SB827: Difference between revisions

From HousingWiki
Content added Content deleted
VisualWikitext
imported>Jhestia
No edit summary
imported>Jhestia
No edit summary
Line 9: Line 9:
#Minimum automobile parking requirements.
#Minimum automobile parking requirements.
#Any design standard that restricts the applicant’s ability to construct the maximum number of units consistent with any applicable building code."
#Any design standard that restricts the applicant’s ability to construct the maximum number of units consistent with any applicable building code."

⚫
 

 


== Resources (maps etc) ==
== Resources (maps etc) ==
Line 328: Line 324:
 
 


⚫
 



== Proposals ==
== Proposals ==

Revision as of 06:47, 11 February 2018

85-feet height 1965 Market St, San Francisco

SB 827 (Senate Bill 827, "Transit-rich Housing Bonus") is proposed 2018 California state legislation that would encourage high-density housing development anywhere in the vicinity of regular transit service. It would grant a "transit-rich housing bonus" to residential developments in such areas, allowing exemption from certain typical zoning limitations such as maximum density or required provision of parking, and allowing up to 85 feet building height on streets 45 feet or wider within 1/4 mile of high quality transit corridors or within one block of a major transit stop, to 45 feet on narrower streets within 1/2 mile of transit stops. It was introduced by San Francisco State Senator Scott Wiener on January 3, 2018.  Bill text.

"a transit-rich housing project shall receive a transit-rich housing bonus which shall exempt the project from all of the following:

  1. Maximum controls on residential density or floor area ratio.
  2. Minimum automobile parking requirements.
  3. Any design standard that restricts the applicant’s ability to construct the maximum number of units consistent with any applicable building code."

Resources (maps etc)

Bill text.


Transitrichhousing.org - Sasha Aickin's map showing areas where zoning would be affected

Sasha Aickin, formerly CTO of Redfin, created an interactive California map showing transit-rich areas according to current bill, and partially complete transit-route data:  https://transitrichhousing.org

Aickin is not a transit professional, state or government employee. He produced this unofficial map in his spare time. He is an advocate for SB827. He states "I make no warranties as to the correctness of this map, and by using this map, you agree that you understand that."
 

Policyclub.io SB 227 Interactive Los Angeles Map

http://policyclub.io/sb-827
 

SB 827 housing density limits analysis (from YIMBYwiki)

Spreadsheet analyzing the possible maximum number of homes that might be allowed on a given land parcel, under SB 827. 
http://bit.ly/SB827-housing-density.
 

Supporters

  • State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) - principal author
  • State Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Alameda Co. - Principal coauthor
  • State Assembly Member Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) - Principal coauthor
  • California YIMBY (bill primary sponsor)
  • California YIMBY Tech Network (coalition of tech executives and investors). 
    Support letter, January 24, 2018.
  • YIMBY Action
  • Council of Infill Builders. (see support letter, [Council of Infill Builders 2018] in References)
  • coalition of 120 tech executives and venture capitalists. [see support letter]

 

Support with amend

all SF mayor candidates [cite]

most AD15 (East Bay) candidates, at recent forum [cite] 

TransForm

 

Opponents

Sierra Club, California

Letter, 18 January 2018:  "RE: SB 827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus-- OPPOSE."
 

League of California Cities

"RE: SB 827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning. Notice of Opposition (as introduced 1/3/18)"  January 23, 2018.
http://blob.capitoltrack.com/17blobs/315296bd-fe4c-4e2c-b021-f163c71f5e7e.

Excerpts: 
"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. Under existing law, cities are already required to zone for densities at levels necessary to meet their entire Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Additionally, SB 827 would provide developers a means to generate additional profits without any housing affordability requirements. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that developers will choose to construct affordable housing over increased profit margins.

"Contrary to SB 827, local governments must balance the needs and desires of the community when developing land use planning documents. Locally elected officials are acutely aware of the challenges of gentrification and displacement that can be associated with rapid development."

"Given that the significant changes to California’s housing law have only been in effect for a few weeks, the Legislature’s focus should not be on passing more bills that seek to change the rules for housing construction, but rather assist HCD with implementing the new laws."

 

Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin

 

Beverly Hills councilmember John Mirisch

 

 

Summary 

tweet by Joe Rivano Barros on SB 827

A housing development would be eligible for a transit-rich housing bonus

  • A) if within one-quarter mile radius of a high-quality transit corridor, or within one block of a major transit stop:
    • 85 feet, or
    • 55 feet if any side of the parcel faces a street less than 45 feet wide from curb to curb.


