Bay Area Exodus.

Bay Area exodus: Thousands more fleeing region than arriving from other states

Even with its lucrative tech jobs and some of the best weather in the country, thousands more people have fled the Bay Area’s high housing costs and jammed roads than have moved into the region from other parts of the United States in recent years.

According to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the five-county Bay Area lost a net total of nearly 35,400 people between 2013-17, not counting births and new arrivals from other countries.

“It is a troubling sign of the affordability crisis of the region,” said Jeff Bellisario, director of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute.

But, Bellisario said, when factoring in international immigration, there are still more people arriving than leaving. According to the state’s Department of Finance, he noted, some 44,729 people immigrated from other countries to the region between July 2017 and July 2018.

And while Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a business advocacy group, thinks the Bay Area is fortunate to attract talented immigrants, he’s also concerned by the data.

“All too often,” Guardino said, “we’re seeing folks like me, who were born and raised here, who simply want to be able to have a home at least somewhat close to where we work, leave.”

According to the latest Silicon Valley Index, a report from Joint Venture Silicon Valley that examined tech sector migration trends, some 30 percent of tech talent aged 25-44 who moved to Santa Clara County in 2017 came from outside California, with many coming from other countries like India and China.

For Rachel Massaro, vice president and director of research with Joint Venture’s Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies, the data raises concerns about the Bay Area’s education system and untapped potential.

“Not only are we not educating people here well enough to compete for those high-level jobs,” Massaro said, “but we’re also especially not educating women well enough in those particular fields of need in Silicon Valley.”

Alameda County saw the most outward migration, with almost 13,000 more people leaving than arriving, according to the new census data. Santa Clara County came in second, bleeding a total of almost 8,200 people. San Francisco saw the lowest net losses at just 1,385 people over those five years.

As in the past, Texas and Oregon remained popular locations for those leaving the Bay Area, according to the data released this week. A net total of more than 4,000 people moved to the Lone Star State, while more than 3,600 decamped to Oregon. Nevada, Washington and Arizona were popular choices, as were Idaho, Tennessee and North Carolina.

A poll conducted earlier this year for this news organization and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group found that 44 percent of those surveyed said they were likely to move away from the Bay Area within a few years, pointing to housing and living costs as key factors prompting them to leave.

“We are hollowing out our middle class,” Guardino said.

While local home prices began softening in March after seven years of rising prices, the Bay Area remains among the priciest housing markets in the country, with median home prices above $1 million in San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

Still, even as thousands of Bay Area residents pack up and head out, thousands of people move in. New Yorkers, especially, still find the Bay Area attractive, with a net total of more than 3,600 people moving from the Empire State to the Bay Area. People from Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and elsewhere were also still moving to the Bay Area in significant numbers.

When higher-skilled, higher-paid workers from such places move in and lower-wage workers move away, Bellisario said, “that adds to some of the income inequality we have across the region here.”

People also relocated within the Bay Area.

People from San Francisco County were most likely to move to Alameda County, home to Oakland.

Residents of Alameda County were most likely to go to Contra Costa County, with residents of that county unlikely to relocate within the Bay Area and more likely to head for cheaper parts of California or other states like Texas, Nevada and Washington.

Many people, Massaro and Bellisario said, are choosing San Joaquin County and Sacramento.

Residents of San Mateo County were more likely to move to the East Bay than to San Francisco or the South Bay, while Santa Clara County residents moved to all four of the other Bay Area counties.

According to the Silicon Valley Index, many local tech workers are heading to other burgeoning tech centers like Austin and Portland. Seven percent of the new tech talent that moved to Seattle in 2017 came from California, according to the report.



Guardino is not surprised.

While the Bay Area is still attractive to companies because of its talent pool, fed in part by world-class universities, the housing shortage and traffic are its “Achilles’ heel,” he said. Competitor regions, he added “are growing stronger because of these issues.”

Finally, Happy News from City Hall: Council Motions Oppose Scott Wiener’s Senate Bill SB50

Finally, Happy News from City Hall: Council Motions Oppose Scott Wiener’s Senate Bill 50

DICK PLATKIN 14 MARCH 2019

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-In 2018, Los Angeles, like most California cities, formally opposed SB 827, the YIMBY California/Senator Scott Wiener bill to upzone (i.e., unplanned unappealable increases in the height, size, and density of privately-owned parcels). Because their opposition to SB 827 was carefully supported by detailed studies, the bill went down to quick defeat.

As reported previously in CityWatchLA, YIMBY California, again working through Senator Wiener, has resurrected SB 827, but with a new name, SB 50, along with cosmetic changes that camouflage the bill’s even more threatening impacts on California cities.

City Hall’s response is not yet clear, but hat’s off to Councilman Paul Koretz for his Dec. 12, 2018, City Council motion directing the Department of City Planning to determine the impacts of SB 50 on Los Angeles, and his follow-up February 27, 2019, Resolution calling on the City of Los Angles to formally lobby against SB 50 in Sacramento.

So far, there is no evidence that City Planning has yet analyzed the impact of SB 50, although the City’s Legislative Analyst (CLA) submitted a two-page report to the Council’s Planning and Land Use Committee (PLUM) on March 7, 2019. This report concluded: “Opposition to SB 50 is consistent with the City’s policy to oppose legislation that constrains its local control.”

What remains, however, is a final action by the City Council on Councilman Koretz original motion and resolution. Furthermore, the December 12 motion identifies five specific research questions that may, or may not, be eventually answered by the Department of City Planning. These questions about SB 50 impacts on Los Angeles include the following:
LA’s land use regulatory process and zoning?
Historic Preservation Overlay Zones?
Affordable housing incentive programs, such as Transit Oriented Communities (TOC)?
Community Plan Updates?
Proposed concepts of major transit stops and job-rich areas?

There is no reason to dawdle in answering these questions, especially because the bill is quickly worming its way through the State Senate, supported by a sophisticated public relations campaign. This is why other cities – unlike Los Angeles -- are moving quickly to analyze and oppose SB 50: in particular San Francisco and Palo Alto.

Real estate scams, large and small: More importantly, the answers to Councilman Koretz’s questions also apply to the local versions of SB 50, in particular the Transit Neighborhood Plans that City Planning is now preparing, with support from Council Offices, including Paul Koretz’s Council District 5. These mini-SB 50s are based on the same free market logic of SB 50. They will, therefore, have similar, unintended impacts on Los Angeles neighborhoods: unplanned, over-height, over-sized “Wienervilles.” Like SB 50, these real estate projects will be disconnected from City Council-adopted planning goals and policies, including their basis in carefully documented demographic trends, large amounts of existing untapped zoning capacity, and nearly tapped out public services and infrastructure.

