By Roger Butow
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” Portuguese proverb
While everyone reacts to the proposed Related California/Neighborhood Congregational Church (RC/NCC) massive redevelopment project, the potential long-term effects of Senate bills SB-4 and SB-9 should be on our public square radar screen.
Both were written to codify a commitment to amplifying and expediting building and investment opportunities in a state trying to catch up regarding the affordable housing crisis. Perhaps too hastily certified, they include numerous fast-tracked permit processing “corner-cutters.”
Here in “Lifeboat Laguna,” the full implementation of both, compounding and exacerbating each other, threatens all that we hold precious.
SB-9 could trigger islands of intensification and invasive urbanization when enabled by City Hall passivity or support. Greedy exploiters just awakening to the potential “mini-development” possibilities will prevail.
Considering this Council’s pro-development stance, the city manager their instrument, administrative approvals embraced, political patronage/nepotistic Design Review Board and Planning Commissioners seated? City Hall’s already telegraphed their betrayal.
The consequences, whether foisted upon flatlanders or hill residents, the alarmed cries of outrage will become increasingly justified.
SB-9, the “California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act,” streamlines the process for a homeowner to create a duplex or subdivide an existing lot, up to four units (including ADUs and junior ADUs).
SB-9 avoids the California Subdivision Tract Map regulations, which require a robust, CEQA-compliant assessment (Initial Study flow chart) if five or more units are proposed.
If in, or adjacent to, an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) typically found in our greener, fire-prone neighborhoods, then that robust CEQA review process shouldn’t be optional or voluntary.
SB-9 is a pro-development workaround, knowingly increases intergenerational wealth for a select few, at the diminishment of historical neighborhood integrity: “Them that’s got shall get, them that’s not shall lose.”
SB-4 declares a preemptive exemption; hence, there are more applications by capital venture corporations, many from out of state. They’ll jeopardize existing neighborhood characteristics because they need not concede or offer exactions (CEQA mitigations).
Applicants will tout the “upsides,” never the neighborhood degradation, the “downsides,” verbiage wrapped in quasi-altruistic, humanitarian, soothing damage control jargon.
Positioned as likely the first massive SB-4 religious institution redevelopment project in Orange County, we’re the crash test dummies via the RC/NCC project.
Laguna has several safety-related issues surrounding both bills as written, due to our unique street’s constricted configurations and first responder limitations. SB-9 does obliquely carve out, addresses some preemptively, but test cases will set precedents.
Uber-wealthy property owners will hire legal counsel to find and exploit loopholes. Our leadership has always been averse to risk, spineless when threatened, and unwilling to defend our known core values.
They toss in the white towel all too often, all too quickly, leaving thousands of residents disenfranchised, distressed and rightfully angry.
Initially pitched 2.5 years ago as a more reasonably modest 21-unit, low-income apartment complex, basically “crickets” was the community response.
In subsequent press releases and online statements by RC/NCC, even personal testimony by the pastor before City Council?
Representatives have refused to deny that a nearly three-and-a-half times larger, 72-unit redevelopment proposal is imminent.
Six years ago, the NCC extolled, praised, and rejoiced in the legacy of the original main sanctuary (now Bridge Hall), as designed by famous architect Aubrey St. Clair, emphasizing its historical significance in Laguna.
Now, they hector and challenge concerned citizens to be patient when it’s obvious that they created chaos, dissonance, and confusion.
Uncertain numbers bode ill, feeding suspicions about “What’s next?” Demolition of the entire facility is contrary to honoring our community’s rich architectural heritage, isn’t it?
A “single load” access and egress driveway for vehicles, added to densely stacked units, will present challenges if a fire starts in the basement. Car fires happen, folks. Flames will go up and outboard as they seek oxygen.
Evacuation would be inhibited, burdensome and unsafe for our first responders.
If the NCC is successful, significant overflows will be obvious, and its intensification of use will impose yet more parking burdens on the surrounding neighborhood.
What about the maintenance personnel, the pick-ups and drop-offs, and the dweller’s moving vans? Where will they park? What happens during high visitor season?
What should be offered and paid for by the redevelopers is a vigorous traffic circulation and parking study, regardless of the final number of units. That’d be the “neighborly” thing to do, wouldn’t it?
Roger E. Bütow moved to Laguna Beach in 1972. A former general contractor, he’s currently a professional land use and regulatory compliance analyst who specializes in environmental and construction-related advisory services.
Re SB-10:
I would be remiss if I didn’t inform LB Indy readers that another affordable housing “overlay,” what we in my professional would call a “multiplier,” will compound the effects of SB-4 & SB-9.
SB 10 makes it easier for cities to zone for smaller, lower-cost housing developments of up to 10 units to address California’s housing crisis. Current laws can prevent local governments from zoning for smaller, less expensive housing.
So it’s my sad task (don’t shoot the messenger) to inform you that this 3rd bill has the potential to be a “triple whammy,” i.e., strike 3 for where we lived once upon a time.
Re-zoning and/or amending a general or specific plan has already taken place, together have set the table for “the end of the world as we know it, and I DON’T feel fine.” Apologies to R.E.M. btw.
I can tell you that I’ve found a poster child for SB-9, an example here in Laguna of how a sizable parcel could possibly navigate and “game the system.”
As a builder and land use analyst, I see a path, a way to morph a a few acres presently up for sale into a 16 dwelling unit subdivision……..in spite of the inhibiting tone and language in the bills.
I’ll be sharing it very soon.
Because the approval of a qualifying project under SB 9 is deemed a ministerial action (over the counter, no public hearings required), CEQA does NOT apply to the decision to grant an application for a housing development or a lot split, or both. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1) [CEQA does NOT apply to ministerial actions]; CEQA Guidelines, § 15268.) For this reason, a local agency must NOT require an applicant to perform Environmental Impact Analysis under CEQA for
applications made under SB 9. Additionally, if a local agency chooses to adopt a local ordinance to implement SB 9 (instead of implementing the law directly from statute), the preparation and adoption of the ordinance is NOT considered a project under CEQA.
In other words, the preparation and adoption of the ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA.