BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2299 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 11, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Lorena Gonzalez, Chair AB 2299 (Bloom) - As Amended April 5, 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Policy |Housing and Community |Vote:|5 - 2 | |Committee: |Development | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | |Local Government | |6 - 2 | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable: No SUMMARY: This bill requires, rather than permits, a local government to adopt an ordinance for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. Specifically, this bill: 1)Prohibits a local government from imposing parking standards for a second unit located within one-half mile of public transit or shopping or that is within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. AB 2299 Page 2 2)Allows a local government to eliminate parking requirements for any second unit located in its jurisdiction. 3)Prohibits a local government from requiring a passageway or pathway clear to the sky between the second unit and a public street when constructing a second unit. 4)Prohibits a local government from requiring a setback more than five feet from the side and rear lot line for a second unit constructed above a garage located on an alley. 5)Provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of a second unit, and the local government requires that those off-street parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the second unit including but not limited to covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts. FISCAL EFFECT: No state fiscal impact. Local agencies have the authority to levy fees for related costs and thus, any local costs are not reimbursable. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. According to the author, "Recognizing the potential of secondary units as a housing strategy, California has AB 2299 Page 3 passed several laws to lower local regulatory barriers to construction, most recently AB 1866 (Wright), Chapter 1062, Statutes of 2002, which requires that each city in the state have a ministerial process for approving secondary units. This bill will ease and streamline current statewide regulations as well as encourage the building of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a way to create more housing options. Currently several cities are looking at local ordinance to improve or incentivize the creation of ADUs as a way to create more rental properties and incomes for families to stay in their current homes. Simply reducing parking requirements in transit-rich areas where most tenants don't have a car will encourage more building of ADUs." 2)Background. Local governments are authorized, but not required, to adopt ordinances for the creation of second units in single family and multifamily zones. State law allows local governments to limit the areas that second units may be permitted based on availability of adequate water and sewer services as well as the impact on traffic flow. They can also impose parking standards. AB 1866 (Wright), Chapter 1066, Statutes of 2003, required that local governments approve a second unit ministerially without discretionary review or hearing or require a special use permit. 3)Arguments in Support. Supporters, apartment owners and realtors, argue that this bill will help alleviate our housing shortage, while capitalizing on limited land resources. 4)Arguments in Opposition. Opposition, local governments, argues that this bill adds costs at the local level that are ultimately passed on in the form of higher development fees, and also assumes that all communities are appropriate for second units. AB 2299 Page 4 5)Related Legislation. This is one of six Assembly bills addressing density bonus issues before this committee today. a) AB 1934 (Santiago) creates a density bonus for commercial developers that partner with an affordable housing developer to construct a mixed-used development. b) AB 2208 (Santiago) adds to the list of the types of sites that a local government can identify as suitable for residential development in their housing element. c) AB 2442 (Holden) requires local agencies to grant a density bonus when an applicant for a housing development agrees to construct housing for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless persons. d) AB 2501 (Bloom and Low) makes a number of changes to density bonus law. e) AB 2556 (Nazarian) requires a jurisdiction, in cases where a proposed development is replacing existing affordable housing units, to adopt a rebuttable presumption regarding the number and type of affordable housing units necessary for density bonus eligibility. Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081 AB 2299 Page 5