Category Archives: Housing

CEQA, Housing, Politics

The Yimbys think they rule—but there are some serious signs to the contrary

By Zelda Bronstein : 48hills – excerpt

The case against the case against “The Case Against Yimbyism.”

Are the wheels starting to come off the Yimby bandwagon?

The question may seem absurd. Last December, Yimbys took over the Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, which for the first time endorsed CEQA-hating Scott Wiener. In late February, Yimbys closed out their 2024 annual conference, an event that attracted 600 “red” and “blue” attendees and garnered coverage hailing the movement’s growing bipartisan support.

The Biden administration’s 2024 Economic Report of the President, released on March 24, claims that “zoning reform” will increase the supply of affordable housing and cites as a model, among other examples, California’s RHNA process. Meanwhile, the Yimby mystique continues to enthrall the California Legislature, as indicated by the Terner Center’s survey of current “pro-housing” bills, whose targets include development impact fees and environmental protections for the California coast…

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (Dem) vetoes a major Yimby bill…According to Hobbs’ office, the Department of Defense and the Professional Fire Fighters Association of Arizona asked her to veto the bill. “These groups,” wrote Barchenger, “cited concerns about development in noisy or ‘accident potential zones’ near Arizona’s military installations, and difficulty in responding to emergencies if density is increased, respectively.”…

The New Republic publishes an attack on Yimbyism… Moreover, “[Yimbys] are…explicit that deregulation won’t help those at the bottom of the market.”…

“Social” housing with profitability…Contra Friedrich, Resnikoff maintains that “Yimbys support a mix of [market and non-market policies.” For example, California Yimby “has sponsored social housing legislation,” specifically Alex Lee’s failed 2022 bill AB 2053…

But the real thrust of AB 2053, as Calvin Welch has explained, was to create a state agency, the California Housing Authority, “able to overrule or ignore local housing policy and issue debt for new housing construction.” As stated in the bill, the agency’s “core mission” was “to produce and acquire social housing developments for the purpose of eliminating the gap between housing production and regional housing needs assessment targets and to preserve affordable housing.”…(more)

This is only a taste of what the article covers. Please read the entire article and spread the message far and wide that the grass is not greener in San Francisco and we are not beating to a WIMBY drum. The results of gentrification and densification have lead San Francisco into debt, not glory. Our future lies in a strong pivot back to our strong historic neighborhood roots. We must save what is left of the heart and soul of San Francisco. As President Peskin said, “We do not have to destroy San Francisco to save it.” Fortunately many of our mayoral candidates agree with that sentiment.

CEQA, Housing, Planning

Wiener and Alvarez attack the Pacific Coastline

Petition to stop SB 951: There is a bill in the State Senate, SB 951, authorized by Scott Wiener, sponsored by Mayor Breed, to streamline housing development near Ocean Beach by slicing off a piece of San Francisco from the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (CCC). Critics say that, at best, it pushes a solution looking for a problem and, at worst, it benefits developers and the real estate sector, and it  sets a bad precedent that could undermine future environmental protections that have been in place for about 50 years. Petition to stop SB 951:  Share the link!
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/no-on-sb-951-keep-california-coastline-open-and-accessible-2

THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTIONS TO STOP THIS ATTACK!

Please let everyone know about this.

Senator Scott Wiener is also going after the California Coastal Commission’s  jurisdiction over what is left of a small strip of San Francisco’s Pacific coastline with another gem, SB 951.  Mayor Breed is a sponsor of this bill.  The Coastal Commission and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors took immediate action to stop the bill that many feel threatens the entire Pacific Coast with unlimited development by Passing Peskin’s Resolution # 240065 opposing SB 951 – Opposing California State Senate Bill No. 951 (Wiener) Unless Amended and Expressing Support for the California Coastal Act and Recognizing the Authority of the California Coastal Commission.

Please support the opposition to this bill. SB951 is scheduled for a hearing on April 9 in the Senate Natural Resources  and Water Committee.  Letters need to be submitted to the committee by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 28.

SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP SB 951 AND ALL BILLS THAT PROTECT OUR CALIFORNIA COASTLINE! CON SIDER WHICH MAYORAL CANDIDATE WILL SUPPORT THIS RESOLUITON!

