BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1069|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1069
Author: Wieckowski (D), et al.
Amended: 8/25/16
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 10-1, 4/19/16
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva,
McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski
NOES: Bates
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/20/16
AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Moorlach
NO VOTE RECORDED: Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR: 29-3, 5/16/16
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De
León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg,
Hill, Hueso, Huff, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, Mitchell, Monning,
Moorlach, Nielsen, Roth, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk
NOES: Bates, Glazer, Pavley
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hall, Jackson, McGuire, Mendoza, Morrell,
Nguyen, Pan, Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-23, 8/29/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Land use: zoning
SOURCE: Bay Area Council
DIGEST: This bill requires an ordinance for the creation of
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to include specified provisions
SB 1069
Page 2
regarding areas where ADUs may be located, standards, and lot
density. This bill revises requirements for the approval or
disapproval of an ADU application when a local agency has not
adopted an ordinance.
Assembly Amendments add that local agencies shall not require an
ADU applicant to install a new or separate utility connection
directly between the ADU and the utility or impose a related
connection fee capacity charge if the ADU is contained within
the existing space of a single-family residence or accessory
structure. A local agency may require a new or separate utility
connection fee between an ADU and the utility if the ADU is not
contained within the existing space of a single-family residence
or accessory structure.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
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
SB 1069
Page 3
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 lots on which they are 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) Replaces "second units" with "accessory dwelling units"
(ADUs) throughout the chapter.
2) 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. Notwithstanding
parking restrictions under this chapter, 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
v) When there is a car-share vehicle located within one
block of the ADU
c) Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable
SB 1069
Page 4
density for the lot upon which the second unit is located,
and that the second unit is consistent with the existing
general plan and zoning designation for the lot.
3) Requires a local agency with an ADU ordinance to consider
permits within 90 days of submittal of a complete building
permit application.
4) Provides that a local agency that has not adopted an ADU
ordinance, upon receipt of its first application, shall
accept or disapprove the application ministerially without
discretionary review, unless it adopts an ordinance in
accordance with this chapter within 90 days after receiving
the application.
5) Requires a local agency that has not adopted an ADU
ordinance to 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.
f) The total area floor space of the ADU shall not exceed
1,200 square feet.
SB 1069
Page 5
g) Requirements applicable to residential construction in
the zone in which the property is located.
h) Local building code requirements, which apply to
detached dwellings as appropriate.
i) Approved by the local health officer where a private
sewage disposal system is being used.
1) Removes the exemption for a local agency to adopt an ADU
ordinance upon findings that the ordinance may limit housing
opportunities in the region, and further contains findings
that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety,
and welfare would result.
2) Provides that a local agency may establish maximum and
minimum unit size requirements for both attached and
detached ADUs. 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.
3) Establishes the maximum standards that local agencies
shall use to evaluate proposed ADUs 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 or that the property be
used for rentals or terms longer than 30 days.
4) 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. Parking may be provided, however, as tandem
parking in an existing driveway. Offstreet parking shall be
permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the
SB 1069
Page 6
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.
5) 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.
6) 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.
Local agencies shall not require an ADU applicant to install
a new or separate utility connection directly between the
ADU and the utility or impose a related connection fee
capacity charge if the ADU is contained within the existing
space of a single-family residence or accessory structure.
A local agency may require a new or separate utility
connection fee between an ADU and the utility if the ADU is
not contained within the existing space of a single-family
residence or accessory structure.
Comments
1)Purpose. According to the author, housing in California is
becoming increasingly unaffordable. The average California
home currently costs about 2.5 times the national average home
price, and the monthly rent is 50% higher than the rest of the
nation. Rent in San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and Los
Angeles are among the top 10 most unaffordable in the nation.
With rising population growth, California must not only
provide housing but also ensure affordability. While existing
law enables accessory dwellings as a source of housing, recent
studies show that local standards, perhaps unintentionally,
prevent homeowners from building ADUs with standards like lot
coverage, large set-backs, off-street parking, or costly
construction requirements. Eliminating barriers to ADU
construction is a common-sense, cost-effective approach that
SB 1069
Page 7
will permit homeowners to share empty rooms in their homes and
property, add incomes to meet family budgets, and make good
use of the property in the Bay Area and across California
while easing the housing crisis. SB 1069 approaches the
housing crisis by easing regulatory barriers for homeowners
who choose to build affordable housing in their own backyards.
2)Relaxing ADU 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 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). 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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified8/29/16)
Bay Area Council (source)
AARP
Abode Services
American Planning Association - California Chapter
BHV Center Street Properties, Inc.
Bishop Ranch
Blue Shield of California
Bridge Housing
Building Industry Association - Bay Area
California Association of Realtors
SB 1069
Page 8
California Building Industry Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Housing Consortium
California Infill Federation
California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund
California State Chamber of Commerce
Carol Galante, UC Berkeley - Terner Center for Housing
Innovation
Center for Creative Land Recycling
Chase Communications
Colliers International
Comcast
Cushman & Wakefield
East Bay Leadership Council
Eden Housing
Emerald Fund
Facebook
Greenbelt Alliance
Hanson Bridgett
HKS
The Home Depot
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Joint Venture - Silicon Valley Network
Junius & Rose, LLP
Kaiser Permanente
Karen Chapple, Professor, UC Berkeley - City & Regional Planning
LA-M?s
Lennar Urban
Lily Pad Homes
MacKenzie Communications, Inc.
Main Street Property Services
Manatt
Marvell
McKinsey & Company
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nehemiah Corporation of America
New Avenue
Nibbi
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
North Bay Leadership Council
Orange County Business Council
Pier 39
SB 1069
Page 9
PLANT
Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors
Polaris Pacific
Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP
Rhodes Planning Group
Richard Rosenberg - Chairman & CEO (Retired), Bank of America
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
San Mateo County Economic Development Association
Sares Regis Homes
Scott Weiner, Supervisor - District 8, San Francisco
SPUR
Summer Hill Housing Group
SVAngel
SV@Home
Technology Credit Union
Terner Center for Housing Innovation
TMG Partners
The Two Hundred
UC Berkeley - College of Environmental Design
UPS
Virgin America
Webcor Builders
Western Center on Law and Poverty
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/29/16)
City of Angels Camp
City of Cloverdale
City of Commerce
City of Daly City
City of La Mirada
City of Laguna Hills
City of Lakewood
City of Lodi
City of Merced
City of Moreno Valley
City of San Clemente
League of California Cities
SB 1069
Page 10
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-23, 8/29/16
AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown,
Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper,
Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Gallagher, Eduardo
Garcia, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández,
Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Patterson,
Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth,
Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood,
Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang,
Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gatto, Grove, Hadley, Harper,
Irwin, Jones, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte,
Olsen, Wagner, Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cristina Garcia, Gipson
Prepared by:Alison Dinmore / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121
8/30/16 14:38:36
**** END ****