Community Corner
CEQA-Exempt SB-4, SB-9, SB-10: Will Coastal Cities Suffer The Most?
SB-4 + SB-9 + SB-10==Coastal Urbanization: These 3 SB's Adverse Impacts Will Not Be Mitigated As They Only Require Administrative Approvals
CEQA-Exempt SBs 4, 9 & 10: Will These "3 Amigos" Be The End For Coastal Cities?
As my guest column in the Laguna Beach Independent highlighted about SB-4 and SB-9, once combined in a coastal community like ours ("coastals" herein), they could signal the death throes of formerly funky surf gems by the sea like Laguna in SOC. [1]
Sacramento being landlocked, seems the past few years they can't see past (cough cough) Stockton. Might be Governor Gruesom's "Pat Riley," soooooo 80's elaborate disco-era's"Greased" coiffure blockage?
Find out what's happening in Laguna Beachfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
I bet they all spend a lot of time in front of their respective mirrors asking themselves if they're the fairest of them all, right?
They do literally appear Hell-bent on imposing unrealistic expectations and unobtainable objectives on the state's coastals who're known to be heavily trafficked, deluged and overwhelmed by tourists.
Find out what's happening in Laguna Beachfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
These bills also seem to be "Mr. Magoo-level" (myopic) when it comes to the very reasons people have immigrated to, in some situations grown up and stayed in these communities. Like me, they remain where they've loved their beach tribe's "ecosystem," raised families, sunk in their roots, their feelings of "Ohana," quality of life very precious.
These bills follow the "Law of Unintended Consequences," better yet "Murphy's Law, where "anything that can go wrong, will go wrong."
Arguably attributable to quotas, are these career politicians even aware that advancing the onset of urbanization for coastals, or peri-urbanization (zones adjacent to/surrounding urbanized coastals), is a formula for catastrophic failure regarding our unique ecosystems found nowhere else in the world?
Like terminal cancer, once these Big 3 converge, unlike a tsunami, their impacts won't be excised, the debris field removed, the illness go into remission, coastals instead will hit a regulatory cul-de-sac wall. The course will be destructively linear with no going back, no "do-overs."
In Laguna, there's little if any comfort knowing that we won't be walking the plank alone. Mistakes will be made that will not have any remedy or cure venue, a complaint and/or redress of grievance department due to the "safe harbor" these 3 preemptively create.
"Folks, it's SNAFU Time: It's FUBAR & you're T.S.O.L. Please raise your hands, now step away from the community development counter before I have you restrained and call the police."
Many coastal neighborhoods have narrow, meandering streets, no master planning, were built out pell-mell around seasonally occupied beach shacks. Blaming buyers and renters (≈ 40--43% according to online info), inlanders apparently believe that we'll capitulate and throw ourselves under the wheels of progress.
Many of ours reflect our flavor, who we were 100 years ago when founded------even the seemingly random street patterns are treasured. Adjacent homes in many places are tightly shoved up to one another, similar to my postage stamp sized rental (on par with a Junior ADU @ 500 sq. ft.), where we already have severely under-parked conditions.
The myth that everyone here is a millionaire NIMBY is BS. There are "1%-ers," but as that sobriquet denotes, the other 99% are by no means wealthy fat cats.
Maybe I just don't hang with the right peeps, I don't go where the "in crowd" goes, hmmmm? "Enviro-protectionistas" being déclassé, might not be their thing, me un-welcome?
About 15 of my immediate neighbors have no off-street spaces and park on PCH. Where we're then forced to compete with beach goers, and being a "Year Round Destination" our vehicular carrying capacity parking limits surpassed, plus aggravating resident's access and egress, but inhibits coastal access for visitors.
SB-10 grants categorical exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) if the proposed apartment building/complex is composed of 9 or less Dwelling Units (DU).
Plop just one of those 9 apartment complexes into my 'hood, factoring in that "No CEQA==No parking and traffic study."
