SR 05:155 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Dear Senator : The City of Pleasanton OPPOSES SB 435 (Hollingsworth), because it compounds some of the problems created by last year's controversial SB 1818 (Hollingsworth), which required communities to provide up to three concessions and 35% density bonuses to developers, while reducing the mount of affordable housing that a developer was required to provide compared to the prior law. Since its enactment, SB 1818 has created much uncertainty and confusion among local planners and attorneys as to how to implement its provisions, and harmonize them with other state laws and local requirements. SB 435 further reduces the ability of our City to plan for infrastructure needs and to evaluate and mitigate the impacts of residential development, while doing nothing to facilitate the development of affordable housing. SB 435 (Hollingsworth), compounds upon the flaws of the earlier measure by: 1) Requiring local governments to provide a fourth concession, when the developer uses less than 50% of the density bonus. 2) Removing the existing requirement for a developer to demonstrate that a requested waiver or reduction in development standards is necessary to make the units economically feasible. 3) Deleting some key language in the law which city attorneys were using as a defense against the law's applicability to local inclusionary zoning programs. For these reasons the City of Pleasanton is opposed to SB 435. Sincerely, Jennifer Hosterman Mayor CC: City's Senator and Assembly Representative Chair and Members, Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development Chair and Members, Assembly Local Government Committee Daniel Carrigg, League of California Cities X:klaniceSXhousing\density bonuskDear Senator.doc