Legislature considering a bill that would make it easier for developers to build housing in high fire danger zones
If Senate Bill 610 passes, expect to see a lot more scenes like this throughout California in the coming decades… (more)
NOTE: As of yesterday SB 610 was suspended in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, meaning it will not proceed in this legislative session. However, the facts and background remain highly relevant. There is an excellent chance the bill will be resurrected next year.
By Susan Shelley : Newsbreak – excerpt Stay up-to-date with free briefings on topics that matter to all Californians. Subscribe to CalMatters today for nonprofit news in your inbox.
In November, California voters will decide the fate of Proposition 5, which would make it easier for local governments to borrow money for housing and various public infrastructure projects. Below, a taxpayer watchdog says Prop. 5 will essentially let governments increase property taxes whenever they want. The opposing view: A local mayor says the measure will help public agencies pursue vital projects that can make California more affordable…(more)
San Francisco – This morning, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) voted to pull Regional Measure 4, the $20 billion dollar regional bond measure, off the November ballot. Gus Mattammal, President of the 20 Billion Reasons campaign to defeat the bond measure in November, hailed the move.
Said Mattammal, “This decision is a win for Bay Area taxpayers, and a win for affordable housing. To address housing affordability in a meaningful way, we have to address root causes, not soak taxpayers for billions of dollars at a time using bonds that would waste two thirds of the revenue on interest and overhead while barely making a dent in the issue.”
The 20 Billion Reasons campaign brought together Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents in a single campaign, a rarity in recent times, but a necessity. Said Mattammal, “Actually working on the root causes of the housing crisis in California, a crisis created by our legislature and the corporate interests to which they are beholden, is politically difficult. It’s much easier to simply raise taxes. That’s why it’s so important for voters to say ‘no’ to deeply flawed proposals such as Regional Measure 4: every time we do say no, it helps create the political conditions to work on the problem in a meaningful way.”
Though Regional Measure 4 is off the ballot for now, many other expensive proposals remain on the ballot, and the $20 Billion Reasons campaign team is excited to regroup and consider the best way forward to help ensure that Bay Area taxpayers are getting real solutions for the taxes they pay.
About Gus Mattammal – Gus is an entrepreneur and educator who has lived and worked in the Bay Area for over 17 years. He is proud to work with the committed Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents who seek to ensure that the public’s money is wisely spent. Learn more at: 20billionreasons.com
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)
Nine years ago, tenants of the Pigeon Palace at 2840–2848 Folsom Street in San Francisco faced a dilemma. Their aging landlord, who had long rented at affordable rates, was unable to continue overseeing the place. Instead, a court-appointed conservator took steps to auction off the building.
Because Pigeon Palace is in the popular and increasingly expensive Mission neighborhood, the residents feared a new owner might dramatically raise their rents — or kick them out altogether. So they crowdfunded $300,000 and gave it to a nonprofit called the San Francisco Community Land Trust, which combined it with loans from a bank and the city to place the winning bid of more than $3 million. The trust then rented units back to the tenants at affordable rates.
Much of the political debate about California’s housing crisis has focused on building new units. However, community land trusts, a method of preserving existing affordable housing that dates back to the Civil Rights Movement, have quietly been gaining steam.
The number of community land trusts — nonprofits that buy up land and then sell or rent the buildings on top of it to residents with low-income — has tripled in California since 2014, according to the California Community Land Trust Network…(more)
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
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.
By Cynthia Dizikes : sfchronicle – excerpt (includes graphics and maps)
Senator Wiener at one of his many pubic announcements of a new bill that strips away the rights of voters to determine how they live. For the first time in a long time some voters will choose a Republican over him for State Senator.
During the past five years, the San Francisco Planning Department granted or considered environmental review exemptions prohibited under state law for at least a dozen developments on old gas stations, vehicle repair shops and parking garages where toxic substances leaked into the soil and groundwater. The 12 projects analyzed by The Chronicle involve more than 250 current and future housing units around the city, in the Mission, Sunset, Cow Hollow, Nob Hill and other neighborhoods.