"A Hall Pass," a "Get-Out-Of Jail-Free-Card" for developers in advance because there'll be no hearings for stakeholders, no appealable, litigious recourse for complainants .
If occupied by 2 persons/DU, add guests, and there goes about another 12-15+ spaces on PCH---which don't, btw, exist.
SB-10 makes it easier for cities to zone for smaller, lower-cost housing developments of no more than 9 DU to address California's housing crisis. Current laws can prevent local governments from zoning for smaller, less expensive housing. [2]
There's a fair argument to be made that these 3 could easily become "exponential multipliers" as they not only compound outcomes but can exacerbate conditions barely effected if isolated, only singular and not part of a development algorithm. What we call the "pattern of growth" (future density and direction) .
It looks as if the smoke signals are on the horizon as developers, redevelopers and profiteers could easily exploit a commerce-worshipping, pro-business, anti-resident City Council like ours in Laguna.
Soon the 3 SB's will be commingled, they will subvert CEQA's intent, its original statutory goals and objectives, implementation for proactive protective reasons when passed in 1970.
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 an 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. Source: California Department of Housing & Community Development Website
Go to my slide show at the top: Welcome to "The Twilight Zone," a not so unlikely dimension that a speculator could exploit via SB-9's hallmark flaws. Unimproved land, it has all of the potential building blocks for what's known as a "sequential or piecemeal" subdivision in one of Laguna's most scenic canyons. [3]
By an aforementioned algorithmic process, it's actually not a stretch to see the site divided into 4ths, then those 4ths into 4ths == 16 DUs. Those 4 parcel owners MUST live onsite, but only for 3 years, then it's all bets off.
This situation warrants inspection: I've cut and pasted the ZILLOW® website information as posted today, July 23, 2024, by the California Regional Multiple Listing Service (CRMLS), at the seller's website.
I've been told by a long time Laguna realtor friend that the Board of Realtors mandates 100% accuracy in sales promotions/ads, under the "Golden Rule," Cal Real Estate Disclosure Act.
To avoid to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) the automatic triggering regarding California Subdivision Tract Map (CSTM) regulations, keeping the initial subdividing down below 5 parcels will involve fewer, less stringent review difficulties. A simple acreage math (if 4 parcels) leads to a 13.5-16 DU range potential after full buildout (5 x 2.7). [4]
Using the proffered stats though (albeit quite fuzzy), it seems like they're proclaiming 5 parcels x 4 DU/parcel==20 DUs. I'm confused (ok, I might still be blonde), as was my realtor friend by the ZILLOW promo.
If subdivided into 5 parcels or more, then the CSTM laws come up. It wouldn't qualify under SB-9 and an EIR then be required. So look for whomever ends up with it to keep that utmost in mind.
It lists 4 Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) at the bottom, which doesn't coincide with the 5 parcels claim at the top. Not sure WTF kind of incongruence is going on there.
Here's a scenario though, that could, by "slow-rolling" the process, circumvent not only environmental oversight laws but navigate the inhibitive/prohibitive prescriptions of SB-9.
Could 1 or more of these parcel owners eventually build a 9 DU apartment complex? It's like Abbott & Costello's "Who's On First" comedy routine, except the anxiety-laden joke will be on the neighbors.
Water Quality Impairment Compliance Shelter
If this property above were (for sake of discussion) divided into at least 3 even acreage parts (.9 acres), if developed individually, they'd avoid the State's dreaded, highly protective water quality degradation regulations.
Development projects are defined in the NPDES Stormwater Permit (MS4) process as construction, rehabilitation, redevelopment, or reconstruction of any public or private projects.
If 1.0 acre or more of land is disturbed, then they'd need to produce and have certified what's known as the most prescriptively stringent, most highly protective "Priority Development Project" (PDP) category for pollutant-laden runoff.
As for the requisite Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP)? They too can be processed administratively---hence avoid general public scrutiny unless watchdog protectionists are tracking the project very closely.
