City Council - Special Meeting

Hello all and welcome to the special joint city council planning commission and architectural review board meeting. Today is Monday, March 16th, 5:36. Roll call, please. So, of the city council, council member Clark here. Council member Mayor here. Council member Namura here. Vice Mayor Sarseno here. And Mayor Alan here. of the planning commission. Commissioner Benfield here, Commissioner Lef Fever here, Commissioner Van Antworp here, Vice Chair Moyer here, and Chair Allen here, and from the architectural review board, board member Wolf here,

and the record will show uh as of now, board member Johnson, board member Little, Vice Chair Okconor, and Chair Blakemore are absent. And I'll also mention that um those members are also being contacted via phone. We will now if you are willing and able please stand for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We will now move on to our only item on our agenda today, which is an update on new 2025 state housing laws.

Thank you, Mayor Aler. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us this evening. Uh each year we do a version of this presentation to share with the council, the planning commission, the architecture review board and the greater community a summary of some of the applicable housing laws passed by the state legislature in the past cycle that took effect on January 1 of this year. Um, we don't expect this briefing to make you all experts in all these housing laws, but it's really just meant to give you a an introduction to them, to give you a little bit of background in them, so that when or if these laws are invoked on future projects that come before your various decision-making bodies, you hopefully have some passing familiarity with them. Uh, of course, you know, as projects come before you and invoke some of these laws, it's staff's job to help provide finer grain level of detail, answer questions, give you some some background and some parameters to work within. But again, this is really just supposed to be kind of an educational uh, you know, first first impression, first exposure to these to these laws. I wanted to also mention that um in in in terms of helping to educate the community and decision makers about some of these housing laws, we are working to create a series of frequently asked questions that relate to housing laws and we'll be posting those to our website. uh they'll be high level but they will uh link to other places where you can find more information and we also intend to link to both this year's uh report of housing law updates as well as previous year's updates to provide a resource that again uh your your decision-making bodies or the general public can go to as a kind of a quick index to find information about some of these different laws. Uh, with that, I'm going to hand it off to Matt Carlson and Cody Sergeant from our city attorney's office, and they're going to be doing the heavy lifting

tonight and walking you through the recent updates. Uh, good evening, city council, planning commission, architectural border review. Um, and thank you, Mr. Bob, for that uh, introduction. Uh, before we get started on our update on new housing legislation, want to walk through a couple quick housekeeping items. Uh so we're planning on walking through uh this in on a billby-bill basis. They're arranged around some themes which we'll get into shortly. Uh we'll plan on reviewing the entire slide and then we'll pause for uh some to allow staff input um or questions from your council and decision makers. Um second we want to highlight and note that uh we this is a high level presentation and we are not discussing any currently pending or anticipated housing development projects uh within the city at this time. So with that I will move on to our outline here. Um so as I mentioned we've kind of organized these around some some central themes or uh issue areas. First, we'll discuss the intersection of SQA and housing laws. Uh these are primarily based on two major budget bill uh trailer bills uh that passed in and on June 30th, 2025 and took effect immediately. Uh second, we'll discuss various bills that increase enforcement over Cal various California housing laws. And then third, we'll talk about various bills designed to incentivize or facilitate housing production through permit streamlining, small-cale development, or other uh more niche specialty housing bills. So, first we want uh we're going to talk about Assembly Bill 130. This is the one of two budget trailer bills that passed in June 2025. The biggest ticket item

which I'm going to spend a few slides talking about um is a new statutory SQA uh infill exemption for qualifying infill projects. Uh this package has various site eligibility criteria and project eligibility criteria but otherwise establishes uh specific deadlines for local agencies to um make a determination about whether this ex exemption applies and then process the project um if it does apply. So, first I want to talk through uh the site eligibility criteria uh at a high level and then we'll get into some more detail here. But uh in order to qualify for this exemption, you would need to your site must be smaller than 20 acres or smaller than 4 acres if it's a builder's remedy project. The project must be located within a a census designated urban area or an incorporated city. Um, it must be surrounded on by at least 75% by urban uses or on previously developed land and it must meet 11 uh SB35 criteria which I will get into in a in a following slide. Um, in terms of what the project must contain or or be about, it must uh be consistent with all local plans. It must align with the general plan and zoning regulations. uh it has to meet a certain minimum housing a minimum minimum density which is 50% of the local density standards for low-income housing within the jurisdiction for the city that means uh greater than 10 units per acre. It must not involve the demolition of a historic structure and it must not involve any hotel uses. So I'll pause there for any comments from staff or questions.

Um I have a question. So given the criteria that you had just mentioned um are there without mentioning any specific projects are there areas in Karp that would be affected by that particular change? Uh yes, there are potential project locations. Um and I we'll we'll talk a little bit about more when we dig into these SB35 criteria on the following slide, but the general consensus um is that I think it's a much more narrow subset of sites than we might otherwise anticipate given our location on the central coast. Got it. Thank you very much. That's Commissioner Man.

See, how am I going to put this? Okay. So, it says you have to conform to the plan, but then you have uh builder's remedy that doesn't. So, which one do we pick?

So, the if it is if it is a builder's remedy project that would otherwise qualify, the project is deemed consistent with the applicable plans and policies. So you would have you wouldn't be you need to uh still move forward with the exemption provided it met the 4 acre size limit um and and met all the other site criteria. So the site criteria would still control but you'd have to find the project consistent with the plan even if there was an inconsistency. Now there's a a a wrinkle here in the coastal zone with respect to uh policies that are embodied in our certified local coastal program. um in which case that uh mostly untested but there's you know a position that the city would try to harmonize uh coastal act policies and apply those policies to uh projects to ensure consistency with the coastal act. So

okay thank you I have a quick question on this one. Um, I read I think in the I'm pretty sure it's SP one the one we're talking about, right? Um, was this did this have to do also are there is there a building code freeze? Uh, yes. I have a a slide on some of the other components of Okay. I wasn't Yeah, I didn't want I wasn't sure if you were going to move forward or I had a question about that. Yes. So, when you get there, thank you. We We will get there. I I promise.

All right. Hearing no more questions, we'll I'll dive in since I think we're already starting to talk about um some of these site SB35 site eligibility criteria. Uh so, SB35 um was a is an older housing law uh that establishes a list of 11 criteria. Um and while this uh AB130 exemption was sort of characterized broadly as uh as as applying generally in almost every urban area um I think that may be true in areas of larger cities but in areas like uh the city of Carbonia and a lot of the central coast you'll see that many of our sites contain one or more of these site eligibility criteria. So for example, the pro the development project uh in order to use AB130, it needs to not be within a specified portion of the coastal zone. These are generally uh referred to as kind of the coastal appeals jurisdiction, but include things like within within the coastal appeals jurisdiction. The site must not be potentially subject to five feet of sea level rise. Must be on it can't be on a location that's not zoned for multif family housing. And it can't be within a 100 feet of a wetland or on prime prime agricultural land. Uh the site cannot contain prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance. Can't contain wetlands. Can't be within a very high fire severity zone unless it can meet certain criteria. It can't be on a hazardous waste site unless it can demonstrate cleanup compliance. uh can be within a delineated earthquake fault zone or in a special flood hazard area, regulatory floodway, uh within a uh identified in a conservation plan, um or habitat for a protected species or subject to a conservation easement. So there are quite a few uh environmental site constraints that apply to um these types of projects and eliminate them

from being able to use this secret infill exemption. I'll pause here for questions. Um, how do we define prime farmland? Uh, that has a it's a mapped by the USDA and the state. So, it's a I figured it was it has very specific. Yes, it has a very specific uh definition. Thanks. As well as farmland of statewide portions. Sure. Can you can you define natural and protected land? Uh, yes. Yes, we have another slide on natural and protected lands uh coming up.

Uh we have not received a sites map. However, there are some common tools that are helpful in doing preliminary assessment. One is uh site check by uh sorry they have a new name for it. The governor's office of land land use and climate innovation has a has a has a map that helps you evaluate whether the the criteria may apply to a specific site. All right. But then the report you call out a uh that the state was was putting this together the map, right? Yes. Yes. And then it would be submitted to the city and the city would have ability to comment. Yes, that that submission hasn't occurred yet.

