SR-100-002 (19)
F:\CMANAGER\Staff Reports\AB1160.doc
Council Mtg Date: December 16, 2003 Santa Monica, CA
To: Mayor and City Council
From: City Staff
Subject: Oppose AB 1160 (Steinberg) Second Units/Density Bonuses/Housing on
School Sites
Introduction
This report requests Council oppose AB 1160 and authorize City staff to take necessary
actions.
Discussion
AB 1160 would pre-empt local authority in several ways including: (1) imposing
numerous restrictions on local second unit ordinances, and (2) reducing parking
standards up to 58 percent on density bonus projects.
The legislation follows in the wake of passage of last year’s AB 1866 (Wright), which
removed the authority for local governments to require conditional use permits and
prohibited public hearings on second unit applications, and provided that a developer of
a density bonus project could demand that the local government waive “any ordinance,
general plan element, specific plan, charter amendment, or other local law, policy or
regulation” or face lawsuits. Santa Monica is in the process of preparing amendments
to its zoning ordinance in light of this change in state law.
1
Since AB 1160 was introduced, the League of California Cities has met at length with
sponsors to outline concerns with the legislation. Regrettably, these meetings have not
resulted in any significant movement on the issues raise by local government. Despite
being amended twice, the bill is essentially the same as the introduced version. Aside
from policy concerns, it contains circular and confusing language. In addition, at a time
when the Legislature is beginning to consider measures which recognize and reward
jurisdictions where housing is produced, this measure significantly expands state efforts
to dictate zoning ordinances in a one-size-fits-all approach. It restricts the authority of
jurisdictions doing a good job on housing. It raises the larger question: should housing
policy in the state be made through a seemingly endless series of bills that nibble away
at local sovereignty in the area of land use, or should an effort be made to take a more
measured and comprehensive approach to the issue. In addition, recent amendments
to AB 1160 would severely limit the ability of local government to include standards in
local ordinances as to the design, location, size and parking impact of second units.
The bill specifies the following:
Requires local governments to allow second units in all residential zones, but
?
permits them to impose greater restrictions on second units in one zone than in
another zone.
Requires local agencies to permit maximum floor space of a second unit of either
?
1200 square feet or 40 percent of the principal dwelling, whichever is greater.
Prohibits minimum floor space from being less than 150 square feet.
?
Provides that parking requirements shall not exceed one parking space per
?
secondary unit or per every two bedrooms.
Prohibits covered parking.
?
2
Allows off street, tandem, and on-street parking under the following conditions:
?
a) Off street is permitted in set back areas in locations determined by the local
agency.
b) Tandem parking is permitted if the applicant for the second unit agrees to
permit tandem parking.
c) On street parking is permitted along the street frontage of the lot unless the
local agency makes written findings of an adverse impact.
Prohibits a local agency from adopting an ordinance that either requires the
?
applicant for or occupant of a second unit to be an owner-occupant or restricts
the rent or income of the resident of a second unit or that limits occupancy based
on age (unless the rent or income is subject to local rent control ordinances).
Prohibits any local agency from applying any standard for approval of second
?
units that is not "objective", that does not constitute an "appropriate standard"
(see definition under existing law), or would make the development not
"financially feasible at market rate rents", unless the local agency makes a
finding that a reduction of the standard would have a specific adverse impact on
public health or safety, the physical environment, or any property on the
California Register of Historical Resources for which there is no feasible
mitigation method.
Requires a local agency to reduce parking standards or requirements by 33
?
percent for a second unit located within a quarter-mile of public transit facilities.
Revises the definition of "development standard", with respect to density bonus
?
law, to include site or construction standards or conditions that apply to
residential development.
Requires any multifamily and single-family residential housing, proposed for
?
development on parcels zoned and developed for primary or secondary
education, to be approved by the city or county.
Density Bonus
The bill would require a local government to grant a 25 percent reduction in parking
standards, and an additional 33 percent reduction if the project is within one-half mile of
a rail station, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes. It expands the
3
overbroad definition of development standards added by last year’s AB 1866. This one-
size-fits- all approach punishes cities which have worked with their business community
and residents to refine local parking standards.
Santa Monica has already reduced parking requirements for affordable housing projects
and reducing parking further may negatively impact community acceptance of
affordable housing.
Budget/Financial Impact
No budget or fiscal impact anticipated due to opposition of this legislation.
Recommendation
It is respectfully requested that Council oppose HB1160 and authorize City staff to take
necessary actions.
Prepared By: Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning and Community Development
Kathryn Vernez, Assistant to the City Manager for Government Relations
Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
4