If the City Council adopts Councilman Koretz’s motion and resolution – which is likely -- it will place itself in the awkward position of simultaneously opposing and supporting legislation that awards the owners of private parcels highly valuable and untaxed up-zones for their commercial lots, without even a head fake to the legally required planning or monitoring process.

The bottom line is that SB 50 and its local counterparts, like Transit Neighborhood Plans, are fancy real estate scams based on the same spurious free market assumptions and the same beneficiaries: commercial property owners and real estate developers. Furthermore, if adopted, both SB 50 and its local counterparts will fuel gentrification, without ever meeting its three politically-concocted goals:

- Increasing transit ridership.

- Increasing affordable housing.

- Reducing Green House Gases.
The likely impacts of SB 50 on Los Angeles: Note: As SB 50 changes and more research becomes available, some of these findings may be updated. 

Land use regulatory process and zoning? Since most of Los Angeles qualifies as being transit rich or jobs rich, legally adopted land use regulations -- Plan Designations and Zone -- would become irrelevant under SB 50. Furthermore, Los Angeles General Plan Framework’s Goal 3.3, that changes in zoning must be contingent on a demonstration of adequate public services and infrastructure, would be cast aside. This requirement would be jettisoned, and since SB 50 real estate projects are not discretionary, they also would not be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). They would, therefore, sail through without public notices, environmental assessments, public hearings, debates and votes by the City Planning Commission and City Council, and appeals from the public.

Likewise, existing neighborhoods that are transit and/or jobs rich would be subject to similar de facto upzoning in which developers could waive existing restrictions on height, mass (FAR), and density. This would allow buildings with a height up to 55 feet, Floor Area Ratios as high as 3.25, with density restrictions (i.e. units per acre), and no or minimal parking requirements.

The current discretionary land use processes to allow carefully-vetted deviations from municipal laws regulating the use of land: zone variances, zone changes, and General Plan amendments, have already been compromised by SB 1818 and TOC Guidelines. In the case of SB 50, this process of land use deregulation will advance to the next step. Local parcels will become exempt from most zoning laws, including overlay ordinances, since developers could avoid land use regulations through an unappealable ministerial (administrative) process imposed on all California cities by the California State legislature through SB 50 and kindred “housing” bills. 

Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZs)? SB 50 contains no protection for existing neighborhoods that have HPOZs, Residential Floor Area Districts (RFAs), or one of LA’s 16 new re:Code LA R1 anti-mansionization zones. Unless homeowners go through the laborious process to add their house to the California Register of Historic Resources, they cannot protect their historic neighborhoods from SB 50. 

Affordable housing incentive programs, such as Transit Oriented Communities (TOC)? SB 50 expands LA’s two density bonus programs, TOC Guidelines and SB 1818, by increasing the number of by-right bonuses, areas where these programs could be used, and removing any local right of appeal to communities or individuals who oppose SB 50 zoning waivers. Most importantly, however, SB 50 retains the same critical weakness of the two existing programs. It has no required inspection process to assure that pledged affordable units charge low-income rents and house low-income tenants. It is ripe for abuse, especially because landlords do not have easily accessible databases to determine who is eligible to rent their affordable units, and potential renters have no easily accessible database to determine where the SB 50 affordable units are located. Furthermore, low-income tenants who have obtained a Section 8 voucher cannot use their vouchers for affordable housing created through SB 1818, TOC Guidelines, and SB 50.

Another weakness is that SB 50 has no monitoring program to determine if its upzoning schemes create new housing, if the new housing is affordable or reduces the price of market housing, if the pledged affordable units actually exist, if future SB 50 tenants utilize transit, and if SB 50 apartments reduce Green House Levels beyond existing levels. Nevertheless, SB 50’s long list of incentives to private investors will remain intact, regardless of their actual outcomes, which, as I predict, will be increased gentrification, traffic congestion and air pollution, and economic inequality, supplemented by collapsing public infrastructure and services. 

Community Plan Updates. The New Community Plans program has been underway since 2005, and to push back against Measure S the City Council mandated that LA’s 35 Community Plans and two District Plans (Port and Airport) be subsequently updated on a six-year cycle.So far, however, this update process is listing badly for several reasons.

First, Community Plans apply citywide General Plan elements to local neighborhoods, and nearly all of LA’s mandatory and optional citywide elements are out of date. The program to update them has ground to a halt, and there is no evidence on City Planning’s website that the Department is updating these relics from the previous century. For example the mandatory Open Space element was adopted in 1973, and recent efforts to update it so far consist of several 2017 private and public meetings.

Second, since 2005 about six Community Plans have been fully updated and 16 are now going through an accelerated and truncated updating process. The deadline for updating the remaining Community Plan is 2024, but there is no public information on the update schedule and work program, assuming it exists.

Third, updated Community Plans are implemented through public improvements, called the Capital Improvement Program and appended land use ordinances (e.g. zoning). But, no capital improvement program are attached to any Community Plan, old or “new”, and adopted zoning laws are routinely by-passed through many real estate schemes, such as re:code LA, Transit Neighborhood Plans, density bonus ordinances, and SB 50, all independent of any local analysis or adopted Community Plan policies, goals, or land use designations.

The conclusion is unmistakable. If adopted, SB 50 will hammer the final nail into the coffin of LA’s faltering Community Plan update process. At that point, land use, as legally established through (General) plan designations and zones, will be permanently severed from a careful analysis of under-utilized existing zoning, population and transportation trends, infrastructure capacity, and the California Environmental Quality Act. Turbulent market forces will then become the de facto criteria determining the use of land in Los Angeles. Short-term business decisions will undermine zoning laws, and these actions, in turn, will supplant the General Plan elements and processes required by City of Los Angeles Charter Sections 554-558, and the State of California’s planning laws.

While some investors will undoubtedly make out like bandits, the quality of life in Los Angeles will plummet even more. 

Proposed concepts of major transit stops and job-rich areas. While we soon expect new maps identifying neighborhoods in Los Angeles that are jobs and transit rich (i.e., within a half mile of light rail, heavy rail, and frequent bus lines) maps prepared for SB 827 indicate that most of Los Angeles would be subject to the provisions of SB 50, including the historic core, East LA, South LA, and most of the Westside. In the case of the San Fernando Valley all major transit corridors would include at least half of its neighborhoods, with more folded once Senator Wiener identifies “jobs rich areas.” When this happens, many other Los Angeles neighborhoods will also pop up on SB 50 impact maps. Few Los Angeles communities will remain intact, only governed by General Plan Elements, Community Plans, and City Council-adopted zoning ordinances.

What comes next?

First, this legislation is rapidly moving through the State Legislature, buoyed by a well funded, carefully crafted lobbying campaign. Angelinos and their City Council do not have the luxury to wait for the Department of City Planning to eventually draft a report on the legislation’s impact. Instead, community groups and Council offices should undertake their own independent reviews, and I offer this column as a starting point. Please extend my analysis and make whatever corrections are warranted. This is the best way to determine what will happen in Los Angeles if the California State Legislature adopts SB 50.

