All posts by discowk7

Planning

‘Shocking’: The fall of Third Street Promenade, Calif’s once-vibrant outdoor mall

By Paula Mejía : sfgate – excerpt

A unique confluence of factors has stymied the Third Street Promenade, a car-free outdoor mall by the iconic Santa Monica Pier

On a recent Sunday, the glittering coastline buffeting the Santa Monica Pier teemed with throngs of tourists. Visitors tried their hand at carnival games and rides on the waterfront, stopping to snap photos backdropped by the city’s arching blue-and-white sign. Others took in the sunshine while moseying around shops and dive bars around Ocean Avenue, which overlooks the vast azure expanse of the Pacific.

Yet that same liveliness evaporated a mere three blocks over at the city of Santa Monica’s Third Street Promenade. Although the shopping and dining enclave is a car-free, open-air mall not unlike other heavily visited sites including Universal CityWalk and the Grove, only a small handful of people venture over to the outdoor esplanade these days. An estimated 10 million people visit the pier yearly; only a tiny fraction of them appear to be interested in the promenade. The leisurely Adirondack chairs lining the sidewalks sit vacant, the once-plentiful street performers have mostly vanished, and it’s not unusual to spot back-to-back-to-back retail vacancies along each nearly empty block.

It’s all one giant missed opportunity for Santa Monica, the standalone Los Angeles County city with the multimillion-dollar coastline. For decades, the promenade was seen as a masterful reimagining of public space, a rare pedestrian-only area in a region with underperforming public transit and too many cars…(more)

Housing

Joint Legislative Audit Committee to audit HCD Procedures and Oversight

via email from Livablecalifornia

Yesterday, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved a request by Senator Glazer to audit HCD related to Housing Element Reviews, Procedures and Oversight.

Audit scope  It was recommended the State Auditor select no fewer than 10 cities that are diverse in population and geography, and select an equal proportion of cities whose housing elements are in compliance with HCD’s standards, and cities whose housing elements are not in compliance. Adhering to those selection criteria will ensure the audit has a wide breath of data, and the results will better capture the experiences of all cities.

The audit’s scope will include, but is not limited to, the following:

  1. Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and regulations pertinent to the audit’s objectives
  2. Scrutinize how clear HCD’s standards and regulations are for housing elements to begin with. Are HCD’s standards and regulations detailed enough for local governments to apply to their housing elements? Is HCD available for assistance when local governments are completing their initial draft and, if so, what is the median amount of time local governments must wait for assistance?
  3. Assess how responsive HCD has been to local governments. What is the median amount of time and full range of time it takes for HCD to return a set of comments to a jurisdiction? What is the median amount of time and full range of time it takes for HCD to approve a housing element? How do these lengths of time compare to the fifth cycle review period? What is the median amount of occasions a jurisdiction can meet with their reviewer to ask questions?
  4. Measure how many different reviewers evaluate a jurisdiction’s housing element. What is the median number and full range of reviewers
  5. Determine the consistency of HCD’s comments and reviews. How consistent is the feedback between all reviewers assigned to one jurisdiction? How consistent is the feedback on similar topics across multiple jurisdictions?
  6. Evaluate the clarity of HCD’s feedback. Are the reviewer’s comments precise and measurable? Do the comments follow any specific criteria?
  7. Focus on the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing standards and site analysis. In terms of clarity, do the comments related to these standards differ? Are the comments for these new standards precise, measurable, and following specific criteria?
  8. Assess how HCD communicated housing element submission deadlines to local governments. Is there a documented and clear line of communication from HCD on when a local government must submit its housing element for review? How far in advance of the deadline did HCD communicate this, and is it different than past cycles?
  9. Evaluate HCD staffing levels and the turnover rate. Compared to the fifth cycle review period, how many housing element reviewers does HCD have? What is the median amount of time that reviewers work at HCD and how does that compared to the fifth cycle? What is the median amount of time one reviewer stays assigned to the same local government to review their housing element, and how does that compare to the fifth cycle?
  10. Analyze how HCD trains its new and existing staff assigned to review housing elements. How long is a new employee’s initial training and what procedures does training consist of? Does HCD offer additional training to existing staff and, if so, how often? What does the additional training consist of? Does HCD’s training set reviewers up to adequately review housing elements and provide clear comments to local governments?
  11. Review and assess any other issues pertinent to the audit.

Now that the Senator’s request has been approved, it will move to the State Auditor’s Office to conduct the audit and report back to the Legislature. The timing for the audit will be based on the State Auditor’s currently workload, as well as the depth and breadth of the audit request. Currently, the State Auditor is still working on audit requests that were made by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee last year, so it will likely be early 2025 before the audit is complete. In the coming weeks, the State Auditor will update their website and provide an estimated completion date.

Uncategorized

Battle Over San Francisco’s Coastal Development Sparks Statewide Concerns

By Ezra David Romero : kqed – excerpt

A feud over balancing housing needs and preserving the California coast as seas rise is brewing along the western shores of San Francisco.

