11 Sample Draft Position Letters (11) provided by EULA in March,2006

These are provide for content suggestions, not formatted for submission

 

AB-2074: Regional transit hub districts: downtown housing developments.
OPPOSE
– While ELUA supports having funds available for loans to increase housing, there does not appear to be any increased requirement for affordability.
– ELUA also objects to the continuing shift to ministerially approvals, which significantly hampers useful expert and public review of projects that are designed to help preserve safety, health, sufficient infrastructure, and quality of life. There are alternative methods to speeding up approvals that still allow reasonable review.
– Further, the population-based thresholds triggering the requirements disproportionately burden larger communities, while allowing legislators from smaller communities to vote in favor with no apparent consequences.
– Finally, nearly all housing bills, including this one, impose on local jurisdictions additional staff resource and related monetary and administrative burdens. However, they include, without any meaningful justification, boilerplate text claiming that the state does not have to provide constitutionally guaranteed reimbursement.

 

AB-2118: Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022: use by right: objective standards.
OPPOSE
– ELUA objects to the further elimination of objective development standards prescribed by this bill. Such standards include the number of access points, traffic calming measures, pedestrian walkways, bicycle parking, setbacks (distances between buildings, streets, and neighbors), minimum recreation space, privacy buffers, light intrusion limits, building massing/articulation, etc. Developers are providing the minimum number of affordable units to get a density bonus designation with unlimited waivers of these standards, creating huge box-shaped buildings with significantly reduced safety and quality of life.
– ELUA also objects to this bill’s further shift to “use by right,” which hampers useful expert and public review of projects that are designed to help preserve safety, health, sufficient infrastructure, and quality of life. There are alternative methods to speeding up approvals that still allow reasonable review.
– Further, ELUA objects to this bill’s further shift away from conducting responsible environmental analyses.
– Finally, nearly all housing bills, including this one, impose on local jurisdictions additional staff resource and related monetary and administrative burdens. However, they include, without any meaningful justification, boilerplate text claiming that the state does not have to provide constitutionally guaranteed reimbursement.

 

AB-2676: Housing Crisis Act of 2019. (Gallagher)
OPPOSE
– Laws prohibit local agencies from “reducing the intensity of land use” through changes to zoning ordinances, including reductions in building height limits, increases in setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, increased open space, and any other action that would reduce a site’s residential capacity. ELUA objects to this bill’s expansion of that state mandate. There may be cases where fire departments are unable to maximally serve such projects due to heights, or where different setbacks are necessary for safety. There is an exception for safety, but the laws explicitly require that exception to be “construed narrowly,” and local jurisdictions, in fear of HCD/builder’s remedy, are likely to err on the side approval as opposed to preserving safety and health.
– ELUA opposes the further erosion of local control, because the state does not understand the nuances of every local parcel.
– In addition, the bill makes it less likely that responsible local jurisdictions will implement higher density zoning through their normal processes.

SB-1116: Planning and zoning: housing development projects: subdivisions. (Caballero)
OPPOSE
– ELUA opposes the further loss of local control over subdivided lots proposed in this bill, which reduces minimum parcel sizes to as small as 480 square feet, among other mandates.
– Ministerial approvals reduce expert and public review of projects that are designed to help preserve safety, health, sufficient infrastructure, and quality of life. There are alternative methods to speeding up approvals of medium complexity projects like these that still allow reasonable review.
– Expanding the definition of “in-fill” also will likely further reduce environmental review.
– Elimination of setback requirements can lead to safety and quality of life issues for residents.
– Finally, nearly all housing bills, including this one, impose on local jurisdictions additional staff resource and related monetary and administrative burdens. However, they include, without any meaningful justification, boilerplate text claiming that the state does not have to provide constitutionally guaranteed reimbursement

 

AB-1621: Planning and Zoning Law: postentitlement phase permits: Housing Accountability Act. (Wilson and Wicks)
OPPOSE
– Many projects undergo more than two review rounds, and it is not reasonable to have to either approve defective permits or start the process over.
– The bill also appears to allow compliance with standards to be determined by a person with lay-person knowledge rather than an expert.

 

AB-2002: Local government assistance: Regional Early Action Planning Fund. (Solache)
OPPOSE
– Mandatory upzoning regardless of context artificially drives up land prices and associated housing development costs.

 

AB-2005: Housing developments: urban lot split: owner-occupancy. (Ahrens)
SUPPORT (no comments)

 

AB-2094: Surplus Public Land Housing Pilot Program. (Harabedian)
OPPOSE
ELUA opposes the provisions in this bill mandating “use by right and ministerial approval.” This approval pathways reduces expert and public review of projects that are designed to help preserve safety, health, sufficient infrastructure, and quality of life. There are alternative methods to speeding up approvals that still allow reasonable review

.

SB-979: Planning and zoning: housing element: regional housing needs allocation: judicial review. (Strickland)
SUPPORT (no comments)

 

SB-1087: Transportation planning: sustainable communities strategies: transportation funding programs. (Cabaldon)
OPPOSE (no comments)

 

SB-1117: Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. (Cervantes)
OPPOSE
– This bill would further reduce the mitigation fees that local agencies can collect to offset that infrastructure impacts of ADUs.
– Nearly all housing bills impose on local jurisdictions additional staff resource and related monetary and administrative burdens. However, they include, without any meaningful justification, boilerplate text claiming that the state does not have to provide constitutionally guaranteed reimbursement. Ironically, this bill (and others) simultaneously reduce the ability of local jurisdiction to collect mitigation fees