1
2
3
AB 982 (Bloom and Chiu) Forcing Landlords to Stay in Business for One Year ‐ The Ellis Act prohibits any public entity from forcing owners of residential rental property to continue to offer their property for rent or lease. AB 982 requires landlords to give all tenants a one ‐ year notice of termination of tenancy. C.A.R. opposes AB 982: it discourages investment in rental housing by placing a substantial limitation on a property owner’s right to legitimately take a property off the rental market, thus negatively affecting property values. Furthermore, no other business is required to continue operating for one year after deciding to go out of business. AB 982 is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee next week. SB 277 (Bradford) Rent Control ‐ Under the 1995 C.A.R. ‐ sponsored Costa ‐ Hawkins Act, new construction is exempt from rent control. SB 277 effectively repeals the new construction exemption for rental housing by allowing local governments to impose inclusionary zoning (i.e., rent control) on newly constructed rental housing as a condition of development. This would permit local governments to require residential developments contain an unspecified percentage of rent controlled units, without any consideration for the viability of the project. C.A.R. opposes SB 277: it discourages the creation of NEW rental housing and exacerbates the housing affordability crisis in California. SB 277 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee next week. AB 1505 (Bloom, Chiu and Gloria) Rent Control ‐ Under the 1995 C.A.R. ‐ sponsored Costa ‐ Hawkins Act, new construction is exempt from rent control. AB 1505 effectively repeals the 4
new construction exemption for rental housing by allowing local governments to impose inclusionary zoning (i.e., rent control) on newly constructed rental housing as a condition of development. This would permit local governments to require residential developments contain an unspecified percentage of rent controlled units, without any consideration for the viability of the project. C.A.R. opposes AB 1505: it discourages the creation of NEW rental housing and exacerbates the housing affordability crisis in California. AB 1505 passed out of the Assembly Local Government Committee this week. AB 1506 (Bloom, Bonta and Chiu) Costa ‐ Hawkins Rental Housing Act ‐ In 1995, C.A.R. successfully sponsored with others AB 1164, also known as the Costa ‐ Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which created limits on local rent control ordinances by requiring vacancy de ‐ control/re ‐ control and exempting single ‐ family property and new construction from local rent control. C.A.R. opposes AB 1506, which would repeal the Costa ‐ Hawkins Act. Facing strong opposition, the authors have withdrawn AB 1506 from consideration for 2017, making the measure a two ‐ year bill. 4
5
6
AB 663 (Bloom) This bill empowers the Coastal Commission to ensure that “housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided”. The bill eliminates one sentence from existing law. By eliminating the sentence the bill removed the prohibition on the Coastal Commission from dictating local housing policy and programs into Local Coastal Programs. Essentially this bill gives the Commission the liberty to impose rent control in the Coastal Zone. Position: Oppose Status: Assembly Natural Resources AB 663 (Bloom) Coastal Zone: Housing Policy ‐ In 1981, C.A.R. supported SB 626 (Mello, Statutes of 1981), which removed the authority of the California Coastal Commission (Commission) to set affordable housing policy within the Coastal Zone and instead gave jurisdiction for low and moderate income housing in the Coastal Zone to local governments. This bill would restore that authority to the Commission. C.A.R. opposes AB 663: it effectively eliminates local governments’ ability to set housing policy in the Coastal Zone and empowers the Commission to implement policies that could be harmful to housing production (e.g., rent control). 7
AB 663 will be heard in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee next week. AB 1129 (Stone) Coastal resources: structures: beach access and protection – This bill is seeking to address provisions of the 1976 Coastal Act that coastal land owners have used to avoid the armoring permitting process. In 1976, the Coastal Act established that armoring, such as seawalls, cliff retaining walls and other such construction, would be permitted only to protect existing structures “in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply”. These design review provisions are exempted in cases of emergency. As such, since 1976 most of the armoring walls and features that have been erected were done so under emergency conditions, therefore avoiding any substantive review or analysis of the impacts on the local shoreline or sand supply. Additionally, these walls were also constructed to protect structures that were built after January 1 1977. The proponents of AB 1129 contend that these unpermitted armoring features have cut off natural sediment supplies, resulting in coastal erosion. This bill will establish that any structures built after January 1, 1977, are not qualified for a seawall permit, give the Coastal Commission authority to levy administrative penalties against unpermitted structures, and limit future emergency seawalls to act as temporary structures. Position: Oppose Status: Assembly Natural Resources 7
8
Refer to http://www.sbaor.org/index.php?src=gendocs&ref=Accessory%20Dwelling%20Unit&categ ory=_governmentaffairs Includes: CA Government Code CA Department of Housing and Development ADU Memorandum CA Department of Housing and Development Webpage on ADU’s County ADU Ordinance (as of 4/25/17) 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
County – proposed draft ordinance ‐ Application for an ADU must be completed in 120 days ‐ Only the living area of the principal dwelling may be used to determine the allowed floor area of the ADU ‐ The minimum rental period of an ADU shall not be less than 31 days ‐ The property owner must occupy the property in addition to including a minimum rental period ‐ The ADU shall not be financed separately from the principal dwelling ‐ Apply to new construction – retain existing standard requiring that the total gross floor area of all covered structures including an ADU shall not exceed 40% of the lot area ‐ Design Review Standards ‐ Retain the Chair of MBAR in the review of ADU’s ‐ Require all ADU’s to undergo design review (not just those on lots of less than 1 acre ‐ Allow the height of an ADU attached to another structure to match the roofline of that structure ‐ Allow compatible or comparable materials to be used instead of the same materials ‐ Require the installation of landscaping to screen the ADU that is compatible with existing landscaping 18
‐ Require additional lighting for ADU ‐ Allows parking to occur in a tandem arrangement and be located in a setback area – this parking configuration may not be allowed based on fire and life safety conditions ‐ Add new standard that requires review by the HLAC if the application involves a 50+ year old structure ‐ Retain existing standard requiring that an ADU is not allowed in addition to a guesthouse or nonconforming dwelling ‐ Include standard that limits the ADU floor area based on lot size ‐ Existing and proposed standards requires the property owner to either occupy the principal dwelling or the ADU 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Recommend
More recommend