HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 05/07/2001 (28) yy
f✓u�
ti� @
•
•
•
1 {F:C
AMENDED:IN SENATE APRIL'24,.2001 f 4,44;
AMENDED IN SENATE^:MARCH 27,2001
SENATE;BILL No. 910
Introducedby;Senator Dunn
(Coauthors: Senators Burton,Haynes, and iMonteith).
February 23, 2001;
An act to amend Sections 65587 and 65589.3 of and to add Section
65585.5 to, the Government.Code;, relating to general plans, and
making an appropriation therefor.
LEGISLATIVE_COUNSEL'S,",DIGEST
SB 910, as amended, Dunn General,plans::housing elements. •
(1) Existing law requires each city, county;or city and county to
prepare and adopt a general plan forits Jurisdiction that-contains certain
mandatory elements, including a housing element. A city,county,a or
city and county is required to submit:a draft housing element or draft
amendment to its housing-element to the Department of Housing and`
Community Development, for a determination of whether the draft
complies with state law governing housing.elements. Existing law, until
June 30, 2009, exempts any local government within the junsdiction of
the San Diego Association of Governments from this review
requirement if it instead submits to theadepartment with its housing
element a self-certification of compliance with state law. In an"action
brought by any party to review the conformity of a housing element
with applicable state law, a court review shall.extend to whether.the
housing element, or portion thereof or revision.`thereto, substantially
complies with that law.
97.
•
SB 910 —2—
This bill would require a court, on a finding that there is not
substantial compliance, to award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees
and costs and to levy a penalty not'to exceed ,
- :- specified amounts based on
the population of the city, county, or city and county The bill would
provide that all penalties shall,accrue to the liousing4Supply Account;
which the bill would create in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund,
and that no money in that account shall be expended except upon
appropriation,by the Legislature. Because all.moncy'in this fund is
won
(2) Existing law provides,that, in any action filed on or after January
I, 1991, challenging,the validity of a housing element, there shall be a
rebuttable presumption of the validity of the element or amendment if
the Department Housing;and Community Development has found
that the element or amendment substantially complies with the
applicable law.
This bill would provide that, in any action filed on or after January
I, 2002,.challenging the validityof a,housing element, there shall be a
rebuttable presumption of nonvalidity of the elementor amendment if
the departiuent has found that the element or amendment does not
substantially comply.
This bill would require the Controller to reduce by 'specified
percentages the monthly allocation of funds.disbursed under various
fuel tax laws;to any city, county, or city and county'whose third or
subsequent revision of its housing element 'is not in substantial
compliance with state laWi or that during the previous housing element
cycle did not adopt,a,,housing element determined blithe department to
be in substantial compliance with,state law, and to redistribute the
money in the following month.The bill would require the,department
to report to the Controller monthly a list of noncomplianturisdictions.
The bill would state that for the purposes; of this provision, an
authorized'self-certification of a housing element shall be deemed to.
have been approved by the department unless a court finds that.
jurisdiction's housing,element'does'not substantially comply with state
law.
Vote: 243 majority. Appropriation: yc3"no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
97
•
•
P
-3— SB 910
The people,ofthe:State,of California do"enactas follows:. •
1 SECTION 1. Section 65587 of the GoVernment Code is
2 amended to'read:
3 65587. (a) Eaclfcity,county,.or city and county shall'bring.its
4 housing element, as required by subdivision(c) of Section`65302,
5 into conformity with the requirements of this article on or before
6 October 1, 1981, and the deadlines set by Section 65588: Except
7 as specifically;provided in subdivision (b) of Section 65361, the
8 Director of Planning and Research shall not grant an extension of
9 time from these requirements.
10 (b) Anf action brought by any interested party to review the
11 conformity with the provisions, of this article of any housing,
12 element or portion thereof or revision thereto shall be brought
13 pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the
14 court's review of compliance with the provisions of this article
15 shall extend to whether the housing element or portion thereof or
16 revision thereto substantially complies with the requirements of
17 this article. If a court finds that any housing element or portion
18 thereof does not substantially comply with the requirements of this .
