SB827

From HousingWiki
Revision as of 23:05, 17 January 2018 by imported>Tmccormick
85-feet hight 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 depending on wider streets near major transit, to 45 feet on narrower streets. It was introduced by San Francisco State Senator Scott Wiener on January 3, 2018.  (Principal coauthor: Senator Skinner; Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Ting). Bill text.

 

 

Resources (maps etc)

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/.

 

 

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)
  • YIMBY Action
  • Council of Infill Builders. (see support letter, [Council of Infill Builders 2018] in References)

 

Summary 

tweet by Joe Rivano Barros on SB 827

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

Richard Hall‏  @rihallix  3:35 PM - 6 Jan 2018 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 Goodman

  • (@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.

 

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
  • 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.
  • 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 Elkin. "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.


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=. 

 

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."

 

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

This puts dense housing next to 
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.

 

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

Add inclusionary (and/or other affordability & anti-displacement) measures

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.

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."

 

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." ===

 

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."

 

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=3789"