HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 02/23/2004CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA BILL
y
- -nfJ�� r u'�.
Fe brua ry 0
Qerida.Title: Resolution Approving Letter of Opposition to
Meetina Date: February 23, 2004
Pnate Bill 744 (Dunn), which would give the California
epartment of Housing :& Community Development authority to
Meeting Time ® 3 :00 PM
overturn local land use decisions.
❑ 7:00 PM
Category (check one) ❑ Consent Calendar ❑' Public Hearing ® New Business
❑ Unfinished Business ❑. Presentation
Department
Director
Contact Person
Phone Number
City Manager
Michael Biennan
Michael Bierman
778 -4345
Cost of Proposal n/a
Account Number
Amount Budgeted n/a
Name of Fund:
Attachments to Agenda Packet. Item
1. Draft letter opposing SB 744 legislation.
2. Resolution
3. Bill history, Senate vote
Text of SB 744, as amended
MR
Senate Bill analysis
Summary Statement The Senate approved SB 744 (Dunn) on January 26 2004, and it is now in the
Assembly. This bill establishes, within the :State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD), a procedure to hear appeals from developers of affordable housing that have had a project denied
or have had conditions placed on'it that would make the project financially unfeasible. HCD is empowered
to overrule local decisions that it views as "not reasonable or consistent with local housing needs ". The bill
also allows HCD to charge a fee to recover actual costs.
SB 744 would transfer local land use authority to the state, and place the interests of developers over the
interests of the communities and their elected representatives. Under this legislation, even if the conditions
imposed by a local goveriunent are legally valid, they may still be overturned based upon a political
decision by the Department. This measure also ignores the effects of recent state - imposed conditions such
as prevailing wage requirements, which can increase the costs of affordable housing by over 20 percent..
Recommended' City Council Action/Suagested Motion
Approval resolution opposing SB 744.
Reviewed by Finance Director:
Reviewed by City Attorney
Approved lW ity Manager:
Date:
Be--
Date:
. 1
Date:
97
Today's Date
Revision 9 and Date Revised:
—
File Code:
r
1
Pr'�
date
The Honorable Joe Nation
State Assembly, 6"' District
3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 412
San Rafael, CA 94903
RE: SB 744 (Dunn) HCD State Housing Accountability Committee
Notice of Opposition
Dear Assemblymember Nation:
The City of Petaluma opposes SB 744 (Dunn),: because.the bill gives the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) the
authority to overturn local land use decisions after hearing appeals from housing
development applicants who were previously denied approval or granted approval
with conditions by a local agency., HCD is empowered to overrule local decisions
that it views as "not reasonable or consistent with local housing needs."
This measure significantly increases the leverage of developers over local
communities by authorizing a developer to attempt an "end -run" around any local
conditions imposed on a housing development that has been approved at the local
level. A developer could seek to overturn any local conditions, if the Department
decides' that the local conditions' are "not reasonable. " The Department is
empowered to "order" the local agency to modify or remove any such condition,
and the developer and panel can enforce this decision in court.
This measure is a clear transfer of local land use authority to the state, and places
the interests of developers over the interests 6f the communities and their elected
representatives. Under this legislation, even if the conditions imposed by a local
government are legally valid, they may still' be overturned based upon a political,
decision by the 'Department.
Besides the loss of local authority, this level of state oversight is unwarranted.
Developers, who believe that a local government has unjustly treated their projects
currently have recourse to the courts under Anti-Nimby Law [Section 65589.5 of
the Government Code].
