Blog Post < Previous | Next >
48 Hills
The Collective Wisdom of California Residents Against SB 827 — PLEASE VOTE NO
The Collective Wisdom of California Residents Against SB 827 (Proposed, Wiener) — PLEASE VOTE NO!
The following comment letter has been sent to a number of my locally elected officials.
Overview:
The introduction of SB 827 was the shot heard ‘round California and it has already drawn massive criticism from city councils, sensible growth advocates, and low-income housing groups up and down the state. Letters of opposition were written to the bill’s author, State Senator Scott Wiener, almost immediately by the California SierraClub1 and the League of California Cities2, as well as from 37 grassroots organizations from the Los Angeles area through a collective letter from act-LA3. Some of California’s most prominent labor, conservation, and environmental justice groups have also relaunched the coalition CEQA Works against SB 827 and some of the other new housing bills.4
Despite Wiener’s background as a San Francisco Supervisor, SB827 shows a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of the General Plan as a city’s guiding policy document for land use change and a blatant disregard for the role of community involvement in the democratic process. Furthermore, the flaws in this one-size-fits-all housing bill are easily illustrated by looking at cities like Santa Monica where there is already a good balance of housing, but the majority of their city would be up-zoned beyond their control because of the many bus routes.5 Zoning needs to be left to local experts. Period.
The bill ignores or overrides factors in planning such as urban form, open space, historic preservation, safety, walkability, aesthetic design, traffic concerns, future transit plans, and the ability for local agencies to address particular housing levels in their RHNA’s (Regional Housing Needs Assessment). Furthermore, SB 827 stimulates development with no regard for any negative economic, environmental, or social impacts.
The intention of this document is not to launch an attack or blame high-tech companies or their workers for their part in our current housing dilemma. Indeed, their benefits to California and the world are inestimable. The point is to illustrate the role that any imposing industry plays as part of the root cause in a housing shortage where land is scarce and economic inequity exists. In areas like Silicon Valley, each additional office development digs cities deeper into the housing hole.
As an example, SB 827 enriches for-profit real estate developers through “up-zoning” instead of holding local governments accountable to limit office construction to levels that ensure that new workers can be accommodated within the jurisdiction. It also absolves high-tech companies of their responsibility for our growing low- and middle-income housing problems through by-right development that is affordable to mostly high-tech workers at the expense of the rest of society.
As median housing prices rise with more luxury development and the uptick in rents, 30% of California’s renters now struggle just to make ends meet.6 There are no provisions in the bill for improvements to infrastructure, transit, public services, schools, or means of equity for existing residents whose homes are affected, while at the same time making them responsible for the continuing influx of tech workers and the 4-5 support jobs that each one generates. Those responsibilities fall squarely on the backs of taxpayers.
One cannot help but question the fact that the bill’s authors, Scott Wiener and the California YIMBY group, are generously funded by the tech industry. More than 120 tech executives have signed a letter supporting SB 827, including companies like Lyft and Uber who will greatly benefit from a large influx of well-compensated tech workers living in dense housing with no parking. The majority of Wiener’s top donors are from the real estate, tech and construction industries.7
Is this bill really designed to remedy the housing problems for the general public, or does it serve to advance the agendas and privileges of certain political groups and economic industries?
Summary Text of SB 827:
“This bill would authorize a “transit-rich” housing project to receive a housing density bonus. The bill defines a transit-rich housing project as a residential development project, the parcels of which are all within a 1/2-mile radius of a major transit stop or a 1/4 mile radius of a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are further defined. The bill would exempt a project awarded a housing opportunity bonus from various requirements, including maximum controls on residential density or floor area ratio, minimum automobile parking requirements, design standards that restrict the applicant’s ability to construct the maximum number of units consistent with any applicable building code, and maximum height limitations, as provided.”8
Problems With SB 827:
1) SB 827 Fosters Inequity and Housing Shortages for Residents with Lower and Middle Incomes:
SB 827 will actually widen the severe gap of income disparity in the Bay Area and other large cities by encouraging rising land values in transit-rich corridors while forcing out lower and even middle-income people through gentrification. In fact, this bill does nothing to address housing affordability at all.
Unless a city has strict demolition and rent control, high-end housing, which is more profitable for developers per square foot, can also create a ripple effect of rising rents for existing units.9
SB 827 enables developers to up-zone property density (and their profits) in “transit-rich corridors,” while municipalities are left unable to capture the increased land value to fund affordable housing, public services, or other infrastructure needs. The resulting costs will be passed on to low-income and middle-class taxpayers who are already struggling.
