By Emily Hoeven : sfchronicle – excerpt

California Democrats haven’t had to worry about being relevant in a long, long time.

A Republican hasn’t won statewide office in California since 2006, and Democrats control a supermajority of seats in the state Legislature. So dominant are Democrats that, if they were to face a serious threat, it wouldn’t be from the withered California Republican Party. It would be from Democrats themselves, whose votes this week on high-profile criminal justice and housing bills sent a glaring signal that some members are increasingly willing to sacrifice everyday Californians on the altar of ideology.

Perhaps the most egregious example came Tuesday, when Democrats in the Assembly Public Safety Committee killed a bill that would have classified human trafficking of minors as a “serious” felony, adding it to the list of crimes under California’s three strikes law that results in longer sentences for repeat offenders.

The committee chairperson, Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer of Los Angeles, noted that human trafficking can already result in lengthy sentences and can be classified as a “serious” crime under certain conditions, such as if great bodily injury was inflicted on the victim.

This reasoning — child trafficking should only be considered “serious” if the victim endures additional horrifying circumstances on top of being trafficked — illuminates how far some Democrats are willing to go to uphold ideological principles that, when carried to their logical extreme, are no longer morally defensible.

Understandably determined to avoid repeating California’s failed history of mass incarceration, many Democrats are now wary of increasing penalties for any crime, even the most egregious. This has resulted in stances that are almost impossible to justify…(more)

By Thomas Soper AIA

Downtown view from the former Carnelian Room in the Bank of America Building

There are too many variables in architecture and urban planning to offer a “one size fits all” statement on re-purposing Office buildings downtown, but certainly, converting vacant downtown space is a watershed topic. Today, we have politicians and a public who want quick answers but have simplistic opinions on the subject and it becomes counter-productive to opine to convince politicians to do the right thing. It’s a little like how the YIMBY’s have succeeded (temporarily) with their simplistic views in convincing City hall to do the wrong things.

We have to ask the right questions. My advice is for the City to do the right thing which is to convert as much of the vacant office space downtown as soon as possible in a systematic and rational way, using the best practices of independent professions who know-how. That’s the bottom line because this crisis involves multiple emergencies, one of which we have never faced before and the sum total is an existential threat. That has to be the first and foremost objective to spearhead a consensus to address the pernicious urban decay that has taken hold downtown. Few want to be there. The exodus is real. The loss of tax base is real. The list goes on.

The reason I say pernicious is that I lived and first practiced in downtown Detroit during which it almost recovered in the mid 70’s. I witnessed first hand this scale of crisis. While the social causes of Detroit’s urban decay are different, Detroit’s coup de grace is becoming San Francisco’s fatal mistake: lack of leadership, factionalism, bureaucracy and absence of knowledge. We were forced to tear up our roots, endure the set-back and landed in SF.

On the brighter side, Gensler SF has done some recent investigations into converting office buildings into residential apartments. They would be a good local source for a more rational and hopefully a comprehensive perspective. It is also important to note that NYC is way ahead of SF in these proposals because it has both less factionalism and something call rent stabilization, not control. NYC is not a provincial town.

Let me illustrate why room height is off target for convincing others: I did two new office high rises in SF in the mid 80’s. For these two buildings the floor to floor height was 12′-6″. Take away 3 feet for structure and office HVAC leaves a ceiling of about 9’-6”. But this rule of thumb would be different if the building’s structural system was concrete. At the same time, I don’t view ceiling height as the most challenging in terms of conversion. But I caution you because there are many criteria that need to all be satisfied. Each building has to be quickly evaluated by a team of experts.

Ceiling heights are in general malleable in office buildings because apartment HVAC systems are smaller and are often put on the outside walls for fresh air make up. Back to minimum ceiling height, the code says that closets, kitchen and bathrooms can be as low as 7′-0″ and they don’t require natural light. This means these rooms must occupy space farther away from facades where natural light can enter.

I think that the BMR ceilings, other than closets, kitchens and bathrooms, in the “habitable” rooms are generally adequate up to 9′-0″ for residential use. But ceiling height is also a function of the plan dimensions of the room: the bigger the room, the higher the ceiling usually wants to be.

There are other more critical criteria that are more difficult to overcome:

1. Natural light and ventilation minimum requirements are written in the Code. There is a formula for minimum window sizes for all rooms other than closets, kitchens, and bathrooms.
2. Commercial building footprint typically occupy the entire parcel. Many office buildings are built right up to the interior lot lines facing other buildings with only one façade facing the street which must deliver all the natural light required by code.This is a worst case scenario but makes conversion into housing more challenging.
3. Structural column bay size and office building floor depth (horizontal) are deeper than apartment depth for natural light reasons. There are a number of ways that this can be mitigated, such as carving out large light wells but, that involves “orthopedic, pulmonary, and cosmetic surgery”.

