The November 28 meeting of the South Oceanside Community and Merchants Association will feature a talk by City Planner Jeff Hunt about how new and earlier state laws will affect development decisions in Oceanside.
Because housing is expensive in California, state politicians have wanted to be seen as doing something about the state’s “housing crisis.” Their primary strategy has been to reduce local control over housing development.
In the 2016-17 session, the legislature passed 15 bills related to housing policy (according to an Oct. 23 memo to the Oceanside Planning Commission). This included a new tax on real estate sales (SB 2) intended to raise $250 million/year for affordable housing and plans for a $4b state bond measure (SB 3) in 2018 to fund low income housing.
However, several of the bills continued a trend of the state to force local governments to reduce (or in some cases, eliminate) their ability to reject bad projects based on the decisions of the planning commission or city council. This approach is based on the assumption that the state’s lack of housing is due to excessive control of local governments by NIMBY residents, and therefore strong anti-NIMBY laws are needed.
These bills passed despite strong opposition from the League of California Cities. They include:
- AB 72, which the LCC says “empowers the [Housing and Community Development] Department to second guess any action taken by a city or county that it determines is inconsistent” with any housing related law.
- SB 167 allows a court to fine cities $10,000 per housing unit for wrongfully denying projects or reducing density.
- SB 35 requires that cities that haven’t met housing targets must “ministerially approve” (i.e. no public hearing or input) any project outside the coastal zone that include specific low income set-asides.
Two earlier laws are already being applied in Oceanside. Below are brief summaries of those laws.
Accessory Dwelling Units: Government Code 65852
In 2016, the state approved a series of bills mandating that cities approve accessor dwelling units (née “granny flats”) that under certain conditions. The state has a detailed website promoting the creation and approval of these ADUs, including a booklet summarizing the policies.
Such a unit can be detached from the main building (a stand-alone building), attached, or repurposing of existing space (e.g. changing an internal bedroom to a separate unit).
As a basic principle, any homeowner is allowed to add an ADU to his/her lot. A property that meets the lot size minimums for R-1 (or are grandfathered in, as in most of South O) can have a second unit on that lot. Parking requirements are reduced — tandem parking on the driveway is enough to qualify — and they are eliminated for “junior” ADUs.
The new 2016 laws require that local government have “an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of accessory dwelling units and shall not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units.” In other words, no hearings will be held, and residents have no basis to appeal such an approval.
The only exception to this policy is in the Coastal Zone — which for South O means west of Coast Highway and along the lagoon and La Salina Creek. The law does not abolish Coastal Commission regulation, and thus any approval can be appealed to the Coastal Commission (within a very narrow window of time).
Density Bonuses: Government Code Section 65915
State law allows density bonuses (increases) of up to 35% over existing zoning for projects that provide “low income” or “very low income” housing.
Most Oceanside residents learned of this law with the recent Grandview Pointe project, which was unanimously rejected by the Planning Commission October 23.
The proposed project — located in Fire Mountain just north of Lincoln Middle School — would replace two residences at 1902 Grandview (between Hunsaker and Crouch) with a new cul-de-sac and residential development. The project sought to build 26 three-story homes on 6 buildable acres. By providing two additional low income ADUs, the developer sought a density bonus from 3.5 to 4.34 units/acre.
The future of the project is unclear.
Save South O 