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 required ordinance standards, including, among others, maximum unit size, parking, and height standards.

This bill would prohibit an ordinance from imposing requirements on minimum lot size, lot coverage, or floor area ratio, and would prohibit an ordinance from establishing size requirements for accessory dwelling units that do not permit at least an 800 square feet unit of at least 16 feet in height to be constructed.

Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve or deny a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit within 120 days of receiving the application.

This bill would instead require a local agency to ministerially approve or deny a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit permit within 60 days of receipt.

Existing law requires ministerial approval of a permit to create one accessory dwelling unit within a single-family dwelling, subject to specified conditions and requirements.

This bill would require ministerial approval of an application for a permit to create one or more accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units on a single-family dwelling or multifamily dwelling, subject to specified conditions and requirements.

Existing law authorizes a local agency ordinance for accessory dwelling units to require that a permit applicant be an owner-occupant or that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.

This bill would provide that, if a local agency imposes an owner-occupancy restriction, the monitoring for compliance shall not be more frequent than annually and be based on specified published documents. The bill would describe owner-occupant for purposes of that requirement.

Existing law authorizes a local agency to adopt an ordinance providing for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units in single-family residential zones, and requires a local agency to ministerially approve or deny an application for a junior accessory dwelling unit within 120 days of submission of the application.

This bill would instead require a local agency to ministerially approve or deny an application for a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days of submission of the application. The bill would require a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units to apply the same standards established by this bill for local agencies with ordinances.

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

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

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 68

Author:(Ting)

As Amended Ver:September 9, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

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

The Senate Amendments:

1. Remove the ability for an ADU attached to an existing primary dwelling to go up to 1,200 square feet unless the primary dwelling is 2,400 square feet or more.
2. Enable the 60 day period ADU permit approval period to be extended in the instance that the ADU is being proposed along with a new single-family home, although the ADU itself must be ministerially permitted, and that the 60 day period may be tolled against the review of the single-family home upon request of the applicant.
3. Clarify that an ADU built "substantially" within an existing building may not include an expansion of more than 150 square feet beyond the existing structure, limited to ingress and egress.
4. Require a local agency to allow and ministerially approve at least one accessory dwelling unit and up to 25 percent of the existing units in a multifamily building.
5. Allow a local agency to require as part of a permit application for an ADU on a lot with an onsite water treatment system a percolation test completed within the last 5 years or if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.
6. Allow HCD to consider whether a local agency has attempted to comply with state law before referring them to the Attorney General for any violations.
7. Define "proposed dwelling" as a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application that meets the requirements for permitting.
8. Make other conforming and chaptering changes.

COMMENTS:

ADUs have been identified as an important piece of the solution to California's housing crisis. Over the past few years, the legislature has passed a number of bills to ease zoning restrictions and expedite approval processes at the local level, which has contributed to the increased supply of ADUs throughout the state. For example, in the city of Los Angeles, since 2017 a total of 9,247 applications have been received for ADUs. This represents an approximate 30-fold increase as compared to the citywide average in the many years before the state law changed to reduce barriers to ADUs. Similarly, the city of Santa Rosa received 118 applications for ADUs in 2018, compared to 54 total from 2008-2016.

This bill makes major changes to the ADU statute to facilitate the development of more ADUs and addressed perceived barriers to ADUs, including the following:

1. Increases the number of ADUs allowed to be constructed per lot by potentially allowing two ADUs on lots with single-family homes, and multiple ADUs on lots with multi-family dwellings;
2. Enables ADUs and JADUs to be approved ministerially if there is an existing or proposed primary residence;
3. Prohibits a local ADU ordinance from:
   1. Imposing requirements on minimum lot size to allow ADUs;
   2. Setting a maximum ADU dimensions that do not permit an ADU of 850 square feet for an ADU or one or fewer bedrooms and 1,000 square feet for two or more bedrooms, 16 feet in height, with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks;
   3. Requiring replacement parking when parking is demolished in the creation of an ADU;
   4. Requiring a setback for an ADU that is built within an existing structure or in the same footprint as an existing structure, and require more than a four-foot setback for all other ADUs;
4. Allows no more than 60 days to ministerially consider a completed ADU permit application; and
5. Increases enforcement, including enabling HCD to notify the Attorney General when a local agency is in violation of this law. 

According to the Author:

ADUs have surged in popularity as a way to address California's housing crisis as demand outpaces supply. AB 68 will remove remaining barriers to the widespread adoption of ADUs as low-cost, energy efficient, affordable housing that can go from policy to permit in 12 months.

Arguments in Support:

According to UC Berkeley's Urban Displacement Project, "Recent state efforts to incentivize the construction of ADUs have resulted in more communities and families building ADUs as a cost efficient way to address the affordable housing crisis. By further reducing barriers to ADU approval and construction, this legislation will help add tens of thousands of new units to California's housing stock." The California Association of Realtors notes that the bill "will help alleviate our housing shortage while capitalizing on limited land resources."

Arguments in Opposition:

According to the Cities Association of Santa Clara County, "AB 68 would prohibit a local jurisdiction from requiring a property owner live in the main house or one of the accessory structures. This would incentivize operating the property as a commercial enterprise and could have the unintended effect of large-scale investors purchasing many single-family homes and adding ADUs, thus operating more like a property management company, not a homeowner seeking some additional income. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted into an ADU, AB 68 would prohibit a city from requiring replacement parking. This would only exacerbate existing parking conflicts because cities are currently prohibited from imposing parking requirements on new ADUs if they are within one-half mile of transit."

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

1. Estimated costs to HCD of $353,000 (General Fund (GF)) in the first year and $328,000 (GF) annually thereafter to provide technical assistance to local governments and for enforcement activities, including referring cases to the Attorney General's office.
2. Local state mandated costs incurred by local agencies as a result of this bill are not reimbursable by the state because local agencies can levy fees to cover these costs.

VOTES:

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 6-0-2

YES: Chiu, Gabriel, Gloria, Kiley, Bonta, Mark Stone

ABS, ABST OR NV: Diep, Limón

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 6-1-1

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bloom, Ramos, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Voepel

NO: Lackey

ABS, ABST OR NV: Boerner Horvath

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-1-2

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Obernolte, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow

ABS, ABST OR NV: Diep, Fong

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-10-9

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, Patterson, Quirk‑Silva, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO: Bigelow, Diep, Irwin, Lackey, Melendez, Muratsuchi, O'Donnell, Ramos, Smith, Waldron

ABS, ABST OR NV: Chen, Cooley, Dahle, Fong, Eduardo Garcia, Kiley, Limón, Petrie-Norris, Quirk

UPDATED:

VERSION: September 9, 2019

CONSULTANT: Steve Wertheim / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0002464

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 68

Author: Ting (D), et al.

Amended: 9/9/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/18/19

AYES: Wiener, Morrell, Caballero, Durazo, McGuire, Roth, Skinner, Umberg, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Moorlach

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 4-1, 7/3/19

AYES: Allen, Hill, Skinner, Wieckowski

NOES: Stern

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Dahle

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 7/10/19

AYES: McGuire, Beall, Hertzberg, Hurtado, Nielsen, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/30/19

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Durazo, Hill, Wieckowski

NOES: Bates, Jones

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-10, 5/22/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Land use: accessory dwelling units

SOURCE: California YIMBY

DIGEST:

This bill makes a number of changes to existing law governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Senate Floor Amendments of 9/9/19 make several clarifying changes and address chaptering issues.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that if a locality adopts an ADU ordinance in areas zoned for single-family or multifamily housing, it must do all of the following:
   1. Designate areas where ADUs may be permitted.
   2. Impose certain standards on ADUs such as parking and size requirements.
   3. Prohibit an ADU from exceeding the allowable density for the lot.
   4. Require ADUs to comply with certain requirements such as setbacks.
2. Requires ministerial approval of an ADU permit within 120 days.
3. Allows a locality to establish minimum and maximum unit sizes for both attached and detached ADUs.
4. Restricts the parking standards a locality may impose on an ADU.
5. Allows a local agency to require that an applicant be an owner-occupant or that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.
6. Provides that 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 service.
7. Requires a local agency to submit a copy of its ADU ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) within 60 days of adopting it and authorizes HCD to review and comment on the ordinance.

This bill:

1. Requires a local agency to ministerially approve, in an area zoned for residential or mixed-use, an application for a building permit to create an ADU and a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) as follows:
   1. The ADU or JADU that is within a proposed or existing structure, or the same footprint as the existing structure, provided the space has exterior access from the proposed or existing structure and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.
   2. One detached ADU that is within a proposed or existing structure or the same footprint as the existing structure, along with one JADU, that may be subject to a size limit of 800 square feet, a height limit of 16 feet, and side and rear yard setbacks of four feet.
2. Requires a local agency to ministerially approve, on a lot with a multifamily dwelling:
   1. Multiple ADUs within the existing structures that are not used as livable space, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.
   2. Two detached ADUs that are subject to a height limit of 16 feet and rear and side yard setbacks of four feet.
3. Prohibits a local ADU ordinance from:
   1. Imposing standards on ADUs that include requirements on lot coverage or minimum lot size.
   2. Setting a maximum ADU size that does not allow an ADU of at least 800 square feet and 16 feet in height.
   3. Requiring replacement parking when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in the creation of an ADU, or is converted to an ADU.
   4. Requiring a setback for ADUs within existing structures, and new ADUs located in the same location and footprint as existing structures, and no more than a four-foot side and rear yard setback.
   5. Allowing more than 60 days to ministerially approve an ADU or JADU permit application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, as specified.
   6. Requiring, as a condition for ministerial approval of an application for creation of an ADU or JADU, correction of nonconforming conditions, defined as a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
4. Provides that the total floor area of an attached ADU cannot exceed 50% of the existing primary dwelling.
5. Caps the number of ADUs that must be ministerially approved within an existing multifamily dwelling at one ADU and up to 25% of existing units thereafter.
6. Allows a local agency to require, for creation of an ADU connected to an onsite water treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last five years, as specified.
7. Provides that JADUs must be allowed within proposed single-family residences and eliminates certain requirements relating to interior entry to the main living area, waste lines, and electrical service minimums.
8. Requires a local agency to mandate a minimum of 30 days on ADU rentals.
9. Allows HCD, if it finds a local ADU ordinance is not compliant with ADU law, to provide the local agency up to 30 days to respond to the findings. If the local agency does not either amend its ordinance to comply with HCD’s findings, or adopt a resolution explaining why it disputes HCD’s findings, HCD may notify the Attorney General that the locality is in violation of state law.

Background

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 ADU ordinances must meet specified parameters outlined in existing state law. Local governments may also adopt ordinances for JADUs, which are no more than 500 square feet and are bedrooms within 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. HCD notes that “ADUs are an innovative, affordable, effective option for adding much-needed housing in California.”

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.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. The author states that ADUs have surged in popularity as a way to address California’s housing crisis as demand outpaces supply. This bill will remove the remaining barriers to the widespread adoption of ADUs as low-cost, energy-efficient, affordable housing that can go from policy to permit in 12 months.
2. Ministerial approval. Cities and counties enact zoning ordinances to implement their general plans. Zoning determines the type of housing that may be built. Some local ordinances provide “ministerial” processes for approving projects – the zoning ordinance clearly states that a particular use is allowable, and local government does not have any discretion regarding approval of the permit if the application is complete. Projects reviewed ministerially require only an administrative review designed to ensure they are consistent with existing general plan and zoning rules, as well as meeting standards for building quality, health, and safety. This bill expands the scope of ADUs that a locality must ministerially approve.
3. Key provisions. Major provisions of this bill include:
   1. Ministerial approval requirements. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve an application for one ADU per single-family lot if the unit is contained within the existing space of the single-family dwelling or accessory structure, has independent exterior access from the existing residence, and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety. This bill instead requires ministerial approval of one ADU and one JADU per lot that is within an existing structure, as specified; one detached ADU within a proposed or existing structure or the same footprint as the existing structure, along with one JADU, as specified; multiple ADUs within existing multifamily structures; or two detached ADUs on a multifamily lot, as specified.
   2. Size of ADUs. Existing law requires an ADU ordinance that provides for minimum and maximum ADU size, to allow for at least an efficiency unit (150 square feet). This bill instead provides for an ADU of at least 800 square feet and at least 16 feet high.
   3. Zoning. Existing law applies ministerial approval requirements to ADUs in residential zones. This bill instead expands the ministerial approval requirement to residential and mixed-use zones.
   4. Owner occupancy and short-term rental requirements. Existing law allows a local ADU ordinance to require owner occupancy for either the primary dwelling or the ADU, and to require that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days. This bill eliminates a locality’s authority to require owner occupancy and requires that a locality mandate minimum 30-day rentals for ADUs.
   5. Impact fees. Existing law provides that 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 service. This bill allows an ADU to be considered for connection fees or capacity charges if it is constructed in conjunction with a new single-family dwelling.
   6. Parking requirements. Existing law allows a local agency to require replacement parking when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in the construction of an ADU, or converted to an ADU. This bill eliminates that authority.
   7. HCD oversight. Existing law requires a local agency to submit its ADU ordinance to HCD for review and allows HCD to provide comments. This bill strengthens oversight over local ADU ordinances by allowing HCD to submit findings to the local agency if it finds the ordinance does not substantially comply with ADU statute. This bill also allows HCD to notify the Attorney General if it finds the ordinance is not compliant and the local agency chooses not to amend it into compliance.
4. Other ADU bills. Multiple ADU bills have been introduced again this year. The two bills that overlap most with this bill are AB 881 (Bloom) and SB 13 (Wieckowski). The authors have amended the three bills so that they no longer conflict.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• HCD estimates ongoing staffing costs of approximately $328,000 annually to provide technical assistance, review and comment on ADU ordinances, and refer ordinances that violate state law to the Attorney General. (General Fund)
• Unknown local costs to revise ordinances and change policies and procedures regarding ADU permit applications. These costs are not state-reimbursable because cities and counties have the authority to recover costs through fees. (local funds)

