Supporting local interests includes ensuring that our local zoning code stays in our control.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD VOICES PETITION DRIVE IS REFOCUSED ON 2024 BALLOT
We are working to get the constitutional initiative on the 2024 ballot. Join us!
California legislators and their developer supporters have passed and continue to pass bills that leave you and your local elected officials with no voice regarding what kind of housing is built in your neighborhood. Multi-story housing developments can be built in single family home neighborhoods and your city officials can't stop it. The state legislature has stripped local government of its power to shape your town/city. Do you want a 5-story apartment building next door? Learn what you can do to protect your home and your neighborhood - join us on this Zoom meeting and spread the word!
To learn more about Our Neighborhood Voices and start taking back control of your neighborhood, click on this LINK.
_________________________________________
February 18, 2022
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Lou Penrose
info@ourneighborhoodvoices.com
Our Neighborhood Voices Now Focusing on 2024 Ballot to Bring Back a Local Voice in Community Planning
Coalition Will Focus on Organizing 250,000 Supporters Statewide as Foundation of “unstoppable grassroots movement to bring back our neighborhood voices.”
California – The Our Neighborhood Voices campaign to restore a community voice in local planning announced today they will re-file their measure to qualify for the 2024 ballot and continue organizing an ‘unstoppable neighborhood grassroots movement’ of several hundred thousand Californians to make that qualification a certainty.
The leaders of the Our Neighborhood Voices campaign said the combination of COVID-19, the dramatic spike in the cost of paid signature gathering and the need for more time to organize volunteer signature gatherers required the change in schedule. “We are not stopping, we are not slowing down, we are not ever going to give up until we have restored a neighborhood voice in community planning,” said proponent Bill Brand, Mayor of Redondo Beach.
“New State laws like SB9 are stripping local communities of their ability to control what happens in their own towns. This cannot stand and thanks to the thousands of Californians joining our cause, it will not stand,” said Brand.
“Our grassroots movement is growing every single day – but we are fighting the Sacramento power structure and we need more time to build the kind of people’s movement that can win back our neighborhood voice. This is going to happen by 2024,” said Jovita Mendoza of the Brentwood City Council.
“Sacramento should be worried. The people are fighting back and this extra time means our grassroots movement will be even more powerful as we organize to take back our neighborhood voices,” said Yorba Linda City Councilmember Peggy Huang.
“We are rolling all of our resources into this expanded effort and will spend every cent making sure we can take on the powerful Sacramento politicians and win,” said co-sponsor Dennis Richards of San Francisco.
“Because so many of our families face displacement, so many of our neighborhoods are being damaged and there are so many effective ways to create affordable housing instead of handing blank checks to developers – we will never stop fighting until this job is done,” said proponent John Heath, co-founder of the United Homeowners’ Association.
The proponents encouraged all supporters to continue to organize by joining the effort at OurNeighborhoodVoices.com.
The “Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative” will protect the ability of local communities to adopt laws that shape local growth, preserve the character of neighborhoods, and require developers to actually produce more affordable housing and contribute to the costs associated with new housing. The initiative now seeks to qualify for the November 2024 ballot, and is actively organizing supporters across the state.
###
The Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative can be found at OurNeighborhoodVoices.com.
Paid for by Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative, committee major funding from: Reyla Graber and AIDS Healthcare Foundation
Our Neighborhood Voices
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
Sacramento, CA 95814
United States
Los Altos Residents (LAR) is 100% for Local Zoning Control
ACT NOW - OPPOSE SB 9 & SB 10 TO SAVE OUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE NEIGHBORHOODS
• SB 9 (Atkins) Ends single-family zoning. Identical to SB 1120, the false “duplex” bill. The facts: where 1 house now sits, developers can buy it and build 6-units to 8 units (one new analysis says 10 units). Impacts 21M residents. The public must try to bring numerous inaccurate journalists up to speed.
