CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 881

Author:(Bloom)

As Amended Ver:September 9, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Revises the law regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

The Senate Amendments:

1. Specify that ministerial approval of an ADU must occur within a "residential or mixed-use zone."
2. Allow local agencies to not approve ADUs ministerially if the side and rear yards are insufficient for fire safety.
3. Require a local agency that does not provide water or sewer services to consult the local water/sewer service providers before permitting an ADU. (Appros)
4. Make conforming and chaptering amendments.

COMMENTS:

The production of ADUs is an important strategy in the effort to reduce the overall cost of housing in California. This bill would remove potential impediments to their construction in three ways: by limiting the criteria by which local jurisdictions can limit where ADUs are permitted; by clarifying that ADUs must be ministerially approved if constructed in existing garages; and by eliminating for five years the potential for local agencies to place owner-occupancy requirements on the units.

According to the Author:

According to the author, "Although the ADU permitting process has been significantly streamlined as a result (of previous legislation), there continue to be ambiguities in the ADU statute that can slow or block the construction of these units. This has resulted in many ADU permits being significantly delayed or blocked. There are a number of specific deficiencies in existing law that this bill seeks to remedy."

Arguments in Support:

According to the Bay Area Council, "By providing cost-effective guidelines and removing own-occupancy requirements, AB 881 will help combat California's housing shortage. This legislation will help add thousands of new units to California's housing stock."

Arguments in Opposition:

According to the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, "AB 881 would prohibit our member cities 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. 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."

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. HCD estimates costs of approximately $90,000 in the first year and $83,000 annually thereafter for 0.5 PY of staff time to provide additional technical assistance to local agencies regarding their ADU ordinances. (General Fund)
2. 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)

VOTES:

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 7-0-1

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Limón

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7-0-1

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Boerner Horvath

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 18-0-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Diep, Eggman, Fong, Gabriel, Jones-Sawyer, Maienschein, Obernolte, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-2-7

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO: O'Donnell, Waldron

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Boerner Horvath, Brough, Burke, Frazier, Limón, Muratsuchi

UPDATED:

VERSION: September 9, 2019

CONSULTANT: Steve Wertheim / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0002465

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 881

Author: Bloom (D)

Amended: 9/9/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-1, 6/18/19

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

NOES: Bates

NO VOTE RECORDED: McGuire

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/3/19

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

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

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Durazo, Hill, Wieckowski

NOES: Bates, Jones

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-2, 5/13/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: 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 clarify one provision 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, 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. Limits the criteria by which a local agency may determine where ADUs may be permitted to the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety.
2. Requires local agencies to ministerially approve ADUs on lots in residential or mixed-use zones if the unit is contained within an existing structure, as defined.
3. Removes, until January 1, 2025, existing law authority for local agencies to require ADU applicants to be owner occupants and eliminates existing law authority for local agencies to require owner occupancy of either the ADU or the primary dwelling.
4. Specifies, in the existing law prohibition on a local agency from imposing parking standards within a half-mile of transit, that the half-mile shall be measured in walking distance and defines public transit as a bus stop, bus line, light rail, street car, car share drop off or pickup, or heavy rail stop.

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 junior ADUs (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.”

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.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. The author states that California’s housing shortage is well documented and the state currently needs over three million new units to address existing housing need. ADUs are an innovative and affordable housing option for many Californians. Because they are relatively affordable to build and are constructed by homeowners themselves, they also create units without depleting limited affordable housing funds. The ADU permitting process was streamlined significantly in 2016 through AB 2299 (Bloom) and cities around California embraced ADUs, adopting ordinances that have resulted in some confusion and uncertainty that has created unnecessary barriers to the construction of these units. This bill provides much-needed updates and clarifications to ADU statute that will help facilitate the construction of more housing.
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 requires ministerial approval of ADUs on lots with multifamily residences and within existing garages.
   2. Zoning. Existing law allows local ADU ordinances to designate areas where ADUs may be permitted, based on criteria including but not limited to the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety. This bill deletes “including but not limited to,” restricting a local agency’s location considerations to the water- and sewer-adequate sites and those that do not overly impact traffic flow and public safety.
   3. Owner occupancy requirements. Existing law allows a local ADU ordinance to require owner occupancy for either the primary dwelling or the ADU. This bill removes, until January 1, 2025, the authority for local agencies require ADU applicants to be owner occupants and eliminates existing law authority for local agencies to require owner occupancy for either the ADU or the primary dwelling.
   4. Parking requirements. Existing law prohibits a local agency from imposing parking standards on ADUs that are within one-half mile of transit. This bill specifies that the half-mile shall be measured in walking distance, to account for possible obstacles such as bodies of water or freeways. It also expands the definition of public transit.
4. Other ADU bills. Multiple ADU bills have been introduced again this year. The two bills that overlap most with this bill are AB 68 (Ting) 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 costs of approximately $90,000 in the first year and $83,000 annually thereafter for ½ PY of staff time to provide additional technical assistance to local agencies regarding their ADU ordinances. (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)
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association
California Forward Action Fund
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
Enterprise Community Partners, Inc.
Habitat for Humanity California
Hamilton Families
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
North Bay Leadership Council
Pico California
Related California
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
Silicon Valley at Home
South California Rental Housing Association
TechEquity Collaborative
The Two Hundred
TMG Partners
United Dwelling

