Legislation to Eliminate Codes

[conarb]

A state legislator has proposed legislation to eliminate codes for 10 years on second units, as well as force cities to elimate impact fees.

Wieckowski, 55, says he’s done important work in his four years by helping to address the housing crisis and income inequality through legislation.

For example, in 2016 he authored Senate Bill 1069, which loosened local restrictions making it easier for people to create accessory dwelling units on their property to rent for extra income. And this year, he added Senate Bill 831, which if passed would give people with second units a 10-year amnesty period to comply with building codes and force cities to waive impact fees on those units.

“I’m confident that it’s going to become law, and beginning in January of next year there’s going to be a mini-revolution with accessory-dwelling units for the people that want to build them,” Wieckowski said in an interview.¹

The question is what's going to happen after 10 years, will they all have to meet code then? What about the Impact fees, will they be imposed 10 years from now? Even legislators realize that codes have driven housing costs beyond reality. In my opinion this is not the way to do it, get rid of the political/social codes, not the health and safety codes, getting rid of impact fees is a good idea, but a better idea would be to get rid of all fees on all housing, not just second units, building permits and other building attached fees have become cash cows for financially strapped cities for too long.

For those wanting to go depth in this here is the actual bill.


¹ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/05/24/mpo-l-senate-0525/

 

[tmurray]

It looks like the intention is to make a path for people to bring their illegal accessory dwelling units up to code without worry of getting fined. The 10 year sunset clause means that after 10 years people who don't take advantage of the program could suffer fines/fees waived under the program.

The challenge legislation like this faces is always making sure people know if they have an illegal accessory dwelling unit. Many people purchase without knowing the use of their property is illegal. How the municipality interfaces with residents will provide for either the success or failure of the program.

 

[ICE]

The advent of the ADU is an admission of failure to enforce housing regulations. The regulators tossed in the towel. The many thousands of converted garages weren’t going away and the populace is okay with that. So give them what they want.

Nobody is forced to reside in an area with people living in garages. Seldom do I get complaints from anyone not living in a garage.....and then it’s usually an attempt to cause grief.

 

[conarb]

The advent of the ADU is an admission of failure to enforce housing regulations. The regulators tossed in the towel. The many thousands of converted garages weren’t going away and the populace is okay with that. So give them what they want.

Nobody is forced to reside in an area with people living in garages. Seldom do I get complaints from anyone not living in a garage.....and then it’s usually an attempt to cause grief.

Governor Brown is a weirdo and will probably sign it. He spent three years as a Jesuit seminarian, during his first terms as governor he refused to move into the governor's mansion, rented a room and slept on the floor on a futon while driving himself in an old gray Plymouth, he promoted his "less is more" philosophy and in-law units back then, between his two terms as governor he went to Japan taking training in a Buddhist Monastery. Also between his terms as governor he was Mayor of Oakland, while there he bought an old warehouse and lived in it in violation of zoning laws, Ghost Ship without the drugs and low-class music. He has a history of not respecting zoning laws or neighborhood protections, if the code-free ADU works for 10 years and we still have people living on the streets I have to wonder if they will try to use that history to eliminate residential codes.

 

[cda]

Moon Beam me up.

I think he is waiting for the illegal aliens from space, to take him away.

 

[kilitact]

Moon Beam me up.

I think he is waiting for the illegal aliens from space, to take him away.

Leave him here, to continue to work for the people.

 

[steveray]

The real question is who gets sued when someone dies from a fire in one of the "protected" bootleg units.....

 

[tmurray]

Where in the bill does it say the code is waived? I must have missed that part.

 

[mark handler]

Where in the bill does it say the code is waived? I must have missed that part.

The ONLY THING IS SAYS ABOUT WAVING THE BUILDING CODE IS THE FOLLOWING:
When a local building official finds that a substandard accessory dwelling unit poses an imminent risk to the health and safety of the residents of the accessory dwelling unit, the local building official shall, upon request of the owner of the accessory dwelling unit and subject to the conditions set forth in this section, approve a delay of not less than 10 years of the enforcement of any building code requirement that, in the judgment of the building official, is not necessary to protect public health and safety.
ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE IS PLANNING....

 

[conarb]

To begin with building departments that routinely take many years to approve a project are probably just not going to act, if they could process an application in 120 days that begs the question as to why they take so many years on other applications:

Existing law requires an application for an accessory dwelling unit permit to be considered, as specified, within 120 days of receiving it.

