AgdaPkt 2003-05-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A-i3 Legislative Bill Action ................................ ............................... HOUSING AND LAND USE SB 178 (Cedillo) Rent Control. Inclusionary Zoning. Over 100 local governments have adopted some form of inclusionary zoning measure to require a specified percentage of new housing units con- structed in a community to be affordable to house- holds in defined income categories. SB 178 clarifies that local inclusionary zoning ordinances are not covered under state rent control law. This clarifica- tion is consistent with the legislative intent of the Costa/ Hawkins Act when it was adopted. This legislation is necessary because some property -rights groups have begun to raise state rent control law as an issue when they challenge local inclusionary zoning ordinances. Any city that has an inclusionary zoning ordinance, or is considering adopting one, should send a letter of support on this bill. City officials interested in inclusionary zoning as a means of developing additional affordable housing, may also be interested in the recently released California Inclusionary Housing Reader, published by the League's Institute for Local Self Government at www.ilsg.org. SB 178 was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 8. Since it is not a fiscal bill it moves directly to the Senate floor, where it awaits further action. Staff: Dan Carrigg, Status: SenFlr, Position: Support. AB 1192 (Dutra Density Reduction. Developer Relief. AS 1192 would prevent local governments from requiring that developers play a role in identify- ing a suitable site to be up -zoned to make up the difference in units lost when they want to pursue a building project with a lower density than a zone specifies. This bill is a follow -up measure to last year's AB 2292 (Dutra). c. 706, Statutes of 2002, which restricts the ability of local governments to downzone. Under most circumstances, AB 2292 made it difficult to reduce residential density on a parcel beyond the level utilized by the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine whether the community was in compliance with housing element law; and, requires local governments to make onerous findings, and concurrently identify tes to be upzoned. This measure has proved troublesome to both local governments and develop ers. The California Building Association sponsored AB 1192 to clean up this law, but some of the proposed language makes the law worse for local governments, by prohibiting local governments from requiring developers seeking to downzone from playing a role in finding sites to be upzoned. This responsibility is more important now than ever since state law — through last year's AR 2292 — threatens lawsuits against the local government if alternate sites are not concurrently identified. Moreover, AB 1192 is contrary to land use laws and court decisions that reaffirm the right of local governments to impose conditions on development to mitigate the impacts the project may have on the community. The League continues to work with the sponsor in an attempt to craft language that strikes a balance between the concern over unjustified local dowzoning, and the practical realities faced by both local govern- ments and housing developers at the parcel level. AD 1_,19 was approved by the Assembly Local Govern- ment Committee on May 1, and since it is not a fiscal bill moves to the Assembly floor where it awaits further action. Staff: Dan Carigg, Status: AsmFlr, Posi- tion: Oppose. AB 1426 (Steinberg). Sacramento Region: Affordable Housing Standard. AB 1426 creates a pilot affordable housing production program for cities and counties in the Sacramento region. All jurisdictions are essentially required to participate and produce at least 10 percent of all issued building permits as affordable units. The bill also outlines actions communities must take in order to produce more affordable housing. Although negotiations between the author and cities in the region continue, the language in this legislation is extremely confusing, and there is a growing division among affected local governments. Key concerns with the bill focus on its mandated production standard, without including the projected $500 million in subsidies required to meet this level of production. In addition, penalties await local governments which fail to meet these standards. Absent state resources, many jurisdictions would be forced to levy heavy fees and adopt stringent inclusionary zoning ordinances to meet the mandates of the bill. Although the legislation applies to the Sacramento region, the League remains concerned that AB 1426 Visit the League's Official Web Site -- www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 13