That's what we're talking about. All right. Thank you. Well, so I think there's two there's a existing tool and then there is a formal mapping requirement that needs to take place. Maybe before we leave the squa exemption part of AB130, it's helpful, I think, just to put this in some context for the city. So, right now, most of our smaller housing projects, you know, um even up to a 24 unit mixeduse development project, um typically qualify for a SQA exemption already. we're already using some of the other exemptions that are allowed for under state law.

And so in terms of a you know just a kind of broad applicability across the the most common types of projects we see, I don't think this is going to change anything for us drastically. uh there may be um some limited applicability of these exemptions to larger projects that previously would not have qualified for an exemption, but I think given all the different site criteria that MAC ran through, it's going to be somewhat limited in, you know, the numbers of larger potential projects that we could see that that might be able to take advantage of this exemption. Uh, thank you. All right. Um, next I want to hit on I think a couple other related but ancillary components of AB130. Um, it amends the permit streamlining act to include removal of a public or including removal of a public notice requirement. So the permit streamlining act sets forth specific deadlines that the city must meet to determine whether an application is complete and approve a project after sequ environmental review under the California environmental quality act is complete. And uh the permit streamlining act previously had a a requirement that a public meeting needed to have occurred before a permit could be deemed approved as a matter of law. Um so the the order of operations here would be uh applicant submits an application, city has a deadline to respond and determine whether that application is complete or incomplete. Um once that application is found complete, uh the city processes that application through environmental review. In some jurisdictions, they approve either typically an exemption or occasionally an environmental document and then an agency has a certain deadline to act from that approval of

the environmental document deadline. So, uh what the legislature felt is that this bill didn't have a enough teeth because what it previously had a requirement that a public meeting had to have occurred before a project could be deemed approved. So, in a scenario where um a local agency approved a SQA exemption at a staff level or had had a prior hearing on a project to approve an environmental document um and someone sought to use the deemed approved language, an applicant sought to use the deemed approved language. Uh they couldn't do so because of this. They they would basically have to schedule another public hearing to hear whether the project had been deemed approved or not. Um so the legislature removed that requirement. Um, generally this is probably not going to have a major impact in the city because we closely monitor all of these deadlines and ensure that we have public hearings and the decision makers consider the projects within the applicable time frames. Um, we also bring uh determinations on the project at the same time we bring determinations on the environmental review. And so there's no there's not any any maj any scenarios in which we have an environmental review approved and we don't have a project approved because usually those decisions happen at the same meeting or within a short period of time. Um so that but that's a change for some jurisdictions. Uh there's a a freeze as mentioned as one of the commissioners mentioned earlier that uh there's a freeze on local build state and local building code updates until June uh 1, 2031 uh subject to certain limitations that are generally around uh avoiding emergencies and home hardening for fire protection. And uh yeah, and then finally uh this bill also limited the coastal commission appeals jurisdiction but somewhat by exempting multif family h housing projects of four or more units that are exclusively residential from appeal to the commission. If the project is located

within uh sensitive coastal resource areas is defined in the specific government or uh public resources code section or where a project was approved by a coastal county. Um, couple items to note is that appeals still exist uh near shoreline uh tidelands or wetlands. And I would add that the city of Carperia doesn't have a a sensitive coastal resource area that's been identified. Um, so there there's kind of a limited limited range of projects that this might apply to, especially we're also not a coastal county, so the changes aren't significant really for the for the city in that respect. um happy to answer any questions or

a question about the um the um permit streamlining uh portion of it. So then that just because the public notice requirement is no longer necessary, it doesn't preclude the city from still going through those steps, right? Because it seems the public noticing is that part of transparency in terms of uh residents being aware of various steps in uh these processes. So in in some jurisdictions well yes it would prevent okay so basically in the jurisdictions where they've missed these deadlines um for example they made a determination on the environmental document and then they never made an approve never approved a project. Um the this particular this change to the law would allow or require the agency if they miss that deadline to approve their land use entitlement without a a subsequent public hearing.

Okay. So yeah, pretty pretty hefty penalty. Um and makes highlights the importance of of deadlines. Thank you. With that, I'll turn it over to my colleague, uh, Cody Sergeant to talk through, uh, SB131.

So, like AB130, SB131 was passed, um, as a trailer to the budget bill and also makes some pretty significant amendments to California Environmental Quality Act, predominantly by providing new exemptions. The first exemption that we're going to talk about from SP131 is is the most um the most significant from the bill uh colloially referred to as the near miss exemption or near miss streamlining. And what this provision does is it provides streamlined environmental review process for housing projects that almost qualify for a SQA exemption but for a single missing condition. So it um almost meets the exemption but doesn't because of one item. And in that case, if it qualified in that way, environmental review would be limited to impacts caused solely by that single disqualifying condition. And the environmental review wouldn't need to include analysis of alternatives or growth inducing impacts, things that are typically required as part of the SQA process. So, just thought it'd be helpful. a hypothetical if um an apartment project infill apartment project was proposed on a vacant parcel in an urbanized area that would otherwise for example qualify for a SQA infill housing exemption but it's disqualified because it's adjacent to a designated historic resource under SB131's near miss provision um environmental review could potentially be limited only to potential impacts on that historic resource rather than requiring the full SQA analysis. The idea from the bill just being that it would allow the project to move forward through approval more quickly while still addressing the specific environmental concern. There are uh of course uh quite significant limitations and exclusions on this near miss. It only applies to housing projects. It excludes projects

that are dissimilar to those in the mist exemptions list. um and the housing projects that include uh distribution centers or oil and gas facilities. It also doesn't apply to projects on natural and protected lands, which the next slide will um lay out what that what that is defined as. And as you can imagine, there's there's still quite a bit of ambiguity in this bill um as to what what constitutes a single condition and what's the scope of the environmental review on that single condition. Um, we anticipate that there'll be further guidance from the agency or judicial interpretation through the courts to uh uh scope out what this actually looks like in practice. I'll pause there for any questions. Um would wouldn't you kind of have if you were going to pick how how would you decide which is the the single item or it would it would uh it's something that just pops out at you or

uh council member Clark in practice I think the applicant would would raise that they uh fall under this this near miss exemption so they would um or or the city and looking at the project would see that in its environmental review would see that the project would qualify for an exemption except for one condition. Um there wouldn't be choosing between different conditions because if the project didn't qualify for multiple conditions then it would not fall under this near miss. So the near miss streamlining only applies if they miss the exemption by one condition.

Yeah. And just maybe to clarify, right, most of these exemptions list out kind of specific qualifying criteria. You have to be, you know, X, Y, and Z. And so if you meet X and Y, but you don't meet Z, that might be a scenario where you could apply for the single issue environmental review allowed under SP131. But if you don't meet two or more of the criteria for that exemption, then this isn't going to be a tool that you can avail yourself of. Have we had projects that h fall under this near miss um category in the past

perhaps? You know, there's there's a couple that have come to mind um that dealt with archaeological resources where they were, you know, maybe in an area that otherwise could have been fully exempt, but given that one particular sensitivity, we couldn't use the exemption and had to do a a more expansive environmental review. So there might be scenarios like that that it that that it could apply to. Got it. Thank you.

Great. And so as as I mentioned, it's while the SP131 near miss exemption potentially could have some broad implications, it's also still fairly restricted. Um the development project can't be located on a site that's a natural and protected land. It's defined as including environmentally sensitive areas within the coastal zone within 300 ft of a wetlands, state and national park system or national recreation area or monument. Wilderness or marine protected area, national wild and scenic river systems, any ecological reserve or wildlife management area, a hazardous waste site subject to some exceptions if if cleanup has been complied with within a regulatory floodway. Lands under conservation easement are protected as preserve areas within a high fire severity zone or on prime farmland or farmland uh farmland of statewide importance. One one point of clarification here. Some of these like for example the within a regulatory floodway and within uh certain high fire zones uh are still per permits can still be issued if you agree to abide by certain standards like finished floor heights and can demonstrate that the the project would be would be safe or otherwise uh implement certain home hardening aspects of it. Um, that said, it it still triggers a lot of these uh exemptions or kicks you out of some of these exemptions. Are there any other questions on on this slide? Okay, great. Moving on. SP131 also creates several statutory SQA exemptions for projects that the legislature deemed to be socially beneficial projects. Um,

notably child care centers, rural health clinics, food banks, farmworker housing, uh, parks and clean water infrastructure projects. Each of these um it's defined further in the bill and has some some restrictions and limitations but um generally these are you know statutory exemptions from SQA. SP131 also narrows what documents must be included in the administrative record for SQA lawsuits. Uh the goal being to streamline SQA litigation. And finally, uh, the bill provides further direction to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, which as um, Mac Carlson mentioned was formerly called the Office of Planning Research, um, as the designated rulemaking entity to effectuate infill housing streamlining. There any questions other than farmworker housing? uh this SQA exemption is there a link to housing and the socially beneficial projects portion of the uh exemption?

