Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-01; California Cities for Local Control (Districts - All); Haber, JasonTo the members of the: CITY COUNCIL Date 4/4 /a.I CA ✓ CC ✓ CM ✓ ACM v DCM(3) ✓ April 1, 2021 To: From: Via: Re: Council Memorandum {city of Carlsbad Memo ID #2021071 This memorandum provides information related to the attached email from Dave Brent, a volunteer with a citizen organization called the "California Cities for Local Control," dated March 24, 2021 (Attachment A). An identical email was received from Mr. Brent on March 2, 2021. Background According to the organization's website (www.localcontrolca.com): "California Cities for Local Control, a grassroots organization founded in July 2020 by Torrance City Council Member Mike Griffiths, is an advocacy group for local control over zoning and land use decisions. Council member Griffiths has assembled a volunteer • organization of several dozen people from all around California, including other elected officials, homeowner group representatives, city planners, and passionate homeowners, all sharing the common belief that Local Governments should remain the ultimate decision makers for how their communities are built." The organization's mission is: "to spread awareness and enlist support to ensure that Cities can continue to manage their own land use and zoning issues." The organization's activities include, but are not limited to: "signing onto petitions, having Cities pass resolutions in support of [their] efforts, and seeking out allies for possible legal action against the State and/or to promote efforts for a ballot initiative to legislate the desired results." · The following San Diego County cities have adopted resolutions supporting the organization's mission: Coronado, El Cajon, Poway and Santee. The City of Coronado's resolution is attached for reference (Attachment B). Discussion The City of Carlsbad 2021 Legislative Platform includes the following as one of its Guiding Principles: City Manager's Office Intergovernmental Affairs 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2820 t Council Memo -CA Cities for Local Control April 1, 2021 Page 2 Preserve Local Control -The city supports the broadest authority for our citizens and the City Council to make decisions and provide public services locally. As cities are voluntarily created by the residents of a community to provide local self-government and to make decisions at the local level to best meet the needs of the community, the city opposes preemption of local control. As in the attached City of Carlsbad letter to the League of California Cities' General Resolutions Committee, dated Sept. 10, 2018, the city has acknowledged and advocated against the fact that "legislatures are frequently introducing proposals that impinge on the ability of a local government to institute discretionary legislation that is responsive to the needs of their constituents," and that "these continual incursions into local control by the state legislature, and powerful interest groups, should be prohibited in areas where it is unwarranted and does not best serve the unique communities that make up the state of California" (Attachment C}. As further stated in the city's 2021 Legislative Platform, the City of Carlsbad "support[s] measures in local land use that are consistent with the doctrine of 'home rule' and the local exercise of police powers in planning and zoning processes." Staff have not recommended engaging with the subject organization to date. Instead, the city continues to advocate against proposed legislation that infringes upon local control through the League of California Cities, which is recognized as the unified voice of cities throughout California. In addition, we are engaging with state legislators and legislative staff to negotiate amendments to objectionable legislation through the city's contract state lobbyist, Renne Public Policy Group, where applicable. Next Steps Senate Bill 9 (Atkins) is one of the key bills being opposed by the subject organization. Renne Public Policy Group has produced a detailed analysis of the bill (Attachment D), and the City Council Legislative Subcommittee will have an opportunity to consider whether to recommend the city take a formal position on the bill at the subcommittee's meeting on April 13, 2021. Attachments: A. Email from Dave Brent, dated March 24, 2021 B. City of Coronado -Resolution No. 2021-04 C. Letter to League of CA Cities, dated September 10, 2018 D. Renne Public Policy Group Analysis of Senate Bill 9 (Atkins) cc: Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager Celia Brewer, City Attorney Cindie McMahon, Assistant City Attorney From: dabrent@verizon.net <dabrent@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 10:54 AM Attachment A To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>; Keith Blackbum <Keitb .Blackbum@carlsbadca.gov>; Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@carlsbadca.gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.Bhat-Patel@carl sbadca.gov>; Teresa Acosta <Teresa.Acosta@carlsbadca.gov>; Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>; City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>; Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov> Subject: Join Us to Protect Single-Family Zoning in Your City! Greetings City Council Members of Carlsbad, We would like to hear from you! Recently emails were sent to you by Mike Griffiths and I regarding Protecting Your