The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 3.E 05/20/2019j85$ DATE: May 20, 2019 Agenda It m #3.E T0.6 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Peggy Flynn, City Manager�"� Scott Brodhun, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Letter Opposing Senate Bill 5 0 (Wiener} —Planning and zoning : housing developmentO incentives RECOMMENDATION I 1W It is recommended that the City Council review and possibly sign the attached letter in opposition of Senate Bill SO (Wiener) — Planning and zonizoning:houisng development: incentives. BACKGROUND Senator Wiener introduced Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) which, if adopted, would result iindimnished local zoning and regulatory authority, establish a one size flits all statewide program, and begin the implementation of an unfunded state -mandated local program. DISCUSSION The City recognizes the importance of housing development and affordable housing within the State and region. The City also recognizes the substantial housing crisis that currently exists in the State and the impact that high housing prices and a lack of supply has had on individuals throughout the State Nonetheless, SB 50 would loosen local zoning restrictions and would'force development upon c that may deem it unnecessary or unwanted in their respective cities. SB 50 would establish waivers from local9overnment regulations if a developer meets the criteria speci fil in I I e bill. TI e bill creates waivers from local regulations such as density, parking, size and height when a development is proposed near transit stops. The City of Petaluma effectively regulates and sets standards for municipal affairs that best fit the needs of the City and this bill interferes with the City'sa i 1Y to continue to do so,. Unless SB 50 is amended, and for the reasons stated above, it is recommended that the Mayor and City Council sign the letter opposing SB 50. i ies FINANCIAL IMPACTS None 0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Letter 2. Action Alert from League of California Cities 3-m Outlneiof SB 50 provided b y League of California Cities j8 5 $ Teresa Barrett Majlor DILynda Fischer Mike Healy Gabe Kearney Dave King Kevin McDonnell lathy Miller Councilmembers I I May 20, 2019 Honorable Bill Dodd California State Senate State Capitol. Room 4 032 1 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attachment 1 POST OFFICE Box 61 PETALUMA, CA 94953-0061 Honorable Marc Levine California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 5135 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re,** S.B. 50 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning, Housing Development Incentives— Oppose Unless Amended (as amended 5/1/19) 1 Dear Senator Dodd and Assemblymember Levine: The City of Petaluma respectfully opposes S.B. 50 unless amended. Under the current version of the bill, Petaluma, with a population over 50 ,000 in a county with a population under 600, 000, "would be subjected to certain parking requirements that are unrealistic for how our community functions. Accordingly,, we object to the "Two Sizes Fit All" approach of the bill. We do not oppose the provision allowing "neighborhood multifamily projects," or 0 family zoned residential fourplexes., to locate on vacant lots in single neighborhoods. Nor do we oppose the opportunity of an extra story on multi- family structures within a half mile of our downtown SMART station. However, we do strongly oppose the parking requirement waivers attached to both I the " neighborhood multifamily projects1 provision and the extra story within a half mile of our downtown SMART station. In both cases, S.B. 5 0 would cap required parking at 0-.5 off -space parking spaces per unit. Proposed Cal. Govt. Code'§ 65913.5(d) (3) neighborhood multifamily projects_; proposed Cal. Govt., Code § 65918.53(1 [multifamily residential within half mile of rail transit stati"on-k- One existing, and two plannedav%ailme rojects iOn central Petaluma within a half mile of our downtown SMART stati"oni"llustrate our concerns. Preliminarily we note that SMART rail service is very different than rail service Petahima DO? Hall such as Muni Metro in San Francisco, and care should be taken when treating I I English Street � them as being similar. From the Petaluma SMART station, the closest SMART Petaluma,'CA 94952 stations are in Cotati to the north or Novato to the south. SMART provides a great Phone (707)778-4345 commute option but i*s not useful for grocery shopping or other shorter trips,, Fax (707) 778-4419 Eden Housing's Downtown River Apartments on East Washington Street, across from the Golden Eagle Shopping Center, opened in 2005 with City financial Q support and features 81 affordable one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments to low and very Iow-income households. It is within a quarter mile of the Petaluma a�R'� IT V SMART station. It has 122 on-site parking spaces, or 1. 