AgdaPkt 2003-03-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A24 Legislative Bill Action ................................ ............................... This bill is a follow -up measure to AB 229 (Dutral c. 706, Statutes of 2002, which prohibited a local government from reducing, requiring, or permitting the reduction of the residential density for any parcel below the density that was utilized by the Department of Housing and Community Devel- opment in determining compliance with housing element law unless the local government made an onerous finding, and ensured that there was no net loss of city available sites and densities. The local government findings are vulnerable to lawsuits and mandated attorney's fees. The League opposed that measure based upon the loss of local zoning authority, and the limitations involved by requiring the concurrent identification or upzoning of other sites. This bill, sponsored by the California Building Industry Association seeks to prohibit a local government from proposing any obligations on a developer to identify or upzone another site. This proposal appears contrary to land use laws and court decisions that emphasize the right of local governments to impose conditions to mitigate the impacts of a development on a community. If developers want to build monster homes on a multifamily site, then why should they be excluded from a role in identifying the site to be upzoned? This question is even more critical now that state law — through last year's AB 2292 — threatens lawsuits against the local government if the alter- nate sites are not concurrently identified. Last year's bill was based on the assumption that local governments always want to downzone; this bill is based on the reality that it is the developer who often wants to downzone. This measure will be reviewed at the upcoming League policy meeting of the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee. Staff: Dan Carrigg, Status: Assigned to Senate Housing Committee and Rules Committee, Position: Re- view and Comment SO 293 (Brulte) Development Fees. This bill Prohibits "monetary charges or exactions" on a development or construction activity, as defined. The bill would provide that its provisions would not apply to specified fees. This bill prohibits a local government from imposing a monetary charge or exaction on a development or construction activity for general revenue purposes. Existing law authorizes a local agency to charge a variety of fees in connection with the approval of a development project, as defined. Existing law provides that in specified actions imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. This bill sponsored by the California Building Industry Association is aimed at limiting recent creative fees and assessments —such as a recent assessments imposed by the City of Elk Grove — imposed upon developers to fund ongoing local services. Please have your city attorney carefully review this bill for impacts on your city's ability to impose fees and assessments on new develop- ment. This measure will be reviewed at the upcoming League policy meeting of the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Commit- tee. Staff: Dan Carrigg, Status: Assigned to Senate Local Government Committee, Set May 7 ", Position: Review and Comment ENVIRONMENTAL SO 196 (Kuehl). Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Municipal Members. SB 196 sponsored by the League, would clarify that individuals who serve on a regional water quality control board in the "associated with a municipal govemment" -slot shall be a mayor or council member. The bill would apply to new appointees, not to existing board members. The League believes that it is important for individuals serving in this position be a mayor or council member in order to bring a true city perspective to the deliberations of a regional board. Currently, of the nine regional boards, three have mayor or council members in the municipal government Position, four have non - mayors or council members in that position, and two are vacant. PAGE 10 /PRIORITY FOCUS the