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/10/19)

California YIMBY (source)
AARP California
ADU Task Force East Bay
Association of Bay Area Governments
Bay Area Council
Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition 
Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative
Bridge Housing Corporation
Building Industry Association of the Bay Area
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Community Builders
California Forward Action Fund
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Center on Policy Initiatives
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
CityLab – University of California, Los Angeles
Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
EAH Housing
East Bay Housing Organizations
Eden Housing
Emerald Fund
Enterprise Community Partners, Inc.
Eric Garcetti, Mayor of Los Angeles
Facebook, Inc.
Greenbelt Alliance
Habitat for Humanity California
Hamilton Families
Hello Housing
Inspired Independence 
League of Women Voters of California
Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MidPen Housing Corporation
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
North Bay Leadership Council
Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development
Partnership for Working Families
Pico California
Related California
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
Silicon Valley at Home
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
Southern California Rental Housing Association
Spur
TechEquity Collaborative
Tent Makers
Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley
The Casita Coalition
The Two Hundred
TMG Partners
United Dwelling
Urban Displacement Project, University of California, Berkeley
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Warehouse Worker Resource Center
Working Partnerships USA
13 Individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/10/19)

Board of Supervisors for the City and County of San Francisco

Cities of Beverly Hills, Burbank, Camarillo, Chino Hills, Fullerton, Los Alamitos, Los Altos, Manhattan Beach, Monterey Park, Morgan Hill, Novato, Pleasanton, Rancho Cucamonga, San Dimas, San Marcos, San Mateo, Santa Clarita, and Torrance

Cities Association of Santa Clara County

Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco

League of California Cities

Livable California

Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members

South Bay Cities Council of Governments

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: California YIMBY, sponsor of this bill, states that recent state efforts to incentivize construction of ADUs have resulted in more communities and families building ADUs. By providing cost-effective guidelines and incentivizing local agencies to follow them, this bill will help combat California’s housing shortage by adding thousands of new units to the state’s housing stock.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A number of cities, along with the League of California Cities, state that this bill circumvents local ordinances that may exclude ADUs for criteria based on health and safety; potentially incentivizes large-scale investors to purchase many single-family homes and add ADUs; and will exacerbate parking conflicts.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-10, 5/22/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, Patterson, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Bigelow, Diep, Irwin, Lackey, Melendez, Muratsuchi, O'Donnell, Ramos, Smith, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Chen, Cooley, Dahle, Fong, Eduardo Garcia, Kiley, Limón, Petrie-Norris, Quirk

Prepared by: Erin Riches / HOUSING / (916) 651-4124

9/10/19 22:11:30

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 68

Author: Ting (D), et al.

Amended: 7/5/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/18/19

AYES: Wiener, Morrell, Caballero, Durazo, McGuire, Roth, Skinner, Umberg, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Moorlach

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 4-1, 7/3/19

AYES: Allen, Hill, Skinner, Wieckowski

NOES: Stern

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Dahle

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 7/10/19

AYES: McGuire, Beall, Hertzberg, Hurtado, Nielsen, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/30/19

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Durazo, Hill, Wieckowski

NOES: Bates, Jones

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-10, 5/22/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Land use: accessory dwelling units

SOURCE: California YIMBY

DIGEST:

This bill makes a number of changes to existing law governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that if a locality adopts an ADU ordinance in areas zoned for single-family or multifamily housing, it must do all of the following:
   1. Designate areas where ADUs may be permitted.
   2. Impose certain standards on ADUs such as parking and size requirements.
   3. Prohibit an ADU from exceeding the allowable density for the lot.
   4. Require ADUs to comply with certain requirements such as setbacks.
2. Requires ministerial approval of an ADU permit within 120 days.
3. Allows a locality to establish minimum and maximum unit sizes for both attached and detached ADUs.
4. Restricts the parking standards a locality may impose on an ADU.
5. Allows a local agency to require that an applicant be an owner-occupant or that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.
6. Provides that 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 service.
7. Requires a local agency to submit a copy of its ADU ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) within 60 days of adopting it and authorizes HCD to review and comment on the ordinance.

This bill:

1. Requires a local agency to ministerially approve, in an area zoned for residential or mixed-use, an application for a building permit to create an ADU and a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) as follows:
   1. The ADU or JADU that is within a proposed or existing structure, or the same footprint as the existing structure, provided the space has exterior access from the proposed or existing structure and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.
   2. One detached ADU that is within a proposed or existing structure or the same footprint as the existing structure, along with one JADU, that may be subject to a size limit of 800 square feet, a height limit of 16 feet, and side and rear yard setbacks of four feet.
2. Requires a local agency to ministerially approve, on a lot with a multifamily dwelling:
   1. Multiple ADUs within the existing structures that are not used as livable space, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.
   2. Two detached ADUs that are subject to a height limit of 16 feet and rear and side yard setbacks of four feet.
3. Prohibits a local ADU ordinance from:
   1. Imposing standards on ADUs that include requirements on lot coverage or minimum lot size.
   2. Setting a maximum ADU size that does not allow an ADU of at least 800 square feet and 16 feet in height.
   3. Requiring replacement parking when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in the creation of an ADU, or is converted to an ADU.
   4. Requiring a setback for ADUs within existing structures, and new ADUs located in the same location and footprint as existing structures, and no more than a four-foot side and rear yard setback.
   5. Allowing more than 60 days to ministerially approve an ADU or JADU permit application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, as specified.
   6. Requiring, as a condition for ministerial approval of an application for creation of an ADU or JADU, correction of nonconforming conditions, defined as a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
4. Provides that the total floor area of an attached ADU cannot exceed 50% of the existing primary dwelling.
5. Caps the number of ADUs that must be ministerially approved within an existing multifamily dwelling at one ADU and up to 25% of existing units thereafter.
6. Allows a local agency to require, for creation of an ADU connected to an onsite water treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last five years, as specified.
7. Provides that JADUs must be allowed within proposed single-family residences and eliminates certain requirements relating to interior entry to the main living area, waste lines, and electrical service minimums.
8. Requires a local agency to mandate a minimum of 30 days on ADU rentals.
9. Allows HCD, if it finds a local ADU ordinance is not compliant with ADU law, to provide the local agency up to 30 days to respond to the findings. If the local agency does not either amend its ordinance to comply with HCD’s findings, or adopt a resolution explaining why it disputes HCD’s findings, HCD may notify the Attorney General that the locality is in violation of state law.

Background

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 ADU ordinances must meet specified parameters outlined in existing state law. Local governments may also adopt ordinances for JADUs, which are no more than 500 square feet and are bedrooms within 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. HCD notes that “ADUs are an innovative, affordable, effective option for adding much-needed housing in California.”

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.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. The author states that ADUs have surged in popularity as a way to address California’s housing crisis as demand outpaces supply. This bill will remove the remaining barriers to the widespread adoption of ADUs as low-cost, energy-efficient, affordable housing that can go from policy to permit in 12 months.
2. Ministerial approval. Cities and counties enact zoning ordinances to implement their general plans. Zoning determines the type of housing that may be built. Some local ordinances provide “ministerial” processes for approving projects – the zoning ordinance clearly states that a particular use is allowable, and local government does not have any discretion regarding approval of the permit if the application is complete. Projects reviewed ministerially require only an administrative review designed to ensure they are consistent with existing general plan and zoning rules, as well as meeting standards for building quality, health, and safety. This bill expands the scope of ADUs that a locality must ministerially approve.
3. Key provisions. Major provisions of this bill include:
   1. Ministerial approval requirements. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve an application for one ADU per single-family lot if the unit is contained within the existing space of the single-family dwelling or accessory structure, has independent exterior access from the existing residence, and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety. This bill instead requires ministerial approval of one ADU and one JADU per lot that is within an existing structure, as specified; one detached ADU within a proposed or existing structure or the same footprint as the existing structure, along with one JADU, as specified; multiple ADUs within existing multifamily structures; or two detached ADUs on a multifamily lot, as specified.
   2. Size of ADUs. Existing law requires an ADU ordinance that provides for minimum and maximum ADU size, to allow for at least an efficiency unit (150 square feet). This bill instead provides for an ADU of at least 800 square feet and at least 16 feet high.
   3. Zoning. Existing law applies ministerial approval requirements to ADUs in residential zones. This bill instead expands the ministerial approval requirement to residential and mixed-use zones.
   4. Owner occupancy and short-term rental requirements. Existing law allows a local ADU ordinance to require owner occupancy for either the primary dwelling or the ADU, and to require that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days. This bill preserves a locality’s authority to require owner occupancy and requires that a locality mandate minimum 30-day rentals for ADUs.
   5. Impact fees. Existing law provides that 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 service. This bill allows an ADU to be considered for connection fees or capacity charges if it is constructed in conjunction with a new single-family dwelling.
   6. Parking requirements. Existing law allows a local agency to require replacement parking when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in the construction of an ADU, or converted to an ADU. This bill eliminates that authority.
   7. HCD oversight. Existing law requires a local agency to submit its ADU ordinance to HCD for review and allows HCD to provide comments. This bill strengthens oversight over local ADU ordinances by allowing HCD to submit findings to the local agency if it finds the ordinance does not substantially comply with ADU statute. This bill also allows HCD to notify the Attorney General if it finds the ordinance is not compliant and the local agency chooses not to amend it into compliance.
4. Other ADU bills. Multiple ADU bills have been introduced again this year. The two bills that overlap most with this bill are AB 881 (Bloom) and SB 13 (Wieckowski). The authors have been working on amendments to reduce conflicts among the three bills, but at this point key differences include:

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• HCD estimates ongoing staffing costs of approximately $328,000 annually to provide technical assistance, review and comment on ADU ordinances, and refer ordinances that violate state law to the Attorney General. (General Fund)
• Unknown local costs to revise ordinances and change policies and procedures regarding ADU permit applications. These costs are not state-reimbursable because cities and counties have the authority to recover costs through fees. (local funds)

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/30/19)

California YIMBY (source)
AARP California
ADU Task Force East Bay
Association of Bay Area Governments
Bay Area Council
Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition 
Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative
Bridge Housing Corporation
Building Industry Association of the Bay Area
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Community Builders
California Forward Action Fund
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Center on Policy Initiatives
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
CityLab – University of California, Los Angeles
Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
EAH Housing
East Bay Housing Organizations
Eden Housing
Emerald Fund
Enterprise Community Partners, Inc.
Eric Garcetti, Mayor of Los Angeles
Facebook, Inc.
Greenbelt Alliance
Habitat for Humanity California
Hamilton Families
Hello Housing
Inspired Independence 
League of Women Voters of California
Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MidPen Housing Corporation
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
North Bay Leadership Council
Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development
Partnership for Working Families
Pico California
Related California
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
Silicon Valley at Home
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
Southern California Rental Housing Association
Spur
TechEquity Collaborative
Tent Makers
Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley
The Casita Coalition
The Two Hundred
TMG Partners
United Dwelling
Urban Displacement Project, University of California, Berkeley
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Warehouse Worker Resource Center
Working Partnerships USA
13 Individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/30/19)

Board of Supervisors for the City and County of San Francisco

Cities of Beverly Hills, Burbank, Camarillo, Chino Hills, Fullerton, Los Alamitos, Los Altos, Manhattan Beach, Monterey Park, Morgan Hill, Novato, Pleasanton, Rancho Cucamonga, San Dimas, San Marcos, San Mateo, Santa Clarita, and Torrance

Cities Association of Santa Clara County

Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco

League of California Cities

Livable California

Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members

South Bay Cities Council of Governments

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: California YIMBY, sponsor of this bill, states that recent state efforts to incentivize construction of ADUs have resulted in more communities and families building ADUs. By providing cost-effective guidelines and incentivizing local agencies to follow them, this bill will help combat California’s housing shortage by adding thousands of new units to the state’s housing stock.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A number of cities, along with the League of California Cities, state that this bill circumvents local ordinances that may exclude ADUs for criteria based on health and safety; potentially incentivizes large-scale investors to purchase many single-family homes and add ADUs; and will exacerbate parking conflicts.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-10, 5/22/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, Patterson, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Bigelow, Diep, Irwin, Lackey, Melendez, Muratsuchi, O'Donnell, Ramos, Smith, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Chen, Cooley, Dahle, Fong, Eduardo Garcia, Kiley, Limón, Petrie-Norris, Quirk

Prepared by: Erin Riches / HOUSING / (916) 651-4124

9/1/19 14:03:09

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 68 (Ting) - Land use: accessory dwelling units

Bill Summary:

AB 68 would restrict the conditions that local governments may impose on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs), authorize the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to submit written findings to a local agency regarding its ADU ordinance, authorize HCD to refer violations to the Attorney General (AG), and make other changes to ADU and JADU law.

