Loading...
CC SR 20220607 K - Housing and Land Use Bills CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 06/07/2022 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar AGENDA TITLE: Consideration and possible action to oppose four bills related to housing and local land use: Assembly Bill (AB) 916, AB 2011, AB 2097, and Senate Bill (SB) 897. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter opposing AB 916, which would prohibit a local agency from requiring a public hearing as a condition of increasing a structure’s bedroom count and would increase the maximum height limitation on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) from 16 feet to 18 feet; (2) Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter opposing AB 2011, which would require ministerial, streamlined approval for 100% affordable housing in commercially- zoned areas and for mixed-income housing along commercial corridors; (3) Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter opposing AB 2097, which would prohibit a local agency from imposing or enforcing minimum parking requirements within one half- mile of a major transit stop; and (4) Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter opposing SB 897, which would make numerous changes to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) law, including increasing the maximum height limitation on ADUs from 16 feet to 25 feet in certain conditions. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: McKenzie Bright, Administrative Analyst REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Draft letter of opposition to AB 916 (page A -1) B. Draft letter of opposition to AB 2011 (page B-1) C. Draft letter of opposition to AB 2097 (page C-1) D. Draft letter of opposition to SB 897 (page D-1) E. Text of AB 916 (as amended May 11, 2022) F. Text of AB 2011 (as amended May 11, 2022) G. Text of AB 2097 (as amended May 19, 2022) 1 CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES H. Text of SB 897 (as amended May 19, 2022) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On November 2, 2021, the City Council adopted the City’s 2022 Legislative Platform, outlining the policy positions of the City.1 The platform includes the support of policies or programs that allow city and state collaboration on housing production, alongside sustainable transportation, broadband deployment, and other key infrastructure areas to support our communities (2022 Legislative Platform, item 1.B.). More broadly, the City is opposed to legislation that usurps local control and erodes the City’s authority to control its own affairs (2022 Legislative Platform, item 1.A.). The state is in a housing crisis, but one-size-fits-all, ministerial bills that fail to consider local needs and requirements are not the solution. Local governments have the tools, knowledge, and policies in place to plan for responsible development. Furthermore, many of these bills circumvent the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which was established to require the thoughtful consideration of development on the environment and infrastructure and the California Coastal Act of 1976, which recognizes that there are unique zoning and land management requirements in coastal areas. The City is committed to maintaining and enhancing a high quality of life and safety for all residents as reflected in its General Plan. Local land use authority is essential to ensuring that all new developments are suitable and safe for our community, and to all ow the City and developers to work together to find the most mutually beneficial arrangement for all residents. This report provides information on AB 916, AB 2011, AB 2097 and SB 897 , as well as Staff’s recommendation to oppose each bill, as they would weaken local land use authority. AB 916: Bedroom Addition and ADU Height AB 916, introduced by Assemblymember Rudy Salas (Bakersfield), would prohibit a local government from adopting or enforcing an ordinance requiring a public hearing as a condition of adding space for additional bedrooms or reconfiguring existing space to increase the bedroom count within an existing house, condominium, or apartment. AB 916 would also increase, from 16 feet to 18 feet, the maximum height of an ADU, a local government, must ministerially approve if the ADU is located on an existing multi-family and multi-story dwelling. Most concerning with this bill is the circumvention of the City’s ability to have a public hearing regarding creating additional bedrooms. The issue of increasing ADU height limits will be discussed in more detail regarding SB 897 later in this report. By prohibiting public 1 The 2022 Legislative Platform and a record of the bills the City Council has taken a position on during the 2021-2022 legislative session is available at rpvca.gov/LegislationCorner. 2 hearings, the bill preempts the City’s ability to properly review projects that add bedrooms to existing residential dwellings and impose reasonable requirements and conditions that take into consideration the City’s residential character and local unique characteristics. Staff recommends the City Council oppose AB 916 (see Attachment A). AB 2011: Ministerial Approval of Housing in Commercial Corridors AB 2011, introduced by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (Oakland), would require cities to ministerially approve and streamline, without condition or discretion, certain affordable housing and mixed-use housing developments in zones where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use regardless of any inconsistency with a local government’s general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or regulation. AB 2011, as currently drafted, would: • Allow 100% affordable housing projects to be a use by right, and subject to streamlined, ministerial review process if: o All of the units are dedicated to lower income households at an affordable