|
News
Assembly Passes AB 2702 Making It Harder For Cities To Stop Second Units on Single Residential Lots; Oropeza Votes "Yes"; Lowenthal Recorded As "Absent, Abstaining Or Not Voting" After Voting "Yes" In May; Karnette Voted "No" in Senate
(August 26, 2004) -- The CA Assembly has approved AB 2702 -- a bill opposed by LB City Hall and over 100 CA cities -- that would restrict cities' ability to limit second units on single residential lots.
The bill came up rapidly in the Assembly on August 25 for concurrence in Senate amendments. The vote was 50-22...with LB area Assemblywoman Jenny Oropeza voting "yes"...but Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal (D., LB-SP-PV) recorded as "absent, abstaining or not voting" after he voted "yes" on the bill in May.
The legislation now heads to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for his signature or veto.
As first reported by LBReport.com, the bill broke out of the state Senate Appropriations Committee and reached the state Senate floor on August 23...where it passed (23-7) on August 24 with state Senator Betty Karnette voting "no" (in Committee and on the Senate floor).
LBReport.com posts AB 2702's text as amended below, followed by the August 25 Assembly roll call vote and the Aug. 24 state Senate roll call vote and legislative analysis.
VOTES - ROLL CALL
MEASURE: AB 2702
AUTHOR: Steinberg
TOPIC: Housing: 2nd units.
DATE: 08/25/2004
LOCATION: ASM. FLOOR
MOTION: AB 2702 Steinberg Concurrence in Senate Amendments
(AYES 50. NOES 22.) (PASS)
AYES
****
Aghazarian Benoit Berg Bermudez
Bogh Calderon Campbell Chan
Chavez Cogdill Correa Cox
Diaz Dutton Dymally Firebaugh
Frommer Garcia Goldberg Harman
Haynes Jerome Horton Houston Keene
Kehoe Laird Leno Leslie
Levine Lieber Longville Maddox
Matthews Maze Montanez Mullin
Nakanishi Negrete McLeod Oropeza Pacheco
Parra Reyes Ridley-Thomas Salinas
Steinberg Strickland Vargas Wesson
Wiggins Nunez
NOES
****
Bates Canciamilla Daucher Dutra
Hancock Shirley Horton Jackson La Malfa
La Suer Liu Maldonado Mountjoy
Nakano Nation Pavley Plescia
Richman Samuelian Spitzer Wolk
Wyland Yee
ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING
*********************************
Chu Cohn Corbett Koretz
Lowenthal McCarthy Runner Simitian
The state Senate vote on final passage:
VOTES - ROLL CALL
MEASURE: AB 2702
AUTHOR: Steinberg
TOPIC: Housing: 2nd units.
DATE: 08/24/2004
LOCATION: SEN. FLOOR
MOTION: Assembly 3rd Reading AB2702 Steinberg By Ducheny
(AYES 27. NOES 8.) (PASS)
AYES
****
Aanestad Alarcon Alpert Ashburn
Brulte Burton Cedillo Chesbro
Ducheny Dunn Escutia Figueroa
Florez Hollingsworth Kuehl McClintock
Morrow Murray Oller Ortiz
Perata Poochigian Romero Soto
Torlakson Vasconcellos Vincent
NOES
****
Ackerman Bowen Denham Karnette
Machado Margett McPherson Speier
ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING
*********************************
Battin Johnson Scott Sher
Vacancy
On August 4, LB City Manager Jerry Miller submitted a letter opposing AB 2702 on behalf of the City of Long Beach. Addressed to the bill's author, Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg (D., Sacramento), the City of LB letter stated in part:
...Though we acknowledge your courage fight for affordable housing, we do not believe AB 2702 is the way to come about this change.
Rather than encourage local, balanced, planned patterns of development that respects local land use priorities outlined in the General Plan, AB 2702 simply imposes a one-size-fits-all approach to second unit development on every community in the state.
AB 2702 mandates standards that have proven unacceptable to the residents of single-family housing. AB 2702 will limit local ability to prohibit absentee-landlord duplexes to be created in single-family neighborhoods, create a substantial problem with parking for the residents, dictate irrational minimum lot and unit sizes regardless of lot dimensions, and lead to a decrease in property value.
For these reasons, we oppose AB 2702 and strongly urge you to reconsider this bill...
Density is a sore point in LB, following a 1980s City Council action (supported at the time by city staff and development interests) that increased density in central city areas, bringing "crackerbox" apartments that contributed to destabilizing single family neighborhoods. The Council action, now widely discredited, didn't provide increased services and infrastructure to keep pace and brought negative impacts still being felt citywide.
LB City Hall's letter opposing AB 2702 was cc'd to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, State Senator Betty Karnette (D., LB) and State Senator Ed Vincent.
As of August 25, the League of CA Cities stated on its web site, "The League remains OPPOSED to this measure, and urges city officials to call or fax their senators to tell them to vote "NO" on this measure."