 

  • B) if within one-half mile of a major transit stop, but not meeting (A), i.e. not within 1/4-mile radius of a high-quality transit corridor: 
    • 55 feet, or
    • 45 feet, if any side of the parcel faces a street less than 45 feet wide from curb to curb.


“High-quality transit corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service that has service intervals of no more than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

“Major transit stop” has the same meaning as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code:

"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."

 

The bill text proposes to add a new Section 65917.7 to California Government Code Chapter 4.3, "Density Bonuses and Other Incentives". It would create a new "transit-rich housing" bonus -- analogous to the existing California "Density Bonus" [DB] which gives housing developers certain inventives/exemptions in exchange for including a portion of below-market units in the project. 

Section 65917 of Code Chapter 4.3 requires that "incentives offered by the city, county, or city and county pursuant to this chapter shall contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing in proposed housing developments." It is unclear whether the proposed "transit-rich housing bonus" would qualify as a "density bonus" which already has specified affordability requirements;  or if the bill may be revised to qualify so or to add specific affordability requirements.
[update 7 Jan 2017:  clarification on that point from Brian Hanlon of bill sponsor California YIMBY: "Those negotiations are forthcoming."]. 

 

Title: SB-827 Planning and zoning: transit-rich housing bonus.(2017-2018) 

Summary from Legislative Counsel's Digest (in bill text): 

"The Planning and Zoning Law requires, when an applicant proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of a local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or for the donation of land within the development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents.

"This bill would authorize a transit-rich housing project to receive a transit-rich housing bonus. The bill would define a transit-rich housing project as a residential development project the parcels of which are all within a 1/2 mile radius of a major transit stop or a 1/4 mile radius of a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are further defined. The bill would exempt a project awarded a housing opportunity bonus from various requirements, including 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, as provided.

The bill would declare that its provisions address a matter of statewide concern and apply equally to all cities and counties in this state, including a charter city."

The bill would create the transit-rich housing bous as new California Government Code sub-section 65917.7, thus within Chapter 4.3, "Density Bonuses and Other Incentives." The required purpose of such incentives anywhere in this Chapter is "contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing." according to Section 65917. 

In enacting this chapter it is the intent of the Legislature that the density bonus or other incentives offered by the city, county, or city and county pursuant to this chapter shall contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing in proposed housing developments. In the absence of an agreement by a developer in accordance with Section 65915, a locality shall not offer a density bonus or any other incentive that would undermine the intent of this chapter."
 - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65917

 

Background

The clearest apparent inspiration for this proposed bill is a 2016 McKinsey Global Institute study, “A tool kit to close California’s housing gap: 3.5 million homes by 2025," which was cited by bill author Sen. Wiener in his Medium post announcing this and other legislation. From that report's summary:  

"California could add more than five million new housing units in “housing hot spots”—which is more than enough to close the state’s housing gap. In aggregate, there is capacity to build as many as 225,000 housing units on vacant urban land that is already zoned for multifamily housing; 1.2 million to three million housing units within a half mile of major transit hubs; nearly 800,000 units by allowing homeowners to add units to their homes; nearly one million units on land zoned for multifamily development but underutilized; and more than 600,000 affordable single-family units on “adjacent” land currently dedicated to non-residential uses."

 

Elements of the bill are quite similar to previous California bills for transit-oriented development, such as the 2016 Los Angeles Measure JJJ.  

 

 

Concerns 

Concerns and involvement of local resident stakeholders could be overridden

48 Hills: Little-known Yimby-developer bills will have big impact on local planning, Zelda Bronstein
https://48hills.org/2017/12/03/yimby-developer-bills/

- SB827 would ride on the tail of already enacted legislation that has removed and / or made it more difficult for community and stakeholders to object to inappropriate development
- developer's surrogates can now sue cities, developers don't like to sue as they are constantly in negotiation with cities
- AB1515, already enacted, has significantly shifted the burden of proof of conforming to zoning lowering the barrier to development
 

Richard Hall‏  @rihallix  3:35 PM - 6 Jan 2018 , an advocate for sensible growth who has a blog www.planningforreality.org from San Rafael, CA
Replying to @TaupeAvenger
"The community no longer has a say. #sb827 forces zoning changes by state fiat. With #sb35 passed all voices of resident stakeholders, councils, mayors are forcibly suppressed. Developers take control."