1 Individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/10/19)

City of Beverly Hills

City of Burbank

City of Chino Hills

City of Cupertino

City of Fullerton

City of Los Alamitos

City of Los Altos

City of Monterey Park

City of San Dimas

City of San Marcos

City of San Mateo

City of Thousand Oaks

City of Torrance

League of California Cities

Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members

South Bay Cities Council of Governments

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters state that this bill improves on the existing laws by making them harder to circumvent. Eliminating the owner occupancy requirement is of particular importance because this provision, intentionally or not, allows local governments to prevent the construction of ADUs because homeowners are often unsure of what requirements will be if they wish to move, and banks are reluctant to lend if the deed is restricted to owner occupancy.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents state that prohibiting a local jurisdiction from requiring a property owner to live in the main house or the ADU would incentivize operating the property as a commercial enterprise. This could have the unintended effect of large-scale investors purchasing many single-family homes and adding ADUs. Owner occupancy requirements could also provide greater oversight and an opportunity to provide more affordable rents, as a homeowner is less likely to be profit driven.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-2, 5/13/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NOES: O'Donnell, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Boerner Horvath, Brough, Burke, Frazier, Limón, Muratsuchi

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

9/10/19 22:11:31

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 881

Author: Bloom (D)

Amended: 8/12/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-1, 6/18/19

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

NOES: Bates

NO VOTE RECORDED: McGuire

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/3/19

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

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

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Durazo, Hill, Wieckowski

NOES: Bates, Jones

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-2, 5/13/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: 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, 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. Limits the criteria by which a local agency may determine where ADUs may be permitted to the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety.
2. Requires local agencies to ministerially approve ADUs on lots in residential or mixed-use zones if the unit is contained within an existing structure, as defined.
3. Removes, until January 1, 2025, existing law authority for local agencies to require ADU applicants to be owner occupants and eliminates existing law authority for local agencies to require owner occupancy of either the ADU or the primary dwelling.
4. Specifies, in the existing law prohibition on a local agency from imposing parking standards within a half-mile of transit, that the half-mile shall be measured in walking distance and defines public transit as a bus stop, bus line, light rail, street car, car share drop off or pickup, or heavy rail stop.

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 junior ADUs (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.”

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.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. The author states that California’s housing shortage is well documented and the state currently needs over three million new units to address existing housing need. ADUs are an innovative and affordable housing option for many Californians. Because they are relatively affordable to build and are constructed by homeowners themselves, they also create units without depleting limited affordable housing funds. The ADU permitting process was streamlined significantly in 2016 through AB 2299 (Bloom) and cities around California embraced ADUs, adopting ordinances that have resulted in some confusion and uncertainty that has created unnecessary barriers to the construction of these units. This bill provides much-needed updates and clarifications to ADU statute that will help facilitate the construction of more housing.
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 requires ministerial approval of ADUs on lots with multifamily residences and within existing garages.
   2. Zoning. Existing law allows local ADU ordinances to designate areas where ADUs may be permitted, based on criteria including but not limited to the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety. This bill deletes “including but not limited to,” restricting a local agency’s location considerations to the water- and sewer-adequate sites and those that do not overly impact traffic flow and public safety.
   3. Owner occupancy requirements. Existing law allows a local ADU ordinance to require owner occupancy for either the primary dwelling or the ADU. This bill removes, until January 1, 2025, the authority for local agencies require ADU applicants to be owner occupants and eliminates existing law authority for local agencies to require owner occupancy for either the ADU or the primary dwelling.
   4. Parking requirements. Existing law prohibits a local agency from imposing parking standards on ADUs that are within one-half mile of transit. This bill specifies that the half-mile shall be measured in walking distance, to account for possible obstacles such as bodies of water or freeways. It also expands the definition of public transit.
4. Other ADU bills. Multiple ADU bills have been introduced again this year. The two bills that overlap most with this bill are AB 68 (Ting) 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 costs of approximately $90,000 in the first year and $83,000 annually thereafter for ½ PY of staff time to provide additional technical assistance to local agencies regarding their ADU ordinances. (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)
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association
California Forward Action Fund
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
Enterprise Community Partners, Inc.
Habitat for Humanity California
Hamilton Families
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
North Bay Leadership Council
Pico California
Related California
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
Silicon Valley at Home
South California Rental Housing Association
TechEquity Collaborative
The Two Hundred
TMG Partners
United Dwelling