19 article, the court, in addition to any other remedy allowed by law,.
20 shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs and
21 shall levy a penalty not to excee• ===
23 • •• •- • :• 'the following amounts:
24 (/) One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000)for a city, county,
25 or city and county with a populatidn less,than..or equal to 100,000.
26 (2) Two hundred fifty thousand dollar's'(S250,000)fora city,
27 county, or city and county with a:population greater than 100,000
28 and less than or equal to 250,000.
29 (3) Five hundred thousand dollars (5500,000) for a city,
30 county, or city and county with a population greater than 250,000
•
31 and less than or equal to 500,000.
32 (4) One-million dollars (51,000,000)for a city.county, or city,
33 and county with a population,greater than 500,000 and less than
34 or equal to 1,000,000.
35 (5) One million five hundred thousand dollars (51,500,000)for •
36 a city, county, or city and county ivith a population greater than
37 1,000,000.
97
P
SB 910 —4—
1 For the purposes of this section, the population of county shall
2 only include the population residing in unincorporated areai. Any
3 penalties shall accrue to the Housing Supply Account, which is
4 hereby created in the. Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund
5 established by Section 50661 of the Health and Safety Code for the
6 purposes of the Multifamily Housing Program established by
7 Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 50675) of Part 2 of
8 Division '31 of the Health and Safety Code. Notwithstanding
9 Section 50661 of the Health and Safety Code, no money.in the
10 Housing. Supply Account shall be expended .except upon
11 appropriation by.the Legislature in the annual Budget Act or other
12 legislation.
13 (c) If a court finds that an action of a city, county, or city and
14 county, which is required to be consistent with its general plan,
15 does not comply,with its housing element,.the city, county, or city
16 and county shall bring its action into compliance within.60 days.
17 However, the court shall retain jurisdiction throughout the period
18 for compliance to enforce its decision. Upon the court's
19 determination that the 60-day period for compliance would place:
20 an undue hardship on the city,county, or city and county, the court .
21 may extend the time period for compliance by an additional 60
22 days.
23 SEC..2. Section 65589.3 of the Government Code is amended
24 to read:
25 65589.3. (a) In any action filed on or-after January 1, 1991,
26 taken to challenge the Validity of a housing element, there shall be
27 a rebuttable presumption of the validity of the element or
23 amendment if, pursuant to Section 65585, the department has
29 found'that the element or amendment substantially complies with
30 the requirements of this article.
31 (b) In any action filed on or after January 1,2002, taken to
32 challenge the validity of a housing element, there shall be a
33 rebuttable presumption of the nonvalidity. of the element or
34 amendment..if, pursuant to Section 65585, the department has
35 found that the element or amendment doe's not substantially
36 comply with the requirements of this article.
37 SEC. 3. Section 65585.5 is added to the Government.Code, to
38 read:
39 65585.5. (a) The Controller shall reduce by the €ellea+ing
40 percentages specified in subdivision (b) the monthly allocation of
97
P
5— SB 910
I 'funds dispersed`pursuant'tosubdivision (d), (e), or(f)of Section,
2 2104 and Sections 2105, 2106, and 2107 of the Streets and
• 3 Highways Code^,to'any city, county, or ;: -:.: - =
' 4 - , :. -: - - -.-
5 that the Department of Housing and Community Development has
6 determined pursuant to Section -65585 to be in aubatantial.
7 compliance with the requirements of thin article: city and county
8 that meets both of the following criteria:
9 (1) For'theithird orsubsequentrevision of its housing element,
10 the city, county, or city and county.,has not adopted a housing
11 element that the Department of Housing and Community
12 Development has determined,pursuantto Section 65585 to be_in
13 substantial compliance with the,requirements of this article.
14 (2) The city; county, Or city and county, during the previous
15 housing element cycle, did not adopt a-housing element that the
16 Department. of Housing and Community Development has
17 determined pursuant to Section 65585 to be in substantial
18 compliance with the requirements of this article.
