The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About08) 7C Opposition to Senate Bill 50AGENDA ITEM ?.C . MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: February 4 , 2020 TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Bryan Cook , City Manager 1 1 By : Brian Haworth, Asst. to the City Manager/Econ . Development Manager ~ SUBJECT: OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 50 RECOMMENDATION: The City Council is requested to approve a letter in opposition to Senate Bill 50 . BACKGROUND: 1. On December 3, 2018 , Senator Scott Weiner introduced Senate Bill (SB ) 50 , which would require local governments to allow higher-density hous ing near job and transit centers . This upzon ing would greenlight mid-rise apartment towers of four or five stories near rail stations , transit hubs, and along bus lines . It would also permit dividing homes into duplexes , triplexes , and fourplexes in areas zoned for single- family residences . 2 . On May 13 , 2019 , the state Senate Appropriations Committee put the bill on hold , delaying any further movement until January 2020. The controversial proposal- intended to alleviate the housing crisis-received much opposition , as leade rs statewide said it was a top-down mandate that would remove local control , lead to density in inappropriate areas , and accelerate gentrification . 3 . On January 6 , 2020 , the bill was reintroduced with a provision that would allow cities to create their own development bl uepri nt for densities-or local flexibility plan-as long as it meets the state 's housing goals . (In the case for Temple City , this means new zoning that would allow for the production of 2,150 new housing units i n the next eight years under the state 's Regional Housing Needs Assessment.) Cities that fail to submit state-approved plans by 2021 would then be subject to more prescriptive requirements under SB 50 . City Council February 4 , 2020 Page 2 of 2 ANALYSIS: As part of its legislative update to Council on January 20 , 2020 , staff prov ided a brief update on SB 50 . The revised bill must now pass out of the Senate by January 31 , 2020 for cons ideration by the state Assembly. As of the writing of this report , it 's unclear whether the bill will move forward. The League of California Cities and California Contract Cit ies Association , wh ich represent the city 's interests at the state level , continues to oppose SB 50 fo r the follow ing reasons : • The bill undermines locally adopted general plans and hous ing elements . • The bill 's amended provision for a local flexibility plan is extremely vague . • The bill allows developers to determine densities and design standards . • The bill does not promote or fund additional public transit near dense hous ing . • The bill focuses on market-rate housing with little attention t o affordable housi ng . • The bill exempts a number of communities from its provis ions . In solidarity with both organizations and their member cit ies , Council is requested to approve the attached letter i n opposition of the bill 's recent revise . Should the bill not be signed into law this year, transmittal of the requested letter will formal ize Counci l's posit ion if an amended proposal is reintroduced in 2021 . CITY STRATEGIC GOAL: Actions contained in this report align with the strategic goal of good governance . FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the requested Council action . ATTACHMENT: A SB 50 Opposition Letter TO BE PLACED ON CITY LETTERHEAD February 5, 2020 T he Honorable Scott Wiener State Senator, I I th District State Capitol, Rm. 5100 Sacramento , CA 958 14-4900 RE: SENATE BILL (SB) 50 Dea r Sena tor Wiener : ATTACHMENT A The C ity of Temple C ity writes to express opposition to SB 50, w hich would require local governm ents to re zone existin g genera l plan s to accommodate increased density in areas identified as transit-rich o r job-rich. As it pe rtains to the bi ll 's January 6, 2020 revi s ion. it appears that local governments will be prov id ed an opportunity to develop th ei r own plan to meet the goals and objectives of SB 50. However, the b ill 's language, specifically regarding the local fl exi bili ty program, does not provide adaptability, funding , o r ad equate time for local gove rnments to th oughtfull y plan a nd imple me nt a lternatives to SB 50. Furthermore, the C ity cannot determine w hethe r the local fl ex ibi lity p lan is a viable alte rnati ve because the bill 's recent amendme nts d o not c learly id enti fy eleme nts of the plan. Other no ted concerns: 1. The s tate 's Office of Pl anning and Re search (OPR) and Department of Housing and Communi ty D evelopment (HCD) are tasked w ith developing rules , regu lati ons, or guidelines for the submi ssio n and ap proval of a loca l flexibility plan withou t suffic ient di rection from the Legislature. Th is rul emaking process is exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act, th us a ll owing s tate departments to craft ru les, regul atio ns , or gu id elines wi th litt le to no public in p ut o r oversight. 