1 Individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/30/19)

City of Beverly Hills

City of Burbank

City of Chino Hills

City of Cupertino

City of Fullerton

City of Los Alamitos

City of Los Altos

City of Monterey Park

City of San Dimas

City of San Marcos

City of San Mateo

City of Thousand Oaks

City of Torrance

League of California Cities

Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members

South Bay Cities Council of Governments

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters state that this bill improves on the existing laws by making them harder to circumvent. Eliminating the owner occupancy requirement is of particular importance because this provision, intentionally or not, allows local governments to prevent the construction of ADUs because homeowners are often unsure of what requirements will be if they wish to move, and banks are reluctant to lend if the deed is restricted to owner occupancy.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents state that prohibiting a local jurisdiction from requiring a property owner to live in the main house or the ADU would incentivize operating the property as a commercial enterprise. This could have the unintended effect of large-scale investors purchasing many single-family homes and adding ADUs. Owner occupancy requirements could also provide greater oversight and an opportunity to provide more affordable rents, as a homeowner is less likely to be profit driven.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-2, 5/13/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NOES: O'Donnell, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Boerner Horvath, Brough, Burke, Frazier, Limón, Muratsuchi

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

9/1/19 10:04:05

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 881 (Bloom) - Accessory dwelling units

Bill Summary:

AB 881 would make a number of changes to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) law, including expanding ministerial approval of an ADU to multifamily and mixed-use zones, and temporarily removing owner-occupancy requirements until January 1, 2025, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• HCD estimates costs of approximately $90,000 in the first year and $83,000 annually thereafter for ½ PY of staff time to provide additional technical assistance to local agencies regarding their ADU ordinances. (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 proposed in a zone for single family use, 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 881 would make the following changes to ADU law:

• Limit the criteria that cities and counties may use to designate where ADUs may be permitted to adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety. A local agency that does not provide water or sewer service must consult with local providers regarding the adequacy of water and sewer service before designating where ADUs may be permitted.
• Temporarily delete the authority for a local agency to require owner-occupancy of an ADU as a condition of permitting until January 1, 2025.
• Clarify that the prohibition of a local agency to impose parking standards on an ADU within ½ mile of public transit applies if the ADU is within ½ mile walking distance. The bill would also define “public transit” as a bus stop, bus line, light rail, street car, car share drop off or pick up, or heavy rail stop.
• Specify that ministerial approval of an ADU permit applies in a residential or mixed-use zone, rather than a zone for single family use. The bill would also clarify that ministerial approval applies explicitly to an ADU contained within an existing garage.
• Delete the requirement that an ADU have independent exterior access from an existing residence as a condition for ministerial approval.
• Clarify the definition of ADU to include units located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence.
• Define “accessory structure” as a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot.

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 68 (Ting), which is pending in this Committee, would restrict the conditions that local governments may impose on ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs), authorize HCD to submit written findings to a local agency regarding its ADU ordinance, authorize HCD to refer violations to the Attorney General, and make other changes to ADU and JADU law.

AB 69 (Ting), which is pending in this Committee, would require HCD to propose building standards for ADUs and Junior ADUs, 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 68 (Ting), and AB 586 (Friedman). 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

Accessory dwelling units

Expands the types of ADUs that a local government must permit and, until January 1, 2025, prohibits local agencies from requiring owner occupancy of ADUs, among other changes.