City's Land Use and Zoning. We're hoping you were able to review the emails. Mike Griffiths is a Councilman in Torrance who recently formed a citizen organization called the "California Cities for Local Control". Please join us NOW! Hundreds of your colleagues from around the State have already joined us in the past several months, but we need you to act as well. Torrance as well as your neighboring cities of Solana Beach, Delmar, Escondido, Poway, Murrieta, Santee, Coronado, Laguna Niguel, El Cajon, Mission Viejo, Laguna Hills, etc. have passed Resolutions or are considering Resolutions to protect their city's land use and zoning. We also have a Facebook Page where you can see the Resolutions passed by 56 California Cities. More than 40 additional cities are also preparing Resolutions. Our Facebook link is https://www.facebook.com/LocalControlCA. You can also see the Resolutions that have passed on our Website https://www.localcontrolca.com. The State Legislature has already started the new session, and bills attacking your local control are already being moved forward. If you want to help us fight these attacks on OUR local control, please do the following ASAP: 1. Reply to this email by stating "YES, I add my name to the fight for Local Control". Your name will be added to the list. 2. Pass a Resolution stating your strong support for retaining local control of your community (see below). Join the rapidly growing list of Cities _who have already done so! 3. Email Mike Griffiths back a copy of your signed resolution once passed. His email address is LocalControlCA@gmail.com. TOGETHER, we can make a difference. There is no cost to join with us. We want to add your name on our growing list and your approved resolution to present to our State Legislators and other groups to let them know the scope of our disapproval. Please continue to oppose the individual bills that you feel go too far, and let your local State representatives know. But UNITE with us TODAY! You can contact Mike directly using his email address LocalControlCA@gmail.com, or contact me at my email address or phone number below. Thank you for your time spent reviewing our recent email(s), we appreciate it! Take care, Dave Brent, Volunteer California Cities for Local Control Torrance, CA 310-375-5546 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR ACTIONS TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN LOCAL CONTROL AS RELATED TO LOCAL ZONING AND HOUSING ISSUES Attachment B WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of California each year proposes, passes, and has signed into law a number of bills addressing a range of housing issues; and WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of California does not allow sufficient time between each legislative cycle to determine if the legislation is successful in bringing about the change for the State of California's housing issues; and WHEREAS, the majority of these bills usurp the authority of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves the land use policies and practices that best suit each city and its residents and instead impose mandates that do not consider the needs and differences of jurisdictions throughout the State of California; and WHEREAS, the ability of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves appropriate land uses which uphold the City's desire to maintain the existing character and fabric of the community as predominantly low-density, single family residential, which projects require review beyond a ministerial approval; what plans and programs are suitable and practical for this community rather than having these decisions imposed upon cities without regard to the circumstances of each individual city; and what zoning should be allowed for single family residential properties is a matter of great import to the City of Coronado among other items related to local zoning and housing issues; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the Coronado feels strongly that our local government is best able to assess the needs of our community and objects to the proliferation of State legislation that deprives us of that ability; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Coronado resolves as follows: Section 1. The City of Coronado is opposed to the current practice of the legislature of the State of California of continually proposing and passing multitudes of bills that directly impact and interfere with the ability of cities to control their own destiny through use of the zoning authority that has been granted to them. Section 2. The City of Coronado will explore various ways to protect the ability of cities to retain local control over zoning as each individual city within the State of California is best suited to determine how the zoning in their city should be allocated in order to meet the housing needs of the community. Section 3. That the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Attachment B PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, at a regular meeting thereof this 19th day of January 2021 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: DONOVAN, HEINZE, SANDKE, TANAKA, BAILEY NONE NONE NONE RICHARD BAILEY, Mayor of the City of Coronado, California JENNIFER EKBLAD, City Clerk of the City of Coronado, California Attachment C ( City of Carlsbad September 10, 2018 General Resolutions Committee League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: 2018 CONFERENCE RESOLUTION TO RESPOND