BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1069
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 15, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
David Chiu, Chair
SB
1069 (Wieckowski) - As Amended April 26, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 29-3
SUBJECT: Land use: zoning
SUMMARY: Establishes required components and maximum standards
for local ordinances that permit accessory dwelling units
(ADUs), and revises requirements for the approval or disapproval
of an ADU application when a local agency has not adopted an
ordinance.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the
importance of ADUs as an essential element of the state's
housing supply.
2)Replaces "second units" with "ADUs" throughout the chapter.
SB 1069
Page 2
3)Requires a local agency, in its ADU ordinance, to do the
following:
a) Designate areas within the jurisdiction where ADUs may
be permitted, which may be based upon criteria including
but not limited to the adequacy of water and sewer services
and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety.
b) Impose standards on ADUs including but not limited to
parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural
review, and maximum size of the unit. A local agency may
not impose parking standards in the following instances:
i) The ADU is located within mile of public transit
or shopping;
ii) The ADU is located within an architecturally and
historically significant historic district;
iii) The ADU is part of an existing primary residence;
iv) When on-street parking permits are required, but not
offered to the occupant of the ADU; or
v) When there is a car-share vehicle located within one
block of the ADU.
c) Provide that ADUs do not exceed the allowable density
for the lot upon which the second unit is located, and that
the ADU is consistent with the existing general plan and
SB 1069
Page 3
zoning designation for the lot.
4)Requires a local agency with an ADU ordinance to consider
permits within 90 days of submittal of a complete building
permit application.
5)Provides that a local agency that has not adopted an ADU
ordinance shall approve or disapprove a permit application
ministerially without discretionary review, unless it adopts
an ordinance within 90 days after receiving the application.
6)Requires a local agency that has not adopted an ADU ordinance
to ministerially approve the creation of an ADU if the ADU
meets the following requirements:
a) The unit is not intended for sale separate from the
primary residence and may be rented.
b) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use.
c) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling.
d) The ADU is either attached to the existing dwelling and
located within the living area of the existing dwelling or
detached and located on the same lot as the existing
dwelling.
e) The increased floor area of an attached ADU shall not
exceed 50% of the existing living area.
SB 1069
Page 4
f) The total area floor space of the ADU shall not exceed
1,200 square feet.
g) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage,
architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and
other zoning requirements generally applicable to
residential construction in the zone in which the property
is located.
h) Local building code requirements, that apply to detached
dwellings as appropriate.
i) Approved by the local health officer where a private
sewage disposal system is being used.
7)Removes the exemption for a local agency to adopt an ADU
ordinance upon findings that the ordinance may limit housing
opportunities of the region, and further contains findings
that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety,
and welfare would result.
8)Provides that a local agency may establish maximum and minimum
unit size requirements for both attached and detached ADUs,
however no maximum or minimum size for an ADU, or size based
upon a percentage of the existing dwelling unit, shall be
established by ordinance for either attached or detached
dwellings that does not permit at least a 500-foot ADU or a
500-foot efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with
local development standards.
9)Provides that no additional standards, other than those in
this section, shall be utilized or imposed to evaluate
proposed ADUs, except that a local agency may require an
SB 1069
Page 5
applicant for a permit to be an owner-occupant or that the
property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.
10)Removes the provision permitting additional parking upon a
finding that additional parking is required related to the use
of the ADU and consistent with existing neighborhood
standards.
11)States that parking requirements may be provided as tandem
parking in an existing driveway.
12)Provides that offstreet parking must 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 based upon
fire and life safety conditions.
13)Requires ministerial approval by a local agency for a
building permit to create an ADU if the ADU is contained
within an existing single-family home, has independent
exterior access from the existing residence, and the side and
rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety. ADUs shall not
be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not
required for the primary residence.
14) Provides that ADUs shall not be considered new residential
uses for the purposes of calculating private or public utility
connection fees, including water and sewer service.
SB 1069
Page 6
15)Provides that no reimbursement is required because a local
agency or school district has the authority to levy service
charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the
program or level of service mandated by this act.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Defines "second unit" as an attached or a detached residential
dwelling unit, which provides complete independent living
facilities for one or more persons.
2)Provides that a second unit must include permanent provisions
for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the
same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated.
3)Permits a local agency, by ordinance, to provide for the
creation of second units in single-family and multifamily
residential zones as specified.
4)Requires, if a local agency adopts a second-unit ordinance,
that applications be considered ministerially without
discretionary review or a hearing. Additionally, nothing may
be construed to require a local government to adopt or amend
an ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or
special-use permits for second units.
