AgdaPkt 2004-01-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

AB 1160 EXPECTED TO BE SET FOR HEARING ON JANUARY 14, 2004. BILL SPONSOR, THE CA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, DRAFTS NEW LANGUAGE. It is clear now that an interim hearing on AB 1160 lng and Community Development in January, and will not take p~ace, it is League staff's understanding possibly beyond the Assembly Housing Committee that the sponsc'rs of the bill, the California Association later next year. This measure was part of a package of Realtors, are v~orking on a new draft of the legisla- of controversial land use bills that were stopped due tion that would change some or all of AB 1160. How- to a "moratorium" agreed to by the chairs of various ever the sponsors of the legislation have not, to date, committees while broader discussions of housing shared the substance of the amendments with the element reforms were occurring. However, based League, claiming only that the new amendments have upon discussion with Assembly staff, it appears that been drafted to specifically address what they con- the author may attempt to move the bill when it sider to be "poison pills" included in local ordinances reaches the Assembly. Therefore, it is important that that limit second unit construction based on a survey cities take a position on this legislation sooner rather their association recently conducted on second units, than later. The specific city ordinances, however, have not been identified. As soon as the League gains access to the SB 744 gives the California Department of proposed changes or the results of the survey Housing and Community Development (HCD) the conducted by the organization, we will pass the authority to overturn local land use decisions after information along to cities, headng appeals from housing development appli- cants who were previously denied approval or Therefore, a new version of AB 1160 is expected granted approval with conditions by a local agency. to be heard in committee January 14"'. Cities con- HCD is empowered to overrule local decisions that it cerned about this issue should: views as "not reasonable or consistent with local housing needs." 1. Contact their legislator and members of the Assembly Housing and Community Development The League is concerned with SB 744 because it Committee for the first time, or as a follow-up to pdor transfers significant local land use authority to HCD, communications and urge them to vote "NO" on AB by giving the Department the authority to order local 1160 in spite of any new amendments. Regardless of governments to approve projects or remove condi- the content of the latest proposal from the California tions, even when the decision by the local govern- Association of Realtors, the fact remains that commu- ment was legally valid. For instance, SB 744 would nities have had little time to assess the impact of AB make it possible for developers to challenge condi- 1866. In addition, with the loss of VLF revenues and tions imposed on a project at the local level which local budgets currently under siege, the value of they believe are "infeasible." HCD would be able to spending scarce resources to amend an ordinance override these local conditions if they felt they were that was updated just last year is questionable, unreasonable and inconsistent with meeting local housing needs. Unfortunately, no state "conditions" 2. Plan to attend the Assembly Housing and that affect housing cost -- such as recently imposed Community Development hearing on January 14"'. prevailing wage requirements -- are on the table. Although the bill is expected to be heard in Committee Besides the loss of local authority, this level of state on January 14"', before coming to Sacramento cities oversight is unwarranted. Developers who believe are advised to consult with the committee or with that a local government has unjustly treated their League staff to confirm the hearing date. projects currently have recourse to the courts under Anti-Nimby Law [Section 65589.5 of the Government If you have additional questions, visit the Code]. League's Housing website at www.ca¢ities.orq/hced. Cities concerned with SB 744 should send letters Don't Fomet SB 744 ~Dunn} of opposition. A sample opposition letter can be Although action on SB 744 (Dunn) was delayed found on the League's website at www.cacities.orq/ last year, we strongly urge cities to go on record in hced. If you have any additional questions, please opposition to the bill. It's likely the author will try to contact Dan Carrigg or Jessica Mullan with the move the bill from the Senate to the Assembly Hous- League. Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 3