AgdaPkt 2004-04-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I .' . . . , . ,. - (0.2 e-I REPORT '-- To the Honorable Mayor and City Council From the City Manager April 12, 2004 Subject Resolution opposing Assembly Bill 2702 Recommendation Adopt a resolution opposing Assembly Bill 2702, authored by Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg Background Last year, Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg authored a measure (AB 1160) which sought to impose many onerous mandates on local second unit laws, to slash parking standards for density-bonus projects, and to remove local discretion over housing on school sites. That measure was prevented from advancing last year through the efforts of the League of California Cities, but the author has introduced a similar measure this year, AB 2702, '- which raises many of the same issues, and concerns. Less than nine months have passed since the effective date of AB 1866 (Wright), which required all second unit applications to be ministerial. It is illogical to reopen the second unit debate, let alone pass another bill in that regard, when the impacts of AB 1866 have not yet been evaluated. AB 2702 imposes a "one-size-fits-all" approach applied to every community in the State, while the legislature has neither investigated the effects of AB 1866, nor the topic of second units in any deliberative way. Therefore, it is important to oppose AB 2702 in order to prevent its attempt to dictate the specifics of local land use decisions. In regard to second units, AB 2702 does the following: 1) Repeals and completely revises existing second unit law, raising questions about the validity of all existing ordinances. 2) Mandates that second units be allowed in all residential zones. Currently local governments have flexibility to decide in which zones to allow second units. 3) Prohibits local governments from imposing height, setback, lot coverage, fees, and other requirements that may "unreasonably restrict" the rights of a property owner to construct and maintain a second unit on their property. This provision throws into question the validity of any generally applicable ordinance, provides property owners with the ability --- to question any provision of a local ordinance, and establishes potential "takings" claims against local governments.