AgdaPkt 2007-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 11 'sa 303' Continued from Page 1... Why the League Opposes 58 303 S8 303 assumes there is something broken in the planning process at a time when local agency compliance with housing laws are at an all time high-88 percent of Califomians live in a community determined by the Califomia Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to be "in compliance" with the state housing element law. Nevertheless, S8 303 seeks to require local agencies to zone for their entire Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) during their first year of the planning period. This "up front" zoning requirement does not make sense, particularly for infill development and built-out cities where it is diffICult to know which parcels may become available during the planning period. As a result, S8 303 is a recipe for sprawl because it is easier to do this kind of advance planning on vacant land and greenfields than it is in urban infill areas. In addition, the bill doesn't take into account other planning issues such as air quality or climate change. Most ironic, perhaps, is that SB 303 does not actually guarantee that more housing gets built. As the current "down" housing market demonstrates, just because a local agency plans for housing to get built does not mean that an application is actually submitted. Several other market factors, such as interest rates and the economy, have a more significant effect on the market. A recent amendment of SB 303 attempted to address another criticism of the bill - that it lacks a sufficient plan to pay for the mandate. The amendment taps Proposition 84 planning money for a revolving fund to offset local planning costs. The idea is that the fund would front the money to local government for the zoning costs. Local governments would pay back the fund by imposing fees on developers. There are at least three problems with this approach, however. First, the voters intended that more be done with the Prop. 84 funds than housing element compliance. Second, because in most cases what actually gets built falls short of what is planned for, the amount collected will always fall short of what it cost to do the planning. Finally, other legislative vehicles-such as AB 1253 (Caballero) and SB 732 (Steinberg)-have made different designations for the Prop. 84 funds. Take Actionl Cities are encouraged to write Sen. Oucheny opposing this measure, with a "cc" to your Assembly Member, and League Legislative Representative Bill Higgins. A sample letter is available by looking up S8 303 using the league of California Cities Web site's bill search program, located at www.cacities.ofQ/billsearch. 'seA 12' Continued from Page 1... Authored by Sen. Tom Torlakson, SCA 12 was introduced on May 21. The amendment would be helpful for cities, as over the years, cities have grappled with how to fund storm water programs in order to meet the requirements of new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by regional water quality control boards. 'Some cities are faced with using scarce general fund money to support these important water quality programs in light of the restrictions placed upon them by Proposition 218. Existing law, established by approval of the voters of Proposition 218, requires local voter approval of certain property related fees. Proposition 218 exempts certain types of fees. such as those for water, sewer and garbage, from the voter approval requirement of Proposition 218. 2