Fiscal Impact:

• HCD estimates ongoing staffing costs of approximately $328,000 annually to provide technical assistance, review and comment on ADU ordinances, and refer ordinances that violate state law to the Attorney General. (General Fund)
  
• Unknown local costs to revise ordinances and change policies and procedures regarding ADU permit applications. These costs are not state-reimbursable because cities and counties have the authority to recover costs through fees. (local funds)

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:

AB 68 would, among other things, do the following:

• Prohibit a local ADU ordinance from imposing standards that include requirements on minimum lot size.
• Repeal the current 1,200 square foot limit for attached ADUs, while retaining that limit for detached ADUs.
• Prohibit a local ADU ordinance from establishing requirements that do not permit construction of an ADU that is at least an 800 square feet in area, at least 16 feet in height, and with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks.
• Prohibit setback requirements for ADUs converted from existing structures or new structures in the same location and dimensions as the existing structure, and prohibit setbacks of more than four feet for all other detached ADUs.
• Prohibit local agencies from requiring replacement of off-street parking when it is demolished to construct an ADU.
• Reduce the time period for ministerial approval of an ADU or JADU building permit from 120 days to 60 days of receiving a completed application, and allow a local agency to delay action on an application until it acts on the primary dwelling if an ADU or JADU is proposed in conjunction with the development of a new single-family dwelling.
• Prohibit a local agency from requiring, as a condition of ministerial approval, the correcting of nonconforming conditions, defined as a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
• Require a local agency to ministerially approve an application for a building permit to create any of the following in a residential or mixed-use zone:
  • One accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per lot with a single-family dwelling if all of the following apply:
    • The ADU or JADU is within the proposed space of a new single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure, and may include an expansion of up to 150 square feet beyond the physical dimensions of the existing structure if necessary for accommodating ingress and egress.
    • The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling.
    • The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and life safety.
    • The JADU complies with specified requirements.
  • One detached new construction single story ADU that does not exceed four-feet side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. This ADU may be combined with a JADU, and a local agency can impose a maximum floor area of not more than 800 square feet and height of 16 feet.
  • Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as a livable space, as specified, if each unit complies with building standards for dwellings. A local agency must allow at least one unit and up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily units.
  • No 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 a height limit of 16 feet and four-foot rear yard and side setbacks.
• Require an ADU to be rented for more than 30 days at a time, and allow local agencies to require owner occupancy.
• Specify that the above provisions related to multifamily ADUs do not apply if a local agency adopted an ordinance by July 1, 2018 that provides for multifamily ADUs.
• Authorize local agencies to impose connection fees and capacity charges on an ADU as a residential use if it is constructed in conjunction with a new single-family home, regardless of existing limits on charging those fees for ADUs.
• Authorize HCD to submit written findings to the local agency after adoption of an ADU ordinance as to whether the ordinance complies with this section.
• If the department finds that the local agency’s ordinance is not in compliance, HCD shall notify the local agency and may notify the AG that the local agency is in violation of state law, as specified. The local agency must consider HCD’s findings and may either change the ordinance or adopt it without changes if it makes specified written findings. Before notifying the AG, HCD may consider whether a local agency adopted a compliant ordinance between January 1, 2017 and January 1, 2020.
• Allow JADUs to be constructed within proposed dwellings, conform JADU law to the provisions of ADU law, require a local agency that has not adopted a JADU ordinance to follow the statutory standards for approval of a permit to construct a JADU, and loosen certain prescriptive requirements under JADU law.

Related Legislation:

SB 13 (Wieckowski), which is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, would make a number of changes to ADU law, including prohibiting owner occupancy requirements, capping developer fees that local agencies may charge for ADUs, and authorizing HCD to comment on ordinances and refer violations to the AG.

AB 69 (Ting), which is pending in this Committee, would require HCD to propose building standards for ADUs and Junior ADUs, as specified.

AB 881 (Bloom), which is pending in this Committee, would make a number of changes to ADU law, including expanding ministerial approval of ADUs, and removing owner-occupancy requirements until January 1, 2025, as specified.

Last year, the Legislature considered three bills that would make various changes to ADU law in an effort to streamline approvals and remove barriers to development. SB 831 (Wieckowski) was held in the Assembly Local Government Committee, SB 1469 (Skinner) was held on the Suspense File in this committee, and AB 2890 was held in the Senate Rules Committee. Staff notes that SB 831 was amended when it was approved by this committee to include certain provisions from SB 1469. Those bills contained similar provisions to this bill; in particular, AB 2890 included many of the provisions that are in AB 68.

Staff Comments:

While this bill is keyed as a state-mandated local program, local costs are not 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 imposed by the bill.

Recommended Amendments:

This bill has chaptering conflicts with SB 13 (Wieckowski), AB 586 (Friedman), and AB 881 (Bloom). The author should consider amending the bill to address those conflicts prior to final consideration on the Senate Floor.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Mike McGuire, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Land use: accessory dwelling units

Expands the types of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that must be permitted, regardless of local regulations, and makes numerous other changes to ADU law.

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 AB 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. AB 2408 (Thurmond, 2016) also allowed local agencies to adopt an ordinance regulating Junior ADUs (JADUs), which are smaller ADUs that are under 500 square feet and are contained entirely within an existing single-family structure. In 2017, the Legislature made further changes to ADU law to clarify portions of the law (SB 229, Wieckowski 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 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 on 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.

Advocates for new housing want to address some of these remaining barriers.

Proposed Law

Assembly Bill 68 makes several changes to the statutes governing local permitting of ADUs.

Local zoning and permitting. Current law says a local 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, such as lot coverage requirements, minimum lot sizes, and floor-to-area ratios. AB 68 prohibits a local agency from applying minimum lot sizes to an ADU. Current law allows a local ordinance to set height limits, as well as minimum and maximum sizes of ADUs, up to 1,200 square feet or 50 percent of the proposed or existing dwelling space, whichever is larger. AB 68 repeals the 1,200 square foot limit for attached ADUs, but retains it for detached ADUs. Current law requires local ordinances to permit at least an efficiency unit (roughly 300 square feet). AB 68 prohibits local agencies from imposing any zoning rules that would block the construction of an ADU that is less than 800 square feet in area, 16 feet tall, and with at least four-foot side and rear yard setbacks.

Current law prohibits any setback requirements for an ADU converted from a garage and prohibits more than a five-foot setback from rear and side property lines for an ADU that is constructed above a garage. AB 68 expands these prohibitions to:

• Prohibit setback requirements for ADUs that are converted from existing structures or new structures constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
• Prohibit setback requirements of more than four feet for all other detached ADUs (not just those constructed over garages).

Current law requires a local agency to act on a permit for an ADU ministerially within 120 days of receiving an application. AB 68 requires a local agency to act on a permit for an ADU or JADU within 60 days of receiving a complete application. AB 68 also allows a local agency to delay acting on an application until it acts on the primary dwelling if an ADU or JADU unit is proposed along with the development of a new single-family dwelling. A local agency cannot issue a certificate for occupancy for an ADU before it does the same for the primary dwelling. Additionally, AB 68 prohibits a local agency from requiring the correction of existing nonconforming zoning conditions as a condition for ministerial approval.

Notwithstanding other requirements that local agencies may impose, current law requires a local government to ministerially approve a building permit for one ADU per single-family lot if the parcel is zoned for single-family use and if the unit is contained within an existing structure, has independent exterior access, and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety. AB 68 expands the types of ADUs exempt from local requirements to include, within a residential or mixed-use zone, the following:

• Both an ADU and a JADU within the proposed space of a new primary residence or an existing residence or accessory structure if they meet the above requirements from existing law. The ADU or JADU may include an expansion of up to 150 square feet beyond the physical dimensions of the existing space if needed to accommodate ingress and egress;
• A detached ADU that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks and is on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. A local agency can impose maximum size limits on an ADU, so long as they are not less than 800 square feet in floor area and 16 feet in height;
• Creation of ADUs within portions of an existing multi-family dwelling that are not used as livable space. A local government must allow the construction of 25 percent more units in the form of ADUs; and
• Up to two detached ADUs on a lot with an existing multi-family unit if they are less than 16 feet tall and have four-foot rear yard and side setbacks.

AB 68 requires an ADU permitted under these provisions to be rented for more than 30 days at a time and allows local agencies to require owner occupancy. The bill also says that the multifamily ADU provisions above do not apply to a local agency that has an ordinance allowing ADUs in multifamily dwellings.

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. 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. AB 68 retains these prohibitions, but allows local governments to impose connection fees and capacity charges on an ADU—and can consider it a new residential use—if it is constructed along with a new single-family home.

Review of local ordinances. Current law requires an ADU ordinance adopted by a city or county to conform to the provisions of ADU law as they stood in 1992. An ordinance that doesn’t comply is void, and the local agency must apply the standards in state law. A city or county must submit a copy of its ADU ordinance to HCD within 60 days of adopting it, and HCD can review and comment on it. AB 68 updates this requirement to January 1, 2017 and clarifies these provisions to specify that if the ordinance doesn’t meet one or more of the requirements in ADU law, that portion of the ordinance is void. AB 68 also allows HCD to instead 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, AB 68 requires HCD to notify the city or county it is in violation of state law and to provide at least 30 days to review HCD’s notice. A city or county that receives findings from HCD must consider them and either change its ordinance or adopt findings of its own if it believes that its ordinance complies with state law. If the agency doesn’t take either step, AB 68 directs HCD to notify the agency and allows HCD to notify the Attorney General.

Other provisions. AB 68 contains numerous other miscellaneous provisions, including to:

• Prohibit local agencies from requiring off-street parking to be replaced when demolished to make an ADU. Current law says that a local agency must allow off-street parking spaces that are demolished to make an ADU to be replaced in any configuration on the lot.
• Allow a local agency to require that an ADU connected to an onsite water treatment system to have had a percolation test completed within the past 5 years, or the past 10 years if the percolation test was recertified.
• Provide that no other local policy shall be the basis for delay or denial of a building permit for an ADU.
• Allow JADUs to be constructed within proposed dwellings, conform JADU law to the provisions of ADU law, require local agencies that haven’t adopted an ordinance regulating JADUs to apply the standards in JADU law to permit applications for JADUs, and loosen certain prescriptive requirements under JADU law.
• Define its terms and make other technical and conforming changes.

State Revenue Impact

No estimate.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “As the demand for housing continues to outpace supply, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have surged in popularity as a way to address California’s housing crisis. AB 68 removes barriers to the widespread adoption of ADUs as low-cost, energy efficient, affordable housing.”

2. Make it stop. ADU laws have gone through several significant changes in recent years. The legislation enacted in 2016, SB 1069 and AB 2299, significantly rewrote the law. Before the ink was dry on those bills, the Legislature made additional changes that set locals back further in 2017. Last year, legislators introduced several more ADU bills to make additional changes,

although none made it to the Governor’s desk. AB 68 continues what has become an annual tradition of attempting to move the goalposts on local ADU ordinances. In addition, it is unclear that additional changes are necessary. For example, the City of Los Angeles has received a total of 9,247 applications for ADUs since 2017, which represents an approximately 30-fold increase as compared to the citywide average in previous years. Similarly, the City of Santa Rosa received 118 applications for ADUs in 2018, compared to 54 total from 2008-2016. Are further changes truly needed to spur additional development of ADUs?

3. The exception that swallows the rule. ADU law allows local governments to adopt a variety of regulations on where and in what form ADUs may be developed. However, to ensure that local jurisdictions can’t ban ADUs altogether, ADU law also says that no matter what local regulations say, local governments must permit at least an efficiency unit (roughly 300 square feet) and must allow conversions of existing residential spaces or accessory structures on single-family lots. AB 68 significantly expands the types of ADUs that cities and counties must permit regardless of local rules to include up to three units on a single-family lot: the primary dwelling, an ADU, and a JADU. Additionally, local governments can’t require ADUs to be smaller than 800 feet or half of the existing dwelling. This effectively permits triplexes without subjecting them to the same zoning standards that apply to single-family homes in the same location and largely nullifies the ADU ordinances that local governments adopt in good faith. Finally, these ADUs must be permitted in areas that local agencies have otherwise excluded ADUs from because of health and safety concerns: for example, some local ordinances prohibit ADUs in very high fire hazard severity zones. Overriding carefully thought out local standards may increase the risk that homes and people are put in harm’s way.

4. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because AB 68 requires local governments to perform new activities related to land use regulation, Legislative Counsel says that it imposes a new state mandate. But the bill disclaims the state's responsibility for reimbursing local agencies by including findings and declarations that local agencies may levy fees to cover the costs of the program.

5. Incoming! The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a triple-referral of AB 68: first to the Senate Housing Committee, which approved AB 68 at its June 18^th meeting on a vote of 9-0; second to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, which approved AB 68 at its July 3^rd meeting on a vote of 4-1; and finally to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.

6. Related legislation. AB 68 is one of several ADU bills introduced in the Legislature this year. Notable bills include:

• AB 881, which the Committee approved at its July 3^rd meeting on a vote of 7-0, allows ADUs to be converted from an existing structure in residential and mixed-use zones, and prohibits local owner-occupancy requirements until January 1, 2025. AB 881 is currently pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
• SB 13, which the Committee approved at its April 10^th meeting on a vote of 7-0, caps the developer fees that local governments can charge for ADUs, prohibits owner occupancy requirements, expands the process by which HCD comments on local ADU ordinances, and creates a process for bringing unpermitted ADUs up to code, among other changes. SB 13 is currently pending in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

Last year, the Legislature considered three ADU bills: SB 831 (Wieckowski), SB 1469 (Skinner), and AB 2890 (Ting). Those bills contained similar provisions to AB 68; in particular, AB 2890 included most of the provisions of AB 68. SB 831 was held in the Assembly Local Government Committee; SB 1469 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee; and AB 2890 was held in the Senate Rules Committee.