@Hyper_lexic
"I think it might go too far in the reach - minimum 45’ zoning on current residential side streets would be a real shock."

 

Could lead to demolition and displacement in low-income areas

Damian Goodmon, Executive Director of the Crenshaw Subway Coalition

  • (@damianISgoodman) on Twitter, 4 Jan 2018).
    "Final word for tonight on  @Scott_Wiener's SB 827: Has anyone denied that the bill would lead to massive demolition of housing in low-income 'hoods like South LA? Heck, isn't that exactly what the YIMBYs are applauding? #SB827 #Colonizers #Gentrification
  • blog post: "SB 827 Is a Declaration of War on South LA." Crenshaw Subway Coalition blog, 5 Jan 2018.

@Maxtropolitan 5:13 PM - 9 Jan 2018
“The author [of Crenshaw Subway Coalition post above] is paid by Michael Weinstein, a very very rich NIMBY who recently ran a NIMBY ballot measure in LA that lost decisively.
The author is literally paid to be a vocal NIMBY with money that people thought they were donating to fight HIV/AIDS.”

@YIMBYwiki  12:58 AM - 10 Jan 2018
Replying to @Maxtropolitan @rihallix
“@PreserveLA (lead backer of @YesOnSla) paid @DamienISgoodmon to help advocate for #MeasureS, according to @LAWeekly here: http://www.laweekly.com/news/battle-over-development-covets-the-hearts-and-minds-of-las-minorities-7992660.

 

Upzoing could create pressure for less well-off homeowners to sell and relocate. 

cf. Martha Bridegam twitter thread. 

 

Windfall for property owners, without any value capture or inclusionary requirements

Shane Phillips @shanedphillips
“By far the biggest [concern] I've heard, and it's something I agree with, is the lack of any inclusionary requirements. This is a significant upzone for most areas, and a windfall for current owners. Should be relatively easy to require 10-15% affordable.

My assumption is that this was a negotiating tactic to let advocates bring this in later in the process, but I feel like it's created some bad blood from the outset.

For a concrete example, LA has new Transit-Oriented Communities guidelines for basically the same areas as SB 827, and this would theoretically overwrite those without adding significant density, but would eliminate the existing (and IMO reasonable) affordability requirements."


Stable Genius With Good Brain @ebarcuzzi:
"Yeah, I think that's very necessary and is intentionally being left out as a bargaining chip. Which is smart."

@shanedphillips
“I thought that at first, but I'm starting to think that it's such a large and obvious oversight that it's pissing a lot of people off (not me, to be clear). I don't want it to poison the well before the bill can even start to gain momentum.”

Dragonfly on Deck @IDoTheThinking
"I would just prioritize 
1) Provisions for tenants displaced by larger projects for guarantee return residency. Could maybe exempt this for smaller dwelling conversions, say a duplex into a 2-story apt."

 

Transit could be cut back to circumvent the bill requirements

@MarketUrbanism 6 Jan 2018. 
"As for stopping cities from cutting bus routes, I would say do it based on current service *or* service that existed on Jan. 1, 2018."

 

Dragonfly on Deck @IDoTheThinking
"I would just prioritize 
1) Provisions for tenants displaced by larger projects for guarantee return residency. Could maybe exempt this for smaller dwelling conversions, say a duplex into a 2-story apt."

 

new multi-story housing could negatively impact neighbors

Setback and lot coverage rules make the height limits weak. 

@MarketUrbanism 6 Jan 2018.  
"Setbacks and lot coverage rules that make the height limits weak. I would recommend forcing cities to accommodate FAR 2 within 45' zones, FAR 2.5 in 55' zones, and FAR 4 in 85' zones.

transit frequency needs to be better defined

@MarketUrbanism 6 Jan 2018:
"15-min headways needs to be defined more specifically. I would recommend defining it as total service along a route (so interlining is okay), and define it as, say, four buses within the 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. hours." 

Bjorn @Zmapper 6 Jan 2018: 
"Suggestion: Count frequency by number of buses per stop per day (set to equal roughly 15-min/hour frequency) to minimize political service cuts." 

Sandy Johnston @sandypsj
"This would treat frequent peak service+infrequent off-peak equally, whereas we should probably be incentivizing frequent all-day service."

@alon_levy
Counterpoint: it's easier for NIMBYs to cut off-peak than peak frequency, because their own transit use is very peaky.

