CA Senate Bill 13 Would Remove Parking Requirements On ADUs

Article Source: CA State Senate

This bill would remove the requirements to retain existing off street parking requirements.

If you agree or oppose this bill, contact your CA Senator

Senator Jerry Hill can be contacted:

CA State Senator Jerry Hill

Web Site: http://sd13.senate.ca.gov/

Local Contact: 1528 South El Camino Real San Mateo CA 94402

Phone: 650 – 212 – 3313 Fax: 650 – 212 - 3320

THIRD READING

Bill No: SB 13
Author: Wieckowski (D), et al.
Amended: 5/17/19
Vote: 21
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 10-0, 4/2/19
AYES: Wiener, Bates, Caballero, Durazo, McGuire, Moorlach, Roth, Skinner, Umberg, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Morrell
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/10/19
AYES: McGuire, Moorlach, Beall, Hertzberg, Hurtado, Nielsen, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/16/19 AYES: Portantino, Bates, Bradford, Hill, Jones, Wieckowski

SUBJECT: Accessory dwelling units

SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill makes a number of changes to law governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1) Provides that if a locality adopts an ADU ordinance in areas zoned for single- family or multifamily, it must do all of the following:
a) Designate areas where ADUs may be permitted.
b) Impose certain standards on ADUs such as parking and size requirements.
c) Prohibit an ADU from exceeding the allowable density for the lot.
d) Require ADUs to comply with certain requirements such as setbacks.

2) Requires ministerial approval of an ADU permit within 120 days.
3) Allows a locality to establish minimum and maximum unit sizes for both attached and detached ADUs.
4) Restricts the parking standards a locality may impose on an ADU.
5) Allows a local agency to require that an applicant be an owner-occupant or that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.
6) Provides that an ADU shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service.
7) Requires a local agency to submit a copy of its ADU ordinance to HCD within 60 days of adopting it and authorizes HCD to review and comment on the ordinance.

This bill:

1) Removes the requirement for an ADU ordinance to apply only in single-family or multifamily zones.
2) Provides that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with an ADU or converted into an ADU,

a local agency shall not require that those off-street parking spaces be replaced.

3) Reduces the application approval timeframe to 60 days and provides that if a local agency has not acted upon the submitted application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved.
4) Removes the authority for a local ordinance to require an applicant for an ADU to be an owner occupant and prohibits a local agency from requiring owner occupancy as a condition for issuing a building permit for an ADU.
5) Provides that if a local agency has not adopted an ADU ordinance, an ADU application must be approved within 60 days. If it is not acted upon within that timeframe, the application shall be deemed approved.

6) Provides that a local ADU ordinance that establishes minimum or maximum ADU size must allow an ADU of up to 850 square feet, or up to 1,000 square feet if the ADU provides more than one bedroom.
7) Provides for a tiered schedule of impact fees based on the size of the ADU as follows:
a) Zero fees for an ADU of less than 750 square feet
b) 25% of impact fees for an ADU of 750 square feet or more.
8) Revises the definition for when a local agency, special district, or water corporation may require a separate utility connection.
9) Requires HCD, after a local ADU ordinance is adopted, to submit findings to the local agency as to whether it complies with ADU law. If HCD finds it does not, HCD shall notify the local agency and may notify the Attorney General. The local agency shall consider HCD’ s findings and may either change the ordinance to comply or make findings as to why the ordinance complies despite HCD’s findings.
10) Authorizes HCD to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards and criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards in ADU law.
11) Authorizes, explicitly, a local agency to count an ADU for purposes of identifying adequate sites for its housing element.
12) Requires a local agency notice of a violation of any building standard to an ADU owner to include a statement of the owner’s right to request a delay in enforcement. Requires a local agency, upon request of the owner, to delay enforcement for five years if correction is not necessary to protect health and safety.

Background
ADUs, also known as 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.

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. 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 relaxes several requirements to the construction and permitting of ADUs.