TO THE INCREASING VULNERABILITIES TO LOCAL MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, CONTROL AND REVENUE Dear Committee: The City of Carlsbad supports the League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolution proposed by the City of Beverly Hills calling for the League to explore the preparation of a ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment that would provide the state's voters an opportunity to further strengthen local authority and preserve the role of local democracy. State legislation introduced by the legislature ( and supported, in many cases, by powerful interest groups) in both 2017 and 2018 has threatened to erode local control. Whether this was SB 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities or SB 827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus, legislatures are frequel)-tly introducing proposals that impinge on the ability of a local government to institute discretionary legislation that is responsive to the needs of their constituents. These continual incursions into local control by the state legislature, and powerful interest groups, should be prohibited in areas where it is unwarranted and does not best serve the unique communities that make up the state of California. The passage of the proposed resolution by the City of Beverly Hills would provide direction to the League to pursue a ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment that would strengthen local democracy and authority. For these reasons the City of Carlsbad strongly supports this resolution. Sincerely, Matt Hall Mayor City of Carlsbad City Council City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2820 t February 18, 2021 To: Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director City of Carlsbad From: Sharon Gonsalves, Director of Governmental Affairs Renne Public Policy Group Re: Senate Bill 9 (Atkins): Analysis, Process and Timing Dear Mr. Haber: Attachment D RPPG llenne Public Policy Group /,(}.·A'<>l•H•J,'l,,t~•T1,~, .. ,//l,.-C,,o,,T,• Below you will find a comprehensive analysis on Senate Bill (SB) 9 , authored by Senate Pro Tern Toni Atkins, prepared by RPPG Senior Policy Advisor, Dan Carrigg. Carrigg' s expertise in California housing and land use policy is truly unmatched-having spent nearly 30 years as a land use legislative advocate and former Assembly Hosing and Community Development Policy Committee Consultant. As you will see, this analysis not only provides a point-by-point rundown of the bill's provisions, but also considers other housing measures already enacted-providing a holistic view on the material impacts this legislation would have on municipalities across the state. We would ask to please review the analysis carefully (including the detailed footnotes) and commentary provided by Carrigg. Process: As of February 18, SB 9 was triple referred to Senate Housing, Senate Governance and Finance and Senate Environmental Quality committees. However, the referral to Senate Environmental Quality was rescinded due to "limitations placed on committee hearings due to ongoing health and safety risks of the COVID-19 virus." From a legislative "process" standpoint, this is incredibly important to highlight given that the measure waives certain California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions. In other words, the environmental impacts of SB 9 will not be fully considered, will have no detailed policy analysis prepared by the State and will have no public discussion or engagement from the Environmental Quality Committee. Timing: Currently SB 9 has not been set for a hearing date, although it is anticipated that policy committees will commence beginning the first or second week of March. Once the measure is officially set, RPPG will keep you apprised. If you would like to formally engage on this measure RPPG would be happy to collaborate on drafting a position letter for your consideration. Additionally, the League of California Cities has provided a template letter that City's can use if they wish. Please feel free to share this with you Council if you would like. Should you have any questions or wish to connect on this please feel free to reach out to me directly. Sincerely, Sharon Gonsalves Director of Governmental Affairs, Renne Public Policy Group Sgonsalves@publicpolicygroup.com RPPG Renne Public Policy Group Senate Bill (SB) 9 Detailed Analysis-Prepared by RPPG Senior Policy Advisor, Dan Carrigg SB 9 (Atkins) Statewide Rezoning of Single-Family Neighborhoods & Urban Parcel Splits Rezones by state statute virtually all parcels within single-family residential zones1 in California allowing for the creation of (when combined with state Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law) up to fil& 2 eight3 or even 104 units; and further authorizes urban parcel splits~6• without any local discretionary hearing or review, including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)7, as follows: J.