Each year more forced high density housing legislation is adopted in Sacramento in spite of the fact that California Communities have exceeded their water supply, high density housing does not come at an affordable price unless it is substantially subsidized, there is no mechanism to help it retain initial affordability, housing subsidies are scarce and the birth rates in California continue to go down. Allowing high density housing by right (ministerial) on what was lower density land forces land costs up, reducing affordability, the very opposite of what was said to be intended. Most of this legislation reduces the requirement for parking, as if public transportation could get people where they need to go, so they would willingly forego having cars.
Below is a sample of some of the recently adopted housing legislation that removes citizen notification, removes most of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements and forces quick acceptance of vast increases in density in the neighborhoods throughout California. (To find the full text of this legislation search bill letters, numbers in your search engine). To delve into the details, Livable California also has a longer Housing Legislation list.
Some recent state forced high density housing legislation:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2011
AB2011, 2022
“Authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a housing development that meets specified objective standards and affordability and site criteria, including being located within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use, and would make the development a use by right and subject to one of 2 streamlined, ministerial review processes. The bill would require a development proponent for a housing development project approved pursuant to the streamlined, ministerial review process . . .” [Emphasis added]
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/planning-and-community-development/sb9factsheet.pdf
“Executive Summary of SB 9
Senate Bill (SB) 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) requires ministerial approval of a housing development with no more than two primary units in a single-family zone, the subdivision of a parcel in a single-family zone into two parcels, or both. SB 9 facilitates the creation of up to four housing units in the lot area typically used for one single-family home. SB 9 contains eligibility criteria addressing environmental site constraints (e.g., wetlands, wildfire risk, etc.), anti-displacement measures for renters and low-income households, and the protection of historic structures and districts. Key provisions of the law require a local agency to modify or eliminate objective development standards on a project-by-project basis if they would prevent an otherwise eligible lot from being split or prevent the construction of up to two units at least 800 square feet in size. [Emphasis added]
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/planning-and-community-development/sb9factsheet.pdf
“Lot Split. When a lot split occurs, the local agency must allow up to two units on each lot resulting from the lot split. In this situation, all three unit types (i.e., primary unit, ADU, and Junior ADU) count toward this two-unit limit. For example, the limit could be reached on each lot by creating two primary units, or a primary unit and an ADU, or a primary unit and a Junior ADU. By building two units on each lot, the overall maximum of four units required under SB 9 is achieved. (Gov. Code, § 66411.7, subd. (j).) Note that the local agency may choose to allow more than two units per lot if desired.
No Lot Split. When a lot split has not occurred, the lot is eligible to receive ADUs and/or Junior ADUs as it ordinarily would under ADU law. Unlike when a project is proposed following a lot split, the local agency must allow, in addition to one or two primary units under SB 9, ADUs and/or JADUs under ADU Law. It is beyond the scope of this document to identify every combination of primary units, ADUs, and Junior ADUs possible under SB 9 and ADU Law. However, in no case does SB 9 require a local agency to allow more than four units on a single lot, in any combination of primary units, ADUs, and Junior ADUs.”
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB10
SB10 Sept 16, 2021:
“LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB10, Wiener. Planning and zoning: housing development: density.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law requires an attached housing development to be a permitted use, not subject to a conditional use permit, on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified conditions relating to location and being subject to a discretionary decision other than a conditional use permit. Existing law provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing.
This bill would, notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, authorize a local government to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site, as those terms are defined. The bill would prohibit a local government from adopting an ordinance pursuant to these provisions on or after January 1, 2029. The bill would specify that an ordinance adopted under these provisions, and any resolution to amend the jurisdiction’s General Plan, ordinance, or other local regulation adopted to be consistent with that ordinance, is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. The bill would prohibit an ordinance adopted under these provisions from superseding a local restriction enacted or approved by a local initiative that designates publicly owned land as open-space land or for park or recreational purposes.
The bill would impose specified requirements on a zoning ordinance adopted under these provisions, including a requirement that the zoning ordinance clearly demarcate the areas that are subject to the ordinance and that the legislative body make a finding that the ordinance is consistent with the city or county’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. The bill would require an ordinance to be adopted by a 2/3 vote of the members of the legislative body if the ordinance supersedes any zoning restriction established by local initiative.”