Commissioner Allen, I no these statutory exemptions are each one of them is a specific statuto exemption. So, I I believe aside from farmworker housing, um none of those specific statutory exemptions are housing focused, whereas the the streamlining and and the one included in AB130 is is more targeted at housing. And a highle point of clarification, uh Commissioner Allen, uh many of these exemptions for some of these the projects um are related to statewide grant funded or bond funded projects. And so I think the the intent there is to for example for clean water projects. If your clean water project was uh granted state funding by the state water resources control board for example uh the thinking is that by the state board's process of granting you that funding they did the necessary environmental review to confirm that you're a beneficial project. And so I think that is the intent of of why these were sort of included why these were included in this otherwise uh more targeted to SQA and related to housing bill. All right. If there are no further questions, we'll uh start into our our next theme uh which is increasing enforcement authority over California housing laws. Um, unfortunately, I think you're going to notice that most of this theme involves additional state enforcement against local agencies. Um, however, uh, Cody Sergeant will get to share at least one bill that gives the city more authority. Um, we'll start with SB or AB uh 712. Um, this bill uh makes some changes to um create sort of new causes of action to allow a housing development project applicant to seek uh reasonable attorneys fees and costs if a uh local agency violates a specific

housing reform law. And it imposes more severe penalties if the uh if an agency was previously warned by the attorney general, the California attorney general or the department of housing and community development or if the agency previously violated the same state housing reform law. Uh housing reform laws are broadly defined in the statute to include any law that protects housing development applica applicants or limits a local agency's actions affecting a housing development project. It sets forth that the applicant must bring their lawsuit within uh 60 days of providing a specific written notice um to the agency to either uh cease the challenged conduct um or they're planning on filing notice. Um, in instances where uh an individual sues and is successful, uh, the fines and penalties that the statute authorizes uh, must be paid to either the local housing trust fund or a statewide building, homes, and jobs trust fund. And it also prevents public agencies from requiring developers to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the agency if the developer or the applicant sues the agency for violating housing reform law. So happy to pause there for any questions. Hearing none, I'll move on.

The next bill uh regarding enforcement over California housing laws is AB1308. Uh unlike most of the state laws that focus on the entitlements and permitting, AB1308 targets delays that occur after construction um such as waiting for final inspections. So the bill requires now that building departments must inspect residential construction projects within 10 business days of receiving notice of completion of the permitted work. This applies only to new residential construction of no more than 10 units and residential residential additions to existing residential buildings if the total number of units doesn't exceed 10 units. It also clarifies that any failure to complete this inspection in that time would constitute a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. Um, also just worth noting that the bill also provides that if a local agency doesn't meet this deadline, an applicant can go hire their own qualified private professional provider such as a licensed engineer or architect to complete the inspection. And the local uh the local jurisdiction must review the report prepared by their professional within 14 days of receipt and either approve the report or issue a correction notice. I'll pause here for any questions. I think for for me for most of these I I'm trying to understand which ones would be the most applicable for the city. So I'll direct this one to city staff, but are we in a situation where our normal timeline of um of uh the 10 business days for building inspection, is that something that is uh would potentially pose a challenge in the future or is that is this one that maybe we wouldn't have to worry about as much? through the mayor. Uh, Vice Mayor Slarseno, this is one I'm not particularly worried about. Uh, in general, we're very responsive to requests for inspections and can get those scheduled and completed within a couple days of of receiving a request. I think this is likely to be an issue for

much larger municipalities that maybe have a a greater backlog than we do. Got it. Thank you very much. That's helpful.

All right, I'm going to take the next one. This one is maybe a little bit out of order, but it's related to building permits, so we we slotted it in here. Um, but AB253 uh is the California Residential Private Permitting Review Act. Um, it requires local agencies to provide an estimated time frame um within which a completed housing p uh housing permit application of 10 units or fewer will be reviewed for building permits. Um if the estimated time frame exceeds 30 days or if the or or if within 30 days of an application being building permit application being deemed complete uh and the local agency fails to complete the permit review, a licensed uh and certified thirdparty reviewer may provide plan checks at the expense of the applicant. And then the public agency must approve or deny uh the permit and with with that information from the third party within 10 10 days of receiving that report. And so this this bill is is designed for these smaller 10-unit or fewer projects to allow the applicant to go out and hire a third party uh building department effectively to uh review uh the plans and submit that review to to the city um in instances where a city has a significant backlog.

And again, just to beat you to the punch, I don't anticipate this one being a significant issue for the city either. Um, we strive to get our first building permit plan check completed in about two weeks time. And while we may not always meet that, that still gives us sufficient buffer, I think, from this 30-day deadline imposed under AB253 that I'm not particip anticipating this will be too much trouble for us. Thank you for reading my mind.

The next enforcement bill that I'll talk about is Senate Bill 786. Uh this bill makes a number of changes to enforcement regarding housing elements. At first, the bill clarifies that the most recently adopted element in the general plan controls if there's any conflicting development standards included in the different general plan elements. So in other words, it establishes that if there are conflicts between, for example, the land use element and the most recently adopted element, which often will be the housing element, um the most recently adopted element controls um aimed at, you know, removing ambiguity that could potentially delay housing projects. The bill also establishes additional consequences for local governments when they commit to but fail to meet the deadlines for removing constraints on housing development. um in implementing their housing element uh including authorizing the California Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD, to review and potentially descertify housing elements adopted by those agencies. And finally, the bill amends judicial procedure for housing element cases when a housing element is challenged in litigation, including expediting temporary relief in certain scenarios and specifying that a court order to adopt a housing element is not stayed pending appeal of a of a case. And I'll pause here for any questions. All right. Hear hearing none. We'll move on um to Senate Bill 808 uh civil actions um Ritz Housing Development Projects. Uh, this bill expedites enforcement actions brought by project applicants or the California Attorney General

challenging improper denial of a housing project application under state housing laws, including the housing accountability act, any ministerial approval laws, um, like SB35 or 423, as well as, uh, state accessory dwelling unit laws, uh, or ADU laws. So the the bill sets forth very specific notice requirements that the petitioner must include in in their petition and provide to the city before filing their lawsuit. Um if they include those uh and serve the position within 90 days of the local agency's denial, disapproval or conditioning of a project or permit um then much uh tighter litigation deadlines apply. So within 15 days of service of the RIT, the local agency must prepare and certify the administrative record. That's a very short timeline. Um, a hearing must be set no later than 45 days after the filing of a writ and the court decision uh must be issued within 30 days of the matter being submitted or 75 days after the writ whichever is earlier. So this is a a pretty dramatic change to in imposition on the courts in particular um in terms of the timeline that typical cases take and the priority for housing cases over uh other cases that might be on the court's docket. Any questions?

I have one for you, Mac. I was just curious if we've seen these new timelines invoked yet to your knowledge and just you know if it's realistic that the courts can actually keep up with these sorts of timelines that have been put on them. Um I have not I'm not aware of a case in which these timelines have been evoke and invoked and met yet. Um and part of that is uh because we're kind of in a narrow window of when the project when the applicant would have been able to provide the notice, right? We um and when their approval of the project would have had to occur. But we we will almost certainly see some of these this year and and have a better understanding of whether or not courts are actually able to to hit these deadlines.

Great. Uh moving on to what I I hope will be a breath of fresh air. The the only bill we're summarizing on enforcement that provides the city with um assistance in their enforcement. Uh Senate Bill 346 was passed with the intent to assist local agencies ability to enforce their restrictions on short-term rentals. Uh specifically, the bill authorizes a local agency to enact an ordinance requiring short-term rental facilitate facilitators such as Airbnb, VBO to report physical address of each short-term rental. Um, it also authorizes them to request additional information if the physical address isn't sufficient to for the local agency to identify the specific short-term rental and authorizes the city to impose an administrative fine or penalty for failure to file this report and allows the local agency to initiate an audit of a short-term rental facilitator as needed. And then finally, the bill requires short-term rental facilitators uh in a jurisdictions that has adopted this ordinance to include in the listing of a short-term rental any applicable local license numbers associated with the rental and any toot tax um certification issued by the local agency.