We also observe that SB 744 seeks to empower developers to overturn locally
imposed conditions, but ignores the affects of recent state - unposed conditions
such as prevailing wage requirements which can increase the costs of affordable
N housing by over 20 percent.
a
For the above stated reasons, we strongly oppose SB 744
Sincerely,
David A. Glass
Mayor of Petaluma
cc: Petaluma City Council
Chair, Assembly Housing 'and Community Developiuent Committee
Chair, Assembly Local Government Committee
Senator John Burton
League of Califonlia;.Cities
461
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA OPPOSING SB 744 (DUNN)
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 744 gives the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) and Developers the power to determine conditions for
approval of local projects - `even in cases where a local government has already approved
a project in accordance with the law; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 744 empowers HCD to hear appeals from developers,
whose projects were approved with conditions or additional requirements, effectively
encouraging a them to attempt an "end -run" around any local conditions imposed on a
housing development that has been approved at the local level; and
WHEREAS, Sedate Bill 744 gives the Department discretion to decide that the
conditions or requirements imposed by the local government render the provision of
40 housing "infeasible" or "not reasonable or consistent with meeting local housing needs,"
and to order the local agency to modify or remove any such condition or requirement and
to issue any necessary permit or approval; and
WHEREAS, even in cases where conditions imposed by a local government are
legally valid, they may still be overturned based upon a political decision by the
Department under this legislation; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 744 also gives HCD and Developers the power to
overturn legally validjocal government decisions to deny a project if the Department
considers the local agency decision unreasonable or inconsistent with meeting local
housing needs; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 744 is duplicative and umiecessary because developers
who believe that a ocal.govermment has unjustly treated their projects already have
40
recourse to the co_ urts under Anti- Nimby.Law [Section 65589.5 of the Government
Code]; and
WHEREAS, Senate. Bill 744 fails to recognize that recent state - imposed
condifioiis such as prevailing wage requirements Have a serious impact on housing cost
and can increase the costs of affordable housing by over 20 percent.
WHEREAS,,'the League of California, Cities and other California cities' pare
strongly opposed to Senate Bill 744.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Petaluma opposes 'SB 744 (Dunn), .regarding the preemption of local land use authority
by the California Department of Housing,and Community Development.
•
SB 744 Senate Bill; -History Page 1 of 1
COMPLETE'BILLHISTORY
IL'L NUMBER. : S.B. No. 744
' A UTHOR Dunn
'TOPIC Planning: housing.
TYPE OF BILL
Active
Non - Urgency
Non - Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non - State - Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non -Tax Levy
BILL HISTORY
2004
Jan. 26 In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk..
Jan. 26 Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 21. Noes 12. Page 2826.) To
Assembly.
Jan. 21 Read second time. To third reading.
Jan. 20 From inactive file to °second reading file.
2003
June 4 Placed on inactive file on request of Senator Dunn.
June 3 From committee:' Do pass. as amended. (Ayes 8_ 2. Page 1153.)
Read second time. Amended. To third reading.
May 22 Set for hearing May '.29`.
May 5 Placed on APPR. suspense file.
, ,W pr. 28 Set for hearing May 5.
pr. 22 From committee: Do pass, but first be re- referred to Com. on APPR.
(Ayes 7. Noes 1. Page 609.) Re- referred to Com. on APPR.
Apr. 21 From committee with author's amendments., Read second time.
Amended. Re- re'f'erred to committee.
Mar. 24 Set for hearing April 21.
Mar. 13 To Com. on H. & C.D.
Feb. 24 Read first time.
Feb. 23 From print. May be acted upon on or after March 25.
Feb. 21 Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
so
1 - 0750/sb history.html 2/4/2004
SB 744 Senate Bill - Vote Information
VOTES - ROLL CALL
MEASURE: SB 744
AUTHOR: Dunn
TOPIC: Planning: housing.
DATE -: 01/26/2004
LOCATION: SEN. FLOOR
MOTION: . Senate .3rd Reading SB744 Dunn
('AYES 21. NOES 12. ) (PASS,)
AYES
Alarcon Alpert Burton Cedillo
Ducheny Dunn Escuta Figueroa
Floret Hol Kuehl Machado;
McPherson Murray Ortiz Perata
Romero Scott Soto Torlakson
Vincent
NOES
Ackerman Battin Chesbro Denham
Karnette Knight McClintock Morrow
011er 'Poochigian Sher Speier.