19 (1)
20 (b) (1) The allocation shall be reduced by 20 percent for a city,
21 county, or city and county-that,meets the criteria of subdivision (a)
22 and whose third or subsequent revision of its housing element has
23 not been found by the department to be.in substantial compliance •
24 within 180 days of the deadline=established by Section 65588.
25 (2), The allocation shall be-reduced by-40 percent for a city,
26 county, or city and county that meets the criteria of subdivision (a)
27 and whose third or subsequent.revision of its housing element has
• 28 not been found by the department to bein substantial compliance
29 within one year of the deadline-established'by Section.65588..
30 (3) The allocation shall be reduced by 60 percent for a city,
31 county, or city and county that meets:.the criteria of subdivision(a)
32 and whose third or subsequent revision of its housing element has
33 not been found by the department to be insubstantial compliance
34 within two years of the deadline-established by Section 65588.
35 (b)
36 (c) Any funds withheld from a city, county, or city and county
37 pursuant to this.section shall be added to the total pool of funds to
38 be allocated and disbursed in the following month.
39 (c)
97
P
SB 910 —6-
1 (d) For the purposes of this section, an adopted,housing
2 element that has been self-certified pursuant to Section 65585.1
3 shall be deemed to have,been approved by the department, unless
4 a court finds that the jurisdiction's housing element does not
5 substantially comply with'this article.
6 (d)
7 (e) The department shall report to the Controller by the 20th
8 day of the month a list of.cities, counties,,and cities and counties
10 15th day of that month; have not been determined by the
12 of this article:meet both of the criteria described in paragraphs (I)
13 and (2) of subdivision (a). The department shall also report the
14 deadline date forthe third or subsequenthousing element revision
15 established in Section 65588 for each respective-jurisdiction on
16 that list.
•
•
0
97
•
P
• SB 910 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 1
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Bill No: SB 910
Senator KEVIN MURRAY, ChairMAN Author: dunn
VERSION: 4/24/01
Analysis by: Randall Henry
eiscal:yes
SUBJECT:
General plans: housing elements.
DESCRIPTION:
This bill would require that specified transportation
funding be reduced to any city or county that fails to have
an approved housing element.
ANALYSIS:
Existing 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. These entities are required to submit. a draft.
housing element 'or draft amendment to its housing element
to the. Department of Housing and Community Development
for a determination of whether the- draft complies with
state law governing housing elements. -
Provides that in an action brought by any party to review
the conformity of a- hbusina element with applicable state
law, a court .review shall extend to whether the housing
element, or a.portion or revision, substantially complies
with that law.
This bill -bind:
Require a court, on H finding that there is not
substantial compliance, to award the plaintiff reasonable
attorney' s fees and costs and to levy a penalty not to
exceed specified amoucitsbased on the population of the
city or county.
0
SB 910 (Dunn)
• Page 2
Provide that all penalties shall accrue to the Housing
http://info.sen.ca:gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0901 0950/sb_910_cfa_20010502_I 14311_sen_comm.html 5/7/01
SB 910 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 2
Supply Account, and that no money in that account shall
be expended except upon appropriation by the Legislature.
Existing law •
Provides that, in any action filed' .on or after January 1,
1991, challenging the validity of a 'housing element,
there shall be a rebuttable presumption of the validity
of the element or amendment if the. Department of Housing.
and 'Community Development has found that the element or
amendment substantially complies with the applicable law.
This bill would:
Provide that, in any action filed on or after January 1,
2002, challenging the validity of a housing element;
there shall be a rebuttable presumption of nonvalidity of
the element or amendment if the department has found that-
the element or amendment does not-substantially comply.
Require the State Controller to reduce by specified
percentages the monthly allocation of funds disbursed
under various fuel tax lawsato any city, county, or city
and county whose third, subsequent revision of its
housing element is not in substantial compliance with
state law and that during the previous housing element
cycle did not adopt a housing element determined by the
department to be in substantial compliance with state
law, and to redistribute the money in the following
month.
