Click to access Insurance-Presentation-to-LC-2-24-24.pdf
Video presentation: https://youtu.be/OWCewh-_26g
Category Archives: Planning
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.
Can Bay Area Political Leaders Solve Climate Change?
By Marc Joffe : cato – excerpt
Passing laws, adopting regulations, and spending money to fight climate change are popular activities for both elected and unelected officials in the San Francisco Bay Area. But since they only govern 2.3 percent of the U.S. population, their ability to turn the tide on greenhouse gas emissions is limited. Instead, their costly and coercive policies drive up the area’s cost of living and help drive out residents.
In a previous post I described some of the high cost, low ridership Bay Area transit projects that raise local sales taxes while replacing only a handful of car trips. Since I last wrote, we have learned that San Francisco’s new $2,000,000,000 Central Subway is afflicted by serious water intrusion issues, making the travel experience less appealing for the roughly 1,000 passengers that use the Chinatown station each day.
More recently, local lawmakers have declared war on natural gas, an energy source that used to be popular with some environmentalists because it burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels. But now the intention is to fully embrace electricity even though California is unwilling to add nuclear generating capacity and lacks the enormous number of solar panels and windmills needed to fully power the state…(more)
Newsom signs executive order, proposes reforms to environmental law known as CEQA
By Fox 40 News : youtube – excerpt (includes video)
The executive order will create a team that will identify environmental, infrastructure and transit projects held up by the strict law known as CEQA. The governor also proposed making adjustments to this law through the legislative process…(more)
RELATED:
Governor Newsom Unveils New Proposals to Build California’s Clean Future, Faster
This exclusive island town might be California’s biggest violator of affordable housing law
By Liam Dillon : latimes – excerpt
CORONADO, Calif. — Some live in Mexico, waking up at 3 a.m. to cross the border in time for an 8:30 a.m. shift. Others board multiple buses for hours-long commutes. Those with cars idle bumper to bumper along a two-mile, softly sloping bridge.
Not one of the nearly 200 housekeepers at the Hotel del Coronado, a sprawling beach resort with a storied history, lives in Coronado, according to the union representing them.
The city is arguably the most flagrant resister of a state affordable housing law designed to give housekeepers and others, from teachers to nurses, a chance at an apartment in places that would otherwise be out of their reach.
Among other wealthy communities that have adopted various delay tactics, Coronado stands out for its long track record of openly flouting the law.
Coronado’s elected officials have thumbed their noses at Gov. Gavin Newsom and state regulators, calling the process “central planning at its worst” and assuring residents that it will be years before the state cracks down…(more)
What kind of threat can the state bring to a small island community? Are there develoopers who have aquired ownership of parcels of land they are eager to build on? Which land owners are chomping at the bit to build here?
Housing for ‘families’ or corporate rentals?
By Tim Redmond : 48hihlls – excerpt
Planning Commission approves the conversion of units that were supposed to help the housing crisis into very expensive places for short-term use.
When the Planning Commission approved a condo project at 1863 Mission in 2018, the staff wrote: The Project will add 37 units to the City’s housing stock, including 15 two-bedroom, family-sized units and will replace long vacant site that has been a blight to the neighborhood with a high quality mixed-income development.
That’s typical. We hear this over and over when developers want to build market-rate housing: Families in San Francisco need places to live.
When the supes rejected the Environmental Impact Report for 469 Stevenson, Yimby Law noted: Hundreds of families were denied housing in San Francisco because of Supervisors Gordon Mar, Dean Preston, Myrna Melgar, Connie Chan, Rafael Mandelman, Aaron Peskin, Hillary Ronen, and Shamann Walton.
But as of today, the planners have agreed that at least seven of the units at 1863 Mission will not be available for families who need housing. They will be corporate rentals, in essence high-priced hotel rooms for people who are in the city for more than 30 days but less than a year…(more)
Some of us have a different approach to the “landlord’s dilemma,” that strikes at the heart of the Tenants Bill of Rights by proposing a compromise that not only protects landlords from risky tenants, but also protects tenants from risky sub-letters, friends, family, and scammers who take advantage of the Tenants Bill of Rights. Too many cases of bad outcomes from turning temporary arrangements into long term nightmares, as depicted here: “Housemate From Hell Forces Elderly SF Artist To Move Across the Country”
We have heard a lot of horror stories about housemates and tenants from hell. What will it take for someone to step in and solve this problem? How many more rental units would go on the market if the laws that protect landlords from nightmare tenants were not curtailed? There has to be a way for people to protect themselves from predators. Which our of supervisors will solve this problem? How can we level the playing field?
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?
Can a City Thrive When Its Downtown Is Empty?
By Alan Greenblatt : governing – excerpt
The office recession is real, with downtowns in major cities still missing a majority of their pre-pandemic workforce. San Francisco offers a case study in terms of the consequences.
Market Street, the main drag through San Francisco’s downtown, was closed to private cars just before the pandemic. It’s missing office workers and pedestrian life. (All photos Alan Greenblatt/Governing)
Sales were slow during the holidays but Alphonse Verkler stayed optimistic. He manages a cheese and sandwich shop in downtown San Francisco and says that foot traffic had improved from a low point last summer. “Obviously, as you can imagine, it’s not as busy as it once was, but things have picked up,” he says.
Verkler’s shop is half a block from Salesforce Tower, the second-tallest building on the West Coast and headquarters of San Francisco’s largest private employer. It wasn’t great news for the neighborhood when Salesforce announced it was laying off 8,000 people and cutting back on office space at the beginning of the year. The mass layoffs announced in recent days by Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet (Google’s parent company) and Meta (Facebook and Instagram), while certainly not all impacting San Francisco directly, aren’t a good sign for the city either. Tech companies make up nearly a third of the city’s private-sector payrolls. “It’s not the first time that I have wished San Francisco’s economy was a little more diversified than tech,” says Supervisor Matt Dorsey.
San Francisco already suffers an all-time record office vacancy rate of 27.6 percent. Meta has just put up 34 stories of office space — 435,000 square feet, enough space for 2,000 workers — for sublease…(more)
RELATED:
You must be logged in to post a comment.