rent or, as for-sale homes, at an affordable cost. o It is located within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use. o At least 67% of the square footage of the new construction is designated for residential use and the residential density will meet or exceed the applicable density deemed appropriate to accommodate for lower income households as specified in Housing Element Law. Generally, that density is 30 units per acre in urban areas and 20 units per acre in suburban areas. o The bill also makes provisions that construction workers must be pa id prevailing wages on the development project. • Allow mixed-income housing projects to be a use by right, and subject to a streamlined, ministerial review process if: o A rental housing development has a recorded deed restriction that ensures that for a period of 55 years, 15% of the units shall be set at an affordable rent to lower income households. An owner-occupied housing development has a recorded deed restriction that ensures for a period of 45 years, 30% of units shall be offered at an affordable housing cost to moderate-income household or 15% of the units must be offered at an affordable cost to lower income households. o The project site meets all of the location provisions as described in the previous section and abuts a commercial corridor, which is a road that is not a freeway that has a right-of-way of at least 70 feet and not greater than 150 feet (such as Western Avenue). • Both types of projects would be exempt from CEQA. Cities lay the essential groundwork for housing production by planning and zoning new projects in their communities based on extensive public input and engagement, state housing laws, and the needs of the building industry. Cities across the state are currently 3 updating housing plans through the sixth cycle regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) process. AB 2011 disregards this state-mandated local planning effort and forces cities to allow housing developments in nearly all areas of a city, seriously undermining the rationale for the RHNA process. For example, in all areas in the City where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use, a 100% affordable housing development would be granted ministerial, streamlined approval, such as in the commercial areas along Western Avenue. “Streamlining” in the context of AB 2011 is a shortcut around public input. While it may be frustrating for some developers to address neighborhood concerns about traffic, parking, view impairments, and other development impacts, those directly affected by such projects should be heard. Public engagement also often leads to better projects. Not having such outlets will increase public distrust in government and may result in additional efforts by voters to restrict growth. Staff recommends the City Council oppose AB 2011 (see Attachment B). AB 2097: Residential and Commercial Development – Parking Requirements AB 2097, introduced by Assemblymember Laura Friedman (Glendale), would prohibit a public agency from imposing or enforcing a minimum parking requirement for residential, commercial, and other developments if the parcel is located within one half-mile of a high- quality transit corridor or a major transit stop. A high-quality transit corridor is defined as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. While the City does not have any high-quality transit corridors, nor is it near a major transit stop, the concern is that a neighboring jurisdiction could increase bus routes during peak commute hours, removing the need for neighboring minimum parking requirements without any opportunity for a public hearing for the City and neighbors to express concerns about the proposed development and come to a mutually agreeable solution. Cities have the tools, knowledge, and policies in place to continue to plan and develop innovative solutions to mitigate the housing crisis: solutions that best serve the city and the residents. If, for example, a city observes that there seems to be a surplus of parking spaces in shopping centers, they could re-zone the land to be mixed-use residential. The city may also determine that they could lower their parking requirements in certain areas due to traffic patterns and/ or location of transit. When cities are allowed to keep their local land use authority, they will continue to plan and develop new solutions that address their specific constraints. AB 2097 would essentially allow developers to dictate parking requirements in large areas of many cities because the definition of public transit includes entire bus routes with 15- minute service intervals. Restricting parking requirements within one half-mile of a high- frequency transit route does not guarantee individuals living, working, or shopping on 4 those parcels will actually use transit. Many residents will continue to own automobiles and require nearby parking, which will only increase parking demand and congestion. As such, Staff recommends the City Council oppose AB 2097 (see Attachment C). SB 897: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) SB 897, introduced by Senator Bob Wieckowski (Fremont), would make numerous changes to the laws governing ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). The bill would also require the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to establish and administer a grant program, upon appropriation of funds by the Legislature, to fund the construction and maintenance of ADUs and JADUs. Since 2016, the Legislature has enacted numerous measures to revise ADU law in an attempt to mediate the housing crisis by infringing on local land use authority , including requiring ministerial approval of a JADU and requiring agencies to allow at least an 800 - square-foot ADU of up to 16 feet on a lot, with 4-foot setbacks, regardless of zoning standards. SB 897 would make the following changes