Assembly Actions

Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: 6-0

Assembly Local Government Committee: 6-1

Assembly Appropriations Committee: 15-1

Assembly Floor: 61-10

Support and Opposition

(7/5/19)

Support: AARP, California; Adu Task Force East Bay; Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative; Building Industry Association Of The Bay Area; California Apartment Association; California Community Builders; California Forward Action Fund; California Yimby; Center On Policy Initiatives; Central Coast Alliance United For A Sustainable Economy; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative; Community Legal Services In East Palo Alto; Enterprise Community Partners, Inc.; Eric Garcetti, Mayor Of Los Angeles; Facebook, Inc.; Greenbelt Alliance; Habitat For Humanity California; Hamilton Families; League Of Women Voters Of California; Los Angeles Alliance For A New Economy; Midpen Housing Corporation; Natural Resources Defense Council; Non-Profit Housing Association Of Northern California; North Bay Leadership Council; Orange County Communities Organized For Responsible Development; Partnership For Working Families; Pico California; Related California; Silicon Valley At Home (Sv@Home); Silicon Valley Community Foundation; Southern California Rental Housing Association; Spur; Terner Center For Housing Innovation At The University Of California, Berkeley; Tmg Partners; Transform; United Dwelling; Warehouse Worker Resource Center; Working Partnerships USA

Opposition: City Of Burbank; City Of Camarillo; City Of Chino Hills; City of Cupertino; City of Los Alamitos; City of Manhattan Beach; City of Rancho Cucamonga; City Of San Dimas; City Of San Marcos; City Of Santa Clarita; City of Torrance; Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members; South Bay Cities Council Of Governments

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Allen, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 68

SUBJECT: Land use: accessory dwelling units

DIGEST: Expands ministerial approval provisions to include multiple accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in existing multifamily dwellings, multiple detached ADUs on the same lot as a multifamily dwelling, and an ADU and a junior ADU on one lot, under specified conditions.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Under the Land Use and Zoning Law:
   
   1. Establishes requirements and standards for ADUs (Government Code (Gov. C.) §65852.2)
      
   2. Allows a local agency to, by ordinance, provide for the creation of ADUs in areas zoned for single-family or multifamily use and requires the ordinance to contain certain requirements relating to, among others, lot coverage, parking, height restrictions, minimum and maximum unit size, setbacks, and zoning (Gov. C. §65852.2(a)).
      
      1. Allows a local agency up to 120 days to ministerially consider an ADU permit application (Gov. C. §65852.2(a)(3)).
         
         1. Prohibits another local ordinance, policy, or regulation from being the basis for the denial of an ADU permit (Gov. C. §65852.2 (a)(5)).
            
   3. If a local agency has not adopted an ordinance for ADUs, requires the local agency to ministerially approve an ADU permit application within 120 days (Gov. C. §65852.2(b)).
      
   4. Authorizes a local agency, by ordinance, to provide for the creation of junior ADUs (JADUs) in single-family residential zones, as specified (Gov. C. §65852.22).
      
2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code (PRC) §21000 et seq.):
   
   1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary project to prepare a negative declaration (ND), mitigated negative declaration (MND), or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA guidelines). (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a draft EIR. (CEQA Guidelines §15064(a)(1), (f)(1)).
      

This bill:

1. Makes various changes to provisions governing ADUs relating to prohibiting minimum lot size requirements, changing total floor area restrictions, changing the setback requirements, authorizing ADUs to be attached or located within an accessory structure, changing offstreet parking requirements, and requiring the permits be ministerially approved within certain timeframes.
   
2. Prohibits a local ordinance, policy, or regulation from being the basis for a delay of an ADU permit.
   
3. Expands the applicability of the ministerial approval provisions to apply to ADUs and JADUs in residential or mixed-use zones as follows:
   
   1. On a lot with a proposed or existing single-family home, allow:
      
      1. One ADU and one JADU if the ADU or JADU is within a proposed or existing structure; and may include an expansion, limited to accommodating ingress and egress, of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure; or
      2. One detached ADU that may be combined with a JADU.
         
   2. On a lot with multi-family dwelling structures, allow:
      
      1. Multiple ADUs within portions of an existing structure that are not used as livable space (storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, and garages), limited to 1 ADU within an existing multifamily dwelling structure and up to 25% of existing units thereafter; and
      2. Two detached ADUs.
         
4. Authorizes a local agency to require as a part of the application for a permit of an ADU connected to an onsite water treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last 5 years, and if the percolation has been recertified, within the last 10 years.
   
5. Only requires an ADU to be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of connection fees or capacity charges for utilities if the ADU is constructed with a new single-family dwelling.
   
6. Only requires ADUs that are on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family home to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility; or be subject to a related connection fee or capacity charge if the ADU is constructed with a new single-family home.
   
7. After the local agency has submitted a copy of its local ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), requires HCD to notify the local agency if it does not comply with these requirements.
   
8. Requires the local agency to consider HCD’s findings and either (1) amend its ordinance to comply or (2) adopt a resolution explaining why the ordinance does comply and addressing HCD’s findings. Authorizes HCD to notify the Attorney General if the local agency does not do either of these things.
   
9. Revises JADU local ordinance requirements to allow one JADU to be on a lot zoned for single-family residences with a proposed single-family residence and makes other changes relating to the requirements of interior entries and efficiency kitchens.
   

Background

1. Background on CEQA.
   
   1. Overview of CEQA Process. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of a project, and includes statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA guidelines. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study shows that there would not be a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a ND. If the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.
      

Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.

• 1. What is analyzed in an environmental review? An environmental review analyzes the significant direct and indirect environmental impacts of a proposed project and may include water quality, surface and subsurface hydrology, land use and agricultural resources, transportation and circulation, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, terrestrial and aquatic biological resources, aesthetics, geology and soils, recreation, public services and utilities such as water supply and wastewater disposal, and cultural resources. The analysis must also evaluate the cumulative impacts of any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects/activities within study areas that are applicable to the resources being evaluated. A study area for a proposed project must not be limited to the footprint of the project because many environmental impacts of a development extend beyond the identified project boundary.
     
  2. CEQA provides a hub for multi-disciplinary regulatory process. An environmental review provides a forum for all the described issue areas to be considered together rather than siloed from one another. It provides a comprehensive review of the project, considering all applicable environmental laws and how those laws interact with one another. For example, it would be prudent for a lead agency to know that a proposalto mitigate a significant impact (i.e. alleviate temporary traffic congestion, due to construction of a development project, by detouring traffic to an alternative route) may trigger a new significant impact (i.e. the detour may redirect the impact onto a sensitive resource, such as a habitat of an endangered species). The environmental impact caused by the proposed mitigation measure should be evaluated as well. CEQA provides the opportunity to analyze a broad spectrum of a project’s potential environmental impacts and how each impact may intertwine with one another.
     

1. Land use planning and permitting. The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. A general plan must include seven mandatory elements, including a housing element that establishes the locations and densities of housing, among other requirements, and must incorporate environmental justice concerns. Cities’ and counties’ major land use decisions—including most zoning ordinances and other aspects of development permitting— must be consistent with their general plans. In this way, the general plan is a blueprint for future development.
   

The Planning and Zoning Law also establishes a planning agency in each city and county, which may be a separate planning commission, administrative body, or the legislative body of the city or county itself. Public notice must be given at least 10 days in advance of hearings where most permitting decisions will be made. The law also allows residents to appeal permitting decisions and other actions to either a board of appeals or the legislative body of the city or county. Cities and counties may adopt ordinances governing the appeals process, which can entail appeals of decisions by planning officials to the planning commission and the city council or county board of supervisors.

1. Ministerial and by-right approvals. Cities and counties enact zoning ordinances to implement their general plans. Zoning determines the type of housing that can be built. Some local ordinances provide “ministerial” processes for approving projects – the zoning ordinance clearly states that a particular use is allowable, and local government does not have any discretion regarding approval of the permit if the application is complete. Projects reviewed ministerially require only an administrative review designed to ensure they are consistent with existing general plan and zoning rules, as well as meeting standards for building quality, health, and safety. Most large housing projects are not allowed ministerial review. Instead, these projects are vetted through both public hearings and administrative review.
   

Ministerial and use by right approvals remove a project from all discretionary decisions of a local government, including an environmental review under CEQA. Thus, establishing processes to approve certain types of projects ministerially, also creates exemptions from CEQA. If the scope of the project category is expanded to additionally exclude projects that would have otherwise been subject to CEQA, it is expanding the scope of the “ministerial project” exemption.

1. California’s housing shortage. California is in the midst of a serious housing crisis. California is home to 21 of the 30 most expensive rental housing markets in the country, which has had a disproportionate impact on the middle class and the working poor. Housing units affordable to low-income earners, if available, are often in serious states of disrepair. A person earing minimum wage must work three jobs on average to pay the rent for a two-bedroom unit. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates that approximately 2.7 million lower-income households are rent-burdened (meaning they spend at least 30 percent of their income rent), 1.7 million of which are severely rent-burdened (spending at least 50% of their income on rent). Not a single county in the state has an adequate supply of affordable homes. According to a 2015 study by the California Housing Partnership Corporation, California has a shortfall of 1.5 million affordable homes and 13 of the 14 least affordable metropolitan areas in the country.
   

A major factor in this crisis is the state’s housing shortage. From 1954-1989, California constructed an average of more than 200,000 new homes annually, with multifamily housing accounting for the largest share of housing production. Since then, however, construction has dropped significantly. HCD estimates that approximately 1.8 million new housing units – 180,000 new homes per year, are needed to meet the state’s projected population and housing growth by 2025. Even when housing production rose in the mid- 2000’s, it never reached the 180,000 mark, and over the last 10 years, construction averaged just 80,000 new homes per year.

1. Accessory Dwelling Units. ADUs are additional living quarters that are independent of the primary dwelling unit on the same lot. ADUs are either attached or detached to the primary dwelling unit, and provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including separate access from the property’s primary unit. This includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. JADUs are ADUs that are no more than 500 square feet and exist within single-family homes and have cooking facilities including a sink and stove but are not required to have a bathroom.
   

ADUs have been identified as an important piece of the solution to California’s housing crisis. According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, the average cost to build an ADU is relatively inexpensive at $156,000. Because of their size and lower cost to construct, the Terner Center found that 58% of ADUs are rented out at below market rate.

Over the past few years, the legislature has passed a number of bills to ease zoning restrictions and expedite approval processes at the local level, which has contributed to the increased supply of ADUs throughout the state. For example, in the city of Los Angeles, since 2017 a total of 9,247 applications have been received for ADUs. This represents an approximate 30-fold increase as compared to the citywide average in the many years before the state law changed to reduce barriers to ADUs. Similarly, the city of Santa Rosa received 118 applications for ADUs in 2018, compared to 54 total from 2008-2016.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) have surged in popularity as a way to address California’s housing crisis as demand outpaces supply. AB 68 will remove remaining barriers to the widespread adoption of ADUs as low-cost, energy efficient, affordable housing that can go from policy to permit in 12 months.”
   
2. More flexibility for ADUs. AB 68 would significantly increase the number of ADUs that would be eligible for a ministerial approval process; expanding the applicability of the ministerial approval to all of the following:
   

• One ADU and one JADU per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling in a residential or mixed-use zone.
• One detached, new construction, single-story ADU that conforms with certain setback requirements for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling in a residential or mixed-use zone.
• Multiple ADUs within the portion of an existing multifamily dwelling structure, limited based on the number of existing units that are not used as livable space, in a residential or mixed-use zone.
• Up to two ADUs that are located on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling in a residential or mixed-use zone, that are detached from the multifamily dwelling, and that conform to certain height limitations and setback requirements.
  

Because ADUs are subject to a ministerial approval process, they are also exempt from environmental review under CEQA.

1. Increased density without the environmental review. It is not unusual for certain interests to assert that CEQA impedes a project or that a particular exemption will expedite construction of a particular type of project and reduce costs. This, however, frequently overlooks the benefits of environmental review: to inform decisionmakers and the public about project impacts, identify ways to avoid or significantly reduce environmental damage, prevent environmental damage by requiring feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, disclose to the public reasons why an agency approved a project if significant environmental effects are involved, involve public agencies in the process, and increase public participation in the environmental review and the planning processes.
   

Even though the ultimate goal is to provide a low-cost, energy-efficient, affording housing option during the state’s housing crisis, the environmental review of CEQA ensures that projects are approved in accordance with informed and responsible decisionmaking. It allows for the decisionmakers, project proponents, and the public to know of the potential short-term, long-term, and maybe permanent environmental consequences of a particular project but also the cumulative impacts of multiple projects.

In the context of allowing for more ADUs to be approved ministerially, relevant considerations may include whether, on a cumulative scale, there are sufficient water supplies available, whether there would be an increase in the generation of solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or whether there would be an increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would significantly impact the environment.

