AgdaPkt 2003-06-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Y- )qro Legislative Bill Action ................................ ............................... general plans statewide to identify 20 -year urban growth boundaries, and adopt inclusionary zoning statewide. While many local governments have adopted growth limits and over 100 local jurisdic- tions have imposed local inclusionary housing ordinances, the League opposed the one- size -fits- all approach outlined in AB 1268 These provi- sions, however, were stripped from the bill in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and re- placed with intent language. The bill will go to the floor as a spot bill. Staff: Dan Carrigg, Status: AsmFlr. Position: Watch. SB 619 (Ducheny). Land Use Authority. No Public Hearings /Litigation. Although recent amendments have improved this bill over its earlier versions —with the previous "no public hearings" language reduced to intent language and the provisions related to attorneys fees and damages redrafted —two significant issues re- main. First, the League is concerned with provi- sions of SB 619 that authorize a lawsuit to be filed and mandate attorney fees against a local govem- ment that fails to provide an annual report on the status of its general plan to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). This provision has the potential to create an extensive new enforcement process in housing element law related to the submittal and substan- tial compliance of annual reports by local govern- ments. Further, it is also ironic that since 1994, HCD has not complied with the statutory mandate to develop forms to submit these reports. SB 619 would create an atmosphere where "any inter- ested person" could file lawsuits and collect attorney's fees over the tardiness of a report. Finally, given the status of the state budget, the state is not reimbursing local governments for the mandated costs to complete these reports. In addition, SB 619 would modify the definition of discrimination to include denial "or conditioning" of a residential development based in "whole or in part" on the occupancy of the development by persons and families of low and moderate in- come. As written, this language appears to imply a city could be engaged in discrimination if it requires a certain percentage of a housing devel- opment be reserved for persons and families of low and moderate income as a condition of devel- opment approval –in other words, if the locality has an inclusionary zoning ordinance. The League maintains that this language should be clarified to prevent this provision from inadvertently being applied to inclusionary zoning ordinance require- ments. SB 619 is currently pending on the Senate floor, and cities are urged to share their opposition to the bill with their legislators, and the Assembly Housing Committee. Staff: Dan Carrigg, Status: SenFlr, Position: Oppose Unless Amended. SB 18 (Burton). Sacred Sites. In its current form, SB 18 simply makes several minor changes to the existing law that outlines the authority vested in the Native American Heritage Commission. However, the legislation is a spot bill which could be used to incorporate language reminiscent of last year's SB 1828 (Burton), which was vetoed by the Governor in 2002. SB 1828 would have imposed a number of new, problematic notification requirements on lead agencies considering projects near Native American sacred sites, and would have curtailed local land use authority. Earlier this year, the Administration circulated a draft proposal, that was rejected by the tribes. A new version is currently circulating. While it's unclear what could be included in SB 18 this year, the bill was recently approved by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife. It now awaits action on the Senate floor, and cities are strongly urged to monitor this legislation as it moves along. Staff: Dan Carrigg, Status: SenFlr, Position: Actively Monitor for Changes. AB 51 (Simitian). General Plans, Distribu- tion of Child Care Facilities. AB 51 requires cities and counties to address the distribution of child care facilities as part of the land use element in their general plans. The bill is essentially a reintroduction of AB 2954, which was vetoed last year by the Governor. The Building Child Care Collaborative established by the State Department of Education recommended that cities and coun- PAGE 10/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site -- www.cacities.org