Governor Brown Signs Important New Bill Easing Granny Unit Restrictions Statewide YAY!

Big and important news on the attainable housing front: Governor Brown and the State legislature are showing the kind of real leadership that has eluded bureaucracy-focused county supervisors and city councils across California. This is one of the greatest and most bills to ever come out of Sacramento in years. This was the first and most important elements of the housing plan proposed by our Sonoma County Attainable Housing Coalition, which I wrote about here at the Sonoma Independent.

Whether or not I am elected to City Council, I am looking forward to encouraging this expansion of auxiliary housing units here in Sebastopol.

COVERAGE OF THE NEW BILL HERE: California eases restrictions on ‘granny units’

California homeowners interested in building accessory dwelling units on their property just caught a break, potentially shaving off thousands of dollars in fees and permits.
In a move proponents say will help ease the Bay Area’s housing crisis, Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday signed Senate Bill 1069, making the so-called “granny units” easier and less expensive to build throughout the state.

Supporters of the bill, including the Bay Area Council, argue that easing restrictions could spur the creation of more affordable housing, especially in a region where rent has skyrocketed.
“The governor’s action is an important step in addressing California’s massive housing shortage,” Jim Wunderman, president and CEO of the Bay Area Council, said in a statement. “The success of SB 1069 represents a major victory for thousands of Californians who are struggling under the weight of skyrocketing rents and home prices.
“This will create housing for teachers, nurses, family members, elders or others who want to live in a community but have been priced out.”
Accessory dwelling units, including backyard cottages and some studio apartments, are typically more affordable than market-rate rentals.
Under the new law, which takes effect in January, water and sewer agencies would be prevented from charging hookup fees for ADUs built within an existing house or an existing detached unit on the same lot. Local agencies also cannot impose parking rules for certain ADUs, including those located within a half-mile from public transit, or units that are part of an existing primary residence.
The bill’s author, Sen. Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, said that when he was working in city government years ago few of these units were being built, largely because of the high amount of fees homeowners had to pay.
“It’s the biggest thing that’s happened in 15 years to relieve some of these barriers and return that power to the homeowner,” Wieckowski said.

The League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties opposed the bill, arguing that it took away cities’ power to regulate these units and could hinder a neighborhood’s character.
But advocates say the bill is a key step toward alleviating the housing crisis. AARP, the California Housing Consortium, the California Teachers Association, the East Bay Leadership Council, SPUR (formerly known as the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association) and other groups supported the legislation.
If just 10 percent of the Bay Area’s 1.5 million owners of single-family homes created granny flats for family members or other tenants, that would add 150,000 new units, the Bay Area Council estimates.
Brown on Tuesday also signed a bill designed to promote more affordable housing. AB 2818, by Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, calls for the creation of community land trusts — nonprofit entities that purchase property and sell homes to qualifying low- or moderate-income residents.

Hi and thanks for this info Jonathan.

I support the passage of this bill, but as far as I can tell there is nothing in it to keep the rent at a reasonable amount (as you wrote, "...Accessory dwelling units, including backyard cottages and some studio apartments, are typically more affordable than market-rate rentals...").

I live in a very small cottage/granny unit/studio behind the larger main house.
My rent is being increased by $325, totalling $1200 monthly, which according to my landlady's research is "market rate".

I respect your perspectives / posts, and think you'd probably agree that it's not wise to assume owners won't charge as much as possible.

Thanks again for this info.

Thinkin' y'all might be interested to know that Gov. Brown recently vetoed SB1288, re: Instant Runoff Voting(IRV).
I was very disappointed about that, as I am a strong supporter of IRV (aka Ranked Choice Voting, RCV) which I see as the only way a third party (Green Party, etc.) or outsider (like Bernie Sanders,etc.) could actually win in a Presidential election/primary. I hosted a booth at the most recent Petaluma Progressive Festival to inform folks about IRV. BTW, at that Festival, Daniel Ellsberg recommended RCV.

Wondering if you have any thoughts you'd like to share about IRV/RCV. I most likely won't be able to respond, but I'd appreciate your thoughts (and any other WACCOvians who have opinions/ideas about IRV).

There will be an event in Santa Rosa about IRV at the Peace and Justice Center, on Friday, Oct. 21st in the evening.
(Oh my, I didn't mean to "piggyback" so much IRV info in this reply...hope you don't mind. I truly would appreciate your thoughts about it.)

Thanks again, Dusty

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

COVERAGE OF THE NEW BILL HERE: California eases restrictions on ‘granny units’

California homeowners interested in building accessory dwelling units on their property just caught a break, potentially shaving off thousands of dollars in fees and permits.
In a move proponents say will help ease the Bay Area’s housing crisis, Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday signed Senate Bill 1069, making the so-called “granny units” easier and less expensive to build throughout the state....

---

Is there anything to keep these second unit's off Airbnb?

yes, rental must be at least 30 days.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kane:

Is there anything to keep these second unit's off Airbnb?

---

thanks musik,

Anyone who reads "government" care to translate?

My quick read suggests the following; feel free to correct my interpretations.


This Bill may not apply to Sonoma County & our Cities if we already have ACU rules? (formerly called granny unit rules); perhaps the county simply must change the designation to avoid being forced by the state?

Sounds as though it goes beyond free-standing "granny units" to encourage ACU's within existing homes, thus allowing splitting of existing homes into two units, reducing original living areas by up to 50%.
Reading this as; a garage could be converted, up to 50% of existing living space; so a 1800 sq ft home could have a new ACU attached up to 900 sq ft, or a garage could be converted to ACU, up to 900 sq ft, or a new free-standing ACU built up to 1200 sq ft.(larger than our primary home; Maybe we'll build an ACU and upgrade into it? ;)
BTW, looks like the Assembly Bill had max sq ft at 500 sq ft, Senate(& final) version was 1200 sq ft.

Bill seems to define ACU housing as "affordable", though there's nothing to guarantee that new ACU units will indeed be affordable, except for the case of rehabilitated homes using, to some extent, government funding.
Seems to stress the housing needs of our seniors, teachers, police etc, with nothing that actually reserves ACU's for their occupancy. In other words, could be occupied by commuting tech. workers, adding further to roadway congestion and distress.

Built-in penalty for opposing ACU housing defined as "Affordable" by...
(j) Requiring persons who sue to halt affordable housing to pay attorney fees (Section 65914) or post a bond

The total area floor space of the ADU may be as large as 1,200 square feet..

Accepts doubling-up on driveway parking, accepting "tandem" parking without requirement for new parking space(s) for ACU's.

Seems a little heavy-handed, and lots of building industry support(among others).

Here's the final bill:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01520160SB1069

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by musik900:

yes, rental must be at least 30 days.

---