Category Archives: Housing

CEQA, Housing

Home Breaking News Groups Believe that SB 423 Will Threaten Local Democracy

Special to the Vanguard : davisvanguard – excerpt

Recently Senator Scott Wiener introduced legislation that would make SB 35 permanent…

Sacramento, CA – A coalition of communities are pushing back on recent housing proposals, and warn that SB 423, a permanent extension of SB 35, “gives developers unlimited ability to develop nearly anything, anywhere in California.”…

But for some, that means it would “permanently strip local communities of nearly all important land use decisions.”

The group calls itself Our Neighborhood Voices and describes itself as a “non-partisan coalition of residents and elected officials from every corner of California who believe that land use decisions should be determined by local communities and their elected leaders – not one-size-fits-all laws from Sacramento and for-profit developers.”

Our Neighborhood Voices is organizing to qualify a citizen-led ballot initiative that they say would “protect the ability of local communities to adopt laws that shape local growth, preserve the character of neighborhoods, and require developers to produce more affordable housing and contribute to the costs associated with it.”

Opponents note that while “the legislation – SB 423 – is touted as a tool to solve our affordable housing crisis, local elected leaders say that the legislation undermines local democracy by removing the ability of communities to plan and prepare for what is built in their neighborhoods.”

They explain, “It also can accelerate damaging ‘Builders Remedy’ projects across the state that see massive projects built in residential neighborhoods without adequate planning for water, schools, transit, safety fire danger and other priorities.”…(more)

Is there such a think as too much? Some developers clearly think the sky’s the limit when “Builders Remedy” is concerned. They have decided to test that theory with a 50 tower next to Ocean Beach in a single family neighborhood that objects to anything over 4 stories.

RELATED:

Skyscraper Plans Revealed for San Francisco’s Ocean Beach: 712 Homes, 50 Stories

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics

Housing for ‘families’ or corporate rentals?

By Tim Redmond : 48hihlls – excerpt

Planning Commission approves the conversion of units that were supposed to help the housing crisis into very expensive places for short-term use.

When the Planning Commission approved a condo project at 1863 Mission in 2018, the staff wrote: The Project will add 37 units to the City’s housing stock, including 15 two-bedroom, family-sized units and will replace long vacant site that has been a blight to the neighborhood with a high quality mixed-income development.

That’s typical. We hear this over and over when developers want to build market-rate housing: Families in San Francisco need places to live.

When the supes rejected the Environmental Impact Report for 469 Stevenson, Yimby Law noted: Hundreds of families were denied housing in San Francisco because of Supervisors Gordon Mar, Dean Preston, Myrna Melgar, Connie Chan, Rafael Mandelman, Aaron Peskin, Hillary Ronen, and Shamann Walton.

But as of today, the planners have agreed that at least seven of the units at 1863 Mission will not be available for families who need housing. They will be corporate rentals, in essence high-priced hotel rooms for people who are in the city for more than 30 days but less than a year…(more)

Some of us have a different approach to the “landlord’s dilemma,” that strikes at the heart of the Tenants Bill of Rights by proposing a compromise that not only protects landlords from risky tenants, but also protects tenants from risky sub-letters, friends, family, and scammers who take advantage of the Tenants Bill of Rights. Too many cases of bad outcomes from turning temporary arrangements into long term nightmares, as depicted here: “Housemate From Hell Forces Elderly SF Artist To Move Across the Country”

We have heard a lot of horror stories about housemates and tenants from hell. What will it take for someone to step in and solve this problem? How many more rental units would go on the market if the laws that protect landlords from nightmare tenants were not curtailed? There has to be a way for people to protect themselves from predators. Which our of supervisors will solve this problem? How can we level the playing field?

CEQA, Housing, Politics

Wiener bill would kick elected officials out of critical land-use and housing decisions

By Zelda Bronstein : 48hills – excerpt

Mitts-Off

If cities don’t meet the state’s impossible housing goals, unelected bureaucrats could be approving development projects with no oversight.

State Sen. Scott Wiener just introduced a new bill, SB 423, that extends the absurd provisions of his 2017 bill SB 35. That law forces cities to approve—that is, “streamline”—certain housing projects if the number of building permits they’ve issued halfway in the eight-year Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle falls short of their respective allocations.

The mandate is absurd, because cities can approve projects, but they can’t compel developers to pull building permits on projects that have been approved. Builders are not going to build if they can’t make a profit; that’s why in San Francisco right now, tens of thousands of approved housing units are not getting built.

In a further absurdity, the allocations themselves, especially the low-income numbers, are so enormous as to be unrealizable. SB 35 sets up cities to fail.