Second, City Hall hypocrisy of opposing SB 50, while supporting its local equivalents, like the Purple Line Transit Neighborhood Plan, needs to go. In case anybody is still not clear on their similarity, let me spell it out. They both contend that existing plans and zones block increased transit ridership and the supply of affordable housing. Their solution is deregulation that circumvents adopted plans and zones with up-zoning schemes that increase the value of underlying properties, resulting in new market apartments whose upscale residents will miraculously ditch their cars and switch to buses and subways for most of their trips. Furthermore, both SB 50 and its local equivalents assume that the price, quality, and accessibility of mass transit is irrelevant, while supporting public services and infrastructure are so elastic that examining and monitoring them is unnecessary.

Third, both programs hide behind the same deception. Incentives to developers will “unleash” private investors, whose pursuit of profits will fix serious problems of low transit ridership and over-priced housing through a transit-adjacent building boom. Since this is self-evident to these density hawks, neither proposal contains any inspection and monitoring requirements. As a result, their up-zones would exist in perpetuity, regardless of their actual, as opposed to imagined, impacts.



(Dick Platkin is a former Los Angeles city planner who reports on local planning controversies for City Watch. Please send any comments or corrections to rhplatkin@gmail.com. Previous articles are available at the City Watch LA archives.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

Dear Senator Wiener: You Spelled S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N Wrong

Dear Senator Wiener: You Spelled S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N Wrong

SUSAN HUNTER 28 JANUARY 2019


AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEBATE-Senator Scott Wiener has come up with a solution to the housing crisis: Over-ride local control to make sure more housing units can be built.
Facebook Twitter Google+ Share

This is the main nuts and bolts of his new proposed SB 50 – a state law to over-ride local zoning laws and allow taller and denser buildings along transit stops. Which would absolutely be a solution for a housing crisis -- except that what we are dealing with in the state isn’t a housing crisis.

Nowhere in the city of Los Angeles is there a 0% vacancy rate. A vacancy rate is a way of determining the number of units available in an area. A normal and healthy vacancy rate is between 4 and 5 percent. Only in some areas of the northern most part of the valley do we see vacancy rates of 3 and 4 percent, but no where do we see 0. Because we don’t have a housing crisis. That would mean that the price of the housing is normal, and we just don’t have enough of it. Sure, there would be some price gouging in a market like that -- but that’s not what we have. I’m also willing to bet that there isn’t a single place in California where there is a 0% vacancy rate. Citywide, we average 6% on our vacancy rate according to the U.S. Census.

Our problem is real estate speculation and greed.

Wiener proposes to fix this by forcing municipalities to build denser and taller buildings along transit and to include affordable units, so a few lower-income people can live near transit too and alleviate our carbon footprint. So why haven’t cities pushed to have new construction require affordable units sooner? They have, long before Wiener was a Senator. But a man by the name of Palmer is to blame for cities having to suspend the affordable requirements.

Geoffrey Palmer likes to build massive developments such as the Medici and Orsini in Downtown Los Angeles. When the city enforced the law that he needed to include affordable units, Palmer sued stating the requirements were a form of rent control that was currently banned under a state rent control law known as Costa-Hawkins. So, while this battled out in courts, affordable requirements gathered dust and community plans were over-ridden to prevent local housing requirements. Developers had to be incentivized to include affordable units, as opposed to mandated.

Then just last year the case lost in appeals court and the state came up with a legal fix. Hooray, now we can have affordable housing requirements again and thankfully Wiener is going to come along and force the cities who stopped us from having affordable units to finally do the right thing…. Wait, what?

Wiener’s bill targets cities and municipalities for being the bad guys in something they didn’t do. Instead of giving cities a chance to enact and enforce affordable housing requirements that we already had, Wiener wants the state to pull the reigns in on something that cities haven’t been able to do for almost ten years. Which doesn’t put the blame where it belongs – on the developers who want to skirt the law for a larger profit return which is what has caused the speculative crisis we find ourselves in now.

The problem isn’t some mythical byzantine land use laws that don’t allow for taller buildings. The problem is companies like Google and developers like Palmer who drive up land values to intentionally inflated prices, causing a ripple effect on nearby properties and driving up rents. Wiener’s bill would do nothing to prevent land flipping – or “in lieu” fees to buy their way out of having to actually build any affordable units at all.

Fluctuations in the Asian markets have more impact on California housing than local land use law does.

As a tenants’ rights activist, I’m not particularly fond of affordable housing. I’ve seen entire buildings of people be evicted when the deed restrictions end and much higher prices can be charged all the units. I’m even more opposed to a state bill that just guarantees more people will be kicked out of their homes to make way for taller luxury buildings and where poor people will eventually be kicked out of those buildings once the owners are allowed to do it. This double-dipping of state mandated displacement as a thinly disguised solution isn’t going to help anyone, except the speculative land flippers.

But let’s keep blaming the cities for a problem they didn’t start in the first place. The reality is that blame falls on the state for enacting a statewide law to over-ride local laws regarding rent control. But somehow, it’s thought that yet another statewide law (though well-intended) that won’t even address the real problem will somehow fix all of this.



(Susan Hunter is a local tenant activist and case worker for the Los Angeles Tenants Union - Hollywood Local.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

Scott Wiener, Pied Piper for the New Urban Renewal

Scott Wiener, Pied Piper for the New Urban Renewal

DICK PLATKIN 13 DECEMBER 2018

PLATKIN ON PLANNING-The old Urban Renewal. Urban renewal was the grand strategy of the Federal Government in the post-WWII war era to reconstruct large sections of American cities through local agencies, such as California’s Community Redevelopment Agencies.

The critical laws adopted by Congress were the Housing Acts of 1949 and 1954, the Highway Act of 1956, and the New Communities Act of 1968. Through Federal subsidies, entire neighborhoods were acquired through each city’s power of eminent domain. Then came the evictions of local residents, followed by the bulldozers and wrecking balls.

After the local agencies assembled many small parcels into larger ones, large real estate investors were invited in, again with government subsidies, to rebuild these older neighborhoods for upscale commercial tenants and occasional high-rise apartments with subsidized rents that are now expiring.

In Los Angeles, a famous historic area, Bunker Hill, totally disappeared. Your only recourse to see what once thrived there are film noir movies, such as Cross Cross (1949). The City replaced this neighborhood with the Harbor Freeway and the new financial district, office and bank buildings, and high-end hotels on Figueroa and Flower Street.

Urban renewal’s primary rationale was the elimination of “blighted” neighborhoods, and these programs were successful in leveling these older, poorer neighborhoods, at least in locations where investors could take advantage of their ideal location, such as Little Tokyo in downtown Los Angeles.

