Laserfiche WebLink
THE CITY OF 4U <br /> <br /> City Council <br /> Staff Roport <br /> <br /> Date: June 7, 2005 <br /> Planning Department <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Opposition to SB 435 (Density Bonus) <br /> <br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br /> <br /> Authorize the Mayor to write to Pleasanton's State Assembly members in <br /> opposition to SB 435 <br /> <br />SUMMARY: In 2004 SB 1818 (Hollingsworth) significantly expanded the prior <br /> residential density bonus law by increasing the concessions required to be <br /> given by local government, increasing the density bonus to up to 35 percent, <br /> and reducing the percentage of affordable housing required in a <br /> development. SB 435, would compound the flaws of the earlier measure by: <br /> requiring local government provide a fourth concession in some instances, <br /> removing the obligation on the developers' part to demonstrate that a <br /> concession is economically necessary, and by eliminating language that <br /> could be used as a defense against the law's applicability to local <br /> inclusionary zoning ordinances. Staff is recommending the City Council <br /> authorize the Mayor to write in opposition to SB 435. <br /> <br />Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: <br /> <br />BACKGROUND: Last year a controversial new density bonus measure (SB 1818, <br />Hollingsworth) sponsored by the California Association of Realtors (CAR) and the California <br />Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF), was signed by the Governor, despite opposition by <br />many cities and counties around the state. SB 1818 significantly expanded the prior density <br />bonus law by requiring communities provide up to three concessions and up to a 35 percent <br />density bonus to developers, while reducing the amount of affordable housing that a developer <br />was required to provide under the prior law. The ambiguous language of SB 1818 has created <br /> <br />SR 05:155 <br />Page 1 of 2 <br /> <br /> <br />