AB 2556, Nazarian. Density bonuses. AB 2556 answers some of the implementation questions left open by AB 2222 as it relates to the required replacement of affordable units previously onsite.

Click on the green highlighted bill or date to view official documents and reports.  Legislative Counsel’s Digest AB 2556,  See Los Angeles Planning Memo (January 18, 2017)

The Planning and Zoning Law requires, when an applicant proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of a local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or for the donation of land within the development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents. That law makes an applicant ineligible for a density bonus if the housing development is proposed on property with existing or certain former dwelling units subject to specific affordability requirements, including a form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power, or on property with existing units occupied by lower or very low income households, unless the proposed housing development replaces those units as prescribed. That law defines “replace” for those purposes to mean, among other things, providing the same number of equivalent units to persons or families in the same or lower income categories.

This bill would revise that definition of “replace” to require a rebuttable presumption, based on certain federal data, regarding the proportion of lower income renter households that occupy existing units, if the income category of the households in occupancy is not known. The bill, if the property for the proposed housing development is subject to a form of rent or price control through a local government’s valid exercise of its police power and is or was occupied by a person or family with an income above lower income, would authorize the city, county, or city and county either to require replacement units to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, low-income persons or families, as specified, or to require the units to be replaced in compliance with the rent or price control ordinance of the jurisdiction. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65915 of the Government Code, proposed by AB 2442 and AB 2501, that would become operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, and this bill is chaptered last.

DIGEST KEY Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes

Click on the green highlighted Bill No. to view official documents and reports.

Senate Bill No. 1069
CHAPTER 720

An act to amend Sections 65582.1, 65583.1, 65589.4, 65852.150, 65852.2, and 66412.2 of the Government Code, relating to land use.

[ Approved by Governor September 27, 2016. Filed with Secretary of State September 27, 2016. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to regulate, among other things, the intensity of land use, and also authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, as specified. That law makes findings and declarations with respect to the value of 2nd units to California’s housing supply.

This bill would replace the term “second unit” with “accessory dwelling unit” throughout the law. The bill would additionally find and declare that, among other things, allowing accessory dwelling units in single-family or multifamily residential zones provides additional rental housing stock, and these units are an essential component of housing supply in California.

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the ordinance for the creation of 2nd units in single-family and multifamily residential zones to include specified provisions regarding areas where accessory dwelling units may be located, standards, including the imposition of parking standards, and lot density. Existing law, when a local agency has not adopted an ordinance governing 2nd units as so described, requires the local agency to approve or disapprove the application ministerially, as provided.

This bill would instead require the ordinance for the creation of accessory dwelling units to include the provisions described above. The bill would prohibit the imposition of parking standards under specified circumstances. The bill would revise requirements for the approval or disapproval of an accessory dwelling unit application when a local agency has not adopted an ordinance. The bill would also require the ministerial approval of an application for a building permit to create one accessory dwelling unit within the existing space of a single-family residence or accessory structure, as specified. The bill would prohibit a local agency from requiring an applicant for this permit to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the unit and the utility or imposing a related connection fee or capacity charge. The bill would authorize a local agency to impose this requirement for other accessory dwelling units.

This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 65852.2 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2299 that would become operative only if AB 2299 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, and this bill is chaptered last.

By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes

Click on the green highlighted Bill No. to view official documents and reports.

Assembly Bill No. 2299
CHAPTER 735

An act to amend Section 65852.2 of the Government Code, relating to land use.

[ Approved by Governor September 27, 2016. Filed with Secretary of State September 27, 2016. ]

The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to regulate, among other things, the intensity of land use, and also authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units in single-family and multifamily residential zones, as specified. Existing law authorizes the ordinance to designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where 2nd units may be permitted, to impose specified standards on 2nd units, and to provide that 2nd units do not exceed allowable density and are a residential use, as specified.

This bill would replace the term “second unit” with “accessory dwelling unit.” The bill would, instead, require the ordinance to include the elements described above and would also require the ordinance to require accessory dwelling units to comply with specified conditions. This bill would require ministerial, nondiscretionary approval of an accessory dwelling unit under an existing ordinance. The bill would also specify that a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any accessory dwelling unit located within its jurisdiction.

Existing law requires that parking requirements for 2nd units not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. Under existing law, additional parking may be required provided that a finding is made that the additional parking requirements are directly related to the use of the 2nd unit and are consistent with existing neighborhood standards applicable to residential dwellings.

This bill would delete the above-described authorization for additional parking requirements.

By increasing the duties of local officials with respect to land use regulations, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 65852.2 of the Government Code proposed by SB 1069 that would become operative only if SB 1069 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, and this bill is chaptered last.

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.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
DIGEST KEY

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes

CF 14-0057-S8  At City Council  Adopted as Amended, (13); Nays: Martinez (1)

• Department of Building and Safety
• City Council Action (September 26, 2016)
• City Council Adopted Ordinance No. 184,510   (September 20, 2016)
• Motion 12-A Received and Filed (September 13, 2016)    Adopted Motion 12-B (September 13, 2016)
• September 6, 2016 – Council withheld unanimous consent, therefore, pursuant to Council Rule 39, the Ordinance held over one week to September 13, 2016.
• City Attorney Revised Draft Ordinance (September 2, 2016)
• Letter Councilmember David E. RYU  (June 7, 2016)
• Letter Councilwoman Nury Martinez (June 7, 2016)

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, STATUTORY EXEMPTION, COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY and ORDINANCE SECOND CONSIDERATION relative to grandfathering Second Dwelling Units.