@alon_levy
"The transit agency isn't run by NIMBYs, and 8-story density naturally fills more buses at low subsidy."

 

Chicken-and-egg problem of development requiring transit service and vice versa

@derivativeburke
"you might have a chicken and egg problem where a high density development can’t be approved until the bus/train line goes there but the bus line shouldn’t run empty for years."

removing parking requirements will be infeasible or unacceptable

@MarketUrbanism 6 Jan 2018: 
"I love zeroing out parking requirements, but it seems like it might be a bit hard for some to swallow. Could permit requiring up to 0.5 spaces/bedroom, up to 1 space per unit, along the bus routes (not rail though) if there's pushback." 

Tony Jordan @twjpdx23 6 Jan 2018: 
"How about they can only require parking if they have robust parking demand management in place first?"

"Basically, if they're not attempting to manage on street demand through permit pricing, then they shouldn't be complaining about zeroing out parking requirements, imo."

Adina Levin @alevin
“the challenge several years ago with some of the walkability conditions is that banks wouldn't finance mixed-use or less parking; presumably legal requirements helped loosen bank financing (?).  dunno if still needed for that reason."

 

Intended or Assumed Reduction in Traffic & Increased Transit Adoption are Fallacies

[from Richard Hall @rhallix]
Senate Bill 827 is predicated on assumptions that concentrating development near transit hubs and stops will lead to large scale adoption of transit, and measurable reduction in impact on traffic. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that these assumptions have not proven out in the real world.

  • Resident (name redacted for privacy on request), Nextdoor.com, San Rafael, Jan 20th 2017
    "The idea that if housing is built near public transportation, people will get out of their cars is a pipe dream.  All studies show that people still drive and they still have cars driving to them, whether they have a car or not (i.e. visitors, such as: deliveries, family, friends, support/medical people, boyfriend or girlfriend visits, overnights guests, Uber, etc.).  This has only increased traffic and parking problems.
         People like and often need their cars and do not give them up.  The sheer amount of things that people use their cars for, such as work, errands, grocery-shopping, hauling things around, school/college, transporting kids, interests, a class, activities, taking a pet to the vet, doctor visits, etc often do not work well with public transportation time-wise, the need to still have to walk to where one is going, carrying items, having kids and/or pets along, and at all times of day and night and in all types of weather.  
        For example, in a southern Calif city where affordable housing was built without adequate parking, the residential neighborhoods within a 1-2 mi radius have been overrun with people parking their cars and then walking to the developments.  In SF, some folks have chosen to rarely use their cars or not own one but end up taking Uber everywhere, which means 4 trips for a car vs 2 if the person had driven themselves, which has resulted in more traffic and congestion.  Another major issue involved in these laws and bills is that a town or city can no longer use things like not enough water or infrastructure to support more housing/residents as a way to prevent or reduce development.  Too bad for you, just cram more people in."
     
  • "Portland's Transit Experiment has Failed," by Randall O Toole. http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=13719
    "Back in 1980, Portland transit carried 10 percent of the region’s commuters to work. Since then, the region has increased its population density by 20 percent, spent $5 billion building nearly 80 miles of rail transit lines, and subsidized scores of high-density, mixed-use housing projects in light-rail and other transit corridors. The result is that, in 2016, just 8.0 percent of commuters took transit to work.
     

Would or could this support good mixed-use development and Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

good Transit Oriented Design. from The Greater Marin

see David Edmondson. “[http://www.thegreatermarin.org/blog/2018/1/8/what-transit-oriented-development-should-look-like What transit-oriented development should look like.]” The Greater Marin blog, 8 January 2018. 

 

@DanKeshet 8 Jan 2018
“Common concern that it might not apply to commercially-zoned property, allowing cities to zone those low-rise. (Why not apply the same rules to commercial properties?) Related: if developers can overrule commercial zoning, will it allow mixed use?”

@brezina 6 Jan 2018
"I worry about demolition of really good stuff we don’t build anymore like single urban lot 3-4 story mixed use (ground floor 12 foot ceiling commercial and apartments above).  But I also think the market values these enough not to tear them down."
 

@fromira 6 Jan 2018
"Also it seems like it doesn’t really allow for mixed use?"


@peterpedroson 6 Jan 2018
"Seems like it allows it but doesn't require it, which in most high market areas essentially means just housing."

@fromira 6 Jan 2018
"Sure, but I think it’s fine for cities to mandate ground floor retail near transit. Transit-oriented coffee is one of the key features of transit."


