Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.A 01/27/2020Agenda Item #4.A DATE: January 27, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager r FROM: Peggy Flynn, City Manager Patrick Carter, Senior Management Analyst, City Manager's Office SUBJECT: Letter of Opposition to SB 50 (Weiner) Planning and Zoning RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council consider signing a Letter of Opposition to SB 50 (Weiner) Planning and Zoning. BACKGROUND SB 50 (Weiner) is a bill currently in the California State Senate that would require municipalities to provide specified "equitable communities incentives" to developers that construct residential developments in defined jobs -rich and transit -rich areas. The bill was introduced December 3, 2018, was heard in committees but did not pass out of the Senate, and was placed in the suspense file to be taken up in the current legislative session. SB 50 was amended on January 6, 2020 to change implementation dates and to attempt to allow a local flexibility plan created by cities that would exempt them from nearly all aspects of SB 50. The equitable communities incentives may override local requirements. Equitable communities incentives include the following: • A waiver from maximum controls on density. • A waiver from maximum height limitations less than or equal to one story, or 15 feet, above the highest allowable height for mixed use or residential use. • Maximum Floor Area Ratio requirements less than 0.6 times the number of stories proposed for the project. • A waiver from all minimum parking requirements if the development is located within a one-quarter mile radius of a rail transit station in a city of over 100,000 people, or from parking requirements of less than 0.5 parking spaces per unit for all other developments. In order to qualify for the incentive, a residential development in a county with a population of 600,000 or less must also be on a parcel in an urban area zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development, must have a specified minimum density, must be located within a one- half mile radius of a major transit stop in a city with a population of over 50,000, and must not be located in an architecturally or historically significant district or a flood plain, as specified in the bill. DISCUSSION In its current form, SB 50 is opposed by the League of California Cities unless amended to address their concerns. These concerns include 1) vagueness surrounding the local flexibility plan option's viability, 2) the state agencies tasked to evaluating local flexibility plans may develop rules, regulations, and guidelines with little or no public input or oversight, and 3) lack of legislative clarity and direction regarding the transportation efficiency standard and feasible housing capacity metrics referenced in the legislation. Additional staff concerns include that SB 50 would encourage development in environmentally - sensitive residentially zoned sites (e.g. riparian, floodways, wetlands) while simultaneously lowering the bar for public input. Under the existing process, sensitive sites would undergo public noticing, design review, and CEQA review. Under SB 50, these projects may be addressed with ministerial processing and exemptions from CEQA. Staff recommends the Council indicate opposition to SB 50 by signing the attached letter of opposition (Attachment 1). Alternatively, the Council may 1) decide to take no position on SB 50 and not sign the attached letter or 2) direct staff to make modifications to the attached letter prior to signing the letter. PUBLIC OUTREACH This item was included on the agenda for the January 27, 2020 City Council meeting, in accordance with public noticing requirements. FINANCIAL IMPACTS Signing a letter of opposition to SB 50 has no financial impacts. If adopted, SB 50 may require the City to revise planning requirements for applicable developments. The additional costs for those revisions would not be reimbursed by the State, requiring the City to either absorb those costs or adjust fees for cost recovery. ATTACHMENTS RE: SB 50 (Weiner) Planning and Zoning. Housing Development Incentives. Oppose Unless Amended I ATTACHMENT 1 January 27, 2020 The Honorable Scott Wiener Senator, California State Senate State Capitol Building, Room 5100 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: SB 50 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning. Housing Development Incentives Oppose Unless Amended (as amended 01/06/2020) Dear Senator Wiener: The City of Petaluma opposes the passage of SB 50 unless the measure is further amended to address our key concerns. The City of Petaluma is pleased to see that recent amendments attempt to create an alternative planning process for jurisdictions to develop a "local flexibility plan" that, if approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), would exempt cities from nearly all aspects of SB 50 with the exception of allowing fourplexes in single-family zones. Unfortunately we can't evaluate whether the "local flexibility plan" is a viable alternative because the amendments do not clearly identify essential aspects of the plan. Specific Concerns with the January 6, 2020 Amendments It appears that the intent of the amendments is to provide local governments with an opportunity to develop their own plan to meet the goals and objectives of SB 50. Although the goal of increased density around transit is clear; the goal of the bill regarding a jobs -rich housing project is not. The amendments, as drafted, raise the following concerns: Without clearly identified criteria, we are unable to evaluate whether the "local flexibility plan" is actually a viable alternative planning option. • OPR and HCD are tasked with developing "rules, regulations, or guidelines" for the