Apparently, my opponent, Brinner doesn’t understand the harmful impacts SB 9 will have on our community. That is why she is touting her recent endorsement of Toni Atkins who is the author of SB 9. There is nothing “fake” about the effects that this misguided State legislation will have which does NOTHING to provide affordable housing.
Brinner claims that “lies” and false statements have been spread about her positions. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have merely stated the true facts about SB 9 and its potential impacts. Brinner has promoted the benefits of SB 9 and has even lamented that Solana Beach did not go far enough by expanding its application throughout the City of Solana Beach.
Brinner has consistently urged that more transparency and public participation is required in the City. However, SB9 completely eliminates public hearings and public participation. Permits can be obtained simply over the counter (ministerial) without any notice to neighbors or potential for public input. It appears she has changed her mind on the need for public participation.
Brinner mistakenly claims that the City of Solana Beach has “adopted SB 9.” That is wrong. SB 9 is a state law, and the City has adopted Ordinance 521 which is a real effort to make new housing more affordable. She makes numerous misguided claims in an attempt to minimize the negative effects that SB 9 can have on a neighborhood.
She creates a red herring argument by correctly stating that two homes on a lot are ‘ALREADY ALLOWED” in some areas of Solana Beach. This irrelevant tidbit of information has nothing to do with the discussion of SB 9 and its impacts. She then provides a map showing the areas affected by SB 9 in District 2. She fails to note that any homes built under SB 9 need only provide one parking place per home. More strikingly, she also omits that homes within one half mile of the train station need provide NO PARKING. Much of District 2 is within this area. She completely ignores what a huge impact a resident of a single family residence will suffer when a next-door neighbor develops their property with the four homes allowed under SB 9 with little or no parking.
Brinner tries to minimize the number of properties that will actually be divided under SB 9 allegedly due to space restrictions. However, many of the homes in District 2 have large rear yards and could easily avail themselves of the benefits of developing two more homes in their backyards without the need to demolish an existing residence. It is strange, indeed, to trumpet the benefits of SB 9 and then argue that somehow very few people will actually use it. Regardless of how many owners utilize SB 9 to develop 4 homes on their formerly single family lot, if it is right next door, it is VERY REAL to you.
She also claims that few professional real estate developers will use SB 9 due to the requirement that at least one owner of the lot remain in one of the dwelling units. But, she fails to point out that the owner is only required to state “an intention” to remain for 3 years from the date of the over the counter approval of the lot split. Intentions can change, and it is questionable what the penalty might be for changing one’s mind. Plus, the intention need only last for a period of 3 years when the designing and construction of homes can easily take 2-3 years. This section of SB 9 is unenforceable and unrealistic. The bottom line is that the “intention” requirement provides no protection to neighbors from the impacts of a SB 9 development in their neighborhood.
Brinner even claims that larger homes could be permitted if the applicant agrees to provide larger setbacks than required by SB 9. This speculative theory completely ignores the fact that SB 9 won’t allow for the relaxation of the four foot maximum setback requirements for side and rear yards. More importantly, Brinner used to argue in favor of affordability in support of her SB 9 position. How are the 2,000 square foot homes she suggests more affordable than the 825 square foot homes allowed under our City Ordinance 521? Obviously, she is no longer concerned about affordability for our local workers.
The bottom line is that the impacts of SB 9 are very REAL and not fake.