ABSENT,.ABSTAhNING, OR NOT VOTING
Aanestad Ashburn Bowen Brulte
Johnson Margett Vasconcellos
Page 1 of 1
•
•
M
http`.//info.sen.ca.gov /pub /bill /seiVsb_0701- 0750 /sb 744_vote 20040126._ 022 sen floc... 2/4/20.04
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE; 3, 2003
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 21, 2003
SENATE BILL No. 744
Introduced by Sena D
tors Dunn and Ducheny
(Principal coauthor: Senator Hollingsworth)
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Steinberg)
(Coauthors: Senators Burton and Florez)
February 21,. 2003
An act to add Section 6558`5.4 to the Government Code, .relatingao
plainiing.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 744, as amended, Dunn. Planning: Housing.
Ex.istui law requires each city, county, or city and county to prepare
and adopt a general plan for its jurisdiction that contains certain
mandatory elements, including a housing element. One part of the
housing element is an assessment of housing needs and inventory of
resources and constraints relevant to meeting these heeds. The .
assessment includes. the locality's share of regional housing needs
which is determined by the appropriate council of governments, subject
to revision by the Department of Housing and Community
Development.
This bill would establish .. . .require the department - a- Hatising
, appainted as
speeifi to hear appeals of city, county, or city and county decisions
on applications for the constriction of Housing developments that meet
specified affordability requirements.
97
r�
SB 744.
2—
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal conmaittee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.29
3'0
31
32
33
34
35
SECTION 1,. Section 65.585.4 is added „to the Government
Code, to :read:
be•
/411 V1111U11t.1J Vl li1S pl SILi
65555.4. (a) The department shall hear appeals pursuant to:
this section
Vie Th.c a'epartrnent shall conduct the hearings in
accordance with rules and regulations establish "ed b,y the
dep&tinent.
(b) Any applicant who proposes to construct a housing,
development that meets the criteria of subdivision (c) and whose
application is either denied or,approved with conditions that - in. h.is
or her judgment render the provision of h using infeasible, may
appeal 'the decision of,th.e city, county, or city and county to the
department. However,
conditions or miti :measures impose pursuant to a local
coastal. permit or an einvironmental .review :required by the
Califoinia Eilvirotmiental Quality Act (Division 13 (coiaunencing
with Section 21000) of the Public. Resources, Code) ri ay not be
appealed.
97
so
•
eee�..e.FROM
•
-
-— WOMMIN
es
97
M
V '
..
- 3— S:B 744
) An app 1 file a
applicant ma °' n appeal with the eeitt�e
" W '
if both of the follow'
de a�^tment ' followi criteria are met:
�c
3
(1) The proposed housing development will meet'any of the
:. ,. 4
following affordability requirements:
5
(A) Five percent of the total housing of the housing
6
development is available at affordable housing cost to extremely
7
low income households whose household income is less than or
8
equal to 30 percent of the area median income.
9
(B) Ten percent of the total. housing of the development is
10
available at affordable housing cost to very low income.
11
households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety
12
Code. -
13
(C) Twenty percent of ,the total housing of the development is
14
available at affordable housing cost to lower income households,
15
as defined in Section 50079 . of the Health and Safety Code.
16
(D) Fifty percent of the total housing of the development is
1.7
available at affordable housing cost to moderate_ income
18
households, consistent with Section 50052.5 of the Health and
19
Safety Code.
20
(2) Either of the following criteria is met as of the date on which
21
the application to the city, county, or city and county is deemed
22
complete:
23
(A) The city, county, or city and county has adopted a housing
24
element that the department has determined pursuant to Section
25
65585 to be in substantial compliance with, the requirements of this
26
article, and the proposed housing development, exclusive of any
27
density bonus granted pursuant to, Section-65915, is consistent
28
with both the density allowed by the jurisdicti'on'.s zoning
29
ordinance and the general, plan land use designation as specified
30
in any element of the general plan as of the date the application was
31
deemed complete provided that consistency shall not be required.
32
with the .zoning ordinance or land use designation if the
33
jurisdiction has not amended the ordinance or the designation to
34
conform to the adopted housing element.