Now comes SB 423. The mainstream press has focused on two controversial aspects of Wiener’s new bill: it adds Builder’s Remedy to SB 35’s penalties, and it loosens SB 35’s requirements for employing union labor.

My focus here is on another problematic aspect of SB 423…

Here’s the relevant passage in SB 423: Section 65913.4 of the Government Code is amended to read:

…. (c) (1) If a local government government’s planning director or any equivalent local government staff, including all relevant planning and permitting departments, determines that a development submitted pursuant to this section is consistent with the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a) and pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subdivision, it shall approve the development. …(more)

Homeowners and would-be homeowners take exception to Wiener’s claims that single family homes are immoral. The more you know about the plans to limit your lifestyle the less you like it.

Housing, Planning, Politics

State rejects Oakland’s housing plan, asks for revisions

by Natalie Orenstein : oaklandside – excerpt

Like most Bay Area cities, Oakland’s newly approved Housing Element doesn’t comply with state requirements, which could impact the city’s funding and ability to control development.

Just two days after Oakland officials adopted the city’s eight-year housing plan, the state determined it didn’t meet the requirements, state records show.

In a Feb. 2 letter, the California Housing and Community Development Department told Oakland it must make revisions to its Housing Element to be found in compliance. Without that certification, Oakland immediately loses the ability to place certain restrictions on development, and could lose out on significant state funding for housing.

The Housing Element is a significant piece of the city’s General Plan, which is undergoing an update. The section spells out how Oakland will plan to build enough housing to meet state targets over the coming eight years, and what policies and programs the city will pursue to achieve affordability and equal access to housing.

The Oakland City Council unanimously approved its Housing Element on Jan. 31, the state-imposed deadline. City planners told the council at that meeting that they’ve been in close contact with state housing authorities, and expected the element to be approved. They said that the council would still be able to make tweaks to the document in the coming days…

Where Oakland’s housing element is still out of compliance

A central piece of Oakland’s plan is the identification of specific locations where housing could be developed, so that Oakland meets targets for both affordable and market-rate construction in the coming years. The city is required to plan for 26,000 new units.

The city’s submission is missing details on why these sites are primed for redevelopment, such as whether the property owner is amenable, if the site is vacant, and analysis of recent development trends, the state said.

State planners also said Oakland’s document should include more details about how it will ensure housing access for historically excluded groups, though they noted the element “includes many meaningful policies and actions.” They also told the city that a section on neighborhood improvement shouldn’t be limited to housing plans, but also include goals around infrastructure, transportation, and parks…(more)

This is a new low for the state and or HCD, AFter demanding the cities allow development on the open space they now demand more open space? And since when did they need to see details on infrastructure, transportation and parks to meet housing goals?

 

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

Bay Area Cities Just Lost Zoning Control. See the Wildest Homes That Could Come to Your Neighborhood

By Sarah Wright : sfstandard – excerpt

The state’s Jan. 31 deadline has come and gone, and 69 out of 109 jurisdictions in the Bay Area have failed to submit their required eight-year housing plan to the state.

Advocacy groups like YIMBY Law are already suing cities and counties, claiming they’ve violated state law by missing the deadline. But in the meantime, developers are preparing to file projects under the “builder’s remedy,” which means cities and counties cannot deny housing projects just because they violate local zoning plans.

That enticing possibility brought a crowd to Downtown San Francisco on Wednesday night, where housing advocates and architects gathered to celebrate the chance to build more aggressively and to share their dream projects.

The proposals offer a glimpse into what new developments might be popping up in cities, from Berkeley to Hillsborough, that are out of compliance with state law…(more)

deregulated housing bills, Housing

Marin Voice: County housing element needlessly supersedes carefully created community plans

By Sharon Rushton : marinij – excerpt

Last month, the Marin County Board of Supervisors adopted the 2023-2031 Marin County housing element update, as well as various countywide plan amendments related to the county’s plan for housing.

Among other consequences, these amendments needlessly eviscerate community plans, leaving areas open to development with minimal controls.

Most importantly, there is no requirement by the state that community plans must be weakened in order to achieve a compliant housing element, according to legal counsel.

Community and environmental organizations, which are located within the jurisdictions of the 26 Marin County community plans, are coordinating an effort to maintain the integrity of community plans. There is still limited time for the supervisors to reverse their mistake…(more)

Housing

Most cities still falling behind affordable housing mandate, state numbers show

By Jeff Collins  and : ocregister – excerpt

Just 29 out of 538 California municipalities met their housing goals at all income levels, according to state housing figures

When it comes to fostering new housing, the city of Norwalk is one of California’s superstars.