Um I have a question about that one. I know that uh the city contracts with HDL with for a lot of our uh short-term rental uh needs. Is that information like getting the physical address of the short-term rentals and other information is that included in what we contract with them for already or would that be something that would be updated

uh through the mayor, Vice Mayor, Solar Snow? So, HDL is is standing by and is ready to assist us with this effort. Um, they too like us are are still getting up to speed with this and trying to understand how this all actually uh is implemented and plays out. Um, I will say that, you know, having attended a League of California C's webinar about this law back in December before it took effect on January 1, um, there was some signs that some of the online short-term rental platforms may try to challenge this law or may try to challenge whichever jurisdictions adopt this ordinance first or or make the first attempt at at requesting the address information. Um, and so given that uncertainty, I think our position as as staff was to take a little bit of a wait and see approach and see how that shakes out with the intention of, you know, folding this required update to our ordinance and with some of the other short-term rental ordinance update work that we already have on our work plan. Um, once we have kind of a clearer picture of of whether this survives in full or in part through a legal challenge.

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Uh, can I ask a question about short-term rentals? Have we ever cited anybody? Uh, through the mayor, Commissioner Benfield, we have on a few occasions. Um, we are getting more aggressive in it here. U in, you know, kind of recent last year, I'd say. uh in part at the direction of the city council and one of the updates in fact that we hope to bring back to the council uh through an ordinance update to the short-term rentals uh short-term rental regulations is to increase the fine amounts for penalties. So right now uh penalties are assessed on the same schedule as any other citation in the city. So, $100 for the first violation, $200 for the second, $500, $500 every time thereafter within a calendar year or, you know, a 12-month period. Um, under I I couldn't tell you what the what the assembly bill or Senate bill was, but under a state law passed several years ago, those fine amounts were increased substantially to where the, you know, the first violation was maybe more like $1,000. And then it went up from there quite a bit with the uh belief that those much larger fine amounts would be uh much more persuasive in in eliminating illicit short-term rental behavior.

Yeah, it might be a good way to make money for the city to cite these people and make housing for real people. Sorry, opinion. Agree. Any other questions? Hearing none, we'll we'll move on to a couple bills that either streamline or clarify certain aspects of the permit process. Uh the first one I want to touch on is some changes to state density bonus law. Um, as a reminder, state density bonus law grants qualifying uh projects certain uh benefits including a bonus density incentives or concessions, waiverss or reduction of development standards, and specified parking ratios when the project agrees to deed restrict a certain percentage of the units as affordable to either very low, low, or moderate income households. Um, two bills were passed this year seeking to address some specific density bonus law issues where an applicant was leveraging density bonus law. uh generally for a hotel use. Um and so those two bills uh specified that certain provisions of density bonus law, for example, incentives or concessions or waiverss or reductions of development standards uh cannot do not apply to standards related to transient lodging um that are part of a housing development project unless it's a residential hotel. And then in order for residential portions of a mixeduse project to qualify for density bonus law incentives, at least twothirds of the square footage of the project must be residential. So these are uh very beneficial changes to make sure that density bonus law isn't abused to uh pro promote uh hotel type uses. Any questions?

I have a question on that one. or maybe clarification. Um, can we can a builder apply for density bonus and builder's remedy at the same time? or or can there be a requirement like upfront that we know are they going for both if they're only going for one and then maybe there's a wait and see or I guess I'm I'm concerned about leverage that this gives um developers over the city to use it that way.

Does that make sense? uh through the mayor. Uh Commissioner Vaner, let me try to answer and and if and hope if I didn't capture your uh answer your question, feel free to follow up. Um so yes, a a applicant for a housing development project can use multiple housing laws for to to promote in their project. Um, so that could include uh some of the laws we've talked about this evening, permit streamlining act for example, that generally applies to all development projects, uh, both housing projects and non-housing projects. Um, you would also look at using the housing accountability act. So the housing accountability act would apply to a certain subset of projects. Um, a smaller subset of projects may qualify for the so-called uh, builder remedy uh, within the housing accountability act. uh those projects could also to the extent they need to or want to rely on density bonus law could argue that density bonus law also applies to their project. Um so in in short yes an applicant can um leverage multiple state housing laws uh for one specific project. uh the the findings and decision about whether those laws are applicable typically comes at uh when the law is before either your planning commission or your or the city council on appeal. And so, uh, staff evaluates whether or not a project meets the qualifying criteria for, for example, density bonus law throughout the entitlement process and makes a recommendation to your commission and then the council on appeal on whether the project complies or does not comply with the applicable requirements.

Okay. Okay. So you so we the city can't require the developer to elect one pathway before the hearing. Is that correct? Correct. Thank you.

Moving on. The next bill is AB 1007. Um, this bill amends the permit streamlining act. Just as a reminder, permit streamlining act is existing law that requires public agencies to approve or disapprove a development project within specified time periods. The permit streaming act currently requires that a public agency that serves as a responsible agency for a development project under SQA must approve or disapprove the project within 90 days of the date that the lead agency approved the project. This bill reduces that time amount from 90 to 45 days um for the responsible agency. Um just as a reminder, SQL responsible agency is a public agency other than the lead agency that still has jurisdiction over projects. So u for the city um while city typically u sits as a lead agency, they could be a responsible agency if for instance um the city was required to approve a permit for a county-led project. I'll pause for any questions. All right, hearing none, we'll move on to Assembly Bill uh 1050, which is deals with unlawfully restricted covenants for housing developments. Uh AB1050 extends uh prior bill assembly bill 2721 um which created a covenant modification pathway for 100% affordable projects. And so, uh, this AB AB1050, uh, expands that to any qualifying or any housing development project on a commercial property, um, where the commercial property is generally an allowed use or could move forward. Um, but there's a a private covenant restrict or covenant or deed restriction

or reciprocal easement that would limit residential use, density, or unit counts. And so, often where you see these is for large scale mall redevelopment projects. So, it was very common in the 50s through the 70s for every major mall when they um to have kind of major tenant anchors and reciprocal easements with all of the the the businesses in the mall uh that parking was a mandatory use for basically their entire parking lot. And so, um where we see changes and then I guess often those parking lots were then either dedicated to a local agency or held within an HOA. And so where we're seeing uh the legislature try to tackle here is preventing those covenants that restrict redevelopment of parking lots for example um into housing from a commercial use. And so this removes or creates a process where a property owner can invalidate those uh restrictive covenants and move forward with a residential conversion project. Any questions? I I have a quick question. Are there any um Well, would that also is that also um like uh Sorry. Um business parks that aren't being used.

Sure. If a if a business park, for example, had a covenant that said, "No, there's no allowable residential use within this business park," that this may be an avenue to remove those covenants.

Thank you. Moving along, uh SB 358 amends the Mitigation Fee Act and mandates that there be reduced traffic impact fees for housing development projects that adhere to specific criteria, that they're located in a transit priority area, um which in City of Carperia is within one half mile of a major transit stop, which is the Amtrak station. that they provide no more than one parking space for zero to twobedroom unit projects or two spaces for three or more bedroom units and they be within a half mile of three or more specified amenities such as a grocery store, pharmacy or public library. So if the project meets those criteria, they they uh the bill mandates that there be reduced traffic impact fees for the project. It also requires that local agencies make certain findings supported by substantial evidence to adjust to increase that traffic impact fee. Any questions?

This residential. Uh, correct. Yeah.

