HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2007-065 N.C.S. 04/16/2007 Resolution No. 2007-065 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 1256 (CABALLERO)
HOUSING AND LAND USE -DENSITY BONUS LAW
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Law requires a city, county, or city and county to
provide a housing developer with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the
production of lower income housing units, or the donation of land within a development when
the developer proposes a housing development within the local government's jurisdiction; and,
WHEREAS, this law requires that an applicant for a bonus agree to continued
affordability for 30 years or longer of low- and very-low income units that qualified the applicant
for the award of the density bonus; and,
WHEREAS, this bill would exempt a city, county, or city and county from complying
with the density bonus requirement, and the incentive and concession requirement, if the local
government has in effect a local inclusionary ordinance that meets certain requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Petaluma supports AB 1256
(Caballero).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized to sign a letter of support
on behalf of the City of Petaluma.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the A r ed as o
Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 16`h day of April, 2007, ~o
by the following vote:
City Attor ey
AYES: Barrett, Freitas, Vice Mayor Nau, O'Brien, Mayor Torliatt
NOES: None _
ABSENT: Harris, Rabbitt
i~ -
ABSTAIN: None -
ATTEST: -
City Clerk yor - -
Resolution No. 2007-065 N.C.S. Page 1
April 16, 2007
The Honorable Anna Marie Caballero
28'h Assembly District
100 West Alisal Street, Suite 134
Salinas, CA 93901
RE: Support of AB 1256 (Caballero)
Dear Assembly Member Caballero:
The state Density Bonus Law, as written, is one of the most confusing and difficult to implement of
all the Planning and Zoning Laws. This law is especially frustrating for those communities that
have adopted a local inclusionary housing ordinance.
A continuing problem is that the requirements of the state Density Bonus Law do not match up
with local inclusionary zoning programs. For example, for sale moderate income units can be
resold immediately at fair market value under the density bonus law. Although the local agency
captures the difference in the sale between the affordable and market price, they have lost the
affordable unit from their inventory. In contrast, most local inclusionary programs have longer
affordability periods for such units or have more meaningful equity share programs in place. The
result is that local agencies either have to create (and manage) two types of units in any given
development or succumb to the criteria of the Density Bonus Law and risk losing the unit from its
affordable stock within a short period of time.
These problems highlight the need for AB 1256, which provides a safe harbor for local agencies
with meaningful inclusionary programs. The qualifying performance standards include a
minimum 10 percent inclusionary requirement, proportional fees and land dedication
requirements, and a minimum affordability period (except that communities with qualifying
equity sharing programs may have shorter affordability periods). These provisions assure that
only ordinances that are designed to produce affordable units actually producing units actually
qualify for the exception. In contrast, the Density Bonus Law has no similar guarantee of unit
production; it only becomes effective at the election of the developer.
AB 1256 is a common sense solution that provides relief for local agencies that have taken the
more consistent path to creating affordable housing. In the past years, the Legislature has
adopted a number of statewide mandates related to housing production. As those regulations
begin to take effect, its time to move on to thinking how we can restore planning authority for
those communities that are actually producing housing units through alternative means. The
Legislature has spent a great deal of energy focusing on areas that have fallen short in their
Resolution No. 2007-065 N.C.S. Page 2
housing goals. That is fine. But it's time to address the needs of those communities that are
meeting their responsibilities. AB 1256 is an important step in that direction.
For these reasons, the City of Petaluma supports Assembly Bill 1256.
Sincerely,
Pamela Torliatt
Mayor of Petaluma
cc: Jared Huffman, 6'" Assembly District, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Rm 412, San Rafael, CA 94903
Patty Berg, 15' Assembly District, 50 D Street, Room 450, Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Noreen Evans, 7'" Assembly District, 50 D Street, Room 301, Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Patricia Wiggins, 2~d Senate District, 50 D Street, Suite 120A, Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Carole Migden, 3~d Senate District, 3501 Civic Center Dr., Rm 425, San Rafael, CA 94903
Amy O'Gorman, League of California Cities, P.O. Box 623, Sonoma, CA 95476
Sonoma County Cities
Petaluma City Councilmembers
Resolution No. 2007-065 N.C.S. Page 3