Members of the Los Al city council were so frustrated about newly minted state laws that have wrestled control away from them that, in one case, they refused to vote on changing a local ordinance.
At the most recent council meeting, city officials expressed outrage to learn newly passed laws by the state assembly gives the city absolutely no control of whom establishes day care facilities and another that virtually decimated all of the work city officials had previously done on accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
City attorney Michael Daudt and city manager Chet Simmons explained that changes were necessary to bring the city’s local ordinances into compliance with new state laws.
They said new state statutes regarding the establishment of large daycare centers give local governments literally no control of where such daycare centers are operated. Such facilities do not need licenses nor permits from local authorities.
While the council debated any number of potential local ‘fixes’ in the way of local modifications, the city attorney basically shut them down. Not even parking on city streets can be regulated for largedaycare centers under the new laws.
Local ordinances “would only be permissible if we impose the exact same limitations for every other residential use in that particular zoning district,” said Daudt, adding that current requirements for playground equipment and parking are “no longer enforceable.”
Council member Dean Grose said between daycare and sober living home visitors, “they will block your driveway and there is no penalty involved.”
Council members worried about several related issues, including parking in an already overcrowded city in terms of parking.
One city resident spoke at the public hearing suggesting the new laws raise a “safety issue” and would create a “public inconvenience” and parking bottlenecks for the families forced to coexist near these large daycare centers.
Council member Shelley Hasselbrink suggested the council not even vote on the issue until city staffers study it in more detail to determine what, if anything, can be done to strengthen the city’s position. The council agreed.
When the council began discussing another local ordinance modification because of new state laws, the emotion evolved into disgust.
Daudt said another local ordinance to accommodate needed to be changed to accommodate new state laws regarding so-called Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s).
These are new living spaces added to existing homes and multi-family housing units.
Basically, the state eliminated the need for the homeowner to live in the units and significantly expanded the overall size of the potential units. Again, the council was frustrated over the loss of local control.
“This disgusts me,” said Mayor Richard D. Murphy. “It really does. To think of the amount of time we’ve put into discussing this subject (in recent years) and now it is just whitewashed away with a stroke of the pen.”
The proximity of public transportation facilities in Los Al further reduce their control, said Murphy, adding “this has the potential to make every house a triplex.” He said instead of loosening regulations to build housing, “we get something like this.”
“What if you saved your whole life to buy a single-family home,” said Murphy, “which is still the gold standard in this country, and here it is taken away.”
Murphy wondered “what’s this going to (make the city) look like in a couple of years?”
Despite the city’s loss of control, Murphy thanked key officials and the Planning Commission for their work.
“Why do we have a local government,” complained Mayor Pro-tem Mark Chirco? “They (Sacramento) are telling us what to do regardless of what it does to the character of our city.”
Legislators, said Chirco, are thinking of bigger cities and “are not thinking of us. It is really frustrating.”
“Elections have consequences,” said Grose.
Because owners are no longer required to own the site of the ADU’s, Hasselbrink said there needs to be “some tie to the community,” as she openly worried about short term rentals.
Daudt said the city’s revised ordinance would at least require that ADU’s be rented for not less than 30 days. “Well that’s something,” said a frustrated Hasselbrink, who “reluctantly” made a motion to adopt the local ordinance to accompany the state changes.
It passed 5-0.
According to Simmons, “every jurisdiction is dealing with this issue.” He said communities are looking at several “neighborhood preservation programs.” The goal now, he said, was preventing ADU’s from becoming “bad actors in the neighborhood.”