Comments
1) Purpose. The author states that California is in a severe housing crisis. The largest driver of this crisis is a lack of supply. One significant step toward increasing the supply of affordable housing is to build more ADUs. ADUs are inherently affordable; they cost less to build than a regular unit, are financed and managed by the homeowner, and require no public subsidy. However, a significant number of homeowners interested in building ADUs on their property are prevented from doing so due to prohibitively high impact fees and other barriers. This bill creates a tiered fee structure which charges ADUs based on their size, to take into consideration that the impact of an ADU on a neighborhood’s infrastructure and services is different from the impact created by single-family homes or multifamily buildings. This bill also addresses other barriers such as lowering the application approval timeframe, creating an avenue to get unpermitted ADUs up to code, and enhancing an enforcement mechanism allowing HCD to ensure that localities are following ADU statute. This bill is an important step in resolving the housing crisis by reducing excessive impact fees and other barriers to ADUs and allowing Californians to build affordable housing in their back yards.
2) Trying again. This bill is similar to SB 831 (Wieckowski, 2018), which died in the Assembly last year. Unlike SB 831, however, this bill does not: allow local agencies to designate areas where ADUs may be excluded for fire and life safety purposes; prohibit consideration of the square footage of a proposed ADU when calculating an allowable floor-to-area ratio for the lot; prohibit a

SB 13 Page 5
setback requirement for an ADU conversion; or limit setback requirements to three feet for ADUs not converted from an existing structure. In addition, unlike SB 831, this bill provides for a tiered system of impact fees that may be imposed on ADUs.
3) Impact fees. Local governments can charge a variety of fees to a development. These fees, commonly known as impact or mitigation fees, go toward infrastructure development (such as adding lanes to roads or supporting additional traffic) or other public benefits (such as new parks, schools, or affordable housing). In the wake of the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 and the loss of significant property tax revenue, local governments have also turned to development fees as a means to generate revenue. Given that California cities have tightly restricted funding sources, fees are one of the few ways cities can pay for the indirect costs of growth.
In 2016, the Legislature revised ADU law to reduce duplicative fees and reduce other barriers to the construction and approval of ADUs. As a result, ADU permit applications throughout the state have dramatically increased. A report by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center of Housing Innovation recently discovered, however, that development and school fees, as well as lot size requirements and code standards, continue to suppress the construction of ADUs. ADUs are often charged with the same impact fees that a new home would be subject to. These fees can range anywhere between $5,000 and $60,000 and would not be charged to a homeowner for simply building an additional bathroom or bedroom.
Existing law prohibits an ADU from being considered a residential use for purposes of calculating fees charged for new development. Fees were the subject of significant discussion in relation to last year’s ADU bills. This bill provides for a tiered structure of impact fees ranging from zero for an ADU of under 750 square feet, to 25% of impact fees for an ADU of 750 square feet or more.
4) Size of ADUs. Existing law requires an ADU ordinance that provides for minimum and maximum ADU size, to allow for at least an efficiency unit. This bill increases that minimum to an 850 square foot unit, or 1,000 square feet if the ADU includes more than one bedroom.
5) Zoning modification. This bill requires ministerial approval of ADUs on any lot that includes a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. Moving forward, the author may wish to consider amendments to clarify that ADUs must be located in zones that allow residential use, including mixed use.
6) Elimination of owner occupancy requirement. Existing law allows a local ordinance to require owner occupancy for either the primary dwelling or the ADU. Some jurisdictions have required the owner of the property to reside in the main home or in the ADU. The author has provided examples of lenders who have stated in writing that these covenants can preclude the lender from occupying the property if lenders must foreclose on the property. One letter states that if a property owner agrees to such a covenant, the owner could already be in violation of their deed of trust on the property and it “effectively transfers some of the rights from the property to the City, which could trigger a due on sale clause.” Thus, this bill prohibits owner occupancy requirements.
The American Planning Association, California Chapter (APA), writing in opposition to this bill, raises a concern that eliminating the owner occupancy requirement altogether could potentially encourage institutional investors or speculators to purchase a home with an existing ADU, or purchase single- family homes without ADUs, at a premium with the intention of adding an ADU which would then be rented at any price the market will bear. APA notes that the city of Santa Rosa waives its owner occupancy requirement if the owner puts an affordability requirement on the ADU.
7) Amnesty. According to a 2016 report by McKinsey and Company entitled A Tool Kit to Close California’s Housing Gap: 3.5 Million Homes by 2025, one way to encourage homeowners to add ADUs is to create an amnesty path for ADUs that are not properly permitted. According to the report, as many as 8% of ADUs in San Francisco are illegal. The report concludes that legitimizing these units would boost building compliance and raise property tax revenue.
This bill creates a five-year amnesty program for substandard ADUs. This bill grants an ADU owner with a non-compliant ADU a five-year delay to make the necessary changes to bring the ADU up to code. The delay applies to changes that, in the judgement of the local building official, and in consultation with fire and code enforcement officials, is not necessary to protect the health and safety of the building residents.
8) HCD oversight. Existing law requires a local agency to submit its ADU ordinance to HCD for review and allows HCD to review and provide comments. This bill strengthens oversight over local ADU ordinances by allowing HCD, after adoption of an ADU ordinance, to submit findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with ADU law. If HCD finds that the ordinance does not substantially comply, HCD shall notify the local agency and may notify the Attorney General.