All right. Moving on. We're going to cover uh move on to kind of a next theme of incent uh focusing on smallcale development. The next four slides, we're going to cover various changes to uh state accessory dwelling unit or ADU and junior accessory dwelling unit or JADU laws at a high level. Uh quick update from the city side and and perhaps Mr. Bough can provide more details. Uh but the city is presently working with the department of housing and community development as well as the coastal commission to finalize some revisions to its accessory dwelling unit ordinance and junior accessory dwelling unit ordinance uh to harmonize it with these latest changes uh to state law while while still protecting coastal resources. Uh staff and our office are tentatively anticipating bringing these amendments uh back to decision maker sometime this summer. Um, so this is a little preview of what you'll probably get more detail about when we bring back uh those amendments. The the first bill here I'm going to cover is AB 1154. Um, this makes a couple minor changes to requirements for accessory junior accessory dwelling unit ordinances. Um, it explains that uh owner occupancy is not required if there's a separate sanitation facilities. So, if there's a separate bathroom facility, then owner occupancy isn't required for a home that has a a junior accessory dwelling unit. And it clarifies that any rental of a of a junior accessory dwelling unit must be uh for more than 30 days. So, that obviously uh junior accessory dwelling units can't also be short-term rentals. And that's uh was already reflected in state ADU laws, but it's been clarified for uh junior accessory dwelling units as well. Any questions here? The next bill that we're going to talk about that amended state ADU law is AB462. It makes further amendments to state ADU

law. Existing law requires that certain ADUs proposed in coastal areas are required to obtain CDPs in addition to other local ADU permit requirements. And AB462 alters the CDP status quo on numerous fronts. First, it requires that local agencies with a certified LCP must approve or deny a completed CDP application for an ADU within 60 days. It eliminates the ability to appeal a CDP to the coastal commission for an ADU. And uh historically, state law prohibited a local agency from issuing a cert certificate of occupancy for an ADU before one was issued for the primary dwelling. And AB462 creates a narrow exception for ADUs when the governor is declared a state emergency. The primary dwelling was substantially damaged or destroyed by an event referenced in that state of emergency. and the ADU has been uh has the ADU has been issued construction permits and passed all required inspections. Um just as some context, this was initially intended to help recovery efforts after the Eaton and Pacific Palisades fire, but it could apply to other state of emergencies going forward. Any questions? I'll just add we already process our coastal development permit applications for ADUs within 60 days. So, this won't change anything for us.

Uh, moving right along then to SB9, accessory dwelling units, um, ordinances. Uh, this bill establishes a process to or more firmly requires local agencies to submit ADU ordinances um to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption or um because it would otherwise invalidate that ADU ordinance if the agency fails to submit it within that 60-day period or otherwise fails to respond uh within 30 days to a finding that the ordinance is not in compliance with state ADU law. Um, as I as I noted earlier, uh, the city is in will coordinate and has been coordinating with the Department of Housing, Community Development, and the Coastal Commission, um, as part of its local coastal program amendment to implement, uh, update its or ADU ordinance to more accurately reflect state changes to state law that since the last time we updated. Any questions here? The next uh bill that's amending ADU law, Senate Bill 543, primarily focuses on clarifying and codifying existing HCD guidance that is regarding ADUs and J ADUs. It specifically it specifies that statutory references to square footage in an ADU or Jedu refers to the square footage in the interior live livable space. It expands authority of HCD regarding JADUs to mirror the authority that HCD currently has over ADUs and state ADU and JDU standards. It clarifies that those standards supersede conflicting local ordinances. And finally, if JADU ordinances are void, if the local agency fails to submit to HCD or fails to correct non-compliance uh identified by HCD,

could you could you explain interior living space through the chair, Commissioner Moyer? Historically, there was some ambiguity in state ADU law as to what allowable how allowable square footage was calculated and whether it include um for instance p outdoor patio space um or other or rather areas that could potentially constitute allowable, you know, allowable square footage. And here HCD issued guidance that clarified that in calculating the square footage for an ADU or JADU, it was the the livable space inside the ADU or JADU and this bill is codifying that HCD guidance.

So it's excluding the interior partitions. No. No, I don't believe so. It's like net. Correct. It's it basically is excluding things like the thickness of exterior walls, exterior stairways, roof overhangs, correct? Carports, porches, that kind of stuff. But anything enclosed within the building, even hallways and and that sort of stuff count still towards that interior livable area figure. Thank you. Just one, Nick. Do we have any JDUs here in this town?

We do have a couple. We don't see a lot of them. um in part because there's not much distinction between a JADU and just a small ADU. So most folks just, you know, tend to go for the ADU instead, but we do have a few. Thank you. What is the difference? The primary difference um is a Jedu has to be carved out of the existing square footage of of a home. Um and also I I believe a Jedu doesn't have to have all the same amenities. So it can have shared cooking facilities or shared sanitation facilities with the primary house whereas an ADU has to be standalone in those respects. It can be a converted garage.

Correct. So it could be you know again the Jed has to be carved out of existing square footage whereas an ADU could be a brand new standalone structure for example. Thank you. There's also um square footage limitations to a JADU. Don't think it can be larger than 500 square feet. I believe

continuing on with Senate Bill 543. A few other changes that the bill implemented. It clarified that development impact fees can't be imposed on ADUs with up to 750 ft of again interior livable space or JADUs with up to 500 square ft. Um similarly ADUs and JDUs with 500 square ft or less are also exempt from school impact fees. And finally, the four categories of ADUs or JDUs that are specified in the government code, and those are um attached or detached ADUs to a single family or attached or detached ADUs to a multifamily dwelling. This bill clarifies that those four categories can be combined on a single lot and aren't exclusive. So, more than one category could be applied. And finally, it outlines a permitting process requirements for local agencies. Finally, SB543 clarifies that amendments don't take effect in the city until it amends its LCP to harmonize the LCP with the amendments relating to ADUs and JDUs.

So, just clarification on the the the four categories can be combined now. So for our single family residential neighborhoods that I think under our current ordinance uh would be limited to um an ADU or a J AU but not both. Um does this now allow both on a single family residential zone? Yes.

Through the mayor commissioner Lefevers. That's that's our understanding is that theoretically, right, a single family residence owner could have a a attached ADU, a JADU, andor a detached ADU. So conceivably, you could have up to three different types of ADUs on a single family lot in addition to the primary residence.

Couldn't they could do a subdivision and add another resident and an ATU on the subdivided part? If you're referring to the SP9 lot splits, there are provisions where you can do subdivide a single family lot into separate lots and then build new units on each of those including some number of ADUs. So yeah, it can quickly multiply.

And uh through the mayor, Commissioner Lee Fever, just one point of clarification, the the city expects to based on coastal commission guidance that these uh changes will be brought back to your commission for consideration into the ordinance through an LCP amendment. But until that local coastal program amendment um happens, these laws don't take effect immediately. That's based on some prior coastal commission guidance that said local agencies should adopt uh an ADU ordinance that complies with state law. Um but it doesn't take effect until they they get a certification of that local coastal program amendment. So the city's position has been we're we're going to update to comply to the extent we can and uh while being protective of coastal resources.

Is there a regulatory clock on that? Uh there's as as kind of outlined earlier, there's uh potential um let's see inquiries from the department of housing and community development and attorney general's office that that could occur. Um so and there's also I think a a timeline specified in the city's housing element. So we are uh working with staff to move that ordinance further forward as soon as feasible.

Thank you. Are there any other questions before we move on? All right, this uh we got a little bit of a preview about this one, but um because of the mention of Senate Bill 9, which is a duplex and lots split bill. Um AB 1061 amend was a fairly minor amendment to Senate Bill 9. uh that clarified that for that these projects can be approved in historic districts as long as the development doesn't alter or demolish an existing historic structure. Uh it also specifies that local agencies can adopt objective standards to preserve local character um in order to ensure that any Senate Bill 9 project in a historic district uh doesn't negatively impact a historic resource. Um, again, this is one of the uh the bills that uh the coastal commission has generally opined that do not take effect until the city updates its ordinance to or its local coastal program to implement. Um, I'd also note that I do not believe that the city has any historic districts currently. Um, so Mr. Bob can confirm, but you're correct. All right. Um, any other questions on this one? All right.

All right. We'll transition to a couple very specialized housing bills and we'll wrap up with general questions at the end. So, we're getting very close.

All right. Moving on from the state. Uh the first of the two specialty housing bills, excuse me, is AB 1021. This bill extended the sunset date of existing law AB 2295. It was originally set to expire on January 1, 2033. And that bill allows for local educational agencies such as school districts or county office of education to develop affordable housing on school district property provided that certain conditions are met. AB1021 extended the sunset date for another three years to January 1, 2036, as well as made some revisions to further streamline the approval process, clarifying that the housing accountability act applies to these projects and as well as the affordable housing projects on school district property could qualify for applicable affordable housing SQA exemptions if they meet those criteria. Pause for any questions on this bill.

Was there any consideration to making school district properties for affordable housing giving first right of refusal to teachers and staff somewhere along the line? I thought they we had a law like that in the state through the mayor commissioner Benfield. I I don't know offhand whether whether AB 2295 included a first right of refusal, but um I will I will take a look and and get back to I don't believe that it does have um a first right of refusal, but I will confirm.

Thank you. Right.