2. The e le ments of the plan are not c le a r, i.e .: • .. Ach ieve a s tandard of transportati o n efficie ncy as g reat o r greater than if t he local governme nt were to gran t eq uitab le communities incentives.'' SB 50 does not contain any lang uage regarding transportatio n efficiency. The refore , it is not possible to determine how HCD , OPR or a loca l governm e nt w ill determine how to meet this standard or how a local flexibi l ity plan is expected to compl y w ith this standard . • '·Increase overall feasible housi ng capacity for households of lower, moderate, and above moderate incomes, consid erin g economic fac t or s such as cost of likely construction types, affo rd a ble housing req uire me nt s, a nd th e impact o floca l development fee s :· The override provisions of SB 50 do not conta in a ny language regardi ng fea s ib le ho using capacity for house h o ld s of lower, m oderat e, and above moderate incomes. nor does it address economi c fac tors such a s cost of like ly constru ction ty pes, affordab le housing req uire ments, and the i mpact of loca l deve lo pment fe es . The refo re, it is not possible to determ ine how HCD , O PR The Honorable Scott Wiener February 5, 2020 Page 2 of3 or a local go ve rnm ent wi ll determine how to meet thi s standard or how a local flexibility plan is expected to comply wi th this s tandard. As for the City·s other objection s: 3. If a city e lects not t o develop a local flexibility p lan or if HCD does not approve a submitted pl an by January 1, 2023 , a c ity is requ ired to give a deve loper an equitable communities incenti ve that overrid es locally developed and adopted height limitatio ns, housing densities, and parking requirements. Many statewid e s tandards. enacted by t he Legislature, are included in the state's planning law. Standards s hou ld be established by the Legislature, not by individual developers. 4. Developers of certain housing projects s ho uld not be a ll owed to override locally developed (and HCD-approved) hous in g elements, which iden ti fy adequate si tes with s ufficient density to accommodate a city's s hare of the region a l ho us in g need. Additionally, the bill: • • • • Great ly undermines locall y adopted general plans a nd housing elements. By allowing developers to overrid e state approved housing plans, SB 50 calls to question the need for cities to develop the se community based p lans and the justification for spending millions of s tate and local fund s on the planning process. H CD spends a sign ificant amount of money and staff time to review and certify housing e lements for 482 cities (including Temple City's housing e lement in 20 14 , w hi ch was then incorporated into our general plan in 20 18 ). In 2019 a lo ne, HCD a ll ocated nearl y $130 million to local governments to update their housi ng plans and approval processes. T he 2019/2020 State Budget allocated an additional $250 million on local plans. Why would the Legislature pass a bi ll that encourages developers to override the se plans? Gives housing d evelopers 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 s tandards for .. transit-rich housing projects'· wi thin o ne-half mile of a major tran s it stop. For th ose "transit-rich hous in g projects" within one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-quali ty bu s corridor, deve lopers would be a bl e to determine hou sing densities and parking requirements above .5 s p ot s per unit. Makes it hard for the City to understand it s full sco pe. As presently drafted, it is very difficult to de term ine what constitutes a .. jobs-rich a rea" since HCD and OPR are large ly tasked wi th m akin g that determi nation. It is hard to understand why the Legislature would want the Executi ve Branch to define essential terms that h ave broad implications for how SB 50 wo uld be im plemented. Additi onally, by not defin in g .. jobs-ri ch area" in statute, there is no c lear way of knowing if SB 50 w ill actuall y accomp li sh its stated goal. Requires citie s to a ll ow greater dens ity in comm uniti es that are high opportunity and jobs rich , but may lack access to p ublic tran s it. This seems at odds with many state policies that encourage and incentivi ze more dense housing near tran sit so that indi v idual s may become less dependent on automobil es. It has only been a few years since the Legislature The Honorable Sco tt Wiener February 5, 2020 Page 3 of3 determined that the impact on the tran sportation envi ronment from a hous ing project s hould be measured in vehicle miles trave led. 5. SB 50 creates a two-tiered process that exempts cities with a population of less than 50 ,000 that are in a county wi th a population of less than 600.000, from the most extreme provisions of the measure. It is unclear why these cities should be treated differently than a similar size city in a county with a population over 600,000. 6. SB 50 gives too much discretion for developers to build market-rate housing with few mechanisms to truly address affordabi lity in the housing crisis. The City recommends providing loc al funding o r incentive programs that encourage developers to build af fordable housing units in transit-and job-rich areas. For these reasons, the City of Temple C ity oppo ses SB 50. Respectfully, Nanette Fish Mayor C: The Honorab le Susan Rubio , State Senator (22"d Di stri ct) The Honorable Ed Chau , State Assembly ( 491h District) Jennifer Quan, League of California Cities Marcel Rodarte, Califorrua Contract Cities Association cityletters@ cacities.o rg