Recommendations for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:

FIND that this project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based upon the categorical exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense exemption) and 15303(a) (Class 3 Categorical Exemption for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Adoption of these categorical exemptions are appropriate when the Council, exercising its independent judgement, determines the project meets all of the requirements set forth in the above referenced Section of the CEQA Guidelines and none of the exceptions to the use of a Categorical Exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to this project, based upon substantial evidence contained in the entire administrative record.

FIND that this project is exempt from CEQA based upon the statutory exemption set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21080.17, which provides that CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an Ordinance by a City or County to implement the provisions of Section 65852.1 or Section 65852.2 of the Government Code (i.e. Second Dwelling Unit Law). Adoption of this statutory exemption is appropriate when the Council, exercising its independent judgement, determines that the project meets all of the requirements set forth in the above referenced statute, based upon substantial evidence contained in the entire administrative record.

ADOPT the FINDINGS of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission (LACPC) as the Findings of the Council.

PRESENT and ADOPT the accompanying ORDINANCE dated September 2, 2016, relative to granting legal nonconforming status to second dwelling units, for the purpose of complying with State law AB 1866.

Applicant: City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning

Case No. CPC-2016-1245-CA

Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the LACPC nor the City Attorney. Neither City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.

Community Impact Statement: Yes.
Against: Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
Encino Neighborhood Council
Studio City Neighborhood Council
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Northridge East Neighborhood Council

(URGENCY CLAUSE – 12 VOTES REQUIRED ON SECOND READING)

(The City Council may recess to Closed Session, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) to confer with its legal counsel relative to the case entitled Los Angeles Neighbors in Action v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court Case BS150559. [This matter arises from a challenge to the City’s policies and practices of applying state law’s ministerial standards for approving second dwelling units, i.e. so-called granny flats, and policies and practices regarding front yard setback requirements applied to certain hillside streets.])

(Pursuant to Council Rule 39, Council withheld unanimous consent on September 6, 2016 and the Ordinance was held over to September 13, 2016)

CF 15-0002-S189   Adopted to Refer,  13 – 0 – 2  Council referred item to Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations and Neighborhoods Committee.

• 08/31/2016 Council continued item to/for September 6, 2016
• 08/23/2016 Council continued item to/for August 31, 2016
• 08/18/2016 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on August 23, 2016
  08/18/2016 Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations and Neighborhoods Committee waived consideration of item
• 07/28/2016 Chief Legislative Analyst document(s) referred to Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations and Neighborhoods Committee.
• 07/27/2016 Document(s) submitted by Chief Legislative Analyst  (July 20,2016)

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHIEF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST and RESOLUTION (MARTINEZ – BUSCAINO) relative to establishing the City’s position regarding SB 1069 (Wieckowski), which would replace the term Second Unit with Accessory Dwelling Units, (ADU), and prescribes the maximum standards of an ADU.

Recommendation for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE CONCURRENCE OF THE MAYOR:

ADOPT the accompanying RESOLUTION to include in the City’s 2015-16 State Legislative Program OPPOSITION to SB 1069 (Wieckowski), which would replace the term Second Unit with Accessory Dwelling Units, (ADU), and prescribes that no parking standards shall be required for second dwelling units located half a mile of public transit, or located within architecturally and historically significant historic districts, thereby undermining local land use control and the concept of Home Rule by the imposition of State legislation on local government agencies, including charter cities.

Community Impact Statement: None submitted.

(Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations, and Neighborhoods Committee waived consideration of the above matter)

CF 15-0002-S188 at City Council  Adopted to Refer, Unanimous Vote (13); Absent: Bonin, Fuentes (2)

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHIEF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST and RESOLUTION (MARTINEZ – BUSCAINO) relative to establishing the City’s position regarding AB 2299 (Bloom), which would require local agencies to provide by ordinance the creation of second dwelling units.

• 07/11/2017 Council re-referred item to Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee, pursuant to Council Action of July 1, 2017, Council File No. 17-0769.
• 09/07/2016 Council Action (September , 2016), Chief Legislative Analyst (July 20, 2016), Resolution (June 7, 2016)
• 09/06/2016 Council referred item to Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations and Neighborhoods Committee
• 08/31/2016 Council continued item to/for September 6, 2016
• 08/23/2016 Council continued item to/for August 31, 2016.
• Chief Legislative Analyst (July 20, 2016) 
• City Council Action Sept. 6, 2016 – REFERRED TO THE RULES, ELECTIONS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, AND NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE

Recommendation for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE CONCURRENCE OF THE MAYOR:

ADOPT the accompanying RESOLUTION to include in the City’s 2015-16 State Legislative Program OPPOSITION to AB 2299 (Bloom), which would require local agencies, including charter cities, to provide by ordinance for the creation of second dwelling units in single family and multifamily residential zones, and would prohibit cities from imposing parking requirements, and thereby undermine local land use control, the concept of Home Rule, and potentially causing parking spillover impacts on nearby homes and businesses.

Community Impact Statement: None submitted.

(Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations, and Neighborhoods Committee waived consideration of the above matter)

(Continued from Council meeting of August 31, 2016)