Tag Archives: HCD

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

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.