CCMIN 11022021 - Laserfiche WebLink

bill requires the City to prove the level of service standards are valid, the fee increases are necessary to maintain them, and that the square footage-based calculation is or is not appropriate for the City. In response to Councilmember Arkin, Director Clark advised she was unsure if AB 787 would allow conversion of existing market-rate units to low-income or very-low-income units and noted she would follow up on that inquiry. In response to Councilmember Narum, Director Clark explained the criteria for a project to qualify for SB 8 would be a housing project or mixed-use project with two-thirds of its square footage dedicated to residential uses. The developer will need to submit a preliminary application to be considered as an SB 330 project and be eligible under the statute. Councilmember Narum inquired as to why developers are not taking advantage of SB 330 because it seems to limit the steps so they can develop quicker. Director Clark believes developers may feel it is adversarial. In response to Councilmember Narum, Director Clark explained SB 478 is only applicable to projects with 3 to 10 units and noted it is a push to address the missing middle of housing. Councilmember Narum noted the City's design standards will be key to how these bills unfold in the community. She reported the Legislative Committee spent a tremendous amount of time on legislative advocacy along with Assistant to the City Manager Hopkins, Townsend Public Affairs, and Mayor Brown. While the City did not get everything it wanted, several items were incorporated into some of these bills notably the voter initiative in SB 10 which cannot be overridden by the City Council. She thanked Townsend Public Affairs and City staff for their efforts and in writing advocacy letters and noted it had an impact. In response to Councilmember Testa, Director Clark explained there is a clause in SB 10 that the City Council can override a voter initiative, but the item Councilmember Narum mentioned is relative to local ordinances or voter-approved ordinances to protect publicly-owned open space. The City Council could adopt SB 10 by a two-thirds vote to override certain other voter measures such as growth control and urban growth boundary. Councilmember Testa inquired if the City Council established an ordinance stating the provisions of SB 10 must be voted on by the electorate. City Attorney Sodergren responded he does not think the City cannot make an exception to the language in SB 10. The language in SB 10 is in direct conflict with other provisions of the Elections Code that say that voter-approved initiatives can only be amended by a vote of the people unless otherwise specified in the measure. He is unsure how a court would square these two conflicting provisions. In response to Councilmember Balch, Director Clark explained she does not think AB. 602 will be difficult or subjective once applied as the City has a well-established level of service standards for most of its community facilities and noted impact fees are about providing new capital facilities, new buildings, and infrastructure. She believes the City could make the findings to justify a fee the City was proposing to charge. In response to Councilmember Balch, Director Clark advised for SB 9 the City would apply the objective design standards to new developments. ADUs are treated under the ADU ordinance and subject to those standards. There may be hybrid projects that come forward where ADUs would be subject to one set of rules and SB 9 units to the others. The draft ordinance being brought forward has a very robust set of standards intended to ensure the best quality design possible absent the City's typical design review process in keeping with what state law allows. SB 9 states that the City cannot require off-site improvements or dedication of right-of-way like the City would normally require for frontage improvements so it cannot be used for any Completed Streets improvements. She noted the City will be left with potential gas in its sidewalk network but there is no ability under SB 9 to make those lot splits provide frontage improvements. City Council Minutes Page 9 of 19 November 2,2021