BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2299|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2299
Author: Bloom (D)
Amended: 4/5/16 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/14/16
AYES: Beall, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth,
Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/29/16
AYES: Hertzberg, Beall, Hernandez, Lara
NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen, Moorlach, Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-24, 6/2/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Land use: housing: 2nd units
SOURCE: California Apartment Association
DIGEST: 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.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
AB 2299
Page 2
1)Requires local governments to consider applications for a
second unit ministerially, without discretionary review or
hearing, regardless of any local ordinance regulating the
issuance of special-use permits.
2)Provides that a local government may by ordinance provide for
the creation of second units in single-family and multi-family
zones.
3)Provides that a local ordinance for second units may do all of
the following:
a) Designate areas where second units may be permitted
based on criteria that may include the adequacy of water
and sewer services and the impact on traffic flow.
b) Impose parking, height, setback, lot coverage,
architectural review, maximum unit size and standards that
prevent adverse impacts on any property listed in the
California Register of Historic Places.
c) Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable
density for the lot on which it is located and that second
units are a residential use that is consistent with the
existing general plan and zoning designation on a lot.
This bill:
1)Requires a local government to provide for the creation of
second units in single-family and multifamily residential
zones.
2)Prohibits a local government from imposing parking standards
for a second unit that is located within a half-mile of public
transit or shopping or is within an architecturally and
AB 2299
Page 3
historically significant historic district. A local
government may otherwise reduce or eliminate parking
requirements for any second unit located within 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, as covered spaces,
uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of
mechanical automobile parking lifts.
Comments
1)Purpose. According to the author, many local governments have
not adopted a local second-unit law or have made their laws so
stringent that homeowners are unable to add a second unit.
Given California's current housing deficiency, this bill is
intended to help California bring more housing online. This
bill focuses on second units located near transit and
eliminated stringent parking standards in these areas. This
bill mandates local governments to adopt a second-unit
ordinance and prohibits them from imposing parking standards
on those units that are located within a half-mile of a public
transit or shopping or within an architecturally and
historically significant historic district.
2)What are second units? Second units, also known as accessory
AB 2299
Page 4
dwelling units, 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.
3)Relaxing second unit 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. Easing these burdens to permit more second units
could permit a family to rent out the unit (about 49% of the
units) or provide housing for a family member (about 51% of
the units). In fact, the study found that the average second
unit was advertised at a rental rate that makes it affordable
to a household earning 62% of the area median income. About
30% were affordable to households in the very low-income
category, and 49% were in the low-income category. The study,
which evaluated five adjacent cities in the East Bay,
concluded that there is a substantial market of interested
homeowners; cities could reduce parking requirements without
contributing to parking issues; second units could accommodate
future growth and affordable housing; and that scaling up
second unit strategy could mean economic and fiscal benefits
for cities.
This bill eases barriers to the construction and permitting of
second units by:
a) Requiring a local government to adopt an ordinance for
the creation of second units in single-family and
multifamily residential zones.
b) Prohibiting a local government from imposing parking
standards for a second unit located within half a mile of
public transit or that is within an architecturally and
AB 2299
Page 5
historically significant historic district.
c) Prohibiting a local government from requiring a
passageway or pathway clear to the sky between the second
unit and a public street.
d) Prohibiting a local government from requiring a setback
more than five feet from the side and real lot line for a
second unit constructed above a garage on an alley.
e) Providing that replacement covered parking may be
located in any configuration on the same lot.
4)Opposition. According to the opposition, this bill departs
from current law by requiring local governments to adopt a
second-unit ordinance, which is a costly mandate. This will
prohibit cities from imposing parking standards in certain
circumstances, which could lead to unintended consequences,
including community opposition to second units. Existing law
already provides authority to local governments to adopt a
second-unit ordinance and does not account for the realities
of many suburban and rural communities.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified8/18/16)
California Apartment Association (source)
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
California Association of Realtors
California Council for Affordable Housing
City of Los Angeles, City Councilmember Gil Cedillo
City of Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti
AB 2299
Page 6
Santa Barbara Rental Property Association
West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/17/16)
California State Association of Counties
City of Camarillo
City of Lakewood
City of Morgan Hill
City of San Dimas
City of San Marcos
Ventura Council of Governments
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-24, 6/2/16
AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown,
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia,
Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gray, Hadley, Roger Hernández,
Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, McCarty,
Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone,
Thurmond, Weber, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Brough, Chang, Chávez,
Dahle, Gallagher, Grove, Harper, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen,
Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bigelow, Burke, Beth Gaines, Gordon, Ting
Prepared by:Alison Dinmore / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121
8/18/16 12:16:06
**** END ****