Take, for example, a 200-unit development. Although highly unlikely, but possible under the provisions of AB 68, if half of the parcels were to apply for, and ministerially receive, an ADU permit, that could easily add 100 people to the density of that area. What would those additional 100 people mean to the underlying infrastructure of the area? What if it is a community that already has water quality supply issues? Will the area be able to provide safe drinking water to those additional people? What does that mean for the traffic impacts on the community? According to information provided by the sponsor, a study on ADUs (Peterson, Kol. Backdoor Revolution: The Definitive Guide to ADU Development. Portland: Accessory Dwelling Strategies, LLC, 2018) found that in 2013, of the 800 ADUs in Portland, ADUs contributed 0.93 cars per ADU on average. Could the increased amount of cars affect emergency access? Will the jurisdiction be able to provide for the basic necessities of the community? Admittedly, it is highly speculative how many additional ADUs AB 68 would additionally permit and the presence of ADUs are not spread throughout cities uniformly, but substantial population growth is not outside the realm of possibility. It is also noted that the Governor’s Budget includes $500 million for the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program, in which developers and local governments can apply for infrastructure funding. This funding, unlike the ministerial approval of ADUs, is not guaranteed.

These considerations, and more, are typically covered by an environmental review. Although AB 68 incorporates considerations of infrastructure capacity for ADUs individually, it only comes into consideration when a new single-family dwelling is being constructed. AB 68 could significantly increase the number of ADUs permitted in any particular area, all of which would be exempt from the environmental review process; denying local governments the ability to consider, and hopefully mitigate or avoid, any environmental impacts that these units may have individually, and cumulatively.

1. Cumulative impacts. Many see ADUs as an opportunity to address the state’s housing shortage; it can provide below-market alternatives to standard rentals and capitalizes on the use of residential lots that have already been built on, thereby conserving land for other purposes. Currently law permits one ADU per single-family lots in single-family zoned areas; but a local ordinance may provide for an ADU on a single-family lot in an area zoned for multifamily use. As such, the state has provided for ministerial approval of ADUs under limited circumstances; a type of approval that is typically reserved for simple, small-scale development projects. This bill would significantly expand where and how ADUs can be built, significantly increasing the cumulative impact of these units.
   

Generally, CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(1) provides that a project may have a significant impact if (1) cumulative impacts maybe significant and (2) the project’s effects are “cumulatively considerable.” Cumulatively considerable means that incremental effects are considerable when viewed together the effects of past, current, and probably future projects. CEQA Guidelines §15130(b)(1) also requires consideration of “probable future projects” in pending applications. If a cumulative impact was adequately addressed in a prior EIR for a community plan, zoning action, or general plan, then an EIR for a current project need not further analyze the cumulative impact.

By expanding the ministerial approval for ADUs, AB 68 would deny local governments the ability to consider the cumulative impacts of the ADUs being built within their jurisdiction.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 69 (Ting) facilitates the creation of new Building Code standards for ADUs and other small homes. This bill is referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 670 (Friedman) makes it illegal for new or amended governing documents of common interest developments to prohibit the construction of ADUs or JADUs. This bill is on the Senate Floor.

AB 671 (Friedman) requires local jurisdictions to require in their Housing Elements a plan that incentivizes and promotes production of ADUs for very-low, low-, and moderate-income households. Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to develop and post to its website a list of state programs that could help subsidize ADUs for very-low, low-, and moderate-income households. This bill is referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 881 (Bloom) makes several changes to further reduce barriers to production of ADUs. It would remove the ability for local jurisdictions to create owner occupancy requirements for ADUs. This bill is referred to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.

SB 13 (Wieckowski) makes several changes to further reduce barriers to production of ADUs. It would remove the ability for local jurisdictions to create owner occupancy requirements for ADUs. This bill is referred to the Assembly Committee on Local Government.

SB 1069 (Wieckowski, Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016) made several changes to reduce the barriers to the development of ADUs and expanded capacity for their development, including changes to parking, fees, fire requirements, and process.

AB 2299 (Bloom, Chapter 735, Statutes of 2016) requires a local government to ministerially approve ADUs if the unit complies with certain parking requirements, the maximum allowable size of an attached ADU, and setback requirements.

SOURCE:

California YIMBY

TRIPLE REFERRAL

This measure was heard in the Senate Housing Committee on June 18, 2019, and passed out of committee with a vote of 9 - 2. If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.

SUPPORT:

California YIMBY (sponsor)

AARP California

ADU Task Force, East Bay

American Planning Association, California

Association of Bay Area Governments

Bay Area Council

Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition

Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative

Board of Supervisor Keith Carson, Alameda County

Bridge Housing

Building Industry Association of the Bay Area

California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors

California Community Builders

California Forward Action Fund

California Teamsters

Casita Coalition

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative

cityLAB-UCLA

City of Oakland

Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto

EAH Housing

East Bay Housing Organizations

Eden Housing

Emerald Fund, Inc.

Enterprise Community Partners

Eric Garcetti, City of Los Angeles, Mayor

Facebook

Greenbelt Alliance

Habitat for Humanity California

Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley

Hamilton Families

Hello Housing

Inspired Independence

LA-Mas

League of Women Voters California

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

MidPen Housing

Mikiten Architecture

Natural Resources Defense Council

Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California

North Bay Leadership Council

Northern California Carpenters Regional Council

Oakland Chamber of Commerce

OpenScope Studio

PICO California

prefabADU

Related California

Santa Cruz YIMBY

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

San Francisco Foundation

San Francisco Housing Action Coalition

Silicon Valley at Home (SV@Home)

Silicon Valley Community Foundation

Southern California Rental Housing Association

Terner Center for Housing Innovation

TentMakers Inc.

TMG Partners

TransForm

The Two Hundred

Urban Displacement Project

United Dwelling

Unite Here, AFL-CIO

Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Working Partnerships USA

9 individuals

OPPOSITION:

Cities Association of Santa Clara County

City of Burbank

City of Camarillo

City of La Palma

City of Los Alamitos

City of Manhattan Beach

City of Novato

City of Rancho Cucamonga

City of San Dimas

City of San Marcos

City of Santa Clarita

League of California Cities

Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers

South Bay Cities Council of Governments

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, “AB 68 will remove remaining barriers to the widespread production of much-needed accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as low-cost, energy efficient, affordable housing that can go from policy to permit in 12 months. ADUs can serve as a smart-growth tool by decreasing household energy use; reducing building materials, carbon emissions, and criteria pollutants; combatting displacement and urban sprawl; decreasing vehicle emissions, traffic and commute times; and affording families more flexibility while saving them money on rent and utility bills.

“AB 68 will help create tens of thousands of new and reasonably-priced homes each year while offering communities a useful tool in the fight against climate change.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

According to the League of California Cities, “Section 1 of the bill amends Government Code Section 65852.2(e), thereby circumventing local ordinances that may exclude ADUs for criteria based on health and safety. Specifically, up to two new-construction ADUs on a parcel with a multifamily dwelling, … a new-construction ADU on a parcel with a single family home, and conversions of existing space to create an ADU and JADU within a single family home or associated accessory structure would have to be allowed on any residential or mixed use parcel, irrespective of a local ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(1)(A).

“AB 68 would prohibit a local jurisdiction form requiring a property owner live in the main house or one of the accessory structures. This would incentivize operating the property as a commercial enterprise and could have unintended effect of large-scale investors purchasing many single-family homes and adding ADUs, thus operating more like a property management company, not a homeowner seeking some additional income. Additionally, owner occupancy requirements could provide greater oversight and an opportunity to provide more affordable rents as a homeowner is less likely to be profit driven.

“When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted into an ADU, AB 68 would prohibit a city from requiring replacement parking. This would only exacerbate existing parking conflicts because cities are currently prohibited from imposing parking requirements on new ADUs if they are within one-half mile of transit.”

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING

Senator Scott Wiener, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 68 Hearing Date: 6/18/2019

SUBJECT: Land use: accessory dwelling units

DIGEST: This bill makes a number of changes to existing law governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that if a locality adopts an ADU ordinance in areas zoned for single-family or multifamily, it must do all of the following:
   1. Designate areas where ADUs may be permitted.
   2. Impose certain standards on ADUs such as parking and size requirements.
   3. Prohibit an ADU from exceeding the allowable density for the lot.
   4. Require ADUs to comply with certain requirements such as setbacks.
2. Requires ministerial approval of an ADU permit within 120 days.
3. Allows a locality to establish minimum and maximum unit sizes for both attached and detached ADUs.
4. Restricts the parking standards a locality may impose on an ADU.
5. Allows a local agency to require that an applicant be an owner-occupant or that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.
6. Provides that 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 service.
7. Requires a local agency to submit a copy of its ADU ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) within 60 days of adopting it and authorizes HCD to review and comment on the ordinance.

This bill:

1. Requires a local agency to ministerially approve, in an area zoned for residential or mixed-use, an application for a building permit to create an ADU and a JADU as follows:
   1. The ADU or JADU that is within a proposed or existing structure, or the same footprint as the existing structure, provided the space has exterior access from the proposed or existing structure and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.
   2. One detached ADU that is within a proposed or existing structure or the same footprint as the existing structure, along with one JADU, that may be subject to a size limit of 800 square feet, a height limit of 16 feet, and side and rear yard setbacks of four feet.
2. Requires a local agency to ministerially approve, on a lot with a multifamily dwelling:
   1. Multiple ADUs within the existing structures that are not used as livable space, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.
   2. Two detached ADUs that are subject to a height limit of 16 feet and rear and side yard setbacks of four feet.
3. Prohibits a local ADU ordinance from:
   1. Imposing standards on ADUs that include requirements on lot coverage or minimum lot size.
   2. Setting a maximum ADU size that does not allow an ADU of at least 800 square feet and 16 feet in height.
   3. Requiring replacement parking when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in the creation of an ADU, or is converted to an ADU.
   4. Requiring a setback for ADUs within existing structures, and new ADUs located in the same location and footprint as existing structures, and no more than a four-foot side and rear yard setback.
   5. Allowing more than 60 days to ministerially approve an ADU or JADU permit application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, as specified.
   6. Requiring, as a condition for ministerial approval of an application for creation of an ADU or JADU, correction of nonconforming conditions, defined as a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
4. Provides that the total floor area of an attached ADU cannot exceed 50% of the existing primary dwelling.
5. Caps the number of ADUs that must be ministerially approved within an existing multifamily dwelling at one ADU and up to 25% of existing units thereafter.
6. Allows a local agency to require as part of the application for a permit to create an ADU connected to an onsite water treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last five years, as specified.
7. Provides that JADUs must be allowed to be constructed within proposed single-family residences and eliminates certain requirements relating to interior entry to the main living area, waste lines, and electrical service minimums.
8. Requires a local agency to require rental of an ADU to be for a term longer than 30 days.
9. Allows HCD, if it finds a local ADU ordinance is not compliant with ADU law, to provide the local agency up to 30 days to respond to the findings. If the local agency does not either amend its ordinance to comply with HCD’s findings, or adopt a resolution explaining why it disputes HCD’s findings, HCD may notify the Attorney General, that the locality is in violation of state law.

COMMENTS

1. Purpose of the bill. The author states that ADUs have surged in popularity as a way to address California’s housing crisis as demand outpaces supply. This bill will remove the remaining barriers to the widespread adoption of ADUs as low-cost, energy-efficient, affordable housing that can go from policy to permit in 12 months.
2. 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 ADU ordinances must meet specified parameters outlined in existing state law. 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. HCD notes that “ADUs are an innovative, affordable, effective option for adding much-needed housing in California.”
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. 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.
4. Trying again. This bill is similar to AB 2890 (Ting) of 2018, which died in the Senate last year. Unlike AB 2890, however, this bill requires a local agency to mandate minimum 30-day rental for ADUs. In addition, this bill, unlike AB 2890, does not include a requirement for HCD to create small home building standards; those provisions are included in a separate bill (AB 69, Ting, 2019).
5. Key provisions. Major provisions of this bill include:
   1. Ministerial approval requirements. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve an application for one ADU per single-family lot if the unit is contained within the existing space of the single-family dwelling or accessory structure, has independent exterior access from the existing residence, and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety. This bill instead requires ministerial approval of one ADU and one JADU per lot that is within an existing structure, as specified; one detached ADU within a proposed or existing structure or the same footprint as the existing structure, along with one JADU, as specified; multiple ADUs within existing multifamily structures; or two detached ADUs on a multifamily lot, as specified.
   2. Size of ADUs. Existing law requires an ADU ordinance that provides for minimum and maximum ADU size, to allow for at least an efficiency unit (150 square feet). This bill instead provides for an ADU of at least 800 square feet and at least 16 feet high.
   3. Zoning. Existing law applies ministerial approval requirements to ADUs in single-family zones. This bill instead requires ministerial approval in residential and mixed-use zones.
   4. Owner occupancy requirements. Existing law allows a local ADU ordinance to require owner occupancy for either the primary dwelling or the ADU. This bill preserves that authority.
   5. Impact fees. Existing law provides that 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 service. This bill does not directly address impact fees.
   6. Parking requirements. Existing law allows a local agency to require replacement parking when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in the construction of an ADU, or converted to an ADU. This bill eliminates that authority.
   7. HCD oversight. Existing law requires a local agency to submit its ADU ordinance to HCD for review and allows HCD to provide comments. This bill strengthens oversight over local ADU ordinances by allowing HCD to submit findings to the local agency if it finds the ordinance does not substantially comply with ADU statute. This bill also allows HCD to notify the Attorney General if it finds the ordinance is not compliant and the local agency chooses not to amend it into compliance.
6. Other ADU bills. Multiple ADU bills have been introduced again this year. The two bills that overlap the most with this bill are AB 881 (Bloom) and SB 13 (Wieckowski). A comparison of major provisions among the three bills is below:

1. Opposition concerns. A number of cities, along with the League of California Cities, writing in opposition to this bill, cite the following concerns:
   1. This bill circumvents local ordinances that may exclude ADUs for criteria based on health and safety.
   2. By prohibiting a locality from requiring a property owner to live in the main house or one of the accessory structures, this bill could incentivize large-scale investors to purchase many single-family homes and add ADUs.
   3. By prohibiting a city from requiring replacement parking when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is converted to an ADU, this bill will exacerbate parking conflicts.
2. Triple referral. This bill has also been referred to the Committee on Environmental Quality (second) and the Committee on Governance and Finance (third).