AB 2702 would establish detailed standards for local second unit ordinances. It also specifies densities that will be allowed on school sites when housing and schools are built on the same site. If the bill clears the Assembly on final passage and is not vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, AB 2702 would effectively supercede inconsistent parts of local laws -- including LB's "granny flat" ordinance -- and make it easier for developers to build second units on single family lots, effectively increasing residential density.
Earlier this year, LB community meetings on a local proposal (more modest than AB 2702) to loosen parts of LB's "granny flat" ordinance met with neighborhood resistance.
In June, the League of CA Cities, the American Planning Association's CA chapter and CA Association of Counties issued a joint communique opposing AB 2702, stating in pertinent part:
This bill mandates standards that have proven unacceptable to the residents of single-family housing. Policies in this bill such as those limiting local ability to prohibit absentee-landlord duplexes to be created in single-family neighborhoods, reducing parking standards, dictating irrational minimum lot and unit sizes regardless of lot dimensions have already provoked a reaction from residents. Aside from the disruption caused to single-family neighborhoods throughout the state, our organizations are not convinced that compelling evidence exists to justify either the one-size-fits-all restrictions on local land use decisions or the expense of once again revising second unit ordinances. Furthermore, the mandated densities for housing on school sites provision in this bill not only usurps local zoning authority, it represents irresponsible planning, with no appreciation or understanding of location, traffic, site conditions, or other local issues.
AB 2702's supporters and opponents, listed in a recent state Senate legislative analysis were as follows:
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/18/04)
California Association of Realtors (co-source)
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (co-source)
Western Center on Law and Poverty (co-source)
Agora Group, Goleta
American Association of Retired Persons, California
Barbara Sanders and Associates, Oakland
Beacon Housing, Los Angeles
Bet Tzedek Legal Services, Los Angeles
Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation, Saticoy
California Affordable Housing Law Project, Oakland
California Apartment Association
California Church Impact, Sacramento
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Legislative Council of Older Americans, San
Francisco
California Partnership, Downey
California Reinvestment Coalition, San Francisco
Center for Community Advocacy, Salinas
Central City SRO Collaborative, San Francisco
Chicano Consortium, Sacramento
Civic Center Barrio Housing Corporation, Santa Ana
Coalition for Economic Survival, Los Angeles
Community Housing Improvement, Chico
Congregations Building Community, Modesto
Council of Churches of Santa Clara County, Cupertino
East Palo Alto Council of Tenants Education Fund
Emergency Housing Consortium, San Jose
Enterprise Foundation, Los Angeles
Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Los Angeles
Fair Housing Council of Riverside County
Father Joe's Villages, San Diego
First Community Housing, San Jose
Fisher Sehgal Yanez Architects, Inc., Los Angeles
Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries
Fresno West Coalitions for Economic Development
Golden State Mobilehome Owners League, Chapter 24, East
Palo Alto
Gray Panthers California
Greenlining Institute, Oakland
Hillview Mental Health Center, Inc., Pacoima
Housing California
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, Redwood
City
Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco
Human Rights/Fair Housing Commission, Sacramento
Inclusive Homes Inc., Los Angeles
Inquilinos Unidos, Los Angeles
Jericho La Raza Centro Legal, Inc., San Francisco
Loaves and Fishes, Sacramento
Los Angeles Housing Law Project
Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc.
Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc., Los Angeles
Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, Redwood City
Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County and Inland
Empire
New Directions, Inc., Los Angeles
Opportunities for Neighborhood Empowerment Company, Inc.,
Los Angeles
Orange County Community Housing Corporation, Santa Ana
Partners in Housing, Inc., Ventura
People of Progress, Redding
Planning for Elders, San Francisco
Protection and Advocacy, Inc., Sacramento
Public Advocates, Inc., San Francisco
Public Law Center, Santa Ana
Rubicon Programs, Inc., Richmond
Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation, Ukiah
Renee Franken and Associates, Inc., Carmichael
Sacramento Neighborhood Housing Services
San Francisco Homeless Senior Task Force
Santa Cruz Affordable Housing Advocates
Senior Action Network, San Francisco
Shelter Inc of Contra Costa County, Martinez
Shelter Partnership, Inc., Los Angeles
Skid Row Housing Trust, Los Angeles
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing, Los
Angeles Southern California Housing Development
Corporation, Rancho Cucamonga Southern California Indian
Center, Inc., Fountain Valley
Strategic Actions For A Just Economy, Los Angeles
Tenderloin Housing Clinic, San Francisco
Valley Housing Foundation, Pacoima
Vietnam Veterans of California - Sacramento Veterans
Resource Center Women Organizing Resources, Knowledge and
Services, Los Angeles
West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation
WRJ Group, Inc., Fountain Valley
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/24/04)
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California State Association of Counties
City of Atherton
City of Bellflower
City of Brea
City of Concord
City of Culver City
City of Daly City
City of Elk Grove
City of Hercules
City of Lafayette
City of Lakewood
City of Moreno Valley
City of Napa
City of Palos Verdes Estates
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Roseville
City of San Jose
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Mateo
City of Santa Monica
City of Seal Beach
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Walnut Creek
Independent Cities Association
League of California Cities
Sierra Club
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Town of Atherton
On its web site, the CA Association of Realtors has stated in support of the bill:
Enacted two-decades ago, the [current CA] second-unit law has not lived up to its potential due, in part, to unreasonable obstacles imposed by local governments. To encourage the development of such units, C.A.R. successfully co-sponsored AB 1866 (Wright) in 2002, which stated that a second-unit building permit must be approved without a hearing if the proposal complies with all of the local government’s development requirements. However, AB 1866 did not address specifically what reasonable standards local governments may apply to second units -- causing local governments to become creative and restrictive with their new "ministerial" guidelines in order to force a hearing for such additions or to effectively prohibit the construction of new second units.
