BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2299
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
2299 (Bloom)
As Amended April 5, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Housing |5-2 |Chiu, Burke, Chau, |Steinorth, Beth |
| | |Lopez, Mullin |Gaines |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Local |6-2 |Eggman, Alejo, |Waldron, Beth |
|Government | |Bonilla, Chiu, |Gaines |
| | |Cooley, Linder | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |14-6 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Calderon, McCarty, |Obernolte, Wagner |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Chau, Holden, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 2299
Page 2
SUMMARY: 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.
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: According to Assembly Appropriations Committee,
no state fiscal impact. Local agencies have the authority to
AB 2299
Page 3
levy fees for related costs and thus, any local costs are not
reimbursable.
COMMENTS:
Local governments are authorized to adopt ordinances for the
creation of second units in single family and multifamily zones;
however they are not required to do so. 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 1062,
Statutes of 2002, required that local governments approve a
second unit ministerially without discretionary review or
hearing or require a special use permit.
This bill would require rather than allow a local government to
adopt a second unit ordinance and to limit the local
government's ability to apply certain standards. Within
one-half mile of public transit or shopping, or within in an
architecturally or historically significant district, an
ordinance could not impose any parking requirement on the second
unit. Parking requirements imposed by local jurisdictions on
second units can be a barrier to the creation of these units
because the parking may not be feasible in an existing
neighborhood.
Purpose of this bill: According to the author, "California's
implementation of SB 375 [(Steinberg), Chapter 728, Statutes of
2008], the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of
2008, is putting new pressure on communities to support infill
and affordable housing development. As the San Francisco Bay
Area adds over two million new residents by 2040, infilling the
core (in targeted Priority Development Areas, or PDAs) could
accommodate over half of the new population, according to the
AB 2299
Page 4
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). But at the same
time, infill could increase housing costs and exacerbate the
region's affordability crisis. One potential solution is
secondary units (also called in-law units or accessory dwelling
units). Self-contained, smaller living units on the lot of a
single-family home, secondary units can be either attached to
the primary house, such as an above-the-garage unit or a
basement unit, or detached (an independent cottage). Secondary
units are particularly well-suited as an infill strategy for
low-density residential areas because they offer hidden density,
housing units not readily apparent from the street - and
relatively less objectionable to the neighbors. Recognizing the
potential of secondary units as a housing strategy, California
has passed several laws to lower local regulatory barriers to
construction, most recently Assembly Bill 1866 of 2002, which
requires that each city in the state have a ministerial process
for approving secondary units. AB 2299 will ease and streamline
current statewide regulations as well as encourage the building
of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) as a way to create more housing
options. Currently several cities are looking at local
ordinances to improve or incentivize the creation of ADUs as 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."
Analysis Prepared by:
Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0002978
AB 2299
Page 5