9 Detrimental Housing Bills
by Sharon Rushton
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE 9 DETRIMENTAL HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING BILLS
Spread
the word ...
ACTION ALERT! Please call State Assembly Members ASAP to defeat detrimental high-density housing bills and save single-family neighborhoods & Marin's quality of life!
Hi Sustainable TamAlmonte Friends,
Please call State Assembly Members ASAP and urge them to oppose detrimental high-density housing bills in order to save single-family neighborhoods and preserve Marin's quality of life!
Together, nine housing bills (SB-1085, SB-995, SB-1120, SB-902, AB-1279, AB-725, AB-2345, AB-3040, & AB-3107) continue the misguided trend of:
- Taking away local government's control and giving it to market-rate housing developers;
- Eliminating single-family zoning;
- Increasing housing density and reducing or eliminating parking requirements, resulting in significant adverse impacts;
- Streamlining the permit review process for housing, thereby posing a significant threat to democracy, public engagement, and high-quality development;
- Exempting housing projects from thorough review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), thereby reducing environmental protections; and
- Creating unfunded mandates that
burden local governments and communities.
Moreover, the bills do little if anything to increase the supply of affordable housing.
Below is the schedule for 4 of the 9 detrimental high-density housing bills. (Scroll down for brief descriptions of all 9 bills.) When we know the schedule of the other 5 misguided housing bills, we will send out another email.
Schedule:
- Tues., July 28th at 2 PM - Senate Bill 1085 will be reviewed by the Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee
- Wed., July 29th at 2 PM - Senate Bill 995 will be reviewed by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee
- Thurs., August 4th at 9:30 AM - Senate Bill 1120 and Senate Bill 902 will be reviewed by the Assembly Local Government Committee
- TBD - Dates for Senate policy committees to hear detrimental Assembly housing bills.
Sample Script:
“Hello. My name is ______. I’m calling to urge the Assembly Member to vote “NO” on Senate Bill 1085 (SB-995, SB-1120, or SB–902). This bill adversely impacts all Californians, is poor housing policy, and doesn’t address the need for truly affordable housing.”
Below are descriptions of each of the four bills that are already scheduled; reasons to oppose the bills; and the names and telephone numbers of the Assembly Committee Members who will vote on each bill.
-----
OPPOSE SENATE BILL 1085 (Skinner) "Density Bonus Law: qualifications for incentives or concessions: student housing for lower income students: moderate-income persons and families: local government constraints"
About SB-1085:
According to the State Density
Bonus Law, local governments must grant a
density bonus when an applicant for a housing
development of five or more units seeks and
agrees to construct a project that will contain
a percentage of affordable housing.
SB - 1085 would make several changes to existing
Density Bonus Law, as specified. The bill would
increase density bonuses and incentives to
housing development projects, while lowering the
threshold of the percent of affordable housing
that the housing project must provide in order
to receive such bonuses and incentives.
The California “density bonus” law is badly backfiring, creating far too much luxury and market-rate housing and far too little low-income housing. SB-1085 would accelerate this trend. The bill would reward developers who erect huge luxury buildings with fewer affordable units than ever. Overburdened local communities would be left to pay for the resultant adverse impacts and the necessary augmentation of infrastructure and public services, while developers’ profits rise. Current density bonus law is better than SB-1085’s proposed new version of the law. Rather than increasing housing density, other types of solutions should be sought to provide more affordable housing.
Specific Reasons to Oppose Senate Bill 1085: (**For more detailed information see Sustainable TamAlmonte's attached letter re: Oppose SB-1085 or click HERE. )
- SB - 1085 would incentivize the construction of moderate-income housing units at the expense of low and very low-income units;
- SB - 1085 would incentivize developers to construct luxury and market-rate housing units instead of moderate-income housing units;
- SB - 1085’s treatment of inclusionary zoning would further lower the number of affordable units constructed;
- SB - 1085 further diminishes local government’s control of housing density;
- SB - 1085 would increase traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions by lowering parking requirements;
- SB -1085 would jeopardize high fire hazard areas with clogged evacuation routes by severely reducing off-street parking requirements and forcing drivers to park their vehicles on the street;
- SB - 1085 would allow developers to construct even denser housing development, thereby greatly increasing the risk of significant adverse impacts;
- SB - 1085 would create unfunded mandates by eliminating the local government housing fees that pay for critical infrastructure and public services.
