CALIFORNIA BILL A.B.1866

 
A Threat to our Community and Life here as we have known It
I knew of the California Bill that mandated cities and counties to plan for low income housing. You probably thought, as I did, that this referred to the planning for the development of new subdivisions and new areas. As a resident here for 42 years, we specifically bought in this area because of the protection we thought we had in the Zoning, "E-4, Small Estates District, single family residences, minimum lot size, 20,000 square feet."
 
2nd Units - ( 2 houses per lot ) are now allowed and these can be rental units!   
I became aware of other ramifications in the new law, effective July 1, 2003, when my widowed neighbor of more than 30 years sold her home. The new neighbors told me of their plans to build a second house in the back. I said it wasn't allowed and cited our zoning. They told me they wouldn't have bought if they couldn't build a second house. They had already been to the County Planning Services Department and second units now can be built here. The County gave me a synopsis of the bill. You can download the complete bill  www.smartwindows.com/AB1866.htm; read through the 14 pages particularly pages 7-14. "Granny units" have been permitted for many years, but 640 sq. ft. used to be the maximum size. Now a complete house of 1200 sq. ft. can be built so long as it meets the side and back setbacks and the height requirements.
 
Parking and Traffic will become increasing Problems
Next door, 6-8 cars are parked there every night. Since 8 cars will not all fit in the double wide driveway, 4-5 of them park in the driveway, and until the rain, one parked in the landscaping, and 2-3 park across the street at the curb in front of Red Hill School. While only 2-3 usually remain during the day, most all the cars were there during the heavy rain of two weeks ago. With 3 cars parked on the strip in front of the school, the flow of  traffic as school let out was impacted. Early arriving Moms often wait at the curb for their children to exit. With three less spaces available, there was more traffic into the school driveway and more lineups on the street as they waited to turn into the school driveway. While this is just one house, (a single family with 6-8 cars?), imagine if more and more of our lots are cut up in this same manner. Traffic is already bad on Red Hill.  
 
40-50 plus year old Trees are all being removed.
One of the beauties of our area are the trees. Next door, most of the trees are already gone; only those in front remain. They are taking the trees out to provide for a second driveway to the back house where all the trees in back area were removed first. Some of our homes, built before the zoning took effect in 1963, have less than the minimum 125 ft. frontage required of this area. The lot next door is the smallest of the existing homes built before the zoning and grandfathered in. The lot is just 80 feet wide and the plans are for 2 full driveways. My gardener probably said it best, "pretty soon it will look like Santa Ana." The only other parking in the landscaping I knew of was around the LA Colisum during the 1984 Olympics.
 
Where will the children play?
During discussions on whether the school should be sold, some years back, one of the reasons the neighbors felt it should be kept was that it acted as a park for the children to play and hold their soccer and baseball games. We don't have parks in our area and during this discussion, one of the comments was that we didn't need parks here because our properties were so large, they were all parks. Will the added density now require the county to build some parks?
 
Why we specifically bought here in 1963
Our main focus was to have a lot large enough to indulge our gardening interests, to grow an extensive orchard, and for the peace, quiet and privacy that comes from a property where houses are not so close together. We could not find the size lot we wanted in Newport Beach and zoning was non-existent at that time in Costa Mesa. We might have chosen a different house in either of those areas, but bought here specifically for the lot size and the zoning protections. Do those of us who purchased under the existing zoning have any say? What happens to our values when multiple houses are squeezed onto the existing lots?
 
Can we do anything?
The County Planning Services Department told me there was nothing that could be done to prevent second units in our area, except complain to the higher ups to try to change the law. I've talked with Bill Campbell's office, with Dick Ackerman's office and with Assemblyman John Campbell's office and told them what was happening here because the bill effectively nullifies the protection we all thought we had when we purchased our homes here under the zoning, E-4 Sectional District, Map - IRS-14, still on the wall in the County office, as if it meant something!
 
Other areas may be making plans.
My daughter in Alameda sent a summary from the Association of Bay Area Governments, Planning for Second Units Forum, March 28, 2003, where the ruling from Betsy Strauss, Special Counsel, League of California Cities, City Attorney, City of Rohnert Park, stated, "...the fundamental value judgement at stake here, a choice between housing and parking - was made by the Legislature in favor of housing."
 
Dawn Bean,
11902 Red Hill Ave.
rdbean@earthlink.net