deregulated housing bills, Housing

SB-9 Endangers Communities in High Fire Zones

By Sharon Rushton : TamAlmonte – excerpt (via email)

One of the major reasons we need to roll back state bills that override local controls over zoning and development decisions. ourneighborhoodvoices.com is collecting signatures to put a State Constitutuional Amendment on the ballot. Please support this effort to protect communities from state mandates.

SB-9 Endangers Communities in the Wildland Urban Interface, High Fire Hazard Zones, Very High Fire Hazard Zones, and Constrained Areas with inadequate access and evacuation routes

SB-9 endangers communities in the Wildland Urban Interface, High Fire Hazard Zones, Very High Fire Hazard Zone, and Constrained Areas with inadequate and unsafe access and evacuation routes in the event of a fire or other emergency. As housing density and population significantly increase, the access and evacuation routes of these hazardous neighborhoods will become even more congested. Dire consequences could result during an emergency when residents are unable to evacuate and fire trucks/paramedics are unable to reach their destinations.

Moreover, the bill makes it very difficult for local jurisdictions to protect these hazardous areas.

Numerous articles incorrectly claim that SB-9 exempts High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. However, the fine print tells a different story.

SB-9 does not directly protect fire hazard severity zones with inadequate and unsafe access and evacuation routes in the event of a fire or other emergency due to the below clause (in blue & bold) from Government Code Section 65913.4, which SB-9 incorporates.

Excerpt from the text of SB-9 (in blue):

“Section 1 (a) (2)

(2) The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.”

This references the below Section 65913.4 in the Government Code regarding the specific prohibited sites:

Excerpt from CHAPTER 4.2 Housing Development Approvals: Government Code Section 65913.4 (in blue):

“(a) A development proponent may submit an application for a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (c) and is not subject to a conditional use permit if the development complies with subdivision (b) and satisfies all of the following objective planning standards:

(6) The development is not located on a site that is any of the following: …

(D) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.”

Any new development would need to comply with fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures. Building standards don’t mandate off-street parking or improve street conditions. So, this section of the bill, which incorporates Government Code Section 65913.4, does nothing to protect hazardous communities with inadequate and unsafe emergency access and evacuation routes.

The only way a jurisdiction can possibly protect hazardous properties with inadequate and unsafe emergency access and evacuation routes is to comply with the following new section that was recently added to the bill.

Excerpt from the text of SB-9 (in blue):

“(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a local agency may deny a proposed housing development project if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.”

So, for every single proposal to up-zone a single-family parcel to 4 units (via SB-9), a jurisdiction would have to make a written finding, based upon a preponderance of evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. This could be very costly.

Moreover, the evaluation of just one single-family parcel (at which a single-family home would be converted into 4 units) at a time, won’t show the true adverse impacts of housing development per SB-9. Cumulative impacts would most likely be necessary. So, a jurisdiction would need to do some sort of environmental or safety assessment for all its single-family zones. Again, this type of broad assessment would be very time consuming and expensive.

Communities in the Wildland Urban Interface, High Fire Hazard Zones, Very High Fire Hazard Zones and Constrained Areas should be automatically exempt from SB-9 but they are not.

Uncategorized

‘Digital nomad’ rent plan could be next for apartment dwellers

By Jeff Collins : mercurynews – excerpt (via email)

The proposal, under review by some large apartment operators, would function like a vacation club or time share.

Remote work is changing the habits of America’s renters, leading to new models for how large complexes may be operated in the future, a new industry survey shows.

The National Multifamily Housing Council’s annual renter survey showed apartment dwellers are moving more often, would consider a “digital nomad” rental plan and support a loosening of restrictions on subleasing through Airbnb-type sites.

“Renters of all stripes were on the move over the last 18 months,” said Rick Haughey, the multifamily council’s vice president of industry technology said. “ … That’s kind of a big deal. (With) 40 million Americans in apartments, any type of shift has significant implications.”