• SB 10 (Wiener) This SB 902 lookalike bill lets cities ignore CEQA to allow 10-unit pricey market-rate apartments almost anywhere, Wiener’s obsession for three years. And it allows a City Council to override voter-approved initiatives, an attack on our 108-year-old right to initiative.
go to the sb 9 & sb 10 hot topic section for extensive additional information
CONTACT OUR STATE LEGISLATORS
Mark Berman: Email: Click here
Capitol Office, Room 3123 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0024; (916) 319-2024. District Office721 Colorado Ave, Suite 101, Palo Alto, CA 94303; (650) 324-0224
Senator Josh Becker: Email: Click here
Capitol Office: State Capitol, Room 3076, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900; (916) 651-4013; District Office: 1526 South El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo, CA 94402; (650) 212-3313.
LEARN MORE ABOUT SB 9 AND SB 10
SB 9 Fact Sheet:
1. SB 9 would add Govt Code section 65852.21 (allowing 2 units on a single parcel in a single-family residential zone [the so-called “duplex” provision, but in reality a “two residential units” provision]) and Govt Code section 66411.7 (the lot-split provision).
a.) The two residential units on one parcel provision authorizes two residential units on a single lot in a single-family residential zone.
b.) The lot-split provision authorizes a single lot to be split into two lots of equal size.
c.) An application to do either or both of these is processed ministerially, by right.
d.) There is no requirement for affordable housing and no CEQA review.
2. Under existing law, there is also a right to one Accessory Dwelling Unit and one Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit per parcel (Govt Code 65852.2).
a.) An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) can be attached, or detached from an existing home, or a conversion of an existing space such as a garage. A local agency is prohibited from establishing a maximum size of an ADU of less than 850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet if the ADU contains more than one bedroom. When ADUs are created through the conversion of a garage, carport or covered parking structure, replacement off-street parking spaces cannot be required by the local agency (Gov. Code 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(D)(xi)).
b.) A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) is allowed to be created within the walls of a proposed or existing single-family residence or garage and shall contain no more than 500 square feet.
c.) A local agency can limit the places within its jurisdiction where ADUs can be located, only based on the adequacy of water and sewer service, and the impacts on traffic flow and public safety, if the agency chooses to pass an ordinance.
d.) “Although cities and counties are mandated to permit ADUs and JADUs, they are not required to adopt ADU and JADU ordinances. However, any city/county that does adopt an ADU ordinance, must submit the ordinance to HCD [California Dept. of Housing and Community Development] within 60 days.”
e.) There is no requirement that an ADU or a JADU be limited to any category of affordable housing.
f.) Here is link to the HCD website. https://hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/accessorydwellingunits.shtml
g.) Here is a link to the HCD Handbook. https://hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/adu-ta-handbook-final.pdf
3. Under SB 9, there are three scenarios that illustrate how many units could be built on one existing lot (parcel):
a.) Scenario One: The “two residential units” provision of SB 9 (sometimes mistakenly called the “duplex” provision, but not limited to “duplexes”) is invoked but not the lot-split provision: The single lot can now have two free-standing houses, two townhouses, or a duplex. There is no requirement as to whether the two residential units be a “duplex,” or attached to each other, or free-standing. In addition, an ADU and a JADU are allowed as of right on the parcel. Total of 4 units: “Two residential units” plus an ADU and a JADU on the single lot.
b.) Scenario Two: The lot-split provision of SB 9 is invoked, but not the “two residential units” provision allowed on each of the two new lots. One lot becomes two lots. Each lot can have one free-standing house or townhouse, PLUS an ADU and a JADU. Total of 6 units: “Two residential units” plus two ADUs and two JADUs, on a single lot that has been halved into two lots.
c.) Scenario Three: Both the lot-split provision and the “two residential units” provision are invoked. One lot becomes two lots. Each lot can have two free-standing houses or townhouses, PLUS each lot is entitled to an ADU and a JADU. Total of 8 units: Four “residential units,” plus two ADUs and two JADUs, on a single lot that has been halved into two lots.
Note regarding Scenario Three: Under SB 9, a city is not required to approve an ADU or a JADU where BOTH the lot-split provision and “two residential units” provision are invoked. So a city could limit this scenario to four housing units on what was formerly one parcel (one lot). See proposed section 65852.21(e), part of the “two residential units” provision, that would provide, “Notwithstanding Section 65852.2 [the existing ADU law referenced above], a local agency shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within this section [the two residential units section] and the authority contained in Section 66411.7 [the lot-split section]” and proposed section 66411.7(h), part of the proposed split-lot section, that would provide, “Notwithstanding Section 65852.2 [the existing ADU law], a local agency shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within this section and the authority contained in Section 65852.21 [the two residential units section].