Require the department to report to the State Controller
monthlya list of noncompliant jurisdictions.
COMMENTS:
1 . Under current law, the cities and counties are required
on a specified basis to precare and submit to the
•
- Department of Housing and Community Development for
approval a so-called "housing element, " which is a part of
the entity's general plan and consists of "an
identification and analysis of existing and projected
housing needs and a statement of goals, policies,
quantified objectives; financial resources, and scheduled
. programs for the preservation, improvement, and development
sa 910 (Dunn)
Page 3
•
of. housing. " The housing element is required to "identify
adequate sites for housing, including rental housing,
factory-built housing, and mobilehomes, and shall make
adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of
all economic segments of the community. "
2. According to the Department of Housing and Community
Development, over 60 percent of local entities in the state
are in full compliance with the law and have submitted the
necessary docUments. Nearly 30 percent of cities and.
•
http://info:sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb'_910_cfa 2001'0502_114311_sen_comm,html5/7/01
SB 910 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 3
•
counties, however, have,'not complied. with. this requirement,
and supporters of this measure contend that "these local
governments effectively raise the price of housing for
working families even higher and force 4surrounding:
jurisdictions to take':on a larger housing burden. " Local
jurisdictions: :may not be in compliance with the housing
element requirement fora `variety of reasons, including
such factors' as disinterest in growing' or providing •
affordable' heUsing or ,ongoing and thorny issues related to
providing additional housing in already high-growth areas.
3. The author argues that while state law mandates that
all local jurisdictions submit a housing element, there are
presently no really effective sanctions for non-compliance
or the submittal of inadequate documents. The supporters
further assert that the courts have limited ability to
bring about compliance, and the denial of government
housing funding is essentially meaningless for areas that
may not be interested .instimulating the 'construction of
additional housing units within their jurisdictions.
4 . Editorializing in support of this measure, the Los
Angeles Times asserted that " (u)nless more housing is built
for average workers close to their jobs, costs for their
services will rise, commutes will get longer and slower and
air pollution will worsen. This is aside from the misery
caused to families who lack decent housing. The worst
examples have been in Silicon Valley, but Los Angeles and
Orange County also rate poorly on housing affordability and
availability. "
5. To address the problem of non-compliance, this bill
would do the following.:
Create a legal presumption that if the department
determines that an entity is not in compliance with the
0
SB 910 (Dunn)
Page 4
law, the housing element of the entity must be presumed
to invalid.
Provide that ,successful litigants in lawsuits involving
non-compliant housing elements shall be awarded
"reasonable attorney' s fees and costs."
Specify financial penalties that Could- be levied by the
courts.
Writing in opposition to this measure, the -League of
California Cities and California State Association of
Counties noted in part that:
Under current law, Section 65585 (f) , Government Code,
a local government must submit a draft housing element
to HCD for review, but retains the discretion to
either incorporate the changes suggested by the HCD
plan reviewer, Or adopt their' element without the
state plan reviewer's recommendations with• findings as
to why the changes are not incorporated, and why the
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bil1/sen/sb_0901'-0950/sb_910_cfa_20010502_114311_sen_comm.html 5/7/01
SB 910 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis, .Page 4
jurisdiction believes that its housing elements in
substantial compliance with state law. Under either
circumstance, the housing element is considered to be
in legal and in compliance with the law unless a court
rules- otherwise. The supporters df this, measure, who
attempt to designate any element which fails to
incorporate all of the .recommendations of state plan
as "out of compliance, " simply distort the legal.
reality. Furthermore, there is little established
nexus 'between approval of, state' plan reviewers and
housing production. . . .