~-'"'".,.,.,f/\>n<>!lr,:..'v.;/,.,..r,.""l,• 1 US Census data indicates there are nearly 6.9 million detached homes in California. State and local historic zones are proposed to be exempted, but most other limitations are of relatively minor impact to the massive and sweeping scope of this bill. This measure is silent on how/if it applies to homes within common interest developments, or homeowner's associations, where development is tightly regulated by codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&R's) that are agreed to by contract, and administered by local association boards under the Davis-Stirling Act. California homeowners can take little comfort in the reliability of any potential exceptions in this bill. The Legislature's objective of eliminating single-family zoning statewide is clear, so this law can be expected to be amended in the future to further its intent. The passage of multiple bills in recent years to expand ADU laws are an example of how the Legislature can be expected to quickly widen this law once it is established. 2 At a minimum a developer could create six units by doing the following: (1) First add a junior and separate accessory dwelling units as permitted by recently-enacted state ADU law; then (2) use Sec. 65852.21 in SB 9 to split the single-family home into two units; then (3) apply for an urban parcel split under Sec. 66411.7 of SB 9, and build an additional two units on the newly created parcel. 3 A developer could potentially create even two more accessory dwelling units connected to the subdivision of the original single family home, if the division of the main dwelling is considered a condominium. It could then be argued that each condominium is a separate "lot," so each separate unit is entitled to the development of both junior and separate ADU's. While such an interpretation may seem farfetched, SB 9 only says (Sec. 6582.21 (e)) that ADU's need not be permitted by a local agency when the developer also proposes the parcel to be split. However, the urban parcel split section of SB 9 (Sec. 66411.7) contains no mention of Section 65852.21, or single family homes, or ADU's that may be on the parcel prior to a proposed split. Thus, a sawy developer can exploit this by first maximizing and completing development of the parcel prior_to requesting a split. Given SB 9's objective is to preempt local zoning, and prohibit related local public hearings and discretionary decisions, the total amount of allowed units on a parcel will likely trigger litigation over how to interpret SB 9's interactions between dividing single family homes, adding ADU's and splitting parcels. 4 Yes, potentially 10 units. There is an omission in the draft of SB 9 that raises the question whether a developer could create two junior accessory dwelling units in addition to the two new dwelling units on the split parcel, because Section 67411.7 (h) in SB 9 only refers to a prohibition on accessory dwelling units per Sec. 65852.2, which applies to accessory dwelling units, but does not also reference Sec. 65852.22 which specifically applies to junior accessory dwelling units. This concern is further bolstered by language in SB 10 (Wiener) which implies that each section contains separate authority and reads as follows: "{2) Paragraph {1) shall not apply ta a project to create no more than two accessory dwelling units and no more than two iunior accessory dwelling units per parcel pursuant to Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 of the Government Code." 5 SB 9 prohibits local agencies from requiring the dedication of a right of way to a newly created parcel created in a backyard. Easements for public services and facilities, or access to a public right of way may be required. Presumably, for a parcel with no access to the street, the residents would park on the street and cross the front parcel on a path along the property line. 6 Section 66411.7 in SB 9, which enables urban parcel splits, contain no reference to single family homes, thus enabling a multifamily parcel to be also split. 7 It is hard to imagine a bigger CEQA exemption than proposed by SB 9. If a city or county proposed such zoning changes locally CEQA analysis would apply. SB 9 is designed to work around environmental analysis by dictating specific zoning criteria in state statute, and requiring locals to approve applications "ministerially" without public review. Thus, the state Legislature is avoiding environmental reviews in a proposal that rezones virtually all of the single-family lots in the state. RPPG Renne Public Policy Group • Single-Family Residential Zones: Permits the division, partial or full tear down of an existing single-family home to create two separate resident'ial units, eligible to be sold separately8• · Since SB 9 also operates in conjunction with ADU law, it will allow even more units to be built on the parcel without public review. All local ordinances9 that would physically preclude construction of the two units cannot be enforced. ADU law has separate authority enabling the construction of additional units. Parking is limited to one space per unit10, and must be eliminated entirely if within one-half mile of transit or if there is a car share vehicle within one block. • Urban Parcel Splits: Permits urban lot splits in residential zones to create two equal parcels of a minimum of 1,200 square feet11. Prohibits the application of local requirements that would physically preclude the construction of two units to be built on each split lot. (Applies to all residential parcels, not just single-family)12 • Area Limitations: Parcels must be located in a US Census designated urban area or urban cluster.13 Parcels withing the Coastal Zone are also included 14. Parcels cannot be located 8 It is not legally necessary to formally divide the parcel to create two units. Condominiums or townhouses could be created that can be sold separately. 