The council, an association of large U.S. apartment owners and operators, surveyed more than 220,000 renters at 4,564 apartment complexes in September and October. The council has conducted the renter preference survey annually since 2013.

The survey’s unveiling at the Miami conference of the National Association of Real Estate Editors on Thursday, Dec. 9, gave reporters a sneak peek at data due for a full release in mid-January.

The survey showed 46% of renters said they would consider joining an apartment version of a vacation club, which would allow residents to live in several different cities over the course of a year.

The greatest interest was among 35- to 44-year-olds, with 61% in that age group saying they’d consider joining such a rental membership program. More than half of all adults under 55 also expressed interest.

The industry doesn’t provide such a program yet, but many apartment owners are thinking about it as a way to retain short-term tenants who might otherwise leave after their three-month lease expires, Haughey said.

If they’re going to go somewhere else, some owners say, their portfolios are big enough to have them move into one of their properties elsewhere.

Apartment operators began to consider renter membership plans before the pandemic when digital nomads were a tiny slice of the renter market, he said.

“The question now is how big a slice is that (today)?” he said.

The survey also showed that 60% of respondents moved during the 18 months following pandemic lockdowns. That’s up from 27% of apartment householders moving in 2019, U.S. Census data shows.

In a typical year, most apartment dwellers move because they’re looking for a better deal or better amenities and community space, Haughey said. But of those who moved since the pandemic, 25% did so because their jobs shifted to remote work.

And 73% expect to continue working from home for the same amount of time or more next year.

“That’s going to have a significant impact on how we design apartments moving forward,” he said.

For example, 35% of renters expressed interest in using a shared workspace within an apartment complex.

In addition, almost a third of tenants also expressed support for a plan that would allow them to sublease their apartments on Airbnb and other short-term rental sites.

The practice currently is banned under terms of most leases. But some landlords complained their tenants took advantage of COVID-19 era eviction moratoriums to list their apartments on Airbnb anyway.

The multifamily housing council also got some pushback from other tenants who don’t want strangers coming and going in their neighbors’ units. More than 10% said they wouldn’t rent in a complex where Airbnb rentals were allowed.

That could be enough of a deterrent to keep subleasing bans in place, Haughey said.

“That’s a big deal for our membership that over 10% said they wouldn’t rent if their neighbors were renting out on Airbnb,” he said…(more)

Housing

He’s been blamed for killing housing, but credited with keeping SoMa affordable. Meet S.F.’s most influential housing advocate

By Santiago Mejia : sfchronicle – excerpt

In 2018, San Francisco political campaign manager Jen Snyder was in the early stages of running a ballot measure to provide free legal aid to tenants facing eviction when she got a phone call “out of the blue” from someone she had never met before: veteran South of Market nonprofit housing boss John Elberling.

Elberling, the president of the South of Market low-income housing owner TODCO, said he supported the measure. They discussed strategy, potential direct mail pieces and what it would take to win.

“Afterwards he wrote us a check for $20,000,” she said. “He didn’t want anything in return for it.” .

While the infusion of cash was a boon to a shoe-string campaign going up against a well-funded landlord lobby, it was the sort of spending that has led critics to argue that Elberling continues to play politics — and wield tremendous power — with millions of dollars generated through the refinancing of buildings originally constructed with taxpayer money…(more.)

deregulated housing bills

Restore local control over land-use decisions

By Susan Shelley : dailybulletin – excerpt

Single-family zoning has been abolished in the state of California. The moment the recall election was behind him, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bills 9 and 10, and now low-density neighborhoods everywhere in the state could become construction sites as developers turn single-family homes into two homes plus two accessory dwelling units, also known as “granny flats.”

Senate Bill 9 requires city governments to approve these developments in any area that the state law allows them, which is virtually everywhere with a few exceptions, such as wetlands or protected habitat. Local officials can’t hold a public hearing to consider the projects. They can’t require studies of the projects’ impact on the environment or the community. They can’t require new multi-family developments to have off-street parking. They can’t impose fees on developers to help pay for water, sewer or power infrastructure, schools, street repair, sanitation or public safety services..

