SR-100-002 (10)
F:\CMANAGER\Staff Reports\HousingPolicy.doc
Council Meeting: May 14, 2002 Santa Monica, CA
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Authorize city staff to advocate basic state housing element reform
policies consistent with adopted city housing policy; participate in
legislative debate on AB 2863, AB 2292, and AB 1866.
Introduction
This report recommends that the City Council authorize City staff to advocate that the
State reform housing element policies consistent with Santa Monica housing goals; to
participate in the legislative debate on AB 2863; and to oppose AB 2292 and AB 1866.
Background
On March 26, 2002 City Council directed staff to review and prepare analysis of AB
2863, proposed housing element reform legislation and to analyze other related
proposals including AB 2292 and AB 1866.
AB 2863 (Longville) has been introduced at the request of the League of California
Cities and the California State Association of Counties as alternative legislation to last
year’s SB 910 (Dunn) which included among other provisions fines and penalties for
housing element plan noncompliance. AB 2863 would include the following principles:
1) Address issues involving the development of regional housing need projections;
2) Resolve issues and problems associated with the distribution of regional housing
needs within council of governments;
1
3) Clarify and improve the housing element review process;
4) Develop a neutral dispute resolution process and fair enforcement alternatives to
deal with disputes over questions of compliance;
5) Develop fiscal tools and incentives to assist local governments in their efforts to
encourage housing and finance the infrastructure to support housing, as well as
to establish an ongoing state commitment to funding affordable housing;
6) Require state laws and policies that affect housing and land use to be internally
consistent; and
7) Establish additional legal protections to local agencies that approve affordable
housing and that establish local pro-active affordable housing policies.
Discussion
AB2863 and all other Housing Element reform bills are being held in committee while a
task force led by Senator Joe Dunn, Chair of Senate Housing and Community
Development Committee, Assembly member Pat Wiggins, Chair of Assembly Local
Government Committee and Assembly member Alan Lowenthal, chair of Assembly
Housing Committee negotiate the details. Other members of the task force include
representatives from the League, HCD, the builder and affordable housing communities,
and environmental groups.
Negotiations are ongoing and there is yet no legislation available. Our state lobbyist
indicates the group is close to several agreements that provide: 1) local governments
some reforms; and 2) the state some enforcement ability. These are expected to be
amended into a bill or bills in each house within 2-4 weeks. Following is a brief
summary of the concepts being considered by the task force:
2
1) Improvements to the process whereby regional housing numbers are developed and
allocated, including conferring more responsibility on the council of governments (and
less on HCD);
2) Allowing the council of governments to allocate the numbers, but only after surveying
its local governments and taking into account their responses regarding housing
opportunities, constraints, challenges, local policies that impact growth, infrastructure,
etc.;
3) Reform of the process whereby parties make comments, including requiring
comments to the state to have been made first locally; in exchange, local governments
will be required to enhance their community participation processes;
4) Allowing HCD to rescind regional plans, but only if regional and local governments
are determined to have made major mistakes in carrying out the most important of the
new procedures outlined in the amendments; and
5) New enforcement procedures, including giving local governments a new court
process to challenge HCD, but they have to pay a fine if they lose.
Given that city staff has not reviewed this proposed legislation, staff cannot assess
whether city support for any of these proposals is warranted. In all probability, the
committees will be issued rule waivers which will permit the legislation to remain viable
beyond the normal deadlines. It is necessary that Council authorize advocacy in the
following broad policy areas so that staff and the state lobbyist can be prepared to
participate in the legislative process.
?
Oppose any attempt to mandate that a city achieve its RHNA target or face
financial or other penalties or to impose additional obligations based on the RHNA
target
3
?
Oppose any attempt to erode the City’s local autonomy over land-use decisions, or
weaken the City’s ability to ensure the future welfare of its residents through local
control of the planning process.
?
Advocate that the acquisition, minor rehabilitation and deed restriction of existing
housing units count toward the accomplishment of low and very low income
production RHNA goals
AB 1866
This bill requires local jurisdictions to enact ordinances that allow second units to be
constructed as ministerial projects instead of discretionary projects. The legislation
would negate Santa Monica’s current regulations on second units. The legislation
should be opposed; local governments should be allowed to enact appropriate land
use and zoning regulations and procedures for approving second units.
AB 2292
This bill would prohibit a city or county from reducing, requiring or permitting the
reduction of the residential density for any parcel below the density that was utilized in
determining compliance with the housing element, unless the city or county makes
written findings supported by substantial evidence that the reduction is consistent with
the adopted general plan, including the housing element. The bill would also require
a court to award attorney fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff if the court finds that an
action of a city or county is in violation of these provisions.
The bill has the potential to significantly impact Santa Monica. The densities in the
Land Use Element of the General Plan are established as maximum densities, the
Zoning Ordinance established densities lower than those identified in the Land Use
4
Element. If this bill were to pass, Santa Monica could be vulnerable to a legal
challenge. Staff recommends the legislation be opposed.
Budget/Financial Impact
There is no fiscal impact related to participation in the legislative debate.
Recommendation
Because of the vicissitudes of the legislative process related to Housing Element
Reform, staff requests that the City Council authorize advocacy of the above basic
housing element reform policies consistent with City adopted housing policy. In addition
staff recommends opposition to AB2292 and AB 1866.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning and Community Development
Bob Moncrief, Housing and Redevelopment Manager
Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Kate Vernez, Asst. to the City Manager for Government Relations
5