9 Many local ordinances that can be ignored by developers under this law can result in significant environmental and community impacts. Applying such an edict statewi~e with no understanding of the myriad of conditions that may apply to an individual existing parcel makes no sense. For example, some communities have ordinances seeking to preserve heritage trees, maintain views, or allow space for a community bike path. SB 9 preempts the application of such any such ordinances that physically preclude the development of units. 10 Vehicle ownership in the US average two cars per household. Under SB 9, a developer is able to tear down and convert an existing garage as part of dividing a single-family home into two units. If the developer decides to also build ADU's then this could result in eight or more cars parking on the street. Not requiring adequate parking for new units, or eliminating parking entirely will impose a significant burden on adjacent homeowners when residents of the new units park in front of neighboring properties. Allowing for such major impacts on adjacent property owners statewide in violation of local zoning without opportunity for a public discussion and due process will exacerbate political tensions. 11 Major social equity issues are raised with this provision. 1,200 square foot parcels are shockingly small, and will be further limited by four-foot setbacks for ingress and fire access. This will result in rental units crammed together with no green space and certainly no parking. This small square footage will have the most impact in poor neighborhoods that are already densely developed. Executive homes on larger parcels, however, will be less impacted. For instance, a half-acre parcel that is split in half, will still enable separation between units, and areas for greenspace and parking. 12 SB 9 prohibits a lot that has been split pursuant to its provisions from being split again. It also prohibits an owner of a parcel, or, and any person acting in concert with the owner, to split adjacent lots. These provisions are of absolutely no comfort to those concerned about retaining neighborhood integrity. Unlike a local city or county, the Legislature is removed from any direct implications from what this bill actually means to a neighborhood or a homeowner. If SB 9 is allowing parcels as small as 1,200 square feet, why wouldn't legislators entertain changes next year to this provision on behalf of developers who have their eyes on larger lots? Also, for those who think that 1,200 square feet is a minimum, consider that SB 9 requires locals to allow two units on that lot. Also, the limitation on a developer splitting adjacent lots enables multiple workarounds for savvy investors and attorneys who can maintain separate ownership of adjacent parcels, and nothing stops an investor from freely targeting every other parcel for this activity. And other investors can focus on the rest. 13 This exception will increase demand for living on rural parcels outside of these urban census tracts and contribute to further sprawl. Those that have more resources will likely pay a premium to live on parcels not subject to the uncertainties of SB 9. Realtors will likely have to disclose whether a property is within an SB 9 zone. 14 It is surprising that the Coastal Act is included in this bill. How this measure interacts with the application of the Coastal Act, approved by the voters, deserves additional examination. J,~c,t,M1'1ttft\,,,,,if'l.1.'":/1tA·C•n..;!:• RPPG Renne Public Policy Group 11 1; ,:.f/;-11, ... ., .. ,,._r,.1 .... ,1 ... ,-r. .... .,,. within a fire hazard zone15, hazardous waste site, on land designated for conservation, or within a historic district, as those various terms are defined. If parcel is located in an earthquake fault zone, floodplain or regulatory floodway, the development shall be constructed in compliance with applicable state and local requirements. • Parcel Occupancy Limitations: The affected development cannot affect units occupied by a tenant within the prior three years, 16 units subject to local rent control, uriits that have been withdrawn (Ellis Act) from rental housing within the prior 15 years, or units restricted by covenant for low and moderate income households. • Single-Family Home Demolishing: A single family home may be demolished entirely if a tenant has not lived in the home during the prior three years, otherwise only 25 percent may be demolished, unless a greater percentage is allowed by local ordinance. • Setbacks: Provides that local building setbacks cannot be greater than what is applied to an existing structure and requires those same setbacks to be applied to a structure constructed in the same location and the same dimension as the existing structure.17 Related conditions include: i. Stipulates that a proposal shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures that meeting building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow a separate conveyance.18 ii. Permits local governments to require four-foot setbacks from the rear and side lot lines in other circumstances.19 iii. Requires units that are proposed to be connected to an on-site waste treatment system to have a percolation test completed within the prior five years, or if percolation has been recertified, within 10 years. • Parking: Authorizes a local agency to require parking of one space per unit, but prohibits a parking requirement if: 15 There are various exceptions to this prohibition where state building standards and state fire hazard mitigation measures have been applied. The cross-referenced definition reads as follows: "Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by o local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b} of Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development." 