So you are probably thinking, conversion might be too costly. Not necessarily so. The unit cost might be higher ($/sf) but less area is affected with conversion. The proper comparison is this: the total cost of conversion will likely be less than the total cost of whole scale demolition and stating all over again with new construction. (always compare “apples to apples”). When you think about it, renovation doesn’t require a new foundation, it doesn’t require too many new columns and maybe a new skin. Demolition is relatively less expensive by unit cost. These conversions would be a different paradigm, more like the medical analogy above.

Finally, why do this new kind of “surgery” on the office buildings to solve our multiple crisis today?

1. It’s not so new. Many Architects are well versed in these techniques. Politicians are not. Case in point: City Hall is base-isolated and I have never heard a politician mention it after the dedication ceremony.
2. It’s very likely cheaper to renovate when compared to tearing down and building back up.
3. These conversions can be designed to be reversible when the balance of office space comes back (or not)
4. We must shift rapidly to Type 4 construction where possible and design by code allowing for performance criteria and alternate means provisions. We have these skills readily available.
5. Here’s the big environmental argument. Concrete is by far the most deleterious material to Global warming. Steel is second. Renovation greatly minimizes this.

We might survive the BMR housing crisis by building with reckless abandon new units, but we will most certainly lose the existential crisis by using new construction. Renovation is the priority for all forms of construction for at least the next 10 years if not longer.

Thomas Soper AIA

Architect

P 1.415.902.9457

F 1.415.566.0465

RELATED:

PODCASTS / MULTIMEDIA

Bloomberg’s Odd Lots Podcast: What It Really Takes to Convert an Office Building Into Apartments

[7-6-23] // Joe Weisenthal & Tracy Alloway speak with Joey Chilelli, who has been involved with conversion projects for a decade. They discuss the challenges involved in actually pulling off these complex projects. (46 min.)

See also companion story.

By John Mirisch : citywatch – excerpt

LA TRANSPO – TOD is an acronym. As with many acronyms, it has numerous potential meanings. Time of day. Tour of duty. Terms of delivery. For Indiana Jones fans, Temple of Doom. Truth or dare. The other day. Transfer on death. To name just a few.

But for metropolitan hipsters, Urban Growth Machine acolytes, density fetishists, and other developer shills, TOD can mean one thing and one thing only: transit-oriented development…

It is refreshing for TOD advocates to openly admit that transit was always only a “pretense” for “transit-oriented development.”

With that mask now off, Professor Manville continues:…

“Whatever the benefits of TOD are to residents, the benefits to developers all but ensure that state and local programs to promote TOD will stick around.”

So, TOD was never meant to benefit the residents. It was always meant to benefit developers. Transit-oriented development was always developer-oriented development all along. TOD is really DOD…

“It’s [TOD projects] also close to other things. It’s close to groceries, schools, hospitals, senior centers. The transit stops aren’t in the middle of nowhere. They’re around other stuff. So, the benefit of having that stuff is good for more than just people riding trains to get to work.”

So here we have “stuff-oriented development,” or SOD…

The word “Tod” (roughly pronounced “toad”) in German means “death.” TOD is dead. Long live DOD!

(John Mirisch was elected to the Beverly Hills City Council in 2009 and has served three terms as mayor. He is currently a garden-variety councilmember, and a contributor to CityWatchLA.com.)…(more)

By Will Swaim : californiapolicycenter – excerpt
We’ve seen Gov. Gavin Newsom impose questionable — even dangerous and illegal — policies by declaring states of emergency or merely “crisis” with regard to Covid, climate and energy. He’s done it again on the issue of housing. The problems of housing affordability and homelessness constitute a crisis so compelling, the governor says, that they can be solved only by forcing cities to permit the construction of 2.5 million new homes by 2030.

Huntington Beach has refused to go along with the state’s demand that the city approve construction of 13,368 new homes.

In response, on March 9, the state sued Huntington Beach.
“The message we’re sending to the city of Huntington Beach is simple: Act in good faith, follow the law and do your part to increase the housing supply,” Bonta said in announcing the suit. “If you don’t, our office will hold you accountable.”

Within hours of the state’s lawsuit, Huntington Beach fired back. In a federal lawsuit, the city accuses the state of violating California and U.S. constitutional laws through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process…

Huntington Beach says its claims are “novel and complex.” We do our best to offer a summary of those claims here, but there’s no substitute for reading the city’s lawsuit itself, which you can find here.…(more)

1. Violates California Constitution Art. XI (Charter City)
2. Violates the First Amendment speech rights of cities, city officials, and residents
3. Violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
4. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) regulatory process is broken
5. Violates California Constitution Art. XI (Due Process)
6. Violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

By Dan Bacher : kailykos – excerpt

Portions of the Governor’s proposed Trailer Bills that would significantly weaken the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) could be approved as early as this week. Tell the Governor we reject his secretive trailer bill effort, which excludes public input and evades the democratic process. We provide a suggestedphone/email script below but encourage you to use your own words.