6. In addition, the bill would 'require the State -
Controller to reduce to those cities and counties that do
not comply with the housing element requirement their 'share
of the monthly allocation of funding from the revenues
collected from the per gallon tax imposed on gasoline and
diesel fuels. This funding would be .reduced on a specified
percentage basis based on the length of time the local '
' entity is out of compliance with state law, and it would'
not be reduced until: (1) "the third or subsequent revision
of (a) hOusing' element" has been determined not to be in
compliance with state law; and (2) a local entity, "during
the previous housing element cycle, did not adopt a housing
element that complies with state law. •
Government Code Sec. 65588 provides the following deadlines.
SB 910 (Dunn) -
Page 5 •
for the, third revision of the housing element:
December 31, 2000 .for local governments within the
jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of
Governments.
December 31, 2001 for local governments within the
jurisdiction of the Association of Bay Area Governments :
June 30, 2002 for lo,calgovernments within the
jurisdiction of the Council of Fresno County
Governments, the Kern County Council of Governments, the
Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and the
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments.
June 30, 1999 for local governments within the
jurisdiction of the 'San Diego Association of
Governments,
June 30, 2003 for all other local governments.
•
Commentingon this provision of the bill, the League of
California Cities and the California State Association of
Counties noted that :
(This provision) will now.reduce our scarce focal
subventions the portion of the state's gas tax that is
currently directly to a local government if our
housing element is found out of compliance by a state
plan reviewer. (It) take(s) our scarce transportation , .
dollars away from us if we. choose not to incorporate
the changes that the HCD plan reviewer suggests,
•
http://info.sen.ca.govintib/bill/senisb_0901-09SO/sb_910_efa 20010502_11431.1_sen_comm:html 5/7/01
•
SB 910 Senate:Bi11 --Bill Analysis Page 5
reducing, the portion of- the states`.sgas.' tax that is
allocated di'rectly•to our communities. This is
nothing less than ;a direct usurpation of local land
use (authority and revenues by' the state.. Furthermore,
this provision appears unconsttut-ional, baged upon
Section 3, of Article XIX of the State -Constitution
which 'requires "Any .future. statutor:y:•revisions` shall
provide for the allocation of these revenues, together
with other simillar revenues, in a manner which gives
equal consideration -±to the transportation needs of all
areas of the state and all segments of the
population2" (emphasis added) -
•
7. Existing state 11W requires the imposition of •a
gallonage tax of 18 cents on gasoline and 'diesel fuel
(federal rmposesan- additional gallonage. tax of 18. 4
cents on these fuels) . Under statutoryrallocatfon
formulas, cities, and co'un€ies receive approximately 35.
SB. 910 (Dunn)
Page 6
percent of the' revenues from the state gas tax, and under
ArticleXIX- of the California Constitution these entities
are basically requiredto use these fundsfor- the
"research, planning, construction,. improvement,
maintenance,and operation" of local streets• and roads.
The related funding categories that are r_eferenced 'by this
measure and subject to possible reduction to'non-complying
entities provided a total of approximately '$1 billion to
the various' -cities and counties in 1998-.99., And according
to the California Transportation Commission, cities and
counties reported "'an estimated $10.5 billion in unfunded
needs for' local road, and street rehabilitation, to retire a
backlog of deferred maintenance statewide, plus an annual
shortfall of about $400 million to keep up with annual
maintenance and rehabil'it'ation expenditure: needs . The
backlog, built up since the 1970s, represents nearly 8
years of current annual rehabilitatidn. needs.
The Committee -may wish: to consider the .following policy
questions :
Is it appropriate to reduce funding that is essentially
unrelated to the issue -of housing,. :such as local
transportation funding, because a local entity does not
have in place an approved '"rousing element?
Is this penalty overly punitive?
Should the' -bill provide- that the withheld' funds would be
allocated to the out-of-compliance agency. when its
housing element was approved and not foreited entirely?
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee ,before noon on
y'
Wednesda , - -
4./25/01)
SUPPORT': Job-Center Housing Coalition ('co-sponsor)
http://info.seitca.goV/fitib/bill/sen/sL0901 910 cfa 2001 0502 '11'4311', sen comm.html5/7/01
SB 910 Senate,Bill - Bi11,6nalysis Page 6.