Any other questions on this one? All right, moving on. Last but not least, um AB507 is a special one of these specialty housing bills related to adaptive reuse projects. Um it requires local agencies to permit by adaptive reuse projects that allow for the conversion of existing commercial and industrial buildings to residential or mixed use where qualifying projects can meet certain um certain affordability requirements and labor standards. So, for rental housing projects, uh the the project needs to have 8% very low income. I think there's a typo there. Um and then or 5% extremely low-income units or plus 5% extremely low-inccome units or 15% lower income units. Um for owner occupied, it needs to be 30% of the units need to be affordable to moderate income households or 15% for very lowincome households. Um, adaptive reuse projects are generally must be in buildings that are less than 50 years old or if older comply with historic preservation standards in order to qualify for ministerial review. And local agencies may create uh an adaptive reuse investment incentive fund beginning in next fiscal year in order to help fund these types of projects. Um, there are many other qualifying criteria for these types of projects. Um my impression is that this is generally designed to convert largecale buildings in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego. Um and that these types of projects wouldn't apply in much smaller um smaller jurisdictions. Um but the city may of course see one of the type of these projects. Um any questions on AB507? If if not, I know that was a a long

presentation and a lot to digest, but if there are any other questions, um we're here to answer them. Quick question I have. I'm jumping back to AB um 1021. It's very specific in that it is a public entity education system. Are there any provisions or I would say um challenges be met for private schools? For example, if it's a private school, if a church or anything like that, are those also going to be um addressed or is that just something that's going to fall through a standard process

through the mayor? Um I'll take a stab at this one and then maybe uh Mr. Sergeant can chime in. Uh my recollection is that there are a few other bills that focused on housing projects on uh for on priv for private schools essentially. Um that allowed uh for projects to move forward on those schools but have uh on those school grounds um uh and I think believe it also applied to certain uh church facilities or religious institutions as well. um they do not have the same level of streamlining that that this bill has is my understanding.

And then the other question I would have are um programs set up by county that would be for example a preschool something like that. Would those also fall within this or um the AB 1021 or would that be something different? Uh it I believe so. I believe it could qualify. Um it it would depend. It have to meet all the the site criteria. Um any other comments you have? Yeah, just through through the mayor commissioner Benfield to address your earlier question. I I stand corrected. The existing law does include a right of first refusal for teacher and school employees.

Um a question a couple of questions um I had. So, um, one of the questions I've been getting a lot just in the past couple months from residents is what the role of city community development staff is when projects are coming to the city. And just given like all these the new legislation that we just heard about right now, there's there's a lot of moving pieces. There's a lot of nuance to it. So maybe just for for anyone who might be listening in the public like um I don't know if maybe uh Nick if you can talk about what CDD staff's role is in um in the development process when a developer comes with a project. What what are staff what what does that look like for city staff

uh through the mayor council member or vice mayoro. I'd be happy to try to take a stab at this one and maybe Mac or Cody might have some thoughts as well. You know, I think typically when a project is submitted to the city, I think of staff's job as being to um help review those projects for consistency with applicable city policies and regulations. And where a project doesn't conform or align, our job is to try to help steer those projects in a better direction uh to a point ideally, right, where they do meet the applicable standards and and criteria and can hopefully move forward towards approval. Um there are times when uh you know an applicant's vision for a project and the city's vision for for a project or for a particular area of town don't align and and sometimes those do end up resulting in you know recommendations for for denial. Um, but more often than not, we find that, you know, developers are interested in making a project that works and that's successful and are willing to to make changes to their project or concession to get it to a place where it can be supported. Um that dynamic is changing a little bit, you know, more and more each year in in terms of housing projects in particular given given the legislaturator's um you know, regular uh attempts to restrain or limit local agency jur uh discretion. And so there are, you know, more of these instances now than there used to be where um, you know, an applicant or a developer may avail themselves of some of these incentives or provisions that allowed for under state law to get something, you know, beyond what they would have previously or to um, you know, advocate for for a project maybe that isn't, you

know, quite what we wanted. And so in those circumstances, we do still try to work towards making the project the best project that we can, but there there are limits in what we can do and they're they're getting to be uh you know, more and more constraining each year as more of these laws take effect. And so in that regard then, you know, our job ends up being to still work towards the best project we get with the knowledge that you know, to some degree our hands may be tied. I appreciate that because I I think just based on conversations I've had with with uh constituents and people in the community, there's the perception that maybe staff have the ability to to uh stop a project or to or that the relationship between staff and developers is either um handinand glove or else should be oppositional. And it's it's in my experience now being on council for a couple years, it's I I know that neither of those extremes are the case. And so I just I'm hoping that that we can get the message out to the public more on what CDD staff do and and what their limitations like you're saying are especially in the context of all these new um state housing laws.

Yeah, I appreciate that and and I would welcome the help in that regard. Um you know, we we have an obligation to follow due process, right? And to ensure that applicants have uh you know, kind of a fair and predictable pathway to follow. uh we can't necessarily guarantee the outcome, but we at least need to to be objective and fair in how we review their applications and take them through the requisite steps of a of project review. And and so that's what we strive to do. And like I said, there there's, you know, there are projects where we can push back more

or or try to steer them in another direction. And there's other instances where we're constrained by either state or federal law in terms of how much we can push back. And then my only other question and my last question uh related to that also is so what what do you see as some of the the limited ways that we are able to have control um again given given this this new new wave of state uh state control over over local housing uh jurisdiction. What what ways do you see it as the city as being empowered to make an impact

more and more? So, it seems like the the best tool that we have is to adopt ordinances and regulations that have greater specificity and more objective metrics or objective standards. That seems to be the direction that that the state is heading in and and pushing jurisdictions to to go in. Right. so as to to kind of move away from these subjective policies or subjective regulations that different people can interpret in different ways. And through replacing those standards with more objective, measurable standards, it gives an applicant a clearer road map from the get-go of what they need to do, what they need, how they need to design their project to be found consistent with applicable regulations. So I see that as being kind of our um you know probably our most important area that we need to make some progress in in the coming years to to you know be able to retain some level of control over these future development projects.

And then that is I know that's somewhere on our work plan too right the development of objective design standards. It is it's it's right I think it's technically on the on deck circle of the work plan because it's a multi-year effort. It's not something that we're going to be able to wrap up here in these in these initial two years. Okay, great. Thank you very much for for the information. Just for the benefit of the public, as you would stated, you've been inundated by questions, most almost all developers hire a planner. That planner sits down and explains all the relevant laws and lets them know what they can and can't do. So they don't come to the city blind,

you know, they they know what's going on. So, and it's not really it's not something the city's doing. So, anyway, I just thought I'd add that. I have a quick question um following up. These are questions that I'm getting asked um when I say I'm coming to get a housing law update. Uh, a question that I get asked constantly is, "So, so does this mean that anybody that has a project in the pipes can rely on these housing laws or is there a rule that like sort of locks in what laws apply to what project? Um, is it based on when their project is a is received by the city? Is it when the project is deemed complete? Is there sort of a timeline when these laws apply to what projects?

Uh through the mayor, um council member mayor, uh yes, there are uh various laws that apply and to housing projects and freeze the applicable standards. Uh one one law for example is uh Senate Bill 330, which was um or often referred to um as Senate Bill 330. It created a preliminary application process and so that is a abbreviated 17 item application that allows uh project proponent to submit that preliminary application and freeze the applicable standards. Um there are other pro not all applicants need to submit those applications or choose to. Um so another date for example would be when their application is determined to be complete. the the application for a housing project is then evaluated against the standards that are in effect at the date their application is uh determined to be complete. Um there's also there is flexibility in terms of um applicants generally opting into later inactive standards if they if they choose to. Um but once they have a comp and once they have and preserve a complete application, city staff's role and the decision makers role when when it comes to them is to evaluate it based on the standards that existed at the time of that they basically froze their application submitt.