To counteract this problem, this bill will specify that local governments cannot adopt ordinances that have the practical effect of barring second units from a community. The bill is aimed at preventing arbitrary restrictions that are meant to make it exceedingly difficult to put such units on a property. If approved, this legislation will continue to allow communities the flexibility to design guidelines and zoning code requirements that are appropriate for their neighborhoods, while at the same time, and perhaps most importantly, allowing property owners the ability to build units that are sufficient in size for
their needs and aesthetically pleasing -- without encroaching on the privacy of other property owners.
In June, the League of CA Cities, the American Planning Association's CA chapter and CA Association of Counties issued a joint communique opposing AB 2702, stating in pertinent part:
This bill mandates standards that have proven unacceptable to the residents of single-family housing. Policies in this bill such as those limiting local ability to prohibit absentee-landlord duplexes to be created in single-family neighborhoods, reducing parking standards, dictating irrational minimum lot and unit sizes regardless of lot dimensions have already provoked a reaction from residents. Aside from the disruption caused to single-family neighborhoods throughout the state, our organizations are not convinced that compelling evidence exists to justify either the one-size-fits-all restrictions on local land use decisions or the expense of once again revising second unit ordinances. Furthermore, the mandated densities for housing on school sites provision in this bill not only usurps local zoning authority, it represents irresponsible planning, with no appreciation or understanding of location, traffic, site conditions, or other local issues.On August 4, as reported by LBReport.com the Senate Appropriations Committee sent AB 2702 to its "Suspense File," a legislative pit stop reserved for bills with anticipated state costs of over $150,000. The League of CA Cities said on its web site that "[s]ince most significant bills cost the state money, this is a way for the Legislature to decide what its real priorities are and impose some fiscal discipline upon itself. The decisions about which bills get off the Suspense File are typically based upon backroom negotiations and the bills are often reported out with amendments designed to reduce the costs to the state." It added that Suspense File bills "are often decided based upon politics rather than facts, and the committee could let the bill out next week saying that it does not create costs to the state. Many of those involved in the decision will be out of office when the matter is decided either by the State Mandates Commission or a Court years from now, so they won't be around when the costs come due."
That is arguably what happened. AB 2702 was amended on August 23 to eliminate the ability of cities and counties to impose permit fees to offset their share of the bill's estimated $10.7 million costs for implementation.
The League of CA Cities stated on its web site as of August 25, "AB 2707 (Steinberg) is still a concern for cities. This second unit housing bill would deny cities and affected communities the ability to regulate the impacts of these units."
LBReport.com posts AB 2702's text (as passed by the Senate and headed to the Assembly) below, along with the state Senat'e legislative analysis.
[begin text]
BILL NUMBER: AB 2702 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 23, 2004
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 19, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 25, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 6, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 28, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 19, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 26, 2004
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Steinberg
FEBRUARY 20, 2004
An act to amend Sections 65583 and Section 65852.2 of,
and to add Section 65917.1 to, the Government Code, relating to
housing.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2702, as amended, Steinberg. Housing: 2nd units.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires the housing
element of the general plan of a city or county to include, among
other things, a program with a 5-year schedule of actions that the
local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement
the goals and objectives of the housing element. The program is also
required to provide for sufficient sites with zoning that permits
owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right.
This bill would revise the definition of the phrase "use by right"
as specified and state that the changes are declaratory of existing
law.
(2) The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local
agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units on
parcels zoned for a primary single-family and multifamily residence.
When the local agency has not adopted an ordinance, it is required
to grant a variance or special use permit for the creation of a 2nd
unit that complies with statutory requirements but may require the
applicant to be an owner-occupant. Existing law specifies the floor
area of a permitted 2nd unit and parking requirements.
This bill would revise the above requirements, as specified, and
would provide that local agency ordinances, regulations, or policies
may not preclude or effectively preclude 2nd units unless the local
agency makes findings based on substantial evidence, as specified.
The bill would prohibit a local agency from adopting an ordinance
that requires an owner's dependent or caregiver to occupy the primary
dwelling or 2nd unit or that limits occupancy based on familial
status, age, or other specified characteristics. The bill would
prohibit a local agency from imposing a deed restriction requirement
or other specified restriction relating to occupancy, tenure, or
other characteristics, as specified. The bill would also, among
other things, prohibit a local agency from establishing minimum unit
size requirements for attached and detached 2nd units below 550
livable square feet unless requested by the owner and would revise
the parking requirements for 2nd units.
