The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, requires that ordinance to designate areas where accessory dwelling units may be permitted, and sets forth standards the ordinance is required to impose, including, among others, maximum unit size, parking, and height standards. Existing law prohibits an accessory dwelling unit from being considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities. Existing law prohibits requirements for the installation of a new or separate utility connection between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility, except in instances where an accessory dwelling unit is subject to ministerial approval, as specified, and authorizes a fee to be charged in those instances. Existing law requires a local agency to submit an ordinance adopted for the creation of accessory dwelling units to the Department of Housing and Community Development and authorizes the department to review and comment on the ordinance. Existing law requires an application for an accessory dwelling unit permit to be considered, as specified, within 120 days of receiving it.

This bill would require the ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units to designate areas where accessory dwelling units may be excluded for health and safety purposes, as specified. The bill would revise the standards for the local ordinance to, among other things, delete the authority to include lot courage coverage standards, and include a prohibition on considering the square footage of a proposed accessory dwelling unit when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio or lot coverage ratio for the lot. The bill would require that a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit be approved or disapproved within 60 days and would specify that if a local agency does not act on an application for a accessory dwelling unit within 60 days, then the application shall be deemed approved. The bill would prohibit a local agency from requiring that offstreet parking spaces be replaced when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would prohibit another local ordinance, policy, or regulation from being the basis for the delay of the issuance of a building permit or use permit for an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would delete provisions authorizing a local agency to require owner occupancy by the permit applicant and would declare an agreement with a local agency to maintain owner occupancy as void and unenforceable.

The bill would authorize the department, upon submission of an adopted ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units, to submit written findings to the local agency regarding whether the ordinance complies with statutory provisions. The bill would authorize the department to adopt guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria to supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth in statute and would exempt the adoption of those guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would, until January 1, 2029, also require a local building official, upon request of the owner of the accessory dwelling unit, to approve a delay of not less than 10 years of the enforcement of any building code requirement that, in the judgment of the building official, is not necessary to protect public health and safety. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the department to notify the city, county, or city and county and authorize notice to the Attorney General when the city, county, or city and county is not substantially complying with the above-described provisions regarding accessory dwelling units.

The bill would require a local agency to ministerially approve an application for a building permit to create one or more accessory dwelling units if certain criteria are met.

Existing law authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units, as defined, in single-family residential zones and requires the ordinance to include, among other things, standards for the creation of a junior accessory dwelling unit, required deed restrictions, and occupancy requirements. Existing law prohibits an ordinance from requiring, as a condition of granting a permit for a junior accessory dwelling unit, additional parking requirements.

The bill would require a local agency to ministerially approve the creation of junior accessory dwelling units in single-family residential zones, if specified criteria are met.

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 a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, requires that ordinance to designate areas where accessory dwelling units may be permitted, and sets forth standards the ordinance is required to impose, including, among others, maximum unit size, parking, and height standards. Existing law prohibits an accessory dwelling unit from being considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities. Existing law prohibits requirements for the installation of a new or separate utility connection between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility, except in instances where an accessory dwelling unit is subject to ministerial approval, as specified, and authorizes a fee to be charged in those instances. Existing law requires a local agency to submit an ordinance adopted for the creation of accessory dwelling units to the Department of Housing and Community Development and authorizes the department to review and comment on the ordinance. Existing law requires an application for an accessory dwelling unit permit to be considered, as specified, within 120 days of receiving it.

This bill would require the ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units to designate areas where accessory dwelling units may be excluded for health and safety purposes, as specified. The bill would revise the standards for the local ordinance to, among other things, delete the authority to include lot courage standards, include a prohibition on considering the square footage of a proposed accessory dwelling unit when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio or lot coverage ratio for the lot. The bill would require that a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit be approved or disapproved within 60 days and would specify that if a local agency does not act on an application for a accessory dwelling unit within 60 days, then the application shall be deemed approved. The bill would prohibit a local agency from requiring that offstreet parking spaces be replaced when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would prohibit another local ordinance, policy, or regulation from being the basis for the delay of the issuance of a building permit or use permit for an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would delete provisions authorizing a local agency to require owner occupancy by the permit applicant and would declare an agreement with a local agency to maintain owner occupancy as void and unenforceable.

This bill would prohibit an accessory dwelling unit from being considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating fees charged for new development, except in certain circumstances when a new or separate utility connection between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility may be required and except for certain fees charged by a school district that the bill would limit to $3,000 per accessory dwelling unit.

The bill would authorize the department, upon submission of an adopted ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units, to submit written findings to the local agency regarding whether the ordinance complies with statutory provisions. The bill would authorize the department to adopt guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria to supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth in statute and would exempt the adoption of those guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would, until January 1, 2029, also require a local building official, upon request of the owner of the accessory dwelling unit, to approve a delay of not less than 10 years of the enforcement of any building code requirement that, in the judgment of the building official, is not necessary to protect public health and safety. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the department to notify the city, county, or city and county and authorize notice to the Attorney General when the city, county, or city and county is not substantially complying with the above-described provisions regarding accessory dwelling units.

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, requires that ordinance to designate areas where accessory dwelling units may be permitted, and sets forth standards the ordinance is required to impose, including, among others, maximum unit size, parking, and height standards. Existing law prohibits an accessory dwelling unit from being considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities. Existing law prohibits requirements for the installation of a new or separate utility connection between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility, except in instances where an accessory dwelling unit is subject to ministerial approval, as specified, and authorizes a fee to be charged in those instances. Existing law requires a local agency to submit an ordinance adopted for the creation of accessory dwelling units to the Department of Housing and Community Development and authorizes the department to review and comment on the ordinance. Existing law requires an application for an accessory dwelling unit permit to be considered, as specified, within 120 days of receiving it.

This bill would require the ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units to designate areas where accessory dwelling units may be excluded for health and safety purposes, as specified. The bill would revise the standards for the local ordinance to, among other things, include a prohibition on considering the square footage of a proposed accessory dwelling unit when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio for the lot. The bill would require that a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit be approved or disapproved within 60 days and would specify that if a local agency does not act on an application for a accessory dwelling unit within 60 days, then the application shall be deemed approved. The bill would prohibit a local agency from requiring that offstreet parking spaces be replaced when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would prohibit another local ordinance, policy, or regulation from being the basis for the delay of the issuance of a building permit or use permit for an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would delete provisions authorizing a local agency to require owner occupancy by the permit applicant. applicant and would declare an agreement with a local agency to maintain owner occupancy as void and unenforceable.

This bill would prohibit an accessory dwelling unit from being considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating fees charged for new development, except in certain circumstances when a new or separate utility connection between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility may be required and except for certain fees charged by a school district that the bill would limit to $3,000 per accessory dwelling unit.

The bill would authorize the department, upon submission of an adopted ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units, to submit written findings to the local agency regarding whether the ordinance complies with statutory provisions. The bill would authorize the department to adopt guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria to supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth in statute and would exempt the adoption of those guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would, until January 1, 2029, also require a local building official, upon request of the owner of the accessory dwelling unit, to approve a delay of not less than 10 years of the enforcement of any building code requirement that, in the judgment of the building official, is not necessary to protect public health and safety. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the department to notify the city, county, or city and county and authorize notice to the Attorney General when the city, county, or city and county is not substantially complying with the above-described provisions regarding accessory dwelling units.

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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones zones, requires that ordinance to designate areas where accessory dwelling units may be permitted, and sets forth standards the ordinance is required to impose, including, among others, maximum unit size, parking, and height standards. Existing law authorizes prohibits an accessory dwelling unit from being considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to require be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities. Existing law prohibits requirements for the installation of a new or separate utility connection between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility utility, except in instances where an accessory dwelling unit is subject to ministerial approval, as specified, and authorizes a fee to be charged, except as specified. charged in those instances. Existing law requires a local agency to submit an ordinance adopted for the creation of accessory dwelling units to the Department of Housing and Community Development and authorizes the department to review and comment on the ordinance. Existing law requires an application for an accessory dwelling unit permit to be considered, as specified, within 120 days of receiving it.

This bill would instead authorize a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas where a single-family or multifamily dwelling is authorized, and would require the ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units to designate areas where accessory dwelling units may be excluded for fire and life health and safety purposes, as specified. The bill would revise the standards for the local ordinance to, among other things, include a prohibition on considering the square footage of a proposed accessory dwelling unit when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio for the lot. The bill would require that a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit be approved or disapproved within 60 days and would specify that if a local agency does not act on an application for a accessory dwelling unit within 60 days, then the application shall be deemed approved. The bill would prohibit a local agency from requiring that offstreet parking spaces be replaced when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would prohibit another local ordinance, policy, or regulation from being the basis for the delay of the issuance of a building permit or use permit for an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would delete provisions authorizing a local agency to require owner occupancy by the permit applicant and authorizing a local agency, special district, or water corporation to require an applicant to install a separate utility connection for the accessory dwelling unit and would state that an accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a new residential use for purposes of calculating fees and shall not be subject to impact fees, connection fees, capacity charges, or any other fees levied by those entities. applicant.

The bill would authorize the department, upon submission of an adopted ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units, to submit written findings to the local agency regarding whether the ordinance complies with statutory provisions. The bill would authorize the department to adopt guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria to supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth in statute and would exempt the adoption of those guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would, until January 1, 2029, also require a local building official, upon request of the owner of the accessory dwelling unit, to approve a delay of not less than 10 years of the enforcement of any building code requirement as applied to that accessory dwelling unit if, that, in the judgment of the building official, that enforcement is not necessary to protect the public health and safety of those residents, as specified. safety. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the department to notify the city, county, or city and county and authorize notice to the Attorney General when the city, county, or city and county is not substantially complying with the above-described provisions regarding accessory dwelling units.

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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones and sets forth standards the ordinance is required to impose, including, among others, maximum unit size, parking, and height standards. Existing law authorizes a local agency, special district, or water corporation to require a new or separate utility connection between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility and authorizes a fee to be charged, except as specified. Existing law requires a local agency to submit an ordinance adopted for the creation of accessory dwelling units to the Department of Housing and Community Development and authorizes the department to review and comment on the ordinance. Existing law requires an application for an accessory dwelling unit permit to be considered, as specified, within 120 days of receiving it.

This bill would delete the requirement that the area be zoned to allow instead authorize a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas where a single-family or multifamily use. dwelling is authorized, and would require the ordinance to designate areas where accessory dwelling units may be excluded for fire and life safety purposes, as specified. The bill would revise the standards for the local ordinance to, among other things, include a prohibition on considering the square footage of a proposed accessory dwelling unit when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio for the lot. The bill would require that a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit be approved or disapproved within 60 days and would specify that if a local agency does not act on an application for a accessory dwelling unit within 120 60 days, then the application shall be deemed approved. The bill would prohibit a local agency from requiring that offstreet parking spaces be replaced when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would prohibit another local ordinance, policy, or regulation from being the basis for the delay of the issuance of a building permit or use permit for an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would delete provisions authorizing a local agency to require owner occupancy by the permit applicant and authorizing a local agency, special district, or water corporation to require an applicant to install a separate utility connection for the accessory dwelling unit and would state that an accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a new residential use for purposes of calculating fees and shall not be subject to impact fees, connection fees, capacity charges, or any other fees levied by those entities. The bill would authorize the department, upon submission of an adopted ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units, to submit written findings to the local agency regarding whether the ordinance complies with statutory provisions. The bill would authorize the department to adopt guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria to supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth in statute and would exempt the adoption of those guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would would, until January 1, 2029, also specify the applicable building code standards for accessory dwelling units constructed before January 1, 2018. require a local building official, upon request of the owner of the accessory dwelling unit, to approve a delay of not less than 10 years of the enforcement of any building code requirement as applied to that accessory dwelling unit if, in the judgment of the building official, that enforcement is not necessary to protect the health and safety of those residents, as specified. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the department to notify the city, county, or city and county and authorize notice to the Attorney General when the city, county, or city and county is not substantially complying with those the above-described provisions regarding accessory dwelling units.

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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones and sets forth standards the ordinance is required to impose, including, among others, maximum unit size, parking, and height standards. Existing law authorizes a local agency, special district, or water corporation to require a new or separate utility connection between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility and authorizes a fee to be charged, except as specified. Existing law requires a local agency to submit an ordinance adopted for the creation of accessory dwelling units to the Department of Housing and Community Development and authorizes the department to review and comment on the ordinance.