Assemblymember Alvarez of San Diego has extended the threat of development to the entire Coast of California with AB 2560. Senator Wiener, SPUR and the Bay Area Council are sponsors of this bill. 

AND: We now have SB 1037 – the “Make the NIMBYS pay Act!” 
and Planning and Zoning: housing element: enforcement.
Another Scott Wiener Bill as if we need another reason to boot him out of office. As if we needed another one! Calmatters explains it here:
https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240sb1037?slug=CA_202320240SB1037

Another site that is fighting the anti-car bills: https://ww2.motorists.org/ca/

Lawmakers also took on affordable housing. CalMatters housing reporter Ben Christopher writes that Attorney General Rob Bonta and San Francisco Sen. Scott Wiener, both Democrats, rolled out a new bill Wednesday that would put the financial squeeze on cities found by a court to have violated state housing law.

Supporters might call it the “Make NIMBYs Pay” Act.

Sponsored by Bonta’s office and introduced by Wiener, the bill would require courts to slap scofflaw cities with a minimum fine of $10,000 per month. The cities would begin racking up legal debt starting on the day they stop following the law.

Currently courts can only start tacking on monetary penalties after giving cities at least 60 days to come into compliance. Wiener, on social media: “Cities thus have no incentive to avoid a lawsuit by following the law. Worst case, they get sued, lose & comply. SB 1037 creates actual incentives to comply with the law.”

All About Senator Weiner: https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/legislators/scott-wiener-100936

 

CEQA, Housing, Planning, Politics

SENATOR WIENER ATTACKS SF

For some reason, State Senator Scott Wiener has chosen to go after his constituents in a way that is somewhat astonishing. Does he believe that we are masochists and appreciate being punished or is he so sure that he can win by buying the loyalty of deep pockets who can convince the voters that he is on their side?

In 2023  Senator Wiener started to write legislation targeted directly at  San Francisco: In a last-minute amendment to SB 423 Scott injected annual reviews of San Francisco’s progress on housing—making it the only jurisdiction in the state receiving elevated scrutiny. All others have four year reviews.  See article in SF Standard about SB 423. 

In 2024 Scott is continuing to attack San Francisco:   He introduced SB1227 to exempt downtown projects from the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, for a decade. The 1970 landmark law requires studies of a project’s expected impact on air, water, noise and other areas.  Wiener’s excuse is that the city has used CEQA to slow down or kill infill development near public transit  and that no environment  damage can be done to a concrete jungle.  See article in SF Standard about SB 1227

page link

CEQA, Housing

‘Terrified’: Latest billionaire acquisition in Carmel sets off alarm bells

By Andrew Pridgen : sfgate – excerpt

You haven’t heard about AB 2560 yet!!! It will allow density bonus projects (think Sloat) in our coastal zones!!! For the entire state.  Carmel’s coastal zone goes 1 mile in from the beach. Holy holy holy. Attached is the SB 951 letter sent to all local electeds on the coast. Next is my draft of the next one that includes AB2560. WAKE UP!! I’ll have to reach out to Carmel directly. I met some of them at the League meeting last year and they 100% were supporting ONV.

Carmel-by-the-Sea is being quickly bought up by Monaco billionaire who reportedly wants to ‘crush everyone’

On the surface, the La Rambla building in Carmel checks the box of nearly every ideal associated with the tiny village by the sea: It’s a two-story Spanish-style stucco building built in 1929, with space for retail on the ground floor and a pair of apartments on the second level, both featuring Juliet balconies facing the street.

Located on the corner of Lincoln Street and Ocean Avenue in the heart of the village’s main commercial corridor, the building’s defining feature is a courtyard, a little hideaway from the street that is decorated with a variety of tiles and hand-carved stone urns.