35
(B) The ci county, or city and county has not adopted a
36
housing element that the department has determined pursuant to
37
Section' 65585 to be in substantial compliance with the
38
-, requirements of this article, and the proposed housing
39
development is located on a site that is designated for residential
97
M
SB 744 —4
1 or commercial,uses.in any element of the general plan as` of the date
2 the application was deemed complete.
3 ( "d) An applicant may °file; an "appeal with the e6infflit4ee!
4 department within 20 days after be date of the decision by the
5 local: agency to deny the application .or approve the! application
6 with conditions that render the provision. of hous nb infeasible.
7 The eeffifflittee departnzent shall notify the local agency of the
8 filing.; of sueh an appeal within 10 days, and the local agency, shall,
9 within - 10 days of the receipt ofFthe notice, transmit •a copy of its
10 decision and the,reasons therefor to the. � �- department.
11 The appeal shall be Beard within'30 days after receiptwof,the request
12 :for an appeal by the applicant. The -be
13 a a, ,,v w a 1 ,,
r
uie Lvela
14 ;
15 beard appeal hearing rrray be conducted by the department or a
16 hearing officer ;appointed by the director of the depec tt2ent. A
17 stenographic" record of the proceedings ;shall be: kept. -^' icc its , e
18' <` , _ _ Within, 30 days of the appeals herring
19 the .departnent shall 'render a written ,decision, based upon a
20 majority vote, stating:its"fmdings of 'fact, its conclusions and the
21 reasons therefor. The hearing by the .1i3 }7��1i1
22- i aepay'tMent shall be li-nited to the'issue of whether, in
23 the case of the denial of an application,, the decision of the city;
24 county or city and, county, was reasonable and consstent•with
25 meeting :local housing' needs as determined pursuant to Section
26 65584 and, "iii the case of an approval of ail• application with
27 conditions, and require.m.ents:,imposed," whether those conditions
28 and requirements render the provision of.housing infeasible , and
29 whether they are reasonable and consistent with meeting local
30 housing needs as determined pursuant to Section 65584. If the
31 eeifffnittee department finds, in. the case of a denial that the
32 decision of the local• agency is not reasonable or consistent with
33 meeting local housing needs; it shall vacate;fihe decision'and shall
34 direct the
local agency to, issue any necessary approval or permit
35 . to the applicant. If the e depurtinent finds; in the case: of
36 an,rapproval with conditions and requireftients imposed, that the
37 decision of the board rendus the ; provision ofhousing °infeasibl "e
3.8 and is not reasonable:,or consistent with. meeting local al-housing
39 needs it shall order the local agency to modify or rem ovez y such
40 condition or requirement so as to make the',project no longer
91
PP I
w
ft.
97
77]
-5— SB 744
4, 1
�
. .
infeasible and to issue an necessar gem or a roval.;Decisions
y
2
or con" re it s ca
conditi and qui e lents..iml?osed by a local agency that are
3
consistent with meeting local housing needs shall,not be vacated,
4
modified, or removed by the eeffifflee— department
5
notwithstanding that those decisions or conditions and
6
requirements have the effect of rendering the provision of housing
7
infeasible.
8
(e) In any appeal before the eanuini tee department, the
9
applicant shall have the initial burden of proof to show that it has
10
met the requirements of subdivision (c). In a case of approval with
11
conditions or requirements imposed, the applicant shall also have
12
the burden of proof to show that .the conditions and requirements
13
render the provision of.housing i:nfeasibl.e. If the applicant meets
14
the initial burden of proof, then the city, county, or city and county
15
shall have the burden of proof to show that its action was
16
reasonable in that denial of the,project.or the failure to,inzplement
17
the conditions and requirements, as proposed, would have a
18
specific, adverse impact,.as.defined in Section 65589.5, upon the
19
public health or safety, the physical enviromnent, or on any real
20
property that is listed in the California Register of Historical
21
Resources, that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
22
mitigate or avoid the specific adve.rse,impact without rendering the
23
project infeasible, and that the mitigation or avoidance of such
24
impacts outweigh local housing needs.
