SB 9

[CBarrett]

..

[Jim Frame]

What is your licensed to unlicensed staff ratio?

In my case, when trying to calculate this I get a "divide by zero" error message.

[Mike Mueller]

Dave,

Compliment appreciated. Also, I am not sure how to copy a previous post to show what I am responding to with those nifty snippets, so I will copy your section below in Italics

The idea of homes without government intervention or permitting is not a new idea. In fact, millions of people are housed this way throughout the world. For South America, Google "favela", for India "Dharavi", for Kenya "Kibera", for Pakistan "Orangi Town" and then, click "images" for the best perspectives. Using their respective models each single family residence in California with one home is a ranch comparable to the Ponderosa. Yeah, pretty darn awesome.

I consider this a false dichotomy. Considering our cultural and legal institutions, I am more worried about those sorts of shanty towns growing up on the public lands than on private property. In Santa Rosa there is a wonderful bike trail called the Joe Rodota (sp) Trail that became the site of a large Hooverville (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Rodota_Trail) that became so prone to muggings and full of human feces that few souls were brave enough to actually bike on it. The "advocates" for the homeless rights successfully allowed this situation to persist for a long time. It was so bad that that when one of my techs was mugged by a hobo with a knife, which lead to a fight that ended with rocks to skulls, the police said, (and I paraphrase) "yep, thats prolly Jim or Bob or someone else that we can't arrest... better file a police report so that if the homeless advocates file an assault charge against you (the tech), you have some paperwork to show you were mugged." At some point the mess was cleaned up (at huge cost) and they all moved to new trails...

The point I am trying to make is I do not think having a bunch of development on private land in CA will lead to the same sort of situations you reference. The Hoovervilles of the 1930's were not private developments on private land, they were squatters or occupying public land. The homeless encampments here in CA are likewise not the situation of 4 families in a SFD. Taken together with our long and robust history of being overly litigious, and our current state of too many (IMO) laws, swinging the pendulum back the other way is good.

Please note that I am not advocating for swinging it all the way back to some sort of libertarian dream of no laws. That is just anarchy which leads to despots, strongman governments, mafias etc, which is the situation you provided as the counterpoint to my views. I view politics as thousands of swimmers, all pushing a cruise ship, IE lots of separately motivated small pushes, working on something that has enormous inertia and momentum. So I try and push on the side that I think will work best, and also try and convince others to push with me :)

More generally, I find my thinking/philosophy strongly correlated to how smart/educated (not the same, but there is lots of overlap to that Venn Diagram) I think my fellow citizens are. If Hobbes is right, then I am all for some sort of Nietzsche-esque Übermensch government. If my recent experiences with life lead me to think others are generally smart, good and well intentioned rationalists, then I am on the libertarian side of things. I generally choose to go with the libertarian view if for no other reason than to try and smile more...

Mikey Mueller
PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[CBarrett]

What is your licensed to unlicensed staff ratio?

In my case, when trying to calculate this I get a "divide by zero" error message.

It's not just you, is it? That's a very nice... number, if you can call it such.

In southern California (Ventura county to the border)
We have 5 department heads/PM's (PLS)
About 7 PM's (who are not department heads) six are LS's.
9 project surveyors (All LS's)
2 LS Party chiefs (Could be more, I am not sure of our San Diego office)
14 office technical staff varying from 5 to 20 years of experience, in various stages of school, CST, LSIT etc. and relevant experience gaining roles. Interesting part is that there are three GIS programs graduates, switching into surveying (and working out really well)
I lost track of our field staff, there has been some turnover, so off the top of my head - number of crews varies, number of individuals is hovering around 26 (union) surveyors ranging from apprentices to certified party chiefs.
Since I am going from memory, my number confidence is about +/- 15%. I would ballpark that to be about 1:2 (not pulling out a calculator right now)

Life in a big city... lol. With COVID work at home orders we are able to pool regional resources.

[btaylor]

Town officials found a clause in the law that prohibits development in areas identified as habitats for protected species. Mountain lions are a protected species because they are a candidate for the California Endangered Species Act and Woodside, in "its entirety" is a mountain lion habitat

https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/0 ... n-habitats

Alllrighty then.

[wingding]

upcoming city/county council meetings in Portola Valley and Emerald Hills should be interesting.

[Jim Frame]

It's not just you, is it?

It's just me. I haven't had any employees since 2015 or so. Life is so much simpler now!

[mpallamary]

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Woodside declared its entire suburban town a mountain lion sanctuary in a deliberate and transparent attempt to avoid complying with SB 9. This memorandum is — quite clearly — contrary to the law, and ironically, contrary to the best interests of the mountain lions the town claims to want to protect.” Attorney General Bonta tells a wealthy suburb that mountain lions aren’t justification to not build housing.