16 This limitation is of minor relevance. The economic potential offered by SB 9, far exceeds the impacts of purchasing a desired property and living in for several years, while plans to develop it are prepared. Still given the delay, developers will likely avoid a rental occupied home in a neighborhood and focus on owner-occupied homes, which will accelerate the conversion of a neighborhood to rental properties. 17 This allows for the full teardown, including the garage. 18 "Conveyance" in real estate terminology means "sale." 19 This allows the entire back half of the property to be used without any open space, other than walking paths. This also will create privacy issues when windows look onto adjoining properties, or other disputes when building remove heritage trees and block views. RPPG 1 Renne Public Policy Group I J ;.fl:,..~,.,,,,rr.,,,,,,~r~.,.\r.fa.vf;,o:~•• i. The project is within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, as defined20• ii. There is a car-share vehicle21 located within one block of the parcel. • Zoning: Authorizes the proposed development to comply with local "objective" zoning, subdivision, and design standards, but states that such standards cannot have the effect of precluding22 the development of two units. Defines these terms to mean standards that are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion and involve no personal and subjective judgement by a public official. Stipulates that local agencies shall require that any units constructed under this provision that are to be rented shall be for a term longer than 30 days. (Avoids vacation rentals)23 • Prohibits a local agency from being required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels where an applicant constructs units in compliance with this section and also subdivides the lot into two separate parcels. 24 • Authorizes a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement these provisions but stipulates that the adoption of the ordinance shall not be considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).25 Comments: 1) Voters Deserve a Voice on Proposed Elimination of Single-Family Zoning: It is difficult to conceive of a more aggressive law the Legislature could attempt to pass affecting the nearly seven million California homeowners who have scrimped and saved to acquire and maintain their piece of the California Dream, a single-family home. The Legislature should not leap blindly to the enactment of a sweeping statewide law, without the proper reflection, due diligence, and true public transparency on what such a proposal really means for millions of Californians and the state's future economy. Enacting such a law without consultation with the voters would be massively reckless. The origins of this bill supposedly are based on recent experiments in Minneapolis and Oregon and fueled by the unfair characterization that single-family homes and (and, therefore, their owners) are racists, deserves much more 2° Corridor with bus service at 15-minute intervals during peak commute hours, and includes existing rail or bus transit stations, ferry terminals served by bus or rail transit, or major transit stops included in regional transportation plan. These distances bear no real correlation with reality. Most residents living in units subject to SB 9 will have cars. Most Californian's need cars to get to work, take children to school, shop, visit doctor's offices etc. In most areas of California, outside of urban core areas, transit is insufficient for the variety of most needs. Many also consider transit to be unsafe, and (more recently with COVI D) unhealthy. 21 This reference in the bill only mentions a "car share vehicle" within one block but does not mention a car share parking space. A clever developer could park a car share vehicle permanently on the property, or on the street in front of it, and argue that no other parking is required. 22 There is no way of fulling knowing what this exemption from applicable local ordinances really means. Such an exemption means that the laws of a community will apply unequally. For instance, a family that wants to add more room to an existing house cannot do so because of a view ordinance, but a developer who buys the property next door is free to use SB 9 to split the lot and put multiple units on the property blocking the views of others in violation of the ordinance. How is this equitable? 23 Likely difficult to enforce with numerous tenants inhabiting properties. 24 Footnotes 2, 3 and 4 describe ways this· can be worked around. 2525 Locals are provided little real authority in this measure. No doubt, they will be heavily blamed by residents for the widespread impacts of SB 9 and the absence of any due process for those affected. RPPG Renne Public Policy Group public sunshine than is permitted in the COVID-impacted Legislature where public transparency and access has become even more limited. If such a radical proposal has .:.ff:,.,.,,,,,.,,~r • ., .... ,1 .... r.,rL,1,• merit, then all affected Californian's deserve an opportunity to fully understand it and weigh· in via an advisory ballot measure put to the voters in November 2022. 