TAKE ACTION: Call the Members of the Assembly Committee on Housing & Community Development before Tuesday, July 28th at 2 PM and urge them to vote “NO” on SB-1085
|
Name, (Party) |
Phone or Email |
Voting Record on the Nine Detrimental Housing Bills |
|
|
Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee Members |
NVR=No Vote Recorded; Ap = Appropriations vote; Fl= Floor vote; HCD=Housing & Community Dev. vote |
||
|
David Chiu (D), Chair |
1-916-319-2017 |
|
|
|
Tyler Diep (R), V Chair
|
1-916-319-2072 |
AB-725-NO HCD, Ap Fl SB-1279- NO Ap and Fl |
|
|
Jesse Gabriel (D)
|
1-916-319-2045 |
AB-725-NVR Ap & Fl AB-1279-NVR, Fl AB-3040-NVR, HCD |
|
|
Todd Gloria (D) |
1-916-319-2078 |
|
|
|
Kevin Kiley (D) |
1-916-319-2006 |
|
|
|
Monique Limon (D) |
1-916-319-2037 |
|
|
|
Brian Maienschein (D)
|
1-916-319-2077 |
AB-725-NO, Fl AB-2345-NVR, Ap & Fl |
|
|
Sharon Quirk-Silva (D) |
1-916-319-2065 |
|
|
-----
OPPOSE SENATE BILL 995 (Atkins, Wiener, Caballero, and Rubio) “Environmental quality: Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011: housing projects”
About SB-995:
Senate Bill 995 would expand the application of streamlining the CEQA process to smaller housing projects that include at least 15 percent affordable housing. It also would broaden application and utilization of the Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) process, thereby reducing environmental protections.
Background: Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011. Existing law provides a framework for expediting CEQA review of major projects. The Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (hereafter AB 900 or Act), established specified administrative and judicial review procedures for the review of the environmental review documents and public agency approvals granted for designated residential, retail, commercial, sports, cultural, entertainment, or recreational use projects, known as "Environmental Leadership Development Projects" (ELDP). To qualify as an ELDP, the project must meet specified objective environmental standards. The Legislature has also applied similar expedited frameworks for specific sports stadiums that meet certain objective environmental
Standards.
Excerpts from Senate Floor Analysis of SB-995:
DIGEST: This bill extends for four years the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 until 2025; and makes housing projects that meet certain requirements, including specified affordable housing requirements and labor requirements, eligible for certification under the Act.”…
“This bill:
1) Requires a lead agency to prepare a master EIR for a general plan, plan amendment, plan element, or specific plan for housing projects where the state has provided funding for the preparation of the master EIR;
2) Extends the Governor’s authority to certify a leadership project to January 1, 2024, and repeals AB 900 on January 1, 2025; and
3) Makes smaller infill housing projects that meet certain requirements, including a minimum investment in California, affordable housing requirements, and labor requirements, eligible for certification.”…
“4) Environmental Leadership Development Projects (ELDPs) and affordable housing: SB-995 adds a new category of projects eligible for AB 900 certification - affordable housing projects. To qualify, the project must be located on an infill site, be consistent with a Sustainable Communities Strategy or Alternative Planning Strategy, have at least 15% of the project be dedicated to affordable housing, and must result in a minimum investment of $15 million in California. In comparison, current ELDP residential projects are subject to LEED Gold, do not have a minimum affordable housing requirement, and are required to result in $100 million investment in California. By lowering the investment requirement, removing the LEED component, and imposing a minimum affordable housing requirement, SB 995 provides an incentive for the development of affordable housing projects.