This bill would delete the requirement that the area be zoned to allow single-family or multifamily use. The bill would revise the standards for the local ordinance to, among other things, include a prohibition on considering the square footage of a proposed accessory dwelling unit when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio for the lot. The bill would specify that if a local agency does not act on an application for a accessory dwelling unit within 120 days, then the application shall be deemed approved. The bill would specify that an accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered to exceed the allowable floor-to-area lot ratio upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located and would prohibit a local agency from requiring offstreet parking spaces be replaced when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would prohibit another local ordinance, policy, or regulation from being the basis for the delay of the issuance of a building permit or use permit for an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would delete provisions authorizing a local agency to require owner occupancy by the permit applicant and authorizing a local agency, special district, or water corporation to require an applicant to install a separate utility connection for the accessory dwelling unit and would state that an accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a new residential use for purposes of calculating fees and shall not be subject to impact fees, connection fees, capacity charges, or any other fees levied by those entities. The bill would authorize the department, upon submission of an adopted ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units, to submit written findings to the local agency regarding whether the ordinance complies with statutory provisions. The bill would authorize the department to adopt guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria to supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth in statute and would exempt the adoption of those guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would also specify the applicable building code standards for accessory dwelling units constructed before January 1, 2018. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones and sets forth standards the ordinance is required to impose, including, among others, maximum unit size, parking, and height standards. Existing law authorizes a local agency, special district, or water corporation to require a new or separate utility connection between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility and authorizes a fee to be charged, except as specified. Existing law requires a local agency to submit an ordinance adopted for the creation of accessory dwelling units to the Department of Housing and Community Development and authorizes the department to review and comment on the ordinance.

This bill would delete the requirement that the area be zoned to allow single-family or multifamily use. The bill would specify that if a local agency does not act on an application for a accessory dwelling unit within 120 days, then the application shall be deemed approved. The bill would specify that an accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered to exceed the allowable floor-to-area lot ratio upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located and would prohibit a local agency from requiring offstreet parking spaces be replaced when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would delete provisions authorizing a local agency, special district, or water corporation to require an applicant to install a separate utility connection for the accessory dwelling unit and would state that an accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a new residential use for purposes of calculating fees and shall not be subject to impact fees, connection fees, capacity charges, or any other fees levied by those entities. The bill would authorize the department, upon submission of an adopted ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units, to submit written findings to the local agency regarding whether the ordinance complies with statutory provisions. The bill would authorize the department to adopt guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria to supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth in statute and would exempt the adoption of those guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would also specify the applicable building code standards for accessory dwelling units constructed before January 1, 2018.

Existing law authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units in single-family residential zones.

This bill would instead require a local agency to do so. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Date of Hearing: June 27, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 831

Author:(Wieckowski) – As Amended Ver:June 21, 2018

SENATE VOTE: 33-1

SUBJECT: Land use: accessory dwelling units.

SUMMARY: Revises, recasts, and expands the law governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Specifically, this bill:

1. Directs the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to notify a city, county, or city and county of any violation of state statute governing ADUs and authorizes HCD to notify the Office of the Attorney General (AG) of any violation of state statute governing ADUs.
2. Provides that a local agency may designate areas where ADUs may be excluded for health and safety, including fire safety, based on clear findings that are supported by substantial evidence. The designation shall be based on clear criteria that may include the adequacy
   of water and sewer services and other health and safety issues.
3. Provides that a local agency may not implement standards for minimum lot size requirements for ADUs and shall allow for the construction of an ADU, unless the local agency makes specific findings that the construction of the ADU would adversely impact public health and safety, including fire safety.
4. Provides that the square footage of a proposed ADU shall not be considered when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio or lot coverage for the lot upon which the ADU is to be located.
5. Provides that no minimum or maximum size for an ADU or size based upon a percentage
   of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, shall be established by ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800-square foot ADU.
6. Provides that no setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory structure that is converted to an ADU, and a setback of no more than three feet from the side and rear lines shall be required for an ADU that is not converted from an existing structure.
7. Provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with an ADU or converted into an ADU, a local agency shall not require that those off-street parking spaces be replaced.
8. Reduces the application approval timeframe from 120 days to 60 days and provides that
   if a local agency has not acted upon the submitted application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved.
9. Provides that an agreement with a local agency to maintain owner occupancy as a condition for issuance of a building permit for an ADU shall be void as against public policy.
10. Provides that where a building official finds that a substandard ADU presents an imminent risk to the health and safety of the building’s residents, upon request by an ADU owner, a building official, in consultation with local fire and code enforcement officials, shall approve a delay of not less than 10 years of any California Building Standards Code requirement that, in the judgment of the building official, is not necessary to protect public health and safety. The building official shall not approve a delay on or after January 1, 2029. This program shall remain in effect until January 1, 2039.
11. Creates a new section (Section 3), notwithstanding other sections of ADU law, for ministerial approval that provides that a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following:
    1. One ADU on a lot with a single dwelling if any of the following:
       1. The ADU is substantially contained within the existing space of a single-family dwelling or ADU structure;
       2. The space has exterior access from the existing dwelling; and,
       3. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.
    2. One junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) on a lot with a single-family dwelling if all
       of the following apply:
       1. The JADU is contained within the existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure;
       2. The space has exterior access from the existing dwelling; and,
       3. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety;
    3. Multiple ADUs within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attic, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings; and,
    4. Provides that not more than two ADUs that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to height limits of 16 feet and three-foot rear yard and side setbacks.
12. Specifies in Section 3 that ADUs and JADUs shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for the purposes of calculating fees for new development.
13. Permits HCD, after the adoption of an ADU ordinance, to submit findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with ADU law. If HCD finds that the local agency’s ordinance does not substantially comply with ADU law, HCD shall notify the local agency and may notify the AG. The local agency shall consider findings made by HCD and may change the ordinance to comply with ADU law or adopt the ordinance without changes. The local agency shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite HCD’s findings.
14. Permits HCD to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards and criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards in ADU law, but exempts these Guidelines from the Administrative Procedures Act.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Allows a local agency, by ordinance, to provide for the creation of ADUs in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily use. Provides that the ordinance shall do all of the following:
   1. Designate areas where ADUs may be permitted. Specifies that the designation of areas may be based on criteria that may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety;
   2. Impose standards on ADUs that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places. Allows a local agency to reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any ADU located within its jurisdiction;
   3. Provide that ADUs do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the ADU is located, and that ADUs are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot;
   4. Require the ADUs to comply with all of the following:
      1. The unit may be rented separate from the primary residence, but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence;
      2. The lot is zoned to allow single-family or multifamily use and includes a proposal for existing single-family dwelling;
      3. The ADU is either attached or located within the living area of the proposed or existing primary dwelling or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling;
      4. The total area of floorspace of an ADU shall not exceed 50% of the proposed or existing primary dwelling living area or 1,200 square feet;
      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 or to a portion of 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, whichever is less. Spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway. Provides that 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 parking is not feasible, as specified; and,
      11. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, and the local agency requires that those offstreet 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, covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile lifts, as specified.
2. Allows a local agency to amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of an ADU if these provisions are consistent with specified limitations.
3. Provides that an ADU that conforms to the above shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot.
4. Requires, when a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance governing ADUs receives an application for a permit to create an ADU, the local agency to approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review 120 days after receiving the application.
5. Requires a local agency to establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached ADUs. Provides that no minimum or maximum size for an ADU, or size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, shall be established by ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local development standards. ADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.
6. Prohibits, notwithstanding any other law, a local agency, whether or not it has adopted an ADU ordinance, from imposing parking standards for an ADU in the following instances:
   1. The ADU is located within ½ mile of public transit;
   2. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district;
   3. The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure;
   4. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU; or,
   5. When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the ADU.
7. Requires a local agency to ministerially approve an application for a building permit to create within a zone for single-family use one ADU unit per single-family lot if the unit is contained within the existing space of a single-family residence or accessory structure, including, but not limited to, a studio, pool house, or other similar structure, has independent exterior access from the existing residence, and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety. Specifies that ADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence. Allows a city to require owner occupancy for either the primary
   or the ADU created through this process.
8. Provides for fees charged for the construction of ADUs, in accordance with specified provisions of existing law.
9. Allows a local agency, by ordinance, to provide for the creation of JADUs in single-family residential zones. Allows the ordinance to require a permit to be obtained for a JADU, and specifies the contents of the ordinance. Requires an application for a JADU permit to be considered ministerially within 120 days of submission of an application for a permit.
10. Requires local agencies to submit a copy of the ordinance adopted pursuant to 1), above,
    to HCD within 60 days after adoption. Allows HCD to review and comment on the ordinance.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill contains
the following costs:

• HCD estimates ongoing costs of approximately $325,000 annually for 2 PY of staff to provide technical assistance, review ordinances, and refer ordinances that violate state law
  to the Attorney General. (General Fund)

COMMENTS:

1. Background. ADUs, also known as accessory apartments, accessory dwellings, mother-in-law units, or granny flats, are either attached or detached to the primary dwelling units, and are intended to provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. In 2002, AB 1866 (Wright), Chapter 1062, required local governments to use a ministerial process for approving ADUs, notwithstanding other laws that regulate the issuance of variances or special use permits. Through the provisions of AB 1866, a city or county could, by ordinance, require specific standards for ADUs, including parking, setbacks, lot coverage, and maximize size, and also designate areas where ADUs were allowed.

In 2016, there were two measures that made a number of changes to state law in order to ease some of the local barriers to the development of ADUs – AB 2299 (Bloom), Chapter 735, Statutes of 2016, and SB 1069 (Wieckowski), Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016. These bills reorganized existing law to apply one standard for the ADU permit review process, regardless of whether a local government has adopted an ordinance or not, changed specified ADU building and parking standards, and placed limitations on utility connection fees and capacity charges for ADUs.

AB 494 (Bloom), Chapter 602, Statutes of 2017, and SB 229 (Wieckowski), Chapter 594, Statutes of 2017, also made changes to laws governing ADUs.

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “We face many challenges when it comes to providing affordable housing, but eliminating the barriers to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) is a common-sense, cost-effective approach that will allow homeowners to share empty rooms in their homes and property, add incomes to meet family budgets, and make good use of the property across California while easing the housing crisis. Multiple research and policy organizations have recognized accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as critical piece of this solution, including the McKinsey Global Institute, the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, President Obama’s White House and the Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

“ADUs are affordable by design, costing 50-90% less to build than conventional infill development and are built with no cost to the state. In 2016, Governor Brown signed
SB 1069 (Wieckowski), Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016, which eliminated the most onerous barriers to the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). As a result, there has been
a proliferation of ADUs in California, with some jurisdictions seeing more than twenty-five times the amount of ADU permit applications in 2017 than the year prior. However, many homeowners continue to face barriers to constructing these units because of the barriers that still remain, such as excessive impact fees, owner occupancy requirements, and lot size minimums. SB 831 builds upon previous ADU legislation to eliminate the remaining onerous barriers to ADU construction and thus facilitate the development of housing that
is affordable by design.”

1. Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider the following:
   1. Significant Re-Write of ADU Statute. This bill contains an expansive re-write of ADU law, on the heels of significant changes in 2016 and 2017.

As a coalition of the California State Association of Counties, Urban Counties of California, Rural County Representatives of California, and the League of California Cities note in their joint opposition letter, “The last major changes to the state’s ADU law only became effective on January 1, 2017. Since that time, counties and cities have updated their ordinances to be consistent with state law by designating areas where ADUs are allowed and have imposed development standards consistent with the law.
AB 2890 reverses the framework of the existing law….which would likely require every agency that updated their ordinance pursuant to last year’s bills to reopen revisions made in 2016 and 2017 – a costly and unnecessary burden.”

• 1. 10-Year Delay in Enforcement of Building Codes. This bill contains language that provides that where a building official finds that a substandard ADU presents an imminent risk to the health and safety of the building’s residents, upon request by an ADU owner, a building official, in consultation with local fire and code enforcement officials, shall approve a delay of not less than 10 years of any California Building Standards Code requirement that, in the judgment of the building official, is not necessary to protect public health and safety. The building official shall not approve
     a delay on or after January 1, 2029. This program shall remain in effect until January 1, 2039.

According to the California Building Officials (CALBO), in opposition, “This language, as written, is contradictory and broad in nature. Building officials, as designated enforcement officers, are charged with “enforcement authority for health, safety, and welfare requirements,” as stated in the CA Penal Code 829.5. Delaying an “imminent risk” for not less than 10 years would be in violation of this authority. Furthermore, the term imminent risk is not defined, and could be widely interpreted.