[mpallamary]

Today out of San Diego.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/ne ... sory-units

[mpallamary]

Fortunately I am not subject to SB9 as we have private covenants. As some of you may know, they are carved out.

Check the record before proceeding.

https://www.rsfassociation.org/Files/Li ... WATTCH.PDF

**************************************************************************
August 30, 2021
Ms. Erika Contreras
Secretary of the Senate
State Capitol, Room 3044
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Contreras:
I have authored SB 9, which seeks to address our housing crisis by allowing duplexes and
ministerial lot splits in single-family zones. I submit this letter to the Senate Journal for the
purposes of clarifying the applicability of SB 9’s provisions.

First, on the issue of common interest developments (CID) and homeowners’ associations (HOA).
My office has consulted with Legislative Counsel, and SB 9 would not override CID or HOA
restrictions. Specifically, SB 9 is silent on the issue, meaning the bill contains no provisions that
supersede HOA or CID governing documents. As we have seen with other housing legislation,
SB 9 would have to contain an explicit and proactive provision to override those rules. This bill
does not.

Second, I would like to reiterate some of the bill’s protections to ensure that community character
is not unduly affected. Most importantly, SB 9 explicitly states that cities and counties may
continue to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective
design standards so long as they still allow two small, 800 square foot dwellings to be built on
each lot. For example, objective requirements that lots include horse keeping areas of a specified
size could still be imposed, and if a property owner applied for a permit that proposed larger
dwellings that would conflict with such a requirement, a local official could deny the project.

Thank you for the opportunity to address these matters.
Warmly,
TONI G. ATKINS
Senate President pro Tempore
39th Senate District

[mpallamary]

SB9 Madness as predicted.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/ne ... ousing-law

"Less than a month before the state law took effect, Pasadena, a Southern California city of roughly 140,000 people, passed an ordinance that among other restrictions allows officials to exempt eligible areas by declaring them “landmark districts.”

"But no such exemption exists under the law, Bonta said.

"The ordinance “undermines SB 9 and denies residents the opportunity to create sorely needed additional housing, under the guise of protecting ‘landmark districts,’” Bonta said in a statement. “This is disappointing and, more importantly, violates state law.”

"Pasadena Mayor Victor Gordo said the city’s efforts “have been progressive and responsive to the housing crisis and we remain committed to doing our part to help address the state’s housing issues.”

"Bonta’s letter arrived “without any prior conversation regarding the substance of our regulations and how they comply with the law,” he said in a statement. The city’s interpretation “appears to differ” but officials will further review the law and Bonta’s letter, Gordo said.

"Bonta last month issued a similar warning to the wealthy Silicon Valley town of Woodside after it declared that it was exempt because the entire town is habitat for endangered cougars. Hours later, town officials said they would accept applications for increasing housing after all.

[DWoolley]

Assembly Bill 2097

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that bars local governments from mandating parking spaces as part of most development near transit stops. I have a bus stop less than one-half mile of my house.

Backyard dwellings and now, zero parking allocation. Awesome. Why visit the third world when we can build our own? I offer a glimpse of the future, we have a crack house/flop house of sorts around the corner - it wasn't there when we purchased our place. I estimate a dozen or so people live in the house or in the RVs in the backyard (SB9 style). Their side of the block had cars parked the entire length of their side of the block, about 6 cars on the street and usually 4 in the yard. Last week the county placed no parking signs on their side of the block and they now park in front of our neighbors' houses. These cars are full of trash, luggage, household items, scrap wood and metal etc. Again, awesome.

With SB9 and SB10 we will have backyard dwellings and no parking restrictions. Coming soon to your neighborhoods.

DWoolley

Update: I wrote the initial post before leaving the house today. This morning my neighbor met me at the end of my driveway for our weekly jog. We noticed our neighbors closest to the crack house have parked their cars in front of their houses - rather than in their driveways or garages - forcing the crackheads to park closer to our houses. In fact, at the end of my driveway, in front of my neighbor's house, one crackhead didn't make it from the car to their house. Being neighborly, I didn't make to much noise talking to my pal and accidently waking up the woman sleeping in her car at the end of my driveway.

If I am catching it in a formerly nice part of Orange County you may be next in line. On my porch, coffee in hand, I dream of far away lands with little crime which my friends have found. Knowing they are safe and free - for the time being - allows me to accept my fate.

[CBarrett]

There are many other ways to improve situation with crackheads rather than fear mongering into trying to block a measure which would benefit, predominantly those who aren't crackheads.

[hellsangle]

On SB-9: why have planning department? (Oh that's right, "for orderly development" . . . until The State knows what is best for us.)

