California Assembly Bill 68

[builtright3]

Is anyone familiar with this California Bill?

AB-68 Land use: accessory dwelling units.

I'm just now learning of it and it could open a lot doors for more construction in California. Bill comes into affect on January 1 of 2020

 

Here is the link for the Bill:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB68

 

Also;

https://carlaef.org/adus/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAz53vBRCpARIsAPPsz8XIFyj5Pp4pbcvnNiCvzvN6e3QHo0zfNFadDcv4LfuIEYYZy7QbTOoaAvm4EALw_wcB

[Rich_Winsor]

This is a slippery slope for sure.

Without getting political I can only 

say that increasing the population

density of neighborhoods that don't

have the infrastructure to support

the increase is a recipe for trouble.

IMHO

 

 

 

[dshall]

Yep,  not a good thing.  Some folks buy into their neighborhoods for a certain level of quality of life and this bill could wreak havoc.

 

 

[Alchemyjim]

I disagree. This NIMBY'ism (if that is a term) of the last few decades that has led us to this problem. California has a severe housing issue that only infill will begin to address. Having more housing closer to essential services makes a lot more sense then building new residential in the outlaying areas. Especially when you consider that the only open areas left are hampered by high fire insurance premiums, lack of services, high cost of construction and environmental impact studies.

I'm also not trying to get political, just a realist. If your only argument against this is about your "high living standard" then move to another state. California is expected to have 44.1 million people by 2030. Where are they going to live? In shanty towns by the railroad tracks?  

[DRAWZILLA]

As in the past, at least around here the cities, and I deal with 50 of them, have made up their own rules about ADU's and didn't follow the state guidelines so I think the cities will try the same, but this one could be tied up in the courts for a long time. The secret is to catch the cities off-guard early before they lawyer up. 

[Gawdzira]

Additionally

 

SB 13 makes various changes to the existing ADU law, including:

• providing that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with an ADU or converted into an ADU, a local agency shall not require that those off-street parking spaces be replaced
• reducing the application approval timeframe to 60 days and provides that if a local agency has not acted upon the submitted application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved
• prohibiting a local ordinance from requiring an applicant for an ADU to be an owner occupant
• providing that a local ADU ordinance that establishes minimum or maximum ADU size must allow an ADU of up to 850 square feet, or up to 1,000 square feet if the ADU provides more than one bedroom. Provides that any other minimum or maximum size imposed by a local ordinance must allow for an ADU of at least 800 square feet and 16 feet in height, with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks
• providing for a tiered schedule of impact fees based on the size of the ADU as follows:
  • Zero fees for an ADU of less than 750 square feet
  • 25% of impact fees for an ADU of 750 square feet or more
• requiring a local agency notice of a violation of any building standard to an ADU owner to include a statement of the owner’s right to request a delay in enforcement. Requires a local agency, upon request of the owner, to delay enforcement for five years if correction is not necessary to protect health and safety and the ADU was built before January 1, 2020 or the ADU was built prior to that date in a local jurisdiction that had a compliant ADU ordinance at that time. Sunsets this provision on January 1, 2025

[builtright3]

I'm assuming the unincorporated area's wont be fighting it.

Just curious to see how some of the cities like Whittier, Downey, La Mirada... will handle it.

[DRAWZILLA]

13 hours ago, builtright3 said:

I'm assuming the unincorporated area's wont be fighting it.

Just curious to see how some of the cities like Whittier, Downey, La Mirada... will handle it.

 

I find that each different city has made up their own rules and they are all different, but things could change with this one, who knows?

[kylejmarsh]

On 12/6/2019 at 11:34 PM, Alchemyjim said:

I disagree. This NIMBY'ism (if that is a term) of the last few decades that has led us to this problem. California has a severe housing issue that only infill will begin to address. Having more housing closer to essential services makes a lot more sense then building new residential in the outlaying areas. Especially when you consider that the only open areas left are hampered by high fire insurance premiums, lack of services, high cost of construction and environmental impact studies.

I'm also not trying to get political, just a realist. If your only argument against this is about your "high living standard" then move to another state. California is expected to have 44.1 million people by 2030. Where are they going to live? In shanty towns by the railroad tracks?  

 

I agree here - ADU's are a great way to gently increase the density of neighborhoods, and were a common part of the Urban fabric until ham-handed zoning laws outlawed them in the 70's. They're as American as Apple Pie.

 

I've done a couple around my area of Michigan and the owners were nothing but thrilled with them.

 

If you're interested in the Philosophy behind them, as well as Urban Infill / Traditional Neighborhood Design then look-up a guy named Andres Duany - he's got a bunch of excellent talks on the subject, one I think will be front and center in the coming decades.

 

The time of Sprawl is ending - the people are turning against it, clamoring to move into cohesive walkable downtowns and small cities, so much so that there's a massive premium around here for 'in-town' houses. However, it doesn't have to be this way - these are small properties, with relatively small and simple houses, and they're fetching top-dollar. What's so hard about creating this, that we don't seem to do it these days?

 

You'll have to seek out Mr. Duany to find the answer.

[Gawdzira]

The latest episode of "The Building Science Podcast" has an architect referring to a space density requirement in order for cities to be viable for high speed mass transit. 30 units per acre will support this. We are growing population rapidly and more dense urban centers are our only viable path for humans occupying the earth with a few more billion people around. Denser population centers can be much more viable in regards to energy use. I know that this is a bit askew to the original post but this is worth discussing in this context.

 

https://positiveenergy.pro/building-science-podcast/2019/12/9/an-urban-manifesto