Then there are other provisions:

The bill would authorize the department, upon submission of an adopted ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units, to submit written findings to the local agency regarding whether the ordinance complies with statutory provisions. The bill would authorize the department to adopt guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria to supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth in statute and would exempt the adoption of those guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would, until January 1, 2029, also require a local building official, upon request of the owner of the accessory dwelling unit, to approve a delay of not less than 10 years of the enforcement of any building code requirement that, in the judgment of the building official, is not necessary to protect public health and safety. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the department to notify the city, county, or city and county and authorize notice to the Attorney General when the city, county, or city and county is not substantially complying with the above-described provisions regarding accessory dwelling units.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

The bill would, until January 1, 2029, also require a local building official, upon request of the owner of the accessory dwelling unit, to approve a delay of not less than 10 years of the enforcement of any building code requirement that, in the judgment of the building official, is not necessary to protect public health and safety.

This would give a lot of authority to the local building official.

 

[conarb]

This would give a lot of authority to the local building official.

I see the CBO going to the City Attorney asking: "What do I do now?" I see the City Attorney saying: "We are going to have to draft an ordinance and take it to the City Council for approval." I see each jurisdiction approaching this differently, I also see the fire marshals going nuts and wanting input since back yards are hard to get to.

 

[JBI]

Politicians always try to placate constituents without regard to the big picture impact these laws will cause.
Wouldn't it make more sense to fix what is broken about existing legislation instead of adding new, cumbersome, unenforceable legislation?

 

[conarb]

Politicians always try to placate constituents without regard to the big picture impact these laws will cause.
Wouldn't it make more sense to fix what is broken about existing legislation instead of adding new, cumbersome, unenforceable legislation?

JBI:

This is the point I have been trying to make for some time, which codes can we "fix" that drive the costs of construction to the point nobody but the wealthy can afford to live in code-compliant buildings? Most fo the problem is zoning, but zoning is accessed through the door to the building department. We have an election coming up, there is a closed golf course right behind me, the city has granted approval several times to developers to build housing, citizens groups, including The Sierra Club keep fighting it going to court to stop it, citizens grups want it to be open space, they can't take the owner's right to sell it so they want to make it a park, the problem is parks now have to be ADA compliant and the city has already passed a bond issue and remodeled it's parks, they can't come back for more now, it's gotten to the point that each side is stealing the yard signs of the other side.

Most people don't want more housing since the state has a law requiring low-income housing, that means minorities moving into town, call it racism or whatever you want, but people fight additional housing, the result is people sleeping on the streets. The population is exploding worldwide, and it seems they are all coming here, every park takes away from housing, we have two statewide bond issues on the ballot, $4.1 billlion for parks and $8+ billion for water, what people don't realize is parks are nice but expensive, but every park takes away from buildable land, note the "Developer Trick" on the sign above.

 

[tmurray]

The ONLY THING IS SAYS ABOUT WAVING THE BUILDING CODE IS THE FOLLOWING:
When a local building official finds that a substandard accessory dwelling unit poses an imminent risk to the health and safety of the residents of the accessory dwelling unit, the local building official shall, upon request of the owner of the accessory dwelling unit and subject to the conditions set forth in this section, approve a delay of not less than 10 years of the enforcement of any building code requirement that, in the judgment of the building official, is not necessary to protect public health and safety.
ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE IS PLANNING....

Couple things,
1. I feel like this is common sense.
2. Why would inspectors go back after 10 years to enforce things not important enough to enforce the first time?

 

[tmurray]

Most people don't want more housing since the state has a law requiring low-income housing, that means minorities moving into town, call it racism or whatever you want, but people fight additional housing, the result is people sleeping on the streets. The population is exploding worldwide, and it seems they are all coming here, every park takes away from housing, we have two statewide bond issues on the ballot, $4.1 billlion for parks and $8+ billion for water, what people don't realize is parks are nice but expensive, but every park takes away from buildable land, note the "Developer Trick" on the sign above.

We see the same thing here, but have no requirement for low-income housing. People seem to think they have a right to build, but don't want to be subjected to the inconvenience of others building as well. I recently had a complaint related to construction noise, which is expressly allowed under our by-law between 7am and 9pm. The individual was upset that they were breaking rock for a development at 2PM on a Tuesday.

 

[conarb]

This is just Federal land, it does not include state, county, city, state park districts, water districts, and other government land ownership, we are being crammed into smaller and smaller areas making land unavailable to build on, then we pass ever modre restrictive codes and regulations driving the costs of construction higher and higher to the point that few can even afford to own or rent a home.