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. 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 881 requires local agencies to only designate areas where ADUs can be permitted based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety.

AB 881 also expands the types of ADUs that a local government must permit. 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 881:

• Repeals the requirement that side and rear setbacks must be sufficient for fire safety;
• Repeals the requirement that the ADU have independent exterior access from the existing residence;
• Repeals the requirement that the lot be zoned for single-family use; and
• Expands the law to allow conversion of any structure.

AB 881 also prohibits local agencies from requiring owner-occupancy of an ADU until January 1, 2025.

AB 881 clarifies that for an ADU to be exempt from parking requirements if it is within ½ mile of transit, as provided under existing law, the ½ mile must be walking distance. AB 881 adds a definition of public transit that includes a bus stop, bus line, light rail, street car, car share drop off or pick up, or heavy rail stop.

State Revenue Impact

No estimate.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “California’s housing shortage is well-documented and the state currently needs over 3 million new units to address existing housing need. Accessory dwelling units, also known as granny-flats or secondary units, are an innovative and affordable housing option for many Californians. Because they are relatively affordable to build and are constructed by homeowners themselves, they also create units without depleting limited affordable housing funds. The ADU permitting process was streamlined significantly in 2016 through AB 2299 and cities around California embraced ADUs, adopting ordinances that have resulted in thousands of new permits across the state. Unfortunately, ambiguities in ADU statute have resulted in some confusion and uncertainty that has created unnecessary barriers to the construction of these units. AB 881 provides much-needed updates and clarifications to ADU statute that will help facilitate the construction of more 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 881 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 9,247 applications for ADUs since 2017. 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. Are further changes necessary to spur additional development of ADUs?

3. Occupational hazard. Some local governments require owner occupancy for either the primary or the accessory dwelling unit. These requirements stem from two stated characteristics of ADUs. First, ADUs are touted as a way for homeowners to defray their own expenses and afford a house that they might not otherwise be able to. Second, fans of ADUs argue that they are more affordable than other housing because they are often rented out to family and friends. In this context, owner occupancy requirements make sense: without such a restriction, an ADU becomes an investment property if the owner doesn’t live on premises. Moreover, ADU owners that see it as an investment are less likely to want to rent it affordably, and larger homebuilders and property management companies will get into the ADU game. Finally, some local governments use owner-occupancy requirements to ensure that ADUs are rented out at an affordable rate: they waive owner occupancy requirements if the ADU builder agrees to restrict the rent they can charge. AB 881 prohibits local agencies from imposing owner-occupancy requirements for five years. As a result, ADUs may be subject to the same market forces that have driven up rents across California. By doing so, AB 881 may undermine the stated goal of allowing ADUs: to ensure that lower-cost housing is more widely available to Californians that need it.

4. ADUs everywhere? Currently, ADUs are permitted only on lots with existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwellings in residentially zoned areas. AB 881 requires local agencies to permit any ADUs that are conversions of existing structures, in any area, regardless of what local zoning regulations say. Removing the requirement for ministerially-permitted, zoning-exempt ADUs to be located in residential areas potentially allows ADUs to spring up in areas that lack the infrastructure to support growth and may also induce sprawl by developing ADUs in agricultural areas. The Committee may wish to consider restoring the requirement that the ADUs exempt from most other zoning requirements be located in areas zoned for residential use.

5. Fire! ADU law already allows for some conversions of existing accessory structures without the ability of local governments to say no, but to qualify, the structure must have setbacks sufficient for fire safety. AB 881 repeals this requirement. As a result, it is unclear whether local agencies that thought there was fire danger from insufficient setbacks could deny the development of such an ADU. The Committee may wish to consider preserving this setback requirement.

6. Let’s be clear. ADU law is long and complicated, and has undergone many changes, and not all of its provisions have kept up. Existing law defines an ADU as “an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated.” Since AB 881 expands authorization to develop ADUs to many places that don’t have single-family homes, it is unclear whether the new authority that it grants to develop ADUs in any existing structure, rather than only accessory structures, would allow ADUs to be developed on lots without a single-family residence. The Committee may wish to consider amending the definition of ADU to specifically require an existing or proposed primary residence on the same lot.

7. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because AB 881 requires local governments to perform new activities related to land use regulation, Legislative Counsel says that it imposes a new state mandate. But this bill disclaims the state's responsibility for reimbursing local agencies by including findings and declarations that local agencies may levy fees to cover the costs of the program.