The bill would authorize a local agency to charge a permit
applicant a reasonable fee to cover the costs that it incurs as a
result of the enactment of these provisions.
(3)
(2) The Planning and Zoning Law also requires, when a
developer of housing proposes a housing development within the
jurisdiction of the local government, that the city, county, or city
and county provide the developer with incentives or concessions for
the production of lower income housing units within the development
if the developer meets certain requirements.
The bill would provide, with respect to those incentives, that
multifamily and single-family residential use is a permitted use on
any parcel zoned and developed for primary or secondary education and
residential uses. By increasing the duties of local public
officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(4)
(3) The California Constitution requires the state to
reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for
making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates
Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed
$1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide
costs exceed $1,000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 65583 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
65583. The housing element shall consist of an identification and
analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of
goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and
scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development
of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for
housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, and
mobilehomes, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and
projected needs of all economic segments of the community. The
element shall contain all of the following:
(a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources
and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The
assessment and inventory shall include all of the following:
(1) An analysis of population and employment trends and
documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's
existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. These
existing and projected needs shall include the locality's share of
the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584.
(2) An analysis and documentation of household characteristics,
including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing
characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition.
(3) An inventory of land suitable for residential development,
including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment,
and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities
and services to these sites.
(4) An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints
upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all
income levels and for persons with disabilities as identified in the
analysis pursuant to paragraph (6), including land use controls,
building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and
other exactions required of developers, and local processing and
permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts
to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from
meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with
Section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with
disabilities identified pursuant to paragraph (6).
(5) An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of
housing for all income levels, including the availability of
financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction.
(6) An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the
elderly, persons with disabilities, large families, farmworkers,
families with female heads of households, and families and persons in
need of emergency shelter.
(7) An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with
respect to residential development.
(8) An analysis of existing assisted housing developments that are
eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next 10
years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment,
or expiration of restrictions on use. "Assisted housing
developments," for the purpose of this section, shall mean
multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance
under federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of Section 65863.10,
state and local multifamily revenue bond programs, local
redevelopment programs, the federal Community Development Block Grant
Program, or local in-lieu fees. "Assisted housing developments"
shall also include multifamily rental units that were developed
pursuant to a local inclusionary housing program or used to qualify
for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65916.
(A) The analysis shall include a listing of each development by
project name and address, the type of governmental assistance
received, the earliest possible date of change from low-income use
and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be
lost from the locality's low-income housing stock in each year during
the 10-year period. For purposes of state and federally funded
projects, the analysis required by this subparagraph need only
contain information available on a statewide basis.
(B) The analysis shall estimate the total cost of producing new
rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace
the units that could change from low-income use, and an estimated
cost of preserving the assisted housing developments. This cost
analysis for replacement housing may be done aggregately for each
five-year period and does not have to contain a project-by-project
cost estimate.
(C) The analysis shall identify public and private nonprofit
corporations known to the local government which have legal and
managerial capacity to acquire and manage these housing developments.
(D) The analysis shall identify and consider the use of all
federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs which can be
used to preserve, for lower income households, the assisted housing
developments, identified in this paragraph, including, but not
limited to, federal Community Development Block Grant Program funds,
tax increment funds received by a redevelopment agency of the
community, and administrative fees received by a housing authority
operating within the community. In considering the use of these
financing and subsidy programs, the analysis shall identify the
amounts of funds under each available program which have not been
legally obligated for other purposes and which could be available for
use in preserving assisted housing developments.
(b) (1) A statement of the community's goals, quantified
objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation,
improvement, and development of housing.
(2) It is recognized that the total housing needs identified
pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and the
community's ability to satisfy this need within the content of the
general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing with
Section 65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives
need not be identical to the total housing needs. The quantified
objectives shall establish the maximum number of housing units by
income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved
over a five-year time period.
(c) A program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the
local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement
the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing
element through the administration of land use and development
controls, provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the
utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy
programs when available and the utilization of moneys in a low- and
moderate-income housing fund of an agency if the locality has
established a redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community
Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the
Health and Safety Code). In order to make adequate provision for
the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the
program shall do all of the following:
(1) (A) Identify adequate sites which will be made available
through appropriate zoning and development standards and with
services and facilities, including sewage collection and treatment,
domestic water supply, and septic tanks and wells, needed to
facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of
housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing,
factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural
employees, emergency shelters, and transitional housing in order to
meet the community's housing goals as identified in subdivision (b).
(i) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the
need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section
65584, the program shall provide for sufficient sites with zoning
that permits approval of owner-occupied and rental multifamily units
to obtain a residential use by right, including density and
development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the
feasibility of housing for very low and low-income households.
(ii) Where the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a) does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the
need for farmworker housing, the program shall provide for sufficient
sites to meet the need with zoning that permits farmworker housing
use by right, including density and development standards that could
accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of the development of
farmworker housing for low- and very low income households.
