Category Archives: Planning

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Planning, Politics

Push to build more homes on California coast stifled after lawmakers derail housing bills

By Ben Christopher : calmatters – excerpt

Several efforts to minimize the power and influence of the California Coastal Commission have stalled…

Housing advocates thought that this was going to be the year when they finally cracked the California Coast.

In early spring, Democratic lawmakers, and the Yes In My Backyard activists backing them, rolled out a series of bills aimed at making it easier to build apartments and accessory dwelling units along California’s highly regulated coast and to make it more difficult for the independent and influential California Coastal Commission to slow or block housing projects. The 15-member group oversees almost all of the state’s 840 miles of coastline, a stretch of land that just under a million Californians call home.

The pro-construction push built off last year’s success for the coalition when the Legislature passed a major housing law and — breaking from long-standing legislative tradition — did not include a carveout for the coast. This year’s pack of bills was meant to cement and build off a new political reality in which the 48-year-old Coastal Commission no longer has quite so much say over housing policy.

Fast forward to mid-August and those new bills are either dead or so severely watered down that they no longer carry the promise of a more built-out coastline. Whatever happened last year, the California Coastal Commission is still a force to be reckoned with…(more)

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics

Housing Bond Issue Draws Fire

By:  independentnews – excerpt (includes audio track)
Housing Bond Issue Draws Fire

Housing Bond Issue Draws Fire

TRI-VALLEY — Thirteen Bay Area residents opposed to a $20 billion regional housing bond measure filed a lawsuit last week that alleges the question to be placed on November ballots as Regional Measure 4 (RM4) is slanted to prejudice voters to approve it.

The group contends the official name of the measure, “Bay Area Affordable Plan,” is deceptive and the ballot question voters will consider contains a series of phrases that are not found in the language of the measure. The residents’ group is asking the court to rename the measure to “Bay Area Affordable Housing Bond,” because they contend it will cost residents more in property taxes.

“This lawsuit is all about the 75 words maximum that will be in the Regional Measure 4 ballot question,” said Jason Bezis, an attorney for the residents, a list of electors for the Nov. 5 election, members of county taxpayers’ associations, and a former San Jose City Council member.

Bezis’ office filed a petition in Santa Clara Superior Court on Aug. 8, demanding it be rewritten. The filing came six days after sending a “pre-litigation” letter to the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA), which placed the measure on the ballot.The lawsuit targets BAHFA and election officials in Alameda, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Solano, and Sonoma counties, along with the city and county of San Francisco… (more)

CEQA, Housing, Planning, Politics

Housing Accountability Unit’s Efforts Lead to San Francisco’s Progress in Removing Barriers to Housing Production

Housing Accountability Unit’s Efforts Lead to San Francisco’s Progress in Removing Barriers to Housing Production

San Francisco Has Implemented Key Actions Required by HCD’s Housing Policy and Practice Review

In response to last year’s release of the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review (PPR), San Francisco has implemented significant reforms that will make it easier to build housing at all income levels.

The PPR – a first of its kind investigation into a local government’s barriers to housing production – required San Francisco to implement 18 required actions beginning immediately and through 2026 that resolve inconsistencies with state law, accelerate housing production, and reduce barriers beyond the strong commitments already being made through San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Since the release of the PPR, HCD has continuously monitored San Francisco’s progress. As a result of this technical assistance from HCD and San Francisco’s actions, they are currently up to date on required actions and, in some cases, implementing actions ahead of schedule. The PPR accelerated the passage of reforms already underway and supported the early completion of several actions proposed in San Francisco’s Housing Element.

These policy and practice changes can now begin to translate into real impact and results for development in San Francisco.

Some of the most significant reforms San Francisco has made to address their required actions include:

  • Approving the Constraints Reduction Ordinance, which was proposed shortly after the adoption of the Housing Element and was passed following HCD technical assistance
  • Prohibiting subjectivity in planning approval
  • Reforming CEQA processes to give a clear determination within 30 days of a complete application
  • Increasing objectivity and transparency in the construction permittingprocess
  • Restructuring processes so that developments that already received planning approval cannot be subject to subsequent building permit appeals
  • Reducing procedural hurdles for code-compliant projects
  • Removing hearing requirements for most State Density Bonus Law requests.

Together, these actions help cut red tape and uncertainty, clarify opaque processes, and ensure compliance with state housing laws. For a more detailed summary of these actions, click here.

These changes represent important steps in the right direction and reflect a commitment to achieving a new status quo in San Francisco. Nevertheless, to ensure full implementation of the actions in both the PPR and the housing element – and to achieve housing production in San Francisco that truly meets the need – HCD will continue to provide ongoing support and monitor San Francisco’s progress on their 6 remaining PPR actions as they come due.

By staying on track with these remaining items, San Francisco will continue to demonstrate its commitment to facilitating housing production at all income levels and ensure compliance with its obligations.

Questions? Email PPR@hcd.ca.gov.

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/

 

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)

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, 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, 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.