** Sustainable TamAlmonte sent the following letter to Senator Mike McGuire, urging him to oppose Senate Bill 828 (Wiener) and remove the bill from consideration. We sent similar letters to the other members of the State Senate Transportation and Housing Committee too. The bill is scheduled for a hearing in the senate committee on April 24th.
April 18, 2018
FROM: Sustainable TamAlmonte, 215 Julia Ave., Mill Valley, CA 94941
TO: Senator Mike McGuire, State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: OPPOSE Senate Bill 828
Dear Senator McGuire,
We urge you to oppose Senate Bill 828 (Wiener) and remove the bill from consideration. The bill is fundamentally flawed and the amendments are far from adequate to remedy the bill’s many problems.
SB-828 makes a number of major changes to how the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is determined in housing element law. The bill would exponentially increase the number of housing units that each jurisdiction must plan for, a feat that would be unattainable. The bill’s aggressive housing goals and production targets are overly ambitious, won’t necessarily result in more construction, and would ultimately be counterproductive.
Over 4000 supporters agree with us and have signed our online petition entitled; “No to SB-827 & SB-828!Stop Top-Down Planning, Unsustainable High-Density Housing, and Unfunded Mandates!” And more are signing every day.
Here is the link to the online petition: https://tinyurl.com/No-to-SB827-SB828
Attached are two documents related to the petition:
- A PDF of the signatures of the petition supporters; and
- A PDF of the comments of the petition supporters.
Please note that the PDFs may look familiar. Since the petition opposes both SB-827 and SB-828, we sent similar documents to you before with our letter pertaining to SB-827. The difference now is that, since time has passed, there are more signatures.
REASONS TO OPPOSE SENATE BILL 828 ARE:
1) There is a limit to growth and Marin’s water supply is insufficient to meet the demand of the County’s current allowable buildout, let alone the significantly greater allowable buildout that SB-828 would require:
Marin has a limited water supply.The 2007 Marin Countywide Plan’s EIR determined that land uses and development consistent with the Countywide Plan would increase the demand for water. As a result, water supplies would be insufficient in normal rainfall years. Development of additional water resources would be required. This was identified as a significant impact that cannot be avoided with mitigation (SU). Therefore, Marin’s water supplies would be insufficient to meet the demand generated by the additional allowable housing buildout that SB-828 would require;
2) The amount of potential buildout for housing is not the problem:
The bill would increase jurisdictions’ potential buildout of housing when this isn’t the problem. The vast majority of cities and counties have certified housing elements, meaning that they have identified enough sites and zoned for densities at levels necessary to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Instead of increasing allocations, the State should help jurisdictions to carry out the housing plans they already have;
3) Jurisdictions are not in control of housing production:
Jurisdictions are not in control of what private parcel owners will build. Moreover, there are not enough subsidies to build the moderate and lower-income units that are currently included in the RHNAs. Adding more and more units and site requirements, and then blaming cities and counties for not producing their RHNA housing units when production is out of the jurisdictions’ control, punishes local agencies for results that are impossible to achieve, and will not solve the deficit;
4) Jurisdictions, without much vacant land, would be forced to prematurely annex or rezone areas for housing, when those areas would be better left for other purposes:
Requiring an exponentially ever-larger number of sites to be zoned for housing would not build those units, but instead, would force jurisdictions, without that much vacant land, to prematurely up-zone inappropriate sites (E.g. sites subject to sea level rise), annex areas to zone that many sites, or rezone agricultural and open space;
5) SB-828 would increase SB-35 streamlining:
SB-828 would increase the potential for developers to take advantage of SB-35 streamlining and avoid CEQA and its required public engagement process on sites that meet SB-35 criteria. Streamlining goes against the principles of local democracy and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their representatives of their support and/or concerns about potential development and leads to better project outcomes;
6) If excessive housing units were built, then the corresponding housing densification and population growth would increase the risk of adverse impacts:
If excessive housing units were constructed, then the corresponding housing densification and population growth would increase the risk of adverse impacts on the environment, public health and safety, traffic congestion, infrastructure, utilities (water supply), public services (schools, fire dept., police, etc.), neighborhood character, and quality of life; and
7) The bill would create unfunded mandates:
The bill would create unfunded mandates. There is no funding for dealing with the above listed impacts and the bill provides an official sidestep of addressing this issue. In addition, there are no subsidies provided for affordable housing programs. Moreover, jurisdictions tend to receive less tax revenue from residential developments than commercial and reserving a larger percentage of land for housing would squeeze local budgets.
CONCLUSION
Just two of 539 cities and counties in California met housing production goals at all four income levels during the last Housing Element eight-year period that ended in 2014, according to a LA Times review of housing department data. Furthermore, more than 98% of local governments are off track in their current housing production goals.
Cities don't build houses, and without a substantial increase in state dollars to help finance low-income housing projects, local governments can't meet production goals in place now, let alone higher ones. SB-828 is too aggressive and, if adopted, would just set jurisdictions up to fail.
Once again, we, and the over 4000 petition supporters, urge you to oppose SB-828 and remove the bill from consideration.
Thank you in advance for your conscientious consideration.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Sharon Rushton, Chairperson
Sustainable TamAlmonte