8. Incoming! The Senate Housing Committee approved AB 881 at its June 18^th meeting on a vote of 9-1. The Senate Governance and Finance Committee is hearing AB 881 as the committee of second reference.

9. Charter city. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own “municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws. Because the Constitution doesn't define “municipal affairs,” the courts determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or whether it's an issue of statewide concern. AB 881 says that its statutory provisions apply to charter cities. To support this assertion, the bill includes a legislative finding that the bill addresses a matter of statewide concern.

10. Related legislation. AB 881 is one of several ADU bills introduced in the Legislature this year. Notable bills include:

• AB 68, which the Committee will hear at its July 10^th meeting, contains additional restrictions on the zoning standards that local governments may apply to ADUs, requires local governments to permit 800 square foot ADUs instead of efficiency units, and adds a number of additional types of ADUs that are permitted notwithstanding other laws, including local ordinances. AB 68 is currently pending in the Senate Environmental Quality 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 the Department of Housing and Community Development comments on local ADU ordinances, and makes 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). AB 881 contains a few of the provisions that were contained in those bills. 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: 7-0

Assembly Local Government Committee: 7-0

Assembly Appropriations Committee: 18-0

Assembly Floor: 71-2

Support and Opposition

(6/28/19)

Support: Bay Area Council; California Apartment Association; California Association of Realtors; California Forward Action Fund; California Yimby; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative; Enterprise Community Partners, Inc.; Hamilton Families; Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California; North Bay Leadership Council; Pico California; Related California; Silicon Valley At Home (Sv@Home); TMG Partners; United Dwelling

Opposition: Cities Association of Santa Clara County; City of Burbank; City of Los Alamitos; City of San Dimas; City of San Marcos; City of San Rafael/Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members; City of Thousand Oaks; City of Torrance; League of California Cities; Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members; South Bay Cities Council of Governments

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING

Senator Scott Wiener, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 881 Hearing Date: 6/18/2019

SUBJECT: 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 HCD within 60 days of adopting it and authorizes HCD to review and comment on the ordinance.

This bill:

1. Limits the criteria by which a local agency may determine where ADUs may be permitted to the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety.
2. Requires local agencies to ministerially approve ADUs on lots with multifamily residences and within existing garages.
3. Removes, until January 1, 2025, existing law authority for local agencies to require ADU applicants to be owner occupants and eliminates existing law authority for local agencies to require owner occupancy of either the ADU or the primary dwelling.
4. Specifies, in the existing law prohibition on a local agency from imposing parking standards within a half-mile of transit, that the half-mile shall be measured in walking distance and defines public transit as a bus stop, bus line, light rail, street car, car share drop off or pickup, or heavy rail stop.

COMMENTS

1. Purpose of the bill. The author states that California’s housing shortage is well documented and the state currently needs over three million new units to address existing housing need. ADUs are an innovative and affordable housing option for many Californians. Because they are relatively affordable to build and are constructed by homeowners themselves, they also create units without depleting limited affordable housing funds. The ADU permitting process was streamlined significantly in 2016 through AB 2299 (Bloom) and cities around California embraced ADUs, adopting ordinances that have resulted in some confusion and uncertainty that has created unnecessary barriers to the construction of these units. This bill provides much-needed updates and clarifications to ADU statute that will help facilitate the construction of more housing.
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. The state Department of Housing and Community Development (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.
4. 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 requires ministerial approval of ADUs on lots with multifamily residences and within existing garages.
   2. Zoning. Existing law allows local ADU ordinances to designate areas where ADUs may be permitted, based on criteria including but not limited to the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety. This bill deletes “including but not limited to,” restricting a local agency’s location considerations to the water- and sewer-adequate sites and those that do not overly impact traffic flow and public safety.
   3. Owner occupancy requirements. Existing law allows a local ADU ordinance to require owner occupancy for either the primary dwelling or the ADU. This bill removes, until January 1, 2025, the authority for local agencies require ADU applicants to be owner occupants and eliminates existing law authority for local agencies to require owner occupancy for either the ADU or the primary dwelling.
   4. Parking requirements. Existing law prohibits a local agency from imposing parking standards on ADUs that are within one-half mile of transit. This bill specifies that the half-mile shall be measured in walking distance, to account for possible obstacles such as bodies of water or freeways. It also expands the definition of public transit.
5. Other ADU bills. Multiple ADU bills have been introduced again this year. The two bills that overlap most with this bill are AB 68 (Ting) and SB 13 (Wieckowski). A comparison of major provisions among the three bills is on the following page.