In lower-demand places, this could push development *outside* the transit-rich radius

Alex Visotzky @alexvisotzky Jan 4
"there's a lot of places (in LA City, in LA County, all over the state) where there's transit but the development being proposed is shorter than that 45-85 feet height minimum--not sure the rents & land values will support that kind of density. parking changes will help, yes 9/267"

Alex Visotzky @alexvisotzky Jan 4
"I'm worried that what developers do there is move outside that half mile radius to get their projects built and we end up seeing more sprawl, more development AWAY from transit. again, I need to think about this one more. 10/267"

See full thread with Alex Visotzky, Shane Phillips, and Tim McCormick / YIMBYwiki. 
 


This would concentrate new housing next to health hazards from traffic

Richard Hall @rihallix Jan 6
Replying to @MarketUrbanism @TaupeAvenger
"When #sb827 dictates upzoning by fiat within 1/2 mile of transit corridors that maps to freeways and arterials. Here’s your data showing how that doubles autism rates: 
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/16/health/la-he-autism-20101217."

Other articles citing health issues that would be exacerbated by SB827:

  • World Health Organization: Health Effects of Transport Related Air Pollution, 2005 states:
    "There is evidence that implicates ambient air pollution in adverse effects on pregnancy, birth outcomes and male fertility. Modelled studies on exposure to traffic-related air pollutants suggest that they are a risk factor for adverse birth outcomes. 
    http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/74715/E86650.pdf

Articles & Studies Documenting Adverse Health Impact of Building Adjacent to Freeways & Major Roads

SB827 would result in concentrating development around transit corridors and hubs. Typically these locations are immediately adjacent to freeways and major roads. SB827 goes so far as to increase height limits for more major roads - raising the height limit to 85 feet where development is adjacent to roads 45 feet or wider.


 


 

Liquefaction and earthquake risk since the transit areas tend to be closer to the Bay

 

Kim-Mai Cutler @kimmaicutler
 

Pending nuclear holocaust makes planning exercises like this pointless

from @BelmontRenters (Kevin Burke). 

 

Area affected is very sensitive to where distance radius is centered

Eric Fischer @enf
"By talking about fractions of parcels it is very sensitive to exactly where the radius around each transit stop is considered to be centered."

 

Doesn't address CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)

@Hyper_lexic
on the flip side I don’t think it addresses CEQA

 

How might this interact with, override or be blocked by historic designations?

@DanKeshet
"How will this interact with historic zoning? If it trumps it, will we see demos of truly historic places? If not, will cities just landmark everything?"

 

 

thread from Brian Hanlon (@CAyimby) calling for issues 

some of above, and possible more issues noted in thread: 
@hanlonbt 11:36 AM - 6 Jan 2018
"Please send me common objections to SB 827, thinks like concerns about demolition, reduction in bus service, etc... Thanks!

 

 

 

Proposals

Capture value from upzoning value uplift

see also article Value capture

Dr. Lisa Schweitzer: make Transit Zones special assessment districts

(2/9/18)
"Since we are with BS827 setting up special districts around transit stations anyway, we should set up them up special assessment districts, use the transit-value and up-zone value in land appreciation to derive revenues to put into a fund for: a) rental vouchers; b) school districts with new student need from the new developments and c) transit operations and support."

Schweitzer, Lisa. "What I’d fix about SB827, aka that white paper has sooooooo been written already."  02/09/2018. 
https://lisaschweitzer.com/2018/02/09/what-id-fix-about-sb827-aka-that-white-paper-has-sooooooo-been-written-already/. 

See further discussion and annotation of this post in main article Value capture


Greg Morrow: land value capture in fixed-route station areas

Greg Morrow @gregmorrow  3:14 PM - 9 Feb 2018
"I agree with @drschweitzer here. One thing I suggested to @markvalli yesterday was land value capture in fixed ROW (Metro, LRT, BRT) station areas via a property surtax to create rent subsidies within those station areas for those who need it." 

Greg Morrow‏ @gregmorrow 3:21 PM - 9 Feb 2018
I also suggested using base/max densities, wherein over base = local amenity fund contribute to pay for local community's self-determined top priorities (e.g. parks, cleanup, safety, childcare, etc). Bottom line: local communities must benefit more directly from redevelopment.