On SB-2: where are the "fruits" of those $75/whack tax? If it was such a awe inspiring bill one would think its great works would be on the front page. I would assume, like everything else in California government, those fees are going toward "administrative costs" and what's leftover . . . well . . . it's what's left over.

[DWoolley]

There are many other ways to improve situation with crackheads rather than fear mongering into trying to block a measure which would benefit, predominantly those who aren't crackheads.

CBarrett, don't be coy with the solutions. My neighbors have been struggling with this issue for the last few years. Apparently, talking to the property owners, various transient tenants, county building and safety folks and the sheriff's department has yielded nothing. Please offer "the many other ways to improve the situation".

Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) and Senate Bill 10 (SB 10), have legalized duplexes and quadplexes in areas that were previously zoned for single-family-only housing. SB10 allows for as many as 10 units.

According to the US Census Bureau more than half (58%) of young adults in the U.S. are living with their parents. Young adults were defined as being between 18 and 24 years of age. Average number of kids rounds to 2 per household. Over 30% of those over 24 years old remain at home. One car each is minimum of four cars. SB9 allows for two backyard units - another 4 people, presuming no driving age kids to offer a best case scenario, another 4 cars.

One formerly single family residence now has 8 cars associated with the residence - no boats, trailers, or second cars. Add another SB9 next door or across the street and it produces 16 cars and another, 24 cars, etc. SB10 allows 10 units with no parking allocation. Best case, all single people in the units, although quite unlikely, puts another 10 cars in front of a fomer SFR.

So as not to fear monger, suppose these SB9 and SB10 folks are upstanding pacifist Quaker types, where are the rainbows and awesomeness of packing people into backyards, public streets and schools that I may have overlooked? Knowing Quaker types are less common than, say, ah, people with issues, I do not readily see the how losing SFR makes it better for the neighboring homeowners. I am looking forward to a fresh perspective highlighting the neighboring community benefits.

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

Issue with crackheads is one for social and medical experts, that's where you need to apply pressure. Pushing them from one neighborhood to another solves nothing. What you are trying to do here is not solve a problem, but pull a NIMBY, go be a crackhead elsewhere, not in my back yard. I don't care about a solution to rampant drug addiction and our inability to properly address it. Most of those people belong in a treatment facilities, but our current laws prevent it. None of that discussion however belongs in this group.

Parking and housing density issues, welcome to the club, majority of people, myself including deal with parking issue and high density dwelling. This also includes most surveyors except for an occasional company owner.

Being that company owners are a minority, why is this a CLSA issue? You got your SFR, and now the real cost is which has been swept under the rug and deferred catching up. *shrug* now they are becoming unsustainable. I know you are all about preservation of capital and property values, but things change, society changes, demographics change, values change.

I already live in a small condo with inadequate parking, so I find it hard to be empathetic. Being a female surveyor, and an immigrant, I'm always in the minority group which is easily sacrificed as unimportant. Now the tables are turned and those who put up fences and enjoyed majority rule are living the consequences. I don't feel bad. A measure like SB 9 is more likely to benefit me, so I have no need to find a solution for that part.

Living in a high density condos with inadequate parking I am not surrounded by the seedy underbelly of the society that one should fear. I live in a beautiful well kept and gated condominium complex. I found the best I can afford. So high density alone is not necessarily going to be a sign 'there goes the neighborhood'. There are several case studies on this in Orange county, one example being East Side Costa Mesa and parts of Newport (Corona Del Mar), Peninsula, parts of Huntington beach which have been getting densified for years. Even at higher density, clean and affluent area typically remains clean and affluent. I never had the "privilege" of living in an SFR, so not my problem.

Something to think about when people act very NIMBY, the crowds outside end up growing and overrunning the BY. This has happen to many rulers and capitalists in history as they grew out of touch with the 'unwashed masses'. I'm looking at where I work, 3 'bosses' who can afford the house, and the remaining 30ish staff are renters and high density housing dwellers. Same in many other companies. How is keeping these people from the ability to live closer to work benefiting surveyors? It is not. It only benefits a few.

[Jim Frame]

I agree that you have to separate the zoning matters from the substance abuse matters -- the latter can and does crop up in almost any kind of neighborhood.

Years ago I lived next door to a tweaker household. It wasn't pretty, with noise all night, criminal trespass, and blocked driveways, not to mention the child neglect. The only way to effectively deal with that is to evict the tenants, and it's a long process. If you can't get the landlord to cooperate, take them to court. And get your local code enforcement folks involved early and often The one thing irresponsible landlords understand is expense.

All the articles I've read about SB9 indicate that the doom-and-gloom scenarios are unlikely to transpire -- the cost of building new high-density housing on existing lots, especially in desirable neighborhoods, isn't justified by the rental return.