According to the new state laws, the only thing city officials can do is sign off.

However, according to the state constitution, the people of California have the power to change this with a citizens’ initiative. And a coalition of local officials is currently working on doing exactly that….

Anyone who would like to join the fight to reverse these laws and prevent future one-size-fits-all housing density laws can go online to StopSacramento.org and sign up to volunteer. If proponents can collect roughly 1 million signatures of registered voters to get the measure on the November 2022 ballot, the abolition of single-family zoning in California could be short-lived.

Susan Shelley is an editorial writer and columnist for the Southern California News Group. Susan@SusanShelley.com. Twitter: @Susan_Shelley....(more)

As Americans consider our future it is important to consider what made our country the envy of others, and how we may protect those elements of society that guaranteed our personal freedom. Neither party considers what the citizens want and neither are uniting the country. The name of the game has been divide and conquer. California has reverted to the gold rush mentality, where land is the gold.

The passage of bills like SB9 and SB10 are evidence that the government has no intentions of assuring sufficient resources and environmental protections for the population they intend to grow. This has angered lot of people and they are fighting back with the only tolls left. Lawsuits and State ballot initiatves.

Uncategorized

What Upzoning Does Not Do

  • Upzoning does not create affordable housing – its trickle down Reganomics
  • Upzoning is a new & improved method for Wall Street to take your house just like 2008
  • Upzoning hurts people of color and working class communities
  • Upzoning destroys green space and the environment – less trees, less open space, more waste from demolished homes
  • No affordable housing or homeless advocates are cheering for SB 9 & 10 becoming law
Uncategorized

2550 Irving Project

San Francisco Neighborhoods are under attack.
the Governor just signed SB9 and SB10 to
eliminate single family homes from California.
 
There is very little we can do about it for now.
Soon there will be an opportunity to support a ballot initiative
to for a Constitutional Amendment that will return the decisions 
from the state legislature to our local communities.

The tools we have left will go a lot further if we support each other. A design for improved livability for the families in the building if the authorities at City Hall agree.

Citizens have some limited options for design improvements and this is one of those cases.  In the spirit of unity among neighborhoods, the 2550 Irving Community neighbors request your support. The group desires a compromise. They wold like to work with the developer and architect per Gordon Mar’s Amendment.

Sunset Neighbors ask:
1.   Write Supervisor Mar and Aide Daisy Quan in support of the compromise design. Gordon.Mar@sfgov.org, marstaff@sfgov.org
2.  Attend the scheduled TNDC presentation, ZOOM invite below:  Register here in advance.

 

CEQA

CEQA gets taken out of play in several ways:

How California plays the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

1. First, there are a lot of things that are just not subject to CEQA.
2. Second, regulation and case law has taken out a lot of things.
3. Third, if no one objects, and takes the dispute to court — which
takes a lot of money — then the moving agency can get away with just about anything.
4. Even if there is a huge negative impact, if the moving agency has
properly described everything in the EIR and checked off all the right boxes, it is OK — all the moving agency has to do is a finding of
overriding considerations (as in, in our opinion, the good will outweigh the unmitigated bad, which is almost impossible to challenge), everything is OK.
5. Then, if the moving agency has enough juice in Sacramento, it can just get the Legislature to allow the project to proceed without any CEQA review – for example, the Sacramento basketball area for the Kings, which has become pretty common and keeps being expanded.

Remember, it is almost impossible to stop a project using CEQA.  Generally, the worst that can happen is that the project gets delayed while the EIR is revised — so, a very common situation is that someone who wants something files a claim in order to get some kind of settlement or agreement.  When there is a “victory” for the opponents, it is most commonly because the proponents were embarrassed to admit how bad the project was, so they made
the EIR look too much like a promotional brochure.  Bad mistake — if you actually say what will go on, then the opponents don’t have any legal leverage at all.

Tom Rubin

Quite a few cases are lost by marketing campaigns, some true and some false. Messages to investors are not for public consumption.