Thank you. I have a quick question. Sorry. Getting back to um AB507, I think council told us that it really applies to more um metropolitan areas like San Francisco, Bay Area, stuff like that. Is there anything any any areas here in Carperia? Um I'm thinking of the commercial industrial buildings procore area like that. Yeah. Ex

uh through the mayor uh commissioner manorp. Uh yes it's difficult in the abstract. I mean I I could look at this bill. It's let me see. I'll send it to the printer. It's about 15 pages probably with of criteria to qualify. So I it's difficult for me to say yes or no without looking at all the checklist criteria, but in in theory, yes, if a if an applicant proposed a project under that bill for a qualifying site, uh there's no exemption for it to be in the in the coastal zone, for example. I just add that, you know, based off the the preliminary kind of summary version, I was initially excited about it, thinking, gosh, this could be a great tool for the city and and, you know, certain areas of of of our town where we were hoping to see some adaptive reuse type projects. But, you know, to Max's point, right, sometimes these bills, especially in their initial first couple iterations, end up having a lot of criteria that need to be met. And then, you know, uh, at least from what we've seen in past instances, uh, the legislature ends up, you know, kind of pairing those down over time to make them more broadly applicable to a wider variety of projects. So, we could see that here, but we just have to, you know, kind of wait and see. And I would I clarify sorry 12 pages worth of or the text to uh review to determine qualifying criteria. Um I guess the other component I would add right is that um city of Santa Barbara for example adopted an adaptive reuse ordinance that is more permissive than this ordinance and should decision makers or the public be interested in that that's something right often state law sets a floor and local agencies could choose to do more if they want to incentivize certain types of projects. If I could just these I have a couple questions that are

more generic in nature I guess. So are you seeing yet or do you have an expectation that the legislature is starting to slow down on new legislation that you know to remove our um local authorities? Is that are we seeing that yet? Some of these seem like they're tweaks to um legislation that's been passed. I know previous years we've had some pretty big hits. There's a few here, but I don't know. I'm just curious if if we're reaching uh a more manageable state. Any thoughts

uh through the mayor? Um, I am by no means uh a very good prognosticator here, but I can take a guess. Um, I'd say that there's most likely still going to be some changes to housing law this year. Um, my general understanding is that there's I think there's maybe a push to move towards addressing more for sale product. So, condo um condo defect reform potentially and encouraging more uh middle inome housing type development. So, smaller type workforce housing development for sale projects. Um it's it frankly it'll be an interesting year with the governor's race um kind of mid midcycle. Um, so I I don't know if it'll be a big boon year for for housing law updates or or a whimper, but uh there's there's always going to be something I think.

Okay, I know that's a hard question to answer, but just seem be nice if we could take a little bit of a break here. I I will just add that the included in this city council's agenda I think for most meetings um is a legislative update that's prepared generally by the Cal Cities um California League of Cities or Cal Cities Department that outlines key housing bills that are being proposed this year. Um so that's a good place to look for more information on on what may get enacted this this year.

Okay. Thanks. And then one last question and again this I'm not sure if you have any you want to comment on this but um do you have any thoughts any information on you know the the builder's remedy process that that's out there? Are are builders having success you using that across the state uh to get projects approved? Have has it matured enough where you've seen court cases that have uh I'm just curious, you know, I know we're the builder's remedy threat is somewhat daunting and um just curious what the reality is with people actually using that uh in the state

uh through the mayor uh commissioner Lef Fever's Yes, there are are many builders remedy projects kind of throughout the state at various stages um of of the process. Um I think we have have seen uh a mixed bag or not not a ton of projects um that have broken ground yet. But there are certainly uh projects that are working their way through either the courts or through um through local agencies during an entitlement process um or have already settled the lawsuit and are on their path towards approval. So, um I'd say it's it's still difficult to predict uh exactly how uh pervasive these projects might be or how many of these projects may um be built or approved or move forward. Um but there are there are certainly many that that are doing so throughout the state.

Okay. All right. Thank you. I think board member Wolf was trying to get in a question there, too. I want to make sure we acknowledge her and give her a chance.

So, obviously I'm new to this and so um this seems like it's to the advantage all of these are to the advantage of the developers and really are going to nail any um any local planning departments, especially if they're underst staffed. And if they are underst staffed and they can't meet the deadlines and they're fined and there's a penalty, who's paying that money? Is there a budget in cities to be able to support a fine because the the group is under staff to keep up with the agenda items that come in. And so who's really finding who? So if the if they're finding the local agency, that money, the fine goes to a state organization, I guess, and then that money is again redistributed to local city councils or whatever. So, I I just don't really understand who's benefiting from all these fines and if this really is going to work because so often planning departments are underst staffed and they can't keep up with these deadlines, especially with some of these new rules. So, I I just wonder how how does this really work? And when you were talking about things changing, if they don't actually um if some of these amendments don't really seem to work, who's who's going to have taken the hit by the time they they figure out that that these bills need to be changed? Is are we going to have a load of fines? Anyway, that's it's just about all these fines. It's it's crazy and scary for a planning department. uh through the mayor uh board member

Wolf. Um yes. So I guess a couple points of clarification. U staff and our office work diligently to process and meet all all the applicable deadlines um when a new project application comes in. Um the the fines the fine component has um specific triggers, right? So generally it's uh you would have to have been found uh guilty or settle a lawsuit um over a violation of an applicable housing law. Um those penalties are then either those fine those those fines that would be imposed uh you know the city would take them out of a out of a budget fund and they would put it into either a local affordable housing trust fund or a statewide affordable housing trust fund. and then that affordable housing trust fund uh would then uh on the local side of things would allocate it to a local affordable housing project. So um to the extent that uh there is concern over underst staffing I think we are doing staff and and our office is doing everything we can to process uh housing development projects in a timely manner and achieve all deadlines. Um but yes, there is a uh a legislative policy direction to um put a stick out there uh to penalize local agencies that fail to uh meet certain housing or qualify or perform under certain housing reform laws um that they believe needs to then be allocated to local affordable housing or statewide affordable housing. just a cycle.

Got a few questions here for you. First one, um, we talk about the timing of of these reviews. Question for staff. Uh, Nick, if you wouldn't mind. I know in the past we've had to use consultants because we've been backlogged substantially. If these housing um efforts move forward and the state is more successful in pushing the developers into doing these things, do you see us having a shortage or still being able to keep inhouse these reviews specifically for Carponia

through the mayor, council member Namura? Uh so we do even we do currently use consultants to to varying degrees on some of these projects. So, for example, um any project that requires uh a more substantial level of environmental review, whether it's a a netative declaration or an environmental impact report, we're we're farming those out to consultants just because, right, the the workload and the technical knowledge needed to prepare those is is immense and it would take up too much of our time. So, that's an example where we're already leveraging, you know, consultant resources to help us. Um, we have in the past from time to time brought on, you know, extra help type planning staff to to uh help us through a tough spot or through a particularly busy period. And I I can't rule out that we might be in that situation again at some point in the future. Um, and we we certainly talk about it internally from time to time. And um you know I guess the benefit of it right is we could structure it in such a way that that extra help would only be working on on projects with billable time back to an applicant. And so it it could be theoretically at least set up in a way where it's not costing the city anything out of pocket to bring on this extra help staff.

Right. My my question or concern mostly has to do with the consultants themselves. Since it goes to a consultant, it may be out of our hands. if there is an overload to um the product, the consultants, they may be backlogged and we it would be out of our control as far as timing and getting these things done and due diligence if it's in somebody else's hands.

Yeah. So, I think in that regard, part of what we can do or should do is is not, you know, not overload one consultant with all of these types of of projects, right? So again, taking the example of of an environmental impact report, we wouldn't want to necessarily uh contract with one firm to prepare all of our ERS. Instead, we're going to, you know, put each of those ERs out for its own bid and select whoever the best consultant team is for for each of those projects. And then it's, you know, the assigned planner's job to to make sure that that consult those consultants stay on target and on schedule for their respective projects that they've been contracted for. So you would be comfortable with that then? anticipating

we're doing that to a point currently it you know I mean it is what it is it can certainly get busy but um there are times where we have multiple contracts out for multiple environmental documents at the same time okay and we just have to you know make sure we're allocating our our time and energy in such a way that we can keep all those moving

and uh thank you thank you for the answers on that one sounds like we're fairly confident guess it will be out of our hands if we do get overloaded Um question then um for council that would be you there Mac. Um the League of California cities, the coastal counties um they seem to be a pretty um a good resource for us for information coming down specifically on actions and things like this that are happening at the state level. Have we um tried to connect with them in greater extent specifically for this housing element to see if in fact we could start comparing notes making sure that we have um items issues that may been faced by other municipalities to we have answers from them also. In other words have a proven product. Uh something on the um way of success factors

uh through the mayor council member. Uh yes, we coordinate and review and look at uh what other coastal jurisdictions are doing with respect to their housing element implementation um regularly. And then I would also say that um there is a I believe there's a coastal city attorneys group that meets fairly regularly and coordinates on various issues from time to time. Um and Mr. Bob I think can speak to their coordination on the planning side. coordination with uh other other coastal cities on LCP implementation and housing law.