I can remember in the late 30s when we came here there was a two lane highway going south to north, I timed the cars with my watch and there averaged one car every 20 minutes, now that highway is 10 lanes with some being converted to "FastTrack" (nothing fast about it, just another way for government to make money) plus two to four lanes of frontage roads on each side. All kinds of poor people showed up and homesteaded land, many kids wore shoes with rubber tires for soles, nobody heard of school busses or school lunches, many lived in tar-paper shacks surviving without codes and other regulations. We have gone too far, and it's all accessed through the gates to the building departments,

I'll go to lunch now, I'll have to sit in traffic on that highway, I'm going to Walnut Creek where the city is covered with yellow/green bicycles, I read a city interview that said they were going to have to ban cars in the downtown, I will go by a creek where the homeless live, the city is constantly there picking up their junk throwing it in city trucks, there is no place for them to live.

 

[Mark K]

Just because a building is on federal land does not necessarily mean that the building code for the county does not apply. Federal projects would be exempt but there are many non-federal building projects on federal land.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Your homeless problem is probably based on a number of items of which I doubt building codes are a major factor.
Weather is a attraction for many but the biggest is all the programs to "help" the homeless which in reality just enables them to continue in their lifestyle.

Affordable housing is a term with no definition because it is based and to many variables. Do you want to reduce the price of a home? Eliminate realtors charging a percentage for their fees.
Do you realize the average realtor fees from raw land to developer, to contractor, to the 1st homeowner on that brand new house are about 20% of the selling price of the home. A minimum of 3 times a realtor we be involved in the sale of the undeveloped land, the platted lot and then the sale of the home. That is a lot of commissions made which all are tacked onto the mortgage.

 

[conarb]

Just because a building is on federal land does not necessarily mean that the building code for the county does not apply. Federal projects would be exempt but there are many non-federal building projects on federal land.

Yes, but my point is that once land goes into the public domain it can no-longer be used for private development, private land was once homesteaded until Truman nationalized it in 1948. The government sitting on land is a major problem as was demonstrated with the Bundy case, and the courts did throw out the case against them because of illegal activity on the part of the FBI which is part of the corrupt Justice Department, and here I thought that with a new administration we could throw out the absurd ADA regulations and write new reasonable, coherent regulations, there is a lot more that has to be reformed before we can even get down to the ADA.

 

[conarb]

Your homeless problem is probably based on a number of items of which I doubt building codes are a major factor.
Weather is a attraction for many but the biggest is all the programs to "help" the homeless which in reality just enables them to continue in their lifestyle.

Affordable housing is a term with no definition because it is based and to many variables. Do you want to reduce the price of a home? Eliminate realtors charging a percentage for their fees.
Do you realize the average realtor fees from raw land to developer, to contractor, to the 1st homeowner on that brand new house are about 20% of the selling price of the home. A minimum of 3 times a realtor we be involved in the sale of the undeveloped land, the platted lot and then the sale of the home. That is a lot of commissions made which all are tacked onto the mortgage.

Yes you are right, but real property taxes are the biggest cost of owning property, they go on forever while real estate commissions occur one at a time, the costs of getting building permits are still the biggest cost of construction, they keep adding fees constanty to fund government activity.

Homelessness is dramatic at the lower end, but we even have $120,000 Google engineers living in camper shells becasue they can't afford to buy or rent property. Cities in Silicon Valley are now planning a "head tax" on employers:

Cupertino, Mountain View and East Palo Alto have begun to ponder new taxes based on employer headcounts — levies that could jolt Apple and Google — and if voters endorse the plans, a fresh wave of such measures may roll toward other corporate coffers.

Alarmed by traffic and other issues brought on by massive expansion projects, the three Silicon Valley cities are pushing forward with separate plans to impose new taxes that could be used to make transit and other improvements.

“If we are successful in putting something together and (getting it) approved, I believe other job-rich communities will try to put their own measures on the ballot,” Mountain View Mayor Lenny Siegel said. “I’ve been talking to councilmembers in a number of other cities. They are interested.”

Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and Menlo Park are among the cities that the Mountain View mayor believes would like to follow suit with their own employee tax plans.

“These are all job-rich cities, where employment has been growing rapidly, and housing and transportation have not,” Siegel said.

Cupertino Vice Mayor Rod Sinks said he has been holding quiet conversations with leaders of other cities in Silicon Valley that tend to have much higher jobs-to-housing ratios.

