Category Archives: Housing

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

URGENT — OPPOSE SB 7

This is an URGENT call to action. SB 7 is a terrible bill, and it needs to be opposed before it’s next heard on 6/26. Letters and calls should be in ASAP. Today if possible.  After a district court ruled against SB9 for Charter Cities, the density dogs have been working on a work around.

RELATED: COURT THROWS OUT PRO-DENSITY LAW SB9

What is the Problem with SB 7? This is a housing bill that makes HCD stronger and RHNA worse. SB7 takes recommendations from a 176 page report — “California’s Housing Future 2040: The Next Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)” — sent to legislators just two months ago, and hastily tries to get them passed into law in the next few weeks.

Through a sneaky process called “gut and amend,” new language has been put into SB 7 — which already passed the Senate in another form — and is now working its way through the Assembly.

No underlying problems of 6th cycle RHNA are addressed. This bill relies on unsubstantiated claims about the state’s housing crisis to justify usurping local control.

The 6th cycle RHNA is not even mid-way through, and all cities are failing its metrics. The solid reasons why are heavily documented — to the point that a housing element audit was recently authorized to examine the process.

The HCD is doing an end run around the audit and any flaws it might uncover; the new language of SB 7 bolsters their powers for 7th cycle RHNA, and they want it done now.

WHAT HCD GETS WITH SB 7:

  • An increase in authority, zero oversight, no transparency
  • Heavier hand against cities, bolstered by new punitive legislation
  • Further control over local zoning control
  • Eliminates the right to appeal RHNA mandates
  • Allows unchecked lobbyist influence
  • Continue to disregard infrastructure costs and other impacts to cities
  • Continue to disregard actual data, including population projections that show California’s numbers flat through 2060
  • Inclusion of open space in their calculation for how much new development a jurisdiction can absorb
  • No requirement to base policy on robust economic theory
  • No requirement to base RHNA mandates on legitimate population projections
  • RHNA allocations will continue to increase market rate housing
  • RHNA will require — but not advance — affordability.
  • Unelected bureaucrats will continue creating policy with no accountability

THIS IS HAPPENING FAST:
SB7 is being rushed through without due diligence.
This “gut and amend” bill bypassed normal deadlines, and showed up at the last minute. In the Senate it was an innocuous bill about group housing.

June 10th: Amended in Assembly
June 18th: Passed Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee
June 26th: Up for a vote in the Local Government committee

your message can be this simple: I OPPOSE SB 7.
Contact for direct representatives are below, they also need to hear from us.

First Last Email Phone
Chair, D Juan Carrillo juan.carrillo (916) 319-2039
V-Chair, R Marie Waldron marie.waldron (916) 319-2075
R Bill Essayli bill.essayli (916) 319-2063
D Matt Haney matt.haney (916) 319-2017
D Ash Kalra ash.kalra (916) 319-2025
D Blanca Pacheco blanca.pacheco (916) 319-2064
D James Ramos james.ramos (916) 319-2045
D Chris Ward assemblymember.Ward (916) 319-2078
D Lori Wilson lori.wilson (916) 319-2011
Chief Cons. Angela Mapp angela.mapp (916) 319-3958

SB 7 Sample Verville letter

Oppose SB 7 or download the editable doc file: Oppose SB 7
Recipients: juan.carrillo@asm.ca.gov, marie.waldron@asm.ca.gov, bill.essayli@asm.ca.gov, matt.haney@asm.ca.gov, ash.kalra@asm.ca.gov,  blanca.pacheco@asm.ca.gov, james.ramos@asm.ca.gov, assemblymember.Ward@assembly.ca.gov, lori.wilson@asm.ca.gov, angela.mapp@asm.ca.gov

Housing, Politics

Could a $20 billion bond measure help solve the Bay Area’s affordable housing crisis?

By ETHAN VARIAN : eastbaytimes – excerpt (audio track)

Bay Area mayors gathered in San Francisco to rally support for the measure

This November, Bay Area voters could decide on an unprecedented bond measure to raise up to $20 billion for as many as 90,000 desperately needed affordable homes across the nine-county region.

Ahead of a crucial vote by a regional agency next week to put the measure on the ballot, the mayors of three of the Bay Area’s largest cities gathered in San Francisco on Thursday to rally support for the proposal.

“If you’re concerned about homelessness, this is the measure to support,” San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said. “If you’re concerned about the high cost of housing and the high cost of living, this is the measure to support.”

San Francisco Mayor London Breed and Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín were also at the event, held at an affordable housing complex near the Chase Center arena in San Francisco’s Mission Bay neighborhood.

Absent was Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was a no-show after the FBI raided her home early Thursday morning.

Across the Bay Area, some 1.4 million residents — 23% of all renters — spend more than half their income on rent, according to regional officials. Meanwhile, an estimated 37,000 people in the region are homeless on any given night — more than the entire population of Menlo Park…

The bond would be funded by a new tax on businesses and homes. For a $20 billion bond, the tax would come to $19 per $100,000, or about $190 a year for a home with an assessed value of $1 million…

As it stands now, the bond measure would need a two-thirds majority of all Bay Area voters to pass. However, if a measure on the same November ballot to make it easier to pass tax measures is approved, the bond measure would need only 55% approval.

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck a separate measure from the ballot that could have mandated a two-thirds majority… (more)

If the bill passes inflationary the  spending spiral will go up another racket pushing all prices higher instead of allowing them to level off. Taxes will go into increased rents and so the circle will continues to spiral out of control.