Yeah. So, we we definitely do do some of that. Um I I don't know that we're currently part of any formal effort to do it, but we do it informally with our our neighbors on a regular basis where we're comparing notes on, you know, how they're approaching certain issues and and what's working for them or what's worked for us in the past. Um, the reason I brought that one up, it seems to be um that would be a good resource and information that maybe you want to share with the the different governing bodies we have here represented to make sure that we have the the latest information, those things that are working well and those things that we um better be on the lookout for. Thanks, Nick. Didn't mean to put more on your plate, but looks like this may be an overload anyways if it goes through quickly. I have one last question about AB2295 because it's a local, it's school district, so public property theoretically. Are there any levers that communities have to sort of get a school district to work with you or is this at their discretion

uh through the mayor? Sorry, council member mayor. It's a little wild, but

just curious. I think there are there you know maybe beyond the scope of of this discussion but there are probably mechanisms that the city or public could could leverage to encourage school district to implement a project like this. Um, I guess I could speak broadly that I'm aware of at least a few of these projects moving forward um throughout Santa Barbara County and in Ventura County where uh local those local school districts are uh you know put out a request for proposal for teacher housing on their on their property with a a private partner. Um so it it's happening. Uh but there there and there are various I think political mechanisms to encourage the this the city uh the local school district to do so if if those wanted to be uh used but there's no legal mechanism in these bills

and through the mayor I could just add I think as as Mr. Carlson mentioned earlier, state law often provides the floor, but um certainly the city can through ordinance uh you know adopt adopt additional incentives um as you know, for example, the city of Santa Barbara with adaptive reuse, there could in theory be ordinances that incentivize um certain types of affordable housing production on school sites. I have a question. Um, so it's very clear that there's some stringent um consequences if municipalities don't meet certain deadlines for approval or review. Um, what does this look like for the on the developers side if we're working with or if a developer submits an application, they potentially miss deadlines on their end? What kind of discretion do cities have?

Uh, Mayor Aleron, the uh, generally a lot of these laws also include deadlines on the applicant and then the city has its own uh, processing procedures and rules that require kind of regular resubmitts. Um, those can be punitive on the applicant if they fail to move forward with their project in a timely manner. Right. And that's to to preserve uh local resources. So for example, I mentioned the uh preliminary application requirement component earlier that has uh deadlines on an applicant to uh so for example, if you submitted a prelim an applicant submitted a preliminary application, they then have 180 days to submit a development application. They fail to do so, their preliminary application that froze the applicable standards uh goes away,

right? And then they also have an obligation to resubmit within 90 days every time the city responds to them with an incomplete um letter. So there are obligations on there state law obligations on applicants and then the city's own code and procedures generally has a a requirement that an applicant keep a project alive by resubmitting or providing information information uh within 90 every about 90 days or the city will typically reach out and close their application if it's they're not making progress um to preserve staff resources and municipal resources.

Great. And then one other question. Um Nick you mentioned earlier and vice mayor asked this question in terms of just how um you know when a developer submits an application we don't necessarily have the onus we can't say no we have to work or the city works with the developer and their planner in terms of in a way that's unbiased to review potential criteria. Um and I know you had mentioned in terms of uh the idea is to work with the developer in a way where not sway them into maybe what confir confirm conform with standards but um I think my question is up to what point right I'm thinking I'm hearing all of these housing laws how much um how little we have as a municipality to with our own laws. So, how much I guess I want to know I want to ensure that there's a balance, right? Given how busy the CDD department is, how much of our time and effort is spent trying to support a developer to conform to our standards and how much of that is is like kind of organically done when it goes to like the hearing or the next step in the process where it's either ARB or planning who's diving into the criteria itself. Sorry, that was probably a loaded question, but I'm just

uh I I appreciate it. It's a it's a good one. It's a good question here. Um okay, so I guess I have a few initial thoughts here. You know, to to some degree this happens with with every project. And I think we're seeing because of some of these changes in in state laws, particularly as it relates to housing projects, that you're seeing more of this work being, you know, frontloaded, if you will, uh through staff at kind of a staff level, um because of some of the limitations that have been placed on jurisdictions. So, for example, right, most of these housing projects now are limited to a maximum of five public hearings. And so what we used to maybe try to solve over a series of meetings with the architecture review board, now maybe we're limited to one or two hearings to try to solve these issues. And so because of that, staff spending more time upfront trying to fix as many of these issues and solve as much of this and make this project as best we can before we ever even let it get to a hearing because we don't want to waste those hearings on on, you know, numerous continuences or numerous uh iterations of the same project. So um it is I think perhaps unintentionally becoming more labor intensive on staff upfront you know frontloaded if you will. Um I also think that and this was I think part of your question right is is how much discretion do we have or at what point can we say you know no this project doesn't work for the city and I think that depends on a case-by case basis depending on which laws are being applied or in which manner. So, in some cases, um, you know, we at least in theory could still say, you know, no, this project's inconsistent with X, Y, and Z of our certified local coastal program, which at least for the time being continues to give us on paper at

least some some amount of protection. Um, that, you know, could be a tool to to push back on a project. Um in other cases we might be limited more narrowly to um health and safety type issues and and maybe with a very high bar for you know kind of demonstrating that there is a true health and safety type issue. I think in general we don't want to be put in a situation where where we would need to uh be recommending denial of a project and only relying on one narrow set of criteria or one issue area. I think right if we were um you know forced into that kind of situation we'd much rather to be able to site a variety of different criteria for why this project can't be supported. It doesn't have you know it has major health and safety um issues that that rise to that level of significance that are necessary to to satisfy state law and it's inconsistent with these key provisions of our you know local coastal program and the coastal act. something like that, I think, puts the city in a in a stronger position. Um, but again, right, that's that's still risky given kind of the uncertainty of some of these newer housing laws and how they've been uh decided by the courts. And so, you know, I think wherever we can, we're going to really try to avoid ending up in that scenario and keep pushing and working on an applicant towards refining a project to a place where where we can find it to be consistent. And maybe Mac or Cody might have more to weigh in there, but it's it's it's definitely tricky.

Um I think the one piece I would add is that um say it's a very narrow subset or almost no scenario in which staff is going to be a final decision maker on a on a large project. So, right to to Nick's point, um the the process becomes more front-loaded based on the deadlines that are imposed on the city under state housing law generally. Um but that being said, ultimately, you know, if if staff and the applicant could not come to an agreement about what a project would need to change to be found consistent or inconsistent and to have a staff recommendation to support ultimately, you know, your planning commission, architectural border and review, etc. are going to be reviewing that development application and and deciding whether or not it complies with the standards or whether or not uh staff's findings are are sufficient to approve or deny the project. Right? And so you're you all will have discretion to agree or disagree with staff um and their recommendations um subject to the limits imposed by by state housing law, right? And the risks uh associated with with that. Um, that being said, I guess the the main point I wanted to make there is that right in in a scenario that Nick's describing where staff is doing a lot of time frontloading and working with an applicant to try to get a better project. Um, they don't have discretion to to tell the applicant to withdraw their application or that they're not going to bring it to a decision maker. That's it's not within uh their purview. They don't have a final decision making authority there. nor do they have generally have the authority absent uh a deemed approve scenario um to approve a project um or I guess a a very specific framework in which uh staff is required is processes a project that meets a bunch of qualifying criteria that's a referred to like a use by right or a ministerial project um so like AB507

was an example right if st that is supposed to be intended to be a checklist style project where someone would come in they would we would review against the 12 pages I I talked about and say did you meet all 12 pages of these texts and that could be approved at the staff level for that type of project and and state state law is creating more categories of those projects every every year. Um but generally those are rarer than sort of the more traditional development review process that staff doesn't have final decision-m over.

Thank you. I appreciate your responses. Do we have any additional questions for staff? Seeing none, I will open up public comment. I do not have any public comment speaker slips. Do we have anyone via Zoom? Uh, mayor, we have no raised hands. I will close public comment and bring it back to the council for a motion. Um, I'll move to receive and file the report on new 2025 state housing laws. Second. We have a first and a second. Sorry about that. Didn't know you didn't have the form. What? Okay.

We're good. We have a motion. We have a first and a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you staff for all of your work on this presentation. You're very welcome.