The Los Angeles County town got an A-plus in the Southern California News Group’s latest housing scorecard for exceeding state-mandated housing goals at all income levels.

Just three miles up the 105 freeway, however, neighboring Lynwood ranked among 84 California cities and counties at the opposite end of the spectrum. Lynwood earned an F because state data shows it missed all four of its housing targets, permitting zero new affordable homes during the eight years ending in 2021.

Most California cities and counties, SCNG’s analysis shows, are more like Lynwood than Norwalk, falling way behind on state housing goals…(more)

Housing

Another State Attempt to Grab Control over Local Zoning

via email : BATWIG Newsletter – excerpt

It’s deja vu all over again…

SB4 initiates yet another inept attack by State Senator Scott Wiener on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to promote “Affordable Housing”, this time using “churches, synagogues, and mosques” (not Buddhist temples?) and non-profit colleges as his current “feel good” set of honey traps.

Opinions and warnings about the disastrous shortage of housing in California abound. Here’s what the U.S. Census Bureau has to say on the subject: As of July 1, 2021 California had a population of 39,237,836 and contained 14,512,281 housing units, occupied by 13,217,586 households with 2.92 persons per household. On the face of it, that does not read as a State housing shortage.

But here’s the rub. There aren’t enough houses located where people want to live. A few decades ago, if you couldn’t afford to live somewhere, you found digs elsewhere. But that’s all changed. Now the clamor seems to be: “if I want to live there, I should be able to live there!”.

Senator Wiener is at the forefront of all this. In previous years, Wiener has tried to legitimize his obsession with cramming in new residential units wherever possible by latching onto such nice-sounding catch phrases as “protecting the environment” and “transit-oriented housing”. It is necessary to remind the Senator that cramming excessive density into a well established and well-functioning community does NOT help the environment of the neighborhood…(more)

Housing

This SF Homelessness ‘Nonprofit’ was Investigated for Illegal Activity. Here’s What Happened

Written by Mike KubaVideo by Jesse Rogala, Mike Kuba : sfstandard – excerpt

United Council of Human Services (UCHS), a nonprofit organization located in the Bayview, was recently investigated by the City Controller’s Office for a host of infractions and “criminal activity.”

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing

Tensions rise between Newsom, mayors over homelessness

By Emily Hoeven : calmatters – excerpt

As voters cast ballots in the last few days leading up to California’s Nov. 8 election, who will they blame for the state’s persistent housing and homelessness crises?

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s surprise Thursday announcement — that he’s withholding $1 billion in state homelessness funding until local governments and service providers come up with more ambitious plans to reduce the number of people living on the streets — seems to serve as an implicit reminder to Californians that he isn’t the only one responsible for the state’s ballooning homeless population, which grew by at least 22,500 during the pandemic.

Newsom said the local plans would reduce street homelessness by just 2% statewide by 2024 — a figure that is “simply unacceptable.” He also slammed some regions for estimating their homeless populations would grow by double digits in four years, and said he plans to meet with local leaders in mid-November to review the state’s approach to homelessness and identify more effective strategies…

Having heard the hint loud and clear, many of the mayors of California’s largest cities are pushing back:

  • San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo told CalMatters housing reporter Manuela Tobias: “We need to put down the megaphones and pick up the shovels. … Let’s bring all the solutions in, but it’s not going to happen at a photo op. It’s not going to happen with 90 people in a room. You’ve got to have a lot of conversations with technocratic experts at the table, to try and understand exactly how you can get it done. That’s much harder work.”
  • San Francisco Mayor London Breed told Politico: Newsom is “creating more hoops for local governments to jump through without any clear explanation of what’s required.”
  • Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf told the San Francisco Chronicle: I’m “perplexed how delaying (these) funds advances our shared goals.”

The mayors also argued that their ability to address homelessness is constrained by a lack of ongoing state funding. Some have been calling on the state for years to create a multibillion-dollar permanent funding stream for homelessness, and have thrown their support behind Proposition 27 — a ballot measure that would legalize online sports betting and direct a sizable portion of tax revenue to homelessness and mental health services — for that reason. Newsom announced last week that he opposes Prop. 27…

But the state may first have to deal with a recent Superior Court decision that found state housing laws don’t apply to projects until after local agencies complete their environmental reviews under CEQA. This could allow a city to keep postponing its CEQA reviews and thus “impose an unreviewable death by delay on almost any housing project it wants to kill,” UC Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf argued in a Wednesday column in the San Francisco Chronicle..…(more)