But urban renewal had two critical blind spots. First, by removing the residents from these neighborhoods, it simply pushed low-income people out to other neighborhoods. This is why, especially in cities like New York, writer James Baldwin called urban renewal Negro Removal. By shoving the poor to other neighborhoods, urban renewal did not address the root causes of blight, which was racism and economic inequality. In fact, it led to massive displacement and impoverishment, one of the factors responsible for the frequent ghetto rebellions in the United States between 1964-1969, including Los Angeles in 1965.



The other blind spot was taxation. The redevelopment agencies gobbled up an increasing share of local tax revenues through tax increment financing. The increased value and tax payments for redeveloped neighborhoods went into the coffers of redevelopment agencies, not cities.

For these and other reasons urban renewal was gradually phased out. In California its end finally came in 2011-2012 through the actions of the California State Legislature and Supreme Court.

The new Urban Renewal is targeted upzoning: The official end of urban renewal in California did not, however, end informal and formal support by state and local government aid to investors interested in easy access to desirable locations in older neighborhoods for their grandiose projects. This is where Scott Wiener and his champions, such as YIMBY California, which authored his previous proposal, SB 827, and played a major role in SB 827 2.0, the recently released SB 50.

There are, however, major differences between the old urban renewal and its reincarnation through schemes to up-zone many urban neighborhoods, without any parallel upgrades of supportive municipal services and infrastructure.

The old version depended on legislation from the Federal Government, combined with the power of local government to acquire large blocks of real estate through eminent domain.

The new version also works through government, but only at the state and local level. Instead of creating new agencies employing many architects, designers, civil engineers, and city planners, the new version largely relies on market forces, abetted by the deregulation of zoning and environmental review. It guiding theory is a pipe dream that unregulated market forces can be harnessed to build affordable housing, increase transit ridership, and reduce Green House Gases. If we just let investors maximize their profits through speculation in urban real estate, this rising tide will lift all boats.

While the previous version was based on a grand vision of rebuilding entire neighborhoods, the new version has settled for a chaotic parcel-by-parcel approach.

While the old version also used highways and affordable housing as its pretext for acquiring older parcels and evicting residents, the new version has shifted its rational from highways to mass transit. And, instead of building government operated affordable housing, the new version calls for a small percentage of either mandatory or voluntary affordable housing in expensive market projects -- without any on-site inspections.

The new version also has two other justifications that the older version did not invoke: increasing transit ridership and, therefore, reducing the generation of the Green House Gases responsible for climate change. But, just as the older version used the elimination of blight as a pretext, as it shunted the poor to other neighborhoods, the new version targets neighborhoods that its alleges are not suitable for transit ridership, displacing local residents through evictions instead of eminent domain.

But, like the urban renewal, this is only a cover story for government intervention to speed up the gentrification process. It allows real estate investors to get access to prime locations now occupied by low-income residents. Furthermore, the current rationale is so preposterous that it could never withstand any type of independent assessment to verify its rationales or that it achieves its stated goals.

Whether the new urban renewal proceeds at the local level through real estate scams the like the Purple Line Extension “transit neighborhood plan” or at the state level through Scott Wiener’s SB 827 and his SB 50, there is no evidence that these programs create more than a sliver of short-term affordable housing, or that they reduce the generation of Green House Gases. Any monitoring program would quickly reveal that these are totally bogus claims, which is why the new urban renewal never monitors itself. Once it achieves its real goal, upzoning, the process ends, and these generous gifts to developers are locked into place.

Other deceptions supporting the new urban renewal would also dissolve under scrutiny. It advocates, like its lead torchbearer, Scott Wiener, repeatedly claim that their upzoning schemes will create affordable housing by “supply-and-demand,” conveniently forgetting that this “economic law” only works when investors make high profits. It never works if investors lose their shirts to build and/or rent affordable apartments.

The other unsupported claim by Wiener and his followers is that the expensive housing they lobby hard for will become affordable 25 years from now through filtering. When pressed for examples where this has happened, they can never pin point any locations. For example, they are unable to identify any previously expensive housing that is now affordable in Los Angeles because if does not exist.

As the politicians, the academics, and the media ballyhoo SB 50, each bubble will be easily pierced by a simple request, “Show us the evidence.”

This will lead to the demise of the new urban renewal, so it can join the old renewal on library shelves reserved for failed urban programs.

(Dick Platkin is former Los Angeles city planner, who reports on local planning controversies for CityWatchLA. Please send any comments or correction to rhplatkin@gmail.com.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

A letter to Senator Wiener about SB 827

A letter to Senator Wiener about SB 827

A letter to state Sen. Scott Wiener about Senate Bill 827. (Examiner file photo)
By Nato Green on June 16, 2018 1:00 am



State Sen. Scott Wiener made waves for Senate Bill 827, which proposed to answer the housing crisis by overriding local zoning to allow more density built near transit. The bill died in committee in April, with Wiener saying “we started a conversation” (read: lost) and pledging to bring it back in a groovier form. Here’s what I hope the senator learned from the effort.

Everybody knows that affluent low-density suburbs (cough, Palo Alto, Los Gatos) brim with chutzpah for refusing any new housing while the entire world gets evicted.

SB827’s twist was that Wiener cast the bill as a bold stance to promote racial equity.

Wiener wrote on Medium, “SB827 is an unprecedented action *against* restrictive land-use restrictions with origins in racial discrimination and exclusion.”

Except many organizations based in communities of color denounced SB827 as a gentrification bomb. The LA Tenants Union wrote SB827 “will have a devastating impact on low- and middle-income neighborhoods and communities of color.”

My data geek pal with the nom-de-tweet Revolutionary Clown (also my silent partner in SPORC, our fake PAC for pro-tenant landlords) overlaid the SB 827 impact zones with census blocks to find the percentage of renters, of non-white people, and the median income in SB827-affected areas.

Turns out the racial justice organizations were right. Areas affected by SB827 were in fact lower-income, less white, and more renty than California as a whole. Affected neighborhoods within counties were poorer, less white, and more renters than county average.

According to RevClown, California is 39 percent non-white, but SB827-affected areas were 52 percent non-white. Statewide, 46 percent of units are occupied by renters, but 68 percent of the units in the SB827 areas. The state median income is $84,111, but the impact area is $78,008.

In-county disparities were minimal in San Francisco because most of the city is less than a quarter of a mile from transit, but elsewhere it was stark. Tony low-density Marin is 21 percent non-white, 37 percent renters and with a median income of $119,598. But the Marin SB827 impact area was 62 percent non-white, 74 percent renters, with a median income of $75,961. Contra Costa County is 40 perecent non-white but the SB827 area is 61 percent white, with a median income almost 35 percent below the county average. Riverside is 37 percent non-white, but the SB827 area is 63 percent white, with a median income a whopping 60 percent below the county average. Similar patterns repeated across the state.