1. Opposition concerns. A number of cities, writing in opposition to this bill, state that 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.
2. Double-referral. This bill has also been referred to the Governance and Finance Committee.

Related Legislation:

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

AB 68 (Ting, 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)

Bay Area Council

California Apartment Association
California Association Of Realtors
California Forward Action Fund

Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
United Dwelling

OPPOSITION:

Los Alamitos; City of
Marin County Council Of Mayors And Council Members
San Dimas; City Of
San Marcos; City Of
South Bay Cities Council Of Governments
Thousand Oaks; City Of

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 881

Author:(Bloom)

As Amended Ver:April 11, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Revises the law regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Major Provisions

1. Limits the criteria by which a local agency can determine where ADUs may be permitted to the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety.
2. Requires local agencies to ministerially approve ADUs on lots with multi-family residences and within existing garages.
3. Removes, until January 1, 2025, the authority for local agencies to require that applicants for ADUs be owner occupants and removes the ability for cities to require owner occupancy for either the primary or the accessory dwelling unit.
4. Specifies that, in measuring one-half mile from public transit for purposes of applying parking requirements, it is measured in walking distance.
5. Adds a definition of "public transit" to mean a bus stop, bus line, light rail, street car, car share drop off or pick up, or heavy rail stop.
6. Adds a definition of "accessory structure" to mean a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot.

COMMENTS:

The production of ADUs is an important strategy in the effort to reduce the overall cost of housing in California. This bill would remove potential impediments to their construction in three ways: by limiting the criteria by which local jurisdictions can limit where ADUs are permitted; by clarifying that ADUs must be ministerially approved if constructed in existing garages; and by eliminating for five years the potential for local agencies to place owner-occupancy requirements on the units.

According to the Author:

According to the author, "Although the ADU permitting process has been significantly streamlined as a result (of previous legislation), there continue to be ambiguities in the ADU statute that can slow or block the construction of these units. This has resulted in many ADU permits being significantly delayed or blocked. There are a number of specific deficiencies in existing law that this bill seeks to remedy."

Arguments in Support:

According to the Bay Area Council, "By providing cost-effective guidelines and removing own-occupancy requirements, AB 881 will help combat California's housing shortage. This legislation will help add thousands of new units to California's housing stock."

Arguments in Opposition:

According to the California League of Cities who is opposed unless amended, "AB 881 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."

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, 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: 7-0-1

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Limón

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7-0-1

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Boerner Horvath

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 18-0-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Diep, Eggman, Fong, Gabriel, Jones-Sawyer, Maienschein, Obernolte, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

UPDATED:

VERSION: April 11, 2019

CONSULTANT: Steve Wertheim / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0000292

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 881

Author:(Bloom) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2019

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

SUMMARY:

This bill makes a number of changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law. Specifically, this bill:

1. Limits the criteria by which a local agency can determine where ADUs may be permitted to the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety.
2. Removes, until January 1, 2025, the authority for local agencies to require applicants for ADUs be owner occupants and removes the ability for cities to require owner occupancy for either the primary or the accessory dwelling unit.
3. Requires local agencies to ministerially approve ADUs on lots with multi-family residences and within existing garages.
4. Clarifies, for purposes of the prohibition on a local agency not imposing parking standards, that one-half mile is walking distance of public transit.
5. Defines “public transit” to mean a bus stop, bus line, light rail, street car, car share drop off or pick up, or heavy rail stop.
6. Defines “existing structure” to mean a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot.

FISCAL EFFECT:

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 update and clarify ADU law to remove barriers to the construction of additional ADUs. According to the author:

The ADU permitting process was streamlined significantly in 2016 through AB 2299 and cities around California embraced ADUs, adopting ordinances that have resulted in thousands of new permits across the state. Unfortunately, ambiguities in ADU statute have resulted in some confusion and uncertainty that has created unnecessary barriers to the construction of these units. AB 881 provides much-needed updates and clarifications to ADU statute that will help facilitate the construction of more housing.

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. 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 68 (Ting) and AB 69 (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.
2. Prior Legislation.

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 881 (

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

SUBJECT: Accessory dwelling units.

SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law. Specifically, this bill:

1. Limits the criteria by which a local agency can determine where ADUs may be permitted to the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety.
2. Removes the authority for local agencies to require that applicants for ADUs be owner occupants and removes the ability for cities to require owner occupancy for either the primary or the accessory dwelling unit.
3. Requires local agencies to ministerially approve ADUs on lots with multi-family residences and within existing garages.
4. Clarifies, for purposes of the prohibition on a local agency not imposing parking standards, that one-half mile is walking distance of public transit.
5. Defines “public transit” to mean a bus stop, bus line, light rail, street car, car share drop off or pick up, or heavy rail stop.
6. Defines “existing structure” to mean a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot.
7. Provides that no reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
8. Provides that the Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act amending Section 65852.2 of the Government Code addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 1 of this act applies to all cities, including charter cities.

EXISTING LAW:

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

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

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary. This bill makes several changes to ADU law, including clarifying that distance to public transit, for purposes of the prohibition on a local agency imposing parking requirements, is one-half (1/2) mile walking distance of public transit, clarifies that garages are structures that can be converted into ADUs, clarifies the definition of terms, and limits additional criteria that can be used to exclude ADUs, in terms of requirements for the local agency. The bill also eliminates, from ADU law, the ability of a city or county to impose an owner-occupancy requirement on either the ADU or the main property. This bill is sponsored by the author.
2. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “California’s housing shortage is well-documented and the state currently needs over 3 million new units to address existing housing need. Accessory dwelling units, also known as granny-flats or secondary units, are an innovative and affordable housing option for many Californians. Because they are relatively affordable to build and are constructed by homeowners themselves, they also create units without depleting limited affordable housing funds.

“The ADU permitting process was streamlined significantly in 2016 through AB 2299 and cities around California embraced ADUs, adopting ordinances that have resulted in thousands of new permits across the state. Unfortunately, ambiguities in ADU statute have resulted in some confusion and uncertainty that has created unnecessary barriers to the construction of these units. AB 881 provides much-needed updates and clarifications to ADU statute that will help facilitate the construction of more housing.”

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. Policy Considerations:
   1. Owner-Occupancy Requirements. State law allows local jurisdictions to create their own ADU ordinances subject to certain requirements, or if no local ordinances exists, approval of ADUs are subject to state statute. Existing law allows a city to require owner occupancy for either the primary or the accessory dwelling unit created through this process. The local agency may even require that the applicant for the ADU permit to be an owner-occupant. This requirement pre-dates 2016’s SB 1069 (Wieckowski) and AB 2299 (Bloom), the bills considered largely responsible for the sizable growth in ADU applications in the past two years. AB 881 would remove these owner-occupancy requirement.

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. 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 to no evidence that these requirements have indeed reduced ADU rents or that this has led to an increase in home speculation. Finally, they site the negative implications of the owner-occupancy requirement. This includes the increased difficulty in transacting sales involving properties with ADUs, as the uniqueness of this requirement in the housing market creates onerous terms. They also cite concerns that, were the owner to move out, the ADU would be required to be demolished.

1. Committee Amendments. In order to assess the impacts of removing the ability for cities and counties to impose owner occupancy requirements, the Committee may wish to consider placing a five-year sunset on these provisions, from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2025. This will also allow the Legislature to have some oversight over the issue and assess whether ADU applications have increased without owner occupancy requirements, and whether the concerns about speculative development have occurred in some jurisdictions.
2. Arguments in Support. Supporters argue that this bill helps increase the housing stock of ADUs and removers several barriers to ADU deployment.
3. Arguments in Opposition. The League of California Cities, oppose unless amended, writes that this bill 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.”
4. Double-Referral. This bill was heard by the Housing and Community Development Committee on April 3, 2019, and passed with a 7-0 vote.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors

California Building Industry Association

California YIMBY

Oppose

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 881 (

Author:Bloom) – As Introduced Ver:February 20, 2019

SUBJECT: Accessory dwelling units

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

1. Limits the criteria by which a local agency can determine where ADUs may be permitted to the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety.
2. Requires local agencies to ministerially approve ADUs on lots with multi-family residences and within existing garages.
3. Removes the authority for local agencies to require that applicants for ADUs be owner occupants and removes the ability for cities to require owner occupancy for either the primary or the accessory dwelling unit.
4. Specifies that, in measuring one-half mile from public transit for purposes of applying parking requirements, the traversability and walkability of this distance is accounted for.
5. Adds a definition of “public transit” to mean a bus stop, bus line, light rail, street car, car share drop off or pick up, or heavy rail stop.
6. Adds a definition of “existing structure” to mean a structure that was constructed before conversion to an ADU and is not a new structure.
7. Removes a requirement that ADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.
8. Provides that no reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
9. Provides that the Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act amending Section 65852.2 of the Government Code addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 1 of this act applies to all cities, including charter cities.