If a PDP, it can be a tricky and expensive path for such parcels, including not just Best Management Practices (BMP) during excavation and construction phase compliance but ongoing, post-construction adherence as well.
So if the local lead agency (in this example I've provided) is "friendly," i.e., has a "motivated" coastal Community Development Department staff and supportive City Council , then the public stakeholders are screwed.
Laguna's not unique, Dana Point is already a hotbed of contention regarding SB-9 and SB-10, as residents are at war with their governance over Accessory DUs and Junior ADUs (less than 500 sq.ft.) in residential neighborhoods. Illegally converted garages are being grandfathered ministerially.
These exhausting Primary/ADU/ Junior ADU numeric sizing matrixes and formulas are rabbit holes you'll have to research, go down yourselves.
Enormous, ugly, institutional-looking mixed use (commerce & residential) buildings are as I write springing up along our OC coastal corridor that once held scenic views, even when facing inland featured classic Cali shops---now even the sun is blocked out from the sky. Huntington Beach comes to mind too, they destroyed the entire "vibe" of PCH near the "Hunting Money Beach Pier."
Together, it's no small stretch to see that these 3 bills could irrevocably, irreparably change the character, the quality of life for tourist-riddled, overrun coastals like ours. The State imposes uniform standards in absurdly uneven, "apples are oranges," realities.
Whether my major portfolio field related to water quality/wastewater and recycling regulations, or any other major topics like affordable housing, entire regions, and in this case tourism zones, differ greatly.
I'm not saying that our coastals should expect a free ride, but since we already have the fiscal burdens from day trippers, who do not pay their fair share, one must ask: WHY?
Why didn't they create tiered compliance system quotas instead of the conflating infuriating "one size fits all?"
The bills as written are unjust, are thinly disguised punishment. Tourists throng to our coastals, the new reality 7/365, with no longer seasonal, ephemeral impacts, which these bills ignore.
We have to pay for the supporting maintenance, fire, lifeguard and police services. Charging a skosh more at parking meters or in lots can't possibly recoup municipal expenditures.
Knowing Dana Point and being in contact with their activists, it's a common frustration, experiencing the consequences and trying to deal with the resulting stressors.
San Juan Capistrano is heading south too....as in pursuing the same spiraling down. Laguna's starting to resemble a gimmick-riddled, ersatz Disneyland annex. SJC's not far behind as they monetize their traditions, replacing traditional, historical elements with "krappy kitsch."
Developer's political clout, joined to City Hall poseur shills, with accommodating, bent over forward, eyes wide shut sycophants, they're moving towards a wannabe Knott's Berry Farm simulacrum.
Like Laguna, a movement towards a Hollywood movie set experience, including influencers and the politicians they suck up to: All facade and no substance. C'mon, no one believes that career politicians aren't propped up and financed by stealthy special interests, aren't their puppets, right?
"Slowly Roller" developers and their political pawns take advantage of attrition….people who are traditionalists, who are initially alarmed and anxious, but many drop out because they have jobs or family interests that take precedent.
The long haul is tough for community watchdogs and their followers, declaring that a “wait & see” should be implemented and even embraced is then a ridiculous ask.
It takes a type of guerrilla, asymmetrical warfare mentality, using counter-insurgency tactics because the developers are in it for the long haul. They have deep enough pockets, enough $$$ to outspend those that threaten their rainbow's end pot of gold. And loaded enough to hire attorneys to slip through the vagaries, gaps and loopholes.
These 3 bills together are dual edged swords: They give with the left in the name of social justice/equity but unfortunately take with the right, at the expense of the very reasons we "year rounds" live here.
The “takings” are, in a sense, NOT a result of thoroughly considered due processes but by State fiat.
By my reckoning as a land use analyst, I'd venture to guess that it would only take 6-8 years of an "open for business, closed for residents" mentality, i.e., a majority of respective, consecutive city councils to demolish most of the vestiges of the any coastal's charm and character. Shove aside and bury them as "urban infill" occurs.
