AgdaPkt 2006-04-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9A Page 6 S8 1177 from page 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The bill is jointly sponsored by the California Association of Realtors and California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA). It is one of a package of hous- ing bills sponsored by the Realtors, co-sponsored by CRLA. The other bills include: AB 2511 (Jones) Land Use Housing; AB 2526 (Arambula) Affordable Housing Developments; SB 1330 (Dunn) Attorney's Fees. Each of these bills would have a significant effect on local land use authority. Sen. Alan Lowenthal, the committee chair, and Sen. Christine Kehoe opposed passage of SB 1177. Other votes on the bill were: "Yes. - Cedillo, Ducheny, Dutton, Ashburn, Machado, Maldonado, Margett, McClintock, Runner, Soto and Torlakson. Sen. Simitìan was listed as "Not Voting." SB 1177 now moves to the Senate Floor, and will likely move on to the Assembly. S8 1177 Undercuts Community Standards SB 1177 removes the requirement under existing law that a developer show that a waiver is necessary to make the affordable units economically feasible. By doing so, it undercuts the ability of communities to implement their deveiopment standards and grants an advantage to certain developers without the minimum requirement of showing that the advan- tage is needed. The most onerous provision in this measure deletes the following sentence from existing law: "(f) the applicant shall show that the waiver or modification is necessary to make the housing units economically feasible. 11 By deleting this sentence, this measure com- pounds the damage already done to local communi- ties through the passage of several recent bills (AB 1866 - Wright of 2002, SB 1818 of 2004, and SB 435 of 2005) that have undermined the ability of communities to fairly balance competing policy needs. Developers should not be able to come into a community and dictate their own terms. Last year, SB 435 (Hollingsworth) contained a similar provision, as well as another provision which undermined local inclusionary zoning ordinances. Thanks to the leadership of Assemblymembers Gene Muflin, Simon Salinas and others, those changes were removed from the bill. Quality of Life Preserved and Improved by Local Planning Good land use planning is the key to retaining and improving local quality of life. Local govern- ments adopt their general plans after much commu- nity input. These community plans and local standards should not be diminished without consid- eration of the impacts of doing so. Increasing residential densities in projects by 35 percent will generate additional traffic and demands on schools, water, sewer and other needed infrastructure. Reducing setbacks may result in children forced to play in the streets. Eroding local architectural standards may leave the neighborhood with poor-quality construction and community eyesores. What Cities Can Do It is time to draw the line on the Legislature's erosion of local land use authority. Cities who are opposed to this measure are encouraged to take the following actions: 1 ) Send an opposition letter on the bill to your senator. (To view a copy of the League's letter, visit the SB 1177 page on the Bill Search section of the League's website at www.cacites.oralbilisearch.) 2) When the bill reaches the Senate Floor, ~ your senator and urge a "no" vote. Write and talk to your Assembly Member about your concerns as well. This bill is likely to move to the Assembly. 3) Review the other bills in the Realtor/CRLA package to determine what effect they will have on your community. They are: AB 2511, AB 2526 and SB 1330. 4) Have a discussion with local Realtor chapteI'ß about the role that local land use authority plays in preserving design stan- dards, protecting property values, support- ing community development efforts, and ultimately, protecting the quality of life in Continued on Page 8 PAGE 6 . PRIORITY FOCUS March 24, 2006 . Issue #12 Visit the League's Official Website..www.cacities.org