AgdaPkt 2002-10-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Governor Signs AB t866: Second Units and Density Bonuses Despite numerous veto request letters from local governments, and late opposition from several environmental groups and the Farm Bureau, the Governor signed AB 1866 which (1) eliminates local discretionary reviews of second unit applications, and (2) prohibits local governments from applying any local "development standard" which is defined as "any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter amendment, or other local law, po/icy, regulation or condition"that will have the effect of precluding the development of the density bonus units. To protect your local authority, local governments are advised to immediately prepare for the implementation of this legislation by considering significant revisions to their second unit ordinances in anticipation of having the ability to make local discretionary decisions removed, in addition, your city attorney should review the density bonus provisions immediately. The language passed by the Legislature is severely flawed, and is certain to lead to more lawsuits than housing. AB 2292 (Dutra) Anti-Down Zoning, Signed by the Governor Despite the lobbying effort by local govemments, AB 2292 (Durra) was signed by the Governor as Chapter 706, Statutes of 2002. This bill will expose local governments to lawsuits if they approve a down zoning or rezoning without ensuring that other lands are up zoned so that there is no net loss of multifamily-zoned land, at density levels approved by the Department of Housing in the jurisdiction's housing element. Any deviation from these requirements exposes a local government to lawsuits and mandatory attorneys fees. Although affordable housing advocates tout this measure as part of a solution to the decline in production of multifamily housing, it only works for those who subscribe to the theory that the reason that multi-family housing has dropped to such abysmally Iow production levels is because of local government and resident efforts to deny these units. The experience of many city officials, however, is that private developers - even for projects built in the middle of farmland --fait to demonstrate sufficient interest in building multifamily housing. Multifamily construction tends to be on the polar ends of the market: high upscale apartments or Iow-income units built with government subsidizes. Private developers often state that new duplexes, four-plexes, and larger apartments fail to "pencil out." Some have pointed to the effects of the 1986 Federal Tax Reform Act, construction defect litigation, the California Environmental Quality Act, and neighborhood resistance as reasons for this phenomenon. But often the most compelling factors are the extensive consumer surveys that demonstrate that the market demand -- and therefore the most profit potential -- in single-family detached construction. The effect of this legislation should be closely monitored. We believe it will reveal whether or not it makes sense to continue the current approach of centralized state planning for housing, driven by corn plex formulas and the mandate that every jurisdiction must do its '~air share" to meet an assigned number. If the housing advocates are right, and the problem with the market all along has been the recalcitrance of local governments, then presumably we should see a resurgence of private sector interest in building multifamily housing because land will be zoned Page 4 of 13