Exemptions can help speed development by reducing legal hangups and costs, and city officials say that all polluted sites are cleaned up to state and regional standards, regardless of whether they are exempted.
But exemptions also mean less public scrutiny of the environmental and health impacts of development, including digging up large quantities of potentially contaminated soil… (more)
RELATED: Senator Wiener removed exemptions for Coastal zones, fire, flood and toxic zones. I hesitate to think what is left, lest he go after it. (SB 591 and SB 610 among others)
Building in high fire hazard zones: Wiener’s plans don’t stop with allowing the degradation of California’s coastal zone. Wiener is now working to permit developers to build in other environmentally risky areas—Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones…Cal Fire (the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) is the state agency charged with “safeguarding California through fire prevention and protection, emergency response, and stewardship of natural resource systems.” The agency produces maps of fire hazard zones…In the California Planning and Development Review interview, Wiener was dismissive of the fire risks mapped by Cal Fire:.. (more)
How do we find more information on the unlisted Cortese sites? Must we check the history of each site that comes up as a done deal after entitlements are rubber-stamped according to the robust “permitting” process being forced on us by our Senator Wiener” and accepted by the city administration? How safe is the public when the environmental guardrails are dismantled?
When funds dry up and insurance companies flee an area, the only way housing will get built is with government dollars. Taxpayers are on the hook for some overly expensive, highly dangerous projects that may backfire. Who wants to live in an uninsurable property in a fire for flood zone? Evidently the Senator and his developer friends think poor people should be grateful for whatever they can get.
Not only have the Sacramento Politicians approved building in dangerous zones, they are trying to convince the taxpayers to finance them. Regional Measure 4 is a 9-county, SF Bay Area $20 billion bond measure that will set the taxpayers back an estimated $50 in property tax increases to build housing. And it is administered through the Municipal Transportation Committee. The transportation agencies that can’t manage their own public transportation systems are trying to break into the housing development business with the support of the taxpaying public.
Removal of CEQA guidelines is cause for alarm by many environmental groups as it bypasses due process and environmental reviews that were put into place by Ronald Regan when he was Governor and have provided some source of trust within the public. This is not a Republican party dismantling the environmental protections. This is the California State Democrats who run the show in Sacramento along with Governor Newsom who are removing the environmental protections under the guise of the state housing crisis.
Everyone in Canada will soon be able to afford a home. We just need investors to build more and rates to be cut, right? Anyone that can do basic math has probably been skeptical of that narrative and with good reason—even the people making those statements don’t believe it. Internal messages from the CMHC make very brief but important notes that challenge the exact narrative its leadership has been publicly spinning. More supply won’t bring down home prices, and lower rates won’t make them more affordable. Higher prices will make more supply feasible and lower rates will help boost prices.
CMHC Internal Chats Claim Higher Prices Will Improve Supply: The public is frequently told that housing is expensive because of a shortage. People will often say, “it’s simple supply and demand.” Messages shared between the agency’s communications staff and economists in 2021 show the circumstances are a little more complicated.
“Higher price level will improve development feasibility, so starts will remain elevated over the forecast horizon,” read a suggested point discussing a released forecast…
Central Banks Lower Rates To Raise Prices, Not Improve Affordabilty: Understanding how interest rates work also provides a little more context in this area. The Bank of Canada (BoC) is in charge of maintaining an ideal decay in the value of money (i.e. inflation). Their primary and most important tool to do this are interest rates…
CMHC Attributes Higher Prices To Cheap Mortgages In Passing: Higher prices are often blamed on population growth, especially in Canada with its recent record surge since 2022. Home prices made a record move in January 2022, but 2021 was the lowest annual population growth for the country going back to at least the 1970s. That was also the year Canada was completing 18 homes per person the population grew by. …(more)
Stephen Punwasi: Co-Founder and chief data nerd at Better Dwelling. Named a top influencer in finance and risk by Thomson-Reuters.
