TABLE OF CONTENTS :
Greetings to my readers…and after a considerable pause, too! I hope this message finds all of you doing well. The reasons for my long pause are threefold. Firstly, I have been wrapping up graduate school, which I began in January of 2020—right before all the shutdowns and the overturning of the world that followed. I am happy to say that it was an otherwise enjoyable process, and that I graduated in June 2021. Our graduation ceremony was held at the beautiful Memorial Coliseum. Secondly, I have been particularly busy since March 2020; in addition to my preoccupation with graduate school, I was laid off from my County position, leading me to work several part-time jobs to hold everything down. Lastly, during this period I had the opportunity to pursue some things that I otherwise do not usually have the opportunity to do. I biked ten-plus miles a day, visited family and friends, built my professional website, traveled a bit, processed dozens of rolls of 35 mm and Super 8 film that I had taken as far back as 2007....and more. It will be good to be back writing again—and hopefully regularly. I would like to resume after my long hiatus with some commentary on urban planning and development policy. VV Click "READ MORE" below to continue reading VV On August 31, 2021, the California State Senate approved the long-debated and long-contested Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 10, championed by State Senators Scott Wiener (D - San Fransisco) and Toni Atkins (D - San Diego). On September 16th, Gavin Newsom signed both bills. SB-9, among other things: 1.) Requires proposed housing developments of up to two units in a single-family zone to be considered ministerially without hearings or approval processes, provided that the units are not protected by a moratorium against demolishing affordable housing, that more than 25% of the existing walls are removed, and the development is not located in upon a parcel that is subject to historic preservation review. 2.) Establishes what agencies can or cannot require for approval of these additional units, such as setback requirements, design standards, subdivision standards, parking allotment, or downright prohibition of the construction altogether. 3.) Makes permits for lot splits (small-lot subdivisions) easier to obtain. 4.) Essentially disallows review or contestation under the California Environmental Quality Act or the California Coastal Act of 1976. 5.) Overrides the rights of charter cities (ones whose governing system is defined by their own charter, rather than by the laws of the state). 6.) Eliminates reimbursement requirements to school districts and other local agencies. SB-10 carries a much more densifying effect. Among other things, SB-10: 1.) Authorizes an ordinances permitting the construction of up to 10 units upon parcels located in “transit-rich” or “urban infill” areas. 2.) Defines a “”transit-rich, high-quality bus corridor” as a parcel within one-half of a mile from a major transit stop, and that said transit stop has average service intervals between 15 and 20 minutes during peak hours on Monday and Friday, and 30 minutes on Saturday and Sunday. 3.) Defines an “urban infill site” as parcels within an urbanized area (per Census definitions), where 75% of the parcel’s perimeter are adjoined to developed urban uses (separations by highways and streets do not affect the definition of adjoinment), and the parcel is zoned for residential or mixed-use residential development, with at least 2/3 of the square footage allotted for for residential use. 4.) Authorizes the local agency to demarcate areas subject to the ordinances. 5.) Prohibits a local agency from reducing the density upon a parcel affected by the ordinance. 6.) Prohibits such construction from being approved ministerially or by-right, or without review under CEQA. 7.) Sets a requirement that local agencies adopt such an ordinance by December 31st, 2028. 8.) Requires that, if the required ordinances supersedes a local zoning law, that the superseding ordinance be approved by a 2/3 vote of the legislative body. Champions of the bill claim that the bill will make great strides in addressing housing inequality by creating more affordable units. They allege that single-family zoning (and zoning in general) is rooted in systemic racism, and at any rate, is no longer justifiable in the face of growing needs to house people in cities. Opponents of the two bills—including the legislatures of nearly 250 California cities, as well as Californians for Community Planning and the League of California Cities— charge that they will achieve nothing for low-income or unhoused people. They claim that the bills will only fuel gentrification and destroy the unique characteristics of many communities. Certainly, we will see in due time which of these claims are accurate. -- I am not as concerned with the two bills’ effects upon density—which are pretty mild compared to what they could have been. My biggest beef with the two bills, instead, is their assault upon local control over land use decisions. The American urban planning tradition is defined by local control over land use, contrasting with practices in Australia, China, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. Among