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

OPINION: What the Judges and the LA Times Got Wrong About The Venice Median Project (and Why it Ain’t Over Till it’s Over)

Opinion By Charles Rosin : westsidecurrent – excerpt (includes audio)

VENICE – We seriously doubt whether the Op-Ed writers who penned last week’s editorial for the ideologically-driven LA Times praising Judge Richard Fruin’s dispiriting dismissal of our CEQA case have ever opted to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon in summer exploring what a recent poll in Travel and Leisure described as ‘America’s Favorite Beach.’

How else can you explain the Op-Ed writers’ description of our area’s last parcel of open space– a large, 2.65-acre, parking lot designed to accommodate carloads of working-class families from Inglewood, DTLA, and other land-locked enclaves who flock to Venice Beach to make memories and find relief from the swelter– as “one of those rare open swaths of land that city officials dream of using for homeless and affordable-housing”.

Really? That’s what these people dream about? No vicarious images of little kids at the shore with a shovel and pail? Or proud grandparents pushing strollers down Ocean Front Walk? Or couples unloading their canoe for a romantic paddle down the Linnie Canal?

It makes us wonder if any of these city officials ever wake up in the middle of the night from a recurring nightmare; tracking what could happen when you build a massive (and massively expensive) 140-unit “affordable” housing project, on an environmentally-fraught juncture on The Venice Median, one half-block from the beach, predicted by the EPA to be particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise?

And while dreaming, do the city officials who enabled this project ever get swamped by visions of coastal flooding impacting their newly constructed Venice-Dell Community? (Ironically, designed as a fortress to be cut off from its surrounding communities which would provide “shelter from the storm”). …

And since The Times insists affordable housing is “desperately needed” in our part of town, how about assigning one of the few real reporters left on its staff to delve into how 1200 units of taxpayer-funded projects can sit empty in a city that is ostensibly “all-hands-on-deck”, as first reported in a stunning bit of investigative journalism provided by Chris LeGras and Jamie Page for the Westside Current…

As with its previous editorials, what passes these days as the Times’s Braintrust opted to give Venice Community Housing’s Executive Director, Becky Dennison, free-reign expressing her frustration with City-Attorney Hydee Soto Feldstein’s decision to halt all work on the project by the city’s Department of Transportation and its Bureau of Engineering until the two law suits we filed on behalf of The Coalition for Safe Coastal Development had been resolved, or settled in mediation…

Mayor Bass does not deserve to be attacked, but praised for her tireless commitment to work with numerous City Council Members, to reduce encampments on our streets, parks, and public spaces while transitioning the willing into shelters and other arrangements.

We here at Safe Coastal also have great admiration for Mayor Bass’s role as a prime supporter of a new and improved replacement to the state’s soon-to-expire and problematic CEQA exemption. AB785, which the Governor signed into law in 2023, includes many of the exemptions housing advocates want, while excluding construction within a mapped FEMA 100-year flood zone. (**)…(more)

 

 

 

Housing, Planning, Politics

Controversial proposed San Francisco tower is no more

By Kendra Smith : sfgate – excerpt

The developer has withdrawn permit applications for the hotly debated 50-story tower near SF’s Ocean Beach

A proposed 50-story tower in San Francisco that caused a stir when its permit applications were filed last year will not be built. According to an email sent on May 21 by a manager at developer CH Planning, LLC, to San Francisco Planning, which was obtained by SFGATE, the company is withdrawing all existing applications filed since December 2021 for its 2700 Sloat Blvd. property…

CH Planning had submitted several plans for residential buildings at the site over the years — but none were so controversial as the proposed 589-foot skyscraper in the city’s Outer Sunset neighborhood. The building would have been 316% taller than the area’s zoning regulations allow for, according to a response from city staff to the developer’s proposal. It also did not comply with the city’s planning code, and would have required rezoning in the area in order to be built.

But it wasn’t just the city that had words to share about the proposed tower. A group called Save our Neighborhoods San Francisco launched a petitionwith nearly 4,000 signatures asking the city to stop the development — even though it hadn’t yet been approved. The petition also asked the city to “create a vision and plan for SF that enhances our neighborhoods, and not allow randomly placed towering complexes.”…

The developer is selling the site to a nonprofit buyer that will build eight stories of affordable housing on the site, the San Francisco Chronicle reports… (more)

People want to know what the numbers are. Here are some numbers. 4,000 signatures get noticed. If it really important to pool our resources and support and to do the work to stop or support government plans for our lives. To that end, please review this site for actions you may take on causes you are “mad as hell” about: https://votersrevenge.wordpress.com/

 

Housing, Politics

Real estate investors snatching up record share of affordable homes, report finds

By FOX TV Digital Team : livenowfox – excerpt (includes video)

U.S. Mortgage rates jump above 7%

Homeownership has slipped out of reach for millions of Americans amid an astronomical rise in mortgage rates and an ongoing inventory shortage.

Adding to the list of challenges for potential homebuyers in the United States: Investors and hedge funds are also snatching up properties.

In fact, new findings from Redfin suggest it has been happening at the fastest pace in nearly two years.

Real-estate investors bought about 44,000 homes in the first quarter of 2024, up half a percent from the previous year – the first increase since 2022. The gain was primarily driven by an uptick in purchases of single-family homes…

Investors buying record share of most affordable homes, too…(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.

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)

 

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)