Los Altos Residents opposes SB 9 and SB 10
First, we must make it clear – we believe there is NO housing crisis – there is only an affordable housing crisis. There is an abundance of market rate housing and developers are looking to build even more market rate housing if SB 9 and SB 10 are enacted into law. Nothing in either of these bills guarantees that any affordable housing units will be built! That’s a very important point – neither SB 9 nor SB 10 requires any affordable housing! https://mailchi.mp/8e9f2d15031b/were-solving-the-wrong-crisis?e=0547b46ed0
Second, we oppose any measures that would strip control of zoning and development decisions away from local jurisdictions. If Los Altos loses the right to make zoning decisions based on its residents needs and wishes, you will no longer have any control of what happens to your street, your block, your neighborhood, or your city. You will be compelled to comply with mandates from politicians in Sacramento who have no knowledge of Los Altos and are not necessarily interested in doing what’s best for our city.
The purpose of SB 9 and SB 10 is to upzone single-family parcels to allow developers to build from 4 (SB 9) to 10 (SB 10) housing units on what was a single-family lot with one housing unit. These bills are promoted as “solutions” to the lack of affordable housing in California when, after taking a closer look, you will notice that there is not even one provision in either bill that mandates affordable housing. The proponents of these bills and their predecessors simply imply that because multiple smaller units are being built to replace one larger single-family home, common sense dictates that these smaller units will be more affordable. Studies show that is not the case.
reasons lar opposes sb9 and sb10
SB 9 does not mandate affordable housing and studies show upzoning single-family parcels does NOT provide affordable housing
SB 9 is will allow 4 units to be built on a single-family lot with only 1 parking space per unit and 4 foot setbacks
Remote Work – aka “Work from Home” (WFH) has drastically affected the amount of housing needed in the Bay Area as jobs are moving out of the Bay Area to less expensive areas
There has been an exodus to the suburbs, to other parts of California and to other states – how many housing units do we really need?
Upzoning in mass transit areas leads to gentrification
The Bay Area does not have a mass transit system that can support increased density
Neither SB 9 nor SB 10 takes into account the impact on transportation (roads) and infrastructure (sewers, police, fire, water, schools, blocking of rooftop solar panels)
Housing has become a standard in investment portfolios both in the US and abroad (and lots of it is sitting empty)
SB 10 is an outrageous attempt to take away rights guaranteed to Californians by the California Constitution
Stripping citizens and local jurisdictions of the right to control zoning and development leads to costly litigation
SB 10 allows the 10-Unit Structures to be exempt from CEQA
SB 10 creates wildfire and earthquake risk not allowed by current zoning regulations
The state needs to invest in affordable housing and seek other creative ways to finance the building and maintenance of affordable housing and improve transportation
this is your neighborhood before and after sb 9 and sb 10
SB 9 does not mandate affordable housing and studies show upzoning single-family parcels does NOT provide affordable housing
1. Vancouver passed a similar ordinance in 2018 allowing duplexes to replace single-family homes. An analysis of the cost of duplexes that replaced single-family homes in Vancouver in 2020 shows that the premise that duplexes will cost less is false. Out of the 22 sales, 16 half-duplexes, or 73%, sold for more than what the detached home cost. And even in the few cases where duplexes are cheaper than the detached they replaced, they’re cheaper by 10% or less.
2. A study by Yonah Freemark, a doctoral student in urban planning at MIT, evaluated the impact of upzonings near transit stops in Chicago neighborhoods, first in 2013 and later in 2015, to see if they had any impact on housing development. Freemark analyzed building permit data in upzoned areas between 2010 and 2018, before, during and after the upzonings took place. His hypothesis was that upzoning would increase the likelihood that housing development would occur, and that prices and rents would begin to fall. Freemark came to two very surprising conclusions. [T]he short-term, local-level impacts of upzoning are higher property prices but no additional new housing construction.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087418824672?journalCode=uarb&
3. Patrick Condon, author of Sick City, and the James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Livable Environments at the University of British Columbia, writes about how the pandemic has brought the issues of race, inequality and unaffordability to the forefront as well, illustrating how all of these ills can be traced to unequal access to urban land. Patrick Condon walks the reader through that history, proving that most of these problems are rooted in the inflation of urban land value — land that is no longer priced for its value for housing but as an asset class in a global market hungry for assets of all kinds. The American wage earner who is most affected by COVID is also the worst hit by the surging price of urban land which has made the essential commodity of housing increasingly inaccessible. Not only does Condon dive deep into myriad and credible references to prove these points, but he also wraps up the conversation with some eminently practical and widely precedented policy actions that municipalities can enact — policy tools to establish housing justice at the same time slowing the flow of land value increases into the pockets of land speculators.