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced a bill — Senate Bill 951 — in mid-January that aims to remove urban San Francisco from the protections of the California Coastal Commission. He said his bill would “aid cities’ efforts to meet state housing goals by refining the commission’s role in housing approvals and permitting. Removing San Francisco from the commission’s tight regulations is about making it easier to build affordable housing in the city when dealing with a housing crisis.”

The agency regulates land and water use in the coastal zone — the boundary varies, but in San Francisco, it rides the coast and extends a few blocks into the city — including developing and preparing this area for rising sea levels…

The Precedent is dangerous and scary : Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, on the other hand, have ridiculed the plan, saying the bill is shortsighted, favors developers and would limit the commission’s power to prepare the city for future sea-level rise. The Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee approved a resolution opposing Wieners’ bill, and the Board of Supervisors voted by a veto-proof majority to support it.

Board President Aaron Peskin said Wiener overstepped and didn’t have “any idea that there would be this kind of a backlash.”

“The danger here goes far beyond a boundary adjustment in San Francisco County,” he said. “It just signals to developers that they can go to their state senator and start chopping apart one of California’s most cherished pieces of law. The precedent is dangerous and scary, and it’s got to be stopped now.”…(more)

The selling of the state lands is out of control. What will they sell off after the coast? Offshore oil? When do the Democrats stop feeding the gold rush frenzy and get back to governing by the people for the people? See more information on state bills in the works and information on how to fight them: https://discoveryink.wordpress.com/ca-legislative-process/

Sign the petition to stop the non-sense like SB 951 and write the senator to tell him to back off our Pacific coast: https://www.discoveryink.net/?page_id=144

Let Senator Wiener know who you feel about his bills: senator.wiener and consider voting him out of office by supporting his opponent.

Uncategorized

South Bay’s VTA Says It Can’t Back Regional Transit Tax Measure

By Dan Brekke : kqed – excerpt

The South Bay’s main transit agency has come out against a state Senate bill that would pave the way for a 2026 regional tax measure to raise money for the Bay Area’s bus, train and ferry operators and other transportation needs.

In voting last week to oppose SB 1031, known as the Connect Bay Area Act, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority board cited the possibility that putting the measure on the ballot in 2026, which other transit agencies and legislators are pushing for to plug expected budget gaps, could undercut the county’s efforts to get voters to reauthorize existing transportation sales taxes, among other concerns.

Jim Lawson, the VTA’s chief of external affairs, said Santa Clara County sales taxes raise about $900 million a year for transit and transportation in the Bay Area’s most populous county.

“If we do not have the ability to say whether or not this is the right time to put something (new) on the ballot, we have a serious existential problem,” Lawson told the board.

Lawson did not clarify the district’s concerns about the potential election date, and a VTA representative said Monday that the agency “is not prepared to address an election date at this time.”… (more)

CEQA, Housing

SDC Specific Plan set aside by Superior Court for CEQA violations

By Sonoma Sun : sonomasun – excerpt

At the close of a court hearing on April 26, Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Bradford DeMeo ordered that the SDC Specific Plan and EIR approvals be set aside.

In a Press Release, Local environmental groups Sonoma County Tomorrow and Sonoma Community Advocates for a Liveable Environment (SCALE), a coalition of Sonoma Mountain Preservation, Eldridge for All, the Glen Ellen Historical Society, and the Valley of the Moon Alliance, announced they have prevailed in their lawsuit challenging approvals of the Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC) Specific Plan and the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process…

The Court also addressed the lawsuit’s overarching challenge to the Plan regarding its questionable “self-mitigation” approach, ruling that “purported mitigation measures in the Plan are, as a whole, ineffective, vague, and devoid of any semblance of performance standards in violation of CEQA.”…(more)

Housing, Politics

Fees and Lawsuits Fueling California’s Housing Cost Crisis:

California Insider with Jennifer Hernandez 

“Housing is the top target of environmental lawsuits in California. Want to build housing, even put a prefabricated trailer home on your lot? $20,000 for traffic, $20,000 for sewer, $20,000 for electricity, $10,000 for transit, $5,000 for public art, just in fees. San Francisco got up to almost $300,000 per apartment before land, construction, and labor. And many jurisdictions are charging over $100,000”.

The cost of housing has skyrocketed in California. Siyamak sits down with Jennifer Hernandez, a land use, environmental, and civil attorney with 40 years of experience. Join us as we dive into all the components that make the cost of housing much higher in California than in the rest of the nation.

“People don’t believe it’s possible, that it’s legal. But in fact, it is. And it happens all the time. A piece of wood doesn’t need to cost more here than it does in Nevada.”… (more)

 

Uncategorized

Corporate retreat: Big Tech has slashed its office presence in San Francisco by half

By Kevin V. Nguyen : sfstandard – excerpt

The same companies that fueled the city’s last real estate boom are also the ones contributing to its latest bust

In the 2010s, blue-chip tech firms like Uber, Airbnb, Dropbox, Meta and Salesforce spent hundreds of millions of dollars opening glamorous, amenity-filled offices in downtown San Francisco, spurring a building boom that altered the city’s skyline.