California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation (co-sponsor)
(See attached list
provided by the author). •
OPPOSED: League of California :Cities.
California State,
Association of Counties
0
SB 910 (Dunn)
Page 7 - ._
(See attached list)
4.% 6/oi
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
http://ihfosen.ca.gov/pub/bill/senisb 090:1'0950/sb 910' cfa 20010502 `114311:1 sen conun.html5/7/0,1
. -SB,9'10 Senate Bill -Vote Information Page 1 of 1
VOTES - ROLL CALL
MEASURE: SB 910
AUTHOR: Dunn
TOPIC: General _plans: housing elements.:
DATE: .05/01/2001
LOCATION: SEN. TRANS.
MOTION:, Do pass. as amended, and re.-refer to the Committee on 'Appropriations.
(AYES; 8.. NOES 3. ) (PASS)
AYES
Murray Costa Dunn -Figueroa
Monteith Perata Romero Soto
NOES
McClintock Brulte Speier:
ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR 'NOT VOTING
Karnette Morrow Scott (Torlakson
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/serils1540901-.0.../&910_Vote 20010501_000002_sen_comm.htm 5/7/01
-��L �. .. _ MAY 072001 15
4. CITY OF PETAL:JMA
•
�. .�Vet�. � `�..
nra POST OFFICE BOX 61
854' PETALUMA, CA°94953-0061
E.Clark.Thompson
Mayor May 7; 2001
Janice Caller-Thompson .
Michael Healy
Matt Maguire
BryantMoynihan Senator Joe:Dunn
Mike O'Brien State Capitol, Room 2080
Pamela Torliatt
Councilmembers Sacramento, CA,95,814
RE: SB 910:
Dear Senator Dunn:
The City of Petaluma`has a certified Housing';Element and we have exceeded our
Housing Element goal of providing 15% of all'""new housing as affordable to very-low
and low-income residents. Our community isr proud of our proactive approach to
providing affordable housing for the entire:spectrum of our residents and our five-year
goals and;plan of action address our regional fair-share housing allocation as distributed
by the State:Depart Depth-theta-of-Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the
• Association of Bay/Area"Governments (ABAG).
However, Petaluma has,not succeeded in our housing program because of punitive
legislation such as SB 910. The imposition'of fines and the seizure of local gas tax
funds will not:increase the supply of affordable housing. A more effective approach to
accomplishing that mission would be to provide fiscal(or other) incentives, such as
providing fundingfor street repairs or other local needs in communities who meet their
housing needs and have.a certified Housing Element.
Please feel free to,contact me if you have;questionslabout the City of Petaluma's
11 English Street position on this bill.
Petaluma,CA 94952
Sincerely,
City Manager's Office
Phone(707) 778-4345
Fax.(707)778-4419
E-Mail
cityrngr @ci petaluma ca.us
R. Clark Thompson
Economic Development and Mayor of.Petaluma
Redevelopment -
Phone(707)778-4345 cc: Petaluma City-Councilrnembers
Fax(707) 778-4419 Members and-Consultant,.Senate A rO riations^Committee
E-Mail Senator John Burton' PP _p
paulm@ci petaluma ca.us. 'Senator Ray Haynes
Senator Dick Monteith
iskl Plan Administration Senator Tom Torklakson
hone(707) 778-4)52 Assemblymember Alan Lowenthal
Fax(707) 778 4419. Assemblymember Pat Wiggins
E-Mail Julie Bornstein, Director,.Dept. of Housing'&Community Development
generalalan @ci.petaluma.ca.us Mike Gotch Legislative Secretary Governor's Office
d:/council/mayor/sb9101etter/kc
0 pen4e en,xrytl.e paper
MAIO720;11 15
• March 30 2001
1: a7
Issue
y . e .�� 'Cq r cr C r d g i ) ;C
' "415 1
NIPSto11te1B Win Nt" -
i
f
�
t .} &,
P � 19«ob ,g c�tlx M4C 0. � "`.�«°^"�� u.,,.a .i�'t�Y�4� _.., ? �, '*°
analysis,commentary and updates on legislative and policy issues that affect tcalifornia cities
HOT BILLS TO WATCH
SB 28X (Sher). Powee'Plant Siting.