Related Legislation:

SB 13 (Wieckowski, 2019) — makes a number of changes to law governing ADUs. This bill is in Assembly Local Government Committee.

AB 881 (Bloom, 2019) — makes a number of changes to law governing ADUs. This bill will also be heard in this committee today.

SB 831 (Wieckowski, 2018) — would have made a number of changes to ADU law. This bill died in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

AB 2890 (Ting, 2018) — would have made a number of changes to ADU law. This bill died on the suspense file of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

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

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

June 12, 2019.)

SUPPORT:

California YIMBY (Sponsor)

AARP California
ADU Task Force East Bay
Association Of Bay Area Governments
Bay Area Council
Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition 
Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative
Bridge Housing Corporation
Building Industry Association Of The Bay Area
California Apartment Association
California Association Of Realtors
California Community Builders
California Forward Action Fund
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council

cityLAB - UCLA
Community Legal Services In East Palo Alto
EAH Housing
Eden Housing
Emerald Fund
Facebook, Inc.
Greenbelt Alliance
Habitat For Humanity California
Hamilton Families
Hello Housing
Inspired Independence 
League Of Women Voters Of California
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MidPen Housing Corporation
Non-Profit Housing Association Of Northern California
Pico California
Related California
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
Silicon Valley At Home
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
SPUR
Tent Makers
Terner Center For Housing Innovation At The University Of California, Berkeley
The Casita Coalition
The Two Hundred
TMG Partners
United Dwelling
Urban Displacement Project, UC-Berkeley
Valley Industry And Commerce Association
Working Partnerships USA

12 Individuals

OPPOSITION:

Camarillo; City Of
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
League Of California Cities
Los Alamitos; City Of
Manhattan Beach; City Of
Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members
Novato; City Of
Rancho Cucamonga; City Of
San Dimas; City Of
San Marcos; City Of
Santa Clarita; City Of
South Bay Cities Council Of Governments

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING

Senator Scott Wiener, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 68 Hearing Date: 6/18/2019

SUBJECT: Land use: accessory dwelling units

DIGEST: This bill makes a number of changes to existing law governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that if a locality adopts an ADU ordinance in areas zoned for single-family or multifamily, it must do all of the following:
   1. Designate areas where ADUs may be permitted.
   2. Impose certain standards on ADUs such as parking and size requirements.
   3. Prohibit an ADU from exceeding the allowable density for the lot.
   4. Require ADUs to comply with certain requirements such as setbacks.
2. Requires ministerial approval of an ADU permit within 120 days.
3. Allows a locality to establish minimum and maximum unit sizes for both attached and detached ADUs.
4. Restricts the parking standards a locality may impose on an ADU.
5. Allows a local agency to require that an applicant be an owner-occupant or that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.
6. Provides that 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 service.
7. Requires a local agency to submit a copy of its ADU ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) within 60 days of adopting it and authorizes HCD to review and comment on the ordinance.

This bill:

1. Requires a local agency to ministerially approve, in an area zoned for residential or mixed-use, an application for a building permit to create an ADU and a JADU as follows:
   1. The ADU or JADU that is within a proposed or existing structure, or the same footprint as the existing structure, provided the space has exterior access from the proposed or existing structure and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.
   2. One detached ADU that is within a proposed or existing structure or the same footprint as the existing structure, along with one JADU, that may be subject to a size limit of 800 square feet, a height limit of 16 feet, and side and rear yard setbacks of four feet.
2. Requires a local agency to ministerially approve, on a lot with a multifamily dwelling:
   1. Multiple ADUs within the existing structures that are not used as livable space, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.
   2. Two detached ADUs that are subject to a height limit of 16 feet and rear and side yard setbacks of four feet.
3. Prohibits a local ADU ordinance from:
   1. Imposing standards on ADUs that include requirements on lot coverage or minimum lot size.
   2. Setting a maximum ADU size that does not allow an ADU of at least 800 square feet and 16 feet in height.
   3. Requiring replacement parking when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in the creation of an ADU, or is converted to an ADU.
   4. Requiring a setback for ADUs within existing structures, and new ADUs located in the same location and footprint as existing structures, and no more than a four-foot side and rear yard setback.
   5. Allowing more than 60 days to ministerially approve an ADU or JADU permit application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, as specified.
   6. Requiring owner occupancy for either the primary dwelling or the ADU.
   7. Requiring, as a condition for ministerial approval of an application for creation of an ADU or JADU, correction of nonconforming conditions, defined as a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
4. Provides that the total floor area of an attached ADU cannot exceed 50% of the existing primary dwelling.
5. Caps the number of ADUs that must be ministerially approved within an existing multifamily dwelling at one ADU and up to 25% of existing units thereafter.
6. Allows a local agency to require as part of the application for a permit to create an ADU connected to an onsite water treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last five years, as specified.
7. Provides that JADUs must be allowed to be constructed within proposed single-family residences and eliminates certain requirements relating to interior entry to the main living area, waste lines, and electrical service minimums.
8. Requires a local agency to require rental of an ADU to be for a term longer than 30 days.
9. Allows HCD, if it finds a local ADU ordinance is not compliant with ADU law, to provide the local agency up to 30 days to respond to the findings. If the local agency does not either amend its ordinance to comply with HCD’s findings, or adopt a resolution explaining why it disputes HCD’s findings, HCD may notify the Attorney General, that the locality is in violation of state law.

COMMENTS

1. Purpose of the bill. The author states that ADUs have surged in popularity as a way to address California’s housing crisis as demand outpaces supply. This bill will remove the remaining barriers to the widespread adoption of ADUs as low-cost, energy-efficient, affordable housing that can go from policy to permit in 12 months.
2. 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 ADU ordinances must meet specified parameters outlined in existing state law. 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. HCD notes that “ADUs are an innovative, affordable, effective option for adding much-needed housing in California.”
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. 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.
4. Trying again. This bill is similar to AB 2890 (Ting) of 2018, which died in the Senate last year. Unlike AB 2890, however, this bill requires a local agency to mandate minimum 30-day rental for ADUs. In addition, this bill, unlike AB 2890, does not include a requirement for HCD to create small home building standards; those provisions are included in a separate bill (AB 69, Ting, 2019).
5. Key provisions. Major provisions of this bill include:
   1. Ministerial approval requirements. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve an application for one ADU per single-family lot if the unit is contained within the existing space of the single-family dwelling or accessory structure, has independent exterior access from the existing residence, and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety. This bill instead requires ministerial approval of one ADU and one JADU per lot that is within an existing structure, as specified; one detached ADU within a proposed or existing structure or the same footprint as the existing structure, along with one JADU, as specified; multiple ADUs within existing multifamily structures; or two detached ADUs on a multifamily lot, as specified.
   2. Size of ADUs. Existing law requires an ADU ordinance that provides for minimum and maximum ADU size, to allow for at least an efficiency unit (150 square feet). This bill instead provides for an ADU of at least 800 square feet and at least 16 feet high.
   3. Zoning. Existing law applies ministerial approval requirements to ADUs in single-family zones. This bill instead requires ministerial approval in residential and mixed-use zones.
   4. Owner occupancy requirements. Existing law allows a local ADU ordinance to require owner occupancy for either the primary dwelling or the ADU. This bill eliminates that authority.
   5. Impact fees. Existing law provides that 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 service. This bill does not directly address impact fees.
   6. Parking requirements. Existing law allows a local agency to require replacement parking when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in the construction of an ADU, or converted to an ADU. This bill eliminates that authority.
   7. HCD oversight. Existing law requires a local agency to submit its ADU ordinance to HCD for review and allows HCD to provide comments. This bill strengthens oversight over local ADU ordinances by allowing HCD to submit findings to the local agency if it finds the ordinance does not substantially comply with ADU statute. This bill also allows HCD to notify the Attorney General if it finds the ordinance is not compliant and the local agency chooses not to amend it into compliance.
6. Other ADU bills. Multiple ADU bills have been introduced again this year. The two bills that overlap the most with this bill are AB 881 (Bloom) and SB 13 (Wieckowski). A comparison of major provisions among the three bills is below:

1. Opposition concerns. A number of cities, along with the League of California Cities, writing in opposition to this bill, cite the following concerns:
   1. This bill circumvents local ordinances that may exclude ADUs for criteria based on health and safety.
   2. By prohibiting a locality from requiring a property owner to live in the main house or one of the accessory structures, this bill could incentivize large-scale investors to purchase many single-family homes and add ADUs.
   3. By prohibiting a city from requiring replacement parking when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is converted to an ADU, this bill will exacerbate parking conflicts.
2. Triple referral. This bill has also been referred to the Committee on Environmental Quality (second) and the Committee on Governance and Finance (third).

Related Legislation:

SB 13 (Wieckowski, 2019) — makes a number of changes to law governing ADUs. This bill is in Assembly Local Government Committee.

AB 881 (Bloom, 2019) — makes a number of changes to law governing ADUs. This bill will also be heard in this committee today.

SB 831 (Wieckowski, 2018) — would have made a number of changes to ADU law. This bill died in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

AB 2890 (Ting, 2018) — would have made a number of changes to ADU law. This bill died on the suspense file of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

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

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

June 12, 2019.)

SUPPORT:

California YIMBY (Sponsor)

AARP California
ADU Task Force East Bay
Association Of Bay Area Governments
Bay Area Council
Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition 
Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative
Bridge Housing Corporation
Building Industry Association Of The Bay Area
California Apartment Association
California Association Of Realtors
California Community Builders
California Forward Action Fund
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council

cityLAB - UCLA
Community Legal Services In East Palo Alto
EAH Housing
Eden Housing
Emerald Fund
Facebook, Inc.
Greenbelt Alliance
Habitat For Humanity California
Hamilton Families
Hello Housing
Inspired Independence 
League Of Women Voters Of California
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MidPen Housing Corporation
Non-Profit Housing Association Of Northern California
Pico California
Related California
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
Silicon Valley At Home
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
SPUR
Tent Makers
Terner Center For Housing Innovation At The University Of California, Berkeley
The Casita Coalition
The Two Hundred
TMG Partners
United Dwelling
Urban Displacement Project, UC-Berkeley
Valley Industry And Commerce Association
Working Partnerships USA

12 Individuals

OPPOSITION:

Camarillo; City Of
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
League Of California Cities
Los Alamitos; City Of
Manhattan Beach; City Of
Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members
Novato; City Of
Rancho Cucamonga; City Of
San Dimas; City Of
San Marcos; City Of
Santa Clarita; City Of
South Bay Cities Council Of Governments

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 68

Author:(Ting)

As Amended Ver:April 3, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

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

Major Provisions

1. Requires a local agency to ministerially approve, in an area zoned for housing, an application for a building permit to create any of the following:
2. On a lot with a proposed or existing single-family home, allow:
   1. one ADU that is substantially within a proposed or existing structure or the same footprint as an existing structure; or
   2. one detached ADU that is substantially within a proposed or existing structure or the same footprint as an existing structure, along with one JADU.
3. On a lot with a multi-family dwelling, allow:
   1. Multiple ADUs within the livable space of an existing structure; and
   2. Two detached ADUs.
4. Provides that a local ADU ordinance cannot:
   1. Limit ADUS to lots of a minimum size;
   2. Set a maximum ADU size that does not allow an ADU of at least 800 square feet and 16 feet in height;
   3. Require replacement parking when parking is demolished in the creation of an ADU;
   4. Require that a setback be required for ADUs within existing structures and new ADUs located in the in the same location as existing structures, and no more than a four-foot side and rear yard setback for all other ADUs;
   5. Allow more than 60 days to ministerially consider a completed ADU permit application;
5. Provides that JADUs must be allowed to be constructed within new single-family residences.
6. Creates an enforcement mechanism as follows:
   1. Allows the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to submit written findings to a local agency regarding compliance of their local ADU ordinance;
   2. Provides that if HCD finds that the ordinance does not comply with state law, HCD must notify the local agency that the local agency is in violation and provide a maximum of 30 days to respond;
   3. Requires the local agency to amend its ordinance accordingly or adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the local ordinance complies with State ADU law; and,
   4. Provides that if the local agency does not amend its ordinance in response to HCD's findings or adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with state law and address HCD's findings, HCD must notify the local agency and may notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of the law.

COMMENTS:

ADUs have been identified as an important piece of the solution to California's housing crisis. Over the past few years, the legislature has passed a number of bills to ease zoning restrictions and expedite approval processes at the local level, which has contributed to the increased supply of ADUs throughout the state. For example, in the city of Los Angeles, since 2017 a total of 9,247 applications have been received for ADUs. This represents an approximate 30-fold increase as compared to the citywide average in the many years before the state law changed to reduce barriers to ADUs. Similarly, the city of Santa Rosa received 118 applications for ADUs in 2018, compared to 54 total from 2008-2016.

