SACRAMENTO / BRADLEY INMAN : Low-Cost Housing Bill Stirs Outcry

Although state lawmakers have been preoccupied this summer with budget problems, they have found time to grapple with several important housing issues.

Bills in the legislative hopper this session include a controversial measure that would force local government to accept more low-cost housing. Another proposal would make it more difficult for municipal and county officials to zone agriculture land for development.

And the state’s first comprehensive growth-management scheme is gaining momentum in Sacramento.

Sen. Leroy Greene (D-Carmichael) has drawn a contentious line in the sand with the introduction of SB 2011, which would make it illegal for local government officials to shun some low-cost housing projects.

On one side, a gaggle of housing groups and business organizations are pushing the bold measure, while the Sierra Club and the Farm Bureau are intent on defeating it.

Dubbed “anti-NIMBY” (Not In My Back Yard) legislation by its proponents, the bill says that a housing project with at least 20% of the units set aside for low-cost housing cannot be arbitrarily turned down by local government.

“The bill would gut current planning and zoning laws,” said John Gamper of the California Farm Bureau Federation. “Farmers and ranchers would be at the mercy of builders, and that’s a high price to pay for a 20% housing requirement,” he said.

In voting for the measure, Assemblyman Dan Hauser (D-Arcata) said he had been asked privately by city officials to “provide some cover to local government” to help them approve controversial housing projects that face community opposition. A state mandate could be the shield local officials need, according to Hauser.

Greene amended the bill to satisfy concerns by the League of California Cities and the County Supervisors Assn., which agreed last week to remove their opposition.

Now the proposed law would only apply to cities and counties that have a poor track record on affordable housing. Moreover, the developments must conform to all applicable state and federal environmental laws such as the California Environmental Quality Act.

Finally, the projects cannot pose a health and safety threat and they cannot be built on agriculturally zoned land when it is being actively used for farming.

While the farm lobby frets about SB 2011, it is sponsoring another measure to slow the pace of urban sprawl.

Introduced by Assemblyman Rusty Areias (D-Los Banos), AB 1979 would require local government to do a better job of scrutinizing jumbo development proposals that pose a threat to agricultural land.

During the recent surge in residential construction, jurisdictions in outlying areas of the state have approved massive projects that cover as much as 1,000 acres of farmland. Critics charge that these approvals are often granted with scant environmental review.

Approved by the Assembly and pending in the Senate, the Areias proposal would “encourage the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR)” on agricultural land of more than 100 acres. Such a review would force communities to evaluate the complete environmental consequences of approving big projects, including the loss of prime farmland.

The bill was introduced by the American Farmland Trust, with all of the state’s major environmental organizations rallying for its passage. It is opposed by the Building Industry Assn. and the California Chamber of Commerce.

The Legislature, after years of jawboning about the state’s growth problems, is finally poised to approve California’s first growth-management plan. Introduced by Sen. Robert Presley (D-Riverside), SB 1332 would establish a voluntary countywide planning program.

Under the proposal, city and county officials could adopt--with financial incentives from the state--a scheme for reconciling local community growth plans. Balancing job growth with housing development would be one priority under the new law.

Approved by the Senate and under review in the Assembly, the bill also authorizes city and county governments to create new regional agencies that could levy development fees for funding major infrastructure projects such as roads and sewers.

“It’s not the end-all, be-all to managing growth, but it’s a step in the right direction,” said Senate consultant Steve Sanders.