After a global pandemic and a wholesale shift to hybrid work, those same firms have retreated en masse—leaving the city’s now hollowed-out downtown to pay the price…

Big Tech’s San Francisco Pullback

San Francisco’s 20 largest tech employers have cut the office space they lease in the city from 16.1 million square feet in 2019 to 8.3 million square feet today.

The 7.8 million square feet left vacant is equal to more than 15 Transamerica Pyramids, five Salesforce Towers and two-and-a-half Apple Parks…(more)

Uncategorized

Court throws out pro-density law SB9

By Braden Cartwright :Padailypost – excerpt

Cities that are against state housing mandates have won their lawsuit against the state of California that challenged a controversial law allowing four homes on properties where only
one home had been allowed before. The ruling means that Senate Bill 9 has been invalidated in charter cities, including Palo Alto, according to the lawyer who won the lawsuit.

“This is a monumental victory for all charter cities in California,” said attorney Pam Lee, who represented five Southern California cities against the state and Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Charter cities have their own local constitution, or charter. California has 121 charter cities, including Palo Alto,
San Mateo, Redwood City and Mountain View… (more)

Now that LA took the lead, how many other cities will follow. San Francisco has the Senator who is doing the most damage. Depending on who wins the next mayoral election, they could oust the Senator and/or join the fight against the stat power grab. Stay tuned.

CEQA, Housing, Planning, Politics

Court Declares Senate Bill 9 Unconstitutional For Charter Cities

From Awattorneys via email:

Aleshire & Wynder, LLP Secures A Legal Win for Restoring Local Control on Housing: Court Rules In Favor of Five California Charter Cities Declaring Senate Bill 9 Unconstitutional

On April 22, 2024 at 11:00 AM, the Honorable Curtis A. Kin in Department 86 of the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a ruling granting a Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 9, as applied to charter cities. Senate Bill 9 requires all California cities to ministerially approve an application for a lot split, and up to four total housing units, on a single family residential lot that meets certain specified criteria.

Five charter cities – Carson, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Del Mar, and Whitter – initiated a lawsuit in early 2022 against the State of California claiming that Senate Bill 9 is unconstitutional and invalid against charter cities. The League of California Cities and the City of Cerritos filed respective amicus briefs in the Trial Court in support of the Charter cities’ position. After extensive briefing and two hearings in Department 86, the Court ruled in favor of the five charter cities. In this litigation, the charter cities are represented by Managing Partner Sunny Soltani, Equity Partner Pam Lee, Partner Michelle Villarreal, and Associate Shukan Patel of Aleshire & Wynder, LLP along with Michael Webb from the Redondo Beach City Attorney’s office

For further information on what this ruling means or how your city can benefit from this decision, please contact Pam Lee at plee or visit awattorneys.com… (more)

And OurNeighborhoodVoices.com

CEQA, Housing, Politics

Judge Pretty Much Shoots Down YIMBY Lawsuit Against SF Over Rejected High-Rise at Nordstrom Parking Lot

By Joe Kukura : sfist – excerpt

A year after the Board of Supervisors forced a proposed 27-story residential tower back to the drawing board, a YIMBY lawsuit against the city has also been forced back to the drawing board, with most of its charges tossed out.

Last Wednesday was the one-year anniversary of a somewhat notorious San Francisco Board of Supervisors vote in favor of an an appeal that denied plans for a 27-story residential high-rise at 469 Stevenson Street (at Sixth Street) in what is currently just a Nordstrom’s parking lot. So on the anniversary, there was a rally at City Hall (complete with gravestones commemorating the development), which the SF Standard described as “Happy One-Year Anniversary to SF’s Peak NIMBY Moment.” But this was not an organic protest, it was more of a campaign stunt handled by the Yes on Prop D campaign.

But also last week, something far more significant happened with the fate of that particular project. The pro-development group SF YIMBY brought a lawsuit against the city in January over the denial, arguing the denial violated that state’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). But last week, it was revealed as reported by the San Francisco Business Times that a San Francisco Superior Court judge pretty much threw out the entire lawsuit.

The Business Times sums up the decision by saying “None of the laws referenced by SF YIMBY, including the HAA and Senate Bill 330, which also seeks to streamline housing development, can apply to the Stevenson project until it completes adequate environmental review under CEQA, the judge wrote.”…

It’s important to remember the supervisors did not “kill” the project, they merely sent it back asking for a better seismic plan. And we should recall this was just four months after Miami’s Surfside condominium collapse that killed 98 people. The developer Build Inc is indeed working on another plan for the property, with seismic upgrades, and it may or may not get appealed again to the board…(more)