December 19, 2018
December 26, 2019
KISS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES - GOODBYE
GOOD-BYE TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
New bill means saying goodbye to single-family zoning
Keep in mind, Sharon Rushton, who published this information below, is unaware this NEW LAW is exactly what we face as our cities and counties, everywhere in America,
are deploying the Goals of Sustainable Development. She also is unaware that our presumed elected representatives do not work for us. The alleged representatives work for the corporate network agency called U.S.A., Inc.
With so many uninformed people we can easily understand why we will no longer have single family homes.
We will review SB 68 and discuss how this bill conforms with the global plans of reducing housing availability and re-imagining our future lives living in smart kill cities.
Most important to understand, while you will read this bill as approved in California, these are goals planned for YOU in YOUR community, everywhere, worldwide.
Read the highlighted and underlined text below and discount the author's lack of understanding the facts in the remainder that is written. We opted to use this article to frame the facts and illustrate what the author is wrongly stating.
Marin Voice: New bill means saying goodbye to single-family zoning
By SHARON RUSHTON
PUBLISHED: November 18, 2019
Assembly Bill 68, entitled "Land Use: Accessory Dwelling Units," is one of the new housing bills that Gov. Newsom recently signed. It is an example of the State Legislature's poor planning.
This detrimental bill eliminates single family zoning and enables the transformation of beneficial accessory dwelling units (second units and granny flats) into overcrowded multifamily triplexes with potentially multiple adverse impacts.
There are various advantages to adding an accessory dwelling unit or second unit to a home. For homeowners, the extra unit can provide additional income, support family members such as adult children or aging parents and house on-site caregivers. In addition, the units sometimes provide additional affordable housing for low income residents, although this is not guaranteed. When local jurisdictions craft careful accessory dwelling unit ordinances, these second units can fit seamlessly into an established community.
Unfortunately, by stripping away local control, community engagement, and environmental review related to second units, AB 68 goes too far.
Before adoption of the bill, a locality could choose whether or not to allow ADUs and if so, could set appropriate development standards (parking standards, setbacks, allowable density, height, for example) and require the property owner to live on site.
In contrast, the new law requires jurisdictions to "ministerially" allow a homeowner, in single family neighborhoods, to build a detached backyard residence that is at least 800-square-feet and 16-feet-high with only four-foot side and rear setbacks, as well as convert a garage, office or spare room into a third living space. The size of the two additional units can be over and above the existing allowable square footage for the primary home.
Ministerial approval ("over-the-counter approval") streamlines the permit process and eliminates discretionary review and public hearings, thereby stifling public engagement and comments as well as environmental review.
In addition, the bill requires a local agency to ministerially approve up to 25% of the existing units in a multifamily building, provided the units are within the existing structure and meet certain criteria.
Besides density, height and setbacks, the bill greatly relaxes other ADUs' development standards too. The bill prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing standards on lot coverage or minimum lot size for accessory dwelling units.
The bill further prohibits cities from requiring additional parking spaces when homeowners convert garages to new housing (unless the city can prove, with specific findings, that insufficient off-street parking would harm public health and safety, and do so within a very short time-frame). This will force more cars to park on the street, change the aesthetics of communities and make it harder for emergency vehicles to reach areas with narrow roads, among other problems.
This could result in dire consequences. Under current conditions, residents who live on the narrow, windy streets of Almonte in unincorporated Mill Valley, have reported incidents when paramedics could not speedily reach their emergency destinations because parked vehicles blocked the roadway. In one instance, the paramedics were going door to door, trying to find the owner of a wide SUV, while a medically distressed neighbor waited for help.
Without requiring a homeowner to live on the premises, AB 68 incentivizes large-scale investors to buy up single-family homes, convert them to triplexes and then operate them as commercial enterprises.
Over time, as the supply of single-family homes diminishes due to conversions to triplexes, the price for the remaining single-family dwellings will become even more expensive.
Moreover, although it is expected that the subsequent increase in housing, insufficient parking, and population growth will result in numerous adverse impacts (traffic congestion, overcrowded schools, lack of water, etc.), AB-68 provides no funding for dealing with these impacts. Instead, local communities will have to cover the costs.
It is important to note that Marin's representatives, Sen. Mike McGuire and Assembly-member Marc Levine, voted for AB 68. This is despite the fact that most Marin residents greatly value single-family neighborhoods.
If you agree, please contact McGuire at (916) 651-4002 and Levine at (916) 319-2010. Let them know you are disappointed that they voted for AB-68.
Should you decide to contact either of the above people, please understand they work within the corporate construct. They are "instructed" by staffers to comply with the United Nations, the IMF, the International Bankers and others to bring in the Sustainable Development Goals and Agendas, including limiting housing, and much more.
W. O. Belfield, Jr.
April 9, 2009
We have fought efforts for decades for developers to buy up RA properties (zoned for horses) for decades. They want to buy up large parcels, and build high density housing, pushing the rural San Fernando Valley lifestyle out of existence. The Valley now is so overbuilt, nobody has horses, chickens, or other farm animals. Large places got developed and the ranch style places built into other things, like have tennis courts, things taking a lot of land. Always were tight controls on guest houses and Granny flats, in size, and who could live in them was legally limited to relatives or short term guests, but guest houses could not have kitchens. Meaning they could not be used as housing per sa, and in no case could you legally rent them out. Bootlegged garage conversions were illegal but rented out as spare rooms.
Now the concept is to allow temporary guest houses, like Tuff sheds, and allow renting them so homeless people are off the streets. Gated communities have strict rules, including parking on streets, and other restrictive rules, that do result in property values staying higher.
You start converting property like this bill, and neighborhoods will deteriorate rapidly, and values drop, crime will rise. The worst places are some of the high density apartment areas where crime and drugs are rampant. This is a really bad idea.