Neighborhood Defense League of California Roundtable Wrap-up

December, 2008

Dear Friends:

On November 22 at the Four Seasons Biltmore, the NDLC Roundtable hosted a Forum before almost 150 guests. Our keynote speaker was the Honorable Zev Yaroslavsky, Los Angeles County Supervisor, Third District. Many of you attended, and I know you will agree: it was fabulous! About half of the audience consisted of public officials including two Supervisors, two mayors, and a myriad of commissioners, councilpersons and Board members. The other half was comprised of all our citizen group leaders – and you.

Let me address some questions many of you had about Supervisor Yaroslavsky’s talk. He referred to two bills by their legislative numbers without describing them, concentrating, instead on their effect on local government. First, was the seminal SB 1818 (Senate Bill # 1818 of 2004) that he rightly located as the beginning of the end for local control of planning and zoning law. Why? Presented to the State Senate by a pro-development coalition at the height of the “housing bubble,” this bill gave developers “bonus density credits” allowing them to build more units if they included a percentage of subsidized units in the number. Added to this was exemption from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), reduced setbacks, narrower streets and overall, exemption from local zoning codes. Mr. Yaroslavsky spoke with passion about this because it was his personal wake-up call about the threat to local control of planning and zoning. He cited a building whose 36 apartment units provided reasonably priced or rent-controlled housing. The residents of these units were turned out with no place to go to find comparably priced shelter. In its place, developers built 50 luxury condos and 5 subsidized (ie, “affordable”) ones.

SB 1818 gave the green light to this unbridled redevelopment. Just as Mr. Yaroslavsky saw in this bill the potential housing frenzy that brought us to today’s mortgage bundling and security collapse, so did those of us in Santa Barbara when, in 2004, we founded the Homeowners Defense Fund (now NDLCA).

After the Nov 22 meeting, we received questions about SB 375, because Mr. Yaroslavsky had mentioned the bill as a current example of undermining local control. This bill was chartered into law on August 30, 2008 and is one of the first of many bills emanating from Sacramento, bills designed to implement the landmark Global Warming Bill (AB32) advocated by Governor Schwartzenegger. Specifically, SB375 is aimed at linking future housing development to the dispensation of transportation funds. It targets the transportation corridors of incorporated cities as the recipients of most of the RHNA housing numbers. (RHNA numbers are the “Regional Housing Numbers Allotment” that originate in Sacramento’s Housing and Community Development Department and are assigned to local governments). To the horror of environmentalists, the proposed development corridor would be exempt from CEQA’s protective requirements. The goal now is to reduce travel time of residents and locate housing near business and industry: public transportation will be financed and developed in the dense population areas; private automobiles, the trucking industry and the highways they use will be subordinated to this urban plan of development. Further, in order to estimate the level of carbon emissions, SB 375 will require a Regional Technical Advisory Committee (accountable only to the State Air Quality Resources Board) to submit a report about the personal travel habits of citizens for work and for pleasure including the number of cars owned by a household.

Not surprisingly, there are many pros and cons about this first bill, SB375, which gives life to the idea of global warming regulation. Politicians and their staffs are studying the bill, trying to understand it (40 pages long) and strategizing how to implement it. The State bureaucracies are also vague about how to implement it. For example, the bill states that the State Air Quality Resources Board will make appointments to the Regional Commissions. However, local Santa Barbara staff believes the Council of Governments would have its own existing Technical Advisory Councils implement the requirements of this bill. Of great concern and wonderment, too, are citizen privacy and rights issues concerning personal travel and automobile ownership.

On the bright side, unincorporated areas may enjoy a welcome recognition of the importance of preserving green space and agricultural lands. Local interpretation of the more draconian requirements of SB 375 can minimize the negative aspects of the bill and maximize the possibilities that allow conditions on the ground to dictate compliance. Further, word from local staff is that Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo may experience a fairly small impact because of the semi-rural character of these counties.

Were all 18 of the pending bills that are designed to forward the goals of AB 32, (the Global Warming legislation) to become law, there would be a structural transformation of the government and economy of California. The Air Quality Resources Board appointees (not elected) would have primacy over housing and transportation policy and would further extend the intrusive regulation of our neighborhoods. The implications are enormous and that is why Mr. Yaroslavsky, alluded to SB 375 as a recent example of state policy that trickles down to our daily lives in unexpected ways. Mr. Yaroslavsky supports the concept of global warming, but sees the potential of this legislation to be the leading edge of the latest bureaucratic storm to affect local communities. The best of intentions can have unintended consequences, as we will surely discover in the next year or two.

For further information on either of these bills – or others of interest, go to
http://www.leginfo.co.gov/


Sincerely,

Judith Ishkanian, President
Neighborhood Defense League of California