My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2005-06-13
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2005
>
AgdaPkt 2005-06-13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/12/2005 10:46:49 AM
Creation date
6/9/2005 3:54:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
6/13/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />tf/l- '" <br /> <br />S8 435 from page 1 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <br /> <br />The bill undercut those communities that had <br />already done the most to increase densities and <br />streamline development requirements. Local <br />governments were also concerned that develop- <br />ers-through the bill's confusing ratio system, which <br />required specified density bonuses and conces- <br />sions to be provided to developers building only <br />five percent of units at very low income- would <br />attempt to use this law to evade local inclusionary <br />zoning programs. <br /> <br />Since its enactment, SB 1818 has created much <br />uncertainty and confusion among local planners <br />and attorneys as to how to implement its provisions, <br />and harmonize them with other state laws and local <br />requirements. Some jurisdictions have even down <br />zoned areas of high-density zoning so that devel- <br />opers could not be in position to demand densities <br />that exceeded existing infrastructure. Other co~ <br />munities - especially those that had made prior <br />efforts to streamline development requirements - <br />were forced to reconsider the effect of developers <br />being arbitrarily entitled to three additional conces- <br />sions. <br /> <br />This year's SB 435 (Hollingsworth), sponsored <br />again by CAR and the CRLAF, compounds upon <br />the flaws of the earlier measure by: <br /> <br />1) Requiring local governments to provide a <br />fourth concession, when the developer uses less <br />than 50 percent of the density bonus. <br />2) Removing the existing requirement for a <br />developer to demonstrate that a requested waiver <br />or reduction in development standards is neces- <br />sary to make the units economicAlly feasible. <br />3) Deleting some key language in the law that <br />city attorneys were using as a defense against the <br />law's applicability to local inclusionary zoning <br />programs. <br /> <br />The League, along with the American Planning <br />Association and the California State Association of <br />Counties, have been meeting with the.sponsor's <br />representatives over several months to determi!le if <br />a satisfactory solution could be reached with the <br />language in both this bill as well as problems <br />created by existing law. So far, however, there has <br />not been sufficient progress made and therefore, <br />cities need to be alerted that SB 435 will be heard <br />in the Assembly Housing and Community Develop- <br /> <br />ment Committee on Wednesday, June 15. If it <br />passes that committee, the bill has also been <br />double referred to the Assembly Local Government <br />Committee where it is anticipated it would be heard <br />on June 29. <br /> <br />The League opposes SB 435 and encourages <br />concerned cities are to write letters and contact <br />their legislators to educate them about local issues <br />related to both sa 1818 and. this SB 435. A copy of <br />the League's opposition letter is available online at <br />the League's Advocacy Center, www.cacities.orv/ <br />advocacvcenter. <br /> <br />MI: ~'.,i.f!! !'c~ ~ !mt!. ~!!!. ~~!!~!'. <br /> <br />c,AC' <br /> <br />The following are summariesof just a few of <br />the legislative bills that are currently being <br />acted upon by the League of California <br />Citie:.>. For more information about these and <br />other bills, please visit the League <br />website's new "Issues and Advocacy" <br />page (www.cacities.org/ <br />issuesand~dvocacv) - a one-stop location <br />, to access information about legislation, <br />policy issues and related developments. You <br />can track information on bills <br />(www.cacities.org/legtracking), locate legisla- <br />tors and legislative committees, send letters <br />to legislators or the media through the online <br />Advocacy Center, research League policy <br />positions, access useful related links, and <br />much more. <br /> <br />REVENUE: AND TAXA T~ON. <br /> <br />~jL3§~ (Huff) Utility Users Taxes: Exemp- <br />tion. AB343 would require that local jurisdictions, <br />including cities, exempt compressed natural gas <br />used by a local. agency or school district for trans- <br />portation from utility users tax, as specified. Utility <br />users tax (UUT) is a loca!!y administered revenue <br />source. City officials are most familiar with the <br />needs and demands withÏi, their local community <br />and are the best judges of how local taxes should <br />be applied. <br /> <br />PAGE a/PRIORITY FOCUS <br /> <br />Visit the League's Official Website n www.cacities.org <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.