submission and approval of a local flexibility plan" without sufficient direction from the Legislature. This rulemaking process is exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act, thus allowing the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and HCD to craft rules, regulations, or guidelines with little to no public input or oversight. The elements of the plan are not clear: Further Legislative direction is required. o "Achieve a standard of transportation efficiency as great or greater than if the local government were to grant equitable communities incentives." SB 50 does not contain any language regarding "transportation efficiency." Therefore, it is not possible to determine how HCD, OPR or a local government will determine how to meet this standard or how a "local flexibility plan" is expected to comply with this standard. o "Increase overall feasible housing capacity for households of lower, moderate, and above moderate incomes, considering economic factors such as cost of likely construction types, affordable housing requirements, and the impact of local development fees." The override provisions of SB 50 do not contain any language regarding "feasible housing capacity for households of lower, moderate, and above moderate incomes," nor does it address "economic factors such as cost of likely construction types, affordable housing requirements, and the impact of local 3 ATTACHMENT 1 development fees." Therefore, it is not possible to determine how HCD, OPR or a local government will determine how to meet this standard or how a "local flexibility plan" is expected to comply with this standard. o SB 50's "community plan" for sensitive communities provides a much clearer alternative and should be considered as a possible alternative planning process for all jurisdictions. Remaining Objections to SB 50 If a city elects not to develop a "local flexibility plan" or if HCD does not approve a submitted "local flexibility plan" by January 1, 2023, a city is required to give a developer an "equitable communities incentive", which overrides locally developed and adopted height limitations, housing densities, and parking requirements. Many statewide standards, enacted by the Legislature, are included in the State's Planning law. Standards should be established by the Legislature, not by individual developers. Developers of certain housing projects should not be allowed to override locally developed (and HCD- approved) housing elements which identify adequate sites with sufficient density to accommodate a city's share of the regional housing need. Specifically, the City of Petaluma has significant concerns with the following: • Wasting time and money. SB 50 would greatly undermine Petaluma's locally adopted General Plans, Housing Elements (which was certified by the HCD, and Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS)). By allowing developers to override state approved housing plans, SB 50 seriously calls to question the need for cities to develop these community based plans and the justification for spending millions of state and local funds on the planning process. HCD spends a significant amount of money and staff time to review and certify housing elements for 482 cities. • Gives housing developers and transit agencies, who are unaccountable to local voters, the power to determine housing densities, heights up to 55 feet, parking requirements, and design review standards for "transit -rich housing projects" within one-half mile of a major transit stop. For those "transit -rich housing projects" within one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high- quality bus corridor, developers would be able to determine housing density, and parking requirements above .5 spots per unit. What is the full scope of SB 50? As presently drafted, it is very difficult to determine what constitutes a "jobs -rich area" since the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Planning and Research are largely tasked with making that determination. It is hard to understand why the Legislature would want the Executive Branch to define essential terms that have broad implications for how SB 50 would be implemented. Additionally, by not defining "jobs -rich area" in statute, there is no way of knowing if SB 50 will actually accomplish its stated goal. Greater density but no public transit? SB 50 would require cities to allow greater density in communities that are high opportunity and jobs rich, but may lack access to public transit. This seems at odds with many state policies that encourage and incentivize more dense housing near transit so that individuals may become less dependent on automobiles. It's only been a few years since the Legislature determined that the impact on the transportation environment from a housing project should be measured in vehicle miles traveled. • Two-tiered process that exempts cities with a population of less than 50,000 that are in a county with a population of less than 600,000, from the most extreme provisions of the measure. It is 4 ATTACHMENT 1 unclear why these cities should be treated differently than a similar size city in a county with a population over 600,000. Instead of arbitrarily establishing a population metric, it would be much more appropriate to consider the full range of community characteristics when determining which areas of the state SB 50 should apply. For these reasons, the City of Petaluma opposes SB 50 unless amended. Sincerely, Teresa Barrett D'Lynda Fischer Mayor Vice Mayor Mike Healy Gabe Kearney Councilmember Councilmember Dave King Kevin McDonnell Councilmember Councilmember Kathy Miller Councilmember cc. Senator Bill Dodd Senator Mike McGuire Nancy Hall Bennett, League of California Cities, nbennett@cacities.org League of California Cities, cityletters@cacities.org