5 per unit. There is very S I little reasonably convenient on -street parking. We know this project is under - parked for Petaluma because every morning the same dozen or more cars are parked in the Golden Eagle parking lot closest to the apartments, long before any stores in the shopping center have opened. Under the S.B. 50 formula, this project could have had 41 total parking spaces, or 81 fewer than the already inadequate number it actually has. Awaiting final design approvals later in May are the Haystack Apartments, on the i i rregular block immediately behind Grocery Outlet,. It will have 178 units, ncludi'ng 15% affordable. It i*s less than a quarter mile from the Petaluma SMART station. It will offer 165 on-site parking spaces for residents, 1.0 spaces for market rate units and 0.5 spaces for affordable units. Given the Eden experience described A this project is likely already under -parked for Petaluma. But under the. S.B. is 50 formula, it could have 89 total parking spaces, 76 fewer than planned,whi ch not realistic for how people culTently live here. Finally, fL111ya-PProved and awaiting construction are the North River Apartments on North Water Street,, slightly over a quarter mile from the Petaluma SMART station.. It will feature 184 units, mostly one and two bedrooms, and 268 on-site parking spaces. The parking works out to 1.46 spaces per unit., or just under 1.0 spaces per bedroom. Much analysis went into this level of parking, and we expect it to be successful. Under the S.B. 50 formula, thisProject could have moved forward with 176 fewer parking spaces, which certainly would have severely impacted the (already parking challenged) adjoining neighborhood, as well as the desirability of the North River Apartments themselves. The same concerns apply to new fourplexes located on vacant lots in single family zoned resi"denti"al neighborhoods, most of which are not close to transit. Half a parking space per unit is simply unrealistic for how people here currently live, especially as many of our residential neighborhoods are already parking challenged. 3 Thank you i*n advance for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Teresa 13affett Mayor DLynda Fischer Council Member Gabe Keamey of Counci 0 1 Member I. Kathy Miller Council Member � cc: The Honorable Scott Wiener The Honorable Mike McGuire Kevin McDonnell Vice Mayor Mike Healy Council Member -H King Council Member Nancy Hall Bennett, Regional Public Affairs Director (via ema League of California Cities (cityletters(c�cacities.or�) ii) 4 4 alutournat*ictal Iv the send letters to the author's office and! urisdiction lease visit ,accoun:t and up oa tnils �vocates ca,:elgisi�tion.lc.ca.gov/a_c o icrelate an you are aving �1:1 i c u yi, a c ce s s i n, g t ve p o rt ar. M RLWWW-1 n0prJU AM11a �� 13 U io Z ell, , , � ! � "' � � a �: ,; N �� Wr7 �4z, �!:iln---- a I& (WIlme-ner) and Zlonin .91 A t ;I=ves,. Hoftu�ftsmln g. Developmen incent 11E�l I xlw� m 4�7-7 r-1 IR .1 % :� � ZN. 0< po*; E U N 1�7��j ,,MENDED .. . . ...... ..... .......... �"T I$N "Aft tI I e% F Iff I e"% g'til lentz), Wh(0:Pq%.ffire! a V&P% &,-% ru cpo% ri a-P&tCo"%�! Moft AN& Oak ^to-%te% tint;0 Ut 0 0 a, a en ON Fii� V% I V% Pak ji IQ 5, r new housiny, su" jo%c,t, to approval bY result of recent le: 1W OF AM, 4M WWII AOL �idk M.4 1, —J§—MLMW qWF ELIE% 1W I'M _AL �M 0 EL a SO OWA OLM MILMIt W I 'AMEM62 AW -1 2 MA 9 Ww-A ON 'a Attachment A All, raft a ks ,Ol ' inu voint ra I co n ce,rn s a UORGI I �, III IIff; UM. M. - 9 a just'i,ficat'ion for P"I 11 1 J '01 YIY titj 5U^ would be imp,emen ed. ,MMM� rM% bb 50 allows sotnwitiles t AAR M, 11111 VVE I MWIM-3 0 LillillillillW7 M * be completely exempt 0 hey develop it,heir own plan Is 'Fes I nto N ity Incentive to a jobs -rich or transi*t-ri project located within Y2m'lle of a mayor transit stop with a minimum density of 30 units/acre in "metropo in "suburban" community:. 0 1 additional story or fifteen feet in height. 0 0.6 Floor Area Ratio -,'o 0-.5 parking spots per units. o No capon density. o No minimum Outline of SB 50 (Wiener) Housing Development Incentives As Amended 5/1/19 All cities in California must allow fourplexes on vacant parcels or on property that that has been unoccupied for at least five years and is considered substandard Counties w from the requirement to grant an Equ ith a population under 600,000 it 0 Cities with a population of LESSthan511111111, 1111111XIIIIIH11111): able Community Incentive. IN Cities with a population OVER Attachment 3 contains a structure(s) o Exempt 50,000 must grant the following Equitable Commun ch housing titan" community or 20 units/acre or parking requirement if within % mile of rail transit station in city wit Inclusionary housing requirements apply. D Density bonus available. Counties wit must grant t h population greater than 100,000. D h a populat4P ion over 600,000,. 