The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to regulate, among other things, the intensity of land use, and also authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, as specified. Existing law authorizes the ordinance to designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where 2nd units may be permitted, to impose specified standards on 2nd units, and to provide that 2nd units do not exceed allowable density and are a residential use, as specified.

This bill would replace the term second unit with accessory dwelling unit. The bill would, instead, require the ordinance to include the elements described above and would also require the ordinance to require accessory dwelling units to comply with specified conditions. This bill would require ministerial, nondiscretionary approval of an accessory dwelling unit under an existing ordinance. The bill would also specify that a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any accessory dwelling unit located within its jurisdiction.

Existing law requires that parking requirements for 2nd units not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. Under existing law, additional parking may be required provided that a finding is made that the additional parking requirements are directly related to the use of the 2nd unit and are consistent with existing neighborhood standards applicable to residential dwellings.

This bill would delete the above-described authorization for additional parking requirements.

By increasing the duties of local officials with respect to land use regulations, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 65852.2 of the Government Code proposed by SB 1069 that would become operative only if SB 1069 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, and this bill is chaptered last.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to regulate, among other things, the intensity of land use, and also authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, as specified. Existing law authorizes the ordinance to designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where 2nd units may be permitted, to impose specified standards on 2nd units, and to provide that 2nd units do not exceed allowable density and are a residential use, as specified.

This bill would replace the term second unit with accessory dwelling unit. The bill would, instead, require the ordinance to include the elements described above and would also require the ordinance to require accessory dwelling units to comply with specified conditions. This bill would require ministerial, nondiscretionary approval of an accessory dwelling unit under an existing ordinance. The bill would also specify that a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any accessory dwelling unit located within its jurisdiction.

Existing law requires that parking requirements for 2nd units not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. Under existing law, additional parking may be required provided that a finding is made that the additional parking requirements are directly related to the use of the 2nd unit and are consistent with existing neighborhood standards applicable to residential dwellings.

This bill would delete the above-described authorization for additional parking requirements.

By increasing the duties of local officials with respect to land use regulations, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 65852.2 of the Government Code proposed by SB 1069 that would become operative only if SB 1069 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, and this bill is chaptered last.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to regulate, among other things, the intensity of land use, and also authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, as specified. Existing law authorizes the ordinance to designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where 2nd units may be permitted, to impose specified standards on 2nd units, and to provide that 2nd units do not exceed allowable density and are a residential use, as specified.

This bill would replace the term second unit with accessory dwelling unit. The bill would, instead, require the ordinance to include the elements described above and would also require the ordinance to require accessory dwelling units to comply with specified conditions. This bill would require ministerial, nondiscretionary approval of an accessory dwelling unit under an existing ordinance. The bill would also specify that a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any accessory dwelling unit located within its jurisdiction.

Existing law requires that parking requirements for 2nd units not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. Under existing law, additional parking may be required provided that a finding is made that the additional parking requirements are directly related to the use of the 2nd unit and are consistent with existing neighborhood standards applicable to residential dwellings.

This bill would delete the above-described authorization for additional parking requirements.

By increasing the duties of local officials with respect to land use regulations, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to regulate, among other things, the intensity of land use, and also authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, as specified. Existing law authorizes the ordinance to designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where 2nd units may be permitted, to impose specified standards on 2nd units, and to provide that 2nd units do not exceed allowable density and are a residential use, as specified.

This bill would replace the term second unit with accessory dwelling unit. The bill would, instead, require a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units in these zones. the ordinance to include the elements described above and would also require the ordinance to require accessory dwelling units to comply with specified conditions. This bill would require ministerial, nondiscretionary approval of an accessory dwelling unit under an existing ordinance. The bill would also specify that a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any 2nd accessory dwelling unit located within its jurisdiction.

Existing law requires that parking requirements for 2nd units not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. Under existing law, additional parking may be required provided that a finding is made that the additional parking requirements are directly related to the use of the 2nd unit and are consistent with existing neighborhood standards applicable to residential dwellings.

This bill would delete the above-described authorization for additional parking requirements. The bill would also provide that, when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of a 2nd unit and the local agency requires that those off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the 2nd unit, as provided.

By increasing the duties of local officials with respect to land use regulations, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to regulate, among other things, the intensity of land use, and also authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, as specified.

This bill would, instead, require a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units in these zones. By The bill would also specify that a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any 2nd unit located within its jurisdiction.

By increasing the duties of local officials, officials with respect to land use regulations, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to regulate, among other things, the intensity of land use, and also authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, as specified.

This bill would, instead, require a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units in these zones. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2299

Author:(Bloom)

As Amended Ver:August 26, 2016

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: H. & C.D.

SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) review process and standards. Specifically, this bill:

1. Replaces "second units" with "ADUs" throughout the chapter.
2. Provides that a local government may adopt an ordinance allowing ADUs in single-family and multifamily residential zones, and the ordinance must do all of the following:
   1. Designate areas where ADUs may be permitted based on criteria that may include the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact on traffic flow and public safety.
   2. Impose parking, height, setback, lot coverage, landscape, architectural review, maximum unit size and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any property listed in the California Register of Historic Places.
   3. Reduce or eliminate parking requirements, if a local government so chooses.
   4. Provide that ADUs do not exceed the allowable density for the lot on which it is located and that ADUs are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation on a lot.
   5. Require the ADUs to comply with all of the following:
      1. The unit is not intended for sale separate from the primary residence and may be rented.
      2. The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use.
      3. The ADU is either attached to the existing dwelling or located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling.
      4. The increased floor area of an attached ADU shall not exceed 50% of the existing living area.
      5. The total area of floorspace for a detached ADU shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.
      6. No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an ADU.
      7. No setback shall be required for an existing garage that is converted to an ADU, and a setback of no more than five feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an ADU that is constructed above a garage.
      8. Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate.
      9. Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required.
      10. Parking requirements for ADUs shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on an existing driveway.
      11. Off-street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions, or that it is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction.
      12. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU, and the local agency requires that those off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the ADU, including, but not limited to, as covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.
3. Requires a local agency that has not adopted an ADU ordinance to review ADU permit applications pursuant to the above-listed standards.
4. Provides that a local agency must ministerially review and approve or disapprove ADU permits within 120 days after receiving an application. Any existing ordinance governing the creation of ADUs by a local agency or any such ordinance subsequently adopted by a local agency shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of ADUs and shall not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units except as otherwise provided in this subdivision.
5. Specifies that in the event that a local agency has an existing ADU ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of state law, that ordinance shall be null and void and that agency shall thereafter apply the standards established in state law for the approval of ADUs, unless and until the agency adopts an ordinance that complies with this section.
6. Removes the provision permitting additional parking upon a finding that additional parking is required related to the use of the ADU and consistent with existing neighborhood standards.
7. Deletes language from existing law that prohibits local agencies from adopting an ordinance, which totally precludes ADUs, unless the ordinance contains specified findings.
8. Defines "passageway" as a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU.
9. Makes numerous technical, clarifying changes.
10. Incorporates amendments to avoid chaptering conflicts with SB 1069 (Wieckowski) of the current legislative session.