“Currently, building officials have the discretion to apply and interpret code requirements on a case-by-case basis. This allows local governments and jurisdictions to regulate the California Building Code (CBC) in the best manner possible in their unique region. This is in correlation with California’s diverse geography, and varied urban and rural regions throughout the state. Building officials also rely on the CBC as an enforcement tool. The CBC is updated on a triennial cycle, allowing it to include the most recent improvements to structural and life safety provisions. If an accessory dwelling unit were allowed to remain in a “substandard” condition for 10 years, it could possibly fall several code cycles out of compliance in addition to being a safety concern. Building officials also have the discretion as to which codes are applied to a dwelling, but the permitting process could be prolonged if the changes are delayed for 10 years.”

• 1. Conflicts with AB 2890 (Ting). This Committee heard AB 2890 (Ting) on April 25, 2018. During that hearing, the author accepted significant amendments to narrow the scope of the bill, in order to meet approval by the majority of the Committee. Because
     of these significant amendments, AB 2890 passed on a 6-2 vote.

SB 831, however, contains many conflicts with AB 2890, as well as policies that were not dealt with in AB 2890. Some of the significant differences between the two bills are as follows:

• • 1. Owner occupancy. SB 831 eliminates the authorization to require owner occupancy of ADUs. In contrast, AB 2890 provides that if a local ADU ordinance imposes an owner occupancy restriction, it shall not be monitored more frequently than annually and requires if a local government has owner-occupancy restrictions, it must provide for specific exemptions.
    2. Short-term rentals. SB 831 does not include any requirements about short term rentals of ADUs. Under the ministerial approval provisions, AB 2890 allows a local agency to require that a rental of an ADU shall be for a term longer than 30 days.
    3. Location. SB 831 allows a local agency to designate areas where ADUs may not be constructed, though such exclusions may only be for health and safety (including fire safety) reasons. This provision was deleted from AB 2890 in this Committee.
    4. Setbacks. SB 831 prohibits a setback requirement for an existing area or structure that is converted to an ADU, and limits any setback requirement to three feet for an ADU that is not converted from an existing structure. AB 2890 does not include these provisions.
    5. Parking requirements. SB 831 provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with an ADU, or converted into an ADU, a local agency shall not require replacement of those off-street parking spaces. This provision was deleted from AB 2890 in this Committee.
    6. Substandard ADUs. SB 831 provides that where a building official finds that a substandard ADU presents an imminent risk to health and safety, the official shall approve a delay of at least 10 years of state building standards code requirements that are not necessary to protect public health and safety (effectively establishing an amnesty). AB 2890 does not contain this requirement, and instead, addresses the problem by requiring HCD to create small home building standards for ADUs and submit them to the California Building Standards Commission by January 1, 2020.
    7. Absence of local JADU ordinance. AB 2890 provides that if a local agency has not adopted a JADU ordinance, it shall apply the standards in existing law for approval of a permit to construct a JADU. SB 831 does not include this provision.
    8. Deemed approved standard. While both SB 831 and AB 2890 require a local agency to approve or disapprove an application ministerially within 60 days (instead of existing law which specifies 120 days), SB 831 states that an application shall be “deemed approved” if the agency has not acted upon the submitted application within that time frame. AB 2890 does not contain a “deemed approved” standard.
    9. HCD Guidelines. While both bills allow HCD to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify ADU law, SB 831 allows HCD to do this without following the Administrative Procedures Act. AB 2890 does not contain that provision and thus rulemaking by HCD would need to follow provisions of existing law, allowing the public to have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the adoption of state regulations.
    10. Ministerial Approval Provisions and Development Impact Fees (Section 3). This bill takes provisions of existing law that require ministerial approval of certain ADUs and moves it into a new section of law (Section 3) that notwithstands other ADU law, as well as expands the types of ADUs that must be ministerially approved. This new section does not contain language that requires that fees charged for the construction of ADUs shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 of the Government Code, otherwise known as the Mitigation Fee Act. It is unclear whether this is intentional or an unintended drafting mistake.

The requirement that fees charged for the construction of ADUs be determined in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act was reinserted into Section 2 of the bill in the most recent amendments.

1. Arguments in Support. Supporters argue that this bill will incentivize the production
   of ADUs by eliminating barriers and will have a favorable impact on the number of units available in California.
2. Arguments in Opposition. Opponents argue that the regulation of development standards
   is a core function of cities’ land use authority and that this bill greatly imposes upon this function.
3. Double-Referral. This bill was heard in the Housing and Community Development Committee on June 20, 2018, and passed on a 6-1 vote.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION (Letters listed below were submitted to prior versions of the bill, unless otherwise indicated*):

Support

Bay Area Council [SPONSOR]

AARP California (*based on June 21, 2018 version)
Abundant Housing LA
ADU Builder. Inc.
Basis Studio
Bridge Housing Corporation
Build
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Community Builders
California Forward Action Fund (*based on June 21, 2018 version)
California Housing Consortium
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund
California YIMBY
Corporation For Supportive Housing
Cover
Crest Backyard Homes
Habitat for Humanity California
Hacienda
Half Moon Bay Brewing
Heller Manus Architects
HKS Architects
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Inn At Mavericks
La Mas
Los Angeles Business Council
Mavericks Event Center
McKinsey & Company
Non-Profit Housing Association Of Northern California
North Bay Leadership Council
Pacific Standard
Postmates Inc.
Resources for Community Development
Revisions Resources

Support (continued)

Rise Together

San Diego County Apartment Association
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
San Francisco Chamber Of Commerce
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
San Mateo County Economic Development Association
Shorenstein Properties

Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Southwest California Legislative Council

SPUR
SV Angel
SV@Home
Terner Center for Housing Innovation
The Fairmont San Francisco
Tim Lewis Communities
TMG Partners
Wareham Development
Webcor

Working Partnerships USA (if amended)

Concerns

California Special Districts Association (*based on June 21, 2018 version)

Opposition

American Planning Association, California Chapter (*based on June 21, 2018 version)
California Association of School Business Officials
California Building Officials
California Coalition For Adequate School Housing
California Contract Cities Association
California State Association of Counties (*based on June 21, 2018 version)
Cities of Camarillo, Coronado, Fullerton, Glendora, Hawthorne, Huntington Beach, Lake Forest, Lakewood, Long Beach, Murrieta, Rancho Cucamonga, San Marcos, Santa Clarita, Thousand Oak, and Vista
Del Norte County Board of Supervisors
League of California Cities (*based on June 21, 2018 version)
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers, Legislative Committee
Regional Water Authority
Rural County Representatives of California (*based on June 21, 2018 version)
San Diego County Water Authority
Union Sanitary District
Urban Counties Of California (*based on June 21, 2018 version)

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

Date of Hearing: June 20, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

David Chiu, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 831

Author:(Wieckowski) – As Amended Ver:May 25, 2018

SENATE VOTE: 33-1

SUBJECT: Land use: accessory dwelling units

SUMMARY: Revises, recasts, and expands the law governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). Specifically, this bill:

1. Directs the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to notify a city, county, or city and county of any violation of state statute governing ADUs and authorizes HCD to notify the Office of the Attorney General of any violation of state statute governing ADUs.
2. Provides that a local agency may designate areas where ADUs may be excluded for health and safety, including fire safety, based on clear findings that are supported by substantial evidence. The designation shall be based on clear criteria that may include the adequacy of water and sewer services and other health and safety issues.
3. Provides that a local agency may not implement standards for minimum lot size requirements for ADUs and shall allow for the construction of an ADU unless the local agency makes specific findings that the construction of the ADU would adversely impact public health and safety, including fire safety.
4. Provides that the square footage of a proposed ADU shall not be considered when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio or lot coverage for the lot upon which the ADU is to be located.
5. Provides that no minimum or maximum size for an ADU or size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, shall be established by ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800-square foot ADU.
6. Provides that no setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory structure that is converted to an ADU, and a setback of no more than three feet from the side and real lines shall be required for an ADU that is not converted from an existing structure.
7. Provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with an ADU or converted into an ADU, a local agency shall not require that those off-street parking spaces be replaced.
8. Reduces the application approval timeframe to 60 days and provides that if a local agency has not acted upon the submitted application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved.
9. Provides that an agreement with a local agency to maintain owner occupancy as a condition for issuance of a building permit for an ADU shall be void as against public policy.
10. Prohibits an ADU from being considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for the purpose of calculating fees charged for new development, except as follows:
11. A local agency, special district, or water corporation may require a new or separate utility connection direction between the ADU and the utility. The connection may be subject to a connection fee, capacity charge, or equivalent charge for new service that is proportionate to the burden of the proposed ADU, based either on size or the number of its plumbing fixtures, upon the water or sewer system. The fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.
12. Fees charged by a school district shall be limited to no more than $3,000 per ADU.
13. Provides that where a building official finds that a substandard ADU presents an imminent risk to the health and safety of the building’s residents, upon request by an ADU owner, a building official, in consultation with local fire and code enforcement officials, shall approve a delay of not less than 10 years of any California Building Standards Code requirement that, in the judgment of the building official, is not necessary to protect public health and safety. The building official shall not approve a delay on or after January 1, 2029. This program shall remain in effect until January 1, 2039.
14. Provides that a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following:
15. One ADU on a lot with a single dwelling if any of the following:
16. The ADU is substantially contained within the existing space of a single-family dwelling or ADU structure;
17. The space has exterior access from the existing dwelling; and
18. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.
19. One JADU on a lot with a single-family dwelling if all of the following apply:
20. The JADU is contained within the existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure;
21. The space has exterior access from the existing dwelling; and
22. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.
23. Multiple ADUs within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attic, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.
24. Provides that not more than two ADUs that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to height limits of 16 feet and three-foot rear yard and side setbacks.
25. Provides that ADUs and JADUs shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for the purposes of calculating fees for new development.
26. Permits HCD, after the adoption of an ADU ordinance, to submit findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with ADU law. If HCD finds that the local agency’s ordinance does not substantially comply with ADU law, HCD shall notify the local agency and may notify the AG. The local agency shall consider findings made by HCD and may change the ordinance to comply with ADU law or adopt the ordinance without changes. The local agency shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite HCD’s findings.
27. Permits HCD to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards and criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards in ADU law.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes a local agency to provide for the creation of ADU in areas zoned to allow single-family and residential multifamily use.
2. Requires an ADU ordinance to do all of the following:
3. Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where ADUs may be permitted that may be based on the adequacy of water and server serves and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety.
4. Impose standards that include: parking, height, setback, lot coverage, landscape, architectural review and maximum size of unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any property listed in the California Register of Historic Places;
5. Allows a local agency to reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any ADU located within its jurisdiction.
6. Provide that the ADU units 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 or the lot.
7. Require ADU units to comply with all of the following:
8. The unit may be rented separately from the primary residence but not sold or otherwise conveyed separately;
9. The lot is zoned to allow single-family or multifamily use and includes a proposed or existing single family dwelling;
10. The ADU is either attached or within the living area of the existing or proposed primary dwelling or detached and on the same lot of the existing or proposed primary dwelling;
11. The total floor space of an attached ADU shall not exceed 50% of the proposed or existing primary dwelling or 1,200 square feet;
12. The total floor space of a detached ADU shall not exceed 1,200 square feet;
13. No passageway shall be required in in conjunction with the construction of an ADU;
14. No setback shall be required for an existing garage that is converted to an ADU or to a portion of 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 built over a garage; and
15. Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate.
16. Require approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if that approval is required.
17. Parking spaces shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom whichever is less.
18. Off-street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless the local agency makes specific findings that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based on specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety concerns.
19. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished as part of the construction or conversion of an ADU and the local agency requires that those off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located on the same lot as the ADU as covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.
20. A local ordinance for ADUs cannot be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
21. After July 1, 2003, when a local agency receives an application for a permit for an ADU, the application is required be considered ministerially or without discretion within 120 days of receiving the application.
22. Allows a local agency to charge a fee to reimburse it for costs that it incurs as a result of amendments during the 2001-02 Regular Session of the Legislature, including the cost of adopting or amending any ADU ordinance.
23. Requires ADU ordinances to provide for a ministerial process for approving ADUs and prohibits those ordinances from including any discretionary process provisions, or requirements for those units except as otherwise provided for in existing law.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

What are ADUs and JADUs? ADUs 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.

JADUs are no more than 500 square feet and are bedrooms in a single-family home that have an entrance into the unit from the main home and an entrance to the outside from the junior accessory dwelling unit. These units have cooking facilities including a sink and stove but are not required to have a bathroom.

