Planning and zoning: tenancy in common subject to an exclusive occupancy agreement.
The introduction of AB 2386 signifies a shift in how local jurisdictions can manage multifamily housing developments. By empowering local governments to set regulations surrounding the design, maintenance, and use of properties held under a tenancy in common, the bill provides them with tools to ensure that such properties are in line with community standards and planning objectives. This could greatly enhance the uniformity and quality of multifamily developments, making it easier for neighborhoods to adapt to changing needs.
Assembly Bill 2386, introduced by Assembly Member Bloom, aims to amend California's Government Code by adding Section 65850.10, which specifically pertains to the regulation of multifamily properties held under a tenancy in common subject to an exclusive occupancy agreement. The bill allows local agencies to regulate the design and improvement of these properties through ordinances. It authorizes local governments to require agreements governing the operation and maintenance of shared areas, and to impose specific physical requirements necessary to align with the general plan or applicable specific plan.
Initial discussions regarding AB 2386 reveal a largely supportive sentiment, particularly among those advocating for stronger local control in land use decisions. Proponents argue that the bill will enhance consistency in development standards and protect community interests. However, some concerns have been raised regarding potential overreach by local authorities, suggesting a need to balance regulation with the rights of property owners under tenancy agreements.
Notable points of contention include concerns that the bill may impose excessive regulatory burdens on property owners and developers involved in tenancy in common arrangements. Critics argue that stringent local regulations could hinder the development of affordable housing options by increasing costs and complicating compliance. Furthermore, the bill clarifies that it does not supersede existing land use requirements, which could lead to further legal challenges based on local interpretations of what constitutes proper land use. This aspect may provoke disagreements among stakeholders regarding the adequacy of provisions for managing shared property effectively.