Search The Tattler

Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Council Punts on 47th Street Homes Project: Unstoppable in Wake of New Sacramento Law?

Tonight the City Council threw out a decision on the controversial 47th Street Homes project based on a lack of knowledge when the application was completed.   The date is important because the State of California has passed several laws protecting ‘upzoning’ or increasing density, as the 47th Street project would do.  At issue are SB 330 provisions that would make it more difficult for the Council to vote NO to the project.  Council member John Bauters asked staff to report on when the application was “deemed complete” because if that could be determined to be before the passage of Sacramento’s SB 330, then presumably more lax and defensible findings against the project could be made.  The staff was directed to find the application date and return the project to a future meeting.

100 year old Craftsman Homes would be
replaced with this.

The project was recently declined by the Planning Commission based on their finding that the existing homes are affordable and the replacements would be unaffordable, a fact the applicant, Forbes Development, admits.  But that finding might not be an acceptable one to turn down the project now that SB 330 is the law of the land.  The Council also had previously said NO to 47th Street Homes, in January due to the project's transitioning of the neighborhood from affordable to unaffordable.  

The action tonight indicates the Council believes they will have a difficult time voting NO to the 47th Street Homes project with the new rules in effect, barring a clear calendar impediment.  This could serve as a signal to developers to start tearing down existing homes all over the Triangle neighborhood and North Emeryville, the last stands of affordable single family detached homes in Emeryville, a clear goal of California Senate Bill 330.

3 comments:

  1. They need to get a spine and vote this down.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Having a spine would mean a vote to support increased housing density instead of cowering in fear of NIMBYs trying to "preserve their neighborhood character".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that's what having a spine is, then the council members have spines of steel. Never once have they ever voted to preserve a home in one of our General Plan mandated 'areas of stability'. They have always said NO to the neighbors and NO to the General Plan and YES to every developer wanting to tear down. So, as you can see, this Council has super strong spines. They don't need encouragement from you but you're certainly welcome to make comments at the Tattler.

      Delete