• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Daniel S. Gonzales

What you need to know about Commercial Real Estate | 408.280.0535

  • Home
  • About Daniel S. Gonzales
  • Documents of interest
  • Blog

New California housing initiatives face resistance from some local jurisdictions and residents

June 4, 2019 by Daniel S. Gonzales 3 Comments

density bonusCalifornia’s dire housing crisis continues to rouse state lawmakers to legislative action, as I have noted previously in this blog.  Literally hundreds of proposed statutory approaches to addressing this chronic situation have been introduced and are being debated in Sacramento, ranging from increased tenant protections to “upzoning” to streamlining the housing development approval process.  A number of new laws focus on encouraging new high-density residential development.

Not everyone is pleased with this movement, however.  The “NIMBY” phenomenon remains an all-too-real barrier to increased housing density in the Bay Area, which I pointed out in an article I wrote here a few years back.  Opposition from local governments and residents to the perceived usurpation of local housing development density prerogatives by state law directives seems to be on the rise, coalescing around certain specific types of development issues.

For example, if you are a regular reader of this blog, you are probably aware that California law now mandates local governments to ease their restrictions on the development of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) in order to conform with these state requirements.  For many of us, this was a salutary change for our state.  Indeed, I dedicated my new ADU website to helping local property owners navigate this brave new world.

Last year, the Los Altos City Council passed an ADU ordinance in response to this state legislation.  This new ordinance appears to have few fans, however.  On the one side, some critics argue that the City’s new ordinance is more restrictive on ADUs than state law allows, particularly with respect to the size limits imposed on detached ADUs under the new ordinance, while on the other hand, many Los Altos residents believe that the state law has overstepped local authority over this type of development.  As a longtime Los Altos resident, I know how fervent many Los Altans can get about these issues, so I am sure this debate will not likely end soon.

Similarly, several cities have attempted to circumvent the provisions of the state Density Bonus Law, which allows developers of affordable housing to build more units (“density bonus units”) than would otherwise be legally allowed on that  amount of land area.  Recently, the California Attorney General was asked to render an opinion on whether a local jurisdiction could condition its approval of a housing development project on the developer’s payment of a “public benefit fee” imposed on the density bonus units.  Citing the law’s legislative intent, which stated that the Density Bonus Law was meant to be “interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of housing units,” the Attorney General issued an opinion stating that such “public benefit fees” could not be imposed on “density bonus units” by local governments.

As people continue to pour into California for expanding employment and business opportunities, and as our new housing supply continues to lag behind the number of new residents, we can expect to keep seeing these conflicts play out in our state and local legislative chambers.  Only time will tell how this situation will get resolved.

Filed Under: Accessory Dwelling Units, ADUs

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Marty Lefton says

    June 5, 2019 at 6:53 am

    Dan, thanks for your constant quality content through the years. Much appreciated!

    Reply
    • Daniel G. says

      June 13, 2019 at 11:26 am

      Thanks so much for the kind words, Marty.

      Reply
      • Marty Lefton says

        June 13, 2019 at 2:07 pm

        Most welcome.

        Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Search

Sign up for Updates

  • Hidden
    MM slash DD slash YYYY
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Helping you avoid risk, maximize profit, and protect your long term real estate appreciation

Mr. Gonzales is in private practice, providing representation, advice and counsel in complex real estate, corporate, and business transactions on behalf of public and private institutions, businesses, and individuals.

This material has been prepared by Daniel S. Gonzales for informational purposes only and does not constitute advertising, a solicitation, or legal advice. Neither delivery nor transmission of this material or the information contained herein is intended to create, and receipt thereof does not constitute formation of, an attorney-client relationship. The reader should not rely upon this information for any purpose without seeking legal advice from a licensed attorney. The information contained in this material is provided only as general information and is not promised or guaranteed to be correct or complete. Daniel S. Gonzales expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this material.

Recent Posts

  • Protracted legal odyssey ends in victory for Lafayette housing development
  • Is CEQA being weaponized against housing development?
  • Can tech automate commercial lease management? Stay tuned
  • Prolific ADA Litigant Shelved?
  • Prop. 15:  Time to switch off the “third rail” of California politics?
Copyright © 2023 Daniel S. Gonzales