The Marin Post

Letters

April 10, 2021

• Sustainable TamAlmonte's Letter to the CA Senate Housing Committee re: Oppose Senate Bill 8

  Sharon Rushton — Mill Valley April 10, 2021 - 12:34 PM

  
  

  

  March 29, 2021

  From: Sustainable TamAlmonte

  To: Honorable Senator Scott Wiener (Chair), Senate Housing Committee, State Capitol, Room 2209, Sacramento, CA 95814

  Re: Oppose Senate Bill 8 (Skinner) “Housing Crisis Act of 2019”

  Dear Chair Senator Wiener and Members of the Senate Housing Committee,

  We urge you to vote “NO” on Senate Bill 8 (Skinner) - the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019”.

  Senate Bill 8 extends and expands the Housing Crisis Act (HCA) of 2019. SB-8 extends the sunset of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 by five years, from January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2030. The Housing Crisis Act suspends certain local governments’ restrictions on development of new housing and expedites the permitting of housing. SB-8 further expands the reach of the Act to include single-family homes and takes away even more local planning decisions and capabilities.

  The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 and Senate Bill 8 undermine the ability of local governments to manage land use planning decisions and govern responsibly. The measures do not result in providing more affordable housing, as claimed by the legislation's authors. Instead, they expedite the development process and increase poorly planned and designed development for the benefit of developers’ profitability. The Act and the proposed bill are fundamentally flawed. The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 should be repealed, rather than extended and expanded.

  Senate Bill 8 should be opposed for the following reasons:

  A. It is too soon to extend the sunset of the Housing Crisis Act (HCA). The Legislature typically enacts sunset clauses on bills to provide an opportunity to assess the positive and negative impacts of a policy once sufficient information is available. The Housing Crisis Act only became effective on January 1, 2020. Less than a year and a half later, SB-8 proposes to extend the Act’s sunset. Following an atypical year and without additional years for comparison, there is little meaningful information on how the HCA affected homebuilding in the state. It is too soon to extend the sunset.

  B. SB-8 does much more than clarify. The authors of the bill claim that SB-8 merely clarifies the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. However, this is false. SB-8 expands the definition of “housing development project” to include both discretionary and ministerial projects, as well as projects to construct single family dwelling units. In addition, the bill further limits the number of appeals and public meetings that can be held related to density bonus law.

  C. SB-8 poses a significant threat to local control, democracy, and public engagement. The Housing Crisis Act and SB-8 override local land use plans and regulations. Local planning efforts (general plans and zoning ordinances) encourage public engagement and are much better than the State at determining parking requirements, impact fees and design standards. Local planning efforts are also better at anticipating necessary government services such as water, sewer, utilities, schools and traffic flow;

  D. SB-8 denies the public’s right to participate in City/County Government. The HCA and SB-8 promote the use of objective standards as a way of making all permit applications ministerial. In effect, the legislation denies a City Council or a Board of Supervisors the discretion to decide local zoning matters as well as the public’s right to participate in local governance;

  E. SB-8 imposes unreasonable timelines. Cities and Counties are given too little time to evaluate submitted applications before they are deemed complete and in conformity. The HCA and SB-8 also require that public hearings be scheduled within 30 days after a request by the developer. Poor planning is the result of meeting these unreasonable deadlines which result in either approval of projects or penalties to cities and counties;

  F. SB-8 imposes unequal legal burdens of proof. The HCA and SB-8 impose the burden on a City/County to defend its denial or conditioning of a project by meeting an elevated standard of proof while a developer is given a lower standard of proof. This law reverses long-established land use and planning law and results in giving developers massive leverage to obtain approvals of poorly planned projects;

  G. SB-8 creates a new type of housing project application. The HCA and SB-8 allow a developer to submit a “preliminary” housing project application, which contains too little information for a city to determine the scope of the project or the type of CEQA document that is needed. Additionally, once the “preliminary” application is filed, new limits on the number of public hearings and streamline approval timeline begins;