SB 910 (Dunn, Barton, HayS and Monteith) Housing Elments Fines, Penalties, and
Lawsuits.
SB 62X (Poochigian). Utility User Tax.,Gas and Electricity.,
AB 48X (Migden). Community'Aggregation.
•
LEAGUE APPEALS TO CITIES FOR:'STRONG SHOW OF
OPPOSITION FOR HOUSING! ELEMENTS BILL
New amendments to.SB•910,(Dunn, Burton, Haynes &.Monteith).concerning.housing-element
fines, penalties^and lawsuits;are making asbad bill even worse, say,L'eague officials, diverting
scarce dollars away from transportation projects into housing;element compliance.
Originally, the bill required the courts to impose stiff penalties against local government
housing elements found.totbe non compliant with state law. Penalties would not exceed $1,000
per unit of the total projectedehousing need for the jurisdiction, but would include an award for
plaintiff,attorney s'fees and costs. This bill;further provided that:in any filed on,or after
January 1, 2002 challenging the validity of a housing'.element; there would be a rebuttable
presumption of non-validity of the housing element or amendment'if the Department of Housing
and Community Development(HOD) has found that the elementor-amendment'does not
substantially complywithistaterlaw. The bill also included language'stating'the legislature's intent
to withhold state funding from any city,-county, or city and county that,does not have a housing
element'in substantial compliance with state law, and to redistribute the,withheld funds to those
jurisdictions that•are:in compliance:
SB 910 was amended on March 27 to include a reduction inithepercentage of'the`gas tax
that.a city or county would receive unlessLthe'local,government hiss an adopted housing element
that HOD has determined to bean substantial compliance. The following amounts would apply:
• A 20%.reduction fora local government whose third or subsequent revision of its housing
element has not been found by HOD tto be in substantial compliance.within 180 days of the
• current deadline;
•
:Page 1:of 7
•
•
■
• A 40,%reduction'for a local government whose third or subsequentrevision of its housing
element has,.not been found by HCD'to be insubstantial compliance;within oneyear of the
•
current deadline and -
• A 60%1reduction for a local government whose third or subsequent revision of its housing
element has,notbeen'found by HCDito.be in:;substantial compliance:withintwo yearsiof the
currentdead line,
SB 910's recent amendments also include three important provisions: First; the bill would
require that withheld.funds be returned to the total pool available for redistribution in the following
month to eligible:local4governments. Second it states that,an adopted housing element that has
been self-certified;shall be deemed approved byHOD unless a court finds that the jurisdiction's
housing element:is not insubstantial compliance Last, the-bill requires H,CD to provide to;the •
Controller-a monthly list of local governments whose third or subsequenthousing element
revisions have:not been determined by HOD to beEin substantial compliance, and report the
deadline date for each ofthe local governments on that list.
City officials are urged to send letters and fazes and make telephone calls;to • •
legislators as soon;as possible:to strongly•oppose'this bill.
LEAGUE TO FORGE A1''IEA®•ON SB '402 LAWSUIT
The League learned,on Wednesday;:Mardh 28,.that the=California Supreme Court declined to
rule on the-merits of theLeague's lawsuit which challenges the.constitutionality of'SB;:402,,the
2000 legislation imposing binding arbitration requirements on general and charter-law cities.
The League's lawsuit was filed in the Supreme.Court; following actionlin Januaryrby the Fifth •
District Court of Appeal Thabcourt found thatthe issues presented in the'.League'schallengeto
SB 402 are"...of such•sighificant p'ublic4interest'that it is appropriate thatthey (should,bey.
decided:in the firstinstance in the,highest court in this State."