“Other cities will follow suit,” he said. “I would expect that other cities in the West Valley and North Santa Clara County will consider similar measures.”¹

The normal course of population was that employees would move further away, but they are trying to stop that here since the "Greenie Weenies" don't want people driving cars, they want to keep them in the urban cores, maybe if they tax these corporations enough they will move to Montana and you can deal with the problem.

On the proposed development right behind me I had lunch with the mayor today, the local paper had just come out with a terrible editorial:

The showdown over open-space conversion has been decades in the making. It came to a head over plans for development of Pine Meadow Golf Course, which closed in 2015.

We offer no opinion on the proposal, leaving that for a time when it is properly presented to voters for review — when the developer and opponents have an opportunity to make their cases to the electorate.

The issue for voters June 5 is about process, and who should have the final say. To see how process has been abused, consider what has happened with the Pine Meadow proposal.

The land was designated in 1973 in the city general plan as permanent open space. However, in 2015, the council cleared the way for 99 homes on the site by changing the land designation to residential.

Residents then exercised their petition rights by collecting enough signatures for a referendum, a process to overturn the council general plan change by putting the issue before voters. Rather than face the voters and make its case, the developer withdrew its proposal and the council rescinded the general plan change.

But six months later, the developer came back with a nearly identical plan and argued that it didn’t need a general plan change. It claimed the land had really been designated for residential development all along.²

His opinion is no matter which way the election goes Tuesday it will be back in court, he wanted to know what I thought, I told him of my experiences in other cities and said all I could think of is changing state law to get local control back and allow city officials determine which codes and regulations they want to adopt and enforce. It's city officials that are responsible to the voters, on the other hand those city officials need to be able to fire city employees who go overboard, we had government employment by patronage prior to Roosevelt, FDR changed it to a civil service system and it's almost impossible to get rid of bad or over-zealous city amployees.


¹ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/0...s-three-silicon-valley-cities-just-the-start/

² https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/0...-should-take-control-of-open-space-decisions/

 

[steveray]

Homelessness is dramatic at the lower end, but we even have $120,000 Google engineers living in camper shells becasue they can't afford to buy or rent property.

No....Because they WANT to work at Google, and no one makes them play by the rules.....

 

[conarb]

No....Because they WANT to work at Google, and no one makes them play by the rules.....

But housing for them is not available:

The city, nestled between Mountain View and Santa Clara and within easy commuting distance of Google, Apple and other tech companies, has seen the average sale price for a single-family home increase by nearly 50 percent since 2015 — rising to more than $2 million this year, according to MLSListings. The city itself also is becoming a hot spot for tech, with Facebook and Fortinet recently securing leases in Sunnyvale.

Even so, Sunnyvale remains more affordable than neighboring cities including Mountain View, where the average home sells for $2.4 million, Palo Alto, where the average home sells for $4 million and Menlo Park, where the average home sells for $3 million, according to MLSListings.

Prior to last week’s $3.15 million sale, Sunnyvale’s most expensive single-parcel sale was a $3 million home on Middlebury Drive in February, according to MLSListings. A property on East Homestead Avenue sold for $4 million in March, but that lot consisted of two separate parcels joined together.

The $3.15 million sale closed May 16 for about 25 percent above the home’s asking price after spending eight days on the market, Moran said. The buyers, a husband and wife who both work in tech and have two high school-aged children, had been searching for a home in the Sunnyvale area for more than two years, Moran said. The family, who declined to be interviewed, previously lived in Santa Clara and wanted a bigger house in a better school district.¹

If our population continues to explode this is going to happen nantionwide, how about making the various government agencies release some of their land back into private property? When I was a young carpenter codes didn't apply on parcels 5 acres or more, the builder I worked for built both in areas governed by code and areas where permits were unnecessary, we built the same in both cases, I'm not sure that would happen with these ADUs today since about anybody can become a building contractor thanks to court cases like Griggs vs Duke Energy.



¹ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/0...e-single-parcel-home-sale-yet-guess-how-much/

 

[Phil]

Conarb,
I'd would prefer more high-density/high-rise development while maintaining open-spaces on public land for recreation and preservation. If there isn't enough high-density housing near transit centers for Google's engineers making 120k, more should be built. Open spaces around me increase my quality of life. Why should that be sacrificed when there are other ways to accommodate population growth.

Do you have any idea how much federal land in CA is on buildable (without $500k foundations for single family resident) land that is also near a population center? I live in SoCal next to the Angeles National Forest. In the forest, there is a lot of buildable land, but the vast majority is not. An hour or two drive out of L.A., there's lots of buildable land in the desert owned by the BLM. But, there is also plenty of private land in the desert that isn't developed.