The building’s seemingly innocuous January sale for $7.5 million — the property was originally listed by local real estate agent Tim Allen for $9 million in 2020 — has stirred some into action here. Why? Because it was yet another cherished spot scooped up by Patrice Pastor, the Monaco billionaire who has quietly been accumulating more than a dozen such favored properties in Carmel, including the L’Auberge Carmel Hotel, the Brown-Spaulding Building and the Eastwood Building, over the past nine years…(more)

This looks like another addition to the coastline under threat by the Wiener anti-SF bill SB 951. You can line them up down the California coast and see the Miami towers coming unless some actions to stop it are taken soon. Wonder how much the owners donated to Scott’s lobbying efforts support SB 951, through a PR firm no doubt.

deregulated housing bills, Housing

Developer wants to ‘supersize’ S.F. project under new state housing law — while it ’s being built

By Laura Waxmann : sfchronicle – excerpt

Oakland developer oWow is the latest builder planning to “supersize” a previously approved project in San Francisco due to a recent change in state law.

An application filed with the city’s Planning Department on Wednesday proposes updates to the design of 960 Howard St. in the Central SoMa neighborhood, which, in recent years, was approved for redevelopment into a three-story creative office building with a 9-story, 113-unit residential addition.

Developer oWow purchased the site, that was long home to a small industrial building, in 2019 and has nearly completed the three-story office component of the plan. It is now seeking to add a total of 16 stories of high density housing.

“The approved 113 units will not achieve a product that meets the returns that anybody would want to invest in today to get that project started,” said Danny Haber, oWow’s CEO and co-founder. “It is not financially feasible.”

The new plan proposes a total of 274 rental units. If approved and constructed as currently designed, the project would provide 158 studio apartments and 116 two-bedroom apartments. Out of the total proposed apartments, 42 units would be designated as affordable housing while the remaining units would be rented at market rates.

Per the application filed Thursday, the approved three-story office building would serve as the base of the residential tower — in total, the project would rise 19 stories.

The Central SoMa District limits building heights in the area to 85 feet, but OWow has proposed using the State Density Bonus law, which provides a density boost of up to 50% in exchange for greater affordability for very low income households, to waive that cap.

And, as a result of Assembly Bill 1287, a new state law that became effective this year, that 50% density bonus can be doubled so long as 15% of a qualifying project’s residential units are set aside for “middle income” households earning up to 120% of the Area Median Income, or AMI. …(more)

Housing

This Real Estate Company Dumped Its Downtown San Francisco Mall. Now It’s Gobbling Up Apartments

Kevin V. Nguyen : sfstandard – excerpt

Thirteen years ago, Veritas Investments took advantage of the fallout from the Great Recession to start snapping up San Francisco homes by the thousands at a steep discount.

Fueled by a combination of private equity investment and lots of debt, Veritas continued its buying spree in the years that followed—eventually becoming the city’s largest residential landlord by 2016.

Now, amid a pandemic-induced real estate crash, a new outfit is poised to take Veritas’ place. Another opportunistic group—this time, a partnership between Ballast Investments and Brookfield Properties—has swooped in to buy up nearly $1 billion of mortgages that Veritas had defaulted on, public records show.

As a result, over 2,100 units across 76 apartment buildings in the city will have a new owner by the month’s end. While the foreclosed properties are technically on the market, industry observers say it’s most likely Ballast and Brookfield will just assume ownership of the buildings themselves, as they are now effectively Veritas’s lender…(more)

CEQA, Housing, Planning, Politics

Letter to the editor: Yes, a taxpayer can sue over the state’s housing laws

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Retired real estate lawyer weighs in on state law.

I love letters to the editor. Here’s one from someone who actually knows the answer to a question I raised:

In “Peskin, Chan want to know if SF can sue the state over impossible housing rules,” Tim Redmond asks, “Could a San Francisco citizen, or organization [as distinguished from San Francisco itself], sue? ‘That,’ said Peskin, ‘is a very good question.’”

The answer is that any citizen who has paid taxes to the state can sue the state (or an agency thereof) to restrain illegal, injurious, or wasteful expenditures under section 526a of the Code of Civil Procedure. Any such lawsuit needs to be brought in state court because federal courts have strict standing requirements…

The portion of SB 423 singling out San Francisco is illegal because it violates the California Constitution, Article IV, Section 16(b): “A local or special statute is invalid in any case if a general statute can be made applicable.” A taxpayer action could seek a declaration that this portion of SB 423 is an invalid special statute. Notably, there isn’t even language in the bill, as there is in other special statutes, purporting to justify it as addressing a problem unique to San Francisco.