Click here for Sick City Courtesy of Livable California
4. Los Angeles Councilman Paul Koretz provides comments on SB 9 – no mandate for affordable housing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRo_3oY3dxI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX2o0ODZbNU
5. Livable California comments re SB 9:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCthagr6r90
6. The League of California Cities opposes SB 9:
7. Wendell Cox, an American urban policy analyst and academic and the principal and sole owner of Demographia, speaking on Covid & Urbanization, Working at Home, Densification, Housing Affordability, Population & Migration, and Transit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCthagr6r90
8. Peter Calthorpe, the San Francisco-based architect, urban designer and urban planner who has taught at UC Berkeley, U of Washington, U of Oregon, and the U of North Carolina and developed the concept of Transit Oriented Development in 1990, speaking on the Bay Area Crisis of Housing and Transportation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZaMQ47mQSM
9. When given the opportunity, developers and real estate investors will always build higher market-rate or luxury housing—especially in areas like the Bay Area. Studies have shown that upzoned units are often more expensive than the original unit that they replaced.
10. Inspired by Ronald Reagan’s supply-side policies, deregulation is now favored by Democratic majorities at LA’s City Hall, the California State legislature, and in Washington, DC.
11. Big Tech and developers are the biggest backers of Weiner’s and Atkins’ bills to up zone single-family residences. Why is that?
Remote Work – aka “Work from Home” (WFH) has drastically affected the amount of housing needed in the Bay Area as jobs are moving out of the Bay Area to less expensive areas
1. The Wall Street Journal reports on March 6, 2021 that as much as a quarter of the 160-million strong U.S. labor force is expected to stay fully remote in the long term, and many more are likely to work remotely a significant part of the time. The effects of the significant shift to remote-work has had the most effect on the Bay Area, resulting in an exodus of residents to other parts of California and other states that offer less costly housing and a better quality of life. As a result, job growth predictions and housing needs projections based on pre-Covid norms are no longer valid.
2. More and more companies are allowing Work From Home and employees are moving to areas with lower cost of living.
Salesforce reveals new “Work From Anywhere” policy. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/09/salesforce-reveals-new-work-from-anywhere-plan-for-its-employees/
3. Covid – and the Ongoing Global Workplace Revolution
https://quillette.com/2021/02/14/covid-19-and-the-ongoing-global-workplace-revolution/
There has been an exodus to the suburbs, to other parts of California and to other states – how many housing units do we really need?
1. A new study of the 11-county Bay Area region by the California Policy Lab at UC Berkeley and UCLA shows the exodus in Bay Area migration has accelerated in recent months.
2. People were leaving California for lower cost states before the Covid pandemic. They were leaving for areas where they could buy a single-family home at a reasonable price.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/82-percent-of-Bay-Area-renters-plan-to-leave-11823639.php
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/02/08/packing-up-and-moving-out-bay-area-exodus-continues/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SVLFbKwrLLnH8XTF8QdG8q1qAxVsyVV2/view?usp=sharing
3. Recent data show that the Bay Area has experienced a net loss of population with people moving to other parts of the state or out of state.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/Data-keeps-piling-up-No-mass-exodus-from-16001934.php
4. During the pandemic, there has been an upsurge in young families leaving condos in the cities and looking for single-family homes with backyards in residential neighborhoods. Having a larger home and green space has been more important to tech workers since Work From Home has become the norm.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/01/how-millennials-are-changing-the-luxury-real-estate-market/
Studies show that upzoning in mass transit areas leads to gentrification
1. Assemblyman Chiu and Senator Weiner attack fellow elected representatives that oppose SB 9 because it does not provide for affordable housing and will gentrify the districts they represent and actually reduce the amount of available affordable housing.
https://48hills.org/2021/03/chiu-wiener-attack-left-right-pincers-on-housing/
2. UCLA and London School of Economics Professor Michael Storper reported that when given the opportunity, developers and real estate investors will always build higher market-rate or luxury housing—especially in areas like the Bay Area. Studies have shown that upzoned units are often more expensive than the original unit that they replaced. This also leads to massive gentrification.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boston-chinatown-gentrification_n_5a6b05fae4b01fbbefb0b992
3. In a study by Rodriquez-Pose and Storper in 2019, blanket changes in zoning were shown to be unlikely to increase domestic migration or to improve affordability for lower-income households in prosperous areas. They would, however, increase gentrification within metropolitan areas and would not appreciably decrease income inequality.
https://voxeu.org/article/we-cannot-build-our-way-out-inequality
4. Gentrification is the end result of these misguided housing bills.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0042098019859458
https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/10-surprising-cities-that-are-gentrifying-the-fastest/
https://blavity.com/the-story-of-uberbae-boyfriend?category1=black-twitter&category2=black-twitter
The Bay Area does not a mass transit system that can support increased density
5. Rather than an effective and widespread mass transit system, the Bay Area has a BART system that does not serve the Peninsula – the area that is most crowded, has the highest land prices, and that creates the most jobs at present. So the very idea that people can or will use mass transit to easily get to and from their jobs, to other venues etc. is nonsensical. Trillions of dollars would need to be invested in the Bay Area to build a marginally functional mass transit system. “Bart is facing a $975 million loss over the next three years.”
https://www.ktvu.com/news/bay-area-mass-transits-future-in-jeopardy-experts-say
“If you are outside of a dense central area, transit just isn’t competitive,” Wasserman said.