(B) For purposes of this subdivision, the phrase "use by right"
shall mean that the use does not require a conditional use permit or
a planned unit development permit, except when the proposed project
is a mixed-use project involving both commercial or industrial uses
and residential uses. Use by right for all rental housing shall be
provided in accordance with subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5. The
amendments to this subparagraph made by the act adding this sentence
are declaratory of existing law.
(C) The requirements of this subdivision regarding identification
of sites for farmworker housing shall apply commencing with the next
revision of housing elements required by Section 65588 following the
enactment of this subparagraph.
(2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the
needs of low- and moderate-income households.
(3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove
governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing, including housing for all income levels and
housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove
constraints to, or provide reasonable accommodations for housing
designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services
for, persons with disabilities.
(4) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable
housing stock, which may include addressing ways to mitigate the loss
of dwelling units demolished by public or private action.
(5) Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of
race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin,
color, familial status, or disability.
(6) (A) Preserve for lower income households the assisted housing
developments identified pursuant to paragraph (8) of subdivision (a).
The program for preservation of the assisted housing developments
shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all available federal, state,
and local financing and subsidy programs identified in paragraph (8)
of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs
for which alternative funding sources are not available. The program
may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical
assistance.
(B) The program shall include an identification of the agencies
and officials responsible for the implementation of the various
actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved with
other general plan elements and community goals. The local
government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public
participation of all economic segments of the community in the
development of the housing element, and the program shall describe
this effort.
(d) The analysis and program for preserving assisted housing
developments required by the amendments to this section enacted by
the Statutes of 1989 shall be adopted as an amendment to the housing
element by July 1, 1992.
(e) Failure of the department to review and report its findings
pursuant to Section 65585 to the local government between July 1,
1992, and the next periodic review and revision required by Section
65588, concerning the housing element amendment required by the
amendments to this section by the Statutes of 1989, shall not be used
as a basis for allocation or denial of any housing assistance
administered pursuant to Part 2 (commencing with Section 50400) of
Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code.
SEC. 2.
SECTION 1. Section 65852.2 of the Government Code is amended
to read:
65852.2. (a) (1) Except as provided in subdivisions (c), (d),
(e), (f), (g), and (k), a local agency may, by ordinance, provide for
the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily
residential zones. The ordinance may do any of the following:
(A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency
where second units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be
based on criteria, that may include, but are not limited to, the
adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units
on traffic flow.
(B) Impose reasonable standards on second units that include, but
are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage,
architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that
prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the
California Register of Historic Places.
(C) Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density
for the lot upon which the second unit is located, and that second
units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing
general plan and zoning designation for the lot.
(2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of
any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
(3) When a local agency receives its first application on or after
July 1, 2003, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the
application shall be approved or disapproved ministerially without
discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or
65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or
special use permits. Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to
require a local government to adopt or amend an ordinance for the
creation of second units.
(b) (1) When a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance
governing second units in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c)
receives its first application for a permit pursuant to this
subdivision, the local agency shall accept the application and
approve or disapprove the application ministerially without
discretionary review pursuant to this subdivision unless it adopts an
ordinance in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) within 120 days
after receiving the application. Notwithstanding Section 65901 or
65906, a local agency may not require a variance or discretionary
permit for the creation of a second unit and shall approve an
application for a second unit that complies with all of the
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 or
detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as
the existing dwelling.
(E) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage,
architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other
zoning requirements generally applicable to the primary dwelling in
which the property is located.
(F) Local building code requirements which apply to detached
dwellings, as appropriate.
(G) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage
disposal system is being used, if required.
(H) The increased floor area of an attached second unit is not
less than 550 square feet, unless requested by the owner.
(I) The total floor area of a detached second unit is not less
than 550 square feet, unless requested by the owner.
(2) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the
basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this
subdivision.
(3) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local
agencies shall use to evaluate proposed second units on lots zoned
for residential use which contain an existing single-family dwelling.
No additional standards, other than those provided in this
subdivision or subdivision (a), shall be utilized or imposed.
(4) No changes in zoning ordinances or other ordinances or any
changes in the general plan shall be required to implement this
subdivision. Any local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or
general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other
provisions applicable to the creation of second units if these
provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision.
(5) A second unit that conforms to the requirements of this
subdivision shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density
for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a
residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and
zoning designations for the lot. The second units shall not be
considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or
program to limit residential growth.
(c) Local agency ordinances, regulations, or policies may not
preclude or effectively preclude second units within all
residentially zoned areas unless the local agency finds, based on
substantial evidence, that the ordinance may limit housing
opportunities of the region and finding that specific adverse impacts
upon the public health, safety, and welfare would result from
allowing second units within single-family and multifamily zoned
areas justify adopting the ordinance.
(1) Local governments shall apply appropriate standards as defined
in Section 65913.1, and those standards shall be written, objective,
and adopted by the local government.
(2) Local agencies may not require any of the following:
(A) An owner's dependent or caregiver to occupy the primary
dwelling or second unit. A local agency may require an applicant for
a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner-occupant
of either the primary or second unit. A local agency may not impose
a deed restriction requirement or other limitation that (i)
restricts the sale of the property to owner-occupants, or (ii)
restricts the occupancy of the primary or second unit by tenure or
any characteristic enumerated in Section 65008, if the applicant
determines that he or she will not occupy the primary or second unit.