A taxpayer action could also seek a broader declaration that the state housing laws do not take precedence over San Francisco zoning laws, because as a charter city, San Francisco has a right to home rule protected by the California Constitution. This power includes zoning. A conflicting state law, even on a matter of statewide concern, only prevails over home rule if the law is reasonably related to resolution of a matter of statewide concern and narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in local governance.

The state housing laws fail this test for numerous reasons. Studies by the Terner Center show the laws have failed to achieve their goals and scholars have described them as “ad hoc and not model based.”

Nick Waranoff

Nick Waranoff is a retired real estate lawyer.

CEQA, Housing, Politics

The year in housing policy: State forced SF into a no-win situation (and Breed went along)

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Photo shot from the year that the voters stopped SB50 from going through. Since then Wiener and company have gotten better at ignoring the will of the public. There might be enough pissed off voters to take him out this year. We finally have some opponents running with other ideas of how to do his job so voters have a chance to take him out and show the other Sacramento legislators that there are other ways to govern that do not involve forcing unwanted changes on the public.

The supes did what they had to do, although a lot of them didn’t like it—but it’s not going to matter anyway.

It was a crazy year for housing in San Francisco, with the state forcing to city to adopt new rules for “constraint reduction” to comply with a new construction mandate that nobody, even housing developers, thinks is remotely possible.

The Regional Housing Needs Assessment calls for 82,000 new housing units in San Francisco, 46,000 of them affordable. (I love that terminology; it means the state wants to see 36,000 new units in the city that nobody but the very rich can afford.)

The city has six more years to reach that goal…

So now Sen. Scott Wiener, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the folks at the state Department of Housing and Community Development are going to have to deal with a basic problem:

They are asking cities like San Francisco to approve housing that doesn’t meet community needs and that developers don’t want to build…

What’s the state going to do? Penalize San Francisco for something completely out of the city’s control?

Or admit that this whole RHNA gambit was a fraud?.…(more)

RELATED:

Letter to the editor: Yes, a taxpayer can sue over the state’s housing laws by Nick Waranoff, retired real estate lawyer

Housing

These Bay Area housing developments are delayed because PG&E can’t get them parts for power

We have one of our eternal projects still under construction for this very reason. It’s absolutely nuts!
But Sacramento doesn’t care – they want us to fail to get SB423 streamlining, then possibly decertify our housing elements and they get BR projects across the state.

On 12/19/2023 1:03 PM PST zrants <zrants@gmail.com> wrote:

By J.K. Dineen : sfchronicle – excerpt A 19-story tower in the heart of downtown Oakland has made headlines both because it is one of the few significant housing developments under construction in the neighborhood and because it is one of the world’s tallest “mass timber” structures.

Developer oWow has been gearing up for a January grand opening of the 236-unit complex at 1510 Webster St. But, last week, company president Andy Ball was shocked to learn that the opening could be delayed by months, and perhaps as much as a year, because of something unexpected: a shortage of electrical transformers.

Ball said he called Pacific Gas & Electric on Dec. 11 to place the order for three subsurface distribution transformers, which transfer electrical energy from one circuit to another. He was told that the equipment would not be available until the second half of 2024 — at the earliest.

“It was a bombshell, the last thing I expected,” Ball said. “They are going to put developers out of business. They are going to destroy projects.”…

Sarkissian said it had informed 540 customers that they have two choices: redesign their projects to use above ground “pad transformers,” or “wait until the equipment becomes available.” Sarkissian cited a study by Edison Electric Institute, an industry association of investor-owned electric utilities, showing that approximately 75% of all utilities are experiencing similar shortages.

The issue is that above ground transformers can be large and unsightly, taking up space better used for retail or housing units or gyms or landscaping. In addition, most urban infill districts, including downtown Oakland, require developers to put their transformers below ground…(more)

How are they going to spin this one to blame the cities? Guess they will have no choice but to relax the requirement for below ground transformers if they want to meet their RHNA deadlines.