|
9A
<br />Page 11
<br />+,`.+ t„r w :.r <f ~ ~ i',~1:'~ e ~~g" fi,~, f,'>, i .re a~ ~. .w n & s ~n ~ i ,. ~ a ~ s w~ H,~ :~ +~ s,~ ~ _. ~ a ~ ... ~ a _...., n ~..r ~k rca x .. r. .r ,. u 8, ..
<br />This Building Industry Association (BIA)-spon-
<br />sored bill is an attempt to create more certainty in the
<br />entitlement process for developers, which in itself
<br />may be a worthy policy goal. The bill's approach is
<br />flawed, however, because like so many state man-
<br />dates, SB 303 creates a narrow "one-size-fits-all"
<br />solution that will be difficult to unworkable in many
<br />cities and counties because it takes the seriously
<br />broken existing RHNA process and simply makes its
<br />much, much worse.
<br />SB 303 would double the planning period (from
<br />five to 10 years} for the RHNA. At the same time, the
<br />bill would require local agencies to pre-zone their
<br />housing need for the entire 10-year period. In addi-
<br />tion, SB 303 would require that every single site be
<br />analyzed to ensure that the size, configuration, use,
<br />physical and environmental characteristics, adjacent
<br />uses, market demand, and infrastructure will "realisti-
<br />cally accommodate" the planned density of the
<br />parcel .
<br />As a result, each site will have to be visited and
<br />surveyed for all of these characteristics. It will be a
<br />massive and costly mandate that will make infill
<br />housing less feasible in the future because of the
<br />higher infrastructure and other public and private
<br />costs associated with them. The effect of this bill will
<br />be to undercut popular local and regional efforts in
<br />recent years to steer housing development to infill
<br />areas.
<br />Potential Impact of SB 303
<br />Below is a technical summary of SB 303's
<br />impact on local governments if passed:
<br />• Analyze and Pre-Zone 10-Year Supply of
<br />Land For Residential Development. Requires
<br />every single site identified fora 10-year supply of
<br />land for housing to be analyzed by the local govern-
<br />ment to ensure that the size, configuration, current
<br />use, physical and environmental constraints, ac-
<br />cess, location, adjacent use...planned availability of
<br />infrastructure and services will "realistically accom-
<br />modate" the density zoned for the parcel.
<br />This will be a massive and costly undertaking.
<br />Each site in a community would have to be visited
<br />and surveyed for all of the above listed issues.
<br />Once analyzed, the 10-year supply will have to be
<br />zoned properly for that type of housing development.
<br />• Encourages Sprawl and Discourages
<br />Infill and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD).
<br />Requires the focal government to attest that for each
<br />site there exists "market demand for the density and
<br />type of housing." This will not only be costly, it will
<br />also create slowest-common-denominator focus on
<br />housing. Private developers often maintain that infill
<br />development "does not pencil out" while traditional
<br />subdivisions on the edge of cities do.
<br />League Position
<br />The League opposes SB 303 because it is an
<br />expensive mandate that will discourage infill develop-
<br />ment, encourage sprawl, and penalize all cities-
<br />urban, suburban and rural-and dramatically under-
<br />cutlocal control of residential development in the
<br />future.
<br />Further, the measure fails to balance this empha-
<br />sis on housing with other important state and local
<br />planning priorities, such as protecting open space
<br />and farmland, improving air quality, promoting infill-
<br />centered development, manufacturing and high-tech
<br />jab development and maximizing the investment in
<br />existing infrastructure.
<br />This will undercut local and regional efforts to
<br />steer housing development to infill areas, promote
<br />transit oriented development, and develop and
<br />incentivize regional blueprints for guiding growth.
<br />• Discourages Public Involvement. Re-
<br />moves opportunities for public comment and review
<br />by locking in planning and zoning on each site for 10
<br />years, and allowing only changes consented to by
<br />the developer, or through a narrow health or safety
<br />finding which may only be adopted by a four-fifths
<br />vote. This places significant barriers to community
<br />participation in the planning process.
<br />t:;caratfrxa.~ecic7r~t~~~~~ .,
<br />PAGE 4 • PRIORITY FOCUS
<br />March 16, 2007 -issue #11
<br />Visit the League's Official Website--www.cacities.org
<br />
|