to the laws governing ADUs and JADUs: • Clarify that standards imposed on an ADU by a local agency must be objective. • Clarify that a local agency must explicitly approve or deny an application for an ADU or JADU within the 60-day timeframe rather than act on the application. • Specify that the construction of an ADU does not constitute a Group R occupancy change and does not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers. • Allow for the construction of ADUs along with a proposed multifamily dwelling, in addition to existing authority that applies to proposed single-family dwellings. • Allow a JADU to be attached to a detached ADU and clarify th at enclosed uses within the residence are considered a part of the proposed or existing single-family dwelling. • Repeal the January 1, 2025, sunset on the prohibition on local owner-occupancy requirements and repeal the existing owner-occupancy requirement in JADU law. • Revise the minimum ADU height limit allowance to specify that the limit is 16 feet, except the limit may not be less than 25 feet if the ADU is within one half-mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high -quality transit corridor, as specified, and the limit may not be less than 25 feet if the ADU is attached to a primary dwelling. • Prohibit the imposition of parking standards for an ADU if its permit application is submitted with an application for a new single-family home. • Require a local agency, when detached ADUs are proposed on the same lot as a proposed multifamily dwelling, to reduce the number of required parking spaces for the multifamily dwelling by two spaces for each proposed ADU. • Prohibits a local agency from denying a permit for an unpermitted ADU that is out of compliance with laws or ordinances, building standards, or other nonconforming conditions unless it makes a finding that correcting a violation is necessary to protect public health and safety. 5 • Specify that an enforcement delay granted to an ADU for correction of a building standard violation would also apply to a violation of building standards for the primary residence, as long as correcting the violation is not necessary to protect public health and safety. ADU Height Limit SB 897 would erode the distinction between an ADU and a primary dwelling unit. Of particular concern is the 25-foot height limit for detached ADUs within one half-mile of a high-quality transit corridor and all attached ADUs. The additional height continues the trend of diminishing the distinction between ADUs and any other residence, without any reduction in the benefits that ADUs receive for being a different type of housing. As with the previous bill, while the City does n ot have any high-quality transit corridors, one in a neighboring jurisdiction would allow for the ministerial approval of a new two - story structure, which calls into question the idea that it would be an “accessory dwelling unit” and could have significant impacts on related infrastructure. There are similar concerns for attached ADUs within the City’s jurisdiction – a 25-foot structure blurs the line between an ADU and a unit which does not benefit from the streamlined processes afforded an ADU. Recent ADU Law and Local Authority ADU law has been substantially amended nearly every year since 2016 . Legislators propose these new bills will help mitigate the housing crisis, without having the time to know what the results of the existing law will be. The perpetual change additionally requires local agencies to update ADU/JADU ordinance s to conform to new laws, which are not state-reimbursable, putting the full burden of implementing unproven, one -size- fits-all laws that fail to consider local character as well as safety constraints, such as egress capacity within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) on the local agency. SB 897 weakens local land use authority related to ADUs and further hinders the City’s ability to properly plan and develop residential zoning of single family and multi-family homes. Additionally, this bill would adversely impact the City’s ability to impose reasonable ADU requirements to ensure public utility services, including power, water, and sewage, and meet anticipated population, dwelling unit densities, and service requirements. Staff, therefore, recommends the City Council oppose SB 897 (see Attachment D). CONCLUSION: Due to the City Council’s position of protecting local land use authority, Staff recommends the City Council oppose AB 916, AB 2011, AB 2097, and SB 897, and authorize the Mayor to sign letters in opposition (Attachments A-D). 6 ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council’s consideration: 1. Identify revised language to add to the letter(s). 2. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the letter(s). 3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate. 7 June 7, 2022 Via Email The Honorable Rudy Salas California State Assembly 1021 O Street, Room 4610 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 916 Dear Assemblymember Salas: On behalf of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, I am writing to respectfully express our opposition to Assembly Bill 916, related to residential dwelling expansions and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The City recognizes the importance of land use planning and development of housing to meet population growth and community needs. While we appreciate your goal to expand housing, AB 916 significantly preempts local land use authority. Specifically, the bill preempts the City’s ability to properly review projects that add bedrooms to existing residential dwellings and impose reasonable ADU requirements and conditi ons that take into consideration the City’s residential character and local unique characteristics. The City is committed to maintaining and enhancing a high quality of life and safety for all residents as reflected in its General Plan. Local land use aut hority is essential to ensuring that all new developments are suitable and safe for our community, and to allow the City and developers to work together to find the most mutually beneficial arrangement for all residents. We are committed to being part of the solution to the housing shortfall across all income levels and will work collaboratively with you and other stakeholders on legislative proposals that will spur much needed housing construction without disregarding the state - mandated local planning process and important public engagement. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 916. A-1 rlAVln L. BRAnLEY, MA YOR 8ARrlARA FFRRARO, MAYOR PRO TFM FRIC 1\I FGRIA. COUNCIi MFMrlFR JOHN Ci~Ull<SHANI<, COUNCILME:Ml::lE:I\ l<E:N DYDA, COUNCIL ME:Ml::lrn Assemblymember Salas June 7, 2022 Page 2 Sincerely, David L. Bradley Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes cc: Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District Al Muratsuchi, Assemblymember, 66th State Assembly District Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association Sharon Gonsalves, Renne Public Policy Group Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager A-2 June 7, 2022 Via Email The Honorable Buffy Wicks California State Assembly 1021 O Street, Room 4240 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 2011 Dear Assemblymember Wicks: On behalf of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, I am writing to respectfully express our strong opposition to Assembly Bill 2011, which would require ministerial, streamlined approval, without condition or discretion, for certain affordable housing and mixed-used housing developments in zones where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use, regardless of any inconsistency with a local government’s general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or regulation. Cities lay the essential groundwork for housing production by planning and zoning new projects in their communities based on extensive public input and engagemen t, state housing laws, and the needs of the building industry. Cities across the state are currently updating housing plans through the sixth cycle regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) process. AB 2011 disregards this state-mandated local planning effort and forces cities to allow housing developments in nearly all areas of a city, seriously undermining the rationale for the RHNA process. Furthermore, “streamlining” in the context of AB 2011 is a shortcut around public input. While it may be frustrating for some developers to address neighborhood concerns about traffic, parking, view impairments, and other development impacts, those directly affected by such projects should be heard. Public engagement also often leads to better projects. Not having such outlets will increase public distrust in government and may result in additional efforts by voters to restrict growth. The state is in a housing crisis, but one-size-fits-all, ministerial mandates that fail to consider local needs and requirements are not the solution. Local governments have the tools, knowledge, and policies in place to plan for responsible development. Furthermore, B-1 rlAVln L. BRAnLEY, MA YOR 8ARrlARA FFRRARO, MAYOR PRO TFM FRIC 1\I FGRIA. COUNCIi MFMrlFR JOHN Ci~Ull<SHANI<, COUNCILME:Ml::lE:I\ l<E:N DYDA, COUNCIL ME:Ml::lrn Assemblymember Wicks June 7, 2022 Page 2 this bill circumvents the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which was established to require the thoughtful consideration of development on the environment and infrastructure and the California Coastal Act of 1976, which recognizes that there are unique zoning and land management requirements in coastal areas. The City is committed to maintaining and enhancing a high quality of life and safety for all residents as reflected in its General Plan. Local land use authority is essential to ensuring that all new developments are suitable and safe for our community, and to allow the City and developers to work together to find the most mutually beneficial arrangement for all residents. We are committed to being part of the solution to the housing shortfall across all income levels and will work collaboratively with you and other stakeholders on legislative proposals that will spur much needed housing construction without disregarding the state - mandated local planning process and important public engagement. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 2011. Sincerely, David L. Bradley Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes cc: Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District Al Muratsuchi, Assemblymember, 66th State Assembly District Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association Sharon Gonsalves, Renne Public Policy Group Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager B-2 June 7, 2022 Via Email The Honorable Laura Friedman California State Assembly 1021 O Street, Room 6310 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition for AB 2097 Dear Assemblymember Friedman: On behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, I am writing to respectfully express our opposition to Assembly Bill 2097, which would prohibit a public agency from imposing or enforcing a minimum parking requirement for residential, commercial, or other developments if the parcel is located within one half-mile of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop. Cities have the tools, knowledge, and policies in place to continue to plan and develop innovative solutions to mitigate the housing crisis; solutions that best serve the city and the residents. If, for example, a city observes that there seems to be a surplus of parking spaces in shopping centers, they could re-zone the land to be mixed-use residential. The city may also determine that it could lower