I live a block from a university campus. The street is a mix of owner-occupied and rental SF homes. My neighbor to the north is currently an informal sorority annex, with maybe 8 gals in 5 bedrooms (3 in the house, 2 in the ADU). There are a lot of cars on the street, it's not ideal but it's a public street. The gals have been very responsible about noise, so in general they're good neighbors and we have no complaints. So far no one on the street has applied for a high-density permit. I'm fact, there only one other ADU on the block, and it was built 20 years ago as a genuine granny flat. So I think it's premature to cast SB9 as the death knell for SF homes.

[Mike Mueller]

On SB-2: where are the "fruits" of those $75/whack tax? If it was such a awe inspiring bill one would think its great works would be on the front page. I would assume, like everything else in California government, those fees are going toward "administrative costs" and what's leftover . . . well . . . it's what's left over.

I wish we knew.... poking around the interweb all I found was 100K-310L grants for "planning streamlining" like the one linked here: https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments ... ning-grant
Prolly a search term issue, and I just didn't find the right words to search for......right?

If memory serves from one of our reports by Mike B. That fund generates roughly 45million a month, so something north of 500 mil a year, since 2018 or so, means north of 2 billion has likely been collected....there prolly just a lot of stuff in the pipeline? Right?

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County

[CBarrett]

I agree that you have to separate the zoning matters from the substance abuse matters -- the latter can and does crop up in almost any kind of neighborhood.

Years ago I lived next door to a tweaker household. It wasn't pretty, with noise all night, criminal trespass, and blocked driveways, not to mention the child neglect. The only way to effectively deal with that is to evict the tenants, and it's a long process. If you can't get the landlord to cooperate, take them to court. And get your local code enforcement folks involved early and often The one thing irresponsible landlords understand is expense.

All the articles I've read about SB9 indicate that the doom-and-gloom scenarios are unlikely to transpire -- the cost of building new high-density housing on existing lots, especially in desirable neighborhoods, isn't justified by the rental return.

I live a block from a university campus. The street is a mix of owner-occupied and rental SF homes. My neighbor to the north is currently an informal sorority annex, with maybe 8 gals in 5 bedrooms (3 in the house, 2 in the ADU). There are a lot of cars on the street, it's not ideal but it's a public street. The gals have been very responsible about noise, so in general they're good neighbors and we have no complaints. So far no one on the street has applied for a high-density permit. I'm fact, there only one other ADU on the block, and it was built 20 years ago as a genuine granny flat. So I think it's premature to cast SB9 as the death knell for SF homes.

Depending on what kind of neighborhood you are in, SFR's are just as likely to end up being a crack house, or a meth cooking lab in even less densely populated parts.

Rental returns, and also taking advantage of extended families. I am in a position now where if I was on a large lot, and could combine family incomes and have two independent DU on the property, we could either combine with my mom, or with my brother in law.
With my brother in law, for example, we could have two houses, one lot, shared pool and landscaping, to a point it could be a small luxury compound, instead of two separate SFR's. With three, we could have in-laws quarters for my mother in law too. She needs family support, but noone wants to share actual living space with her (and my brother in law has her living in his condo right now, very begrudgingly). Separate mini house would be ideal for her. A smaller unit can also be remodeled for handicap access more easily than a larger house, and is more easily re-sold than if only half of the house has handicap access.

All these scenarios would allow for more individuality and more amenities than even small condo complexes. I haven't done all my homework yet to see how many of these scenarios actually fit SB9, especially since there is a lot of uncertainty and confusion surrounding it. Whatever the rules end up being, pooling resources with a small group (family) sounds very interesting.

Some of our social problems, so I gather stem from the breakdown of the extended family units, something like this may actually strengthen the extended family unit.

We used to laugh at some of the more ethnic neighborhoods, and their extended families - guess what, they are overtaking NIMBY acting white people in California, in numbers and in their socioeconomic impact. Western individualism, taken to the extreme seems to have trouble sustaining itself.

[hellsangle]

Overpopulation will do that . . . density like the stockyards of Coalinga.

but we don't have to worry much longer . . . we are, more likely than not, beyond the point of no return when it comes to Climate Change. Homo sapiens may go the way of the dinosaurs.

[CBarrett]

Haha, well, when we overpopulated Europe, we "Discovered America" Now we're eyeballing Mars... but yes, sounds like the nature and laws of physics may be catching up to our ways. Maybe the unintended consequences of medicine, we have more people surviving than can be fed...
Just when we thought we outsmarted nature it is telling us we got too sidetracked.
Maybe our successors will be homo mundus libratum.

[hellsangle]

we have more people surviving than can be fed...

Ha! The way climate change is going . . . food may soon become The issue

[mpallamary]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

[CBarrett]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

I don't need to watch the movies, I grew up in a communist country..... where all kinds of things went wrong.

[mpallamary]

It is wild!