The Senate amendments:

1. Replace "second units" with "ADUs" throughout the chapter.
2. Delete the provision that prohibits a local government from imposing parking standards for an ADU located within one-half mile of public transit or shopping or that is within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
3. Delete the provision that requires a local government to adopt an ADU ordinance.
4. Provide that an ADU ordinance must contain specified provisions, including:
   1. The increased floor area of an attached ADU shall not exceed 50% of the existing living area.
   2. The total area of floorspace for a detached ADU shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.
   3. No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an ADU.
   4. No setback shall be required for an existing garage that is converted to an ADU, and a setback of no more than five feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an ADU that is constructed above a garage.
   5. Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate.
   6. Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required.
   7. Parking requirements for ADUs shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on an existing driveway.
   8. Off-street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions, or that it is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction.
   9. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU, and the local agency requires that those off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the ADU, including, but not limited to, as covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.
5. Require a local agency that has not adopted an ADU ordinance to review ADU permit applications pursuant to the above-listed standards.
6. Provide that a local agency must ministerially review and approve or disapprove ADU permits within 120 days after receiving an application. Any existing ordinance governing the creation of ADUs by a local agency or any such ordinance subsequently adopted by a local agency shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of ADUs and shall not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units except as otherwise provided in this subdivision.
7. Specify that in the event that a local agency has an existing ADU ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of state law, that ordinance shall be null and void and that agency shall thereafter apply the standards established in state law for the approval of ADUs, unless and until the agency adopts an ordinance that complies with this section.
8. Define "passageway" as a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU.
9. Make numerous technical, clarifying changes.
10. Add a principal co-author
11. Incorporate amendments to avoid chaptering conflicts with SB 1069 (Wieckowski).

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

COMMENTS: ADUs, which are referred to in existing law as "second units", are additional living quarters on single-family lots that are independent of the primary dwelling unit. Also known as accessory apartments, accessory dwellings, mother-in-law units, or granny flats, ADUs are either attached or detached to the primary dwelling unit, and provide complete independent living facilities for one or more person. This includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.

In 2002, AB 1866 (Wright), Chapter 1062, Statutes of 2002, required local governments to use a ministerial process for approving ADUs, notwithstanding other laws that regulate the issuance of variances or special use permits. A local government may provide for the construction of ADUs by ordinance, and may designate areas where ADUs are allowed, as well as require standards for parking, setback, lot coverage, and maximum size. If a local government has not adopted an ordinance governing ADUs, it must grant a variance or special use permit for the creation of ADUs if the unit complies with requirements specified in statute, including size and zoning restrictions.

This bill seeks to ease some of the barriers to the development of ADUs. Senate amendments make several changes to the bill. This bill no longer requires a local agency to adopt an ADU ordinance, or prohibits the imposition of parking requirements on an ADU that is within one-half mile of public transit or shopping, or within in an architecturally or historically significant district. Rather, the bill reorganizes existing law to apply a clear standard for the ADU permit review process regardless of whether a local government has adopted an ordinance or not. If a local government has an ADU ordinance, that ordinance must include specified provisions for standards such as parking, setback, and zoning requirements. If a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, it must review the application pursuant to these same standards. An application must be ministerially reviewed and approved or disapproved within 120 days after receipt.

This bill also makes several changes to ADU standards, including:

1. Specifies that the increased floor area of an attached ADU must not exceed 50% of the existing living area, up from 30%.
2. Provides that no passageways shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an ADU
3. Limits setback requirements
4. Provides standards for off-street parking replacement spots, and also specifies that a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any ADU located within its jurisdiction.

Purpose of this bill: According to the author, "California's implementation of SB 375 [(Steinberg), Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008], the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, is putting new pressure on communities to support infill and affordable housing development. As the San Francisco Bay Area adds over two million new residents by 2040, infilling the core (in targeted Priority Development Areas, or PDAs) could accommodate over half of the new population, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). But at the same time, infill could increase housing costs and exacerbate the region's affordability crisis. One potential solution is secondary units (also called in-law units or accessory dwelling units). Self-contained, smaller living units on the lot of a single-family home, secondary units can be either attached to the primary house, such as an above-the-garage unit or a basement unit, or detached (an independent cottage). Secondary units are particularly well-suited as an infill strategy for low-density residential areas because they offer hidden density, housing units not readily apparent from the street - and relatively less objectionable to the neighbors. Recognizing the potential of secondary units as a housing strategy, California has passed several laws to lower local regulatory barriers to construction, most recently AB 1866 (Wright) of 2002, which requires that each city in the state have a ministerial process for approving secondary units. AB 2299 will ease and streamline current statewide regulations as well as encourage the building of ADUs as a way to create more housing options. Currently several cities are looking at local ordinances to improve or incentivize the creation of ADUs as way to create more rental properties and incomes for families to stay in their current homes."

Analysis Prepared by: Rebecca Rabovsky / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0005008

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2299

Author: , et al.

:

Vote:

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/14/16

AYES: Beall, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/29/16

AYES: Hertzberg, Beall, Hernandez, Lara

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen, Moorlach, Pavley

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-24, 6/2/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: California Apartment Association

DIGEST: This bill requires, rather than permits, a local government to adopt an ordinance for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/26/16 resolve chaptering conflicts with another bill.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/19/16 change “second units” to “accessory dwelling units” or ADUs and reorganize the structure of the statute to be clearer. These amendments also state that if a local jurisdiction adopts an ADU ordinance, the increased floor area of an ADU shall not exceed 50% of the existing living area, up from 30%.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires local governments to consider applications for a second unit ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, regardless of any local ordinance regulating the issuance of special-use permits.
2. Provides that a local government may by ordinance provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multi-family zones.
3. Provides that a local ordinance for second units may do all of the following:
   1. Designate areas where second units may be permitted based on criteria that may include the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact on traffic flow.
   2. Impose parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum unit size and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any property listed in the California Register of Historic Places.
   3. Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot on which they are located and that second units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation on a lot.

This bill:

1. Permits a local government to provide for the creation of ADUs in single-family and multifamily residential zones.
2. Provides that when a local agency that has not adopted an ADU ordinance receives its first application, the local agency shall accept the application and approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review within 120 days after receiving the application.
3. Provides that the increased floor area of an ADU shall not exceed 50% of the existing floor area, up from 30%.
4. Prohibits a local government from requiring a passageway in conjunction with the construction of an ADU. Defines “passageway” as a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU.
5. Prohibits a local government from requiring a setback more than five feet from the side and rear lot line for a second unit constructed above a garage. No setback shall be required for an existing garage that is converted into an ADU.
6. Requires ADUs to apply local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings.
7. Requires approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used.
8. Prohibits parking requirements for ADUs from exceeding one parking space per unit or per bedroom. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on an existing driveway. Offstreet parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem is not feasible based upon specific conditions.
9. Provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU, and the local government requires that those off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the ADU, including, but not limited to, as covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.