Greg Morrow‏ @gregmorrow 3:28 PM - 9 Feb 2018
"Planners and policy-makers, esp in LA, have typically used a hammer and screwdriver to achieve outcomes. But there are many more tools in the toolbox, esp fiscal tools, e.g. land value capture, Mello-Roos special assessment districts, contributions to community amenity funds, etc." 
 

Richard K. Green - auction off development rights

Richard K. Green‏ @keynesianr 3:20 PM - 9 Feb 2018
Replying to @gregmorrow @drschweitzer @markvalli
"Or even better, auction off the development rights.  That would maximize revenue."

 

 

Exempt or apply differently to certain areas 

Don't apply in historical districts

Matthewplan‏  @matthewplan
Replying to @YIMBYwiki @housingforla and 2 others
"5) Make clear this does not apply in historic districts or allow more than 1 extra floor in a specific plan area - unless allowed by jurisdiction."

 

Different triggers for areas of different median incomes

Kim-Mai Cutler @kimmaicutler 4:33 PM - 4 Feb 2018
"What amendments would you suggest that would account for disparate impacts? Would have different triggers for different area median incomes -- ie... much stronger override if the community has a median income that is greater than the state average."

 

The Taupe Avenger @TaupeAvenger 2:54 PM - 6 Feb 2018
"One thing that would solve gentrification concerns with #SB827 would be making it only affect communities where the median income is over the state median."

Devin @devin_mb 4:12 PM - 6 Feb 2018
using "zips with a median household income above the state median" as the threshold for getting upzoned under SB827, areas in red would be upzoneable https://twitter.com/TaupeAvenger/status/961010212877447170

Bay Area and LA, zip code above (red) and below (blue) media income
 

Juan Matute‏  @Juan_Matute 6:35 PM - 6 Feb 2018
Replying to @devin_mb
"Block groups would be better as they're mostly tied to population.  I think 827 might exclude CalEnviroScreen disadvantaged communities."

 

Exempt areas identified by UC Berkeley "Early Warning System for Displacement" 

Mission Defenders‏ @sf4sfsite 3:30 PM - 6 Feb 2018
Replying to @TaupeAvenger
"Much better to exempt neighborhoods using Zuk’s (UC) “Regional Early Warning System for Displacement” (7/23/15) methodology. We offered into SB35. Weiner rejected. He’s not interested in protecting anybody but developers, financiers, and real estate."
See [Zuk 2015].
 

Apply only to owner-occupied buildings

@revclown I'm not sure TBH. How about just limiting it to owner occupied for 5 years prior to planning application. Let's work to dislodge exlusionary home voters who are stopping apartments of all sorts from being built. https://twitter.com/revclown/status/960314805654401024

Add inclusionary housing requirement

Shane Phillips

Shane Phillips @shanedphillips
“By far the biggest [concern] I've heard, and it's something I agree with, is the lack of any inclusionary requirements. This is a significant upzone for most areas, and a windfall for current owners. Should be relatively easy to require 10-15% affordable.

Ethan Elkind

Ethan Elkind. "Mitigating Displacement Of Low-Income Renters From New Transit-Oriented Housing." January 9, 2018.  Suggestions: 

  • ensure a percentage of the new homes built are available exclusively to people with low incomes.
  • local residents who have been displaced or are at risk of displacement should have priority access to these new homes.

 

add inclusionary requirements as in Los Angeles Measure JJJ (2016) 

It has been suggested that SB 827 could have inclusionary requirements added according to the model of Measure JJJ, passed by Los Angeles County in 2016. 


Democratic Socialists of America, Austin chapter

[from their Jan 2018 proposed demands to CodeNEXT process in Austin, suggested by @tmccormick as comparison]

"Increase the requirements for the affordable housing bonus program in redeveloped apartments to produce more affordable units (from 10% to at least 25%) at deeper levels of affordability (including 30% MFI when feasible), with priority access for current or former neighborhood residents." [DSA Austin 2018]

 

Replace rent-stabilized units 

Shane Phillips proposal

Shane Phillips‏  @shanedphillips 7:54 PM - 9 Jan 2018

  • Require 1 for 1 replacement of rent stabilized units with affordable units. Problem there is that it doesn't necessarily serve the people actually evicted.