Background: Since 2015, the Legislature has passed multiple bills to encourage the construction of ADUs by reducing local barriers to permitting and making it easier for individual homeowners to add them. Past bills to encourage ADUs have focused on reduced parking standards, a set time-line for approving a (120 days) of permit, and requiring ministerial approval. The push to encourage ADUs is fueled by the state's lack of affordable housing. According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, well over three quarters of all land in San Francisco and Los Angeles is made up of neighborhoods where 60% of the housing stock is single-family homes. A Terner Center report found that 58% of homeowners rent their ADU out at below market rate and 29% were family or friends of the owner. According to a Terner Center survey, the average cost to build an ADU is relatively inexpensive at $156,000. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and Santa Cruz have all seen an increase in ADUs since changes in the law eased restrictions. Los Angeles alone increased the number of ADUs from 90 in 2015 to 1,980 in 2017.

Fees: Local governments can charge a variety of fees to a development. Cities charge service fees to pay for staff time for processing a development application, reviewing plans, permit approvals, and inspections. Impact fees are imposed to pay for the cost of the infrastructure needed to support the development. The Mitigation Fee Act, passed in 1989, requires cities to identify the purpose of a fee, the use of the fee, and show that there is a "reasonable" relationship between the fee amount and the impact of the project. Local agencies also charge fees to fund open space and parks, school fees, water and sewer fees, and project specific fees through negotiated development agreements. The passage of Proposition 13 and the loss of property tax revenues have fueled cities' dependence on fees to fund infrastructure and services.

Existing law requires a utility connection fee for an ADU be proportionate to the burden of the proposed ADU upon the water or sewer system, based upon either the ADU’s size or the number of its plumbing fixtures. The fee cannot exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service. Existing law, under the ministerial approval provisions, prohibits an ADU from being considered a new residential use for purposes of calculating fees charged for new development. SB 831 expands this prohibition to other types of development fees. This bill would also restrict school fees to no more than $3000 per ADU.

Owner occupancy requirements: Existing law allows local governments to set restrictions around owner occupancy. This bill would prohibit the local governments from requiring owner occupancy as a condition for issuance of a building permit for an ADU. The author has identified instances where lenders are unwilling to lend to owners to build an ADU when there is a covenant that restricts occupancy of the primary home to owner-occupancy. If a foreclosure occurs lenders would be unable to take possession of the property without violating the covenant restricting the property to owner occupancy. Lenders also have indicated that a restrictive covenant reduces the value of the property as investment by limiting the pool of potential buyers. AB 2890 (Ting) which was also heard and passed out of this committee allows for local governments to impose owner-occupancy restrictions but provides for several caveats. An owner can occupy either the primary dwelling or the ADU, an owner-occupant can include a trust in which at least one person is disabled and her or she occupies the primary dwelling or ADU, an organization that owns the lot in order to provide long-term, deed restricted affordable housing subject to a regulatory agreement with a local agency. The committee may wish to either delete the owner-occupancy restrictions in this bill or require them to conform them to AB 2890 (Ting) to give local government some discretion.

Duplicative and overlapping bills: There are two bills still moving through the Legislature process that make changes to the ADU statute – this bill and AB 2890 (Ting). This bill has many of the same provisions as AB 2890 (Ting) when it was heard in this committee in April. Some of those provisions were amended or deleted by this committee and Assembly Local Government Committee.

• 1. Owner occupancy. SB 831 eliminates the authorization to require owner occupancy of ADUs. In contrast, AB 2890 provides that if a local ADU ordinance imposes an owner occupancy restriction, it shall not be monitored more frequently than annually and requires if a local government has owner-occupancy restrictions it must provide for specific exemptions.
  2. Short-term rentals. Under the ministerial approval provisions, AB 2890 allows a local agency to require that a rental of an ADU shall be for a term longer than 30 days. SB 831 does not include this requirement.
  3. Location. SB 831 allows a local agency to designate areas where ADUs may not be constructed, though such exclusions may only be for health and safety (including fire safety) reasons. This provision was deleted from AB 2890 in the Assembly Local Government Committee.
  4. Fees. Existing law, under the ministerial approval provisions, prohibits an ADU from being considered a new residential use for purposes of calculating fees charged for new development. SB 831 expands this prohibition to other types of development fees. All new restrictions on fees were deleted from AB 2890 in the Assembly Local Government Committee.
  5. Setbacks. SB 831 prohibits a setback requirement for an existing area or structure that is converted to an ADU, and limits any setback requirement to three feet for an ADU that is not converted from an existing structure. AB 2890 does not include these provisions.
  6. Parking requirements. SB 831 provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with an ADU, or converted into an ADU, a local agency shall not require replacement of those off-street parking spaces. This provision was deleted from AB 2890 in the Assembly Local Government Committee.
  7. Substandard ADUs. SB 831 provides that where a building official finds that a substandard ADU presents an imminent risk to health and safety, the official shall approve a delay of at least 10 years of state building standards code requirements that are not necessary to protect public health and safety (effectively establishing an amnesty). AB 2890 requires HCD to create small home building standards for ADUs and submit them to the California Building Standards Commission by January 1, 2020.
  8. Local government violations. SB 831 authorizes HCD to notify the AG if a local agency has taken an action in violation of ADU law. AB 2890 does not include such an authorization.
  9. Absence of local JADU ordinance. AB 2890 bill provides that if a local agency has not adopted a JADU ordinance, it shall apply the standards in existing law for approval of a permit to construct a JADU. SB 831 does not include this provision.

Arguments in support: Supporters see ADUs as a significant source of new affordable housing and part of the solution to the state's housing crisis. Further they argue that fees represent a barrier to homeowner's ability to build an ADU. Supporters argue that the many changes in this bill will make it easier to bill ADUs and increase the stock of naturally affordable housing.

Arguments in opposition: Opponents are opposed to the elimination of fees on ADUs which are needed to pay for services required by a new ADU that cannot be passed on to other fee payers. Fees were negotiated in SB 1069 (Wieckowski) included compromise language that allows for utility and hookup fees based on concerns raised at the time. In addition, opponents argue against new and substantial changes to ADU law when local governments are implementing changes from bills passed in the last few years. Those changes have led to an increase in the number of ADUs approved at the local level.

Staff comments: When AB 2890 was heard in this committee, members raised concerns with further limiting fees on ADUs and the impact in particular limiting schools fees would have on local communities. The committee may wish to reinstate existing law on how fees on ADUs are calculated.

This bill would remove any discretion on the part of local governments to impose owner-occupancy restrictions. The committee may wish to instead reflect the compromise language that was worked out for AB 2890 which continues to provide local governments discretion on owner-occupancy restrictions with some exceptions.

Committee amendments:

1. Delete the provisions in the bill further limiting fees that local governments can charge for ADUs.
2. Amend the bill to reflect the language in AB 2890 (Ting) regarding owner-occupancy restrictions.

Related legislation:

AB 2890 (Ting) Makes a variety of changes to ADU and JADU law and that either overlap or are duplicative of the changes in this bill. This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing and the Committee on Governance and Finance.

SB 1469 (Skinner, 2018) — would have placed additional restrictions on the conditions that local governments may impose on ADUs and JADUs, as specified and would have required HCD to develop small home building standards by January 1, 2020. This bill was held on the suspense file in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Previous legislation:

AB 72 (Santiago, Chapter 370, Statutes of 2017) — gave HCD authority to find a city’s or city’s and county’s housing element out of substantial compliance if it determines that the city or county acts or fails to act in compliance with its housing element, and allows HCD to refer violations of law to the Attorney General.

AB 494 (Bloom, Chapter 602, Statutes of 2017) — made technical, clarifying changes to ADU law.

SB 229 (Wieckowski, Chapter 594, Statutes of 2017) — made several changes to ADU law.

AB 2299 (Bloom, Chapter 735, Statutes of 2016) — made several changes to the ADU law.

SB 1069 (Wieckowski, chapter 720, Statutes of 2016) —made several changes to ADU law.

Double-referred: This bill was also referred to the Committee on Local Government where it will be heard should it pass out of this committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Bay Area Council (sponsors)

AARP California
Abundant Housing LA
ADU Builder. Inc.
Basis Studio
Bridge Housing Corporation
Build
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Community Builders
California Forward Action Fund
California Housing Consortium
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund
California YIMBY
Corporation For Supportive Housing
Cover
Crest Backyard Homes
Habitat for Humanity California
Hacienda
Half Moon Bay Brewing
Heller Manus Architects
HKS Architects
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Inn At Mavericks
La Mas
Los Angeles Business Council
Mavericks Event Center
McKinsey & Company
Non-Profit Housing Association Of Northern California
North Bay Leadership Council
Pacific Standard
Postmates Inc.
Resources for Community Development
Revisions Resources
Rise Together
San Diego County Apartment Association
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (Bart)
San Francisco Chamber Of Commerce
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
San Mateo County Economic Development Association
Shorenstein Properties
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
SPUR
SV Angel
SV@Home
Terner Center for Housing Innovation
The Fairmont San Francisco
Tim Lewis Communities
TMG Partners
Wareham Development
Webcor

Opposition

American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Association of Community Managers
California Association of School Business Officials
California Building Officials
California Coalition For Adequate School Housing
California Contract Cities Association
California State Association of Counties
City of Camarillo
City of Coronado
City of Glendora
City of Hawthorne
City of Lake Forest
City of Lakewood
City of Long Beach
City of Murrieta
City of San Marcos
City of Santa Clarita
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Vista
Community Associations Institute of California
County of Del Norte County Board of Supervisors
East Orange County Water District
Lake Forest II Master Homeowners Association
League of California Cities
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
Regional Water Authority
Rural County Representatives of California
San Diego County Water Authority
Union Sanitary District
Urban Counties Of California

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

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 831 (Wieckowski) - Land use: accessory dwelling units

Bill Summary:

SB 831 would place additional restrictions on the conditions that local governments may impose on accessory dwelling units (ADUs), including limiting the ability to charge developer fees, prohibiting the imposition of owner occupancy requirements, and reducing the timeframe for ministerial approval of ADU permits.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 25, 2018

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates ongoing costs of approximately $325,000 annually for 2 PY of staff to provide technical assistance, review ordinances, and refer ordinances that violate state law to the Attorney General. (General Fund)

Committee Amendments:

• Delete the authority for local officials to impose lot coverage standards in an ADU ordinance.
• Prohibit local officials from considering an ADU’s square footage when calculating an allowable lot coverage ratio.
• Prohibit an ordinance from limiting an ADU to less than 800 square feet.
• Require local agencies to ministerial approve a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following:
  • An ADU or Junior ADU (JADU) on a lot with a single family dwelling that meets specified criteria.
  • Multiple ADUs within portions of existing multifamily dwellings that are not used as livable space, as specified, if each unit complies with building standards.
  • Not more than two detached ADUs located on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling that would be subject to a 16 foot height limit and three foot rear yard and side setbacks.

-- END --

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 831

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/17/18

AYES: Beall, Cannella, Dodd, Galgiani, McGuire, Morrell, Roth, Skinner, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Gaines

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/25/18

AYES: McGuire, Beall, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Lara, Moorlach

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/25/18

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Bay Area Council

DIGEST:

This bill makes several changes to law governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. States that a local government may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of ADUs and may designate areas where ADUs are permitted. State law provides that the ordinance shall contain specified provisions, including, but not limited to, the following:
2. The ADU shall not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the ADU is located and that ADUs are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot.
3. No set-back shall be required for an existing garage that is converted to an ADU.
4. When a garage or carport is converted to an ADU and a local government requires that off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be in any configuration on the same lot as the ADU.
5. When a local agency receives its first application for an ADU permit, the application shall be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing within 120 days after receiving the application.
6. A city may require owner occupancy for either the primary or the ADU.
7. An ADU shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer fees.
8. For an ADU contained within the existing space of a single-family residence or accessory structure with an independent exterior access, a local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge.
9. Requires a local agency to submit a copy of the ADU ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) within 60 days of the ordinance’s adoption. HCD may review and comment on the submitted ordinance.
10. Provides that HCD shall notify a local government and the Office of the Attorney General (AG) that the local government is in violation of state law if HCD finds that the housing element, an amendment to the housing element, does not substantially comply with this article, or if the local government has taken an action in violation of specified state housing and land use laws.
11. Permits local agencies, by ordinance, to provide for the creation of JADUs in single-family residential zones.