(B) The occupancy of either unit to be restricted by familial
status, age, or any other characteristic enumerated in Section 65008.
(3) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a city, county, or city
and county from regulating or prohibiting transient use of second
units in which rent is charged and collected on a daily basis.
(d) A local agency may not establish minimum unit size
requirements for attached and detached second units below 550 livable
square feet unless requested by the owner.
(e) A local agency may not establish minimum lot size requirements
for detached second units above twice the square footage of the
primary unit, unless requested by the owner.
(f) Parking requirements for second units shall not exceed one
parking space per unit or per bedroom. Covered parking may not be
required. Local agencies may impose reasonable standards to limit
on-street parking. Off-street parking shall 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 specific site or
regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions, or that it
is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction.
(g) Fees charged for the construction of second units shall be
determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section
66000).
(h) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this section does not
limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive
requirements for the creation of second units.
(i) Local agencies shall submit a copy of the ordinance or
ordinances adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) to the Department of
Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption.
(j) As used in this section, the following terms apply:
(1) "Local agency" means a city, county, or city and county,
whether general law or chartered.
(2) "Second unit" means an attached or a detached residential
dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities
for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for
living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel
as the single-family dwelling is situated. A second unit also
includes any of the following:
(A) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the
Health and Safety Code.
(B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health
and Safety Code.
(k) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in
any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California
Coastal Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the
Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be
required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit
applications for second units.
(l) A local agency may charge a reasonable fee to an applicant for
a permit pursuant to this section to reimburse the agency for costs
that it incurs as a result of the enactment in 2004 of amendments to
this section, including the costs of adopting or amending any
ordinance that provides for the creation of second units.
SEC. 3.
SEC. 2. Section 65917.1 is added to the Government Code, to
read:
65917.1. When a school district agrees to allow multifamily or a
single-family residential use on the school district's property and
agrees to adequate security features such as separate entrances that
segregate the two uses, the residential density permitted on the
parcel is the highest multifamily residential density permitted on
any parcel within 300 feet plus any density bonus mandated by Section
65915. If there is no multifamily residential use permitted within
300 feet, the permitted residential density on the parcel being
developed for primary or secondary education and residential uses is
the highest multifamily residential density allowable in the
community plan area.
SEC. 4.
SEC. 3. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government
Code, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act
contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies
and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part
7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the
Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for
reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000),
reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.
SENATE LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2702
Author: Steinberg (D)
Amended: 8/23/04 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE HOUSING & COMM. DEV. COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/21/04
AYES: Ducheny, Hollingsworth, Cedillo, Dunn, Florez,
Torlakson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ackerman, Alarcon, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-3, 8/17/04
AYES: Alpert, Aanestad, Ashburn, Burton, Escutia, Johnson,
Poochigian
NOES: Bowen, Karnette, Speier
NO VOTE RECORDED: Battin, Machado, Murray
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-21, 5/27/04 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Housing: second units
SOURCE : California Association of Realtors
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Western Center on Law and Poverty
DIGEST : This bill restricts local governments ability to
deny or place restrictions on the development of second
unit housing. The bill establishes more detailed standards
for local second unit ordinances and specifies what
densities are to be allowed on school sites when housing
and schools are built on the same site.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/23/04 delete the section
amending housing element law, which altered the definition
of "use by right" development, since the changes proposed
by this bill have been included in another bill. The
amendments also delete language granting local governments
specific authority to levy a fee to cover the costs of
amending existing second units ordinances. According to
the Senate Housing and Community Development Committee
analysis, this language is unnecessary because local
governments already have general authority to charge fees
for planning purposes.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/19/04 delete redundant fee
authority and correct grammatical errors.
ANALYSIS : Existing law requires cities and counties to
allow the development of second housing units, commonly
referred to as granny flats or in-law units, in
single-family and multifamily residential zones subject
only to ministerial review. To implement this provision,
local governments may adopt an ordinance that is consistent
with the following:
1. The local government may designate allowable areas where
second units are permitted as long as the ordinance does
not totally preclude second units in single-family and
multifamily zones.
2. The local government may impose development standards
related to things such as height, setback, lot coverage,
architectural review and the preservation of historic
places.
3. The local government may establish minimum and maximum
size requirements for the second units as long as they
permit at least construction of an efficiency unit.
4. Parking may not exceed one space per unit or bedroom
unless the local government makes specified findings.
5. The local government may require the applicant for the
second unit permit to be an owner-occupant of the
primary residence on the property.
If a community does not adopt a local ordinance, then it
must approve requests for second units that meet the
following criteria:
1. The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented.
2. The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use.
3. The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling.
4. The second unit is either attached to the existing
dwelling and located within the living area of the
existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling
and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling.
5. The increased floor area of an attached second unit
shall not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area.
6. The total area of floor space for a detached second unit
shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.