Comments

1. Purpose. According to the author, many local governments have not adopted a local ADU law or have made their laws so stringent that homeowners are unable to add an ADU. Given California’s current housing deficiency, this bill is intended to help California bring more housing online. This bill permits local governments to adopt an ADU ordinance and adds specifications for what is required in an ADU ordinance, including relaxing parking restrictions, prohibiting the need for a passageway, and increasing the permissible size of the units.
2. What are second units? ADUs, also known as accessory apartments, accessory dwellings, mother-in-law units, or granny flats, are additional living spaces on single-family lots that have a separate kitchen, bathroom, and exterior access independent of the primary residence. These spaces can either be attached to or detached from the primary residence.
3. Relaxing second-unit requirements. According to a UC Berkeley study, Yes in My Backyard: Mobilizing the Market for Secondary Units, ADUs are a means to accommodate future growth and encourage infill development in developed neighborhoods. Despite existing state law, which requires each city in the state to have a ministerial process for approving ADUs, the study found that local regulations often impede development. Easing these burdens to permit more ADUs could permit a family to rent out the unit (about 49% of the units) or provide housing for a family member (about 51% of the units). In fact, the study found that the average ADU was advertised at a rental rate that makes it affordable to a household earning 62% of the area median income. About 30% were affordable to households in the very low-income category, and 49% were in the low-income category. The study, which evaluated five adjacent cities in the East Bay, concluded that there is a substantial market of interested homeowners; cities could reduce parking requirements without contributing to parking issues; second units could accommodate future growth and affordable housing; and that scaling up second-unit strategy could mean economic and fiscal benefits for cities.
4. Opposition. According to the opposition, which refers to a prior version of the bill, this bill departs from current law by requiring local governments to adopt an ADU ordinance, which is a costly mandate. This will prohibit cities from imposing parking standards in certain circumstances, which could lead to unintended consequences, including community opposition to ADUs. Existing law already provides authority to local governments to adopt an ADU ordinance and does not account for the realities of many suburban and rural communities.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/25/16)

California Apartment Association (source)

American Planning Association, California Chapter

Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles

California Association of Realtors

California Council for Affordable Housing

City of Los Angeles, City Councilmember Gil Cedillo

City of Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti

Santa Barbara Rental Property Association

West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/25/16)

California State Association of Counties

City of Camarillo

City of Lakewood

City of Morgan Hill

City of San Dimas

City of San Marcos

Ventura Council of Governments

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-24, 6/2/16

AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gray, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Weber, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Gallagher, Grove, Harper, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bigelow, Burke, Beth Gaines, Gordon, Ting

Prepared by:

8/29/16 18:49:53

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2299

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/14/16

AYES: Beall, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/29/16

AYES: Hertzberg, Beall, Hernandez, Lara

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen, Moorlach, Pavley

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-24, 6/2/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: California Apartment Association

DIGEST: This bill requires, rather than permits, a local government to adopt an ordinance for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/19/16 change “second units” to “accessory dwelling units” or ADUs and reorganize the structure of the statute to be clearer. These amendments also state that if a local jurisdiction adopts an ADU ordinance, the increased floor area of an ADU shall not exceed 50% of the existing living area, up from 30%.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires local governments to consider applications for a second unit ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, regardless of any local ordinance regulating the issuance of special-use permits.
2. Provides that a local government may by ordinance provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multi-family zones.
3. Provides that a local ordinance for second units may do all of the following:
   1. Designate areas where second units may be permitted based on criteria that may include the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact on traffic flow.
   2. Impose parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum unit size and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any property listed in the California Register of Historic Places.
   3. Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot on which it is located and that second units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation on a lot.

This bill:

1. Permits a local government to provide for the creation of ADUs in single-family and multifamily residential zones.
2. Provides that when a local agency that has not adopted an ADU ordinance receives its first application, the local agency shall accept the application and approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review within 120 days after receiving the application.
3. Provides that the increased floor area of an ADU shall not exceed 50% of the existing floor area, up from 30%.
4. Prohibits a local government from requiring a passageway in conjunction with the construction of an ADU. Defines “passageway” as a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU.
5. Prohibits a local government from requiring a setback more than five feet from the side and rear lot line for a second unit constructed above a garage. No setback shall be required for an existing garage that is converted into an ADU.
6. Requires ADUs to apply local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings.
7. Requires approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used.
8. Prohibits parking requirements for ADUs from exceeding one parking space per unit or per bedroom. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on an existing driveway. Offstreet parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem is not feasible based upon specific conditions.
9. Provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU, and the local government requires that those off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the ADU, including, but not limited to, as covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.

Comments

1. Purpose. According to the author, many local governments have not adopted a local ADU law or have made their laws so stringent that homeowners are unable to add an ADU. Given California’s current housing deficiency, this bill is intended to help California bring more housing online. This bill permits local governments to adopt an ADU ordinance and adds specifications for what is required in an ADU ordinance, including relaxing parking restrictions, prohibiting the need for a passageway, and increasing the permissible size of the units.
2. What are second units? ADUs, also known as accessory apartments, accessory dwellings, mother-in-law units, or granny flats, are additional living spaces on single-family lots that have a separate kitchen, bathroom, and exterior access independent of the primary residence. These spaces can either be attached to or detached from the primary residence.
3. Relaxing second-unit requirements. According to a UC Berkeley study, Yes in My Backyard: Mobilizing the Market for Secondary Units, ADUs are a means to accommodate future growth and encourage infill development in developed neighborhoods. Despite existing state law, which requires each city in the state to have a ministerial process for approving ADUs, the study found that local regulations often impede development. Easing these burdens to permit more ADUs could permit a family to rent out the unit (about 49% of the units) or provide housing for a family member (about 51% of the units). In fact, the study found that the average ADU was advertised at a rental rate that makes it affordable to a household earning 62% of the area median income. About 30% were affordable to households in the very low-income category, and 49% were in the low-income category. The study, which evaluated five adjacent cities in the East Bay, concluded that there is a substantial market of interested homeowners; cities could reduce parking requirements without contributing to parking issues; second units could accommodate future growth and affordable housing; and that scaling up second-unit strategy could mean economic and fiscal benefits for cities.
4. Opposition. According to the opposition, which refers to a prior version of the bill, this bill departs from current law by requiring local governments to adopt an ADU ordinance, which is a costly mandate. This will prohibit cities from imposing parking standards in certain circumstances, which could lead to unintended consequences, including community opposition to ADUs. Existing law already provides authority to local governments to adopt an ADU ordinance and does not account for the realities of many suburban and rural communities.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/19/16)

