City officials support higher housing densities
Some city officials—including the city attorney and four of five City Council members—are warning of dire consequences if voters turn down two measures on the June 5 primary ballot that would increase densities to allow possible low-cost, multi-family housing units.
The warnings are included in City Attorney Todd Litfin’s “impartial analysis” of Measures H and I and in arguments favoring the measures. Council members John Anderson, Tom Lindsey and Jim Winder signed both arguments, while Nancy Rikel signed one argument.
Mailing of the analysis and arguments to this city’s registered voters—numbering 43,331 as of April 4—will begin April 26 and end by a May 26 deadline, the county Registrar of Voters announced. Last day to register to vote is May 21.
According to Litfin’s analysis, if the measures fail, “[T]he city could potentially be more susceptible to legal challenges alleging that the city is in violation of state housing laws.”
Litfin further stated, “If the city were to lose such a lawsuit, the city could suffer severe legal ramifications including but not limited to court ordered compliance with state law, the suspension of the city’s power to issue building permits or other land use approvals, judicial control of housing project approvals and potential payment of attorney fees.”
Measure H will change zoning on two Savi Ranch properties to allow up to 30 units per acre and heights of 50 feet or four stories, whichever is less. However, the argument for H states the developer has agreed to build no more than 21.6 units per acre.
Measure I will change zoning on nine west-side properties to allow 10 units per acre on three sites, 20 units per acre on two sites (with heights to 35 feet or two stories, plus one-half story for underground parking) and 30 units per acre on four sites (heights to 50 feet).
Litfin’s analysis doesn’t mention the acreage of each property or the total number of units allowed if each measure passes, but based on other city reports, my calculations show that the west-side parcels total nearly 40 acres and could support 770 units and the Savi Ranch parcels total six acres and could support 180 units, although around 130 are planned.
But Litfin does note the measures don’t “require that property owners construct such housing on the identified sites.” They “merely” allow “such housing to potentially be built. Whether the property is or is not developed is up to the property owner.”
The four council members who signed the argument favoring H claimed the state “could penalize the city and implement their own housing plan without our community’s input,” with the city facing lawsuits and “spending millions on attorneys and settlement fees….”
The three council members who signed the argument favoring I stated that passage could “prevent a losing, costly legal battle.” They noted that 24 cities and counties “have spent millions fighting the state-imposed mandates and all have lost.”
Council set aside $45,000 to educate voters about the measures, so expect mailers and public meetings to often stress these calamitous consequences.
The warnings are included in City Attorney Todd Litfin’s “impartial analysis” of Measures H and I and in arguments favoring the measures. Council members John Anderson, Tom Lindsey and Jim Winder signed both arguments, while Nancy Rikel signed one argument.
Mailing of the analysis and arguments to this city’s registered voters—numbering 43,331 as of April 4—will begin April 26 and end by a May 26 deadline, the county Registrar of Voters announced. Last day to register to vote is May 21.
According to Litfin’s analysis, if the measures fail, “[T]he city could potentially be more susceptible to legal challenges alleging that the city is in violation of state housing laws.”
Litfin further stated, “If the city were to lose such a lawsuit, the city could suffer severe legal ramifications including but not limited to court ordered compliance with state law, the suspension of the city’s power to issue building permits or other land use approvals, judicial control of housing project approvals and potential payment of attorney fees.”
Measure H will change zoning on two Savi Ranch properties to allow up to 30 units per acre and heights of 50 feet or four stories, whichever is less. However, the argument for H states the developer has agreed to build no more than 21.6 units per acre.
Measure I will change zoning on nine west-side properties to allow 10 units per acre on three sites, 20 units per acre on two sites (with heights to 35 feet or two stories, plus one-half story for underground parking) and 30 units per acre on four sites (heights to 50 feet).
Litfin’s analysis doesn’t mention the acreage of each property or the total number of units allowed if each measure passes, but based on other city reports, my calculations show that the west-side parcels total nearly 40 acres and could support 770 units and the Savi Ranch parcels total six acres and could support 180 units, although around 130 are planned.
But Litfin does note the measures don’t “require that property owners construct such housing on the identified sites.” They “merely” allow “such housing to potentially be built. Whether the property is or is not developed is up to the property owner.”
The four council members who signed the argument favoring H claimed the state “could penalize the city and implement their own housing plan without our community’s input,” with the city facing lawsuits and “spending millions on attorneys and settlement fees….”
The three council members who signed the argument favoring I stated that passage could “prevent a losing, costly legal battle.” They noted that 24 cities and counties “have spent millions fighting the state-imposed mandates and all have lost.”
Council set aside $45,000 to educate voters about the measures, so expect mailers and public meetings to often stress these calamitous consequences.
posted by Jim Drummond at 12:00 PM
<< Home