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. A local agency may designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where accessory dwelling units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on criteria. Such criteria may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety.
   2. A local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit to create within a zone for single-family use one ADU per single-family lot if the unit is contained within the existing space of a single-family residence or accessory structure, including, but not limited to, a studio, pool house, or other similar structure.
   3. A local agency may require an applicant for an ADU be an owner-occupant.
   4. A city may require owner occupancy for either the primary or the accessory dwelling unit.
   5. A local agency may require owner occupancy for either the primary or the accessory dwelling unit created through this process.
   6. A local agency shall not impose parking standards for an ADU if the ADU is located within one-half mile of public transit.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

Purpose of the Bill: According to the author, “Although the ADU permitting process has been significantly streamlined as a result (of previous legislation), there continue to be ambiguities in the ADU statute that can slow or block the construction of these units. This has resulted in many ADU permits being significantly delayed or blocked. There are a number of specific deficiencies in existing law that this bill seeks to remedy.”

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.

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 Angles, 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.

Owner-Occupancy Requirements: State law allows local jurisdictions to create their own ADU ordinances subject to certain requirements or if no local ordinances exists approval of ADU are subject to state statute. Existing law allows a city to require owner occupancy for either the primary or the accessory dwelling unit created through this process. The local agency may even require that the applicant for the ADU permit to be an owner-occupant. This requirement pre-dates 2016’s SB 1069 (Wieckowski) and AB 2299 (Bloom), the bills considered largely responsible for the sizable growth in ADU applications in the past two years. The proposed bill would remove this owner-occupancy requirement.

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. 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 to no evidence that these requirements have indeed reduced ADU rents or that this has led to an increase in home speculation. Finally, they site the negative implications of the owner-occupancy requirement. This includes the increased difficulty in transacting sales involving properties with ADUs, as the uniqueness of this requirement in the housing market creates onerous terms. They also cite concerns that, were the owner to move out, the ADU would be required to be demolished.

Staff Comments: The production of ADUs is an important strategy in the effort to reduce the overall cost of housing in California. This bill would remove potential impediments to their construction in three ways: by limiting the criteria by which local jurisdictions can limit where ADUs are permitted; by clarifying that ADUs must be ministerially approved if constructed in existing garages; and by eliminating the potential for local agencies to place owner-occupancy requirements on the units.

This bill proposed to amend current law that bans local jurisdictions from imposing parking standards within from one-half mile of public transit. The proposed bill intends to convey that distance alone is an insufficient measure of transit accessibility by clarifying that this distance needs to be “traversable or walkable.” However, “traversable” and “walkable” are terms that are difficult to implement, as they mean very different things to differ people. As such, the Committee may consider revising this to utilize “walking distance” instead as a more definitive measure of how far the ADU is from transit.

The bill strikes language that the “Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.” This language is important for ensuring that ADUs can be built affordably. While this language appears twice in the existing Code, each could be construed as having slightly different meaning. As such, the Committee may wish to consider reinstating this language into the bill.

The proposed definition of “existing structure” does not add substantial meaning to law. As such, the Committee may wish to consider deleting the proposed definition of “existing structure.” By contrast, the term “accessory structure” is utilized in several places in this section, but not defined. As such, the Committee may wish to consider adding a definition of “accessory structure.”

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

• Replacing “one-half traversable or walkable mile of public transit” with “one-half mile walking distance of public transit.”
• Reinstating that “Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.”
• Adding a definition of “accessory structure” akin to that in Section 202 of the California Residential Code.
• Deleting the proposed definition of “existing structure.”

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

AB 68 (Ting) (2019): This bill would make several changes to further reduce barriers to production of ADUs. It would expand the definition of owner-occupancy to include members of trusts as well as units owned by a non-profit and deed restricted for affordability. It would increase enforcement capacity against local jurisdictions regarding their ADU ordinances. This bill is pending hearing in this committee.

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): 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.

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

California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors

California YIMBY

Support if amended

California Building Industry Association

Opposition

None on file

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