Senator Wiener may have been incorrect to claim that SB827 would end historic racist exclusion.

For the future, I would like to say the following to my senator:

Dear Senator Wiener,

Maybe you don’t mind SB827 disproportionately affecting lower income, non-white renter communities more than their more affluent neighbors, because you heart massive homebuilding. But then don’t claim you’re doing something to address racism. You’re not helping people from San Pablo move to Moraga.

Let’s assume you genuinely desire to promote racial justice via housing. You did a crap job.

You didn’t understand how you might appear to affected communities as anything other than the latest in a long line of white technocrats brandishing studies while inflicting pain.

By declining to consult with and incorporate the priorities of the people you said you wanted to liberate when drafting the bill, you—this is a technical term—pooped in the pool.

You didn’t seem to get that the desire for local control in rich suburbs that always enjoyed it is different from the desire for local control in poorer communities of color that never had it.

There is no path to racial equity that does not involve people of color as the architects of their own liberation. There is no corrective for historic structural racism that by design gives communities of color less control over their own land.

If you want to draft legislation to decrease the power of affluent white communities to block housing while increasing the resources available to communities of color to determine their own fate, I am for it, even if the resulting policy is less lucrative than repackaging urban renewal and calling it racial justice.

Love,

Nato
Nato Green is a writer and comedian. See him and Natahsa Muse riffing over TITANIC for Riffer’s Delight at the Alamo Drafthouse on Monday June 25. Send brunch invites @natogreen and technical questions to @revclown.


Data analysis indicates that areas affected by SB827 were lower income, less white and included more renters than California as a whole. (Courtesy @revco)

Wieners SB828 Penalizes Cities if they don't build enough housing. Senate Hearing 4/28/2018

Sacramento hearing on SB827. aka. Wiener's War on California.

Wieners Warriors as told by San Francisco Magazine

San Francisco Magazine Story on the Housing Caucus HERE

SCOTT WIENER REFUSES TO DISCUSS SB 827 WITH SOUTH LA COMMUNITY

SCOTT WIENER REFUSES TO DISCUSS SB 827 WITH SOUTH LA COMMUNITY

Since the moment State Senator Scott Wiener's SB 827 was announced, the real-estate industry funded astroturf YIMBY groups who wrote it have admitted that in Los Angeles while there would be a lot of change throughout the city, the biggest changes given the transit infrastructure and bus frequency would be in our community of South L.A. Here's a tweet on January 4 from one of the YIMBYS:

The fact that the San Francisco-based State Senator's bill would have detrimental consequences to South L.A.'s communities of color is well recognized. Even at the March 23, 2018 LA City Council Rules Committee where both Council President Herb Wesson and Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson unanimously voted to oppose SB 827 (the matter now goes to full council), the City Planning Department staff stated that SB 827 had a "disproportionate impact on communities of color."

The Senator's office reached out to me on February 6th via email specifically to request a 15-20 minute one-on-one conversation to discuss the bill. It was just three days after he alleged at a town hall in his own district that the concerns that the bill would gentrify the community was limited to "one person."

After consulting local Black leaders who were similarly horrified by SB 827, and especially since he was claiming that the gentrification concerns about his bill was limited to "one person," I responded stating clearly that while I appreciated him reaching out, the coalition believed that instead of a 15 minute one-on-one conversation, he should instead come to South L.A. for a town hall co-sponsored by Crenshaw Subway Coalition, and allies - so that the Senator could hear directly from residents most impacted. I proposed for him two dates well in advance so that additional community partners could get the word out and he could arrange his schedule to join us: Tuesday, February 20 or Saturday, March 3rd.

Scott Wiener's staff initially said he would come and that they would check his schedule...and then Scott Wiener changed his mind. And it wasn't a travel issue. In fact, he was not only in L.A. on the same day. He was at a forum on this topic!!!

Instead of coming to the Crenshaw community at the invitation of Black leaders to discuss this issue with those most impacted, Scott Wiener went to a forum arranged by an ally in the Assembly at Los Angeles City College, where he and the lead professor in the letter supporting SB 827 dominating the speaking time and there was no audience interaction.

Despite the fact that L.A.C.C. is in the middle of a majority Brown community, it was obvious that little outreach had been done to the people of color living in the homes surrounding the school to attend. The forum was also very difficult to find on the campus. The traditional signs with arrows and greeting staff weren't near the campus entry points. 

Upon entry what was immediately noticeable was that the room did not look like Los Angeles, let alone the racially diverse East Hollywood community:

And just for reference this is what a typical Crenshaw Subway Coalition community meeting looks like:

I approached the Senator afterwards to see if he would answer the invitation of leaders and come to the meeting and he still declined:

We are offended by the Senator's refusal to come to our South L.A. community that would be most impacted by his draconian Urban Renewal 2.0 bill to discuss it in front of our community, at a true town hall sponsored by our organization and allies.

Will the author of SB827 face a recall in California?

Senator Wiener's War to upzone every city with SB827 in Marin County is going well

#WienersWar to upzone every city in California with SB827 is going well. If only he had funding for a few more of these cyborgs.


SB-827 and then, please click HERE to sign our online petition entitled; "NO on SB-827 & SB-828! Stop Top-Down Planning, Unsustainable High-Density Housing, and Unfunded Mandates" and spread the news!

Mr. Wiener’s Whimsical World: The “Madman” Theory of Zoning

Mr. Wiener’s Whimsical World: The “Madman” Theory of Zoning

Posted by: Bob Silvestri - March 11, 2018 - 12:28pm

As a disclaimer, I’m not categorically against any type of development, be it prefabricated, modular homeless housing or 100 story luxury apartments. If a city wants to build the tallest building in the world, that’s fine if it’s their decision to do that. What I am against is top-down planning by government and big money, forcing inappropriate development on defenseless communities, by commandeering local planning and zoning control and dictating to locally elected officials and taxpayers.

I’m also not an “urbanist” or any other “ist” for that matter. I love great urban places as much as I love quiet small towns. Each has its unique and compelling characteristics, and I think we should work to preserve both. If I need a label, I guess I’m a quasi-Wrightian when it comes to planning and growth. As anyonewho has read my first book or my work over the years knows, I believe that growth and planning requires complex solutions, incorporating a mix of low-density and high-density, enabled by technology so both have a much lighter footprint on the planet than either do at the moment.

What I know for sure is that a one-size-fits-all approach to zoning will not get us there.

When dealing with development issues in different places, from urban cores to rural towns, nothing is comparable: not available locations, land types, the social services and public services available or the needs of the populace or the programs that exist to address them, or the types of businesses and industries that are viable, or the municipal government’s financial wherewithal and the capacity of their agencies.

