Tag: eliminates single family zoning

Posted on

SB 9 Would Allow 8 Units on All Single-Family Lots in California: SB 9 Fact Sheet

By Nick Waranoff : livablecalifornia

SB 9 would allow 8 units where there is now one parcel (one lot). A city, however, would not be required to approve more than 6 units.  Here is how this would happen.

1. SB 9 would add Govt Code section 65852.21 (allowing 2 units on a single parcel in a single family residential zone [the so-called “duplex” provision but in reality a “two separate houses on one parcel” provision]) and Govt Code 66411.7 (the lot split provision). 

a.)  The two separate houses on one parcel provision authorizes two separate houses on a single parcel in a single-family residential zone.

b.)  The lot split provision authorizes a single lot to be split into two lots of equal size.

c.)  An application to do either or both of these is processed ministerially, by right.

d.)  There is no requirement for affordable housing and no CEQA review.

2. Under existing law, there is a right to one Accessory Dwelling Unit and one Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit per parcel (Govt Code 65852.2).

a.)  An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) can be attached, or detached from an existing home, or a conversion of an existing space such as a garage. A local agency is prohibited from establishing a maximum size of an ADU of less than 850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet if the ADU contains more than one bedroom. When ADUs are created through the conversion of a garage, carport or covered parking structure, replacement off-street parking spaces cannot be required by the local agency (Gov. Code 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(D)(xi)).

b.)  A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) is allowed to be created within the walls of a proposed or existing single-family residence or garage and shall contain no more than 500 square feet.

c.)  A local agency can limit the places within its jurisdiction where ADUs can be located, only be based on the adequacy of water and sewer service, and the impacts on traffic flow and public safety, if the agency chooses to pass an ordinance.

d.)  “Although cities and counties are mandated to permit ADUs and JADUs, they are not required to adopt ADU and JADU ordinances. However, any city/county that does adopt an ADU ordinance, must submit the ordinance to HCD within 60 days.”

e.) There is no requirement that an ADU or a JADU be limited to any category of affordable housing.

f.)  Here is link to the HCD website. https://hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/accessorydwellingunits.shtml

g.) Here is a link to the HCD Handbook. https://hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/adu-ta-handbook-final.pdf

3. Under SB 9, there are three scenarios that illustrate how many units could be built on one existing parcel:

a.) Scenario One:  The “two free-standing houses” provision of SB 9 (sometimes mistakenly called the “duplex” provision, even though not limited to “duplexes”) is invoked but not the lot split provision: One parcel now has two free-standing houses. An ADU and a JADU are allowed as of right on the parcel. Total of 4 units: two free-standing houses plus an ADU and a JADU on the single parcel.

b.) Scenario Two:  The lot split provision of SB 9 is invoked but not the “two free-standing houses” provision: one parcel becomes two. Each parcel can have a free-standing house plus an ADU and a JADU. Three housing units on each parcel for a total of 6 units.

c.) Scenario Three:  Both the lot split provision and the two free-standing houses provision are invoked. Two parcels. Each parcel has two houses, PLUS each parcel is entitled to an ADU and a JADU. Four housing units per parcel, for a total of 8 units.

Note re Scenario Three: Under SB 9, a city is not required to approve an ADU or a JADU where BOTH the lot split provision and two free-standing houses provision are invoked, so a city could limit this scenario to four housing units on what was formerly one parcel. See proposed section 65852.21(e), part of the “two free-standing houses” provision, that would provide, “Notwithstanding Section 65852.2 [the existing ADU law referenced above], a local agency shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within this section [the two free-standing houses section] and the authority contained in Section 66411.7 [the lot split section]” and proposed section 66411.7(h), part of the proposed lot split section, that would provide “Notwithstanding Section 65852.2 [the existing ADU law], a local agency shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within this section and the authority contained in Section 65852.21 [the two free-standing houses section].

Posted on

A $60 Billion Housing Grab by Wall Street

By Francesca Mari : nytimes – excerpt

Hundreds of thousands of single-family homes are now in the hands of giant companies — squeezing renters for revenue and putting the American dream even further out of reach… (more)

The (above) New York Times article states that private-equity firms have grabbed roughly $60 billion worth of single-family homes. Although, the strategy of the investors, described in the article, has been somewhat different (it seems they have bought distressed homes) than what their strategy would be if they bought up single-family homes in order to convert them to triplexes as allowed by SB-773, it shows that private-equity firms have a strong appetite for single-family homes.

Per our attached list of problems with SB-773: “By prohibiting local agencies from requiring a homeowner to live on the premises, SB-773 incentivizes large-scale investors to buy up single-family homes, convert them to triplexes and then operate them as commercial enterprises. Over time, as supply of single-family homes diminishes, the price of single-family homes would rise more rapidly for residents.”

Recap About Senate Bill 773:
SB-773 is a “clean-up bill” and corrects chaptering errors in accessory dwelling unit (ADU) legislation enacted in 2019 (AB-68, AB-881, SB-13 and others). The bill combines all the ADU legislation enacted last year into one bill. It passed through the State Senate on January 27th and is now being heard by the State Assembly Rules Committee.

We believe that amendments to the bill could correct much more than just chaptering errors. This is an opportunity to amend the flawed ADU bills that were signed into law last year. All further comments about SB-773, also apply to the other newly enacted ADU bills.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) can be very beneficial. However, by requiring ministerial review and stripping away local control of land use and local development standards related to second units, SB-773 goes too far. This is particularly true in high fire risk areas.

This detrimental bill eliminates single family zoning and enables the transformation of beneficial accessory dwelling units (second units and granny flats) into overcrowded multifamily triplexes with potentially multiple adverse impacts.

Besides other mandates, SB-773 requires local agencies to approve detached ADUs that exceed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), provided the ADU is 800 square feet or less, 16 feet or less in height, and 4 feet or more from the rear/side property lines.

In addition, SB-773 prohibits cities and counties from requiring additional off-street parking spaces in any of the following instances:

(1) The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. [**SB-773 defines ‘Public transit’ as “a location, including but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.”]
(2) The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
(3) The accessory dwelling unit is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure.
(4) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit.
(5) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit.
(6) When homeowners convert garages to new housing.

Best regards,

Sharon