'We knew that we were.•pursuingan aggressive approach by going directly to the Supreme
Court,,given that most cases start atthe,lrial;courtleyer.said League Executive Director Chris':
McKenzie. "Butwe believed then fas indicated'by the Court of Appeal, that Such a strategy was,
warrantedc,giventhe urgency and'high stakes issues involved for California cities" •
The,League emphasizes the High•Court's±ruling did not reach the merits,of the League's
iona
oonstituhonal challenge: Our legal challenge will continue'`said,McKenzie; "because the
constitutioncof-'California requires that the compensation of city employees be determined,by
elected cityofficials who are accountable tothe voters_ratherthan private persons. 'We.desire:an
ekpeditio"usiresolution.of those issues. We will continue to keep cities,posted:on=ourefforfsin
thisregard "
ASSEMBLY & `SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEES ACT
QUICKLY TO BEAT THE SUMMER ENERGY'GRists
Both:the Assembly and Senate Energy Committees met within 18 hours of each other this
weekto•hear amend^and pass the opposite houses':main energy conservation bills.- The quickly
called hearings and passage-cif-the bills.signais the urgency the legislature:andadministration •
place on enacting a consolidated conservation package before the spring recess, scheduled to_
begin.,Friday, April 6—although-rumors indicate that!the recess may be cancelled.
•
• Page.2:of 7
SB'91'0 SenatelBill - History Page 1 of I
COMPLETE 'BI-LL HISTORY
•
illBPLL ;NUMBER : 'S'.-:13'. Na.' 91:0
AUTHOR- 'i Dunn.
TOPIC : General plans: housing elements :
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropr-iations
Majority Vo"te Required
Non-State Mandated Local Program •
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
BILL HISTORY
2001
Apr. 26 Joint Rule 61 (a),(.2 al pended.
Apr. 24 From committee with 'author's. amendments: -Read second time. .
Amended. Re-referred"'to-committee.
Apr. 19 Hearing postponed by',committee.
Apr. 19 Set for hearing May 1 pending suspension .of. rules:
Apr. 18 Withdrawn from committee. Re referred to Corn on TRANS.
Apr. '5 Withdrawn from committee!. Re-referred to .Com. on RLS.
Apt. 4 Set for hearing .April. 23..
Apr. 3 From committee: Do pass, but first be re:-re_fer-red to Com. on APPR.
(Ayes 6. Noes 1. Page .514 . ) Re-referred' to Com. on APPR.
Mar. 27 From committee-with authors amendments. .Read second time.
Amended. Re-referred.•to committee.
•
Mar. 15 To Com. on H.
Mar:. 20 Set for hearing April 2.
& C.D.
Feb. 26 Read first time.
Feb.. 25 From print. May be acted upon on or after March 27 .
Feb. 23 Introduced. To Com., on RLS. for assignment;. To print.
4110 .
fittp://wwwaegirifo.ca.gov/pub%bill/sen sb 0901':0950/sb_910_bill_20010426_history.html 5/4/01
S13 910'Senate Bill - Status Page 1 61.
,
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 910 •
AUTHOR(S) : Dunn (Coauthors: Senators Burton, Haynes', and Monteith) .
TOPIC t. General plans: housing elements:
HOUSE';LOCATION SEN
+LP.ST .AMENDED. DATE 04/24/2001
TYPE OF BILL. -
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority- Vote .Required
Non-State-Mandated local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
'LAST. HIST.. ACT. DATE: 0448/200,1
LAST ,HIST. ACTTON Joint Rule 61 (a) (2) suspended.
:COMM.. LOCATION, : SEN TRANSPORTATION
CO4M. .ACTION. DATE 05/01/2001
COMM. ACTION : Do ,pass as amended, and re-refer.to the Committee on
Appropriations.
COMM. VOTE 'SUMMARY Ayes: 08 .Noes:: 03 PASS
TITLE An act to amend-Sections 65587 and 65589..3 of, and to
add" Section 65'585.5 to, the Government Code relatigg` to,
general plans.
•
•
•
S
•
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/Sen/sb_0901-0950Lsb_910_bill_200110501 status:html 5/21/01