parking requirements in certain areas due to traffic patterns and/or location of transit. When cities are allowed to keep their local land use authority, they will continue to plan and develop new solutions that address their specific constraints. AB 2097 would essentially allow developers to dictate parking requirements in large areas of many cities because the definition of public transit includes entire bus routes with 15- minute service intervals. Restricting parking requirements within one half-mile of a high- frequency transit route does not guarantee individuals living, working, or shopping on those parcels will actually use transit. Many residents will continue to own automobiles and require nearby parking, which will only increase parking demand and congestion. AB 2097 would give both developers and transit agencies, who are unaccountable to local voters, the power to determine parking requirements. Transit agencies would be able to C-1 rlAVln L. BRAnLEY, MA YOR 8ARrlARA FFRRARO, MAYOR PRO TFM FRIC 1\I FGRIA. COUNCIi MFMrlFR JOHN Ci~Ull<SHANI<, COUNCILME:Ml::lE:I\ l<E:N DYDA, COUNCIL ME:Ml::lrn Assemblymember Friedman June 7, 2022 Page 2 dramatically alter local parking standards by shifting transit routes and adjusting service intervals. Parking minimums are not an arbitrary standard. The City is committed to maintaining and enhancing a high quality of life and safety for all residents as reflected in its General Plan. Local land use authority is essential to ensuring that all new developments are suitable and safe for our community, and to allow the City and developers to work together to find the most mutually beneficial arrangement for all residents. We are committed to being part of the solution to the housing shortfall across all income levels and will work collaboratively with you and other stakeholders on legislative proposals that will spur much needed housing construction without disregarding the state - mandated local planning process and important public engagement. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes AB 2097. Sincerely, David L. Bradley Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes cc: Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District Al Muratsuchi, Assemblymember, 66th State Assembly District Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association Sharon Gonsalves, Renne Public Policy Group Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager C-2 June 7, 2022 Via Email The Honorable Bob Wieckowski California State Senate 1021 O Street, Room 6530 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to SB 897 Dear Senator Wieckowski: On behalf of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, I am writing to respectfully express our opposition to Senate Bill 897, which would make numerous changes to the laws governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). Since 2016, the Legislature has made constant, significant changes to ADU law in an attempt to mediate the housing crisis by infringing on local land use authority, without having the time to assess the results of existing law. The perpetual change requires local agencies to update ADU ordinances to conform to new laws and continues to be an unfunded mandate. Furthermore, local agencies such as the City which are located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) must ensure that egress infrastructure can support development beyond the scope of the City’s General Plan. SB 897 would erode the distinction between an ADU and a primary dwelling unit. Of particular concern is the 25-foot height limit for detached ADUs within one half-mile of a high-quality transit corridor and all attached ADUs. The additional height continues the trend of diminishing the distinction between ADUs and any other residence, without any reduction in the benefits that ADUs receive for being a different type of housing, and without consideration for impacts on related infrastructure. SB 897’s changes also undermine the legitimate permitting requirements imposed by local agencies. SB 897 weakens local land use authority related to ADUs and further hinders the City’s ability to properly plan and develop residential zoning of single -family and multi-family homes. Additionally, this bill would adversely impact the City’s ability to impose reasonable ADU requirements to ensure public utility services, including power, water, D-1 rlAVln L. BRAnLEY, MA YOR 8ARrlARA FFRRARO, MAYOR PRO TFM FRIC 1\I FGRIA. COUNCIi MFMrlFR JOHN Ci~Ull<SHANI<, COUNCILME:Ml::lE:I\ l<E:N DYDA, COUNCIL ME:Ml::lrn Senator Wiekowski June 7, 2022 Page 2 and sewage, and meet anticipated population, dwelling unit densities, and service requirements. The City is committed to maintaining and enhancing a high quality of life and safety for all residents as reflected in its General Plan. Local land use authority is essential to ensuring that all new developments are suitable and safe for our community, and to allow the City and developers to work together to find the most mutually beneficial arrangement for all residents and ADU projects. We are committed to being part of the solution to the housing shortfall across all income levels and will work collaboratively with you and other stakeholders on legislative proposals that will spur much needed housing construction without disregarding the state - mandated local planning process and important public engagement. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 897. Sincerely, David L. Bradley Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes cc: Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District Al Muratsuchi, Assemblymember, 66th State Assembly District Jacki Bacharach, South Bay Cities Council of Governments Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association Sharon Gonsalves, Renne Public Policy Group Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager D-2