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