This bill makes major changes to the ADU statute to facilitate the development of more ADUs and addressed perceived barriers to ADUs, including the following:

1. Increases the number of ADUs allowed to be constructed per lot by potentially allowing two ADUs on lots with single-family homes, and multiple ADUs on lots with multi-family dwellings;
2. Enables ADUs and JADUs to be approved ministerially if there is an existing or proposed primary residence;
3. Imposes requirements on minimum lot size to allow ADUs;
4. Sets a maximum ADU dimensions that do not permit an ADU of 800 square feet, 16 feet in height, with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks;
5. Requires replacement parking when parking is demolished in the creation of an ADU;
6. Requires a setback for an ADU that is built within an existing structure or in the same footprint as an existing structure, and require more than a four-foot setback for all other ADUs;
7. Allows no more than 60 days to ministerially consider a completed ADU permit application; and
8. Increases enforcement, including enabling HCD to notify the Attorney General when a local agency is in violation of this law.

According to the Author:

ADUs have surged in popularity as a way to address California's housing crisis as demand outpaces supply. AB 68 will remove remaining barriers to the widespread adoption of ADUs as low-cost, energy efficient, affordable housing that can go from policy to permit in 12 months.

Arguments in Support:

According to UC Berkeley's Urban Displacement Project, "Recent state efforts to incentivize the construction of ADUs have resulted in more communities and families building ADUs as a cost efficient way to address the affordable housing crisis. By further reducing barriers to ADU approval and construction, this legislation will help add tens of thousands of new units to California's housing stock." The California Association of Realtors notes that the bill "will help alleviate our housing shortage while capitalizing on limited land resources."

Arguments in Opposition:

According to APA California, who is opposed unless amended, this and the multiple other ADU bills introduced this year would "make ADU ordinances more complicated rather than encouraging them and many jurisdictions that have already updated or are nearly done updating their ordinances." They additionally cite concerns over allowing multiple ADUs in areas where the infrastructure might not be equipped to handle more housing units, reducing parking requirements, and reducing local discretion over owner–occupancy restrictions.

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Estimated costs to HCD of $353,000 (General Fund (GF)) in the first year and $328,000 (GF) annually thereafter to provide technical assistance to local governments and for enforcement activities, including referring cases to the AG's office.
2. Local state mandated costs incurred by local agencies as a result of this bill are not reimbursable by the state because local agencies can levy fees to cover these costs.

VOTES:

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 6-0-2

YES: Chiu, Gabriel, Gloria, Kiley, Bonta, Mark Stone

ABS, ABST OR NV: Diep, Limón

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 6-1-1

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bloom, Ramos, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Voepel

NO: Lackey

ABS, ABST OR NV: Boerner Horvath

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-1-2

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Obernolte, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow

ABS, ABST OR NV: Diep, Fong

UPDATED:

VERSION: April 3, 2019

CONSULTANT: Steve Wertheim / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0000712

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 68

Author:(Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 3, 2019

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

SUMMARY:

This bill makes changes to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) law. Among the major provisions, this bill:

1. Expands ministerial approval of ADUs to include multiple ADUs in existing multifamily dwellings, multiple detached ADUs on the same lot as a multifamily dwelling and an ADU and a JADU on one lot, under specified conditions.
2. Requires local agencies to ministerially approve a building permit for certain ADUs and JADUs in 60 days (instead of 120 days) from the time of receipt of the completed application.
3. Provides that a local ADU ordinance cannot impose lot coverage standards or require minimum lot size or certain setbacks, and cannot require offstreet parking to be replaced when existing parking like a garage, carport or covered parking structure is demolished for the construction or conversion of an ADU.
4. Authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to submit written findings to a local agency regarding whether the local ordinance complies with state law and requires the local agency, within 30 days, to respond by either amending its ordinance or adopting a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies, and allows HCD to notify the attorney general (AG) that the local agency is in violation.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Estimated costs to HCD of $353,000 (GF) in the first year and $328,000 (GF) annually thereafter to provide technical assistance to local governments and for enforcement activities, including referring cases to the AG’s office.
2. Local state mandated costs incurred by local agencies as a result of this bill are not reimbursable by the state because local agencies can levy fees to cover these costs.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill seeks to facilitate the development of additional ADUs by relaxing several ADU standards. According to the author:

ADUs have surged in popularity as a way to address California’s housing crisis as demand outpaces supply. AB 68 will remove remaining barriers to the widespread adoption of ADUs as low-cost, energy efficient, affordable housing that can go from policy to permit in 12 months.

1. Background. 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.

ADUs have been identified as an important piece of the solution to California’s housing crisis. According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, the average cost to build an ADU in California ($156,000) is less than half of the average cost to build a unit of affordable housing, 83% of ADUs are designed and built in 18 months or less, and 58% of ADUs are rented at below market rate. Over the past few years, the Legislature has passed a number of bills to ease zoning restrictions and expedite approval processes at the local level, which has contributed to the increased supply of ADUs throughout the state.

1. Arguments in Support. Supporters suggest further reducing barriers to ADU approval and construction will add to the state’s much needed affordable housing stock, thus helping to alleviate the state’s housing shortage while capitalizing on limited land resources.
2. Arguments in Opposition. Opponents are concerned about the unlimited number of ADUs within multifamily buildings and up to two ADUs on a multifamily lot, which could substantially increase the density in areas built with infrastructure designed to handle the existing units. Opponents are additionally concerned about the elimination of replacement parking requirements and the need for occupants to have a place to park.
3. Related Legislation. This bill is one of several bills being considered in this legislative session seeking to reduce barriers to the production, sale and occupancy of ADUs. Others include AB 69 (Ting) and AB 881 (Bloom), both before this committee; AB 670 (Friedman), pending in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee; AB 671 (Friedman) pending in the Assembly Local Government Committee; AB 587 (Friedman), pending on the Assembly Floor; and SB 13 (Wieckowski), pending in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.
4. Prior Legislation. During the 2017-18 Legislative Session, the Legislature considered three ADU bills: SB 831 (Wieckowski), SB 1469 (Skinner) and AB 2890 (Ting). Those bills contained similar provisions to several of the measures being considered this session. None of those bills made it to the governor’s desk.

SB 1069 (Wieckowski), Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016, made changes to reduced barriers to developing ADUs, including changes to parking, fees, fire requirements and process.

AB 2299 (Bloom), Chapter 735, Statutes of 2016, requires a local government to ministerially approve an ADU if the unit complies with certain parking requirements, the maximum allowable size of an attached ADU and setback requirements.

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

Date of Hearing: April 10, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 68 (

Author:Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 3, 2019

SUBJECT: Land use: accessory dwelling units.

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

1. Provides that a local ADU ordinance:
   1. Cannot impose lot coverage standards;
   2. Cannot impose standards requiring minimum lot size;
   3. Cannot require that a setback be required for ADUs within existing structures and new ADUs located in the same location as existing structures, and no more than a four-foot side and rear yard setback for all other ADUs;
   4. Cannot require replacement offstreet parking when parking (garage, carport, or covered parking structure) is demolished with the construction or conversion of an ADU; and,
   5. Shall require ministerial approval of an ADU permit in 60 days (instead of 120 days), from the date the local agency receives a completed application.
2. Expands provisions in ADU law to require ministerial approval of an application for a building permit, within a residential or mixed-use zone, for any of the following:
   1. One ADU and one JADU per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if all of the following apply:
      1. The ADU or JADU is substantially within the proposed or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure, including, but not limited to, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing space with substantially the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure;
      2. The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling;
      3. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety; and;
      4. The JADU complies with existing law.
   2. One detached, new construction, single-story ADU that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. The ADU may be combined with a JADU, as specified. Allows a local agency to impose the following conditions on the ADU:
      1. A total floor area limitation of not more than 800 square feet;
      2. A height limitation of 16 feet;
   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, attics, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings; and,
   4. Not more than two ADUs that are 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 four-foot rear yard and side setbacks.
3. Prohibits a local agency, as a condition for ministerial approval, from requiring the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions.
4. Prohibits the installation of fire sprinklers from being required in an ADU if sprinklers are not required in the primary residence.
5. Allows a local agency to require owner occupancy for either the primary dwelling or the ADU on a single-family lot, as specified. Requires a local agency to require that a rental of an ADU be for a term longer than 30 days.
6. Provides that 3c) and 3d), above, shall not apply if a local agency has adopted an ordinance by July 1, 2018, providing for the approval of ADUs in multifamily dwelling structures.
7. Allows the Department of Housing and Community Development to submit written findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with ADU law, and requires HCD to notify the local agency if it is in violation. Requires HCD to provide the local agency a reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to the findings before taking any other action, as specified.
8. Requires that the local agency consider the findings and either: a) amend its ordinance to comply; or, b) adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with this section and addressing HCD’s findings. Provides that if the local agency does not amend its ordinance or does not adopt a resolution, that HCD shall notify the local agency and may notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law.
9. Defines the following terms:
   1. “Accessory structure” to mean an existing, fixed structure, including, but not limited to, a garage, studio, pool house, or other similar structure;
   2. “Living area” to mean the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure;
   3. “Local agency” to mean a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered;
   4. “Nonconforming zoning condition” to mean a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
10. Prohibits a local agency from issuing a certificate of occupancy for an ADU before the local agency issues a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling.
11. Allows JADUs to be constructed within new single-family residences. Requires a ministerial application for a JADU to be issued within 60 days (instead of 120 days) from the date the local agency receives a completed application.

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a state-mandated local program.

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary and Author’s Statement. This bill makes many changes to ADU and JADU law. In addition to some more minor provisions, this bill:
   1. Expands ministerial approval provisions to include multiple ADUs in existing multifamily dwellings, multiple detached ADUS on the same lot as a multifamily dwelling, and an ADU and a JADU on one lot, under specified conditions.
   2. Requires local agencies to approve a building permit ministerially for certain ADUs and JADUs in 60 days (instead of 120 days) from the time of receipt of the completed application.
   3. Provides that a local ADU ordinance cannot impose lot coverage standards, require minimum lot size or certain setbacks, and cannot require offstreet parking to be replaced when existing parking like a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished for the construction or conversion of an ADU.
   4. Grants to HCD more authority to respond to a local agency’s ordinance with findings and requires the local agency to respond within 30 days to either amend its ordinance or adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies, and allows HCD to notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation.

This bill is sponsored by California YIMBY.

According to the author, “ADUs have surged in popularity as a way to address California’s housing crisis as demand outpaces supply. AB 68 will remove remaining barriers to the widespread adoption of ADUs as low-cost, energy efficient, affordable housing that can go from policy to permit in 12 months.”

1. Background. ADUs are additional living quarters that are independent of the primary dwelling unit on the same lot. ADUs are either attached or detached to the primary dwelling unit, and provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including separate access from the property’s primary unit. This includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.

ADUs have been identified as an important piece of the solution to California’s housing crisis. According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, the average cost to build an ADU is relatively inexpensive at $156,000. Because of their size and lower cost to construct, the Terner Center found that 58% of ADUs are rented out at below market rate.

Over the past few years, the Legislature has passed a number of bills to ease zoning restrictions and expedite approval processes at the local level, which has contributed to the increased supply of ADUs throughout the state. For example, in the City of Los Angeles, since 2017 a total of 9,247 applications have been received for ADUs. This represents an approximately 30-fold increase as compared to the citywide average in the many years well before the state law changed. Similarly, the City of Santa Rosa received 118 applications for ADUs in 2018, compared to 54 total from 2008-2016.

1. Arguments in Support. According to UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project, “Recent state efforts to incentivize the construction of ADUs have resulted in more communities and families building ADUs as a cost efficient way to address the affordable housing crisis. By further reducing barriers to ADU approval and construction, this legislation will help add tens of thousands of new units to California’s housing stock.” The California Association
   of Realtors notes that the bill “will help alleviate our housing shortage while capitalizing on limited land resources.”
2. Arguments in Opposition. Opponents are concerned about the unlimited number of ADUs within multifamily buildings and up to two ADUs on a multifamily lot, which could substantially increase the density in areas built with infrastructure designed to handle the existing units. Opponents are additionally concerned about the elimination of replacement parking requirements and the need for occupants to have a place to park.
3. Double-Referral. This bill was heard in the Housing and Community Development Committee on April 3, 2019, and passed with a 6-0 vote.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California YIMBY [SPONSOR]

AARP California
ADU Task Force East Bay
Bay Area Council

BRIDGE Housing

Building Industry Association of the Bay Area
California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors
California Community Builders

California Teamsters
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
Citylab - UCLA
Community Legal Services In East Palo Alto
EAH Housing
Eden Housing
Emerald Fund
Enterprise Community Partners, Inc.
Facebook, Inc.
Greenbelt Alliance

Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley (if amended)

Hello Housing
La-Mas

Larson Shores Architects
League of Women Voters of California
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Openscope Studio
PICO California
PreFabADU
Related California

San Diego Apartment Association
San Francisco Foundation
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
Silicon Valley At Home (Sv@Home)
Spur

Tentmakers Inc.
Terner Center For Housing Innovation at the University Of California, Berkeley
The Casita Coalition
The Two Hundred
TMG Partners
Urban Displacement Project, UC Berkeley
Working Partnerships USA

10 Individual letters

Opposition

American Planning Association, California Chapter (unless amended)

League of California Cities (unless amended)

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

Date of Hearing: April 3, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

David Chiu, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 68 (

Author:Ting) – As Amended Ver:March 27, 2019

SUBJECT: Land use: accessory dwelling units

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

1. Requires a local agency to ministerially approve, in an area zoned for housing, an application for a building permit to create any of the following:
   1. On a lot with a proposed or existing single-family home, allow:
      1. one ADU that is substantially within a proposed or existing structure or the same footprint as an existing structure; or
      2. one detached ADU that is substantially within a proposed or existing structure or the same footprint as an existing structure.
   2. On a lot with a multi-family dwelling, allow:
      1. Multiple ADUs within the livable space of an existing structure; and
      2. Two detached ADUs.
2. Provides that a local ADU ordinance cannot:
   1. Limit ADUS to lots of a minimum size;
   2. Set a maximum ADU size that does not allow an ADU of at least 800 square feet and 16 feet in height;
   3. Require replacement parking when parking is demolished in the creation of an ADU;
   4. Require that a setback be required for ADUs within existing structures and new ADUs located in the in the same location as existing structures, and no more than a four-foot side and rear yard setback for all other ADUs;
   5. Allow more than 60 days to ministerially consider an ADU permit application;
   6. Utilize another local ordinance, policy, or regulation as the basis for the delay, in addition to deny, of permitting an ADU;
   7. Require that monitoring of owner-occupancy restrictions occurs more than once per year;
   8. Require correction of nonconforming zoning conditions as a condition of ministerial approval; and
   9. Define owner-occupant to as anything less than the following:
      1. An owner of the lot who occupies the primary dwelling or the ADU;
      2. A trust in which ownership of the lot is placed if at least one beneficiary of the trust occupies the primary dwelling or the ADU; and,
      3. An organization that owns the lot in order to provide long-term, deed-restricted affordable housing that is subject to a regulatory agreement with a local agency.
3. Provides that JADUs must be allowed to be constructed within new single-family residences.

