Together, the Bloom and Wieckowski bills would force cities to permit the backyard homes — also known as “secondary units” or “granny flats” — eliminate cities’ ability to require additional parking spaces for units near transit, and limit fees charged to connect to local water and sewer systems.HT: Jim the Realtor
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
State making push to ease requirements for granny flats
LA Times:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Prediction: our planning department will fight this thing tooth and nail and the council will fall right in line.
ReplyDeleteI am afraid I agree. Our Planning Department is composed of about 40 people with fewer than 5 of them who actually live in Encinitas! These people who don't even live here place their own interests before the interests of Encinitas residents.
ReplyDeleteActually, they aren't biased if they don't live here. Nothing at stake.
DeleteThere absolutely IS something at stake for Encinitas Planners. At one of the open houses, Scott Vurbeff was using talking to people about voting against Carlsbad Prop A, where he lives. He should be fired on that alone since he was representing the City and talking about a Carlsbad issue while at work. At the same time, he has bent over and bent rules to assist high-density developers at every turn! They don't want to piss in their own wells, but they seem to get paid extra to contaminate Encinitas. This is the same person who makes error after error on paperwork and always to the benefit of builders. I say that the entire Planning Department should go.
DeleteAlso recall that Teresa Barth's reason for spending over $4 million dollars on the GPU/Housing Element/At Home Encinitas Project was to "keep planners busy" during the economic downturn. They should have been, and would have been fired in any other type of organization when the number of building permits dropped lower than 10 per year.
Money, money, money. Fees from new development far surpass a good granny flats program, so...you know where Manjeet's headed with the rest in tow.
ReplyDeleteNew granny flats or legalizing old ones are technically new development. New development increases improvement value on property, which in turn gets is assessed on property taxes.
DeleteThere should not be assumptions forced on an apathetic or gullible general public that existing granny flats are illegal. They have been permitted "by right" in Encinitas since 1993. Owners of existing granny flats should be incentivized to come forward to have their units counted. The State has, for years, recognized that accessory units create affordable housing. Property taxes are based on what existed when the property was purchased. If the granny flats were existing, there should be no increase in property taxes. If a new granny flat is to be built, then that would kick in a reassessment of the improved value.
DeleteThe City gets an enormous amount of money from development fees, in addition to property taxes. But to incentivize affordable housing, owners of existing or to-be-constructed units should be incentivized to come forward to be counted and to have the residential building record updated, through a health and safety check.
There is already state law, Government Code, stating, unequivocally, that permits for accessory units are administrative, not discretionary. Discretionary permits require more processing. Administrative permits should be far less expensive. In fact, the administrative fee could and should be waived to incentivize more affordable housing.
The City has convinced the state that all existing affordable housing has already been counted, when staff and Council knows, now, that is not factually correct. The Census doesn't count residences, but residents at each address.
If Council and staff could be more honest with the public, and with the state housing authorities, then our required numbers for more affordable units could be greatly reduced. The Housing Element Update should be destined to fail at the ballot, because it is built upon disingenuous claims and false allegations.
Yes, our council will FAIL right into line against us. Up Yours Encinitas from them is guaranteed.
ReplyDeleteTheir plan now is for 2,000 units, if they can sucker the votes to get it. 2000! In the past our state housing requirement was around 600 to 700, Then it was 1300 with nary an explanation that would hold water, and now council has upped that to 2,000 on the Hosing Plan.
As many times as we point out that they keep ignoring to count all the accessory units that could reduce the mandatory numbers to practically nothing, what we get is a plan to bring those in that no homeowner in their right mind would ever agree to.
Do they believe this puts them off the hook because only five to ten homeowners actually signed up out of the thousand and more that might if the restrictions weren't so ridiculously impractical?
Vote this stinker down, vote in a new majority and send three or ideally four of our current council members packing. That, of course, depends on having some one and hopefully three or four that we can vote for with confidence. That is the hitch as we have had some who fooled us once they ascended.
At this point, a litmus test is sorely needed, so we don't get fooled again. Can't you just hear the Who pounding that tune out?
Ask Any Candidate and see what you come up and come back and let us know what you find.
Encinitas requires uncovered parking for new accessory units, which as applied is parking in the driveway. This won't change a thing here.
ReplyDeleteThe proposed changes would help to provide more affordable housing. Units which existed prior to the 2003 City law, which codified off-street parking requirements, are NOT non-conforming, with respect to lack of off-street parking, according to our local ordinance. In other words, Granny Flats existing where garages or other accessory structures were built, originally, should be grandfathered.
DeleteThe existing RBR (Residential Building Record) has huge gaps, particularly after 1978, when the Jarvis-Gann Initiative (Prop 13) was passed, and routine site inspections were no longer made to reassess residential property values. Prior to our city's incorporation accessory structures under 500 sq. ft. didn't need a building permit. There was no such thing as a "garage conversion permit," prior to incorporation, that I've ever seen or heard about.
Also, our city has falsely claimed that fire sprinklers can be required for new development granny flats. That is untrue, because our city code is DISCRETIONARY with regard to installation of fire sprinklers in additions or remodels. Discretionary accessory dwelling unit permits already are disallowed by State Law
In Encinitas, our Fire Marshal has stated, local law MAY (discretionary) go beyond state fire code requirements. Our fire code, itself, says the Fire Marshal MAY (discretionary) require fire sprinklers in additions or remodels to existing residences.
State Fire Code states, unequivocally, that existing single and two family (duplexes) residences SHALL NOT require fire sprinklers for additions or remodels. Again, this SHALL NOT language is NOT discretionary.
The proposed state bills will clarify the difference between discretionary and mandatory. Council and the City Attorney should be intelligent enough and informed enough to understand the difference between may (discretionary) and shall (mandatory).
The way it has worked, in practice, is that Planners' salaries and Council's ties to development have been far more important than actually counting and creating more affordable housing, on the books, in our city.
Another good news story, followed by negative comments.
ReplyDeleteYou confuse speaking the truth with being negative.
Delete