In the face of increasingly complex planning and growth challenges and increasingly unpredictable unintended consequences, Senator Wiener has chosen to ignore all this and charge forward with a blunt instrument belief that removing local zoning control will solve everything. His proposals have no proven track record of success: success being defined as financially, socially and environmentally viable in a market based, democratic society.

I’m not claiming that our system is not flawed: in many ways it’s a total mess. Still, like it or not, for better and for worse California is not Europe or Asia or even New York City, so we have to work with what we have. And, on balance, I would argue that what we have in place can work well, even though new ideas and modifications are needed.

But, Senator Wiener doesn’t live in that world, which is why the visions embodied in his Senate Bill 827 are fatally flawed.

Fatal Flaw #1: Local Planning is not just about control

A city’s General Plan and its zoning ordinances are not about “control” for its own sake, they are fundamentally about the financial solvency of the city. Over centuries, municipalities have sought to address and express their social, environmental and financial needs and goals through planning: adding provisions to encourage different types of commerce to provide jobs, services and tax base, or to improve infrastructure or bring in new residents (aka consumers), endlessly seeking a balance, though that is always unattainable.

The detailed decisions that go into creating a city’s General Plan attempt to address the fact that financially viable private development (housing, commercial, industrial, etc.), requires a supportive context of public investment and reliable planning execution.

Every municipality I’ve ever worked with has indicated that housing is at best a financial break even for cities: the costs of infrastructure and public services outweigh the revenues generated (and this is in California: the highest taxed populace in the country). Commercial properties, on the other hand, are generally a more reliable revenue source.

For example, a single 100 room boutique hotel in Marin can generate over $1 million a year in tax revenues. Conversely, allowing too much housing without sufficient commerce, retail, industry, local jobs and services results in reduced city revenues and public services, which lowers property values and so on, in a downward spiral that bankrupted more than one city in the last boom and bust housing cycle.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, allowing the addition of uncontrolled amounts of housing throughout our nine counties, without sufficient, local jobs creation and commercial development, also leads to longer commutes and more traffic.

Local planning can address these kinds of imbalances better than central planning agencies in Sacramento.

Planning and zoning work best, when applied surgically and with specific intentions. Conditional use zoning is an example of that. It offers the possibility of a certain profitable use for a developer, if the community receives some tangible benefit in return.

In addition, real estate developers and investors need a sense of certainty and depend on the fact that the goals and doctrines found in the General Plans, Specific Plans, Community Plans, Master Plans, Special Assessment Districts of public agencies will come to pass. However, that consistency and follow-through on long term, public agency planning is critical not just for private investors, but also for every family that buys a home and every entrepreneur who opens a small business and to the community at large that makes decisions based on those plans.

Municipal planning documents take years and thousands of man/woman hours to come into fruition and they embody layers of detailed decisions about every aspect of what makes a city a city, and those decisions are eventually encoded in local zoning ordinances. To cavalierly disregard the results of this process is madness.

Mr. Wiener fails to or perhaps doesn’t care to understand any of this and wishes he could do away with all of it. He seems confident that he’s the smartest guy in the room.

Fatal Flaw #2: If you build it near transit, will they come?

When one considers public transportation, it would be naïve to believe that just having a ferry terminal or a train station somewhere will result in financially viable, privately funded development. Want to buy a mall? I know where you can get one cheap, near good public transportation. As noted, planning, zoning and outcomes are more complex.

Similarly, to enforce strict definitions of what is or is not “transit rich” as the basis of legislation for the entire state, regardless of whether it’s an urban core or a rural neighborhood and devoid of context, available public-private investment, location, topography, construction type, design, unit sizes, amenities available or infrastructure required (all of which are the purpose of local planning) is completely nonsensical.

Mr. Wiener’s legislation treats a suburban bus stop the same as an urban ferry terminal. At the same time, his legislation doesn’t even bother to address our more urgent need, which is for better public transportation. It only assumes transportation’s value, mathematically. This, however, is not how real planning works.

Good planning involves taking everything into consideration – job growth, tax base, schools capacity, commercial demand, housing needs and types, infrastructure and public transportation options – and using that to create viable, long term, General Plans in coordination with public investment.

That Wiener fails to acknowledge the relationship between sustainable growth, development and local planning would be bad enough. Worse still, he proposes to predicate zoning decisions on transit frequency.

Fatal Flaw #3: Zoning based on bus route frequency

As I’ve argued, the existence of transit by itself is not a rational basis to drive zoning and development decisions. Transit alone will accomplish little, out of context, and development that is only driven by that transit has less chance of thriving. But, tying zoning and development directly to bus frequency is even more irrational.

Demand for bus service is dependent upon everything else that is outside of the control of that transit system. That is why, without predictable long term planning and the investment of public and private funds that go with it, Wiener’s version of “transit oriented development” near bus stops will not only fail, but will create zoning chaos.

First off, there is a huge difference between fixed transit (trains, highways, ferry terminals, airports, etc.) versus surface street transit (buses, shuttles, taxis, etc.). One is essentially permanent and a long term investment, while the other requires little investment and can change at any moment.

When it comes to zoning, fixed transit is far more certain than surface street transit, which is why major real estate development analysis tends to discount surface street transit (except for automobile and truck access), when evaluating opportunities. Still, it’s important to acknowledge that even trains and ferries change scheduling, depending on demand and ridership, so tying their frequency to zoning is still problematic.

There is no doubt that buses and shuttles are an important form of public transportation. However, bus routes are constantly changing based on ridership, so what happens when bus frequency suddenly rises above or falls below SB 827’s frequency criteria?

Will cities then be required to immediately up-zone or down-zone large swaths of land as bus intervals rise and fall? And, how will a city or a developer deal with zoning that is in constant flux and essentially unpredictable?

What if a street is “transit rich” one year but not the next, and in the interim a developer has broken ground on a housing project? Does that neighborhood then end up with high density housing but no public transit, because the municipal agency decided to reduce the bus frequency or worse, move the bus route somewhere else, entirely?

For all intents and purposes, Wiener’s legislation hands zoning control over to the Director of the MTA in San Francisco, or the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District bus service.

Now add this to the mix. Surface street transportation is presently in the midst of its most disruptive time since the invention of the automobile. And, on demand shuttles, flexible route, app-guided, more efficient, cheaper, just-in-time services, and even autonomous technology-enabled options are about to transform the sector even more.

In New York City, for example, the emergence of Uber and Lyft have made the once prized taxi medallion, which ten years ago was worth $100,000, practically worthless. In the coming decades, it’s possible that there may no longer be any fixed municipal bus routes at all. Unless public transportation is transformed, it may not be able to compete.

What will the residents of Wiener’s high density housing projects that were built based on bus frequency, do then, when public transit systems cut back service to remain financially solvent?

Will any of this happen with certainty? No one knows, but the trends we’re seeing would suggest caution and strengthening coordination with local decision making, not weakening it.