  H. SB-8 freezes impact fees. The HCA and this measure lock in place nearly all fees or exactions imposed on development projects once a developer submits a “preliminary” application. Since the “preliminary” application lacks all of the necessary information to evaluate the project, a city is unable to determine which fees apply to the project. Additionally, project specific fees are essentially banned because those fees cannot be determined until a city fully analyzes the project. It is important to note that all project impact fees are extensively regulated by state law and the constitution. Cities can only charge a fee to cover the cost of providing the service for which the fee is applied. It is illegal for cities to charge project fees and use the funds for other purposes. Freezing fees makes it very difficult for a city to serve its community;

  I. SB-8 prohibits a reduction in intensity of land use. The HCA and SB-8 prohibit a local jurisdiction from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would reduce the intensity of land use below that in effect on January 1, 2018, with few exceptions. This is an unreasonable restriction of a local jurisdiction’s authority and prohibits a jurisdiction from rectifying a previous mistake of allowing too much intensity prior to January 1, 2018; and

  J. SB-8 does not require developers to pass housing production cost savings on to consumers. Limiting parking and restricting fees would allow developers to pocket the savings and enhance their profits. There is no provision in the legislation that requires developers to pass these savings onto renters or home buyers.

  Once again, we urge you to oppose Senate Bill 8. Instead, support locally-grown sustainable strategies that enable our communities to meet all housing needs.

  Thank you in advance for your conscientious consideration.

  Very truly yours,

  /s/

  Sharon Rushton, President

  Sustainable TamAlmonte

• Sustainable TamAlmonte's letter to CA Senate Housing Committee re: Support-if-Amended SB-765

  Sharon Rushton — Mill Valley April 10, 2021 - 12:29 PM

  

  April 8, 2021

  From: Sustainable TamAlmonte

  To: Honorable Scott Wiener, Senate Housing Committee, CA State Capitol, Room 2209, Sacramento, CA 95814

  Re: Support-if-Amended Senate Bill 765 (Stern) "Accessory Dwelling Units: setbacks"

  Dear Chair Wiener and Members of the Senate Housing Committee,

  Sustainable TamAlmonte’s position on Senate Bill 765 (Stern) "Accessory Dwelling Units: setbacks", is “Support-if-Amended”.

  About Senate Bill 765:

  Existing law prohibits a local agency’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance from imposing a setback requirement of more than 4 feet from the side and rear lot lines for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.

  This bill would remove the above-described prohibition on a local agency’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance, and would instead provide that the rear and side yard setback requirements for accessory dwelling units may be set by the local agency. The bill would authorize an accessory dwelling unit applicant to submit a request to the local agency for an alternative rear and side yard setback requirement if the local agency’s setback requirements make the building of the accessory dwelling unit infeasible. The bill would prohibit any rear and side yard setback requirements established pursuant to these provisions from being greater than those in effect as of January 1, 2020. The bill would specify that if the local agency did not have an accessory dwelling unit ordinance as of January 1, 2020, the applicable rear and side yard setback requirement is 4 feet.

  Reasons to Support-if-Amended Senate Bill 765:

  SB-765 is a big step in the right direction but should go further in allowing local governments to determine proper setbacks.

  Property setbacks have many benefits both aesthetically and functionally. Setbacks help with:

  Better protection of public safety: Having space between houses and streets, etc., ensures that in the case of a fire or other emergencies, first responders can access the property and residents can evacuate rapidly and safely.

  Better preservation of the environment: For residential properties that are located adjacent to streams, wetlands, forests, and other natural habit, proper setbacks are critical for the wellbeing of the habitat and wildlife, including endangered species, that live there.

  Better services: Proper setbacks ensure that maintenance personnel can safely and easily access the property for such services as sewer, utilities, and cable, etc.

  Better ventilation and public health: Not having a house squished up against another house or roadways gives residents cleaner air. This means residents won’t be breathing in toxic exhaust or a neighbor’s smoking habit.