This bill:

1. Provides that a local agency may designate areas where ADUs may be excluded for health and safety, including fire safety, based on clear findings that are supported by substantial evidence. The designation shall be based on clear criteria that may include the adequacy of water and sewer services and other health and safety, including safety, issues
2. Provides that a local agency may not implement standards for minimum lot size requirements for ADUs and shall allow for the construction of an ADU unless the local agency makes specific findings that the construction of the ADU would adversely impact public health and safety, including fire safety.
3. Provides that the square footage of a proposed ADU shall not be considered when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio or lot coverage for the lot upon which the ADU is to be located.
4. Provides that no minimum or maximum size for an ADU or size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, shall be established by ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800-square foot ADU.
5. Provides that no setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory structure that is converted to an ADU, and a setback of no more than three feet from the side and real lines shall be required for an ADU that is not converted from an existing structure.
6. Provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with an ADU or converted into an ADU, a local agency shall not require that those off-street parking spaces be replaced.
7. Reduces the application approval timeframe to 60 days and provides that if a local agency has not acted upon the submitted application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved.
8. Provides that an agreement with a local agency to maintain owner occupancy as a condition for issuance of a building permit for an ADU shall be void as against public policy.
9. Prohibits an ADU from being considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for the purpose of calculating fees charged for new development, except as follows:
   1. A local agency, special district, or water corporation may require a new or separate utility connection direction between the ADU and the utility. The connection may be subject to a connection fee, capacity charge, or equivalent charge for new service that is proportionate to the burden of the proposed ADU, based either on size or the number of its plumbing fixtures, upon the water or sewer system. The fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.
   2. Fees charged by a school district shall be limited to no more than $3,000 per ADU.
10. Provides that where a building official finds that a substandard ADU presents an imminent risk to the health and safety of the building’s residents, upon request by an ADU owner, a building official, in consultation with local fire and code enforcement officials, shall approve a delay of not less than 10 years of any California Building Standards Code requirement that, in the judgment of the building official, is not necessary to protect public health and safety. The building official shall not approve a delay on or after January 1, 2029. This program shall remain in effect until January 1, 2039.
11. Provides that a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following:
    1. One ADU on a lot with a single dwelling if any of the following:
       1. The ADU is substantially contained within the existing space of a single-family dwelling or ADU structure.
       2. The space has exterior access from the existing dwelling.
       3. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.
    2. One JADU on a lot with a single-family dwelling if all of the following apply:
       1. The JADU is contained within the existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure.
       2. The space has exterior access from the existing dwelling.
       3. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.
    3. Multiple ADUs within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attic, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.
    4. Not more than two ADUs that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to height limits of 16 feet and three-foot rear yard and side setbacks.
12. ADUs and JADUs shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for the purposes of calculating fees for new development.
13. Provides that HCD may notify the AG if a local government has taken an action in violation of ADU law.
14. Permits HCD, after the adoption of an ADU ordinance, to submit findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with ADU law. If HCD finds that the local agency’s ordinance does not substantially comply with ADU law, HCD shall notify the local agency and may notify the AG. The local agency shall consider findings made by HCD and may change the ordinance to comply with ADU law or adopt the ordinance without changes. The local agency shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite HCD’s findings.
15. Permits HCD to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards and criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards in ADU law.

Background

1. What are ADUs and JADUs? 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.

Local governments may also adopt ordinances for JADUs, which are no more than 500 square feet and are bedrooms in a single-family home that have an entrance into the unit from the main home and an entrance to the outside from the JADU. The JADU must have cooking facilities, including a sink and stove, but is not required to have a bathroom.

1. Relaxing ADU 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. 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 relaxes several requirements to the construction and permitting of ADUs.
2. Amnesty program. This bill creates a 10-year amnesty program for substandard ADUSs. The bill grants an ADU owner with a non-compliant ADU a 10-year delay to make necessary changes to bring that ADU up to code. The delay applies to changes that, in the judgment of the local building official, and in consultation with fire and code enforcement officials, is not necessary to protect health and safety.
3. Appropriations Amendments. This bill was amended in the Senate Appropriations Committee to incorporate differences found between this bill and SB 1469 (Skinner), which also made changes to ADU law. These amendments require a local agency to approve an application for multiple ADUs within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, or garages. It also permits two ADUs to be located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling but are detached from that dwelling and are subject to a height limit of 16 feet and a three-foot yard and side setbacks. These amendments also further relax barriers to building ADUs by providing that the square footage of a proposed ADU shall not be considered when calculating lot coverage for the lot upon which the ADU is to be located. Further, a local agency shall not establish a minimum or maximum size for an ADU or size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800-square foot ADU.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriation Committee, HCD estimates ongoing costs of approximately $325,000 annually for 2 PY of staff to provide technical assistance, review ordinances, and refer ordinances that violate state law to the AG. (General Fund)

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/25/18)

Bay Area Council (source)

AARP

Abundant Housing LA

ADU Builder, Inc.

Basis Studio

Bay Area Rapid Transit

Bridge Housing

Build

California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors

California Building Industry Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Community Builders

California Forward Action Fund

California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund

California YIMBY

Coalition for Supportive Housing

Cover

Crest Backyard Homes

Corporation for Supportive Housing

Half Moon Bay Brewing Co.

Heller Manus Architects

HKS Architects

Inn at Mavericks

LA Más

Los Angeles Business Council

Mavericks Event Center

McKinsey and Company

North Bay Leadership Council

Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California

Pacific Standard

Postmates

Resources for Community Development

ReVisions Resources

Rise Together

San Diego County Apartment Association

San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association

San Francisco Housing Action Coalition

San Mateo County Economic Development Association

Shorenstein Properties

SV Angel

SV@Home

The Fairmont San Francisco

Tim Lewis Communities

TMG Partners

Wareham Development

Webcor

One individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/25/18)

American Planning Association – California Chapter

Association of California School Administrators

Association of California Water Agencies

California Association of Sanitation Agencies

California Association of School Business Officials

California Coalition for Adequate School Housing

California Contract Cities Association

California Municipal Utilities Association

California School Boards Association

California Special Districts Association

Cities of Camarillo, Coronado, Fullerton, Glendora, Hawthorne, Huntington Beach, Lake Forest, Lakewood, and San Marcos

County of Del Norte

Desert Water Agency

East Orange County Water District

El Dorado Irrigation District

Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers

Orange County Sanitation District

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “California’s historic housing crisis necessitates innovative solutions. Multiple research and policy organizations have recognized accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a critical piece of this solution, including the McKinsey Global Institute, the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, President Obama’s White House and the Terner Center for Housing Innovation. ADUs are affordable by design, costing 50-90% less to build than conventional infill development and are built with no cost to the state. In 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 1069 (Wieckowski, Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016), which eliminated the most onerous barriers to the construction of ADUs. As a result, there has been a proliferation of ADUs in California, with some jurisdictions seeing more than twenty-five times the amount of ADU permit applications in 2017 than the year prior. However, many homeowners continue to face barriers to constructing these units because of the barriers that still remain, such as excessive impact fees, lot size requirements, and code standards. This bill seeks to eliminate the remaining barriers to building ADUs by eliminating fees, creating an amnesty program for pre-existing ADUs, enhancing HCD’s role in enforcing the law, and making changes related to lot-size requirements.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Writing in opposition to prior versions of the bill, the American Planning Association — California Chapter and several local agencies and associations representing them are opposed to a prior language prohibiting imposing fees related to services such as water and sanitation. Pursuant to the California Constitution and the Government Code, local agencies are already required to charge only the reasonable cost of providing services. Due to these requirements, local agencies may not waive, discount, or establish different rates that pass on costs associated with obtaining water and wastewater services to the general consumer base or to other fee payers. The American Planning Association notes that these additional services will have to be paid for elsewhere. Cities writing in opposition echo concerns raised by local agencies, as well as the reduction in parking requirements and lot size requirements. Cities state these changes undermine local planning authority and the ability for cities to mitigate their impacts.

Prepared by:

5/29/18 17:44:39

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 831

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/17/18

AYES: Beall, Cannella, Dodd, Galgiani, McGuire, Morrell, Roth, Skinner, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Gaines

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/25/18

AYES: McGuire, Beall, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Lara, Moorlach

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/25/18

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Bay Area Council

DIGEST:

This bill makes several changes to law governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. States that a local government may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of ADUs and may designate areas where ADUs are permitted. State law provides that the ordinance shall contain specified provisions, including, but not limited to, the following:
2. The ADU shall not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the ADU is located and that ADUs are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot.
3. No set-back shall be required for an existing garage that is converted to an ADU.
4. When a garage or carport is converted to an ADU and a local government requires that off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be in any configuration on the same lot as the ADU.
5. When a local agency receives its first application for an ADU permit, the application shall be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing within 120 days after receiving the application.
6. A city may require owner occupancy for either the primary or the ADU.
7. An ADU shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer fees.
8. For an ADU contained within the existing space of a single-family residence or accessory structure with an independent exterior access, a local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge.
9. Requires a local agency to submit a copy of the ADU ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) within 60 days of the ordinance’s adoption. HCD may review and comment on the submitted ordinance.
10. Provides that HCD shall notify a local government and the Office of the Attorney General (AG) that the local government is in violation of state law if HCD finds that the housing element, an amendment to the housing element, does not substantially comply with this article, or if the local government has taken an action in violation of specified state housing and land use laws.
11. Permits local agencies, by ordinance, to provide for the creation of JADUs in single-family residential zones.

This bill:

1. Provides that a local agency may designate areas where ADUs may be excluded for health and safety, including fire safety, based on clear findings that are supported by substantial evidence. The designation shall be based on clear criteria that may include the adequacy of water and sewer services and other health and safety, including safety, issues
2. Provides that a local agency may not implement standards for minimum lot size requirements for ADUs and shall allow for the construction of an ADU unless the local agency makes specific findings that the construction of the ADU would adversely impact public health and safety, including fire safety.
3. Provides that the square footage of a proposed ADU shall not be considered when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio or lot coverage for the lot upon which the ADU is to be located.
4. Provides that no minimum or maximum size for an ADU or size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, shall be established by ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800-square foot ADU.
5. Provides that no setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory structure that is converted to an ADU, and a setback of no more than three feet from the side and real lines shall be required for an ADU that is not converted from an existing structure.
6. Provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with an ADU or converted into an ADU, a local agency shall not require that those off-street parking spaces be replaced.
7. Reduces the application approval timeframe to 60 days and provides that if a local agency has not acted upon the submitted application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved.
8. Provides that an agreement with a local agency to maintain owner occupancy as a condition for issuance of a building permit for an ADU shall be void as against public policy.
9. Prohibits an ADU from being considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for the purpose of calculating fees charged for new development, except as follows:
   1. A local agency, special district, or water corporation may require a new or separate utility connection direction between the ADU and the utility. The connection may be subject to a connection fee, capacity charge, or equivalent charge for new service that is proportionate to the burden of the proposed ADU, based either on size or the number of its plumbing fixtures, upon the water or sewer system. The fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.
   2. Fees charged by a school district shall be limited to no more than $3,000 per ADU.
10. Provides that where a building official finds that a substandard ADU presents an imminent risk to the health and safety of the building’s residents, upon request by an ADU owner, a building official, in consultation with local fire and code enforcement officials, shall approve a delay of not less than 10 years of any California Building Standards Code requirement that, in the judgment of the building official, is not necessary to protect public health and safety. The building official shall not approve a delay on or after January 1, 2029. This program shall remain in effect until January 1, 2039.
11. Provides that a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following:
    1. One ADU on a lot with a single dwelling if any of the following:
       1. The ADU is substantially contained within the existing space of a single-family dwelling or ADU structure.
       2. The space has exterior access from the existing dwelling.
       3. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.
    2. One JADU on a lot with a single-family dwelling if all of the following apply:
       1. The JADU is contained within the existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure.
       2. The space has exterior access from the existing dwelling.
       3. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.
    3. Multiple ADUs within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attic, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.
    4. Not more than two ADUs that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to height limits of 16 feet and three-foot rear yard and side setbacks.
12. Provides that ADUs and JADUs shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for the purposes of calculating fees for new development.
13. Provides that HCD may notify the AG if a local government has taken an action in violation of ADU law.
14. Permits HCD, after the adoption of an ADU ordinance, to submit findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with ADU law. If HCD finds that the local agency’s ordinance does not substantially comply with ADU law, HCD shall notify the local agency and may notify the AG. The local agency shall consider findings made by HCD and may change the ordinance to comply with ADU law or adopt the ordinance without changes. The local agency shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite HCD’s findings.
15. Permits HCD to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards and criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards in ADU law.

Background

1. What are ADUs and JADUs? 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.

Local governments may also adopt ordinances for JADUs, which are no more than 500 square feet and are bedrooms in a single-family home that have an entrance into the unit from the main home and an entrance to the outside from the JADU. The JADU must have cooking facilities, including a sink and stove, but is not required to have a bathroom.

