HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/15/2004 - STAFF REPORTS (30) DATE: September 15, 2004
TO: City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager - Administration
SUBJECT: Assembly Bill 2702
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council oppose Assembly Bill 2702 and authorize the
Mayor to send a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger requesting that he veto this
legislation.
SUMMARY:
Assembly Bill 2702, which is sponsored by the California Association of Realtors,
prevents local governments from enforcing restrictions that make it difficult to build
second units -- also known as granny flats -- even when local zoning and building codes
are met. As proposed, this bill will impose a "one-size-fits-all" approach to second unit
development on every community in the State, rather than encourage local, balanced,
planned patterns of development that respect local land use priorities outlined in local
general plans. The bill has been approved by the Legislature and is currently awaiting
action by the Governor.
BACKGROUND:
Last year the State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1866, requiring cities and towns to
approve second units (or as they are commonly called "granny flats") in all single-family
neighborhoods without public hearings and greatly limiting local discretion. This new
law forced cities and towns throughout California to amend their zoning ordinances to
accommodate the State's demand that second units be approved without public
hearings. This measure removed local government's discretion to regulate parking, unit
size, location and design that helps ensure a livable neighborhood for everyone.
Assembly Bill 2702 (Steinberg), which proposes to impose further limitations on how
cities can regulate second dwelling units on single-family lots, was recently passed by
the State Senate and Assembly and is awaiting action by Governor Schwarzenegger.
Specifically, Assembly Bill 2702 (AB 2702) would strike down any requirement that the
owner of a second unit reside on the property, essentially allowing rental duplexes in all
single-family neighborhoods. It also significantly reduces any minimum lot size
requirements, allowing second units on lots less than 2,000 square feet in size. In
addition, the bill would:
Require development standards to be reasonable, written, and objective and
contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of producing housing at the
lowest possible cost;
• Preclude a jurisdiction from imposing deed restrictions that restrict future sales to
owner-occupants or future occupancy on a discriminatory basis;
• Set an absolute limit on parking requirements of one space per unit or bedroom,
precludes a jurisdiction from requiring covered parking;
• Allow local governments to impose reasonable standards to limit on-street
parking; and
• Allow local government to prohibit or regulate transient use of a second unit for
which rent is charged and collected on a daily basis
AB 2702 will impose a new state-mandated cost on local governments. While the state
constitution requires that the state reimburse these local costs, the state has failed to
pay mandate costs for the past three years. It is estimated that it will cost local
government approximately $10.7 million to implement this bill.
AB 2702 is widely opposed by the American Planning Association (California Chapter),
the California State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities,
Independent Cities Association, Sierra Club, and over 100 local government agencies.
Z�' "S'7
Tro L. Butzlat AOJstant City Manager - Administration
APPROVED
City Manager
Attachments:
1.Minute Order
2.Draft Letter to Governor Schwarzenegger requesting that he veto AB 2702
3.Senate Floor Analysis of AB 2702
DRAFT LETTER
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capital Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
Re: Veto AB 2702 — Second Unit Housing
As Mayor of the City of Palm Springs, I atn writing to urge you to veto AB 2702. We
know first hand the housing crisis facing our state and this community is taking practical
steps to address needed affordable housing. However, AB 2702 is the wrong approach
because of its adverse impacts on single-family residential neighborhoods.
AB 2702 takes a"one-size-fits-all" approach to second unit development by creating
state legislation based on a standard formula for all California communities. Each city is
unique and creating state legislation based on a standard approach does not allow
individual cities to decide how best to integrate second units into their residential
neighborhoods. AB 2702 has the potential to impact all single-family residential
neighborhoods, with older, denser and already fragile neighborhoods being most
vulnerable.
AB 2702 does away with single-family zoning, makes it virtually impossible for cities to
control or deny the development of residential second unit housing and does this without
the input from single-family residents who are most impacted.
We recognize second units as a valid source of additional housing when impacts such as
location, parking, unit size and design can be properly regulated. However, we are
adamantly opposed to the State's preemption of local land use authority. Please veto AB
2702.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ronald Oden, Mayor
AB 2702 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 1 of 9
------------------------------------------------------------
( SENATE RULES COMMITTEE I AB 27021
l Office of Senate Floor Analyses 1 1
11020 N Street, Suite 524
1 (916) 445-6614 Fax: (916)
1327-4478 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------
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.
CONTINUED
CI
AB 2702
Page
2
http://iiifo.sen.ca.gov/pub[bill/asm/ab-270.../ab-2702—cfa 20040824_132502_sen floor.htm 9/10/2004
AB 2702 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 2 of 9
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.
i�
AB_ 2702
Page
3
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.
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asin/ab_270.../ab2702cfa20040824132502sen floor.htm 9/10/2004
AB 2702 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 3 of 9
9 . 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
IJ
AB 2702
Page
9
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:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asin/ab_270.../ab_2702_cfa 20040824_132502_sen_tloor.htin 9/10/2004
AB 2702 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 4 of 9
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.
H. 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.
S. 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.
AB_2702
Page
5
D. Precludes a jurisdiction from requiring occupancy
of either unit by a dependant or caregiver or
restricting occupancy on a discriminatory basis.
P. 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
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_270.../ab_2702_cfa 20040824_132502_sen_floor.htm 9/10/2004
AB 2702 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 5 of 9
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
C
AB _2702
Page
6
development standards.
_Overly res L_rictive_ 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
http://info.sen.ea.gov/pub/bill/asiTdab_270.../ab_2702_cfa 20040824_132502_sen floor.htm 9/10/2004
AB 2702 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 6 of 9
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
J
-- --- --- --- -- -- -AB 2702
Page
7
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 2004-0_5_ 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
http://info.scii.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab-270.../ab 2702 cfa 20040824 132502 sen floor.htm 9/10/2004
AB 2702 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 7 of 9
AB 2702
Page
B
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 Reza 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. ,
17
AB 2702
Page
9
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab-270.../ab-2702—cfa 20040824_132502_sen_floor.htm 9/10/2004
AB 2702 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 8 of 9
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
AB 2702
Page
10
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
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asin/ab_270.../ab_2702_cfa 20040824_132502_sen floor.htm 9/10/2004
AB 2702 Assembly Bill -Bill Analysis Page 9 of 9
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, Lens, Leslie, Levine, Lieber, Longville,
Lowenthal, Maddox, Matthews, Monttanez, 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 Malta, La Suer, Liu, Maldonado, Maze,
Mountjoy, Nakano, Nation, Pavley, Plescia, Richman,
Samuelian, Welk, 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
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pubibill/asin/ab_270.../ab 2702_cfa 20040824_132502_sen_lloor.hhn 9/10/2004
MINUTE ORDER NO.
OPPOSING ASSEMBLY BILL 2702 AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER TO GOVERNOR
SCHWARZENEGGER REQUESTING THAT HE VETO THIS
LEGISLATION
---------------
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Minute Order, opposing Assembly Bill 2702 and authorizing the
Mayor to send a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger requesting that he veto this legislation was
adopted by the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, in a meeting thereof held on
the 151h day of September, 2004.
PATRICIA A. SANDERS
City Clerk