  Better lighting: Property setbacks ensure that there is plenty of space around dwellings to bring in natural light and better visual access.

  Better sound insolation: Property setbacks help ensure better sound insulation by building away from busy intersections and other noisy environments.

  Better landscape: Landscaping makes a home more inviting and give a sense of ease. Gardens provide residents with a place to enjoy the outdoors and commune with nature. They give children a place to play. Trees and vegetation remove carbon from the air and help to cool our communities. Permeable ground cover helps to replenish groundwater resources, restore hydrologic balance and reduce runoff volume.

  Additional benefits: Property setbacks help ensure buildings don’t fall over each other in the case of a natural disaster, like an earthquake or fire. They encourage outdoor activities in public areas, and help keep the sanity of society by giving people enough room to roam.

  Please amend Senate Bill 765 and eliminate the provisions that: 1) Prohibit any rear and side yard setback requirements from being greater than those in effect as of January 1, 2020; and 2) Require rear and side yard setbacks to be limited to 4 feet if the local agency did not have an accessory dwelling unit ordinance as of January 1, 2020.

  Thank you in advance for your conscientious consideration.

  Very truly yours,

  /s/

  Sharon Rushton, President

  Sustainable TamAlmonte

• Sustainable TamAlmonte's Letter to CA State Assembly re: Oppose Senate Bill 7

  Sharon Rushton — Mill Valley April 10, 2021 - 12:23 PM

  

  March 17, 2021

  From: Sustainable TamAlmonte

  To: California State Assembly, California State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814

  Re: Oppose Senate Bill 7

  Dear California State Assembly Members,

  We urge you to oppose Senate Bill 7.

  Senate Bill 7 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.

  CEQA authorizes the preparation of a master EIR and authorizes the use of the master EIR to limit the environmental review of subsequent projects that are described in the master EIR, as specified.

  Limiting environmental review on housing projects that are described in a master EIR confers what is essentially a CEQA free pass on those housing projects relating to cumulative impacts and alternatives.

  Such CEQA streamlining removes the ability of local governments to be fully informed of the project’s potential environmental consequences. Without that review, a local government would not be properly informed of traffic impacts, air impacts, or compatible use issues. It is unacceptable for the public to live with the consequences of a housing project that would not be fully vetted and whose impacts were not mitigated and alternatives not considered.

  The California Environmental Quality Act, 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.

  Once again, we urge you to oppose Senate Bill 7.

  Thank you in advance for your conscientious consideration.

  Very truly yours,

  /s/

  Sharon Rushton, President

  Sustainable TamAlmonte

• Sustainable TamAlmonte's Letter to CA State Assembly re: Oppose Assembly Bill 215

  Sharon Rushton — Mill Valley April 10, 2021 - 12:13 PM

  

  April 8, 2021

  From: Sustainable TamAlmonte

  To: Honorable David Chiu, Assembly Committee on Housing & Community Development, Legislative Office Building, 1020 N. Street, Room 156, Sacramento, CA 95814

  Re: Oppose AB-215 "Housing element: regional housing need: relative progress determination

  Dear Chair Assembly Member Chiu and Members of the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development,

  We urge you to oppose Assembly Bill 215.

  I. ABOUT ASSEMBLY BILL 215

  Assembly Bill 215 further penalizes jurisdictions that don’t meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA). The bill requires cities/counties to undertake a mid-cycle housing element consultation to check the jurisdiction's progress toward fulfilling their housing quotas. Jurisdictions that fall behind must attain a "prohousing" designation by adopting housing policies that facilitate planning, approval or construction of housing, such as offering local financial incentives, lowering parking requirements, and streamlining the permit process with by-right approvals.

  II. REASONS TO OPPOSE ASSEMBLY BILL 215

  Throughout California, the Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA) for the 2023-2031 cycle are unprecedented, unrealistic, flawed and inflated.