5)Requires a local agency that has not adopted a second-unit
ordinance to accept and approve or disapprove the application
ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, within
120 days after receiving the application. Requires every local
agency to grant a variance or special permit for the creation
of a second unit if the second unit complies with all of the
SB 1069
Page 7
following:
a) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented.
b) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use.
c) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling.
d) The second unit is either attached to the existing
dwelling and located within the living area of the existing
dwelling or detached and located on the same lot as the
existing dwelling.
e) The increased floor area of an attached second unit
shall not exceed 30% of the existing living area.
f) The total area floor space shall not exceed 1,200 square
feet.
g) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage,
architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and
other zoning requirements generally applicable to
residential construction in the zone in which the property
is located.
h) Local building code requirements that apply to detached
dwellings.
i) The unit is approved by the local health officer where a
private sewage disposal system is being used.
SB 1069
Page 8
6)Provides that no local agency may adopt an ordinance that
totally precludes second units unless the ordinance contains
findings and acknowledges that the ordinance may limit housing
opportunities of the region, and further contains findings
that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety,
and welfare would result.
7)Provides that a local agency may establish maximum and minimum
unit size requirements for both attached and detached second
units.
8)Establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall
use to evaluate proposed accessory dwelling units on lots
zoned for residential use that contain an existing
single-family dwelling. No additional standards shall be
utilized or imposed, except that a local agency may require an
applicant for a permit to be an owner-occupant.
9)Provides that parking requirements shall not exceed one
parking space per unit or per bedroom, but that additional
parking may be required with a finding that additional parking
requirements are directly related to the use of the second
unit and consistent with existing neighborhood standards.
(Government Code Section 65852.2)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
Background: ADUs, which are referred to in existing law as
SB 1069
Page 9
"second units", are additional living quarters on single-family
lots that are independent of the primary dwelling unit. Also
known as accessory apartments, accessory dwellings,
mother-in-law units, or granny flats, ADUs are either attached
or detached to the primary dwelling unit, and provide complete
independent living facilities for one or more person. This
includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating,
cooking, and sanitation.
In 2002, AB 1866 (Wright) (Chapter 1062, Statutes of 2002),
required local governments to use a ministerial process for
approving ADUs, notwithstanding other laws that regulate the
issuance of variances or special use permits. A local government
may provide for the construction of ADUs by ordinance, and may
designate areas where ADUs are allowed, as well as require
standards for parking, setback, lot coverage, and maximum size.
If a local government has not adopted an ordinance governing
ADUs, it must grant a variance or special use permit for the
creation of ADUs if the unit complies with requirements
specified in statute, including size and zoning restrictions.
UC Berkeley ADU study: According to a UC Berkeley study, Yes in
My Backyard: Mobilizing the Market for Secondary Units by Karen
Chapple, second units are a means to accommodate future growth
and encourage infill development in developed neighborhoods.
The study, which evaluated five adjacent cities in the East Bay,
concluded that there is 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.
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.
SB 1069
Page 10
Easing these burdens to permit more ADUs 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.
This bill implements several policy recommendations from this
study by easing the most significant barriers to the
construction and permitting of ADUs. These changes include:
a) Provides alternatives and exceptions to parking
requirements, such as the case of an ADU located near
public transit or if the ADU is part of an existing
dwelling.
b) Shortens the review period of an application for an ADU
building permit from 120 days to 90 days.
c) Increases the size of an ADU from 30% of the existing
dwelling to 50%.
d) Removes the ability for a local agency to adopt an
ordinance that completely precludes the construction of
ADUs.
e) Requires ministerial approval of an ADU contained within
an existing single-family home that has independent access
from the existing residence and has rear and side setbacks
sufficient for fire safety, and removes the requirement for
an ADU to have fire sprinklers if they were not required
for the primary residence.
SB 1069
Page 11
f) Allows a local agency to require an applicant for a
permit to be an owner-occupant or that the property be used
for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.
Need for this bill: According to the author,
"In a 2015 Legislative Analyst's Office report, the
Legislature was advised to facilitate the development of
significantly more private homes and apartments in California.
The lack of housing in California has caused a crisis harming
communities and families throughout the state. The average
California home currently costs about two and half times the
national average home price. A person earning minimum wage
must work three full-time jobs in order to afford a
two-bedroom unit. In California's more heavily populated
metropolitan areas, a minimum wage worker would have to pick
up a fourth and fifth job to afford the same two-bedroom unit.
