Marin Voice: Housing, zoning legislation should pause for more thorough examination
There is a flurry of bills flooding the state Legislature which would take away local zoning control and indiscriminately promote high-density development in our single-family home neighborhoods.
While many of the provisions of these bills are well-meaning attempts to address inequities in our current system, studies researched by the Tam Design Review Board indicate that these proposals may cause much more harm than good. Several provisions have the potential to produce results which are the opposite of what is intended.
We urge the Legislature to press “pause” until the potential impacts of these measures have been thoroughly examined.
Members of the Tam Design Review Board have studied these proposals. Our experience indicates that the real changes we need in housing affordability and social equity will emerge by encouraging local efforts to support and provide funding for local growth. “Top down” mandates will only create more resistance.
Our studies suggest that any proposals for higher density development should follow these principles:
• Higher density should be located where it does not cause the destruction of sensitive natural resources. Evisceration of the California Environmental Quality Act, removal of lot coverage maximums and removal of tree protection ordinances and stream setbacks will have a tremendously negative impact on the environment.
• Higher density should not be located in a wildfire or flood hazard zone, or on roads that are inadequately sized for density. Consideration of existing conditions must be a part of any densification. New housing should not be located in areas that endanger the lives of inhabitants.
• New higher density should not be overlaid indiscriminately over our existing, flawed, suburban model of development. Ubiquitous single-family zoning may be a deterrent to affordability, but ubiquitous densification is not the answer. Across the board densification only builds on our existing unsustainable development pattern and must be discouraged and avoided.
• Higher density should be located near mass transit and provide adequate on-site parking. Urban density needs to avoid automobile dependence. Where mass transit does not exist, parking and immediate access to freeways must be provided for the occupants.
• New higher density must have or provide infrastructure to support it. Bills that exempt developers and the state from paying for the infrastructure upgrades new density requires are subsidizing private developers and shifting costs to the taxpayers.
• Higher density should not destroy the property investments of the working and middle class. By allowing higher density everywhere, properties of very high value will remain unchanged, and investment now focused in the poorest areas will fall away. Housing developers will tend toward working- and middle-class neighborhoods where lower property values, pre-existing infrastructure and elements of gentrification attractive to the wealthier tenants they desire already exist. The impact on these communities will be the most destructive.
• New higher density should provide truly affordable housing and be built only if it is truly needed. New housing bills should not depend on flooding the market with market-rate housing to bring down the cost of housing overall. Bills should instead foster truly affordable, rent-controlled units. A temporary ban on short-term rentals would have an overnight impact on the housing crisis. Bills that focus on retrofitting and redevelopment of empty office buildings, retail centers and brownfield (potentially contaminated) sites should be promoted.
• Higher density should be concentrated in areas guided by local community plans and input. Local communities should be held responsible for specifying locations for higher-density and affordable housing, but should not be imposed upon. Carefully studied and thoroughly thought out community plans and public input should not be disregarded.
As members of the Tam Design Review Board we often see the opportunity to find common ground among disputing neighbors and prospective developers. Most members of our community, developers included, value the diversity we presently have and would welcome the inclusion of a broader range of income and race.
It is through local conversation and actions that a community is built and can grow. Mandates imposed from the state will only result in more conflict and a tendency for communities to dig in their heels and turn, in desperation, toward more exclusionary actions.
Alan Jones, of Mill Valley, is chair of the Tam Design Review Board.