  Marin's total estimated housing allocation of over 14k units for the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle is over 6 times as large as that for the last 2015-2023 cycle, which was 2,298 units. For some individual jurisdictions, it's even worse. Unincorporated Marin’s new housing quota of 3,510 units is 20 times larger than that for the last RHNA cycle, which was 185 units.

  During the last Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle (2015-2023), over 400 of California’s 480 municipalities have not reached their RHNA targets. New laws require local jurisdictions to not only identify RHNA sites but, in addition, to ensure that new housing is actually constructed on the sites. Yet, local governments are not developers and cannot force private property owners to build housing units. Indeed, the Embarcadero Institute found that the shortage of housing resulted not from a failure by cities to issue housing permits, but rather a failure by the state to fund and support affordable housing.
  
  Moreover, non-performance in a RHNA income category triggers a streamlined approval process per Senate Bill 35 (2017), which lessens local communities’ control over land use, environmental protections, and quality development.

  By issuing such inflated 2023-2031 allocations without providing funds for affordable housing, the State and Regional Agencies are setting local governments up to fail again.

  Rather than provide much-needed State funding, Assembly Bill 215 further penalizes jurisdictions that don’t meet their RHNA housing quotas. As mentioned, a jurisdiction, which fails to adequately progress toward meeting it’s RHNA target, must attain a “prohousing” designation by adopting housing policies that facilitate planning, approval, or construction of housing, such as lowering parking requirements, and streamlining the permit process with by-right approvals.

  Such requirements continue the misguided trend to:

  • Take away local governments’ control of land use and give it to housing developers;
  • Increase housing density and override local development standards (parking, height, set-backs, etc.), which would result in significant adverse impacts;
  • Streamline the permit review process, thereby posing a significant threat to democracy, public engagement, and high-quality development;
  • Exempt housing projects from thorough review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, thereby reducing environmental protections; and
  • Create unfunded mandates that burden local governments and communities.

  Once again, we urge you to oppose Assembly Bill 215.

  Thank you in advance for your conscientious consideration.

  Very truly yours,

  /s/

  Sharon Rushton, President

  Sustainable TamAlmonte

• Sustainable TamAlmonte to CA Senate Housing Committee re: Oppose Senate Bill 290

  Sharon Rushton — Mill Valley April 10, 2021 - 11:59 AM

  
  

  March 12, 2021

  From: Sustainable TamAlmonte

  To: Honorable Scott Wiener, Senate Housing Committee, CA State Capitol, Room 2209, Sacramento, CA 95814

  Re: OPPOSE Senate Bill 290 (Skinner) Density Bonus Law: qualifications for incentives or concessions: student housing for lower income students: moderate-income persons and families: local government constraints

  Dear Chair Wiener and Members of the Senate Housing Committee,

  We urge you to oppose Senate Bill 290 (Skinner) Density Bonus Law: qualifications for incentives or concessions: student housing for lower income students: moderate-income persons and families: local government constraints.

  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-290 would accelerate this trend. The bill would reward developers who erect huge housing complexes with predominantly market-rate and luxury units and fewer affordable units than ever. Overburdened local communities would be left to pay for the resultant adverse impacts and the necessary augmentation of infrastructure, utilities, and public services, while developers’ profits rise. Current density bonus law is better than SB-290’s proposed new version of the law. Rather than increasing housing density, other types of solutions should be sought to provide more affordable housing.

  I. ABOUT SENATE BILL 290

  Senate Bill 290 would make several changes to existing Density Bonus Law and provide additional incentives and benefits to housing development projects that include moderate-income rental housing units, as specified.

  II. REASONS TO OPPOSE SENATE BILL 290

  A. Senate Bill 290 would incentivize the construction of moderate-income housing units at the expense of low and very low-income units:

  While the author’s intent, according to the Senate analysis, is to incentivize the construction of more developments containing moderate-income units, this bill would have the unfortunate consequence of discouraging the development of low-income housing. This is due to the fact that it would enable certain developments with 20% low income units to receive the same benefits (density and possible reduced parking) as certain developments with 20% moderate-income units. Given the choice, a developer will likely choose to develop the moderate-income units because those developments will yield more returns for the developer (i.e. the developer receives more in rent from a moderate-income household than from a low-income household).

