Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A TTORNEV GENERAL from page 1 . . . . . <br />On May 19, Attorney General Bill Lockyer <br />issued Opinion 03-104, which stated that'the <br />number of housing units identified by a community <br />does not need to be identical to the community's <br />total share of the regional housing needs, if the <br />community's share of the regional housing needs <br />exceeds the resources available to the community. <br /> <br />In his analysis, the primary legal issue then <br />became whether or not federal and state-housing <br />funds should be considered resources available to <br />a community. Citing Government Code Section <br />65583, subdivision (b)(2) , Lockyer found that <br />federal and state housing funds constitute some of <br />the resources of a community, and that other <br />resources had to be considered before a commu- <br />nity could establish a lower number of maximum <br />housing units. <br /> <br />The Attorney General concluded that: <br /> <br />"A community may establish its maximum <br />number of housing units by income category tf¡at <br />can beconstrueled, rehabilitated, and consarved <br />over the next five-year period below the number of <br />housing units that would meet the community's goal <br />of achieving its share of the regional housing needs <br />established pursuant to the Planning and Zoning <br />Law, if the community finds that its available re- <br />sources in the aggregate, including but not limited <br />to federal and state funds for its housing programs, <br />its own local funds, tax or é/ensity credits, and other <br />affordable housing programs, are insufficient to' <br />meet those needs. " <br /> <br />However, it is important to note that while the <br />Attorney General's opinion recognizes there may <br />be limited instances where the maximum number of <br />housing units may be less than the assigned' <br />, regional number, local agencies taking this a¡r <br />proach should proceed cautiously. The opinion <br />also noted that local agencies taking such an <br />approach will have to defend their housing number <br />under the "substantial evidence" standard (under <br />Gov't Code section 65587) if challenged in court. <br /> <br />To view the Attorney General's complete opin- <br />ion, visit the League's website at: www.cacities.ora/ <br />planninQ. <br /> <br />&-/.1' <br /> <br />.1: ~,.i.!!!!I. ~! !.f!. ~!! ! . ~':!!C?!'. <br /> <br />The following are summaries of just a few of <br />the legislative bills that are currently being <br />acted upon by the League of California <br />Cities. 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 />issuesandadvocacv) - 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 />HOUSING <br /> <br />SB 365 (Ducheny) Affordable Housing. <br />This bill \NOuld apply to charter cities provisions in <br />existing law which require that a multifamily <br />residential housing project is a permitted use not <br />subject to a conditional use permit on any parcel <br />zoned for multi-family housing. It \NOuld also apply <br />existing law to charter cities which requires each <br />public agency or private eniity that provides water <br />services at retail or sewer services give priority for <br />the provision of available and future resources or <br />services to proposed housing development that <br />help a jurisdiction meet their share of the RHNA <br />numbers for low-income households. Charter <br />cities should review this bill for possible impacts. <br />Staff: Dan Carrigg; Status: AsLG, Hearing <br />June 15; Position: Review and Comment. <br /> <br />SB 575 (Torlakson) Housing Development <br />Projects. This bill would revise the conditions <br />under state Anti-NIMBY Law upon which a disap- <br />proval or conditional approval of a housing devel- <br />opment project is based. The League had many <br />concerns with the introduced version of this bill. <br />Based upon our concerns, Senator Torlakson <br />agreed to amend out (March 29 version) the most <br />controversial language so that a \NOrking group <br /> <br />Visit the League's Official Website--www.cacities.org <br /> <br />PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 5 <br />