California Apartment Association (source)

American Planning Association, California Chapter

Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles

California Association of Realtors

California Council for Affordable Housing

City of Los Angeles, City Councilmember Gil Cedillo

City of Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti

Santa Barbara Rental Property Association

West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/19/16)

California State Association of Counties

City of Camarillo

City of Lakewood

City of Morgan Hill

City of San Dimas

City of San Marcos

Ventura Council of Governments

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-24, 6/2/16

AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gray, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Weber, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Gallagher, Grove, Harper, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bigelow, Burke, Beth Gaines, Gordon, Ting

Prepared by:

8/22/16 23:01:11

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2299

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/14/16

AYES: Beall, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/29/16

AYES: Hertzberg, Beall, Hernandez, Lara

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen, Moorlach, Pavley

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-24, 6/2/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: California Apartment Association

DIGEST: This bill requires, rather than permits, a local government to adopt an ordinance for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires local governments to consider applications for a second unit ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, regardless of any local ordinance regulating the issuance of special-use permits.
2. Provides that a local government may by ordinance provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multi-family zones.
3. Provides that a local ordinance for second units may do all of the following:
   1. Designate areas where second units may be permitted based on criteria that may include the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact on traffic flow.
   2. Impose parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum unit size and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any property listed in the California Register of Historic Places.
   3. Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot on which it is located and that second units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation on a lot.

This bill:

1. Requires a local government to provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones.
2. Prohibits a local government from imposing parking standards for a second unit that is located within a half-mile of public transit or shopping or is within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. A local government may otherwise reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any second unit located within its jurisdiction.
3. Prohibits a local government from requiring a passageway or pathway clear to the sky between the second unit and a public street when constructing a second unit.
4. Prohibits a local government from requiring a setback more than five feet from the side and rear lot line for a second unit constructed above a garage located on an alley.
5. Provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of a second unit, and the local government requires that those off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the second unit, including, but not limited to, as covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.

Comments

1. Purpose. According to the author, many local governments have not adopted a local second-unit law or have made their laws so stringent that homeowners are unable to add a second unit. Given California’s current housing deficiency, this bill is intended to help California bring more housing online. This bill focuses on second units located near transit and eliminated stringent parking standards in these areas. This bill mandates local governments to adopt a second-unit ordinance and prohibits them from imposing parking standards on those units that are located within a half-mile of a public transit or shopping or within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
2. What are second units? Second units, also known as accessory dwelling units, accessory apartments, accessory dwellings, mother-in-law units, or granny flats, are additional living spaces on single-family lots that have a separate kitchen, bathroom, and exterior access independent of the primary residence. These spaces can either be attached to or detached from the primary residence.
3. Relaxing second unit requirements. According to a UC Berkeley study, Yes in My Backyard: Mobilizing the Market for Secondary Units, second units are a means to accommodate future growth and encourage infill development in developed neighborhoods. Despite existing state law, which requires each city in the state to have a ministerial process for approving second units, the study found that local regulations often impede development. Easing these burdens to permit more second units could permit a family to rent out the unit (about 49% of the units) or provide housing for a family member (about 51% of the units). In fact, the study found that the average second unit was advertised at a rental rate that makes it affordable to a household earning 62% of the area median income. About 30% were affordable to households in the very low-income category, and 49% were in the low-income category. The study, which evaluated five adjacent cities in the East Bay, concluded that there is a substantial market of interested homeowners; cities could reduce parking requirements without contributing to parking issues; second units could accommodate future growth and affordable housing; and that scaling up second unit strategy could mean economic and fiscal benefits for cities.

This bill eases barriers to the construction and permitting of second units by:

• 1. Requiring a local government to adopt an ordinance for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones.
  2. Prohibiting a local government from imposing parking standards for a second unit located within half a mile of public transit or that is within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
  3. Prohibiting a local government from requiring a passageway or pathway clear to the sky between the second unit and a public street.
  4. Prohibiting a local government from requiring a setback more than five feet from the side and real lot line for a second unit constructed above a garage on an alley.
  5. Providing that replacement covered parking may be located in any configuration on the same lot.

1. Opposition. According to the opposition, this bill departs from current law by requiring local governments to adopt a second-unit ordinance, which is a costly mandate. This will prohibit cities from imposing parking standards in certain circumstances, which could lead to unintended consequences, including community opposition to second units. Existing law already provides authority to local governments to adopt a second-unit ordinance and does not account for the realities of many suburban and rural communities.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/18/16)

California Apartment Association (source)

American Planning Association, California Chapter

Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles

California Association of Realtors

California Council for Affordable Housing

City of Los Angeles, City Councilmember Gil Cedillo

City of Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti

Santa Barbara Rental Property Association

West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/17/16)

California State Association of Counties

City of Camarillo

City of Lakewood

City of Morgan Hill

City of San Dimas

City of San Marcos

Ventura Council of Governments

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-24, 6/2/16

AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gray, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Weber, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Gallagher, Grove, Harper, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bigelow, Burke, Beth Gaines, Gordon, Ting

Prepared by:

8/18/16 12:16:06

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Land use: housing: 2nd units

Requires local agencies to adopt ordinances regulating second units.

Background

Land Use Regulation. The California Constitution allows a city to "make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that local governments derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority. Local governments use their police power to enact zoning ordinances that shape development, including setting maximum densities for housing units, minimum numbers of required parking spaces, and setbacks to preserve privacy. These ordinances can also include conditions to ensure fire safety and aesthetics, or to address particular site-specific considerations.

Some local ordinances provide “ministerial” processes for approving projects that are permitted “by right”—the zoning ordinance clearly states that a particular use is allowable, and local government does not have any discretion regarding approval of the permit if the application is complete. Local governments have two options for providing landowners with relief from zoning ordinances that might otherwise prohibit or restrict a particular land use: variances and conditional use permits. A variance may be granted to alleviate a unique hardship on a property owner because of the way a generally-applicable zoning ordinance affects a particular parcel, and a conditional use permit allows a land use that is not authorized by right in a zoning ordinance, but may be authorized if the property owner takes certain steps, such as to mitigate the potential impacts of the land use. Both of these processes require hearings by the local zoning board and public notice.

Second Units. The Legislature has long identified second units, also known as in-law apartments or “granny flats,” as a valuable form of housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. In 1982, the Legislature first provided a framework for local governments to enact ordinances that permit the construction of second units, while preserving local government flexibility to regulate the units as necessary. When fewer second units than anticipated were developed, the Legislature significantly amended the second unit law to address some of the barriers that property owners encountered while trying to develop second units (AB 1866, Wright, 2002).