1. Relaxing ADU 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. 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 relaxes several requirements to the construction and permitting of ADUs.
2. Amnesty program. This bill creates a 10-year amnesty program for substandard ADUSs. The bill grants an ADU owner with a non-compliant ADU a 10-year delay to make necessary changes to bring that ADU up to code. The delay applies to changes that, in the judgment of the local building official, and in consultation with fire and code enforcement officials, is not necessary to protect health and safety.
3. Appropriations Amendments. This bill was amended in the Senate Appropriations Committee to incorporate differences found between this bill and SB 1469 (Skinner), which also made changes to ADU law. These amendments require a local agency to approve an application for multiple ADUs within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, or garages. It also permits two ADUs to be located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling but are detached from that dwelling and are subject to a height limit of 16 feet and a three-foot yard and side setbacks. These amendments also further relax barriers to building ADUs by providing that the square footage of a proposed ADU shall not be considered when calculating lot coverage for the lot upon which the ADU is to be located. Further, a local agency shall not establish a minimum or maximum size for an ADU or size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800-square foot ADU.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriation Committee, HCD estimates ongoing costs of approximately $325,000 annually for 2 PY of staff to provide technical assistance, review ordinances, and refer ordinances that violate state law to the AG. (General Fund)

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/25/18)

Bay Area Council (source)

AARP

Abundant Housing LA

ADU Builder, Inc.

Basis Studio

Bay Area Rapid Transit

Bridge Housing

Build

California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors

California Building Industry Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Community Builders

California Forward Action Fund

California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund

California YIMBY

Coalition for Supportive Housing

Cover

Crest Backyard Homes

Corporation for Supportive Housing

Half Moon Bay Brewing Co.

Heller Manus Architects

HKS Architects

Inn at Mavericks

LA Más

Los Angeles Business Council

Mavericks Event Center

McKinsey and Company

North Bay Leadership Council

Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California

Pacific Standard

Postmates

Resources for Community Development

ReVisions Resources

Rise Together

San Diego County Apartment Association

San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association

San Francisco Housing Action Coalition

San Mateo County Economic Development Association

Shorenstein Properties

SV Angel

SV@Home

The Fairmont San Francisco

Tim Lewis Communities

TMG Partners

Wareham Development

Webcor

One individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/25/18)

American Planning Association – California Chapter

Association of California School Administrators

Association of California Water Agencies

California Association of Sanitation Agencies

California Association of School Business Officials

California Coalition for Adequate School Housing

California Contract Cities Association

California Municipal Utilities Association

California School Boards Association

California Special Districts Association

Cities of Camarillo, Coronado, Fullerton, Glendora, Hawthorne, Huntington Beach, Lake Forest, Lakewood, and San Marcos

County of Del Norte

Desert Water Agency

East Orange County Water District

El Dorado Irrigation District

Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers

Orange County Sanitation District

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “California’s historic housing crisis necessitates innovative solutions. Multiple research and policy organizations have recognized accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a critical piece of this solution, including the McKinsey Global Institute, the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, President Obama’s White House and the Terner Center for Housing Innovation. ADUs are affordable by design, costing 50-90% less to build than conventional infill development and are built with no cost to the state. In 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 1069 (Wieckowski, Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016), which eliminated the most onerous barriers to the construction of ADUs. As a result, there has been a proliferation of ADUs in California, with some jurisdictions seeing more than twenty-five times the amount of ADU permit applications in 2017 than the year prior. However, many homeowners continue to face barriers to constructing these units because of the barriers that still remain, such as excessive impact fees, lot size requirements, and code standards. This bill seeks to eliminate the remaining barriers to building ADUs by eliminating fees, creating an amnesty program for pre-existing ADUs, enhancing HCD’s role in enforcing the law, and making changes related to lot-size requirements.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Writing in opposition to prior versions of the bill, the American Planning Association — California Chapter and several local agencies and associations representing them are opposed to a prior language prohibiting imposing fees related to services such as water and sanitation. Pursuant to the California Constitution and the Government Code, local agencies are already required to charge only the reasonable cost of providing services. Due to these requirements, local agencies may not waive, discount, or establish different rates that pass on costs associated with obtaining water and wastewater services to the general consumer base or to other fee payers. The American Planning Association notes that these additional services will have to be paid for elsewhere. Cities writing in opposition echo concerns raised by local agencies, as well as the reduction in parking requirements and lot size requirements. Cities state these changes undermine local planning authority and the ability for cities to mitigate their impacts.

Prepared by:

5/29/18 19:15:44

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 831 (Wieckowski) - Land use: accessory dwelling units

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

SB 831 would place additional restrictions on the conditions that local governments may impose on accessory dwelling units (ADUs), including limiting the ability to charge developer fees, prohibiting the imposition of owner occupancy requirements, and reducing the timeframe for ministerial approval of ADU permits.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates ongoing costs of approximately $325,000 annually for 2 PY of staff to provide technical assistance, review ordinances, and refer ordinances that violate state law to the Attorney General. (General Fund)

Background:

Accessory Dwelling 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. This form of housing is often used by additional 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 ADUs, while preserving local government flexibility to regulate the units as necessary. Initially, fewer ADUs than anticipated were developed; in response, the Legislature significantly amended ADU law to address some of the barriers that local agencies imposed on property owners proposing an ADU (AB 1866, Wright, 2002). Specifically, AB 1866 allowed local governments (1) to adopt an ordinance that allows the creation of ADUs in single-family and multi-family residential zones, and (2) to set standards on the units regarding parking, height, setback, maximum size, and potential adverse impacts on historic places. AB 1866 also prohibited local agencies from adopting an ordinance that entirely prohibits ADUs unless it made specific findings regarding adverse impacts from the units. Nevertheless, some local governments continued to impose onerous requirements or prohibit ADUs entirely.

In 2016, the Legislature again revised ADU law to address some of the barriers to ADU creation that had been adopted by local governments (SB 1069,Wieckowski, and SB 2299, Bloom). These laws, as well as subsequent cleanup legislation, prohibited local ordinances that entirely ban ADUs and required a local agency to do the following: (1) designate areas within the jurisdiction where ADUs may be permitted, (2) impose standards on ADUs, including minimum lot sizes and requiring ADUs to be set back from the property line, (3) consider permit applications within 120 days, (4) approve or disapprove an application for an ADU ministerially without discretionary review if the local government does not have an ADU ordinance when it receives a permit application, and (5) approve building permits to create an ADU ministerially if the ADU is within an existing residence, has independent exterior access, and meets certain fire safety requirements. These bills also limited local agencies’ ability to require new utility connections for water and sewer, and required the fees to be proportionate to the burden created by the ADU.

California’s production of housing continues to lag demand. This lack of housing is impacting affordability; average housing costs in California exceed the rest of the nation. As affordability becomes more problematic, people drive longer distances between a home that is affordable and where they work, or double up to share space, both of which reduces quality of life and produces negative environmental impacts. Consequently, ADUs are gaining in popularity, and the recent efforts to promote ADU construction and limit local constraints have resulted in substantial increases in permit applications in some jurisdictions.

Proposed Law:

This bill would, among other things, do the following:

• Require an ADU ordinance to designate areas where ADUs are excluded for health and safety purposes, rather than identifying areas where they are permitted.
• Authorize HCD, upon a local agency submitting an ADU ordinance to the department, to submit written findings regarding whether the ordinance is in compliance with existing ADU law.
• Require HCD to notify a local jurisdiction that an action taken by that jurisdiction is in violation of state law prescribing the contents of ordinances regulating the construction of ADU's in that community, require the local agency to consider HCD’s findings and take specified actions, and permit HCD to notify the Attorney General of any violations.
• Require that the square footage of a proposed ADU shall not be considered when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio for the lot upon which the ADU is to be located.
• Eliminate the ability for a local jurisdiction to require the replacement of an off street parking space that is eliminated by the construction of an ADU.
• Reduce the time period for ministerial approval of an ADU building permit from 120 days to 60 days, and deem approved any application for construction of an ADU that is not ministerially approved within the prescribed 60 day period.
• Prohibit a city from requiring owner occupancy for either the primary or ADU, and declare an agreement with a local agency to maintain owner occupancy as a condition for issuance of a building permit for an ADU is void and unenforceable.
• Prohibit a local agency from requiring minimum lot size requirements, except in the interest of public safety, when considering a permit for construction of an ADU.
• Limit the amount of fees for an ADU from a school district to $3,000 per unit.
• Prohibit an ADU from being considered a new residential use for purposes of calculating fees charged for new development, except when a separate utility connection is required or when specified school district fees are required, as specified.
• Authorize HCD to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section of law.
• Require local building officials to delay enforcement of any building code requirements applicable to an ADU for at least ten years, upon request of an ADU owner, if the local official finds a substandard ADU poses an imminent risk to the health and safety of its residents, but that enforcement is not necessary to protect the health and safety of those residents
• Prohibit a local building official from approving an enforcement delay after January 1, 2029, but allows for the full ten-year enforcement delay if it was approved prior to that date. This provision would sunset on January 1, 2039.

Related Legislation:

SB 1469 (Skinner), which is also pending in this Committee, would make many of the same changes to ADU statutes as this bill, but would also require ministerial approval of a junior ADU and certain other ADUs that meet specified criteria, and requires HCD to create a small home building standard.

AB 2890 (Ting), which is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, is substantially similar to SB 1469.

Staff Comments:

While this bill is keyed as a state-mandated local program, local costs are not likely to be state-reimbursable because affected local agencies have the authority to charge various permit, planning, and developer fees to offset any increased costs associated with a higher level of service.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Mike McGuire, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Land use: accessory dwelling units

Imposes additional restrictions on local accessory dwelling unit ordinances and developer fees.

Background

The Legislature has long identified accessory dwelling units (ADUs), also known as second units, 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 ADUs, while preserving local government flexibility to regulate the units as necessary. When fewer ADUs than anticipated were developed, the Legislature significantly amended ADU law to address some of the barriers that property owners encountered while trying to develop them (AB 1866, Wright, 2002).

Among other provisions, AB 1866 allowed local governments to adopt an ordinance that allows the creation of ADUs in single-family and multi-family residential zones and to set standards on the units regarding parking, height, setback, maximum size, and potential adverse impacts on historic places. AB 1866 also prohibited local agencies from adopting an ordinance that entirely prohibits ADUs unless it made specific findings regarding adverse impacts from the units. Some local governments continued to impose onerous requirements or prohibit ADUs entirely.

Recent ADU law changes. The Legislature revised ADU law in 2016 to address some of the barriers to ADU creation that had been adopted by local governments (SB 1069,Wieckowski and SB 2299, Bloom). These laws prohibited local ordinances that entirely ban ADUs and required a local agency to, among other provisions:

• Designate areas within the jurisdiction where ADUs may be permitted;
• Impose standards on ADUs, including minimum lot sizes and requiring ADUs to be set back from the property line (“setbacks”);
• Consider permit applications within 120 days;
• Approve or disapprove an application for an ADU ministerially without discretionary review if the local government does not have an ADU ordinance when it receives a permit application; and
• Approve building permits to create an ADU ministerially if the ADU is within an existing residence, has independent exterior access, and meets certain fire safety requirements.

These bills also limited the cases when local agencies could require new utility connections for water and sewer, and limited the fees to be proportionate to the burden created by the ADU. In 2017, the Legislature made further changes to ADU law to clarify portions of the law (SB 229, Wiekowski and AB 494, Bloom).

Boom in ADU permitting. ADU permit applications have increased substantially following the enactment of these recent changes. A December 2017 report on ADUs by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that in 2017 alone, approximately 2,000 ADU permit applications were submitted in the City of Los Angeles and 600 were submitted in San Francisco, representing an increase of 25x and 12x, respectively, over prior years.

However, some local agencies continue to impose restrictions and developer fees on ADUs that make them more difficult to build. For example, the Terner Center’s report argued that developer fees are a disincentive to ADU creation. In addition, a brief review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has found that some jurisdictions appear to impose minimum lot size restrictions to a much larger lot than the average lot in a jurisdiction, essentially prohibiting ADUs. Finally, other issues have hindered ADU creation. Some jurisdictions, as authorized under existing law, have required the owner of the property to reside in the main home or in the ADU. But some lenders have argued that these covenants could preclude the lender from occupying the property if the lender must foreclose on the property.

The Bay Area Council wants to address these remaining barriers.

Proposed Law

Senate Bill 831 adds additional constraints on the requirements that local agencies may impose on ADUs.

Additional restrictions on local ADU ordinances. Current law allows local agencies to adopt an ordinance permitting ADUs in areas zoned to allow single-family or multi-family use. SB 831 only requires a lot to contain a proposed or existing dwelling and eliminates the requirement that the area or lot be zoned for single-family or multi-family uses throughout the bill.

Current law requires an ADU ordinance to designate areas where ADUs are permitted. SB 831 requires the ordinance to designate areas where ADUs are excluded for fire and life safety purposes, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, in areas where a single-family or multi-family dwelling is authorized. SB 831 requires this designation to be based on criteria that may include the adequacy of water and sewer services as well as other fire and life safety issues, but eliminates traffic and public safety as considerations.

