Category Archives: Housing

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)

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)

deregulated housing bills, Housing

The SoMa project that created a furor in the Assembly race is back again

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Planning is trying again on 469 Stevenson, but the EIR appeal didn’t delay a project that isn’t going to be built any time soon anyway. Oh, and Yimby Law just lost.

The 469 Stevenson Project, which has created huge controversy, played a big role in Matt Haney’s election to the State Assembly, and spurred a lawsuit by Yimby Law, is back before the San Francisco Planning Commission.

The commission is going to begin to review a new Environmental Impact Report on the project December 8. That means, despite all the whining from the Yimbys and the likes of Haney, that the Board of Supes never “killed” or “took a wrecking ball” to the project. The supes just said the EIR wasn’t adequate and sent it back for revisions…

At the same time, a judge October 21 essentially tossed out the entire Yimby Law case against the city, ruling that the suit had no merit. Judge Cynthia Ming-mei Lee approved a demurrer motion, saying that Yimby Law had no case because the supes have every right to decide whether a project has an adequate EIR.

That’s an important decision, limiting the impact of the new state laws that seek to override environmental review of housing development…(more)

Housing

Torrance leaves League of California Cities, says groups failing to meet goals – Daily Breeze

By Irene Garcia : localtoday – excerpt

Torrance City Council voted unanimously this week to leave the League of California Cities, saying the organization is failing in its mission to expand and protect local control for cities.

The motion, proposed by Councilor Mike Griffiths, was prompted by the dismissal of a Cal Cities petition in support of a ballot measure to strengthen the local planning authority. Griffiths said his frustration had been building for several years and called the organization’s lobbying lackluster.

Cal Cities officials said they disagreed with the council’s assessment; The organization, they said, fights hard for local control over land use and zoning, and urged Torrance to remain a member.

“One of my top priorities as President of Cal Cities is maintaining local control, and I cannot do this alone. I need your help, I need your participation,” President Ali Taj said. “Torrance is an integral member of Cal Cities and serves as a key voice in the South Bay. Our fight is not over yet.”

Regarding the dismissal of the ballot measure, Cal Cities regional public affairs manager Jeff Kiernan said several Cal Cities committees were looking closely at them but had concerns about their language… (more)