Under the second unit law, a local government can adopt an ordinance that allows the creation of second units in single-family and multi-family residential zones. The ordinance can do any of the following to regulate second units: (1) designate areas within the jurisdiction where accessory dwelling units will be permitted; (2) impose standards on the units regarding parking, height, setback, maximum size, and potential adverse impacts on historic places; and (3) specify that the units must not exceed the allowed density for the lot and be consistent with the general plan and zoning designation for the lot. A local agency may not adopt an ordinance that entirely prohibits second units unless it makes specific findings regarding adverse impacts from the units.

A local agency that has an ordinance must consider the application for a second unit ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing. If the local agency doesn’t have an ordinance that is consistent with the second unit law, it must ministerially consider the application within 120 days of receiving the application, unless it adopts an ordinance within that timeframe.

Local agencies must also grant a variance or conditional use permit for the creation of a second unit that complies with all of the following requirements:

• The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented.
• The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use.
• The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area or detached but located on the same lot
• The increased floor area does not exceed 30 percent of the floor area of the existing residence for an attached unit or 1,200 square feet for a detached unit.
• Compliance with other generally applicable zoning requirements and building permits that apply to detached dwellings.
• The unit is approved by the local health officer if a private sewage disposal system is used.

The second unit law also limits the parking requirements that local governments may impose to one parking space per unit or bedroom. However, a local government may require higher parking ratios if it finds that the additional parking requirements are directly related to the use of the second unit and are consistent with requirements for existing residences. These parking requirements may be met by off-street parking or tandem parking in an existing driveway unless the local government finds that there are specific site, topographical, or fire and life safety conditions.

Local Government Limitations on Second Units. Despite state efforts to encourage second units, many local governments have passed ordinances that constrain their construction. A 2012 report by the Center for Community Innovation at the University of California Berkeley found that there is a substantial market for second units in the San Francisco Bay Area, but that many cities introduce obstacles such as onerous parking requirements, minimum lot sizes, and setbacks that preclude the units from being built. Conversely, the city of Santa Cruz saw its second unit production triple following efforts that liberalized its second unit ordinance and made other changes to encourage construction. Some stakeholders want to remove impediments to second unit development contained in local government ordinances.

Proposed Law

Assembly Bill 2299 requires every city and county, including charter cities, to adopt an ordinance that provides for the creation of second units and repeals the ability of local governments to enact ordinances banning second units. The bill requires the second unit ordinance to: designate areas where second units are permitted; impose standards such as parking, lot coverage, setbacks, and architectural review; and provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located. The ordinance cannot impose parking standards on second units that are located within: (1) one-half mile of public transit or shopping, or (2) a historic district.

AB 2299 also prohibits local governments from requiring more than one parking space per unit or bedroom. If a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished to build a second unit and the local agency requires those spaces to be replaced, the replacement spaces can be in any configuration on the lot, including as tandem spaces. In addition, the bill allows local agencies to reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any second unit located within its jurisdiction.

AB 2299 prohibits local agencies from requiring second units to have a pathway clear to the sky between the second unity and a public street, and second units that are constructed above a garage on an alley cannot be required to have a setback of more than five feet. The bill deems second units to be accessory uses or accessory buildings if they meet the statutory criteria in current law to automatically receive a variance or special use permit.

State Revenue Impact

No estimate.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. California continues to face a housing affordability crisis, despite changes to state housing element law, incentives for infill development and high density developments, and other state laws intended to allow for the construction of new, affordable housing. Second units provide one option for increasing density while avoiding some of the impacts associated with larger, high density projects such as multifamily housing. These units provide older Californians with an additional revenue stream and also promote infill development. In 2002 the Legislature encouraged local governments to adopt ordinances providing for the approval of second units, but some have placed onerous requirements on individuals that want to construct these units on their property, such as parking requirements that can be expensive or physically impossible to achieve and lengthy permitting processes that require variances. AB 2299 seeks to streamline the process for property owners to develop second units by requiring local agencies to permit them without making applicants jump through hoops. It also establishes commonsense limits on requirements for parking or setbacks that have been used to hold up development of these units. AB 2299 takes an important step towards making affordable housing available to the millions of Californians who need it.

2. Home rule. Local governments must balance competing priorities when determining the conditions attached to the development of second units. Cities must look at the potential impacts on the community that result from these units: impaired neighborhood character, spillover effects on nearby homes and businesses due to inadequate parking, and loss of privacy for existing homeowners. Some local governments have adopted more involved processes for permitting second units to allow for consideration of these important factors. But where the demand for these units is limited, local agencies could rely on provisions of existing law to govern the second units for which they must grant a variance or conditional use permit—without going through a time-consuming and expensive process of developing a universally applicable ordinance. AB 2299 eliminates that option by mandating that all cities and counties, including charter cities, develop ordinances that allow for the ministerial approval of second units. Thus the bill applies equally to the City of Maywood, with a population density of over 23,000 people per square mile, as to the County of Alpine, which has a population density of less than 2 people per square mile. Is it really necessary to make all 58 counties and 482 cities develop or revise these ordinances? The Committee may wish to consider amending AB 2299 to retain the option of not developing an ordinance but also strengthen the alternative by requiring ministerial review of some second unit applications in jurisdictions that do not have an ordinance.

3. Bigger problems. While local zoning ordinances that limit the construction of second units may contribute somewhat to housing affordability problems in California, there are larger issues that drive local governments to adopt these kinds of rules. Proposition 13 encourages local governments to prefer commercial development over residential development because commercial development provides greater revenue while consuming fewer costly services. The high cost of housing and the intensity of community involvement in land use decisions provide existing residents with strong incentives—and the means—to object to new development that might lower housing prices for existing units. AB 2299 proposes a solution to add density by relaxing restrictions on second units, but enacting a more comprehensive fix to the incentives that local governments face could obviate the need for the state to intervene on these local matters.

4. Incoming! The Senate Transportation and Housing Committee passed AB 2299 on a vote of 7-0 on June 14, 2016.

5. Related legislation. SB 1069 (Wiekowski), which the Committee approved by a vote of 6-0 at its April 20, 2016 hearing, repeals the ability of cities and counties to adopt an ordinance that prohibits the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs, also known as second units) and establishes required components and maximum standards for local ordinances that permit ADUs, and mandates nondiscretionary approval of ADUs that meet certain standards. SB 1069 is currently pending in the Assembly Local Government Committee. AB 2406 (Thurmond) allows local agencies to adopt an ordinance that authorizes the construction of “junior accessory dwelling units” of 500 square feet or less and describes standards that local agencies may adopt regarding those units. AB 2406 is pending on the Senate Floor.

6. Mandate. The California Constitution generally requires the state to reimburse local agencies for their costs when the state imposes new programs or additional duties on them. According to the Legislative Counsel’s Office, SB 2299 creates a new state-mandated local program. But this bill disclaims the state's responsibility for reimbursing local agencies by including findings and declarations that local agencies may levy fees to cover the costs of the program.