Related/Prior Legislation
AB 68 (Ting, 2019) makes a number of changes to ADU law. This bill passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 69 (Ting, 2019) revises ADU law in relation to HCD determination of compliance of local ADU ordinances and requires HCD to propose building standards for ADUs and small homes. This bill passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 587 (Friedman, 2019) authorizes an ADU to be sold separately from the primary residence under certain conditions. This bill is pending hearing in the Senate Housing Committee.
AB 881 (Bloom, 2019) makes several changes to ADU law. This bill is pending committee assignment in the Senate.
SB 831 (Wieckowski, 2018) would have made a number of changes to ADU law. This bill died in the Assembly Local Government Committee.
AB 2890 (Ting, 2018) would have made a number of changes to ADU law. This bill died on the suspense file of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, HCD estimates ongoing staffing costs of approximately $328,000 annually to provide technical assistance, review and comment on ordinances, and refer ordinances that violate state law to the Attorney General. (General Fund)
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/16/19)
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
California Association Of Realtors California Building Industry Association

California Chamber Of Commerce
California Yimby
Casita Coalition
Eden Housing
LA-Mas
Long Beach Conservation Corps
Oakland Chamber Of Commerce
PrefabADU
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
San Jose Conservation Corps & Charter School
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Silicon Valley At Home
South Bay YIMBY
Southern California Rental Housing Association
SPUR
Terner Center For Housing Innovation At The University Of California, Berkeley
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/16/19)
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Special Districts Association California State Association of Counties Coalinga-Huron Recreation And Park District Desert Water Agency
Downey; City Of
El Dorado Irrigation District
Hayward Area Recreation And Park District League of California Cities
Leucadia Wastewater District
Mt. View Sanitary District
Oceano Community Services District Ojai Valley Sanitary District
Racho Cucamonga; City Of
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Solano County Board Of Supervisors Templeton Community Services District Thousand Oaks; City Of
Town Of Discovery Bay Community Services District
Urban Counties of California
Ventura Council Of Governments

SB 13 Page 9
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters state that ADUs are an important part of the solution to California’s housing crisis, as they are the most widely supported approach to get thousands of low-cost units on the market quickly. This bill will ease a significant barrier to ADU production across the state by largely limiting the amount of fees that can be levied on ADUs; because ADUs have minimal impact on infrastructure and services, it is not appropriate to levy the same fees on them as for large development projects. Many local governments continue to place burdens, from zoning to fees, that effectively prevent the construction of ADUs; addressing these issues will result in greater ADU production and help ease the state’s housing shortfall.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents cite a number of concerns with this bill, including the elimination of replacement parking when there is a conversion of an existing structure such as a garage or carport; the prohibition on a local agency, special district, or water corporation from considering an ADU to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities; its limitations on the impact fees that can be charged on an ADU; its prohibition on owner occupancy requirements; and an overall concern with implementing further changes to ADU statute even as many cities and counties are still implementing all the 2016 and 2017 changes.
Prepared by: Erin Riches ! HOUSING ! (916) 651-4124 5!20!19 10:12:48
**** END ****

=

Robert Riechel

Send your articles and photos to:

E=Mail: SanBrunoPatch.Robert@Yahoo.com

WEB: https://patch.com/california/s...

Photo Credit: San Bruno CA Patch Archives

Source Credit: CA State Senate

CLICK on link below to Subscribe to News Alerts and a Daily Email Newsletter for San Bruno Patch

http://link.patch.com/join/3-0-subscribe?list=US_CA_SANBRUNO_282

#SanBrunoPatch