SB 827 contains ZERO requirements for any additional inclusion of low-income housing (existing local affordable overlays where they exist remain, but developers routinely negotiate their way out of these requirements). Hourly and low-income workers are the backbone of our work force, and the continuing attrition of this portion of our population will have serious repercussions to the overall health of our economy.
SB 827 does not mention in its text the State Density Bonus Law, which provides qualifying projects an additional 35% development bonus. Therefore, SB 827 could not only up-zone a property’s unit densities, but it could allow building heights of 45’, 65 and 85’ to be raised to 65’, up to 85’ and 105,’ respectively.
Setbacks, unit counts, parking requirements, exterior appearance, and other zoning regulations are eliminated under this bill in the belief that increasing density will lower housing costs. Yet, nowhere does it require that those development benefits be passed on to tenants. Developers can still charge whatever the market will bear.
Furthermore, the claim that building massive amounts of high-density housing will bring down prices has several major flaws. Construction costs for new, 5 to 10 story, high density housing are much higher per square foot than for detached housing. The more you build the scarcer land becomes and the more it is worth in an already saturated area.10
2) Why plan a city on bus routes?
Buses and shuttles are an important form of transit. However, bus routes are constantly changing based on ridership, so bus frequency and scheduling can rise above or fall below SB 827’s criteria at any time. Will cities then be required to constantly up-zone or down-zone large swaths of land as bus intervals change? How can a city or developers deal with zoning that is in constant flux and at the mercy of competition from other services such as Uber and Lyft? And if “transit rich” areas are fixed, cities could easily end up with neighborhoods with high density zoning yet no public transit at all.
SB 827 does not stipulate whether it is the same bus running every 15 minutes, or perhaps two different bus lines that happen to run within a 15 minute interval at some point in the day, only that two buses cover the same stretch of road within 15 minutes during “peak commute times.” It does not say how many days per week the buses must run 15 minutes apart, or even how many times per day. What about weekends and holidays?
As an example of the problems of basing housing on bus routes, both Sunnyvale and Mountain View built and approved dense housing developments with reduced parking up the El Camino transit corridor. The developments were to be served by 2 dedicated bus lanes which The VTA has now cancelled because people do not want to give up the privacy and convenience of their cars, and losing lanes on the El Camino for bus use created massive opposition.11
SB 827 also ignores the reality of how human behavior functions in transit-oriented developments and how those systems are flawed. For one, there is a false assumption that most traffic is generated by work commuting trips and that most people work downtown. According to Federal Transportation statistics, a greater number of people nationwide are driving to take their children to school, run errands, go to the gym, and engage in other activities than ever before. Bus routes, many of which are for commuter express, do not even stop at retail and services along the way. It makes more sense to put attractive public space, shopping, and services near transit stops since they generate ridership: Not housing. Yet, SB 827 will encourage the cannibalization of retail near transit because much denser housing can be built in it’s place.
SB 827 may actually hamper attempts at reaching new transit solutions. If a new form of transit were to come along and could not be built in a certain area, a city could not change previously up-zoned areas to shift denser development away from the old zones under SB 827. Density dictated by third parties could impede a city’s ability to move public transit lines to more appropriate corridors, or where more land is available for park and rides, or transit stations.
3) SB 827 gives developers immense power to manipulate transit agencies to gain building entitlements.
Transit agencies could influence land use decisions by adding bus routes or by changing bus stops. Additionally residents might actually boycott new mass transit in an area because they do not want 8-10 story apartment buildings next to their homes.
4) SB-827 does not require adequate parking despite that mass transit may be insufficient or cumbersome.
People who do not want to use buses could end up doubling the trips in and out using mobility service providers such as Uber, or they could park their own vehicles in surrounding neighborhoods.
5) SB 827 treats all cities the same across the board whether they have a housing shortage or not.
It also fails to address that the root of the housing crisis is explosive job growth which is outpacing infrastructure and housing growth.
6) SB 827 could severely affect schools by adding large numbers of students through high density apartments without compensatory school taxes, and it does not provide funding for school expansions in cases where the impact of added students is excessive.
7) SB 827 completely ignores a major source of our housing predicament by not addressing the fact that relentless job growth and office development triggers the need for more housing in an endless feedback loop. Why not have moratoriums on office where housing is in dire shortage?