This bill does not specify what ratio of housing a project must provide to be considered a “housing project” eligible for AB 900 certification. As such, the bill could potentially allow a project that offers a minimal amount of housing to be certified as long as 15% of the housing is affordable housing.”
Reasons to Oppose Senate Bill 995: (For more detailed information, see Sustainable TamAlmonte’s attached letter re: oppose SB-995 or click HERE.)
Senate Bill 995 would expand the application of streamlining the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which became law in 1970, is our state’s landmark environmental law. Its purpose is to foster transparency and integrity in public decision-making while ensuring land use decisions take the full impacts of development on our natural and human environments into account. It is one of the most powerful environmental protection laws in the nation.
CEQA gives the community a voice in land use decisions. It requires decision-makers to adopt alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce significant adverse environmental impacts. As such, it plays a critical role in preserving and enhancing California’s public health, safety, and the environment.
The Act was designed to ensure that a project applicant—not the public—bears the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure to support a project. It also provides the public and decision-makers with “the big picture” and helps ensure that many small projects are not considered separately, only to overwhelm a community when taken as a whole.
CEQA protections should be strengthened rather than further weakened.
TAKE ACTION: Call the Members of the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources before Wed., July 29th at 2 PM and urge them to vote “NO” on SB-995:
· Assembly Member Laura Friedman (Dem) (Chair): (916) 319-2043
· Assembly Member Heath Flora (Rep) (Vice-Chair): (916) 319-2012
· Assembly Member Ed Chau (Dem): (916) 319-2049
· Assembly Member Susan Eggman (Dem): (916) 319-2013
· Assembly Member Cristina Garcia (Dem): (916) 319-2013
· Assembly Member Monique Limon (Dem): (916) 319-2037
· Assembly Member Devon Mathis (Rep): (916) 319-2026
· Assembly Member Kevin McCarty (Dem): (916) 319-2007
· Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi (Dem): (916) 319-2066
· Assembly Member Mark Stone (Dem): (916) 319-2029
OPPOSE SENATE BILL 1120 (Atkins, Caballero, Rubio, and Wiener) “Subdivisions: tentative maps”
About SB-1120:
This bill requires cities and counties to permit ministerially either or both of the following in single-family zones, as long as specified conditions are met:
· A housing development of up to two units (a duplex).
· The subdivision of a parcel into two equal parcels (urban lot split).
To use this bill, the subject parcel would need to be zoned for residential uses and in a single-family zoning district. Certain hazardous, protected parcels or currently occupied parcels could not take advantage of this bill. Projects could not result in the demolition of 25% or more of existing exterior walls; a parcel smaller than 1,200 square feet; nor provide short-term rentals. CEQA would not be required. Objective requirements may be applied, provided the requirements do not prohibit the project.
SB-1120 allows a local government to adopt ordinances to implement its duplex and urban lot split provisions and provides that the adoption of such ordinances are not subject to CEQA.
SB-1120 significantly lowers parking requirements and eliminates parking requirements in certain areas.
SB-1120 disclaims the state's responsibility for providing reimbursement by citing local governments’ authority to charge for the costs of implementing the bill's provisions
Reasons to Oppose SB-1120 (** For more detailed information, see Sustainable TamAlmonte’s attached letter re: oppose SB-1120 or click HERE.)
· Increasing housing density is the wrong solution to meet our affordable housing needs;
· SB-1120 would eliminate single-family zoning and destroy single-family neighborhoods, which are greatly treasured and should be protected;
· Reducing local control of land use is the wrong solution to meet our affordable housing needs;
· Streamlining the permit review process for housing development threatens democracy, public engagement, and high-quality development;
· SB-1120 wrongly assumes that residents who live near bus stops don’t need vehicles and therefore don’t need parking spaces;
· SB-1120 would jeopardize high fire hazard areas with clogged evacuation routes by severely reducing or eliminating off-street parking;
· SB-1120 increases traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions;
· SB-1120 would increase the risk of significant adverse impacts;
· SB-1120 would create unfunded mandates; and
· Weakening the California Environmental Quality Act is misguided.