4) Creates an enforcement mechanism as follows:

• 1. Allows the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to submit written findings to a local agency regarding compliance of their local ADU ordinance;
  2. Provides that if HCD finds that the ordinance does not comply with statelaw, HCD must notify the local agency that the local agency is in violation and provide a maximum of 30 days to respond;
  3. Requires the local agency to amend its ordinance accordingly or adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the local ordinance complies with State ADU law; and,
  4. Provides that if the local agency does not amend its ordinance in response to HCD’s findings or adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with state law and address HCD’s findings, HCD must notify the local agency and may notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of the law.

1. Revises the definition of ADU to convey that such a unit can exist on a lot where a single-family will be situated.
2. Defines “nonconforming zoning condition” to mean a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
3. Provides that no reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that ADUs are an essential component of California’s housing supply (Government Code Section 65852.150).
2. Establishes requirements and standards for ADUs (Government Code Section 65852.2), including:
   1. Requiring a local agency to ministerially approve, in an area zoned for housing, an application for a building permit to create one ADU and one JADU.
   2. Providing that a local ADU ordinance may:
      1. Impose requirements on minimum lot size, lot coverage, or floor area ratio;
      2. Set a maximum size of ADU at the size of an efficiency unit (240 square feet) and set a maximum ADU height;
      3. Require replacement parking when parking is demolished in the creation of an ADU;
      4. Require a setback for an ADU that is built within an existing garage, and require more than a five-foot setback for all other ADUs;
      5. Allow up to 120 days to ministerially consider an ADU permit application;
      6. Utilize another local ordinance, policy, or regulation as the basis for the delay of permitting an ADU;
      7. Require that monitoring of owner-occupancy restrictions occurs more than once per year;
      8. Require correction of nonconforming zoning conditions as a condition of ministerial approval; and,
      9. Define owner-occupant to be limited to the owner of the lot who occupies the primary dwelling or the ADU.
3. Specifies that JADUs are allowed to be constructed within existing single-family residences (Government Code Section 65852.22).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

Purpose of the Bill: According to the author, “ADUs and JADUs represent forms of housing production that can be rapidly increased without significant change to state laws. Existing law regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) allow for too many barriers to their development, stunting a resource which could be part of the solution to California’s housing crisis. Some of the barriers that continue to limit the full potential of ADUs in California are complex and costly permitting and construction processes.”

Background: ADUs are additional living quarters that are independent of the primary dwelling unit on the same lot. ADUs are either attached or detached to the primary dwelling unit, and provide complete independent living facilities for one or more person, including separate access from the property’s primary unit. This includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. JADUs are ADUs that are no more than 500 square feet and exist within single-family homes and have cooking facilities including a sink and stove but are not required to have a bathroom.

ADUs have been identified as an important piece of the solution to California’s housing crisis.

According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, the average cost to build an ADU is relatively inexpensive at $156,000. Because of their size and lower cost to construct, the Terner Center found that 58% of ADUs are rented out at below market rate.

Over the past few years, the legislature has passed a number of bills to ease zoning restrictions and expedite approval processes at the local level, which has contributed to the increased supply of ADUs throughout the state. For example, in the city of Los Angeles, since 2017 a total of 9,247 applications have been received for ADUs. This represents an approximate 30-fold increase as compared to the citywide average in the many years before the state law changed to reduce barriers to ADUs. Similarly, the city of Santa Rosa received 118 applications for ADUs in 2018, compared to 54 total from 2008-2016.

Relaxing ADU Standards: This bill makes major changes to the ADU statute to facilitate the development of more ADUs and addressed perceived barriers to ADUs, including the following:

• Increases the number of ADUs allowed to be constructed per lot by potentially allowing two ADUs on lots with single-family homes, and multiple ADUs on lots with multi-family dwellings;
• Enables ADUs and JADUs to be approved ministerially if there is an existing or proposed primary residence;
• Imposes requirements on minimum lot size to allow ADUs;
• Sets a maximum ADU dimensions that do not permit an ADU of 800 square feet, 16 feet in height, with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks;
• Requires replacement parking when parking is demolished in the creation of an ADU;
• Requires a setback for an ADU that is built within an existing structure or in the same footprint as an existing structure, and require more than a four-foot setback for all other ADUs;
• Allows no more than 60 days to ministerially consider an ADU permit application;
• Utilize another local ordinance, policy, or regulation as the basis for the delay of permitting an ADU;
• Requires that monitoring of owner-occupancy restrictions occurs more than once per year;
• Requires correction of nonconforming zoning conditions as a condition of ministerial approval; and
• Defines owner-occupant as:
  • An owner of the lot who occupies the primary dwelling or the ADU;
  • A trust in which ownership of the lot is placed if at least one beneficiary of the trust occupies the primary dwelling or the ADU; and,
  • An organization that owns the lot in order to provide long-term, deed-restricted affordable housing that is subject to a regulatory agreement with a local agency.

Owner occupancy restrictions: Existing law allows local jurisdictions to require owner occupancy for either the primary residence or the ADU. Proponents for owner-occupancy requirements have articulated that this regulation helps ensure oversight of the ADU and increases the potential for it to be rented out affordably to family and friends at a lower rent than would otherwise have been charged. They have also cited concern that removing this requirement would lead to more speculative development of ADUs by large corporations.

Opponents of the owner-occupancy requirements have conveyed that ADUs should not be treated as a separate class from other forms of housing, for which such requirements do not exist. They argue that there is little evidence of an increase in home speculation from large corporations in those jurisdictions without this requirement. Finally, they cite the negative production implications of the owner-occupancy requirement. Owner-occupancy restrictions limit the sites on which ADUs could be built. They also create a disincentive for existing homeowners considering building an ADU, as it will limit the pool of potential future buyers. They also cite concerns that, were the owner to move out and the future owner want to rent the property, the ADU would be required to be demolished in order to comply with the law.

AB 881 (Bloom) (2019), which will also be heard in committee today, proposes to eliminate the ability for local jurisdictions to require owner occupancy for either the primary residence or ADU. To ensure consistency between the two bills, the Committee may wish to consider amending AB 68 to also remove the ability for local jurisdictions to require owner occupancy and the related language regarding the frequency of monitoring this restriction.

Approval process for ADUs: The intent of ADU policy is that ADUs are dwelling units that are accessory to the primary dwelling unit(s) on the property. Towards this end, the existing definition of ADUs states that ADUs must be built on the same parcel on which a dwelling is already situated. The bill refines the definition of ADUs to include dwellings built on parcels with proposed dwelling units. The intent of this change is to enable ADUs to be constructed at the same time as the primary residence. However, as currently written, the bill would enable an ADU to be constructed on a parcel on which there is no other dwelling unit, only a proposed dwelling unit. To help better align the intent of the existing and proposed law, the Committee may wish to consider requiring that an ADU cannot receive its certificate of occupancy before the primary residence(s) on the lot receives its certificate of occupancy.

As discussed above, this bill proposes to reduce the maximum period by which a local jurisdiction must ministerially consider an ADU or JADU permit application from 120 days after receiving the application to 60 days. Like other building and planning applications, it is not uncommon for applications for ADU and JADU permits to be submitted with incomplete or inaccurate information. While the reduced timeframe for review would help expedite the process, local jurisdictions should not be held accountable for processing incomplete applications. As such, the Committee may wish to consider specifying that the 60-day time period for considering an application begins when the jurisdiction receives a “complete” application.

Other issues: Existing law conveys that ADUs may be on a lot with a proposed primary dwelling unit. The bill further specifies ADUs may be constructed on lots with multi-family dwellings. However, the existing definition of ADU conveys that it is a dwelling unit on the same parcel as “the single-family dwelling.” The Committee may wish to consider revising the definition to clarify that ADUs can also be built on lots with multi-family dwellings.

Arguments in Support: According to UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project, “Recent state efforts to incentivize the construction of ADUs have resulted in more communities and families building ADUs as a cost efficient way to address the affordable housing crisis. By further reducing barriers to ADU approval and construction, this legislation will help add tens of thousands of new units to California’s housing stock.” The California Association of Realtors notes that the bill “will help alleviate our housing shortage while capitalizing on limited land resources.”

Arguments in opposition: According to APA California, this and the multiple other ADU bills introduced this year would “make ADU ordinances more complicated rather than encouraging them and many jurisdictions that have already updated or are nearly done updating their ordinances.” They additionally cite concerns over allowing multiple ADUs in areas where the infrastructure might not be equipped to handle more housing units, reducing parking requirements, and reducing local discretion over owner–occupancy restrictions.

Committee Amendments: To address the issues raised above, the Committee may wish to consider the following amendments:

• Remove the ability for local jurisdictions to require owner occupancy for either the primary residence or ADU, and related language regarding the frequency of monitoring this restriction;
• Specify that the 60-day time period for considering an ADU or JADU application begins when the jurisdiction receives a complete application;
• Revise the definition of ADU to clarify that an ADU cannot receive its certificate of occupancy before the primary residence(s) on the lot; and
• Revise the definition of ADU to clarify that ADUs can also be built on lots with multi-family dwellings.

Related Legislation: The following bills related to ADUs have been introduced and are currently being considered by the legislature:

AB 69 (Ting) (2019): This bill would facilitate the creation of new Building Code standards for ADUs and other small homes. This bill is pending hearing in this committee.

AB 587 (Friedman) (2019): This bill would allow ADUs to be sold or conveyed separately from the primary residence where the house and ADU are built by a non-profit whose mission is to sell those units to low-income families, that both the primary house and the ADU are sold to low-income families, and that any subsequent sale also be to a low-income family. This bill was heard in this committee on March 27, 2019 and was passed out by a vote of 8-0. The bill is pending hearing at the Assembly Committee on Local Government.

AB 670 (Friedman) (2019): This bill would make it illegal for new or amended governing documents of common interest developments to prohibit the construction of ADUs or JADUs. This bill is pending hearing in this committee.

AB 671 (Friedman) (2019): This bill would require local jurisdictions to require in their Housing Elements a plan that incentivizes and promotes production of ADUs for very-low, low-, and moderate-income households. Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to develop and post to its website a list of state programs that could help subsidize ADUs for very-low, low-, and moderate-income households. This bill is pending hearing in this committee.

AB 881 (Bloom) (2019): This bill would make several changes to further reduce barriers to production of ADUs. It would remove the ability for local jurisdictions to create owner occupancy requirements for ADUs. This bill is pending hearing in this committee.

SB 13 (Wieckowski) ( 2019): This bill would make several changes to further reduce barriers to production of ADUs. It would remove the ability for local jurisdictions to create owner occupancy requirements for ADUs. This bill is pending hearing in Senate Housing Committee.

Previous Legislation:

SB 1069 (Wieckowski), Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016: This bill made several changes to reduce the barriers to the development of ADUs and expanded capacity for their development, including changes to parking, fees, fire requirements, and process.

AB 2299 (Bloom), Chapter 735, Statutes of 2016: This bill requires a local government to ministerially approve ADUs if the unit complies with certain parking requirements, the maximum allowable size of an attached ADU, and setback requirements.

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

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

AARP California
ADU Task Force (East Bay)
Bay Area Council
BRIDGE Housing
Building Industry Association of the Bay Area
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Community Builders
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council

Casita Coalition
cityLAB - UCLA
Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
EAH Housing
Eden Housing
Facebook
Greenbelt Alliance
Habitat for Humanity California
Hello Housing
La-Mas
League of Women Voters of California
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
North Bay Leadership Council
OpenScope Studio
PICO California
PrefabADU
Related California
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
SV@Home
SPUR
Tent Makers

The Two Hundred
TMG Partners

Turner Center for Housing Innovation
UNITE HERE, AFL-CIO
Urban Displacement Project
Working Partnerships USA

Individuals - 7

Support If Amended

Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley
The San Francisco Foundation

Opposition

American Planning Association (oppose unless amended)

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