7. The units meets 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.
8. The unit meets local building code requirements which
apply to detached dwellings.
9. The unit has been approved by the local health officer
where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if
required.
A second unit requested under these provisions is not
considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon
which it is located, and is deemed a residential use which
is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning
designations for the lot.
Residential development on school sites . In recent
history, designations for residential, commercial,
community facility land uses have been distinct. Uses were
not mixed on any individual parcel. As land becomes more
scarce, especially in urban settings, mixed-use development
has become more prevalent. In some cases, school districts
have partnered with housing developers on a specific site.
This can provide resources for construction of the school
and provide much-needed replacement housing for units that
may be destroyed to make way for the school. However,
because the land most likely still is designated for
exclusive school use, when such mixed-uses are proposed it
is unclear what densities apply to the residential portion
of the parcel.
This bill establishes more detailed standards for local
second unit ordinances and specifies what densities are to
be allowed on school sites when housing and schools are
built on the same site. Specifically, the bill:
1. With respect to communities without ordinances:
A. Removes the requirements that attached units not
increase floor area by more than 30 percent and
detached units not exceed 1200 square feet, and
instead requires both attached and detached units to
be at least 550 square feet unless a smaller unit is
requested by the applicant.
B. Removes the authority of the local government to
require the applicant to be an owner-occupant.
2. With respect to communities that adopt local ordinances:
A. Prohibits local ordinances, regulations, or
policies from precluding or effectively precluding
second units in all residential zones unless
specified findings are made.
B. Requires development standards to be reasonable,
written, and objective and contribute significantly
to the economic feasibility of producing housing at
the lowest possible cost.
C. Permits the local government to limit approval to
an applicant who is an owner-occupant in either the
primary or second unit.
D. Precludes a jurisdiction from requiring occupancy
of either unit by a dependant or caregiver or
restricting occupancy on a discriminatory basis.
E. Precludes a jurisdiction from imposing deed
restrictions that restrict future sales to
owner-occupants or future occupancy on a
discriminatory basis.
F. Precludes minimum size requirements of less than
550 square feet unless requested by the owner.
G. Sets an absolute limit on parking requirements of
one space per unit or bedroom, precludes a
jurisdiction from requiring covered parking, and
allows local governments to impose reasonable
standards to limit on-street parking.
H. Allows local government to prohibit or regulate
transient use of a second unit for which rent is
charged and collected on a daily basis.
Residential development on school sites . Provides that
when a school district allows residential uses on district
property and agrees to adequate security features, the
density permitted on the site is the highest multifamily
density permitted on any parcel within 300 feet or, if
there is no multifamily use permitted within 300 feet, the
highest multifamily density within the community plan area.
Comments
Purpose of the bill . Second units can be an important
source of affordable housing, especially in communities
with little vacant land. They tend to be smaller and more
affordable than other forms of housing and fit into
existing communities. While state law encourages second
units and requires local governments to ministerially
approve applications that meet their local standards,
resistance to second units has led some local governments
to adopt standards that severely limit or effectively
preclude their development. This bill seeks to facilitate
the development of second units while balancing the
interests of local governments to set reasonable
development standards.
Overly restrictive policies . While local governments
understandably have a desire to regulate the development of
second units, some policies seemed clearly designed to
undermine state law and make their development extremely
difficult. According to the sponsors, at least six
communities limit second units to 400 square feet or less,
with one allowing no more than 250 square feet. At least
three jurisdictions allow second units only on lots of one
acre or more. At least ten communities require covered
parking for the second unit. In addition, some communities
limit occupancy of second units to seniors. It is unclear
what legitimate basis exists for such restrictions. On the
other hand, such restrictions clearly make it unlikely that
second units will be developed in the community. This bill
seeks to limit specific types of onerous requirements
relating to size, occupancy and parking while maintaining
significant flexibility for local communities in other
regards.
Arguments in opposition . Opponents argue that the bill
mandates standards that have proven unacceptable to the
residents of single-family housing. In addition, they are
not convinced that compelling evidence exists to justify
either the one-size-fits-all restrictions on local land use
decisions or the expense of once again revising second unit
ordinances. The letters also state that the mandated
densities for housing on school sites represents
irresponsible planning, with no appreciation or
understanding of location, traffic, site conditions, or
other local issues. The opponents ask for further study of
the second unit issue.
NOTE: The League of California Cities argues that they
oppose the deletion of the authority to levy a fee to cover
the costs of amending existing second units ordinances.
They argue that the bill still imposes a state mandate that
could be up to $10 million. They feel a ruling from the
Legislative Counsel Bureau on the matter would be
appropriate.
Related Legislation
AB 2348 (Mullin), among other things, amends the definition
of "use by right" development required for sites to be
rezoned under the housing element program.