SB 10 Fact Sheet:
1. First, SB 10 by state Sen. Scott Wiener would override the 108-year-old constitutional right of Californians to launch and pass ballot initiatives that politicians cannot undo.
Livable California has compiled a partial list, below, of existing citizen-initiated ballot measures that are now law in California. They protect shorelines, canyons, urban boundaries, open space and neighborhoods.
Please contact us at contact@livableca.org to tell us about citizen-initiative ballot measures that are now law, that protect land or zoning, but are not listed. We will update and correct the below list as more info comes in.
2. Second, SB 10, like Wiener’s 2020 lookalike bill SB 902, would allow 10-unit market rate apartments to be built almost anywhere, via simple approval of a city council, regardless of existing zoning or the city’s General Plan.
The concept of unaffordable market-rate 10-unit apartments allowed almost everywhere was also the core goal of Scott Wiener’s infamous SB 50, killed in January of 2020 by legislators.
Under SB 10, the 10-unit market rate buildings could be approved by any of the 400-plus city councils in California, on ANY land deemed “urban infill,” “transit rich,” or “jobs rich.”
In defining the squishy term “urban infill,” city councils can deem land “underutilized” and thus “urban infill.” State employees would define which communities are “transit rich,” or “jobs rich” — a term even more squishy than “urban infill.” We predict that SB 10 would allow 10-unit market-rate apartment buildings on most blocks, in most communities.
Working list of land-use protections approved by voter initiative that city councils could toss out under SB 10:
1) Albany residents in 1990 approved Measure C by 75%, a shoreline protection initiative sponsored by Citizens for the Albany Shoreline and backed by environmental coalition CESP.
2) Emeryville shoreline protection measure passed in 1987.
3) Fremont voters approved the Hill Area Initiative of 2002 to protect open space. Measure T was put on the ballot by 13,000 Fremont residents.
4) Martinez voters passed in June 2018 a citizen initiative to establish an open space and parks overlay in the city’s General Plan and require voter approval on changes to such lands (Martinez Measure I, Open Space and Parks Overlay – Citizen Initiative June 2018).
5) Alameda County’s open space protection measure passed in early 1990s.
6) Napa County farmland protection initiative Measure J was approved by voters in 1990. It was challenged in court, and ultimately the California Supreme Court sided with voters, ruling that voters can alter a city’s General Plan via initiative (California Supreme Court/Devita v. County of Napa 1995).
7) Napa County General Plan Initiative, Measure P, a citizen-initiated measure approved by voters on Nov. 4, 2008, extending to the year 2058 the provisions of Measure J from 1990.
10) Gilroy citizen-initiated ballot measure prevents development outside boundaries, approved by voters November 8, 2016 https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/02/19/gilroy-group-taking-growth-boundary-to-the-ballot.html
11) Pacific Grove measure to limit short-term rentals approved by voters November 6, 2018. Put on the ballot via initiative petition led by Pacific Grove Neighbors United.
12) Ventura community leaders in 1995 created the region’s SOAR movement, or Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources. Seven other cities in Ventura County have followed suit. In the City of Ventura, the SOAR initiative approved by voters in 1995 requires voter approval before the rezoning of unincorporated open space, agricultural land or rural land for development.
13) Camarillo’s SOAR initiative requires voter approval for urban development beyond a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB), and was renewed by voters in 2016.
14) Fillmore’s SOAR initiative requires voter approval for urban development beyond a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB), and was renewed by voters in 2016.
15) Oxnard’s SOAR initiative requires voter approval for urban development beyond a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB), and was renewed by voters in 2016.
16) Santa Paula’s SOAR initiative requires voter approval for urban development beyond a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB), and was renewed by voters in 2016.
17) Simi Valley voters approved Measure Z, a City Urban Restriction Boundary extension, on November 8, 2016. It protects lands through 2050, via the initiative petition campaign in Ventura County known as SOAR.