The more we hear about YIMBY economic theories they more evidence we find that they do not pan out as promised.
State assembly candidate Manuel Noris-Barrera was among a number of candidates who spoke in opposition to the initiative before joining the car parade to protest the ballot measure proposed by Supervisors Joel Engardio, that would permanently close the Great Highway to cars. The event was organized by the Chinese Community that has been overwhelmed by street project and parking restrictions all over the city
It was a chilly, windy Thursday morning — good weather for getting mad. Denise Selleck drove to a parking lot near Ocean Beach to meet up with other motorists who had gathered to fume before forming a protest caravan that would take over the Great Highway.
Selleck was one of dozens of protesters opposing the potential permanent closure of the Great Highway and its transformation into a park. Located on the west end of the Outer Sunset, the coastal road is open to cars during weekdays and closed on weekends.
“I’ve never felt as dismissed and disrespected as I did,” Selleck, a 67-year-old retired teacher at City College, told The Standard. She said keeping the Great Highway open to cars is safer than rerouting them to other roads in the Sunset. ..(more)
Voters feel that SFMTA and Rec and Park projects that re-direct traffic are largely to blame for SFMTA’s financial woes. Everything they do to diminish traffic on major thorough-fares creates a need to spend more money on mitigations on the side streets that would be not be necessary if SFMTA just managed MUNI instead of working to remove cars.
As the streets become more difficult to navigate residents and businesses leave. The destroy to “build back better” theme has lost whatever luster it once had. City Hall needs to stop the destruction and maintain what is left for those who are still here.
CP&DR News Briefs July 16, 2024: AB 9 Appeal; Land Use Ballot Propositions; SB 423 Streamlining; and More
By Ella Morner-Ritt and Alexandra Friedman
July 16, 2024
Bonta Appeals Ruling Exempting Charter Cities from SB 9 Attorney General Rob Bonta is appealing a Superior Court decision that halted the enforcement of Senate Bill 9 in charter cities. SB 9 took effect in 2023, allowing subdivision of parcels traditionally zoned for single-family homes into configurations accommodating duplexes and fourplexes. The law faced opposition five charter cities asserting it improperly overrides local zoning in charter cities, though supporters argue it’s crucial for addressing the statewide housing crisis. Del Mar, along with four Los Angeles County cities, challenged SB 9 in court, contending it violates the state constitution by not effectively promoting affordable housing without interfering excessively with local government. The judge’s ruling sided with this argument on April 22, prompting Bonta’s appeal, aiming to clarify the law’s applicability across all of California’s charter cities. Bonta emphasized SB 9’s constitutionality and its role in enhancing housing availability and affordability statewide, highlighting ongoing efforts to defend legislative housing initiatives in court. “We firmly believe that SB 9 is constitutional as to every city in the state,” said Bonta, in a statement. “As the California Second District Court of Appeal recently held, ensuring housing availability and affordability in California is a matter of statewide importance.”
November Statewide Ballot to Feature Four Land Use Propositions California voters will face four statewide ballot propositions related to land use this November, covering issues from infrastructure funding to rent control. The ballot will feature ten propositions in total. Proposition 2 proposes a $10 billion bond primarily allocated for school construction and upgrades. Proposition 4 proposes a $10 billion bond to fund climate and environmental projects, aiming to mitigate impacts of climate change and bolster water and wildfire defenses. Proposition 5 seeks to ease voter approval requirements for local housing and infrastructure bonds to encourage borrowing for low-income and affordable housing projects. Proposition 33 proposes granting local governments authority to enforce rent control measures; it’s the latest in a string of thus-far unsuccessful rent control measures sponsored by Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation. AB1657 — which proposed issuing $10 billion in general obligation bonds to fund affordable rental housing programs for lower-income families, supportive housing for the homeless and other critical housing initiatives — will not appear on the ballot; concerned about the state’s borrowing capacity, the legislature opted instead for Proposition 2, a $10 billion school facilities bond measure… (more)