Throughout the state, the bottom 25% of income earners spends
67% of their income on housing. The high cost of housing is
one of the biggest drivers of institutional and generational
poverty cycles and will not be resolved until more housing can
be developed, especially close to jobs and schools which is
consistent with State SB 375 Climate Change Planning Goals.
The Legislative Analyst's Office has advised that it is
imperative the Legislature facilitate the development of
significantly more housing to address the affordability
crisis.
"Accessory dwellings provide part of the solution to the
SB 1069
Page 12
housing crisis. They are the only source of housing that can
be added within a year at an affordable price, in existing
developed communities served by infrastructure consistent with
SB 375, without public subsidy, and action by the State on a
few issues will make this possible for tens of thousands of
owners to immediately benefit and help their communities. The
importance of ADUs as a critical source of infill housing and
the barriers preventing them have been documented in studies
from UC Berkeley and UCLA including Yes in My Backyard by
Karen Chapple.
"SB 1069 proposes a common-sense, cost-effective approach that
will allow homeowners to share empty rooms in their homes and
property, add incomes to meet family budgets, improve the
safety of accessory dwellings, and make good use of existing
infill property across California while easing the housing
crisis. The Governor supported the bill on page 52 of the May
Revision of the 2016 Budget, stating that this bill will
increase the state's housing supply without creating a state
reimbursable mandate."
Arguments in support:
Supporters point out that ADUs are one of the only widely
supported approaches to get thousands of low cost units on the
market fast. They point to studies indicating ADUs cost less to
build and rent for less than new market rate housing, thus
providing lower cost and low-carbon footprint homes in existing
neighborhoods consistent with architectural traditions. The
Planning and Conservation League states that building small
units on existing residential lots uses land efficiently, and
"second-unit residents are more likely to live without a car
than the overall population living near transit." Supporters
also point out that some cities have already approved
legislation to facilitate the development of ADUs, including
Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco and Santa Cruz, and that
SB 1069
Page 13
Massachusetts and Hawaii are considering similar legislation.
Arguments in opposition:
Opponents argue that the bill is so prescriptive that it removes
any local land use flexibility and limits the public engagement
process in regards to ADUs. Some opponents take issue with
prohibiting a local government from imposing parking standards
when an ADU is within mile of "public transit". The California
Association of Counties (CSAC), which has an oppose unless
amended position, suggests, among other things, amending the
bill "so that it precludes parking requirements when a second
unit is being constructed within half a mile of a high-quality
transit stop. It is unreasonable to assume that potential
tenants will not need adequate parking that does not impact the
existing surrounding community if he/she does not have access to
robust transit options."
Opponents also point out that, since the bill prohibits an ADU
from being considered a new residential unit for purposes of
calculating utility connection fees, it could result in rate
hikes to existing utility customers. The cumulative impact of
these new units on a water or sewer system could create
financial strains for utility agencies, which could result in
rate hikes on existing customers.
Staff comment: Under the current version of this bill, ADUs
cannot be considered new residential uses for the purposes of
calculating private or public utility connection fees.
According to the author, the intent of this provision is not to
prohibit any utility fees from being charged on ADUs. Rather,
it is to ensure that "some utility and hook-up fees can be
SB 1069
Page 14
charged provided that these are calibrated to reflect the actual
impact of an accessory dwelling on an existing lot that already
has utility service, landscaping, and a primary dwelling."
The author states that "many ADUs can be constructed by
connecting to existing utilities and will not result in total
occupancy greater than the designed density of an otherwise
under-occupied single family home. The bill allows local
homeowners to hook up to existing utilities directly with meters
should they choose to do so in which case they would pay for the
hookup. When fees are charged to ADUs for utility connections,
the bill does not allow accessory dwellings to be charged fees
as if they were an entirely new land use (like a new home on a
new lot). The bill does allow fees to be charged which are
reasonably related to the impact of the ADU on utility
services."
The Committee may wish to consider amending this provision to
better reflect the author's intent.
This bill and AB 2299: AB 2299 (Bloom), which has been referred
to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing and the
Senate Committee on Governance, requires cities to adopt
ordinances for the creation of second units, and prohibits those
ordinances from imposing parking standards when the second unit
is within 1/2 mile of a shopping or transit center, or is within
a historic district. It also makes changes to setback and
replacement parking provisions. In comparison, SB 1069 does not
require cities to adopt an ADU ordinance, but does prohibit
cities from imposing parking standards for ADUs that meet
certain requirements. This bill also does not include the
setback or replacement parking provisions found in AB 2299, but
makes several other changes to ADU standards. Both bills repeal
a local government's ability to prohibit second units. The
Committee may wish to consider how these bills will interact
should both become law.