25
26
(f) The department or the
applicant shall have the power to enforce the orders of the
27
e - department at law or in equity in the superior court.
28
The city, county, or city and county shall carry out the order of the
29
department.witlun 30 days of
30
its entry and, upon failure to do so, the order of the -te e
31
department shall for all purposes, be deemed to be the action of the
32
local agency, unless the applicant consents to a different decision,
33
or order by the local agency.
34
(g) The department m.ay charge a :fee to cover actual costs
35
directly related to the activities of the.
36
Game department in administering this section. The fee shall
37
initially be paid by the applicant. 'If the 2viTiiiittee department
38
orders approval of the proposed development or modifies or
39
removes any conditions or requirements imposed upon the
97
77]
SB 744 —6—
1 applicant, the city, county, or city and county shall reimburse the M
2 applicant for the fee paid pursuant tof this subdivision.
3 (h) (1) For the purposes of this section, "housing
4 development" means.a:development project consisti "rig of , one or
5 more residential dwelling units or an. emergency shelter facility.
6 (2) For the purposes of this section, an adopted hoiisi:n.g
7 element that has been self - certified pursuant to Section 65585. 1
8 shall be deemed to have been approved by the department, unless
9 a court finds that the jurisdictio.ti?s housing element !does not
10 substantially comply with this article.
11 (i) The remedies provided in this section are in addition to any
12 othevremedy provided by law.
a
O
97
ft
SB 744 Senate Bill Bill Analysis Page 1
------------------------------------------------------------
ISENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 7441
(Office of Senate 'Floor Analyses i
I
11020 N Street, Suite 524
I
1(916) 445 =6614 Fax: (916) 1`
1327 -4478
I I
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 744
Author: Dunn (D), et al
Amended: 6/3/03
Vote: 21
M
so
SENATE HOUSING & COMM. DEV. COMMITTEE 7 -1, 4/21/03
AYES: Ducheny, Hollingsworth, Alarcon, Cedillo, Dunn,
Florez, Torlakson
NOES: Ackerman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
AYES: Alpert, Battin, Bowen, Burton,
Murray, Speier
NOES: Aanestad; Poochigian
8 -2, 5/29/03.
Escutia, Machado,
SUBJECT Planning: housing
SOURCE California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California Building Industry Association
Western Center on Law and Poverty
DIGEST This,bll establishes, within the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), a
procedure toahear.'appeals from developers of affordable
housing that have had a project denied or have had
conditions p.lac.e,d on it that would make the project
financially unfeasible. The bill allows HCD to charge a
fee to cover actual costs..
ANALYSIS Housing element law requires local governments
to zone enough land at appropriate densities to meet their
CONTINUED
SB 744
http: / /ihfo.sen.ca.gov /pub /bill /seiVsb_ 0701- 0750/sb_744_cfa_200')060'' 142154_sen_floor.l... 2/4/2004
SB 744 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
Page 2
2 Page
housing needs for all income groups an to remove arbitrary
development standard's and other constraints -that prevent .
those sites from,beng developed. However, when, it come's
to individual affordable'hous'ing propos,a.l.s, communities
maintain a large amount of discretion to approve or deny
the project or to impose conditions, even when the project
is consistent with all local zoning' aid development,
standards.
This establishes a procedure to allow developers of
affordable housing to appeal certain adverse local land u'se
decisions that result in denial of the project or
conditions that render the project financially infeasible.
To be eligible for an appeal, a project must include at
least five percent extremely low, 10 percent very
low- income, 20 percent low income, or 50,percent moderate
income units and-meet one of the following criteria;- (l;).
be consistent with local: zoriing d'ensiti'es and the general
plan in communities that -have an HCD- :approved hous'iri°g
element; or (2) be.on a site that is designated in the
general plan as residential or commercial in communities
without an HCD= approved housing element.
