SB9 Questions

Merten 5/30/21

A Zoning Ordinance is a Covenant between Government and the People.  Most Zoning Ordinance Covenants have been in effect many decades. People rely on those Covenants when considering the purchase of a property, or the renting of a property, in a single family zoned neighborhood or a multi-family zoned neighborhood.  People work for years to save enough to fulfill their dream of owning a home and living in a single family neighborhood, choosing not to live in a multi-family neighborhood.

The People and the Government rely on each other’s faithful adherence to Zoning Covenants.  Changes in Zoning Covenants should only be made by the Government with the consent and a vote of the People.  When Government unilaterally changes the purpose and intent of long established Zoning Covenants without the consent of the People, Government loses the trust of the People; and the People are justified in removing Legislators from office.

CA State law already allows three Dwelling Units (Primary Unit, Junior Unit, Companion Unit) on a Single Family Zoned lot.

QUESTION: To develop additional housing units one need only look at existing underdeveloped multi-family zoned neighborhoods. Did the Senator ever consider existing underdeveloped multi-family zoned neighborhoods as places to construct additional housing units in accordance with existing Zoning Ordinances; without breaking it’s Covenant with the People by changing or adding more units on Single Family Zoned parcels?

Merten 5/30/21

Tell the CA Assembly to Vote ‘No’ on SB- 9 and SB-10

A Zoning Ordinance is a Covenant between Government and the People. Most Zoning Ordinance Covenants have been in effect many decades. People rely on those Covenants when considering the purchase of a property, or the renting of a property, in a single family zoned neighborhood or a multi-family zoned neighborhood. People work for years to save enough to fulfill their dream of owning a home and living in a single family neighborhood, choosing not to live in a multi-family neighborhood.

The People and the Government rely on each other’s faithful adherence to Zoning Covenants. Changes in Zoning Covenants should only be made by the Government with the consent and a vote of the People. When Government unilaterally changes the purpose and intent of long established Zoning Covenants without the consent of the People, Government loses the trust of the People; and the People are justified in removing Legislators from office.

CA State law already allows three Dwelling Units (Primary Unit, Junior Unit, Companion Unit) on a Single Family Zoned lot.

To provide additional housing opportunities one need only look at existing underdeveloped multi-family zoned neighborhoods. There are many in the City of San Diego. Additional housing opportunities can be built in those neighborhoods in accordance with existing Zoning Covenants; without changing or adding more units in Single Family Zones.

Tell Assemblyman Chris Ward to Vote ‘No’ on SB- 9 and SB-10 at: https://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.php?district=AD78

Thompson 5/31/21

Question for Sen. Atkins

65852.21.
(d) A local agency shall require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to this section be for a term longer than 30 days.

We are curious as to how this will be enforced and not exacerbate what is now an out of control vacation rental situation in the beach area which already takes away housing.

Merten 5/31/21

SB-9 is one of the most draconian pieces of legislation ever considered by our State Legislators.  If passed it will impact every homeowner of Single Family Zoned property.  The impacts will forever change our Single Family Zoned neighborhoods.  It is imperative that single-family property owners be afforded ample time speak up in defense of their homes, neighborhoods and community; and be heard by Senator Toni Atkins who authored SB-9.

QUESTION:  Who’s idea was it, and why is public comment on SB-9 limited to just one minute per person on this critical issue at Thursday’s LJCPA meeting?

Steinberg 5/31/21

Why do Senate Bills 9 and 10 contain no language to ensure affordable housing? If market rates continue to remain high during density development, which is expected due to the climate in Southern California- and the available land for density in Californian then is gone- What is plan B to ensure housing for moderate and lower income residents?

Kane 5/31/21

An argument in favor of SB 9 includes “creating inter-generational wealth for families, thus providing opportunity and stabilizing neighborhoods.” An alternate and equally likely scenario is rising land values and gentrification that prices adjacent families from their homes and established neighborhoods. Supply side “trickle down” economics hasn’t worked. Without controlling housing AFFORDABILITY to both renters and prospective new owners, merely increasing housing supply does nothing to assure that those who need affordable housing get it.

  1. What is being done through these bills to assure that new housing rental or sales prices remain “affordable” once built?
  2. How long is “affordability” a factor in their marketing and sales? Does this requirement transfer to subsequent owners and/or renters? For what period of time?
  3. What is being done to match up those needing affordable housing with the anticipated increased supply?
  4. What prevents new housing production by speculative property flippers and acquisition by real estate investment portfolios that drive up prices?
  5. What “zoning and design standards” will remain once SFR zones are gone?

Jackson 5/31/21

Two questions.

  1. In reviewing Mayor Faulconer’s Complete Communities proposals, LJCPA did extensive analysis of how much local capacity existed for increased density with little or no change to existing zoning requirements. It turned out that there was considerable unused capacity, and that very modest changes–for example, reducing the lot-area requirement per unit in RM-1-1 zones to 1500 or 2000 square feet–would open up much more. Yet there has been very little development to exploit this capacity. Why exactly do you believe that relaxing zoning requirement further will change things in coastal communities like ours, other than to enable construction of luxury apartments for absentee ownership?
  2. SB9 proposes doing away with existing processes for reviewing development proposals and ensuring that they comply with zoning, coastal development, and other requirements. Changing requirements is one thing; doing away with oversight and compliance mechanisms is quite another. We have seen ample evidence that Process 1 (ministerial) approval processes often lead to non-compliant permit issuance and construction, and shorthanded compliance offices mean this goes unpunished. SB9’s reliance on ministerial processes thus seems very dangerous and ill-advised. How does the bill address that problem?