Fatal Flaw #4: High density development without parking

There certainly are arguments for development at varying densities at major fixed transit locations. The question though, in our fully developed communities, is where do we find the land for that development? Unfortunately, according to Wiener, it will be at the expense of parking.

Believing something is so, because you say it so many times that you convince others that it’s so, only works for con men and politicians, though I guess that’s redundant. The rest of us have to live with the consequences.

Driving and having parking when we get where we’re going, is essential for shopping, doctor’s appointments, school drop-offs, errands, and so much more. If we can't park at our destination, it's likely we'll go somewhere else. So, it is equally essential to all the merchants and service providers we are visiting, because without somewhere to park our cars we couldn’t get to them to buy their goods and services.

We no longer live in a world where getting to everything we and our families need is walkable. In fact, since the succession of disruptions caused by big box retail and online sales and resultant concentration of commercial, medical and retail development, almost nothing is walkable anymore. It’s only in an urban core with a lot of public transportation (e.g., New York City) that one can get to most things without a car. And, even in many of those place, in spite of increases in investment in public transportation (Los Angeles, Portland), ridership of public transportation is dropping as people are choosing to use other transportation services that save time and allow them to make multiple stops and carry heavier items, and according to some, because transit investment itself displaces those who use it most.

All this considered, parking remains the life blood of local businesses and particularly parking no more than a couple blocks from a store. This is is even more the case for small, mom and pop businesses and all local service providers, who do not have big advertising budgets.

When the Miller Avenue Streetscape in Mill Valley was redeveloped, many small, local-serving businesses barely hung on, because people just wouldn’t put up with anything that makes them walk too far or takes too much time, even though new temporary parking was arranged several blocks away. They simply went elsewhere.

This logical tendency of people to optimize their time and convenience means that commercial development (offices, restaurants, retail shops and service businesses) cannot survive without parking.

Wiener’s legislation rejects this reality, entirely.

But, ask yourself this. How can SB 827 supporters suggest that agencies such as BART, eliminate their parking lots in order to build housing near transit? What happens to all the people who used to drive to the BART station to go to San Francisco or elsewhere? They’ll be left with no alternative but to drive to San Francisco and try to park there.


And, let’s please start being realistic: people over forty, who are in their prime working and earning years, will not generally ride their bikes 15 miles back and forth to work every day, particularly if their day consists of multiple meetings out of the office. It's just nonsense.

Similarly, if the development that replaces a parking lot is mixed-use, where will customers patronizing the retail stores park? Only small convenience outlets can survive if frequented only by BART passengers.


Fatal Flaw #5: Is pollution from cars the impact we have to plan for in the future?


Government and politicians move so glacially that they always tend to be fighting the last war. The current environmental issues surrounding the transit oriented development debate are like that.

The TOD argument of last resort is that getting people out of cars is our top priority, because of the environmental impacts. Historically, that was true (this policy came out of the 1970's when air pollution choked every major U.S. city), but alternative fuel, automotive technology is being adopted rapidly, as is the legislation to mandate it. In fact, a number of countries around the world have already set dates by when the internal combustion engine will be outlawed, and California may soon follow suit.


As I've argued over the past ten years "personal transportation vehicles" -- be they cars, trucks, motorcycles or new hybrid forms -- are here to stay. They are analogous with freedom and choice can adapt to every conceivable need (business meetings to vacations). And, with advancements in technology and new legislation, housing, automobiles and greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly decoupling.

Looking out into the future, which is what we're supposed to be planning for, the entire "TOD lowers GHG auto emissions argument falls apart. But, there are also financial consequences to consider.

Large-scale development requires enormous amounts of capital, both public and private. We should always ask if that investment is the best way to achieve our goals. Even if one were to agree that we should get all older, polluting vehicles off the road right now, to reduce emissions (something I advocate), is high density development the quickest and least expensive way to do that?


In 2010, some of us did a quick financial analysis of a 30 unit, high density housing project that was proposed in Mill Valley. That analysis showed that buying zero emissions, hybrid electric cars for all the future residents of that project would cost the taxpayers only about 25% of the value of the public development concessions needed to approve the apartments.


I'm not suggesting that this means we shouldn't build any housing, but it shows that there are more immediate and direct ways to address greenhouse gas emissions. How about just offering a 50% of cost trade in credit voucher to anyone who will replace their low mileage, high emissions vehicle with a new alternative fuel hybrid? We could transform the public fleet within years not decades.

Fatal Flaw #6: Displacement is not just about residents and housing

I’ve often said that all things being equal there can be no affordable housing without subsidy. In Wiener’s version of this, his legislation’s massive property rights give-away is that subsidy, which in his telling of it will magically result in for profit developers building so much housing that it will eventually become more affordable.

Aside from the fact that there is no evidence that increasing development and giving away development rights will decrease housing costs -- in fact, quite the opposite, because added development rights increase property values -- the falsehoods in this argument are too many to tackle here. So, I’ll confine my comments to those concerning the impacts on communities that will become designated as “transit rich,” under SB 827 (for a detailed discussion about realistic ways to create affordable housing click here).

In short, if Wiener’s vision is allowed to be realized, the majority of the San Francisco Bay Area’s long-standing communities will be decimated.

Gentrification and displacement in communities resulting from new, high density development tied to transit frequency, is not just about the plight of the poor and other disadvantaged populations -- though they are hit the hardest by it. Displacement within impacted communities will be equally destructive to local-serving businesses.

“Communities” are ecosystems comprised of a wide variety of participants engaged in intricately inter-dependent activities. In addition to residents, local-serving businesses include tire stores, auto repair shops, hardware stores, stationary stores, hair and nail salons, florists, tattoo parlors, yoga studios, mom and pop restaurants, light manufacturing, service providers like plumbers, cabinet makers, electricians, artisans and artists, writers, accountants, lawyers, architects, contractors, local nonprofits, and personal and medical care providers of every imaginable kind.

Most of these are small businesses. Many of them only remain viable, because their rents in older buildings are still reasonable.

To suddenly up-zone and transform property values to attract high density, mostly luxury housing and large-scaled commercial development, and to believe that rents will not rise and that existing communities will remain intact is just fanciful. With legislation like SB 827 we are looking at wholesale displacement of communities and their unique cultures.

Shiny new buildings and rising rents in close proximity, will inevitably drive out and replace struggling, local enterprises with coffee bars, trendy restaurants, boutiques, wine shops and art galleries.

And, in all this, we haven’t even talked about the impacts on the environment from this uncontrolled development, using the same bricks and sticks construction methods we’ve used for 60 years. It is amazing to me that Wiener and his fellow legislators are so willing to throw environmental protection under the bus to benefit multi-billion dollar (soon to be trillion dollar) corporations.

There was a time California was the leader in this. Now our politicians just carry water for major donors who will benefit from uncontrolled development.