SB 1069
Page 15
Committee amendment:
According to the author, the intent of this bill is to prohibit
a local government, regardless of whether it has adopted an
ordinance that provides for the creation of ADUs, from imposing
parking standards on ADUs in the following instances:
i) The ADU is located within mile of public transit or
shopping;
ii) The ADU is located within an architecturally and
historically significant historic district;
iii) The ADU is part of an existing primary residence;
iv) When on-street parking permits are required, but not offered
to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit; or
v)When there is a car-share vehicle located within one block of
the ADU.
The Committee may wish to consider making an amendment that will
clarify the above provision applies to all local governments,
regardless of whether an ordinance providing for the creation of
ADUs has been adopted.
SB 1069
Page 16
Related legislation:
AB 2299 (Bloom): Would require, rather than permit, a local
government to adopt an ordinance for the creation of second
units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. Would
restrict the standards local governments may impose on second
units by prohibiting imposition of parking requirements on
second units within a half-mile of transit, shopping, or within
a historic district, constraining the setbacks that local
governments may require, and repealing ability to prohibit
second units. This bill has been referred to the Senate
Committee on Transportation and Housing and the Senate Committee
on Governance and Finance.
AB 2406 (Thurmond): Would allow local agencies to adopt an
ordinance that authorizes the construction of "junior accessory
dwelling units" of 500 square feet or less and includes
standards that local agencies may adopt regarding those units.
This bill is in the Senate Committee on Transportation and
Housing pending hearing.
Double referred: If SB 1069 passes this committee, the bill will
be referred to the Committee on Local Government.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Bay Area Council (sponsor)
SB 1069
Page 17
AARP
American Planning Association of California (if amended)
Bay Area Building Industry Association
BHV CenterStreet Properties, Inc.
Bishop Ranch
Blue Shield of California
Bridge Housing
California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Council for Affordable Housing
California Housing Consortium
California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund
SB 1069
Page 18
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Center for Creative Land Recycling
Chase Communications
City and County of San Francisco
City of Berkeley
City of Los Angeles
City of Oakland
Colliers International
Comcast
Cushman & Wakefield
East Bay Leadership Council
Eden Housing
Emerald Fund
SB 1069
Page 19
Facebook
Greenbelt Alliance
Greenberg Traurig
Hallisey and Johnson Law
Hanson Bridgett
HKS Architects
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Individuals (1)
Jennifer Hernández, Holland & Knight
Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network
Karen Chappelle, Professor, College of Environmental Design,
City and Regional Planning, UC Berkeley
LA-Más
Lennar Urban
SB 1069
Page 20
Lenny, Mendonca, McKinsey & Company
Lilypad Homes
Local Government Control Commission
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
MacKenzie Communications, Inc.
Main Street Property Services
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP
Marvell
Montezuma Wetlands, LLC
Nehemiah Corporation of America
New Avenue Homes
NHA Advisors
Nibbi
SB 1069
Page 21
Nonprofit Housing Association of California
North Bay Leadership Council
Nossaman LLP
Oakland Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Business Council
Paavo Monkkonen Ph.D., Department of Urban Planning, UCLA
Pier 39
Planning and Conservation League
PLANT Construction Company, L.P.
Polaris Pacific
Radiant Brands
Read Investments
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce
SB 1069
Page 22
Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP
Rhoades Planning Group
Richard Rosenberg, Chairman and CEO (RET.) Bank of America
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
San Mateo County Economic Development Association
SARES, REGIS Group
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
SPUR
SV@Home
SVAngel
TechCU
The Home Depot
SB 1069
Page 23
The Two Hundred
TMG Partners
Turner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley
United Parcel Service
Virgin America
Webcor Builders
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Opposition
Association of California Water Agencies
California State Association of Counties (unless amended)
City of Angels Camp
City of Brentwood
SB 1069
Page 24
City of Burbank
City of Camarillo
City of Clearlake
City of Cloverdale
City of Commerce
City of Daly City
City of Dublin
City of Goleta
City of La Miranda
City of Laguna Hills
City of Lakeport
City of Lakewood
City of Lodi
SB 1069
Page 25
City of Los Banos
City of Manteca
City of Merced
City of Mill Valley
City of Placerville
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Palo Verdes
City of Redding
City of Riverbank
City of Roseville
City of San Carlos
City of San Clemente
City of San Rafael
SB 1069
Page 26
City of South Gate
City of Sunnyvale
City of Tehama
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Torrance
League of California Cities
Ventura Council of Governments
Analysis Prepared by:Rebecca Rabovsky / H. & C.D. / (916)
319-2085