TAKE ACTION: Call Members of the Assembly Committee on Local Government before Thursday, August 4th at 9:30 AM and urge them to vote “NO” on SB-1120:
· Assembly Member Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (Dem) (Chair): (916) 319-2004
· Assembly Member Tom Lackey (Rep) (Vice-Chair): (916) 319-2036
· Assembly Member Richard Bloom (Dem): (916) 319-2076
· Assembly Member Tasha Boerner Horvath (Dem): (916) 319-2076
· Assembly Member James Ramos (Dem): (916) 319-2040
· Assembly Member Luz Rivas (Dem): (916) 319-2039
· Assembly Member Robert Rivas (Dem): (916) 319-2030
· Assembly Member Randy Voepel (Rep): (916) 319-2071
-----
OPPOSE SENATE BILL 902 (Wiener) “Planning & zoning: housing development: density”
About SB-902:
SB-902 permits a local government to pass an ordinance, which is not subject to CEQA, to zone any parcel (including those in single-family zones) up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified by the local government in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area, a jobs-rich area, or an urban infill site, as specified. Since the ordinances would not be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), they would likely result in unmitigated significant adverse environmental impacts.
Reasons to Oppose SB-902 (For more detailed information, see Sustainable TamAlmonte’s attached letter re: oppose SB-902 or click HERE.)
· Politicians should not be able to override the preferences of local voters;
· Single-family zoning is treasured and should be protected;
· Weakening the California Environmental Quality Act is misguided;
· Increasing housing density is the wrong solution to meet our affordable housing needs.
TAKE ACTION: Call Members of the Assembly Committee on Local Government before Thursday, August 4th at 9:30 AM and urge them to vote “NO” on SB-902:
· Assembly Member Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (Dem) (Chair): (916) 319-2004
· Assembly Member Tom Lackey (Rep) (Vice-Chair): (916) 319-2036
· Assembly Member Richard Bloom (Dem): (916) 319-2076
· Assembly Member Tasha Boerner Horvath (Dem): (916) 319-2076
· Assembly Member James Ramos (Dem): (916) 319-2040
· Assembly Member Luz Rivas (Dem): (916) 319-2039
· Assembly Member Robert Rivas (Dem): (916) 319-2030
· Assembly Member Randy Voepel (Rep): (916) 319-2071
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE 9 DETRIMENTAL HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING BILLS
- Senate Bill 1120 (Atkins & Wiener) "Subdivisions: tentative maps": SB-1120 destroys single-family zoning. SB-1120 requires cities and counties to permit ministerially either or both of the following in single-family zones, as long as specified conditions are met: 1) urban lot split; and 2) a duplex. A single-family residential parcel could be split and then each half could be turned into two separate duplexes, resulting in a total of 4 housing units. The bill exempts these housing projects from public hearings, discretionary review, environmental (CEQA) review, and greatly reduces parking requirements.
- Senate Bill 1085 (Skinner) "Density Bonus Law": SB-1085 makes several changes to existing Density Bonus Law and provides additional benefits to housing development projects, as specified. SB-1085 allows developers to receive larger density bonuses and build higher-density projects, yet provide fewer affordable housing units. The bill prohibits local governments from imposing housing fees for developers' luxury bonus units. Such fees are needed to pay for critical infrastructure and public services. In addition, the bill significantly reduces parking requirements.
- Senate Bill 995 (Atkins, Wiener, Caballero, Rubio) "Environmental quality: jobs and economic improvement through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011: housing projects": SB-995 would expand the application of streamlining the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process to smaller housing projects that include at least 15 percent affordable housing. It also would broaden application and utilization of the Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) process, thereby reducing environmental protections.