Current law says the ordinance must provide that ADUs do not exceed the allowable density for the lot on which they are located, but otherwise allows local agencies to impose zoning requirements on ADUs, including lot coverage requirements, minimum lot sizes, and floor-to-area ratios. SB 831 prohibits a local agency from specifying minimum lot sizes and provides that the square footage of a proposed ADU shall not be considered when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio for the lot.

Current law provides that no setback is required for an existing garage that is converted to an ADU and that only a five-foot setback may be required from the side and rear lots for an ADU constructed above a garage, but otherwise allows local agencies to impose setback requirements. SB 831 prohibits setback requirements for an ADU converted from any living area or accessory structure, and allows only a three-foot setback to be required for new ADU structures.

Current law restricts the new parking that a local agency may require for an ADU, including to allow parking on the same lot in any configuration if the local agency requires replacement parking for an ADU that results in the loss of a garage or carport. SB 831 prohibits a local agency from requiring parking in these situations.

Current law requires a local agency to act on a permit for an ADU ministerially within 120 days of receiving an application. SB 831 requires a local agency to act on the permit within 60 days and deems the permit approved if the local government fails to act within that timeframe. SB 831 also prohibits local agencies from using other laws to delay permitting.

Current law allows a local agency to require owner occupancy of either the primary residence or the ADU or to require an applicant for an ADU permit to be an owner occupant. SB 831 repeals these provisions and states that an agreement with a local agency to maintain owner occupancy as a condition for issuance of a building permit for an ADU is void as against public policy.

Current law requires a local agency to approve an ADU that meets certain minimum criteria and is contained within an existing living space or accessory structure. SB 831 requires approval if the ADU is substantially contained within an existing living space or accessory structure.

SB 831 defines its terms and makes other technical and conforming changes.

Prohibition on developer fees. Under current law, when approving development projects, counties and cities can require the applicants to mitigate the project's effects by paying fees. The California courts have upheld these mitigation fees for water and sewer service, sidewalks, parks, school construction, and many other public purposes. Current law prohibits cities, counties, special districts, and water districts from considering an ADU to be a new residential use. It also prohibits those entities from requiring a new connection or imposing connection fees on many attached ADUs and conversions, and limits the connection fees for other ADUs to the proportionate burden imposed by the proposed ADU.

SB 831 prohibits all developer fees, including school district fees, connection fees, capacity charges, and any other fees levied by a local agency, school district, special district, or water corporation.

Review and challenges to local ordinances. SB 831 requires a city or county to submit a copy of its ADU ordinance to HCD within 60 days of adopting it. HCD can submit written findings to the city or county on whether the ordinance complies with state ADU law. If HCD determines that the ordinance does not comply, SB 831 directs HCD to notify the city or county and allows HCD to notify the Attorney General that the city or county is in violation of state law. A city or county that receives findings from HCD must consider them, and must adopt findings of its own if it believes that its ordinance complies with state law.

SB 831 allows HCD to develop guidelines for reviewing ADU ordinances and specifies that these guidelines are not subject to the statutory processes for adopting regulations under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

Amnesty program. SB 831 requires where a building official finds that a substandard ADU presents an imminent risk to the health and safety of the building’s residents, upon request by an ADU owner, a building official, in consultation with local fire and code enforcement officials, shall approve a delay of not less than 10 years of any California Building Standards Code requirement that is not necessary to protect the health and safety of the building’s residents. The building official cannot approve a delay on or after January 1^st, 2029, and the program sunsets on January 1^st, 2039.

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. Research by multiple groups has found that ADUs are a key strategy for increasing affordable housing stock. The Legislature has taken great strides in recent years to encourage the development of ADUs with the passage of SB 1069 and AB 2299 in 2016. However, some local governments continue to impose unreasonable constraints on ADUs, including artificially limited areas where ADUs are permitted, lot size standards that exclude most parcels within certain cities, development fees that are as high as those charged to new homes, and owner occupancy requirements that jeopardize the loans that property owners have used to finance construction of ADUs. SB 831 opens up new areas of cities and counties to ADU development by eliminating restrictive zoning requirements. It eliminates unnecessary developer fees that have minimal relation to the impact of the ADU on the community, and it ensures that ADU construction can be financed by prohibiting owner occupancy requirements. SB 831 continues the good work of the Legislature on enabling this important source of housing to reach its full potential.

2. Round three, fight! Local governments are still working to comply with the sweeping changes to ADU law that the Legislature enacted in 2016. Before the ink was dry on SB 1069 and AB 2299, the Legislature made additional changes that set locals back further. The most recent changes have only been in force for less than five months. SB 831 continues what has become an annual tradition of moving the goalposts on local ADU ordinances. It flips existing ordinances on their heads by requiring local officials to make findings about where ADUs may be excluded, instead of where they are allowed, as under current law. This bill sends them back to the drawing board again, potentially slowing ADU permitting and penalizing local governments that have made a good faith effort to update their ordinances.

3. Fair’s fair. Local governments have seen their sources of revenue slashed by a series of propositions, while demand for public services have increased. As a result, cities and counties follow a simple principle: new developments should pay for the impacts that they have on the community and the burden they impose on public services. Developer fees pay for important public services, including schools, new infrastructure for water and wastewater, roads, transit, and parks. Accessory dwelling units are often as large as, or larger than, new multi-family housing units, which must pay developer fees. But SB 831 prohibits all developer fees from being charged to ADUs. This raises several concerns:

• Developer fees must already meet stringent constitutional and statutory controls that: (1) require developer fees to bear a reasonable relationship to the impact of the new development, and (2) limit school fees to $3.69/square foot or, in some cases, up to only half of construction costs, as long as state bond funds for school construction are available. If additional controls are necessary, a more appropriate solution would be a comprehensive look at the Mitigation Fee Act, which governs developer fees. Fortunately, AB 879 (Grayson, 2017) directs HCD to study developer fees and report with recommendations for changes by June 30^th, 2019. SB 831’s prohibition may be premature.
• ADUs already receive preferential treatment relative to other development when it comes to utility connection fees. Under a deal struck in SB 1069, local governments may only impose connection fees on a subset of ADUs and limits those fees to the proportionate burden caused by the ADU. SB 831 undoes this deal after only two years by entirely prohibiting connection fees on any ADUs.
• SB 831 also prohibits school fees, which puts state taxpayers on the hook to make up for those lost dollars, either through bonds or General Fund payments up to districts’ revenue limits. In addition, Proposition 51, which voters approved at the November 2016 election, authorized $9 billion in school bonds and maintained the requirements of existing law for charging school fees while state bonds are available. It is unclear whether Proposition 51 allows SB 831’s ban on school fees.
• Advocates for ADUs argue that they can rapidly be deployed at scale to make a meaningful contribution to housing supply. If this occurs, the cumulative impacts of new ADUs will put significant pressure on water systems, sewer systems, schools, and other public infrastructure. SB 831 would prevent local governments from charging fees to mitigate these impacts, no matter how large they are.
• Limiting impact fees could dampen other housing development as local governments look elsewhere to make up the losses in impact fees caused by SB 831. One readily available source is to increase developer fees on other new developments, which increases costs to builders of other types of housing. SB 831 privileges accessory dwelling units over other types of potentially more desirable housing, such as multi-family units near transit.
• SB 831 removes owner occupancy requirements and contains no affordability restrictions, allowing for-profit developers to make money off of them. Shouldn’t they be required to pay their fair share?

In addition, in its intent to prohibit developer fees, SB 831 inadvertently prohibits any fees from being charged to ADUs, which includes monthly water, sewer, and sanitation bills. The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 831 to restore some or all of the ability for cities, counties, special districts, and schools to charge developer fees and clarify that other fees are not affected.

4. A voyage to Lilliput. Currently, ADUs are permitted only on lots with existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwellings in residentially zoned areas. SB 831 removes the requirement that the lot be zoned for residential use and only allows local governments to exclude ADUs from certain areas if the local government can meet a high bar for fire and life safety impacts. This allows ADUs to be permitted in agricultural, open space, or industrial zones where housing is sometimes conditionally permitted. But because ADUs are subject to ministerial permitting, a developer could in theory propose an entire subdivision of homes with detached ADUs in one of these areas, receive the permits to construct fields full of ADUs in 60 days, and then later be denied the conditional use permits for the primary residences. To avoid this result, the Committee may wish to consider amending SB 831 to retain the requirement that any lot for a proposed ADU be zoned for residential use and to require an unbuilt primary residence to be entitled before an ADU may be proposed for that lot.

5. The incredible bulk. Floor-to-area ratio, minimum lot size, and lot coverage are planning tools that serve important purposes. These standards are developed to ensure that large mansions aren’t developed on tiny lots. SB 831 eliminates floor-to-area ratio limits for ADUs, potentially allowing a property owner to construct a massive house and a full-sized ADU on the same lot. Should property owners who are already pushing the boundaries of the allowable floor-to-area ratio for their lot with a bulky existing structure be allowed to add an ADU? These planning tools take on greater significance in unincorporated communities where municipal services are more limited and homes often instead rely on domestic wells and onsite wastewater treatment systems. This type of infrastructure relies on larger lots to provide adequate space for sewage disposal and to prevent contamination of water sources. SB 831 eliminates minimum lot size requirements, which means that county health officials will be in the position of denying ADUs that have gone all the way through the permitting process instead of allowing local governments to impose reasonable limits up front. This may hinder ADU development as property owners are frustrated by expending unnecessary effort on the permitting process, only to be denied later.

6. Public comment. The APA establishes rulemaking procedures and standards for state agencies in California. The APA is designed to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the adoption of state regulations and to ensure that regulations are clear, necessary, and legally valid. SB 831 borrows from language adopted in last year’s housing package to allow HCD to review local ADU ordinances for compliance with state laws without having to follow the APA when developing their guidelines for doing so. In essence, this allows HCD to adopt regulations without going through the state’s process for ensuring that the rules are fair and limits opportunities for comment by the public. As HCD’s regulatory authority over local land use expands, shouldn’t it be subject to the same rules that other state agencies have to follow?

7. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because SB 831 requires local governments to perform new activities related to land use regulation, Legislative Counsel says that it imposes a new state mandate. SB 831 states that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill imposes a reimbursable mandate, reimbursement must be made pursuant to existing statutory provisions.

8. Incoming! The Senate Transportation and Housing Committee approved SB 831 at its April 17^th meeting on a vote of 11-0. The Senate Governance and Finance Committee is hearing SB 831 as the committee of second reference.

9. Related legislation. SB 831 is one of three substantially similar ADU bills introduced in the Legislature this year. Should it pass the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on April 24^th, SB 1469 (Skinner) will also be heard by the Committee at its April 25^th meeting, and AB 2890 (Ting) is currently pending in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee. SB 1296 (Glazer), which the Committee will also hear at its April 25^th meeting, requires local agencies to report on developer fees to HCD.

Support and Opposition

(4/19/18)

Support: Bay Area Council (sponsor); Abundant Housing LA; ADU Builder, Inc.; Basis Studio; Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART); Bridge Housing; Build; California Apartment Association; California Association of Realtors; California Building Industry Association (CBIA); California Chamber of Commerce; California Community Builders; California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund; California YIMBY; Coalition for Supportive Housing; Cover; Crest Backyard Homes; CSH; The Fairmont San Francisco; Half Moon Bay Brewing Co.; Heller Manus Architects; HKS Architects; Inn at Mavericks; LA Más; Los Angeles Business Council (LABC); Mavericks Event Center; McKinsey and Company; North Bay Leadership Council; Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California; Pacific Standard; Postmates; Resources for Community Development; ReVisions Resources; Rise Together; San Diego County Apartment Association; San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR); San Francisco Housing Action Coalition; San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA); Shorenstein Properties; SV Angel; Terner Center for Housing Innovation; Tim Lewis Communities; TMG Partners; Wareham Development; Webcor.

