believing that it will turn neighborhoods into rental zones. I completely disagree with this argument. Property owners will always be concerned about any change and adding housing, again…particularly in urban areas, should have a higher priority than potential fears of possible changes to a neighborhood. I also believe there should be no restriction on a property owner of having to sign a low income housing contract with the City in order to remove the owner occupancy restriction for the use of existing ADU’s in inventory. I believe these low income housing restrictions will cause a bottle neck to increasing rental inventory in that many property owners will simply not be able to afford to open their properties up for rent and make ends meet for expense and cost. Also, allowing a main house to be listed for rent with an existing ADU adds both a lower cost smaller unit, as well as, a larger more expensive rental (main house) into the current market. Adding these units fairly quickly to the market, by removing the Owner Occupied requirement, will cause a downward/easing of pressure on rental prices as the inventory will be increased relatively quickly.
I think this is great news. Homeowners are more likely to build attractive accessory dwelling units than a typical investor. These are less likely to be the boring or unsightly boxes that investors would build. A number of companies offer craftsman-style tiny homes that I think will actually make many neighborhoods appreciate in value. I agree that we shouldn’t allow corporations to exploit this, but I don’t see too much of a downside for the average homeowner and most people.