- Senate Bill 902 (Wiener) “Planning and zoning: housing development: density”: SB-902 permits a local government to pass an ordinance, which is not subject to CEQA, to zone any parcel (including those in single-family zones) up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified by the local government in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area, a jobs-rich area, or an urban infill site, as specified. Since the ordinances would not be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), they would likely result in unmitigated significant adverse environmental impacts.
- Assembly Bill 1279 (Bloom) “Planning and zoning: housing development: high-opportunity areas”: AB-1279 targets localities determined by the Dept. of Housing and Community Development to have not met their share of the regional housing needs for the reporting period. (Now that Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) units have to be built rather than just planned for, only 24 jurisdictions out of the state's 540 met RHNA goals.)
AB-1279 requires certain development sites in “high-opportunity areas”, which are designated by the Dept. of Housing & Community Development, to allow for much greater density and height of housing projects and makes these sites subject to ministerial, "use by-right" approval. "Use by right" eliminates discretionary review, public hearings and environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. According to the Assembly analysis, if a parcel exceeds one-half acre in these prime locations (including single-family zones), a housing project that meets certain criteria would be allowed to have up to 100 residential units with a height of up to 55 feet.
** "High-Opportunity Areas" are neighborhoods with high quality public schools, proximity to well-paying jobs, and a clean and safe environment.
- About AB 725 (Wicks) “General plans: housing element: moderate-income and above moderate-income housing: suburban and metropolitan jurisdictions”: The Planning and Zoning Law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an inventory of land suitable for residential development, to be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need determined pursuant to specified law. This bill would require that at least 25% of a metropolitan jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for moderate-income housing be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at least 2 units of housing, but no more than 35 units per acre of housing. The bill would require that at least 25% of a metropolitan jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for above moderate-income housing be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at least 2 units of housing, but no more than 35 units per acre of housing. AB-725 allows for the takeover of single-family, duplex, and small apartment neighborhoods by market-rate multi-family housing developers.
- AB 2345 (Gonzalez and Chiu) “Density Bonus Law”: According to the State Density Bonus Law, local governments must grant a density bonus when an applicant for a housing development of five or more units seeks and agrees to construct a project that will contain a percentage of affordable housing.
AB-2345 revises Density Bonus Law to increase the maximum allowable density and the number of concessions and incentives a developer can seek. E.g. Developers can request a density bonus of 50% if they provide 15% very low income units, 24% low income units, 44% moderate income units. (Under current law, the highest density bonus is 35%) E.g. The bill requires a developer to receive five incentives and concessions for projects that include the following percentage of total units: 33% for lower income households, 15% for very low income households, and 33% for moderate income households in a common interest development. The bill significantly lowers parking requirements.
AB-2345 would reward developers with excessive density bonuses, concessions, and incentives, and let them erect dramatically larger luxury buildings, while providing only a few more affordable units. Developers would be allowed to circumvent well-planned local controls on density and development standards to a much greater extent.
- AB 3040 (Chiu) “Local planning: regional housing need assessment”: AB-3040 allows cities and counties to receive a specified credit towards meeting their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for rezoning single-family neighborhoods to allow four units per parcel. The credit would be 0.1 unit per site. This bill sets a detrimental precedent that up-zoning single-family zones is desirable.
- AB 3107 (Bloom and Ting) “Planning & zoning: general plan: housing development”: AB 3107 would require cities and counties to allow developers to build housing on land designated only for commercial use. The bill arbitrarily up-zones the qualifying sites to the tallest height now allowed in commercial or residential areas within a ½ mile of the sites and, in addition, to the greatest allowed density for mixed use or residential use within ½ mile of the sites. Moreover, the housing developments could apply for density bonuses, resulting in even bigger buildings. Immense multi-family complexes could be built next to single-family homes.
No comments:
Post a Comment