0 All cities (except those under 50,000 in the coastal zone) he following Equitable Community Incentive to a jobs"-ri' No capon density. 0 0.5 parking spots pe 45 feet, FIc height up t requiremei ch or transit -rich housing project: o r unit,. o Within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop — height up to r Area Ratio of 2.5, and no parking requirements. o Within 1/4 mile of a major transit stop &*mob 0 55ft, Floor Area Ration of 3.25, and no park ing requirements.. D Inclusionary housing y bonus available. ts apply,. 0 Densit So, what does this mean? D Small cities in small counties are EXEMPT from the requirement to grant an Equitable Community Incentive. D Small cities in large counties MUST grant the full Equitable Community Incentive. D Large cities in small -counties within 1/2 mile of a major transit spot MUST grant a scaled back Equitable Community Incentive. u rf� D'Lynda Tischer Milce Healy Gabe Kearney Dave King Kevin McDonnell Kathy Miller Coundli rembers Pelahona City hall 1 ] Lttglislr Street Pelahwra; CA 99952 Phone (707)7784345 Fax (707) 7784419 CITY OF PETALIVIA May 20, 2019 Honorable Bill Dodd California State Senate State Capitol, Room 4032 Sacramento, CA 95814 POST OFFICE BOA 61 PETA,uMA., CA 94953-0061 Honorable Marc Levine California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 5135 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re.: S.B. 50 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning, Housing Development Incentives— Oppose Unless Amended (as amended 5111 19) Dear Senator Dodd and Assemblymember Levine: The City of Petaluma respectfully opposes S.B. SO unless amended. Under the current version of the bill, Petaluma, with a population over 50,000 in a county with a population under 600,000, would be subjected to certain parking requirements that are unrealistic for how our community functions. Accordingly, we object to the "Two Sizes Fit All" approach of the bill. We do. not oppose the pxovisionallowing "neighborhood multifamily projects," or fourplexes, to locate on vacant lots in single family zoned residential neighborhoods. Nor do we oppose the opportunity of an extra story on multi- family structures within a half mile of our downtown SMART station. However, we do strongly oppose the parking requirement waivers attached to both the "neighborhood multifamily projects" provision and the extra story within a half mile of our downtown SMART station. In both cases, S.B. 50 would cap required parking at 0.5 off -space parking spaces per unit. Proposed Cal. Govt. Code § 65913.5(d)(3) [neighborhood multifamily projects]; proposed Cal. Govt. Code § 65918.53(b)(4)(B) [multifamily residential within half mule of rail transit station]. One existing, and two planned apartment projects in central Petaluma within a half anile of our downtown SMART station illustrate our concerns. Preliminarily we note that SMART rail service is very different than rail service such as Muni Metro in San Francisco, and care should be taken when treating them as being similar. From the Petaluma SMART station, the closest SMART stations are in Cotati to the north or Novato to the south. SMART provides a great commute option but is not useful for grocery shopping or other shorter trips. Eden Housing's Downtown River Aparhnents on East Washington Street, across from the Golden Eagle Shopping Center, opened in 2005 with City financial support and features 81 affordable one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments to low and very low-income households. It is within a quarter mile of the Petaluma SMART station. It has 122 on-site parking spaces, or 1.5 per unit. There is very Accordingly, we encourage the Legislature to amend S.B. 50 so as to not override carefully crafted local parking standards. The City of Petaluma opposes SB 50 unless amended. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, i t i Teresa Barrett Mayor D'Lynda Fischer Council Member Council Member MCathy'r Council Member Kevin McDonnell Vice Mayor Mike Healy Council Member Dave King Council Member cc; The Honorable Scott Wiener The Honorable Mike McGuire Nancy Hall Bennett, Regional Public Affairs Director (via email) League of California Cities (cityletters@cacities.org)