A developer may file an appeal with -in 20 days of the
adverse 'local decision. The local government is notified'
of the appeal and required to submit•a copy of its decision
and the reasons therefore.. The ,appeal is heard within 30
days by the full committee, a subcommittee, or a hearing
officer,. Within 30 days of the appeals hearing, the
department is.re'quired to issue a written decision, stating
it's findings of fact, its conclusions.,, and the reasons for
the conclusions.
On appeal., the initial burden of proof falls on the
developer to 'show that the project meets the affordability
and land use consistency requirements of the statute, and
if the concerns conditions imposed by the local government,
that the conditions render the project infeasible., Once
this burden of proof is est ° °lablish'ed, the community may show
that the development is not needed t',o meet the community's
housing need's as identified through the Re °gicnal Housing
Need's Assessment process or that ita, decis;i'on was
reasonable in that the project w`ouTd have a
N
S 7 A
3
Page
adverse impact, on public health, safety, historical
resources, or the environment that outweighs the local
http: /% info.son.ca.gov / /bill /sen/sb. 070.1 - 0750 /sb 744 cfa '2003.0.603 142154 sen floor.l... 2/4/2004
SB 744 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
housing need and cannot feasibly be avoided. Conditions
' "imposed on a development pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or a•local coast permit
are exempt from appeal.
If the department finds that the decision of the local
government in neither, reasonable nor consistent with the
local housing needs, then the department has the authority
to direct the local government within 30 days to issue any
necessary approval or permit to the applicant and to modify
or remove any conditions so as to no longer render the
project infeasible.
The bill allows HCD to charge a fee to cover the actual
costs directly related to the activities of the department
in administering this section. Initially, the fee is
charged to the developer. However, if the local
government's decision is overturned or modi -fied, then the
city or county shall reimburse the developer the amount of
the fee.
Comments .
_Purpose of the bill According to the author, home
builders and housing advocates often cite exclusive local
land use practices as the major barrier to producing
additional affordable housing. In many communities, there
is little land �zoned for residential uses, and when land is
available, it is rarely zoned for multifamily housing or at
densities that allow anything other than luxury units to
pencil out. Even when builders propose new housing
developments that do conform to local zoning densities and
standards, community opposition to higher density and
affordable housing often results in the project.being
denied, significantly reduced in size,, or subjected to
unreasonable conditions that can make the project
financially infeasible.
SB 744 borrows from 'statutes in Massachusetts, Connecticut
and Rhode Island. to allow developers of affordable housing
to appeal exclusionary local land use decisions in certain
circumstances. With the state's dire shortage of
V
4
SB 744
Page
affordable housing and all the difficulties associated with
financing and constructing such units, this bill seeks to
ensure that local governments are proactive in approving
those high - quality projects that are proposed.
Local control vs. accountability While land—use decisions
are generally a local government function, the state also
littp://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/s.b 0701-0750/sb 744 da_ 20030603 142154 sen floor.l.
Page 3
2/4/2004
SB 744 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
has a clearly stated interest in ensuring the production of
sufficient, affordable housing to meet t'he needs of its
residents and ensure continued economic success. In some
cases such.as with energy - facilities, the state has stepped
into the role of the land use authority. This bill seeks
to find a balance of:pr.e'serv'ng local decision making while
ensuring accountability-in those cases where there are not
legitimate reasons to deny or condition the development.
3o- years of experience in-Massachus
, etts t Ma'ssachusett's'
Housing Appeals Committee' has been in.exi.stence for 30 .
years. Various commentators have found that the number.of
cases actually appealed to the committee is relatively
small., but that the mere existence of the committee has
convinced local governments to'work out local issues' in
ways that still allow affordable housing to be pro.duced:..
En ancem
ent of exist ng law Local government interests
believe that currently state law., commonly referred to as
the Anti -NIMBY statute, th -at, requires a local government to
make ,specific findings ih order to deny an affordable
housing development is sufficient to curb local government
abuses: Affordable .housng.developers, however, point out
that there are a number of deficiencies in the law,;and,
more importantly, that going to cour't.is often not an
option diie to the costs and time delays involved. These
developers believe that an 'administrative process will be
both less costly and less time consuming for all parties.
