Housing density proponents and opponents are making a lot of noise about SB 9. I am going to break down the controversial bill into three posts. This post addresses SB 9’s changes to California’s Planning and Zoning Law. The next two posts will cover the impact of SB 9 on the Subdivision Map Act, CEQA, and California Coastal Act, and what we are hearing from proponents and opponents of the legislation.

Measure B would have phased out power generation from the AES site, and would have established new land use and development standards for the site by amending the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Harbor/Civic Center Specific Plan, Coastal Zoning, Zoning, and City Charter. The new land use would have allowed 600 residential units, 85,000 square feet of commercial development, 250 hotel rooms and require 10 acres of public open space.

Cities have since struggled to find an effective alternative to finance blight-fighting projects.  In September 2014, Governor Brown signed into law SB 628, allowing public agencies to create a new redevelopment-like creature called an “Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District” (“EIFD”).  The law, which should help kick-start dormant projects and transform land into more productive uses, enables local agencies to fund infrastructure and community revitalization projects using tax increment revenue.   

There is much room for improvement on the part of California and its municipalities in the revitalization of the business climate. It remains to be seen whether LA’s business tax cut will convince businesses to stay, especially considering the impending minimum wage hike. One clear lesson is that cities cannot remain complacent when friendlier states like Texas and Florida come knocking on the doors of their most profitable businesses.