Assembly Actions

Assembly Housing and Community Development: 5-2

Assembly Local Government Committee: 6-2

Assembly Appropriations: 14-6

Assembly Floor: 51-24

Support and Opposition

(6/23/16)

Support: American Planning Association, California Chapter; Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles; California Association of Realtors; California Council for Affordable Housing; California Housing Consortium; City of Los Angeles; Santa Barbara Rental Property Association; West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce.

Opposition: California State Association of Counties; City of Camarillo; City of Fillmore; City of Moorpark; City of Morgan Hill; City of Ojai; City of Oxnard; City of Port Hueneme; City of San Dimas; City of Santa Paula; City of Simi Valley; City of Thousand Oaks; City of Ventura; County of Ventura; League of California Cities; Ventura Council of Governments.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 6/14/2016

SUBJECT: cond Units

DIGEST: This bill requires, rather than permits, a local government to adopt an ordinance for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1) Requires local governments to consider applications for a second unit ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, regardless of any local ordinance regulating the issuance of special-use permits.

2) Provides that a local government may by ordinance provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multi-family zones.

3) Provides that a local ordinance for second units may do all of the following:

1. Designate areas where second units may be permitted based on criteria that may include the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact on traffic flow.
2. Impose parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum unit size and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any property listed in the California Register of Historic Places.
3. Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot on which it is located and that second units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation on a lot.

This bill:

1. Requires a local government to provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones.
2. Prohibits a local government from imposing parking standards for a second unit that is located within a half-mile of public transit or shopping or is within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. A local government may otherwise reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any second unit located within its jurisdiction.
3. Prohibits a local government from requiring a passageway or pathway clear to the sky between the second unit and a public street when constructing a second unit.
4. Prohibits a local government from requiring a setback more than five feet from the side and rear lot line for a second unit constructed above a garage located on an alley.
5. Provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of a second unit, and the local government requires that those off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the second unit, including, but not limited to, as covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, many local governments have not adopted a local second-unit law or have made their laws so stringent that homeowners are unable to add a second unit. Given California’s current housing deficiency, this bill is intended to help California bring more housing online. The bill focuses on second units located near transit and eliminated stringent parking standards in these areas. This bill mandates local governments to adopt a second-unit ordinance and prohibits them from imposing parking standards on those units that are located within a half- mile of a public transit or shopping or within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
2. What are second units? Second units, also known as accessory dwelling units, accessory apartments, accessory dwellings, mother-in-law units, or granny flats, are additional living spaces on single-family lots that have a separate kitchen, bathroom, and exterior access independent of the primary residence. These spaces can either be attached to or detached from the primary residence.
3. Relaxing second unit requirements. According to a UC Berkeley study, Yes in My Backyard: Mobilizing the Market for Secondary Units, second units are a means to accommodate future growth and encourage infill development in developed neighborhoods. Despite existing state law, which requires each city in the state to have a ministerial process for approving second units, the study found that local regulations often impede development. Easing these burdens to permit more second units could permit a family to rent out the unit (about 49% of the units) or provide housing for a family member (about 51% of the units). In fact, the study found that the average second unit was advertised at a rental rate that makes it affordable to a household earning 62% of the area median income. About 30% were affordable to households in the very low-income category, and 49% were in the low-income category. The study, which evaluated five adjacent cities in the East Bay, concluded that there is a substantial market of interested homeowners; cities could reduce parking requirements without contributing to parking issues; second units could accommodate future growth and affordable housing; and that scaling up second unit strategy could mean economic and fiscal benefits for cities.

This bill eases barriers to the construction and permitting of second units by:

1. Requiring a local government to adopt an ordinance for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones.
2. Prohibiting a local government from imposing parking standards for a second unit located within half a mile of public transit or that is within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
3. Prohibiting a local government from requiring a passageway or pathway clear to the sky between the second unit and a public street.
4. Prohibiting a local government from requiring a setback more than five feet from the side and real lot line for a second unit constructed above a garage on an alley.
5. Providing that replacement covered parking may be located in any configuration on the same lot.
6. Opposition. According to the opposition, this bill departs from current law by requiring local governments to adopt a second-unit ordinance, which is a costly mandate. This will prohibit cities from imposing parking standards in certain circumstances, which could lead to unintended consequences, including community opposition to second units. Existing law already provides authority to local governments to adopt a second-unit ordinance and does not account for the realities of many suburban and rural communities.
7. Double-referral. This bill was double-referred to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.

Assembly Votes:

Floor: 51-24

Appr: 14-6

L.Govt: 6-2

H&CD: 5-2

Related Legislation:

AB 2406 (Thurmond) — Allows a local agency to create an ordinance for junior accessory dwelling units in single-family residential zones. This bill is pending in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.

SB 1069 (Wieckowski) — This bill requires an ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to include specified provisions regarding areas where ADUs may be located, standards, and lot density. This bill revises requirements for the approval or disapproval of an ADU application when a local agency has not adopted an ordinance. This bill is pending in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

June 8, 2016.)

SUPPORT:

California Apartment Association (sponsor)

American Planning Association, California Chapter

California Association of Realtors

City of Morgan Hill

City of Los Angeles

West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce

OPPOSITION:

City of Camarillo

City of San Dimas

Ventura Council of Governments

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:

Author:(Bloom)

As Amended Ver:April 5, 2016

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Requires rather than permits a local government to adopt an ordinance for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a local government from imposing parking standards for a second unit located within one-half mile of public transit or shopping or that is within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
2. Allows a local government to eliminate parking requirements for any second unit located in its jurisdiction.
3. Prohibits a local government from requiring a passageway or pathway clear to the sky between the second unit and a public street when constructing a second unit.
4. Prohibits a local government from requiring a setback more than five feet from the side and rear lot line for a second unit constructed above a garage located on an alley.
5. Provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of a second unit, and the local government requires that those off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the second unit including but not limited to covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to Assembly Appropriations Committee, no state fiscal impact. Local agencies have the authority to levy fees for related costs and thus, any local costs are not reimbursable.

COMMENTS:

Local governments are authorized to adopt ordinances for the creation of second units in single family and multifamily zones; however they are not required to do so. State law allows local governments to limit the areas that second units may be permitted based on availability of adequate water and sewer services as well as the impact on traffic flow. They can also impose parking standards. AB 1866 (Wright) Chapter 1062, Statutes of 2002, required that local governments approve a second unit ministerially without discretionary review or hearing or require a special use permit.

This bill would require rather than allow a local government to adopt a second unit ordinance and to limit the local government's ability to apply certain standards. Within one-half mile of public transit or shopping, or within in an architecturally or historically significant district, an ordinance could not impose any parking requirement on the second unit. Parking requirements imposed by local jurisdictions on second units can be a barrier to the creation of these units because the parking may not be feasible in an existing neighborhood.

