AgdaPkt 2002-03-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Legislative Bill Action In reality, aside from issues of local control, AB interest development with density bonus law, the bill 2292 places a great burden on individual property requires developers to agree to, and the city, county, or owners who will have zoning on their properties city and county to ensure, continued affordability of frozen in a time capsule for an entire housing the Iow- and moderate-income units that are directly element cycle--no matter what changes at the local related to the receipt of the density bonus for 10 years level--because if the property owner's request is (as opposed to the existing 30-year affordability accommodated, then the local government is ex- requirement). posed to a lawsuit over housing element compliance. Staff: Dan Carrigg, Status: AsLG, AsJud, Position: The theme is familiar: local democratic discre- Oppose. tion must be done away for the larger good. Second units are a great form of housing, and more should AB 1866 (Wright). State Pre-emption of Local be encouraged, but is removing all local discretion Authority. Second Units and Density Bonuses. AB the answer? Local ordinances seek to find the 1866: (1) restricts a local government's authority balance points that reflect their communities. In over the creation of second units on parcels zoned one community, parking is a big issue, in another it's for a single-family or multifamily residence, by the history or character of a community. The ordi- establish!rig the approval of a second unit as a nances reflect, as expected in a democratic society, ministerial decision, without discretionary review, if the spectrum of viewpoints. This one-size-fits-all the unit meets the requirements of the local proposal will force local governments to overhaul government's existing second unit ordinance; (2) their second unit ordinances to attempt to anticipate permits developers to obtain a density bonus and every conceivable issue in advance of their discre- concessions from a local government, even if the tion being removed. developer builds no affordable housing; and (3) requires the above laws and provisions apply to a AB 1866 also appears to bring the concept of city, county, or city and county in a coastal zone, but density bonus law full circle. The reason the law was states that this provision is declarative of existing established was to address developers who com- law. plained that they could not build affordable housing because it didn't "pencil out." The Legislature Further, AB 1866 requires that a developer who responded with the quid-por-quo. If developers agrees to reserve density bonus units for lower agree to build affordable housing their costs would income housing be exempt from any ordinance, be offset by providing increased density and conces~ general plan element, other local law, policy, or sions. Developers have not used the law much to regulation, or from the imposition of any condition build affordable housing, so now they want the same that would, by its terms or effects, preclude the benefits and concessions without producing the construction of the development at the densities or affordable housing. But now if they do build the with the concessions or incentive5 permitted under affordable housing, they want waivers from all local existing law. In addition, the bill specifies that if Iow- laws and policies that might interfere with their and moderate-income units are built in a common project. Staff: Dan Carrigg, Status: AsHou&ComDev;Hrg-4/10, AsLG, Position: Oppose. eglslat]ve Action Days ':' ac a ento ali o nia "' e aton an otel Watch your mail ~or registration materials and look for updates i~ Mum issues o~ ~riority Foc,]s. Visit the League's Official Web Site-- PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 5 www.cacities.org