Neither SB 9 nor SB 10 takes into account the impact on Transportation (Roads) and Infrastructure (Sewers, Police, Fire, Water, Schools, Blocking of Rooftop Solar Panels)
1. Historically, housing near transit has been lower income, but there is nothing in these bills to ensure that new units are affordable so former lower income tenants who depended on that public transit will not now be cut off from it.
2. Solar panels can be affected for a single-family home if a large duplex is put next to the home and shades the solar panels. Defeats the purpose of solar panels for single family homes if large homes are built next door.
3. Traffic assessments now require VTM (vehicle miles traveled) -new law as of July 2020 vs LOS traffic reports which cities were previously required to assess. Some cities will still do both for an EIR/CEQA. Any building application that increases vehicle emissions is not healthy for the community.
4. Professor Joel Kotkin, Chapman University, speaking on housing, transit, wealth, home ownership, jobs, pay, leaving California, and density vs. environmental quality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gtkM37kDhE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu69XOeoa0o
Housing has become a standard in investment portfolios both in the US and abroad (and lots of it is sitting empty)
1. Rather than being bought in order to develop multifamily luxury housing, many single-family homes on the Peninsula are being bought as investments mostly by foreign nationals seeking to move their money to a safe harbor. Our communities are seeing the number of these “ghost houses” increase. Driving the price of land up by upzoning provides an incentive to increase these ghost investments.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/03/buy-to-leave-housing-investment-policy
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/hedge-city-vancouver-chinese-foreign-capital/
SB 10 IS AN OUTRAGEOUS ATTEMPT TO TAKE AWAY RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO CALIFORNIANS BY THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
1. 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.
These citizens’ initiatives protect shorelines, canyons, urban boundaries, open space and neighborhoods. The state constitution prohibits the vote of a majority of a city council to undo the vote of the majority of the voters of a city – SB 10 would destroy that constitutional safeguard. A vote to strip Californians of a right guaranteed by the state constitution should, at the very least, be approved by voters in a state-wide election.
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.” SB 10 would allow 10-unit market-rate apartment buildings on most blocks, in most communities.
Stripping citizens and local jurisdictions of the right to control zoning and development leads to costly litigation
1. The Minnesota Supreme Court recently ruled against the City of Minneapolis which adopted regulations doing away with single family residences.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S-PXerlfnPDohBMY6KaCNGcTZkTkoI9d/view?usp=sharing
10-Unit Structures are exempt from CEQA
1. SB10 allows cities to increase density up to ten-unit buildings in a streamlined way, “without” having to go through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Cities will also be able to designate these projects by right, meaning they can be approved ministerially and without lengthy approval process. Environmentalists worked hard to get the CEQA act. Why would we throw out CEQA for SB10?
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 aspects. This prevents damage to the environment through alternatives, mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring.
SB 10 creates wildfire and earthquake risk not allowed by current zoning regulations
1. Duplexes 4 feet apart can increase the Risk and Hazards to the residents of the city if an earthquake or fire occurs. The Town council’s #1 responsibility is to protect the safety of residents. Building duplexes 4 feet apart will be considered negligent in the case of earthquake or fire. Will insurance cover losses?
2. Housing units that are close together make it much more difficult for fire and rescue personnel to fight fires and rescue people. “Gaining access to the building for rescue and ventilation will be a key objective. Firefighters may ladder the front and rear of the dwelling but might also need to ladder the side windows to perform rescues. There are a lot of challenges in raising ground ladders to the sides of these houses due to the proximity of neighboring structures, which have only a few feet to the property line. These challenges can slow rescue efforts and roof ventilation, allowing for greater fire spread and reducing the time that firefighters have in the building and on the roof.”
https://www.firefighternation.com/firerescue/too-close-for-comfort/#gref
3. The Fire marshal recommends 100 feet between houses as a good defensible space for a fire. Usually 30 feet clearance from a house at a minimum with vegetation management the remainder of the 70 feet. “Proper clearance to 100 feet dramatically increases the chance of your house surviving a wildfire.”
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO SOLVE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS
The state needs to invest in affordable housing and seek other creative ways to finance the building and maintenance of affordable housing
1. Government subsidies for affordable housing are shrinking while building costs are increasing, turning to America’s retirement piggy bank could be an important part of the solution.
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/trillions-money-for-affordable-housing
2. For more than three decades, programs in New York have used public pension funds to help finance development or preservation of affordable housing. Earlier this year, two community development corporations issued bonds, with much of the investment coming from private pension funds and mutual funds, to finance affordable housing.
https://www.planetizen.com/news/2018/01/96849-pension-funds-can-save-affordable-housing
3. The state could invest in more business incentives for Work From Home; more distributed housing alleviates the need for draconian housing bills.
4. The state needs to improve transportation means that would efficiently move workers from the suburbs or outlying areas to their jobs. Our mass transit system is inadequate, dysfunctional and, in its current state, will not be used by inhabitants of the dense housing units planned for construction along the transit corridor. Parking requirements are eliminated in much of the dense transit corridor housing. Because mass transit is not an efficient or realistic means of transportation to work for any income level, the inhabitants of these housing units will have cars and therefore will exacerbate the problem of parking in residential areas, greatly increase traffic congestion and increase carbon emissions which negatively impact climate change.