COM 0465.006 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

council limited the foregoing action to a discrete list of activity resulting from NEW zoning actions. Seven years later, in 2005, the council amended the General Plan ordinance to emphasize the need for more "work force" housing, i.e., the location of affordable housing in or near employment centers. At the same time, the council amended Chapter 11 to strengthen the affordable housing requirements on specified NEW zoning actions. Today, under Bill 112, the council proposes to extend the affordable housing requirements of Chapter 11 to lands that the council previously rezoned but without affordable housing conditions. If State and county governments granted such prior rezonings in the past "free" of housing conditions, that action was grounded on direct government policy, not because of an oversight or inadvertent omission. As drafted, Bill 112 asks the affected landowners to make up for that oversight or omission and without explanation, other than the generalized statement that other municipalities use inclusionary zoning techniques (based on the laws and facts relevant to those municipalities). Furthermore, in the absence of a sound rationale to drive the proposed action, Bill 112 may lead to unintended consequences. For example, assume that a landowner has land that was rezoned prior to 1998 as residential or agricultural 1-acre and without a housing condition. Assume, further, that the landowner now wants to subdivide his land into five lots, one for each of his four children (or grandchildren) to meet their housing needs. Under Bill 112, that landowner must also satisfy the housing needs of others, at his expense and, more importantly, without a sound explanation. Finally, several communities are now in the process of recommending that the council adopt regionally-directed and regionally-administered community development plans that are intended to address housing needs through various "smart growth" techniques. The recommended actions address the appropriate utilization of lands that that were rezoned prior to 1998 on a regional basis. Bill 112 may have the unintended consequence of nullifying these community-driven initiatives. In closing, I recommend that the council defer action on Bill 112 and develop a sound rationale for the suggestion of extending Chapter 11 to previously-zoned lands in whole or in part. This would help insulate any eventual legislation against constitutional or other challenges that may operate to prevent the county from achieving its housing goals. Respectfully, /s/M. J. Matsukawa Michael J. Matsukawa