In any case, if you identify with any of the local services, professions or businesses I’ve listed above, and you live within the ½ mile or ¼ mile of a “transit rich” area, as prescribed by SB 827, I suggest you either start fighting back or start packing.

Welcome to the Wiener Village NOW RENTING!

Senator Scott Wiener's Donors Directly Involved in the Eviction Crisis

Senator Scott Wiener's Donors Directly Involved in the Eviction Crisis Include Employees of the Following Companies:

Wasserman & Stern - Specialists in the three day notice.

Zephyr Real Estate - Coaches buyers through the Ellis to TIC proces; Specializes in selling buildings "Delivered Vacant". Founder W. Drypulcher donates to anti-rent control campaign. Dirty Dozen's Bonnie Spindler is also a Zephyr agent. One Zephyr
agent's flyer read: "Call and ask me about Ellis Evictions."


Flynn Investments - Currently Ellising a 33 unit building.

ParkMerced - Multiple evictions and cases of tenant harassment.

"Dirty Dozen" Urban Green - Currently Ellising 7 buildings including a 98-year-old woman.

"Dirty Dozen" Ashok K. Gujral - Foreclosure predator who attempted to displace a 75-year-old woman.

Three members of the Ron Conway family - Tax evading AirBNB founder who contributes to rising rents by profitting off illegal hotel rentals, resulting in the evictions of long-term tenants to rent illegally to tourists.

Sterling Bank & Trust - Leaders in complicated TIC mortgages.

Thomas Coates - Republican backer of Prop 98, the failed attempt to overturn rent control in 2010.

Note: 50% of Wiener's donations come from Real Estate or Tech. Wiener's district (Castro) is part of ground zero for the Ellis Act.

Download the pie chart here. See the complete list of donors here.


Scott Wiener 2014 | Anti-Eviction Mapping Project

GOOD NEWS!: The League of California Cities Takes Action Against Senate Bill 827

GOOD NEWS!: The League of California Cities Takes Action Against Senate Bill 827




Good News!  The League of California Cities is taking action against Senate Bill 827.

The League of California Cities is an association of California city officials who work together to enhance their knowledge and skills, exchange information, and combine resources so that they may influence policy decision that affect cities.

Below is an ACTION ALERT email the League recently sent out to their members, calling upon them to oppose the bill.  They attached a copy of the bill and a sample opposition letter.  If you scroll all the way down to the end of the email, you will find a list of talking points.

This is a very encouraging development.

ACTION ALERT EMAIL FROM THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Nancy Hall Bennett" <nbennett@cacities.orgnbennett@cacities.org>>
Date: Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 6:46 PM -0800
Subject: ACTION ALERT: SB 827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning - Density


Members of the North Bay Division:

Below you will find an Action Alert regarding SB 827 (Weiner) which would exempt certain housing projects from locally developed and adopted building height limitations, densities, parking requirements, and design review standards.

Attached to this email you will find a sample oppose letter and the text of the bill.

Please contact me with any question or concerns.

Thank you for you advocacy, Nancy

Nancy Hall Bennett
League of CA Cities
(415) 302-2032



ACTION ALERT!!

SB 827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning - Density

OPPOSE

Background: SB 827 (Wiener) would exempt certain housing projects from locally developed and adopted building height limitations, densities, parking requirements, and design review standards.

Specifically, SB 827 would undermine locally adopted General Plans, Housing Elements (which are certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development), and Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS).  SB 827 allows private for-profit housing developers and transit agencies to determine housing densities, parking requirements, and design review standards within one-half mile of a “major transit stop,” or along a “high-quality transit corridor” which could be miles away from an actual bus stop.  Additionally, housing developments within these areas can range in height between 45 feet and 85 feet depending on the desire of the developer.
It is important to note that under existing law, cities are already required to zone for densities at levels necessary to meet their entire Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
SB 827 is an attack on community based planning and public engagement because developers and transits agencies will get to determine building height limitations, densities, parking requirements, and design review standards.  SB 827 calls to question why cities should create General Plans and Housing Elements if these documents can be dismissed.


ACTION:
SB 827 (Wiener) will be heard in the Senate Committee on Transportation & Housing as well as the Senate Committee on Governance & Finance in the next few weeks.

Please consider these two helpful actions:


1)      Both North Bay Senators Dodd and McGuire serve on the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee.  Further, Senator McGuire is Chair of the Senate Governance & Finance Committee. Please send in a LETTER of OPPOSITION and urge your Senator’s NO vote on SB 827.  Please send your letter via fax (sample letter attached) or may be sent through the League’s Action Centerorg/takeaction>.
 

2) CALL YOUR SENATOR and urge their NO vote on SB 827.

Senator Scott Wiener (above at Folsom St Fair) is planning to give the Suburbs a whipping with SB827

Senator Wiener, has another ridiculous Housing Bill that could lead to the massive urbanization of Marin County

Senator Wiener, has another ridiculous Housing Bill.  

ALERT: This bill will affect ALL HOMEOWNERS near the Highway 101 Corridor.

 In suburban Mill Valley California, essentially ALL of the homes in the flat lands will have no density requirement and a height limit of 55 feet.  In a word, it will force the redevelopment of a quaint town into a high density urban area.

California bill would mandate denser, taller housing near transit

7

San Francisco senator and assemblymember push for “transit-rich housing bonus”

By Adam Brinklow  Jan 4, 2018, 11:08am PST

•  TWEET
 
•  SHARE
 
•  PIN

Andre M

A new bill introduced in the California state legislature Wednesday by San Francisco Assemblymember Phil Ting, San Francisco Senator Scott Wiener, and East Bay Senator Nancy Skinner would cede developers a transit-housing bonus for taller denser developments near major transit hubs.

SB 827 would spare new housing developments from certain restrictions if they qualify as “transit-rich housing.” The initial version of the bill defines such housing as “parcels [...] within a one-mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-male radius of a high-quality transit corridor.”

California law defines a “major transit stop” as:

A site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

For new housing built near such a hub, the bill lays out a variety of potential shortcuts through the permitting process, including:

The bill would exempt a project [from] maximum controls on residential density or floor area ratio, minimum automobile parking requirements, design standards that restrict the applicant’s ability to construct the maximum number of units consistent with any applicable building code, and maximum height limitations.

Patricia Chang

Via a press release, Sen. Wiener called the bill—and two other housing-related bills introduced today, one of which would mandate that cities keep more strict track of population growth and adjust housing requirements accordingly and another that would make it easier to build housing for farm workers—a necessary tool for speeding housing construction.

“After nearly 50 years of bad housing policy—policy designed to make it incredibly hard and expensive to create housing—we began the long process of righting the ship,” said Sen. Wiener.

The proposed law first goes to the State Senate’s fiscal committee for consideration.