By Sharon Rushton : TamAlmonte – excerpt (via email)

One of the major reasons we need to roll back state bills that override local controls over zoning and development decisions. ourneighborhoodvoices.com is collecting signatures to put a State Constitutuional Amendment on the ballot. Please support this effort to protect communities from state mandates.

SB-9 Endangers Communities in the Wildland Urban Interface, High Fire Hazard Zones, Very High Fire Hazard Zones, and Constrained Areas with inadequate access and evacuation routes

SB-9 endangers communities in the Wildland Urban Interface, High Fire Hazard Zones, Very High Fire Hazard Zone, and Constrained Areas with inadequate and unsafe access and evacuation routes in the event of a fire or other emergency. As housing density and population significantly increase, the access and evacuation routes of these hazardous neighborhoods will become even more congested. Dire consequences could result during an emergency when residents are unable to evacuate and fire trucks/paramedics are unable to reach their destinations.

Moreover, the bill makes it very difficult for local jurisdictions to protect these hazardous areas.

Numerous articles incorrectly claim that SB-9 exempts High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. However, the fine print tells a different story.

SB-9 does not directly protect fire hazard severity zones with inadequate and unsafe access and evacuation routes in the event of a fire or other emergency due to the below clause (in blue & bold) from Government Code Section 65913.4, which SB-9 incorporates.

Excerpt from the text of SB-9 (in blue):

“Section 1 (a) (2)

(2) The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.”

This references the below Section 65913.4 in the Government Code regarding the specific prohibited sites:

Excerpt from CHAPTER 4.2 Housing Development Approvals: Government Code Section 65913.4 (in blue):

“(a) A development proponent may submit an application for a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (c) and is not subject to a conditional use permit if the development complies with subdivision (b) and satisfies all of the following objective planning standards:

(6) The development is not located on a site that is any of the following: …

(D) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.”

Any new development would need to comply with fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures. Building standards don’t mandate off-street parking or improve street conditions. So, this section of the bill, which incorporates Government Code Section 65913.4, does nothing to protect hazardous communities with inadequate and unsafe emergency access and evacuation routes.

The only way a jurisdiction can possibly protect hazardous properties with inadequate and unsafe emergency access and evacuation routes is to comply with the following new section that was recently added to the bill.

Excerpt from the text of SB-9 (in blue):

“(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a local agency may deny a proposed housing development project if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.”

So, for every single proposal to up-zone a single-family parcel to 4 units (via SB-9), a jurisdiction would have to make a written finding, based upon a preponderance of evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. This could be very costly.

Moreover, the evaluation of just one single-family parcel (at which a single-family home would be converted into 4 units) at a time, won’t show the true adverse impacts of housing development per SB-9. Cumulative impacts would most likely be necessary. So, a jurisdiction would need to do some sort of environmental or safety assessment for all its single-family zones. Again, this type of broad assessment would be very time consuming and expensive.

Communities in the Wildland Urban Interface, High Fire Hazard Zones, Very High Fire Hazard Zones and Constrained Areas should be automatically exempt from SB-9 but they are not.