Governance, hiding behind, using the excusing veil of Sacramento can be Judas', willing accomplices, co-conspirators. Borderline in abstentia, with little if any control remaining, many leaders secretly facilitate for behind-the-scenes speculative manipulators.
Between grandfathering (certifying) existing, although never legally-permitted 2nd or even 3rd DUs parcels to declare closer compliance inventory, and on to more grandiose compliance via SB-9 and SB-10, the inevitable NIMBY finger-pointing and shaming is on the rise: How can we be so selfish, doesn't everyone have the right to live at the beach?
No, not really. Life is competition, all life. Visit, yes. Abuse our fragility and humanitarian leanings? NO!
Gridlock, being held hostage during even marginal good weather, we now compete like race car drivers for lanes on our streets and arterials. Queasy, no longer Easy riders, say good-bye to a quick trip of only 10 miles in SOC.
We pay pay pay stranger's bills, we subsidize tourism, most indirectly, and those visitors are no doubt oblivious to their invasions effects. Visitor's do win the "trash-our-beaches, trash-our-streets" competition, hands down.
It won't take much longer to reach the event horizon, the extinction or breaking point now that the "SOC Riviera" cities (New Porsche, Laguna, DP and San Clemente) have bonded, saturated social media with their "Come to ______, please consider our upscale lodgings, our toney bars, plus hip restaurants filled with beautiful people and celebritards, as your year round destination choices!"
Worser (Thank you Keith Olbermann), Short Term Lodging (Rentals), the bane of many compressed-living coastals , coupled with the unlicensed, bootleg ones, place an even more Draconian weight on us.
Let's face it, Moreno Valley does not nor ever will have a STL issue.
Nobody's clamoring to take vacations there in the sweltering summer, nor is it being promoted up the wahzoo by a traitorous Chamber of Commerce, in cahoots with a Visitor's Bureau.
In Laguna, our asinine and self-destructive City Council hands over 1% of our Temporary Occupancy Tax (TOT) each year to the Visit Laguna (Beach), if memory serves it was $1.7 million this past year.
And they refuse to de-fund the program, direct/divert those gross sums to underwriting what we must spend to keep our City afloat while under perennial siege by millions of complete strangers, the tragedy directly attributable to VL's marketing. [5]
These 3 SBs could certainly divest coastals of the very reasons why many of we native species cling, why we endure while remaining prisoners, why people like me spend nearly 45% of our net income on rent.
Mark my words: Coastals will be mortally wounded, and if you leave now for 10 years and then come back, your town, your village will be unrecognizable.
So going to your respective windows, after the fact, and screaming "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" won't suffice, would be revisionist 20/20. Thoughts and prayers? Yeah, right, that always works.
Go online, or convo with like-minded friends and neighbors. Try to stop this obscene and nightmarish movie from starting by joining a group that's already organized. Or start one yourself.
Sorry, don't shoot the messenger, it's a complete mystery to me, but if in SJC, fuggetaboutit, my sense is there's no such watchdog logic, no powerful guardianship mentality, or for that matter environmental stewardship.
Some residents who have never been mobilized or motivated, but see that tapping the "SB-4, SB-9 and SB-10 brakes" is important, are uncertain, in self-preservation mode. They're getting organized, trying to find out what it is exactly that they're on the verge of losing.
Meanwhile, "Morituri Te Salutant!" We coastals who are about to die salute you, wish you all the best, learn from our mutual slow-moving train wreck, crashing upon our shores, catastrophes-in-progress before it's too late.
Awakening in the am to the calming, soothing sussuration of the waves lapping our strands, it won't be morning in DP, SC or Laguna: It'll be mourning, the grief of tremendous, horrific loss.
You won't need to send for whom the bells toll because you'll realize that they toll for thee.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB4
[2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca...
[3] https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1999-Upper-Rim-Rock-Rd-4-Laguna-Beach-CA-92651/2054291622_zpid/