TAKE ACTION: You can call the Governor’s office at 916-445-2841 or email through the portal at Contact the Governor. Additionally, please tell your elected representatives in the State Legislature to Keep CEQA Strong. Remind them that a strong CEQA is vital to protecting public health and the environment, advancing California’s urgent climate priorities, and giving disadvantaged communities a voice in local land use decisions. Please find your state legislators and write or call them today.

SUGGESTED SCRIPT
“I’m deeply concerned about Governor Newsom’s infrastructure trailer bills, which include provisions that would greatly weaken the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). They would, as a practical matter, take away the ability of small nonprofits, including those that advocate for environmental justice and protecting clean air and water, to bring citizen suits to enforce environmental laws. Communities that are most heavily burdened by environmental injustice, which are often low-income, could find it impossible to enforce CEQA in court because of the increased costs that could be associated with gathering the administrative record. Endangered species, water in the Delta, and pollution-burdened communities would be damaged by many of the proposals in the Governor’s infrastructure trailer bill package. Finally, I object to this process: there is no need to rush consideration of the Governor’s drastic measures in a budget trailer bill instead of through the normal Legislative process.”…(more)

I belive this news publisher is fairly left of center on most things. The governor is not putting anything over on his environmental or social rights advocates with his tactics. I belive is has managed to bridget he gap between richt and left wing politicians in a way that few have. No one like his manuevers.

SF Mayor London Breed is trying similar tactics that may also backfire on her. Forcing half the city to take the developer remedy pill before the devleoper even asks for it is going outsdie the bounds of reason for most people who are watching the dimise of a once wonderful city under her watch.

GrowSF via email:

San Francisco real estate development is in a weird spot. While San Francisco has been tasked by the State with accommodating at least 82,000 new homes, the million bureaucratic barriers to building housing, slowing demand, and high construction costs are all combining into a perfect storm of total gridlock.

Just 8 new homes have been permitted each month in 2023, writes Marcus White in the Examiner. This is far below the 854 per month required to meet our growth goals.

If San Francisco government can’t repeal the laws blocking housing, we will forfeit local control of land use to the State in about five years. Better get building.

By Gennady Sheyner : Palo Alto Weekly – (via email)

State Sen. Josh Becker also took a position against SB 423, a housing bill that moved ahead Wednesday

With the state Senate hitting its deadline for passing bills this week, Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park, saw his legislation on renewable energy, carbon renewal, data privacy and prison canteen costs all clear the upper chamber over the past week.

But Becker’s support was conspicuously absent on the year’s most contentious housing bill of the current session, Senate Bill 423, which would extend and modify the 2017 law that created a streamlined approval process for housing development in communities that had failed to meet the state’s housing mandate.

Authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, SB 423 is a successor to SB 35, also authored by Wiener. It extends the streamlining provisions until 2036, adds various new provisions pertaining to labor standards and removes exemptions for coastal areas. Palo Alto is among the cities that have formally opposed the bill, which cleared the Senate by a 29-5 vote. Becker, who abstained from voting, said in an interview he did not support the bill because it does not address the true barrier to building affordable housing: insufficient financing.

He noted that most of the cities in his district have met or exceeded their goals for total housing units in the last Regional Housing Needs Assessment cycle, which concluded last year, even as many fell well short when it comes to below-market-rate housing. The key to building more affordable housing is more investment of state funds, he said.

“Instead of removing local control over planning decisions, California needs to provide the financial support needed to ensure that critically needed affordable housing can be built,” Becker said in an interview. “ B 423 doesn’t help get us there.”…

By The Editorial Board : ocregister – excerpt

Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom made an unusually substantive legislative push by unveiling a plan to help speed up infrastructure projects by, among other things, finally taking on the California Environmental Quality Act.

Business groups have responded favorably to the governor’s plan to streamline certain construction projects and speed up judicial reviews.

“For too long, special interest groups have weaponized CEQA to delay, scale back, or halt projects altogether for reasons unrelated to the environment,” said California Chamber of Commerce CEO Jennifer Barrera. “Streamlining CEQA for clean energy, water and transportation infrastructure, as well as more directly for the construction of new housing, can be achieved with environmental protections that help to restore the statute’s original intent.”

But lawmakers weren’t particularly moved to act on the governor’s proposals and environmentalist groups are pressuring lawmakers to halt any action on the proposals for now.

In a letter from a coalition of environmental groups critical of Newsom’s plan dated June 3, the governor is criticized for “short-circuiting the regular legislative process for new significant policy proposals” by trying to get his plan through by way of budget trailer bills.

Incidentally, these groups are right to note the abuse of the trailer bill process. From a simple good government perspective it has been troubling that the state has often preferred to use state budget trailer bills to ram through proposals that should go through the legislative process for public vetting… (more)