  B. Senate Bill 290 would incentivize developers to construct luxury and market-rate housing units instead of moderate-income housing units:

  Current law requires a developer to provide 40% of moderate-income units to receive a 35% density bonus. SB-290 would lower the threshold and require a developer to provide only 20% of moderate-income units to receive the same 35% density bonus. As a result, the developer would likely build 20% more luxury and market-rate housing units instead of moderate-income units, since the luxury and market-rate units would yield more income and he/she would still receive the same bonus.

  C. Senate Bill 290’s treatment of inclusionary zoning would further lower the number of affordable units constructed:

  SB-290 requires any affordable units, which are constructed to receive a density bonus, to count towards a local government’s inclusionary ordinance, rather than be additive to the inclusionary ordinance requirement. This invalidates an inclusionary ordinance and greatly diminishes the amount of affordable housing that would typically be required to be constructed.

  D. Senate Bill 290 further diminishes local government’s control of housing density:

  Imposing additional density is another one-size-fits-all solution and ignores local government’s and residents’ better judgement. Local planning efforts (general plans and zoning ordinances) encourage public engagement and are much better than the State at 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.

  E. Senate Bill 290 would increase traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions:

  Senate Bill 290 would increase traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions by lowering parking requirements for housing projects that provide moderate-income units.

  Current law requires a developer to provide 1 onsite parking space per bedroom for moderate-income housing units with 1 to 3-bedrooms and 2.5 onsite parking spaces for moderate-income housing units with 4 or more bedrooms. SB-290 would lower this requirement to just .5 spaces per bedroom.

  As a result, SB-290 would increase the number of residents and vehicles in neighborhoods and the residents would have to park their vehicles on the street due to insufficient off-street parking spaces. Due to more cars on the road plus more circulation of those cars, as residents search for vacant on-street parking spaces, traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions would rise.

  F. SB-290 would jeopardize high fire hazard areas:

  There are many communities in “high” and “very high” fire hazard zones that have narrow windy streets and few roads out to safety. The bill allows a dramatic increase in population in these hazardous communities, while reducing off-street parking requirements, which will lead to streets being overcrowded with parked cars. Dire consequences could result during an emergency when residents are unable to evacuate and fire trucks are unable to reach their destinations.

  G. Senate Bill 290 would allow developers to construct even denser housing development, thereby greatly increasing the risk of significant adverse impacts:

  SB-1085 increases the density for a development that contains 11% very-low-income units to receive a 40% density bonus instead of a 35% density bonus.

  The bill’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.

  H. Senate Bill 290 would create unfunded mandates by eliminating the local government housing fees that pay for critical infrastructure and public services:

  Senate Bill 290 would require a city/county to grant greater density bonuses and allow a housing developer to build many more units than the local regulations would normally allow. The new development and future inhabitants of the units would result in the need for more and improved infrastructure and public services. Yet, SB-290 prohibits local governments from imposing housing fees for low and moderate-income units or for any bonus units to help pay for the additional infrastructure and services. This 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.

  III CONCLUSION

  Once again, we urge you to oppose Senate Bill 290. SB-290 further exacerbates the affordability crisis for lower-income households. The bill would reward developers who erect huge housing complexes with predominantly market-rate and luxury units and fewer affordable units than ever. Overburdened local communities would be left to pay for the resultant adverse impacts and the necessary augmentation of infrastructure, utilities and public services, while developers’ profits rise. Current density bonus law is better than the SB-290’s proposed new version of the law. Rather than increasing housing density, other types of solutions should be sought to provide more affordable housing.

  Thank you in advance for your conscientious consideration.

