HomeMy WebLinkAboutOpposition Letter - SB 330 (Skinner) - 07.01.2019CITY OF
CUPERTINO
July 1, 2019
MAYOR STEVEN SCHARF
sscharf@cuperlino.org
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3191 • FAX: (408) 777-33LL
CUPERTINO.ORG
The Honorable Nancy Skinner
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 5094
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Oppose SB 330 - Housing Crisis Act of 2019
Dear Senator Skinner,
On behalf of the City of Cupertino, I am writing to express opposition to SB 330, which
would enact the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.
The fundamental problem in California is that insufficient affordable housing is being
built. We have an affordable housing crisis. SB 330 will not help to mitigate the affordable
housing crisis in California because the provisions in the bill do not compel developers to
construct additional affordable housing.
SB 330 undermines our General Plan, and Housing Element (which are certified by HCD).
By allowing developers to override state approved housing plans, SB 330 seriously calls
to question the need for cities to develop community -based plans in the first place.
SB 330 restricts, for five years, actions by cities and counties that could be perceived to
reduce the production of housing. What removal of these powers means is that SB 330
will offer significant benefits to developers without provisions to require affordability for
the projects that will benefit from the restrictions placed on cities.
SB 330 does not define what constitutes the "housing crisis," when it begins, when it ends,
or how it changes with normal fluctuations in the housing market. The use of adjectives
like "crisis" and "emergency" without a clear definition are used in order to justify actions
that strip the cities of their police power of land use regulation in order to benefit
developers, harm cities, and ultimately create more housing insecurity.
SB 330 attempts to override the California Constitution which gives voters the power to
enact initiatives, without amending the constitution. Article 11, section 11 of the California
Constitution provides: "Initiative and referendum powers may be exercised by the
electors of each city or county under procedures that the legislature shall provide." This
measure retroactively prohibits voters from exercising its local initiative or referendum
power, effectively eliminating the ability of local voters to exercise their constitutional
rights relating to local actions.
SB 330 freezes design standards in place when an initial application is filed. This is
unacceptable because the initial application does not include all the information necessary
to understand a project's impacts or even which standards apply. The standards that
should apply are those in place when the completed application is filed.
The addition of S. 65941.1 deems an application complete without requiring multiple
critical pieces of information such as disclosure of hazardous waste on the site (see S.
65940: "Bach local agency shall revise the list of information required from an applicant
to include a certification of compliance with Section 65962.5, and the statement of
application required by Section 65943."), owner verification, subdivision information,
landscaping proposals, or environmental impacts, and , public noticing, verification of
ownership, and compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and local subdivision
ordinance.
"Objective Standards" is a concept just introduced in SB 35 in January 2018. Cities are still
working to introduce objective standards into their General Plan and Municipal Code, but
SB 330 would forbid cities from adopting any revisions, leaving cities with no standards
in their General Plan. SB 330 vaguely uses the terra "density" in 65913.3(d) stating: "If the
affected county or affected city approves and application for a conditional use permit for
a proposed housing development project and that project would have been eligible for a
higher density under the affected county's or affected city's general plan land use
designation and zoning ordinances as in effect as of January 1, 2018, the affected county
or affected city shall allow the project at that higher density." Density can include mixed
use, not just housing. For instance, the amount of office space allocated to a project could
be reduced to achieve a better jobs to housing balance, but SB 330 would not allow for that
type of modification.
SB 330 requires cities to subsidize developer's market rate housing developments by
freezing impact fees; however, there is no guarantee that freezing impact fees will result
in lower rents for these market -rate units. Mitigation and impact fees are imposed so local
jurisdictions can provide public improvements and public services to new residents. Fees
already can only be set at the level necessary to cover the cost of providing these services,
and freezing those fees puts an undue burden on a city's finances. Since there is no
deadline by which a developer needs to pull building permits, the fees that they are
required to pay could be far less than the legitimate fees at the time building commences.
SB 330, S. 65905.5 (c) states that a project needs to comply with either zoning ordinances
or the general plan, not both. With this provision, any existing single-family home could
potentially be developed into multifamily units, since the General Plan does not specify
such a limit, this would only be in the zoning ordinance.
SB 330's thirty -day limit for a local agency to inform a developer of the reasons why a
proposed project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an
applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, is much too short.
Analyzing complex projects cannot be performed in thirty days. Furthermore, there is no
provision to stop the clock when a developer is intentionally withholding information.
SB 330 attempts a "one size fits all," meat cleaver approach, in terms of the number of
hearings for a project; a small project might legitimately require three or less hearings,
while an enormous project could require many more.
SB 330 embraces the premise that making housing dense will make it more affordable, but
this premise has no basis in fact. Density invariably raises prices as land becomes more
valuable and newer, high -cost luxury housing replaces naturally affordable existing
housing.
SB 330 hurts cities with no mass transit that have been long ignored by regional transit
agencies. Cupertino would be subjected to densification in areas where nearly all residents
would be forced to drive everywhere, creating more traffic congestion and more
degradation of the environment, SB 330 will create a transportation crisis while failing to
solve the affordable housing crisis.
SB 330 is not data -driven, it is developer -driven. Cities that have met their RHNA
entitlements are being punished for circumstances beyond their control. There is no
control of office development build within mixed -use areas, allowing a project to worsen
the shortage of housing by increasing employment with no balance to housing built. The
bill ties the city's hands from being able to balance jobs to housing for a given project.
In conclusion, SB 330 will not provide the affordable housing needed by housing -insecure
Californians, in fact it will worsen housing insecurity for our most vulnerable population.
Cupertino acknowledges that there is an affordable housing shortage in California. It is
imperative that laws intended to address the affordable housing shortage look at the big
picture and do not worsen this shortage.
It is for these reasons that the City of Cupertino opposes SB 330.
Sincerely,
Ste*Sarf
Mayor, City of Cupertino
cc. Assembly Local Government Committee Members