Purpose of this bill: According to the author, "California's implementation of SB 375 [(Steinberg), Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008], the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, is putting new pressure on communities to support infill and affordable housing development. As the San Francisco Bay Area adds over two million new residents by 2040, infilling the core (in targeted Priority Development Areas, or PDAs) could accommodate over half of the new population, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). But at the same time, infill could increase housing costs and exacerbate the region's affordability crisis. One potential solution is secondary units (also called in-law units or accessory dwelling units). Self-contained, smaller living units on the lot of a single-family home, secondary units can be either attached to the primary house, such as an above-the-garage unit or a basement unit, or detached (an independent cottage). Secondary units are particularly well-suited as an infill strategy for low-density residential areas because they offer hidden density, housing units not readily apparent from the street - and relatively less objectionable to the neighbors. Recognizing the potential of secondary units as a housing strategy, California has passed several laws to lower local regulatory barriers to construction, most recently Assembly Bill 1866 of 2002, which requires that each city in the state have a ministerial process for approving secondary units. AB 2299 will ease and streamline current statewide regulations as well as encourage the building of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) as a way to create more housing options. Currently several cities are looking at local ordinances to improve or incentivize the creation of ADUs as way to create more rental properties and incomes for families to stay in their current homes. Simply reducing parking requirements in transit rich areas where most tenants don't have a car will encourage more building of ADUs."

Analysis Prepared by: Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0002978

Date of Hearing: May 11, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2299

Author:(Bloom) – As Amended Ver:April 5, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY: This bill requires, rather than permits, a local government to adopt an ordinance for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a local government from imposing parking standards for a second unit located within one-half mile of public transit or shopping or that is within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
2. Allows a local government to eliminate parking requirements for any second unit located in its jurisdiction.
3. Prohibits a local government from requiring a passageway or pathway clear to the sky between the second unit and a public street when constructing a second unit.
4. Prohibits a local government from requiring a setback more than five feet from the side and rear lot line for a second unit constructed above a garage located on an alley.
5. Provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of a second unit, and the local government requires that those off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the second unit including but not limited to covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.

FISCAL EFFECT:

No state fiscal impact. Local agencies have the authority to levy fees for related costs and thus, any local costs are not reimbursable.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, “Recognizing the potential of secondary units as a housing strategy, California has passed several laws to lower local regulatory barriers to construction, most recently AB 1866 (Wright), Chapter 1062, Statutes of 2002, which requires that each city in the state have a ministerial process for approving secondary units. This bill will ease and streamline current statewide regulations as well as encourage the building of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a way to create more housing options. Currently several cities are looking at local ordinance to improve or incentivize the creation of ADUs as a way to create more rental properties and incomes for families to stay in their current homes. Simply reducing parking requirements in transit-rich areas where most tenants don’t have a car will encourage more building of ADUs.”
2. Background. Local governments are authorized, but not required, to adopt ordinances for the creation of second units in single family and multifamily zones. State law allows local governments to limit the areas that second units may be permitted based on availability of adequate water and sewer services as well as the impact on traffic flow. They can also impose parking standards. AB 1866 (Wright), Chapter 1066, Statutes of 2003, required that local governments approve a second unit ministerially without discretionary review or hearing or require a special use permit.
3. Arguments in Support. Supporters, apartment owners and realtors, argue that this bill will help alleviate our housing shortage, while capitalizing on limited land resources.
4. Arguments in Opposition. Opposition, local governments, argues that this bill adds costs at the local level that are ultimately passed on in the form of higher development fees, and also assumes that all communities are appropriate for second units.
5. Related Legislation. This is one of six Assembly bills addressing density bonus issues before this committee today.
6. AB 1934 (Santiago) creates a density bonus for commercial developers that partner with an affordable housing developer to construct a mixed-used development.
7. AB 2208 (Santiago) adds to the list of the types of sites that a local government can identify as suitable for residential development in their housing element.
8. AB 2442 (Holden) requires local agencies to grant a density bonus when an applicant for a housing development agrees to construct housing for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless persons.
9. AB 2501 (Bloom and Low) makes a number of changes to density bonus law.
10. AB 2556 (Nazarian) requires a jurisdiction, in cases where a proposed development is replacing existing affordable housing units, to adopt a rebuttable presumption regarding the number and type of affordable housing units necessary for density bonus eligibility.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 20, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2299 (

Author:Bloom) – As Amended Ver:April 5, 2016

SUBJECT: Land use: housing: 2nd units.

SUMMARY: Requires, instead of allows, a local agency to, by ordinance, provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, and makes a number of other changes specifying what is required to be in the ordinance. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires, instead of permits, a local agency by ordinance, to provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, and specifies what is required to be in the ordinance.
2. Prohibits a local agency, in the ordinance, from imposing parking standards for a second unit that is located within one-half mile of public transit or shopping or is within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
3. Allows, in the ordinance, a local agency to reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any second unit located within its jurisdiction, as specified.
4. Prohibits a local government, in the ordinance, from requiring a passageway or pathway clear to the sky between the second unit and a public street when constructing a second unit.
5. Prohibits a local government, in the ordinance, from requiring a setback more than five feet from the side and rear lot line for a second unit constructed above a garage located on an alley.
6. Specifies that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of a second unit, and the local government requires that those off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the second unit, including, but not limited to, covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.
7. Provides that a second unit that conforms to this section of law shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building, as specified.
8. Makes other technical and corresponding changes.
9. Declares that no reimbursement is required because a local agency has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act.

EXISTING LAW:

1. After July 1, 2003, applications for a second unit shall be considered by local governments ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, regardless of any local ordinance regulating the issuance of special use permits.
2. Provides that a local government may by ordinance provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multi-family zones.
3. Provides that a local ordinance for second units may do all of the following:
   1. Designate areas where second units may be permitted based on criteria that may include consider the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact on traffic flow;
   2. Impose parking standards, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size of a unit and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any property listed in California Register of Historic Places; and,
   3. Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot on which it is located and that second units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation on a lot.

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary and Background. Local governments are authorized to adopt ordinances for the creation of second units in single family and multifamily zones; however, they are not required to do so. State law allows local governments to limit the areas that second units may be permitted based on availability of adequate water and sewer services as well as the impact on traffic flow. They can also impose parking standards. AB 1866 (Wright), Chapter 1066, Statutes of 2003, required that local governments approve a second unit ministerially without discretionary review or hearing or require a special use permit.

This bill requires, instead of allows, a local agency to, by ordinance, provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, and makes a number of other changes specifying what is required to be in the ordinance. This bill prohibits a local agency, in the ordinance, from imposing parking standards for a second unit that is located within one-half mile of public transit or shopping or is within an architecturally and historically significant historic district, and allows, in the ordinance, a local agency to reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any second unit located within its jurisdiction, as specified. The bill also prohibits a local government, in the ordinance, from requiring a passageway or pathway clear to the sky between the second unit and a public street when constructing a second unit, and prohibits a local government, in the ordinance, from requiring a setback more than five feet from the side and rear lot line for a second unit constructed above a garage located on an alley.