those who concur with my sentiment: the Los Angeles City Council, incredibly. Paul Koretz, who represents Council District 5, said during an August council session that “SB-9 and SB-10 are the third annual attempt by San Francisco Sen. Scott Weiner to destroy local control over multi-family and single-family zoning in the state of California. This council has unanimously voted to oppose essentially the same bills twice before and we should do it again.” The City Council has since, in-fact, again voted down the two bills. Housing Is A Human Right (the housing advocacy division of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation) conducted a likely voters’ poll on the two bills in July, revealing that 63% of voters “oppose” or “strongly oppose” SB-9, and that 67% of voters “oppose” or “strongly oppose” SB-10. These numbers increased to over 70% for both bills after likely voters viewed messages and endorsements about both bills. The most common reasons that likely voters said they oppose the two bills included the removal of single-family homes, the ability of local governments to bypass the review process, and the lack of homeless housing requirements. 46% indicated that they would view Newsom less favorably if he supported or signed the bill. Furthermore, it is a well-established fact that most Americans prefer house living over apartment living. House living is part of the Californian ethos. One of the main reasons people flocked to California during the late 19th century was to escape the over density of the East Coast. The mythos of the Jeffersonian plot of land with a front yard, a back yard, a fruit tree and so on was enticing. Builder Magazine conducted a poll revealing that 80% of Americans would prefer to live in a house than an apartment or condo, and 70% actually do this. A further 87%, the poll said, wish to not share a wall with their neighbors. Whether you prefer the individualist lifestyle or not, the fact is that most Americans prefer this lifestyle. They don’t want to be stacked on top of each other as people are in former Soviet Bloc countries. So, what surprise is it that Gavin Newsom waited until after the recall election—albeit two days after— to sign these two bills? Holding off on signing SB-9 and SB-10—along with over 700 other bills with deeply unpopular and questionable ramifications—was a completely calculated political move. He wisely put off signing a number of deeply unpopular bills that should have been left up to voters and have no business being imposed on the state level. But that is a different discussion. -- Another concern that I initially had with SB-9 and SB-10 was—you guessed it—their effects on historic preservation in the state. The Los Angeles Conservancy, a non-profit organization that monitors historic resources across Los Angeles County, was also deeply concerned about the bills’ effects upon “heritage conservation efforts statewide and throughout Los Angeles,” claiming that there were no exemptions provided for existing historic preservation overlay zones and historic-cultural monuments. However, the text of SB-9 does list in a few different places that the bill would not apply to parcels designated HPOZs or HCMs. This led me to contact Los Angeles City Historic Preservation Architect Lambert Giessinger and Office of Historic Resources Manager Ken Bernstein to ask about their understandings of the effects of SB-9 and SB-10 upon historic preservation in Los Angeles. Good morning Lambert and Ken, I hope things are well with both of you and that operations have been running generally smoothly in these hectic times. I write to ask you about your understanding as to how SB-9 and SB-10 will affect local historic preservation ordinances, in particular throughout Los Angeles. SB-9 mentions exceptions to sites that are a "[...] historic district, [...] on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or [...] legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district." Yet, the Conservancy seems to express concerns about the implications of the effects of SB-9 and SB-10 upon historic preservation statewide. Is there an amended version of the law I have not seen? And, is it true that the City Council has (or can) vote to opt out of the law? I appreciate any insight that you can provide on the matter. Thank you, Damian Mr. Giessinger replied:
Hi Damian, SB-9 does not apply to designated properties. The LAC is likely concerned about properties that are eligible, but not designated. The City/City Council can weigh-in on whether or not to adopt the incentives under SB-10. I hope this helps. Lambert Mr. Giessinger brings up a good point here. The Los Angeles City Council can indeed vote to oppose both SB-9 and SB-10—which they have. However, while the subject of historic resources are mentioned 12 times within the text of SB-9, they are not mentioned even once within the text of SB-10. This and a few other seemingly contradictory provisions between the two bills, namely pertaining to the matter of ministerial review and environmental review.
1 Comment
Lupe Breard
1/13/2022 12:56:26 pm
I was just reading your article on bills nine and 10
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
December 2022
Categories
All
|