Laserfiche WebLink
CITY ACTION NEEDED ON TWO BAD HOUSING/LAND USE BILLS AND AB 1866) <br /> <br />Despite the opposition of the League, the Califor- governments, and their taxpayers, to pay the attor- <br />nia State Association of Counties, the Amedcan heys fees of those who sue them. <br />Planning Association and numerous indMdual citJes, <br />two land use bills that would preempt local authority What city officials can do. City officials should <br />continue to move through the legislature, and could explain to single-family homebuilders and commer- <br />well end up on the Governor's desk. AB 2292 rial property developers in their community that this <br />(Dutra) recently passed off the Senate floor on a 23- bill could undermine their ability to gain the needed <br />10 vote, with Senator Joe Dunn as the floor jockey, approvals for their projects. For example, local <br />The bill is now on the Assembly Floor awaiting a vote governments will be reluctant to grant future land- <br />on concurrence with Senate amendments. The owner or developer requests to down zone or <br />other bill is AB 1866 (Wright). Despite an analysis rezone residentialpropar~y because the bill will <br />that cited costs to local governments "in the mil- expose them to lawsuits. Property owners request- <br />lions", the Senate Appropriations Committee voted lng these changes could be asked by local govern- <br />AB 1866 (Wright)off the Committee Suspense File. ments to either pumhase or identify the other prop- <br /> erty in the community that will be up zoned for <br />This year, over 280 cities stepped up and said housing, and penhaps to indemnify the local govem- <br />"no" to SB 910 (Dunn), a major effort to preempt ment from any lawsuit resulting from the down <br />local land use authority. Given the way these bills zoning or rezoning. This will have the effect of <br />are moving, it is clear that a similar level of effort handcuffing normal pdvate market and entrepreneur- <br />needs to be expended by cities. Make sure your iai forces. <br />Legislators know that you are aware of these Continued on Page 6 <br />two bills, and ask for their no votel Letters and <br />phone calls needed. City officials should also draft <br />and prepare to send letters to the Governor AB 2292 (Dutra) <br />requesting a Veto, because both bills could be on (1) prohibits a city or county from reducing <br />the Governor's desk within a matter of days. the residential density for any parcel below <br /> the density that was utilized by the Depart- <br />Sample city opposition letters on both AB 2292 ment of Housing in determining compliance <br />and AB 1866 are available on the League's Web site: with the jurisdiction's housing element by <br />www.cacities.org\leqtrackin.q, administrative, adjudicative, or legislative <br /> action, unless the city, county, or city and <br />The following summarizes the key impacts of county makes wdtten findings supported by <br />these bills, substantial evidence that the reduction is <br /> consistent with the adopted general plan, <br />AB 2292 (Dutra). Preemption of Local Author- including the housing element; (2) Declares <br />ity and Property Rights.' AB 2292: that these requirements shall be in addition <br /> to any other law that may restrict or limit the <br />This bill would removes beth discretion and reduction of residential density; and (3) <br />authority from local governments by "locking in" any Requires that if a court finds that an action <br />residential zoning used to comply with housing of a city, county, or city and county is in <br />element law for years at a time, and exposing a local violation of this bill, the court shall award the <br />government to lawsuits if it is later changed. This is plaintiff reasonable attorney fees and costs <br />clearly a shift of land use authority to the state, and of suit, except under extraordinary circum- <br />hampers the ability of local governments to respond stances in which the court finds that award- <br />to changing conditions in their communities. Fur- lng the fees would not further the purpose of <br />thermore, this bill restricts the freedom of a property this law. Staff: Daniel Carrigg, Status: <br />owner to obtain a desired down-zoning or rezoning AsmFIr, Position: Oppose. <br />of their property from a local government, and <br />provides an incentive for litigation by requiring local <br /> <br />Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities:org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 3 <br /> <br /> <br />