18) Thousand Oaks voters approved City Urban Restriction Boundary extension on November 8, 2016. Protects boundary through 2050. Initiative petition campaign involved SOAR.
19) Moorpark voters approved their SOAR urban boundaries plan on November 8, 2016.
20 ) Los Angeles residents in 1986 approved the citizen initiative Prop. U, which reduced by 50% the size of high-rises on commercial corridors near homes. It was heavily backed by South L.A. and Eastside voters as well as Westside and Valley voters. Prop. U was partially overturned by voter-approved JJJ in 2016 to allow market-rate housing towers if a very small percent of affordable units are included. Commercial heights remain restricted under Prop. U.
21) Redondo Beach citizen initiative Measure C won handily, restricting development in the King Harbor-Pier area. Approved by voters March 7, 2017.
22) Redondo Beach Measure DD, a citizen initiative in 2008, got 58.5% of the vote. It requires voter approval of major land-use decisions and changes that would convert public land to private use, change business zoning to residential or mixed-use zoning with certain density limits, or significantly increase traffic, density or intensity of use in a neighborhood.
23) Dana Point, California, Town Center Plan and Parking Citizen Initiative, Measure H (June 2016) initiative approved by voters.
24) Dana Point, California, Town Center and Public Parking City Council Referral, Measure I (June 2016) initiative approved by voters.
25) Solana Beach in 2000 passed by 62% the citizen initiative Proposition T. It requires voter approval to alter or increase General Plan Land Use categories with the exception of residential land that is being reduced in density. Prop. T allows the city to comply with state and federal law and the local coastal program, without seeking voter approval.
26) Encinitas approved in 2013 its “Right to Vote” initiative, Prop. A, which requires voter approval to increase zoning density or the city height limit of 30 feet. The initiative is the focus of a complex legal battle over how much power the State of California has in ordering cities to increase their density and population.
27) Santee voters in November 2020 approved Measure N, a hotly contested initiative that requires voter approval of any zoning changes or developments that intensify or increase density on residential land. initiative in Santee on November 3, 2020.
LOCAL CONTROL
LOCAL ZonING CODE: what does it do for us?
The zoning code represents the collective wisdom of our elected representatives over years of deliberative consideration regarding how to lay out our city: commercial and residential districts and, for example, how setback and height limitations buffer each from the other.
LOCAL CONTROL - WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?
BECAUSE ALL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE NEIGHBORHOODS
ARE THREATENED WITH EXTINCTION IF SB9 & SB10 PASS
Regardless of where you live, in a single family home or in a condominium near downtown, all residents deserve to be heard regarding whether and how our neighborhoods are developed. It’s just good representative democracy that makes the best use of local expertise accumulated over years of considered decision making guided by resident input. Years of smart decisions determining where high density and affordable housing can be accommodated should not be ignored.
The high market prices of housing does indeed have recognized and significant adverse effects on our city and state. Residents in Los Altos almost universally understand and feel the pain of teachers, police and other service providers that endure hour-long commutes from areas with affordable housing that exist well beyond the urbanized regions of the Bay Area.
But to react by prohibiting residents from having a say regarding local zoning in order to increase the housing stock denies residents their right to representation about their property and their city. Furthermore, residents are saying not only do they want to retain local control of how their neighborhoods are developed, but they are becoming aware of the negative impact of uncontrolled and haphazard growth to their property values.
A better approach that brings all parties to the table is needed. We seek to educate residents about the numerous proposed bills in the state senate and assembly that, if passed, will potentially affect the future of their home, their city, and the Bay Area.
LAR supports the efforts of Livable California. Livable California is an organization that promotes local control, see more about them here: www.livablecalifornia.org
LAR is a member of and supports the efforts of United Neighbors. United Neighbors is a coalition of neighborhood residential groups throughout the Southern California region. Our common goal is to protect single-family neighborhoods while supporting affordable and equitable housing for all. The rights of all residents of single-family homes and the rights of people needing affordable housing are bound together, and the solution to our affordable housing crisis requires thoughtful, effective, and rapid-acting legislation. www.unitedneighbors.net