2) Governor's Position on SB 9 Will Determine Outcome: Governor Newsom holds all the power on this measure. Last year, SB 1120, a virtually identical bill, made it all the way through the Legislature. It passed both the Senate and the Assembly, and only stalled from being taken up on the last night of session because of a midnight floor deadline. SB 9 is authored by the Senate Pro Tern Atkins; it already made it through the Legislature once, as SB 1120, and is anticipated to do so again. That means the fate of this measure come down to a decision by Governor Newsom. While the Governor clearly supports additional housing production, he has opted to do so in a measured way, by increasing accountability for cities and counties to adopt state approved housing element plans and allocating billions in state funding to address homelessness and support affordable housing development. In his most recent budget proposal, he also proposed a special unit at the Department of Housing and Community Development to monitor local housing activities. Moreover, the Governor's own life choices support the referral of the SB 9 proposal for an advisory vote by California voters. When Governor Newsom was inaugurated, he opted to purchase a single-family home on several acres in the suburbs, reported to be the most expensive home ever sold within the region, rather than living in the Governor's mansion in downtown Sacramento. California voters deserve a similar opportunity to decide at the ballot box whether they want to continue to have the opportunity to achieve and maintain benefits of single-family home and associated quality of life for their own families. 3) Lack of Due Process and Transparency: Much is made in the Legislature of the value of public engagement and transparency when local governments make decisions. Local officials must comply with rigorous transparency requirements under the Brown Act. The benefits of CEQA are also strongly defended, to ensure that both the public and decision makers are fully informed and have the opportunity to mitigate environmental impacts. Yet, SB 9 tosses both public transparency and environmental principles aside. Without any due process for those affected, including an opportunity for local hearings or input, or even compliance with CEQA, the Legislature will allow most single-family neighborhoods to become the target of "buy, flip and split" speculators who are free to demolish homes and replace them with units jammed up against four-foot setbacks, with little to no parking, while avoiding compliance with local laws and ordinances that apply to others. It is inequitable to upend single family zoning and destabilize existing neighborhoods without adequate due process to those locally affected. 4) Inequitable Impacts: It is likely that the disruption caused by SB 9 will have inequitable impacts depending on wealth. Flipping homes to duplexes and splitting parcels down to 1,200 square feet are likely to affect middle class and lower income neighborhoods and homeowners more than wealthier individuals. The wealthy, as always, will have more options, including moving to larger estates. S) SB 9 Only the Beginning. The premise behind SB 9 is that single family zoning must be eliminated. If so, then SB 9 is only the beginning. While SB 9 does not mention new RPPG Renne Public Policy Group subdivisions, it would be surprising if eliminating new single-family developments is not the next step. It is inconsistent to upend existing single-family neighborhoods, while allowing new subdivisions to be created. The state would also need to reconsider its own single- family home purchase programs and the mortgage interest tax deduction. State housing policies that mention single-family homes in a positive way, would also need to be revised or repealed, such as Section 50007 (HSC) : The Legislature finds and declares that the large equities that the majority of California residents in most economic strata have now accumulated in single-family homes must be protected and conserved." 6) Upends State Housing Element Planning: The state already has numerous housing laws in place that ensure that the states' housing needs are incorporated in to local plans; via local zoning. These plans, in turn, must be state approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Over 98 percent of cities and counties have obtained such approvals, and the state recently significantly strengthened enforcement provisions to ensure full accountability. Any city and county that has obtained state approval for their local housing plan should be completely exempted from SB 9. 7) Destabilizing Economic Impacts: The purchase of a home is typically an individual's largest investment. Establishing a state policy that permits unlimited and radical developments on adjacent parcels with no public process will destabilize single-family neighborhoods. Those concerned about protecting the value of their investment, and/or seeking to obtain/preserve the traditional benefits of single-family neighborhoods (less noise, traffic, etc.) will opt to move to more rural settings-contributing to additional sprawl-or add to economic and social divisions by increasing demand for living in homeowner's associations where such activities would be prohibited via CC&R's, or is the final straw that accelerates a move out of state. Business location and retention decisions will likely be affected as well, since local quality-of-life for those making the decision is often a major factor. ### l,('!:,f,V'1"1flf/1ffl'>!'r~,1.V;/A,1f.•""11•