AB 1866 (Wright), Statutes of 2002, requires local second
unit ordinances, after July 1, 2003, to include ministerial
approval without discretionary review of applications for
second units that meet the requirements of the ordinances,
and require local governments without second unit
ordinances to ministerial approve second units that meet
all of the requirements of the current statute.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2004-05 2005-06
2006-07 Fund
State mandate not reimbursable, no state
costsGeneral
Local government representatives estimate that it requires
$10,000-$20,000 per city and county to update ordinances
pursuant to this bill. If every city and county updated
its ordinances, this bill could result in costs to local
governments of $5.35 million to $10.7 million.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/18/04)
California Association of Realtors (co-source)
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (co-source)
Western Center on Law and Poverty (co-source)
Agora Group, Goleta
American Association of Retired Persons, California
Barbara Sanders and Associates, Oakland
Beacon Housing, Los Angeles
Bet Tzedek Legal Services, Los Angeles
Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation, Saticoy
California Affordable Housing Law Project, Oakland
California Apartment Association
California Church Impact, Sacramento
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Legislative Council of Older Americans, San
Francisco
California Partnership, Downey
California Reinvestment Coalition, San Francisco
Center for Community Advocacy, Salinas
Central City SRO Collaborative, San Francisco
Chicano Consortium, Sacramento
Civic Center Barrio Housing Corporation, Santa Ana
Coalition for Economic Survival, Los Angeles
Community Housing Improvement, Chico
Congregations Building Community, Modesto
Council of Churches of Santa Clara County, Cupertino
East Palo Alto Council of Tenants Education Fund
Emergency Housing Consortium, San Jose
Enterprise Foundation, Los Angeles
Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Los Angeles
Fair Housing Council of Riverside County
Father Joe's Villages, San Diego
First Community Housing, San Jose
Fisher Sehgal Yanez Architects, Inc., Los Angeles
Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries
Fresno West Coalitions for Economic Development
Golden State Mobilehome Owners League, Chapter 24, East
Palo Alto
Gray Panthers California
Greenlining Institute, Oakland
Hillview Mental Health Center, Inc., Pacoima
Housing California
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, Redwood
City
Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco
Human Rights/Fair Housing Commission, Sacramento
Inclusive Homes Inc., Los Angeles
Inquilinos Unidos, Los Angeles
Jericho La Raza Centro Legal, Inc., San Francisco
Loaves and Fishes, Sacramento
Los Angeles Housing Law Project
Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc.
Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc., Los Angeles
Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, Redwood City
Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County and Inland
Empire
New Directions, Inc., Los Angeles
Opportunities for Neighborhood Empowerment Company, Inc.,
Los Angeles
Orange County Community Housing Corporation, Santa Ana
Partners in Housing, Inc., Ventura
People of Progress, Redding
Planning for Elders, San Francisco
Protection and Advocacy, Inc., Sacramento
Public Advocates, Inc., San Francisco
Public Law Center, Santa Ana
Rubicon Programs, Inc., Richmond
Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation, Ukiah
Renee Franken and Associates, Inc., Carmichael
Sacramento Neighborhood Housing Services
San Francisco Homeless Senior Task Force
Santa Cruz Affordable Housing Advocates
Senior Action Network, San Francisco
Shelter Inc of Contra Costa County, Martinez
Shelter Partnership, Inc., Los Angeles
Skid Row Housing Trust, Los Angeles
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing, Los
Angeles Southern California Housing Development
Corporation, Rancho Cucamonga Southern California Indian
Center, Inc., Fountain Valley
Strategic Actions For A Just Economy, Los Angeles
Tenderloin Housing Clinic, San Francisco
Valley Housing Foundation, Pacoima
Vietnam Veterans of California - Sacramento Veterans
Resource Center Women Organizing Resources, Knowledge and
Services, Los Angeles
West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation
WRJ Group, Inc., Fountain Valley
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/24/04)
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California State Association of Counties
City of Atherton
City of Bellflower
City of Brea
City of Concord
City of Culver City
City of Daly City
City of Elk Grove
City of Hercules
City of Lafayette
City of Lakewood
City of Moreno Valley
City of Napa
City of Palos Verdes Estates
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Roseville
City of San Jose
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Mateo
City of Santa Monica
City of Seal Beach
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Walnut Creek
Independent Cities Association
League of California Cities
Sierra Club
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Town of Atherton
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aghazarian, Benoit, Berg, Bermudez, Calderon,
Campbell, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cogdill, Correa, Cox, Diaz,
Dutton, Dymally, Firebaugh, Frommer, Garcia, Goldberg,
Hancock, Harman, Haynes, Jerome Horton, Keene, Kehoe,
Laird, Leno, Leslie, Levine, Lieber, Longville,
Lowenthal, Maddox, Matthews, Montanez, Mullin, Negrete
McLeod, Oropeza, Parra, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Runner,
Salinas, Spitzer, Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Wesson,
Wiggins, Nunez
NOES: Bogh, Canciamilla, Daucher, Shirley Horton, Houston,
Jackson, La Malfa, La Suer, Liu, Maldonado, Maze,
Mountjoy, Nakano, Nation, Pavley, Plescia, Richman,
Samuelian, Wolk, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Cohn, Corbett, Dutra, Koretz,
McCarthy, Nakanishi, Pacheco, Simitian
NC:mel 8/24/04 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
Return To Front Page
Contact us: mail@LBReport.com
|