  Very truly yours,

  /s/

  Sharon Rushton, President

  Sustainable TamAlmonte

• Sustainable TamAlmonte Letter to CA Senate Housing Committee Re: Oppose Senate Bill 10

  Sharon Rushton — Mill Valley April 10, 2021 - 11:56 AM

  
  

  March 3, 2021

  From: Sustainable TamAlmonte

  To: Honorable Scott Wiener, Senate Housing Committee, CA State Capitol, Room 2209, Sacramento, CA 95814

  Re: OPPOSE SB 10 (Wiener) - Planning and zoning: housing development: density

  Dear Chair Wiener and Members of the Senate Housing Committee,

  We strongly urge you to oppose Senate Bill 10.

  I. ABOUT SENATE BILL 10

  SB 10 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: density: SB-10 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.

  II. REASONS TO OPPOSE SB-10

  A. Politicians should not be able to override the preferences of local voters:

  In 1911, California voters amended the Constitution to provide voters the power to enact initiatives and referenda. The power of initiative is integral to California’s political process. One common way the initiative power is used is to adopt urban growth boundaries or other growth management ordinances. SB-10 allows local officials to adopt zoning that allows up to 10 units on a parcel, even if local voters have said they don’t want it. Politicians should not be able to override the preferences of local voters.

  B. Weakening the California Environmental Quality Act is misguided:

  A CEQA exemption for the approval of a zoning ordinance that would allow up to 10 residential units per parcel removes the ability of local governments to be fully informed of the ordinance’s potential environmental consequences. Without that review, a local government would not be properly informed of traffic impacts, air impacts, or compatible use issues. It is unacceptable for the public to live with the consequences of a zoning ordinance that would not be fully vetted and whose impacts were not mitigated and alternatives not considered.

  The California Environmental Quality Act, 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.

  C. Increasing housing density is the wrong solution to meet our affordable housing needs:

  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”. Since 2019, we have entered into the COVID-19 recession, which should further lower California’s growth rate.

  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.

  So, vast up-zoning 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. Besides, AB-68, which was enacted into law in 2019, has already dramatically increased potential housing buildout beyond what communities can sustainably contend with.

  Furthermore, the subsequent 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), views, sunlight, privacy, neighborhood character, and quality of life.

  D. Single-family zoning is treasured and should be protected:

  SB-10 would further erode single-family zoning, even though most homebuyers/sellers prefer single-family homes. A 2019 Redfin survey found that regardless of where people live within the US, more than 85% of home buyers and sellers (including millennials) prefer single-family homes with more space, privacy, and gardens over a unit in a triplex that has a shorter commute. (See - https://www.redfin.com/blog/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/ )

  In addition, since the outbreak of COVID-19, realtors report a trend of city dwellers wanting to move to single-family neighborhoods in the suburbs to escape dense living conditions, which contribute to the spread of the disease.

  Over time, the bills would cause the supply of single-family homes to diminish due to conversions to duplexes and multifamily complexes and the price for the remaining single-family dwellings would become even more expensive. This would make it more difficult for residents to attain their preferred lifestyle.

  III. SOLUTIONS TO OUR HOUSING NEEDS

  Instead of SB-10, we need to provide the correct amount of affordable housing and prevent the loss of existing affordable housing.

  To accomplish this, we need funding and subsidies for local solutions to affordable housing as well as for the adverse impacts that the increased housing would create.

  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/ )

  IV. CONCLUSION

  Once again, we urge you to oppose Senate Bill 10. Instead, support locally-grown sustainable strategies that enable our communities to meet all housing needs. In addition, provide incentives to Corporations to open offices in areas of the State that are jobs poor and housing rich; and require “Full Mitigation”, which makes commercial development approval contingent on adequate housing.

  Thank you in advance for your conscientious consideration.

  Very truly yours,

  /s/

  Sharon Rushton, President

  Sustainable TamAlmonte

Join the Conversation