Protection cf environmental conditions Various members of
the environmental commuhity initially expressed concerns
that the Housing Accountability Committee might be able to
override CEQA or the Coastal Act. Recent amendments
specify that conditions imposed on a project under CEQA or
a local coastal permit are exempt from appeal.
FTSCAL'EFFECT
5
Local: No
Major Provisions
Ongoing, costs
Appropriation: No Fiscal Com..: Yes
SB 744
Page
2003 -0.4 2004 =05 200'5 -.06 Fund
$118* $125* $125* GF
Offsetting fee revenue
-------------- - unk "no.wn ------------- 'Unspecified
*Depend' on the total number" of ,appeals filed, HCD's
costs may' be. hi "gher. Some or all of the. ;ongoing -costs may
be recouped through a n`ew 'fee .
Page 4
MD
N
http : / /inf6.sen.ca.gov/ pub /bill ""/seii /sb_ 0701- 0750/sb_744 'cfa 20030603 142.154 sen floora.._ 2'/4/2004
y
SB T44 Senate Bill -Bill Analysis
I
G7
G
M
SUPPORT (Verified 6/3/03)
California Rural Legal Assistance, Foundation (co- source)
California Bu'i -lding Industry Association (co- source)
Western Center on Law and Poverty (co source)
Barbara Sanders Associates
Burbank Housing Development .Corp.
Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation
California Apartment Association
California Catholic Conference
California Labor Federation, AFL -CIO
California Legislative Council for Older Americans_
Center for Community Advocacy
Civic Center Ba'rrio,Housing Corp.
Coachella Valley Housing Coalition
Community Interface Services
Community Resource Associates, Inc.
Congress of California Seniors
Corporation for Supportive Housing
Council of Churches.of Santa Clara County
East Bay Community Law Center
Esperanza Community Housing Corp.
Fair Housing Counc'i'l of the San Fernando Valley
First Community Housing Inc.
Foundation for Quality Housing
Fremont Fair Housing Services
Gray Panthers of California
Herman and Coliver: Architecture
Hermandad Los Angeles Economic and Community Development
Corp.
Homes for Life Foundation
0
Home. Ownership Advancement Foundation
Hous'i•n'g= California
Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco
Jericho
Just Cause Oakland
La Ra Centro Legal, Inc.
Latin American Civic Association
Loaves and, ;Fishes
Los Angeles Community Design Center
Los Angeles,Housing Law Project
Lutheran Social Services of Southern California
Mercy Housing California
Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc.
Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition
Montebello Housing Development Corp.
National Farm Workers Service Center
New Faze`Development
SB 744
Page
Page 5
http: / /ilifo.sei.ca.gov /pub /bill /sen/sb 0701- 0750/sb 744 cfa 20030603' 1421.54 sen floor.1... 2/4/2004
SB 744 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
Orange .County Community Housing Corp.
People of Progress
Peoples' Self -Help Housing Corp.
Planning for Elders
Protection and Advocacy, Inc.
Rural Communit Housing
Sacrament Housinig Alliance
Sacramento Mutual Housing Association.
Sacramento Neighborhood Housi-hg Services
San Diego Home Loan Counseling
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
B anta Monica Commission on Older Americans
Self, Help Enterprises
Shelter Network
,Shelter Partnership Inc,.
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing
n
Tederloin. Housing Clinic
United Cerebral Palsy of Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa
Barba
United Farm Workers of America, AFL -CIO
West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation
Wests d, Regional Center
OPPOSITION (Verified 6/3/,03)
Association of California Water Agencies, unless amended
California Chapter of the American Planning Association,,
❑■
unless "amended
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
City of Elk Grove
City of Lakewood
League of 'California Cities
NC:sl 6/3/03 Senate ; Floor Analyses
SUPPORT /OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
* * ** END * * *.
SB 744
Page
Page 6
•
M
I �
htip: / /iifoa6n.ca.gov /pub /bill /sen/sb 0701 - 0750 /8b 744 cfa 20030603 1.421 4 sen floor:F :.. 2/4/2004