8) SB 827 and similar bills may actually be worse for greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
The premise that denser urban centers are better for the environment is based on erroneous studies and outdated assumptions that “urban sprawl” is a bad thing. Newer research reveals that urban centers rely on older power grids and are unable to take advantage of solar power due to the nature of stacking multiple residences under one narrow roof in buildings that shadow each other. This has large implications for the use of solar charging for electric vehicles as well. Massive areas of concrete paving makes cities more prone to flooding and do not allow rainfall to replenish groundwater in a natural fashion. There is also less space for trees which are one of our best means to naturally clean the air.
Dense developments create heat islands and cold sinks that trap CO2, and they require more energy for heating and cooling buildings due to restricted air flow and their construction materials (single family homes are mostly wood, whereas high rise construction is typically concrete and steel).12 Recent studies show that increased densification centers may only contribute less than 1% of the targeted emissions reduction mandated for the state by 2030.“Buildings in urban areas typically contribute more emissions than personal transportation, outweighing any other advantages that might exist.”
Furthermore, the buses and trains required in dense urban areas often run below capacity and may actually generate more CO2 than if traditional cars were used, especially as we see more electric vehicles on the road. In fact, the displacement of many lower-income workers under this bill may require people to drive from even further distances to get to work.
9) SB 827 undermines the ability for a municipality to plan and execute development in a manner that is consistent with the sentiments of its residents, It unfairly targets people who own single-family homes near transit corridors. People pay for the privilege to live in a particular neighborhood. For many, home equity is their single most important investment. To build an 8-story apartment development next door that may devalue their homes, create solar shading, or shadow carefully located parks and schools may be construed as an illegal “taking” or property value.
10) SB 827 does not take into account the location of new development in areas that are already severely gridlocked with traffic and that have no funds or future means to add additional mass transit.
11) SB 827 has no sunset date for cities that have achieved their quotas for balanced housing or that have experienced drops in median housing prices such as might occur during a recession.
12) SB 827 eliminates the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because SB 827 bypasses the General Plan, zone changes, and zone variances.
References:
1) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-HoGZWp3E4tNTc1dF9VY3NsTjg4TV9BeTRjSWxJQ0xUc0hN/view
2) https://marinpost.org/blog/2018/1/24/sierra-club-c...
3) https://www.cacities.org/Policy-Advocacy/Action-Ce...
4) https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.or...
5) https://smmirror.com/2018/01/sma-r-t-sacramento-tr...
6) https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/15/income-ineq...
7) https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/1...
8) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextC...
9) http://www.sfhac.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ca...
10) https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/27/building-bo...
11) https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/29/el-camino-b...
12) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0964056...
Recommended reading:
https://marinpost.org/blog/2018/1/10/the-death-toll-for-californias-single-family-neighborhoods
http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/02/sb-827-ca-analysis-part-1-2132018.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/30/millennials-like-buying-cars-after-all.html
http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2017/04/bye-bye-shanghai.html
https://marinpost.org/blog/2018/1/10/6-tactics-to-hijack-californias-suburban-way-of-life
California City Councils Already Opposing SB 827 (as of 2/21/18)
Berkeley: http://www.berkeleyside.com/2018/01/22/berkeley-ma...
Beverly Hills: http://bhcourier.com/beverly-hills-city-council-re...
Encinitas: http://www.cityofencinitas.org/Portals/0/City Do...
Los Angeles: http://2preservela.org/los-angeles-leaders-oppose-.../
Malibu: https://www.malibucity.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/I...
Marin: http://citizenmarin.org/news/sustainable-tamalmont...
Milpitas: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/02/2...
Novato: http://cms6ftp.visioninternet.com/novato/agendas/p...
Palo Alto: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/02/13/palo-al...
Pinole: http://ci.pinole.ca.us/admin/docs/cc-rda/2018/2018...
Rancho Palos Verdes: http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&e...
Redondo Beach: https://www.easyreadernews.com/redondo-council-opp.../
Town of Ross: http://www.townofross.org/sites/default/files/file...
South Pasadena: http://tigernewspaper.com/south-pasadena-city-coun...
San Marcos: https://www.google.com/amp/www.sandiegouniontribun...
West Hollywood: http://weho.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22...
Yorba Linda: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ocregister.com/20...
NOTE: Content is published under a Creative Commons BY license, which allows unlimited distribution with attribution. Please share. Thank you!
Disclaimer:
The comments in this article are my opinion. I am an unpaid resident-advocate for
responsible housing and sensible growth and do not hold any political
office. I do encourage all readers to research and form their own
analysis of SB 827. Thank you!
Danessa Teckmanski is a 30 year Cupertino resident and 4th generation Californian.