Opposition: American Planning Association, California Chapter; Association of California School Administrators (ACSA); Association of California Water Agencies; California Association of Sanitation Agencies; California Association of School Building Officials; California Contract Cities Association; California Municipal Utilities Association; California School Board Association (CSBA); California Special Districts Association; California State Association of Counties; Central Contra Costa Sanitary District; City of Camarillo; City of Coronado; City of Fullerton; City of Glendora; City of Hawthorne; City of Huntington Beach; City of Lakewood; City of Lake Forest; City of San Marcos; Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH); County of Del Norte; Desert Water Agency; East Orange County Water District; El Dorado Irrigation District; League of California Cities; Leucadia Wastewater District; Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers; Novato Sanitary District; Ojai Valley Sanitary District; Orange County Sanitation District; Rural County Representatives of California; Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County; Union Sanitary District; Urban Counties of California; Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority; West Valley Sanitation District; 1 individual.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 4/17/2018

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill makes several changes to law governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. States that a local government may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of ADUs and may designate areas where ADUs are permitted. State law provides that the ordinance shall contain specified provisions, including, but not limited to, the following:
2. The ADU shall not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the ADU is located and that ADUs are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot.
3. No set-back shall be required for an existing garage that is converted to an ADU.
4. When a garage or carport is converted to an ADU and a local government requires that off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be in any configuration on the same lot as the ADU.
5. When a local agency receives its first application for an ADU permit, the application shall be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing within 120 days after receiving the application.
6. A city may require owner occupancy for either the primary or the ADU.
7. An ADU shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer fees.
8. For an ADU contained within the existing space of a single-family residence or accessory structure with an independent exterior access, a local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge.
9. Requires a local agency to submit a copy of the ADU ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) within 60 days of the ordinance’s adoption. HCD may review and comment on the submitted ordinance.
10. Provides that HCD shall notify a local government and the office of the Attorney General (AG) that the local government is in violation of state law if HCD finds that the housing element, an amendment to the housing element, does not substantially comply with this article, or if the local government has taken an action in violation of specified state housing and land use laws.

This bill:

1. Provides that a local agency may designate areas where ADUs may be excluded for fire and life safety purposes based on clear findings that are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. Provides that the square footage of a proposed ADU shall not be considered when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio for the lot upon which the ADU is to be located.
3. Provide that no setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory structure that is converted to an ADU, and a setback of no more than three feet from the side and real lines shall be required for an ADU that is not converted from an existing structure.
4. Provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with an ADU or converted into an ADU, a local agency shall not require that those off-street parking spaces be replaced.
5. Reduces the application approval timeframe to 60 days and provides that if a local agency has not acted upon the submitted application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved.
6. Provides that an agreement with a local agency to maintain owner occupancy as a condition for issuance of a building permit for an ADU shall be void as against public policy.
7. Prohibits a local agency from implementing standards for minimum lot size requirements for ADUs and shall allow for the construction of an ADU on any lot that allows for construction of a home, unless specific findings are made by the local agency that the construction of the unit would adversely impact public safety.
8. Prohibits an ADU from being considered by a local agency, school district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for the purpose of calculating fees. An ADU shall not be subject to impact fees, connection fees, capacity charges, or any other fees levied by a local agency, school district, or water corporation.
9. Provides that where a building official finds that a substandard ADU presents an imminent risk to the health and safety of the building’s residents, upon request by an ADU owner, a building official, in consultation with local fire and code enforcement officials, shall approve a delay of not less than 10 years of any California Building Standards Code requirement that is not necessary to protect the health and safety of the building’s residents. The building official shall not approve a delay on or after January 1, 2029. This program shall remain in effect until January 1, 2039.
10. Provides that HCD may notify the AG if a local government has taken an action in violation of ADU law.
11. Permits HCD, after the adoption of an ADU ordinance, to submit findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with ADU law. If HCD finds that the local agency’s ordinance does not substantially comply with ADU law, HCD shall notify the local agency and may notify the AG. The local agency shall consider findings made by HCD and may change the ordinance to comply with ADU law or adopt the ordinance without changes. The local agency shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite HCD’s findings.
12. Permits HCD to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards and criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards in ADU law.

COMMENTS

1. Purpose. According to the author, “California’s historic housing crisis necessitates innovative solutions. Multiple research and policy organizations have recognized accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a critical piece of this solution, including the McKinsey Global Institute, the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, President Obama’s White House and the Terner Center for Housing Innovation. ADUs are affordable by design, costing 50-90% less to build than conventional infill development and are built with no cost to the state. In 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 1069 (Wieckowski, Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016), which eliminated the most onerous barriers to the construction of ADUs. As a result, there has been a proliferation of ADUs in California, with some jurisdictions seeing more than twenty-five times the amount of ADU permit applications in 2017 than the year prior. However, many homeowners continue to face barriers to constructing these units because of the barriers that still remain, such as excessive impact fees, lot size requirements, and code standards. This bill seeks to eliminate the remaining barriers to building ADUs by eliminating fees, creating an amnesty program for pre-existing ADUs, enhancing HCD’s role in enforcing the law, and making changes related to lot-size requirements.”
2. What are ADUs? 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 ADU 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 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 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 that 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 relaxes requirements to the construction and permitting of ADUs by making the following changes:

1. A local agency may determine where ADUs may be excluded, as specified, rather than where they may be permitted.
2. The square footage of a proposed ADU shall not be considered when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio for the lot upon which the ADU is to be located.
3. Eliminates setback requirements for a living area or accessory structure converted to an ADU, and reduces the setback requirement to three feet from five feet for a new ADU.
4. Eliminates parking replacement requirements for garages, carports, or covered parking structures that are converted into ADUs.
5. Reduces the local approval timeframe from 120 days to 60 days. A failure to act within 60 days would result in the approval of the application.
6. Prohibits a local agency from implementing standards for minimum lot size requirements for ADUs and allows for the construction of an ADU on any lot that allows for construction of a home, unless specific findings are made by the local agency that the construction of the unit would adversely impact public safety.
7. Amnesty program. According to a 2016 report by McKinsey and Company entitled A Took Kit to Close California’s Housing Gap: 3.5 Million Homes by 2025, one way to encourage homeowners to add ADUs is to create an amnesty path for ADUs that are not property permitted. According to the report, as many as 8% of the ADUs in San Francisco are illegal. The report concludes that legitimizing these units would boost building compliance and raise property tax revenue.

This bill creates a 10-year amnesty program for substandard ADUSs. The bill grants an ADU owner with a non-compliant ADU a 10 year delay to make necessary changes to bring that ADU up to code. The delay applies to changes that, in the judgment of the local building official, and in consultation with fire and code enforcement officials, is not necessary to protect the health and safety of the building residents.

1. HCD oversight. Current ADU law requires a local agency to submit their ADU ordinances to HCD and permits HCD to review and provide comments on the ordinance. The committee spoke to HCD, who after a brief review, provided examples of calls from constituents:
2. Monterey County – No ADU ordinance at this time, but using provisions of the zoning code and general plan that are dated prior to the update of the current ADU statute
3. Downey – Adopted an interim ordinance to create a moratorium for the creation of ADU
4. Artesia – Limited minimum lot size to 10,000 sq. ft., resulting in a potential prohibition of the creation of ADU, as most lot sizes are around 5,000 sq. ft.
5. Coronado, La Habra, and Imperial Beach – Require replacement parking structures when an existing garage is converted to an ADU
6. West Covina – Limited minimum lot size to 12,000 sq. ft. and excessive side and rear setbacks

This bill would strengthen oversight over local ordinances by permitting HCD, after the adoption of an ADU ordinance, to submit findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with ADU law. If HCD finds that the local agency’s ordinance does not substantially comply with ADU law, HCD shall notify the local agency and may notify the AG.

1. Owner-Occupancy Issue. Some jurisdictions, as authorized under existing law, have required the owner of the property to reside in the main home or in the ADU. The author has provided examples of lenders who have stated in writing that these covenants can preclude the lender from occupying the property if the lender must foreclose on the property. One letter states that if a property owner agrees to such a covenant, the owner could already be in violation of their deed of trust on the property and it “effectively transfers some of the rights from the property to the City, which could trigger a due on sale clause.”

This bill would strike the provision under existing law permitting a city to require a homeowner to reside in the property or in the ADU.

1. Fees. In 2016, the Legislature again revised the ADU law to reduce duplicative fees and reduce other barriers to the construction and approval of ADUs. As a result, ADU permit applications throughout the state have dramatically increased. A report by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center of Housing Innovation recently discovered, however, that development and school fees, as well as lot size requirements and code standards, continue to suppress the construction of ADUs. ADUs are often charged with the same impact fees that a new home would be subject to. These fees can range anywhere between $5,000 and $60,000 and would not be charged to a homeowner for simply building an additional bathroom or bedroom.

The imposition of development fees serves many purposes; cities may charge fees to pay for the services they provide during the development process, as well as to offset the costs of new development incurred by the larger community. These fees, commonly known as impact or mitigation fees go towards infrastructure development (such as adding lanes to roads or supporting additional traffic) or other public benefits (such as new parks, schools, or affordable housing). Utilities impact fees pay for expansions of water, sewer, electricity, and gas infrastructure. In the wake of the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 and the loss of significant amount of property tax revenue, local governments have also turned to development fees as a means to generate revenue. Given that California cities have tightly restricted funding sources, fees are one of the few ways that cities can pay for the indirect cost of growth.

Last year, as part of the 2017 Housing Package, the Legislature passed AB 879 (Grayson, Chapter 374), which requires HCD to complete a study to evaluate the reasonableness of local feels charged to new developments. The study, which is due to the Legislature by June 30^th, 2019, must include findings and recommendations regarding amendments to existing law to substantially reduce fees for residential development.

Current law states that an ADU shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for the purpose of calculating fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer fees. An ADU that is contained within an existing structure or living space shall not require an applicant to install a new or separate utility connection and the utility shall not impose a related connection fee or capacity charge. For newly built ADUs, the local agency, special district, or water corporation may require a new or separate utility connection. The connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed ADU, either by its size or number of plumbing fixtures upon the water or sewer system. This fee shall not exceed the reasonable costs of providing this service. This bill would exempt an ADU from impact fees, connection fees, capacity charges, or any other fees levied by a local agency, school district, or water corporation. The author may wish to consider removing provisions that limit or remove the ability for a local government to impose fees until the study has been completed.

1. Opposition. The American Planning Association — California Chapter and several local agencies and associations representing them write in opposition to the prohibition against imposing fees related to services such as water and sanitation. Pursuant to the California Constitution and the Government Code, local agencies are already required to charge only the reasonable cost of providing services. Due to these requirements, local agencies may not waive, discount, or establish different rates that pass on costs associated with obtaining water and wastewater services to the general consumer base or to other fee payers. New ADUs will require additional connections and impose increased demand, which are offset by the imposition of these fees. The American Planning Association notes that these additional services will have to be paid for elsewhere.

Cities writing in opposition echo concerns raised by local agencies, as well as the reduction in parking requirements and lot size requirements. Cities state these changes undermine local planning authority and the ability for cities to mitigate their impacts.

1. Double-referral. This bill is double-referred to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.

Related Legislation:

AB 72 (Santiago, Chapter 370, Statutes of 2017) — gave HCD authority to find a city’s, county’s, or city's and county's housing element out of substantial compliance if it determines that the city, county, or city and county acts or fails to act in compliance with its housing element, and allows HCD to refer violations of law to the AG.

AB 494 (Bloom, Chapter 602, Statutes of 2017) — made technical, clarifying changes to ADU law.

SB 229 (Wieckowski, Chapter 594, Statutes of 2017) — made several changes to ADU law.

AB 2299 (Bloom, Chapter 735, Statutes of 2016) — made several changes to the ADU law.

SB 1069 (Wieckowski, chapter 720, Statutes of 2016) —made several changes to ADU law.

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

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

April 11, 2018.)

SUPPORT:

Bay Area Council (Sponsor)

AARP

Abundant Housing LA

ADU Builder, Inc.

Basis Studio

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)

Bridge Housing

Build

California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors

California Building Industry Association (CBIA)

California Community Builders

California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund

California YIMBY

Coalition for Supportive Housing

Cover

Crest Backyard Homes

Corporation for Supportive Housing

The Fairmont San Francisco

Half Moon Bay Brewing Co.

Heller Manus Architects

HKS Architects

Inn at Mavericks

LA Más

Los Angeles Business Council (LABC)

Mavericks Event Center

McKinsey and Company

North Bay Leadership Council

Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California

Pacific Standard

Postmates

Resources for Community Development

ReVisions Resources

Rise Together

San Diego County Apartment Association

San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)

San Francisco Housing Action Coalition

San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA)

Shorenstein Properties

SV Angel

Tim Lewis Communities

TMG Partners

Wareham Development

Webcor

1 Individual

OPPOSITION:

American Planning Association – California Chapter

Association of California School Administrators

Association of California Water Agencies

California Association of Sanitation Agencies

California Association of School Business Officials

California Coalition for Adequate School Housing

California Contract Cities Association

California Municipal Utilities Association

California School Board Association

California Special Districts Association

City of Camarillo

City of Coronado

City of Fullerton

City of Glendora

City of Hawthorne

City of Huntington Beach

City of Lake Forest

City of Lakewood
City of San Marcos

County of Del Norte

Desert Water Agency

East Orange County Water District

El Dorado Irrigation District

Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers

Orange County Sanitation District

-- END --