August 3, 2020
FROM: Sustainable TamAlmonte
TO: California State Senate Housing Committee, California State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: OPPOSE Assembly Bill 3107 (Bloom and Ting) “Planning & zoning: general plan: housing development”
Dear Chair Senator Scott Wiener and Senate Housing Committee Members,
We strongly urge you to oppose Assembly Bill 3107 (Bloom and Ting) “Planning & zoning: general plan: housing development”. AB-3107 is fundamentally flawed. The bill is an unprecedented taking of local planning powers that hands city, county and community decision-making directly to market-rate housing developers. AB-3107 blindly increases the height, density, and FAR of housing projects without any thought to longstanding local plans and cumulative effects. AB-3107’s subsequent housing densification and population growth would increase the risk of significant adverse impacts and create unfunded mandates.
I. ABOUT ASSEMBLY BILL 3107
AB-3107 would apply to jurisdictions that have not included sufficient sites zoned to accommodate their RHNA in their Housing Element and have instead included sites that require rezoning to accommodate sufficient housing. Until these jurisdictions complete the rezoning of sufficient sites, this bill would authorize housing development on commercially zoned sites as long as certain conditions are met.
AB 3107 arbitrarily up-zones the qualifying housing developments to the tallest height now allowed in commercial or residential use 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. In addition, the maximum allowable floor area ratio of the housing developments shall be not less than 0.6 times the number of stories that complies with the height limit.
Moreover, the housing developments could apply for density bonuses, resulting in even bigger buildings.
II. REASONS TO OPPOSE ASSEMBLY BILL 3107
A. Increasing housing density is the wrong solution to meet our affordable housing needs:
AB-3107 is based on the unrealistic premise that increasing density and allowable buildout of housing would result in affordable housing being built. However, there is already plenty of density and allowable buildout for housing and this has not led to enough affordable housing being provided.
We know from experience and observation that high-density housing does not equate to affordable housing. San Francisco’s Nob and Telegraph Hills, Los Angeles’ Wilshire Corridor, and high-rises in downtown San Diego are all examples of upper-income areas where housing densities are quite high. Indeed, San Francisco is the second densest city in the United States with a density of 6,266 people per square mile[1] and yet its median home price is $1.4 million[2] and its median 1-bedroom rent is $3360 per month[3].
When discussing the need for housing, it is important to recognize that California’s population growth rate is at a record low and predicted to remain low. Estimates released on Dec. 20, 2019 by the California Department of Finance show that between July 1, 2018 and July 1, 2019, the growth rate was just .35%, the lowest recorded growth rate since 1900. During the same time period, the Department reported that there was substantial negative domestic net migration, which resulted in a loss of 39,500 residents – “the first time since the 2010 census that California has had more people leaving the state than moving in from abroad or other states”.[4]
Therefore, California, as a whole, only needs a modest increase in housing every year. We do not need to significantly up-zone vast areas of the state to accomplish this. There is plenty of potential housing buildout already allowed by the General Plans and zoning of jurisdictions throughout the state. And this potential housing buildout will grow each time jurisdictions update their Housing Elements to meet new Regional Housing Need Allocations. Moreover, AB-68, which was enacted into law in 2019, has already dramatically increased potential housing buildout beyond what communities can sustainably contend with.
So, vast up-zoning by the State for mostly market rate housing is not the answer. This strategy primarily benefits real estate investors, developers, and large corporations rather than those in need of affordable housing.
Instead, we need to provide the correct amount of affordable housing where it is already allowed and prevent the loss of existing affordable housing. Funding and subsidies are needed for local solutions to affordable housing.
In regard to the jobs/housing imbalance created by large corporations, the State should provide incentives to Corporations for them to open offices in the less populated areas of the State that are jobs poor and housing rich, where the cost of land and housing are much less expensive. In addition, require “Full Mitigation”, which makes commercial development approval contingent on adequate housing. (See Palo Alto Mayor Filseth’s article - https://padailypost.com/2020/01/03/guest-opinion-who-should-pay-for-tech-expansion/ )
B. Reducing local control of land use is the wrong solution to meet our affordable housing needs:
AB-3107 takes away local governments’ control of land use and development standards and gives it to developers, thereby eviscerating decades of careful planning. Local planning efforts encourage public engagement and are much better than the State at ensuring high-quality development and determining where and how much housing growth should occur. Local planning efforts are also better at anticipating necessary government services such as water, sewer, utilities, schools and traffic flow.
C. AB-3107 wreaks havoc on local plans:
Each city/county faces a different fate because AB-3107 randomly increases height, density and FAR. AB 3107 arbitrarily up-zones the qualifying housing developments to the tallest height now allowed in commercial or residential use 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. In addition, the maximum allowable floor area ratio of the housing developments shall be not less than 0.6 times the number of stories that complies with the height limit. Moreover, the housing developments could apply for density bonuses, resulting in even bigger buildings.
In L.A., AB-3107 would allow 9-story towers on retail land citywide. In Inglewood, the bill would allow 75-foot towers near some low-density neighborhoods. In Manhattan Beach, the bill wipes out a citywide 30-foot residential limit and allows 99-foot residential towers where retail is today. In Marin County, where the height and size of commercial & mixed-use development are often restricted to protect scenic views and habitat, the views would be lost and the habitat would be adversely impacted. Immense multi-family complexes could be built next to single-family homes.
D. Converting commercial zones to housing zones reduces tax revenue potential
E. Assembly Bill 3107 would allow developers to construct denser and taller housing development, thereby greatly increasing the risk of significant adverse impacts:
AB-3107 greatly increases the allowable height, density, and Floor Area Ratio for housing developments. Moreover, the housing developments could apply for density bonuses, resulting in even more immense buildings.
AB-3107’s subsequent housing densification and population growth would increase the risk of significant adverse impacts on the environment, public health and safety, traffic congestion, infrastructure, utilities (water supply), public services (schools), views, sunlight, privacy, neighborhood character, and quality of life.
F. Assembly Bill 3107 would create unfunded mandates:
There is no funding for dealing with the above listed impacts and AB-3107 provides an official sidestep of addressing this issue. The bill states; “SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.”
Therefore, the bill would greatly strain local government budgets and subsequently local property owners’ budgets, as their property taxes would need to increase to pay for the new housing projects’ impacts. Either that, or local communities would suffer a lower quality of life. Increasing fiscal strain is especially misguided at this time, when local governments and residents are already struggling financially due to the effects of Covid-19 on the economy, jobs and revenue.
III. CONCLUSION
Once again, we strongly urge you to oppose Assembly Bill 3107. AB-3107 is fundamentally flawed. The bill is an unprecedented taking of local planning powers that hands city, county and community decision-making directly to market-rate housing developers. AB-3107 blindly increases the height, density, and FAR of housing projects without any thought to longstanding local plans and cumulative effects. AB-3107’s subsequent housing densification and population growth would increase the risk of significant adverse impacts and create unfunded mandates.
Thank you in advance for your conscientious consideration.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Sharon Rushton, Chairperson
Sustainable TamAlmonte
[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/americas-densest-cities_b_5888424
[2] https://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/
[3] https://www.zumper.com/blog/rental-price-data/
[4] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-21/california-population-continues-to-decline-with-state-emigration-a-major-factor