Flawed Housing Bills Attack Single Family Neighborhoods & Quality Of Life
By Sharon Rushton
Detrimental high-density housing bills, which could ruin single-family neighborhoods and worsen our quality of life, are fast tracking through the State legislature. The bills’ authors tout that the legislation will solve our housing needs. Yet, the bills predominantly promote market-rate housing and do little to provide more affordable housing.
Together, the housing bills continue the misguided trend to:
- Take away local governments’ control of land use and give it to market-rate housing developers (SB-1120, SB-995, SB-1085, AB-725, AB-2345);
- Eliminate single-family zoning, whereas single-family neighborhoods are treasured and should be protected (SB-1120, SB-902, AB-3040, AB-725);
- Increase housing density and override local development standards (parking, height, set-backs, etc.), which would result in significant adverse impacts (SB-1120, SB-1085, SB-902, SB-995, AB-2345);
- Streamline the permit review process, thereby posing a significant threat to democracy, public engagement, and high-quality development (SB-1120, SB-902, SB-995);
- Exempt housing projects from thorough review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, thereby reducing environmental protections (SB-1120, SB-902, SB-995); and
- Create unfunded mandates that burden local governments and communities (SB-1120, SB-1085, SB-995, AB-725, AB-2345).
Most of the bills ignore existing conditions, cumulative effects, and limits to growth.
The 2007 Marin Countywide Plan’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examined the cities’ and county’s zoning designations and projected potential growth of 14,043 more housing units (more than the current number of homes in Sausalito and Mill Valley combined). This didn’t include density bonuses. Alarmingly, the EIR concluded that “land uses and development consistent with the plan would result in 42 significant unavoidable adverse impacts”, including worse traffic congestion and insufficient water supplies.
On top of the EIR forecast, AB-68, enacted last year, allows a future buildout of roughly 61,000 more housing units. The proposed 2020 legislation would push Marin’s potential growth way beyond sustainable limits.
The housing bills are based on the unrealistic premise that increasing density and allowable buildout of housing would result in affordable housing being built. However, there is already plenty of density and allowable buildout for housing and this has not led to enough affordable housing being provided.
We know from experience and observation that high-density housing does not equate to affordable housing. San Francisco’s Nob and Telegraph Hills, Los Angeles’ Wilshire Corridor, and high-rises in downtown San Diego are all examples of upper-income areas where housing densities are quite high. Indeed, San Francisco is the second densest city in the United States with a density of 6,266 people per square mile[1] and yet its median home price is $1.4 million[2] and its median 1-bedroom rent is $3360 per month[3].
When discussing the need for housing, it is important to recognize that California’s population growth rate is at a record low and predicted to remain low. Estimates released on Dec. 20, 2019 by the California Department of Finance show that between July 1, 2018 and July 1, 2019, the growth rate was just .35%, the lowest recorded growth rate since 1900. During the same time period, the Department reported that there was substantial negative domestic net migration, which resulted in a loss of 39,500 residents — “the first time since the 2010 census that California has had more people leaving the state than moving in from abroad or other states”.[4]
Therefore, California, as a whole, only needs a modest increase in housing every year. We do not need to significantly up-zone vast areas of the state to accomplish this. There is plenty of potential housing buildout already allowed by the general plans and zoning of jurisdictions throughout the state. And this will grow each time jurisdictions update their housing plans to meet new Regional Housing Need Allocations.
So, massive up-zoning by the State for predominantly market-rate housing is not the answer. This strategy primarily benefits real estate investors, real estate developers, building contractors, home rental companies and large corporations rather than those in need of affordable housing.
Instead, we need to provide the correct amount of affordable housing where it is already allowed and prevent the loss of existing affordable housing.
To accomplish this, funding and subsidies are needed for local solutions to affordable housing, which could include building new affordable housing where it is already allowed and providing other affordable housing programs (housing vouchers, converting market-rate housing to affordable housing, encouraging living wages, maintaining existing affordable housing, preventing developers from being able to pay a penalty instead of actually build affordable units, etc.). In addition, funding/subsidies are required to mitigate the adverse impacts that the increased housing would create.
Regarding the jobs/housing imbalance created by large corporations, the State should incentivize Corporations to open offices in less populated areas of the State that are jobs poor and housing rich, where the cost of land and housing are much less expensive. In addition, “Full Mitigation” should be required, which makes commercial development approval contingent on adequate housing. (See Palo Alto Mayor Filseth’s article — https://padailypost.com/2020/01/03/guest-opinion-who-should-pay-for-tech-expansion/ )
If you agree, please call Senator McGuire (415) 479–6612 and Assembly Member Levine (415) 479–4920. Urge them to oppose the above-referenced bills.
[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/americas-densest-cities_b_5888424
[2] https://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/
[3] https://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/
[4] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-21/california-population-continues-to-decline-with-state-emigration-a-major-factor
