My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2003-03-24
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2003
>
AgdaPkt 2003-03-24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/24/2017 11:45:13 AM
Creation date
3/20/2003 3:13:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Agency Type
City Council
Date
3/24/2003
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
366
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
6-A -12 <br />Legislative Bill Action <br />................................ ............................... <br />positive, no housing funds are provided, and it is a <br />bit unclear which specific funds are targeted and <br />how this provision affects the priorities that already <br />apply to other funds. <br />Clearly, this bill raises concerns over a trans- <br />fer of local land use authority to the state, by <br />empowering a committee at HCD to order local <br />governments to approve projects or remove <br />conditions. Developers who believe that their <br />projects have been unjustly treated by a local <br />government already have recourse to the courts <br />under Anti -Nimby Law, Section 65589.5 of the <br />Government Code, which requires a judge —a <br />neutral pa"o decide if the local government <br />has complied with the law. This bill, however, <br />appears to give developers the ability to direct <br />appeals to a committee, instead of a neutral judge. <br />Furthermore, this bill enables developers to <br />challenge conditions imposed on a development <br />at the local level which they believe are "infea- <br />sible." The HAC would be able to override these <br />conditions if they felt they were unreasonable and <br />inconsistent with meeting local housing needs. <br />No state conditions which affect housing cost, <br />however, such as recently imposed prevailing <br />wage requirements, are on the table. Cities <br />should review this measure carefully. This mea- <br />sure will be reviewed at the upcoming League <br />policy meeting of the Housing, Community, and <br />Economic Development Committee. Staff: Dan <br />Carrigg, Status: Likely Assignment: <br />SenHou &ComDev, Position: Review and Com- <br />ment. <br />AB 1160 (Steinberg). Second Units /Density <br />Bonuses /Housing on School Sites. AB 1160 is <br />a follow -up to last year's AB 1866 (Wright) spon- <br />sored by the California Association of Realtors and <br />low- income legal aid advocates. This bill does <br />three things: <br />Second Units Last year's measure, AB 1866, <br />made the second unit review and approval pro- <br />cess entirely ministerial, but continued to allow <br />local governments flexibility in identifying the <br />zones, development standards, and other criteria <br />through local ordinances. This measure <br />• Requires local governments to permit second <br />units in all residential zones, but impose greater <br />restrictions in certain zones. <br />• Prohibits local governments from applying <br />standards or conditions which are not "objective' <br />or would preclude the construction of second units <br />at a defined affordable housing cost (an income- <br />based formula applied to state subsidized hous- <br />ing, including criteria for extremely low income <br />households at 30 percent of 30 percent of median <br />income). This requirement may be waived if the <br />local government makes a finding that either the <br />local standard or condition is not required to allow <br />a unit to be developed at affordable housing cost, <br />or making a narrow specified finding. <br />• Prohibits a local ordinance from requiring an <br />owner - occupant to live on the property in either the <br />primary dwelling or second unit. <br />• Prohibits a local ordinance from restricting the <br />rent or income of occupants, or occupancy based <br />upon age, unless required by a local rent control <br />ordinance, or inclusionary zoning policies. <br />• Increases the minimum permittable size of a <br />second unit to at least 400 square feet. Imposes <br />maximum sizes of either 40 percent of the existing <br />dwelling or 1,200 square feet. <br />• Prohibits a local ordinance from requiring more <br />than one parking space for every two bedrooms. <br />Prohibits a local ordinance from requiring covered <br />parking. Requires off - street, on street, and tan- <br />dem parking to be permitted. Allows a second unit <br />applicant to request an additional 50 percent <br />reduction (one -space per three bedrooms) of the <br />above parking requirements If the unit is within <br />one -half mile of a rail station, or the intersection of <br />two or more major bus routes. <br />Density Bonus Requires a local government <br />to grant a 25 percent reduction in parking stan- <br />dards, and a 50 percent reduction If the project is <br />within one -half mile of a rail station, or the inter- <br />section of two or more major bus routes. Ex- <br />PAGE 12 /PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site-- www.cacities.org <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.