California Senate Bill 35 (2017), AB 1174
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
California Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) is a statute streamlining housing construction in California counties and cities that fail to build enough housing to meet state mandated housing construction requirements.[1] The bill was introduced to the California State Assembly by State Senator Scott Wiener (D-SF) on December 15, 2016.[2] SB 35 aims to address the California housing shortage by increasing housing supply. The bill was signed into law on September 29, 2017 by Governor Jerry Brown as part of California’s 2017 Housing Package – a set of 15 bills that provide “an injection of new regulatory and financial resources” for cities.[1][2]
Scott Wiener introduced SB 35 to increase housing supply in cities that are not producing enough housing,[3] by encouraging cities to either increase housing development on their own or be forced to accept housing development. After the bill’s passage, Wiener claimed: “SB 35 will retain local control for those cities that are producing their share of housing, but create a more streamlined path for housing creation in those cities that are blocking housing or ignoring their responsibility to build.”[4]
In 2021 AB1174 was signed into law, which gives projects using the special approval of SB35 more time to start construction to compensate for delays caused by lawsuits.[5][6]
RHNA Numbers, an Official Critique:
“April 6, 2022: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Susan Candell, thecandells@comcast.net
“California State Auditor releases scathing report on RHNA process
Report finds housing goals are not supported by evidence
On March 17, Michael S. Tilden, the Acting California State Auditor, issued a blistering critique of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and its Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA). The Auditor found problems in the HCD methodology that may have inflated RHNA requirements by hundreds of thousands of housing units. The Auditor concludes that “The Department of Housing and Community Development must improve its processes to ensure that communities can adequately plan for housing.” In his letter to the Governor and legislative leaders, the Auditor also states, “Overall, our audit determined that HCD does not ensure that its needs assessments are accurate and adequately sup- ported. …This insufficient oversight and lack of support for its considerations risks eroding public confidence that HCD is informing local governments of the appropriate amount of housing they will need.”
The California Alliance of Local Electeds (CALE), a statewide organization of local elected officials, called for the comprehensive review and supports the State Auditor’s findings. Says Susan Candell, a CALE member and councilmember from the city of Lafayette, “CALE advocated for this audit, and it’s critical that HCD and the legislature follow-up on the Auditor’s recommendations. Our constituents deserve a fair and accurate process.”
State Senator Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), a member of the Joint Committee on Legislative Audit and a former mayor of the city of Orinda, states “It is these types of mistakes that undermine community trust and confidence in housing requirements. We need more affordable housing, and we have to do better.”
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments create plans to meet the housing needs of their communities, a process called the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA).
Each eight-year RHNA cycle starts with population and household projections from the demo- graphic unit at the Department of Finance (DOF). These projections are then handed off to HCD for their estimates of the number of housing units required to meet California’s needs. The RHNA process was modified in 2018 by Senate Bill 828 (Wiener), which created several ad hoc adjustments that have led to the problems cited in the State Auditor’s report.
Auditor findings on vacancy rates are consistent with Embarcadero Institute analysis
Unfortunately, the audit reviewed the RHNA plans from only eight counties, which together contain less than eight percent of California’s population. Due to pending lawsuits the audit did not consider the RHNA plans of the two largest planning organizations, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). These two regions contain almost two-thirds (65.5 percent) of the state’s population. This omission makes it difficult to grasp the scale of the problems created by HCD’s errors. However, the Embarcadero Institute, a Northern California think tank, estimated that HCD’s in- correct vacancy rates created an overcount of 200,000 housing units. Conceptual inconsistencies between DOF’s household projections and HCD’s housing unit projections created an additional overcount estimated at 700,000 housing units. Thus the RHNA requirement of 2.1 million new housing units may be contaminated by an overcount of 900,000 units.
The Auditor’s report does not attempt to reconcile these differences because HCD’s procedures are not clearly documented. Instead it has insisted that both DOF and HCD clarify and publish their methods and assumptions.
Auditor recommendations
The Auditor’s report made strong recommendations and created a timeline for their completion. Several tasks must be undertaken between June 2022 and February 2023 including performing multiple reviews of data, establishing formal review procedures, reviewing the appropriateness of comparison regions, and conducting an analysis of healthy vacancy rates and their historical trends. The Department of Finance is tasked with reviewing its population projections based on 2020 census data and conducting a comprehensive review of assumptions about household formation rates. Says CALE’s Julie Testa, councilmember from the City of Pleasanton, “Unless HCD and DOF complete this work and correct their mistakes, there is no justification for punishing cities for failing to meet erroneous RHNA goals. The Legislature should suspend implementation of RNHA until the public is satisfied these problems have been resolved.”
About CALE
The California Alliance of Local Electeds (CALE) brings together current and former local elected officials, community activists and other concerned residents. CALE believes that California’s 482 municipalities are too geographically and culturally distinct to be subjected to one-size-fits-all rules from the state capitol. CALE believes that communities thrive when local democracy thrives.
Voice of OC posts press releases to provide readers with information directly from organizations. We do not edit or rewrite press releases, and encourage readers to contact the originator of a given release for more information.
Preserve Saratoga
Copyright © 2022 Preserve Saratoga - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy Website Builder
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.