 

Los Angeles Measure JJJ (2016) - no-net-loss requirement

Measure JJJ, passed by Los Angeles County in 2016, contains the following provisions aiming to prevent net loss of any housing units that are income-restricted, rent-stabilized, or occupied by 'Lower-Income or Very Low-Income households": 

"No amendment to [an area] plan for any of the 37 planning areas, including reduction in the number of such areas, changes in their respective boundaries, land uses permitted within or at any particular location in any such area, or any other material change, may be made until the completion of a comprehensive assessment of such proposed changes by the Planning
Department to ensure that such changes do not:
    1. Reduce the capacity for creation and preservation of affordable housing and access to local jobs; or
    2. Undermine California Government Code Section 65915 or any other affordable housing incentive program; and
The changes must include a program to create and monitor an inventory of units within the Community Plan Area that are: subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of Lower or Very Low-Income; subject to the City Rent Stabilization Ordinance; and/or occupied by Lower-Income or Very Low-Income households.   


Relocation assistance 

Matthew Plan

@matthewplan
Replying to @YIMBYwiki @housingforla and 2 others
"3) density bonus housing replacement policies should be expanded to include housing relocation assistance and right of first refusal for new unit at same rent in new building."

Shane Phillips

Shane Phillips‏  @shanedphillips 7:54 PM - 9 Jan 2018
"What would be a smart anti-displacement or displacement mitigation policy to integrate into #SB827? Recognizing that abundant housing is the most effective broad-based anti-displacement strategy, I think there's space for targeted mitigations too."

  • Give housing vouchers to anyone evicted for redevelopment. I like this policy because it's automatically means-tested and provides immediate relief. (also suggested by @MarketUrbanism
  • Residents displaced by redevelopment should have preferential placement in any affordable units built by #SB827. Can't really do this with affordable projects funded by state/fed money, but maybe it's possible with private projects?

California Relocation Assistance (eminent domain cases)

​​​Tim McCormick @yimbywiki 10 Jan 2018: 
"as a displacement mitigation policy for #SB827 housing bill, we could take as one model California's Relocation Assistance code, applied in eminent-domain type situations:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=7.&title=1.&part=&chapter=16.&article=.

"(3) Assure that, within a reasonable time period prior to displacement, to the extent that it can be reasonably accomplished, there will be available in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities, and at rents or prices within the financial means of displaced families and individuals, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings, sufficient in number to meet the needs of, and available to, those displaced persons requiring those dwellings and reasonably accessible to their places of employment, except that, in the case of a federally funded project, a waiver may be obtained from the federal government.
(4) Assure that a person shall not be required to move from a dwelling unless the person has had a reasonable opportunity to relocate to a comparable replacement dwelling.."

 

California Tenant Relocation Assistance (in Health & Safety Code)

California Health and Safety Code section 17975 states that tenants displaced by order of an agency, due to serious building code violations, are entitled to relocation compensation from the landlord. Generally speaking, this relocation compensation is to be paid within 10 days of the date the Notice of Violation was posted or mailed and is to be in an amount “equal to two months of the established fair market rent” for the area as set forth by HUD. Landlords are generally not responsible when the serious code violations have been caused by the tenant or guests."

ARTICLE 2.5. Tenant Relocation Assistance [17975 - 17975.10]  
17975:
"Any tenant who is displaced or subject to displacement from a residential rental unit as a result of an order to vacate or an order requiring the vacation of a residential unit by a local enforcement agency as a result of a violation so extensive and of such a nature that the immediate health and safety of the residents is endangered, shall be entitled to receive relocation benefits from the owner as specified in this article. The local enforcement agency shall determine the eligibility of tenants for benefits pursuant to this article."


LA Rent Stabilization Ordinance Relocation assistance

"Under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO), a landlord is only required to pay monetary relocation assistance payments to tenants being evicted through no fault of their own. Without a RSO cause, a tenancy may not be terminated. There are 7 no-fault reasons under the RSO in which a landlord can legally evict a tenant. For each reason, landlords must file a landlord declaration application with the Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department (HCIDLA) before issuing a notice to move-out. The following eviction reasons require the payment of relocation assistance:

  1. The landlord evicts for their own occupancy, a resident manager, or for the landlord’s spouse, children, grandchildren, parents or grandparents. Landlords must file a Declaration of Intent to Evict for Landlord Occupancy or Declaration of Intent for Owner/Family Occupancy or Declaration of Intent to Evict for Resident Manager;
  2. Any tenant affected by Primary Renovation Work shall have the option to voluntarily terminate the tenancy in exchange for permanent relocation assistance as set forth in a Tenant Habitability Plan accepted by the HCIDLA;
  3. The eviction is due to condominium conversion, demolition or the property is going to be permanently removed from the rental housing market (Ellis Act). Landlords must file Notice of Intent to Withdraw Units from Rental Housing Use;
  4. The landlord evicts to comply with a governmental agency’s Order to Vacate. Landlords must file a Declaration of Intent to Evict in Order to Comply with a Government Agency’s Order;
  5. The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is both the owner and plaintiff and seeks to recover possession in order the vacate the property prior to the sale. Landlords must file Declaration of Intent to Evict From a HUD-Owned Property Prior to Sale;
  6. The rental unit is in a Residential Hotel and the landlord is going to convert or demolish the unit(s); and
  7. The Landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit to convert the property to an affordable housing accommodation. Landlords must file a Declaration of Intent to Evict to Convert to Affordable Housing Accommodation.

- from HCIDLA: http://hcidla.lacity.org/Relocation-Assistance.  


Right of return for tenants 

Dragonfly on Deck @IDoTheThinking

"I would just prioritize 
1) Provisions for tenants displaced by larger projects for guarantee return residency. Could maybe exempt this for smaller dwelling conversions, say a duplex into a 2-story apt."

 
@matthewplan

Replying to @YIMBYwiki @housingforla and 2 others
"3) density bonus housing replacement policies should be expanded to include housing relocation assistance and right of first refusal for new unit at same rent in new building."

Shane Phillips‏ 

@shanedphillips 7:54 PM - 9 Jan 2018
"Residents displaced by redevelopment should have preferential placement in any affordable units built by #SB827. Can't really do this with affordable projects funded by state/fed money, but maybe it's possible with private projects?"

Ethan Elkind.

"Mitigating Displacement Of Low-Income Renters From New Transit-Oriented Housing." January 9, 2018.  Suggestions: 

  • ensure a percentage of the new homes built are available exclusively to people with low incomes.
  • local residents who have been displaced or are at risk of displacement should have priority access to these new homes.
     

Democratic Socialists of America, Austin chapter

[from their Jan 2018 proposed demands to CodeNEXT process in Austin, suggested by @tmccormick as comparison]

  • "Give current or former neighborhood residents priority access to public housing or subsidized housing created through fees-in-lieu from redevelopment; and
  • Allow more units on a single-family site if at least one of the units is affordable and targeted for ownership by current residents of the site (e.g., one unit in a fourplex, etc.)."

[DSA Austin 2018]

 

Better/alternate qualifications for transit-rich locations 

@MarketUrbanism 6 Jan 2018:
"15-min headways needs to be defined more specifically. I would recommend defining it as total service along a route (so interlining is okay), and define it as, say, four buses within the 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. hours." 

Bjorn @Zmapper 6 Jan 2018: 
"Suggestion: Count frequency by number of buses per stop per day (set to equal roughly 15-min/hour frequency) to minimize political service cuts." 

Sandy Johnston @sandypsj
"This would treat frequent peak service+infrequent off-peak equally, whereas we should probably be incentivizing frequent all-day service."

Better defining height limits 

@MarketUrbanism 6 Jan 2018.  
"Setbacks and lot coverage rules that make the height limits weak. I would recommend forcing cities to accommodate FAR 2 within 45' zones, FAR 2.5 in 55' zones, and FAR 4 in 85' zones.

 

Address if/how this measure affects or enables multi-use (mixed residential/commercial) projects



Matthew Plan @matthewplan
 Replying to @YIMBYwiki @housingforla and 2 others
"I’ve commented on 1) need to make clear this can apply on sites that don’t allow multifamily today like SF and C zones . Density bonus usually requires a site that allows 5 units before any bonus. Could amend 5 unit limit for all projects (not a bad idea) or remove Use limits." ===

 

Favor 100% Affordable or cooperative housing 

matthewplan @matthewplan
Replying to @YIMBYwiki @housingforla and 2 others
"6) maybe bring down heights 10 ft but provide this 10 extra height to 100% affordable projects or housing cooperatives."

Exclude rent-controlled units

 

Advocacy strategies


Robert Collier @rcollier Jan 6
Retweeted Brian Hanlon 
"#SB827 is political suicide because it gives opponents and Republicans ample reason to tar this bill and #smartgrowth as a wholesale attack on neighborhood character, democratic local decisionmaking and quality of life."
 

 

 

References

 

Retrieved from "https://housing.wiki/wiki/SB827?oldid=3852"