The bill also specifies that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of a second unit, and the local government requires that those off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the second unit, including, but not limited to, covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.

This bill is sponsored by the California Apartment Association.

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “California’s implementation of SB 375 is putting new pressure on communities to support infill and affordable housing development. As the San Francisco Bay Area adds over two million new residents by 2040, infilling the core could accommodate over half of the new population, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments. But at the same time, infill could increase housing costs and exacerbate the region’s affordability crisis. One potential solution is secondary units (also called in-law units or accessory dwelling units). Self-contained, smaller living units on the lot of a single-family home, secondary units can either be attached to the primary house, such as an above-the-garage unit or a basement unit, or detached (an independent cottage). Secondary units are particularly well-suited as an infill strategy for low-density residential areas because they offer hidden density, housing units not readily apparent from the street- and relatively less objectionable to the neighbors.

“Recognizing the potential of secondary units as a housing strategy, California has passed several laws to lower local regulatory barriers to construction, most recently AB 1866 of 2003, which requires that each city in the state have a ministerial process for approving secondary units.

“AB 2299 will ease and streamline current statewide regulations as well as encourage the building of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a way to create more housing options. Currently several cities are looking at local ordinance to improve or incentivize the creation of ADUs as a way to create more rental properties and incomes for families to stay in their current homes. Simply reducing parking requirements in transit-rich areas where most tenants don’t have a car will encourage more building of ADUs.”

1. Arguments in Support. Supporters argue that this bill will help alleviate our housing shortage, while capitalizing on limited land resources.
2. Arguments in Opposition. Opposition argues that this bill adds costs at the local level that are ultimately passed on in the form of higher development fees, and also assumes that all communities are appropriate for second units.
3. Double-Referral. This bill was heard by the Housing and Community Development Committee on April 13, 2016, where it passed with a 5-2 vote.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Apartment Association [SPONSOR]

American Planning Association, California Chapter (if amended)

California Association of Realtors

Opposition

California State Association of Counties

League of California Cities

Analysis Prepared by: Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

Date of Hearing: April 13, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

David Chiu, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2299 (

Author:Bloom) – As Amended Ver:April 5, 2016

SUBJECT: Land use: housing: 2nd units

SUMMARY: Requires rather than permits a local government to adopt an ordinance for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a local government from imposing parking standards for a second unit located within one-half mile of public transit or shopping or that is within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
2. Allows a local government to eliminate parking requirements for any second unit located in its jurisdiction.
3. Prohibits a local government from requiring a passageway or pathway clear to the sky between the second unit and a public street when constructing a second unit.
4. Prohibits a local government from requiring a setback more than five feet from the side and rear lot line for a second unit constructed above a garage located on an alley.
5. Provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of a second unit, and the local government requires that those off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the second unit including but not limited to covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.

EXISTING LAW:

1. After July 1, 2003, applications for a second unit shall be considered by local governments ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, regardless of any local ordinance regulating the issuance of special use permits.
2. Provides that a local government may by ordinance provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multi-family zones.
3. Provides that a local ordinance for second units may do all of the following:
4. Designate areas where second units may be permitted based on criteria that may include consider the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact on traffic flow.
5. Impose parking standards, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size of a unit and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any property listed in the California Register of Historic Places.
6. Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot on which it is located and that second units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation on a lot.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Local governments are authorized to adopt ordinances for the creation of second units in single family and multifamily zones; however they are not required to do so. State law allows local governments to limit the areas that second units may be permitted based on availability of adequate water and sewer services as well as the impact on traffic flow. They can also impose parking standards. In 2003, AB 1866 (Wright) Chapter 1062, Statutes of 2002, required that local governments approve a second unit ministerially without discretionary review or hearing or require a special use permit.

This bill would require rather than allow a local government to adopt a second unit ordinance and to limit the local government's ability to apply certain standards. Within one-half mile of public transit or shopping, or within in an architecturally or historically significant district, an ordinance could not impose any parking requirement on the second unit. Parking requirements imposed by local jurisdictions on second units can be a barrier to the creation of these units because the parking may not be feasible in an existing neighborhood.

Purpose of this bill: According to the author, "California's implementation of SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, is putting new pressure on communities to support infill and affordable housing development. As the San Francisco Bay Area adds over two million new residents by 2040, infilling the core (in targeted Priority Development Areas, or PDAs) could accommodate over half of the new population, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) . But at the same time, infill could increase housing costs and exacerbate the region's affordability crisis. One potential solution is secondary units (also called in-law units or accessory dwelling units). Self­-contained, smaller living units on the lot of a single-family home, secondary units can be either attached to the primary house, such as an above-the-garage unit or a basement unit, or detached (an independent cottage) . Secondary units are particularly well-suited as an infill strategy for low-density residential areas because they offer hidden density, housing units not readily apparent from the street - and relatively less objectionable to the neighbors. Recognizing the potential of secondary units as a housing strategy, California has passed several laws to lower local regulatory barriers to construction, most recently Assembly Bill 1866 of 2002, which requires that each city in the state have a ministerial process for approving secondary units. AB 2299 will ease and streamline current statewide regulations as well as encourage the building of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) as a way to create more housing options. Currently several cities are looking at local ordinances to improve or incentivize the creation of ADUs as way to create more rental properties and incomes for families to stay in their current homes. Simply reducing parking requirements in transit rich areas where most tenants don't have a car will encourage more building of ADUs."

Arguments in support: According to the sponsor of this bill, the California Apartment Association, California is struggling to meet the needs of its citizens when it comes to housing, especially housing that is affordable near jobs centers and public transportation. By promoting the development of second units, AB 2299 will help alleviate our housing shortage, while capitalizing on limited resources. While second units can serve as much needed rental housing, they can also provide homes for college students, elderly parents, or individual with disabilities, who need to leave close to their families or teachers who can provide them support. By providing for the efficient approval of second units, you will bring units to the housing market sooner and will make them more affordable.

Arguments in opposition: The League of California Cities is opposed to this bill in part because, "it prohibits cities from imposing parking standards on second units located within one-half mile of public transit or shopping or in an architectural and historical significant area. This does not take into account any local realities or preferences. AB 2299 mandates that cities pass an ordinance. This is a costly requirement for cities, as well as for the state. Current law which provides an option or cities to adopt an ordinance when needed is sufficient."

Double referred: If AB 2299 passes this committee, the bill will be referred to the Committee on Local Government

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Apartment Association (sponsor)

American Planning Association, California Chapter (support if amended0

Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles

California Association of Realtors

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation

Santa Barbara Rental Property Association

Western Center on Law & Poverty

Opposition

California State Association of Counties

League of California Cities

Analysis Prepared by: Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (961) 319-2085, Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085