Breaking news!
Wiener’s plan to fold his bills into the budget was refused by the state parliamentarian. So… They went with option B.
Wiener pulled his bills and is pushing them onto the state legislature while Newsom takes the strange position of threatening to withhold his signature from his own budget, if the Wiener anti-CEQA bills don’t pass if we believe the latest news.
It took Wiener three rounds of voting to get SB 79 passed in the Senate. It’s amended and scheduled for hearings in the Assembly Housing, Local Government, and Natural Resources committees.
The Housing Committee hearing is in the first week of July;
letters are due June 25th.
See contact info below. You may call or leave a message on the phone asking the Assembly members to vote NO on S B 79.
A spreadsheet of Assemblymembers with contact info
Assembly Members on the Committees
Text version of a sample letter and speaking points.
I strongly oppose SB 79 as an assault on local control that disregards state-certified housing elements. At first glance, the amendments made by Senator Wiener might appear reasonable, but actually offer nothing of substance.
• The new “affordability” component merely reflects incentives already available.
• The new option for localities to write alternative plans are of no benefit. By requiring that the same number of units and floor area ratio be maintained, this provision is a false alternative, as it merely creates a complex balancing act.
The thrust of SB 79 remains ministerially approved market-rate density without regard to local conditions. Our housing elements have already indicated which sites best serve our communities as infill.
SB 79 is deeply flawed in both concept and consequence. It would inflict disproportionate harm on the most affordable neighborhoods in our cities.
I OPPOSE SB 79 for these reasons:
Sincerely,
Individuals: Your name and address
Organizations: Your name, title, and signature; add logo at top
If you want to learn how to post to the portal, go here: https://discoveryink.wordpress.com/ca-legislative-process/ca-bills/posting-letters
By Keith Menconi : sfexaminer – excerpt (audio)
San Francisco city leaders are trying to add a lot of new homes to The City in the coming years.
If approved, a proposal to upzone large swaths of The City’s north and west would add enough room for the construction of roughly 36,000 new dwellings.
For upzoning supporters, the hope is that all those added homes will help to bend the housing cost curve in San Francisco, and, eventually, reduce The City’s affordability crisis.
But progressive housing advocates, who have been organizing in opposition to the effort, are pushing back with two questions: What kind of housing will get built? And who will those homes be for?…
Those who look more favorably on market-rate developments are making the case that when it comes to new housing, a rising development tide lifts all renters.
“We have both data and anecdotal evidence that shows when we have an increase in housing supply, that helps open up more opportunities,” across the income spectrum, said Jane Natoli, San Francisco organizing director for YIMBY Action… (more)
We have heard all the arguments on both sides, but, no one has seen any of the data or evidence that Jane Natoli claims is out there. And believe me, people have looked for it. There is some evidence that distressing commercial zones by inflicting traffic and parking limitations and allowing anti-social behavior to invade a neighborhood will take a toll on the local tax base. It is hard to miss the damage done to the Market and Van Ness neighborhoods. Those empty office and commercial buildings do not give any credence to the supply and demand in housing supply argument. Please Ms. Natoli, show us your data. Where has added housing stock of the stack and pack variety lowered rents? We see a lot of empty units but not a huge drop in rents. We also see a huge demand for reduced tax assessments and other unintended consequences.
By Emily Hoeven : sfchronicle – excerpt (via email)
Following their devastating losses in the 2024 election, many Democrats have eagerly aligned themselves with the burgeoning “abundance” movement, which contends that blue states like California need to focus less on sluggish bureaucratic processes and more on tangible outcomes to win back voters.
But it’s one thing to embrace a slogan and another thing entirely to take action. Here in California, we’re about to see which side of that divide our leaders stand on.
Assembly Member Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, is pushing one of the biggest bills in recent memory, AB609, to exempt almost all infill housing development from California Environmental Quality Act review. And it’s just one of 20 bills in an ambitious, bipartisan package that aims to streamline and simplify the state’s housing approval process and make it easier to build the estimated 2.5 million homes California needs.
Actually passing these bills, however, will require that Democrats risk alienating some of their most influential constituencies, including labor unions and environmental justice groups — some of which have already come out swinging against Wicks’ bill and others.
It’s “a moment of truth for the Legislature,” Michael Lane, state policy director for the urbanist organization SPUR, told me.
Will lawmakers move forward with bold bills, or will they revert to the failed policies of the past?
One key lawmaker who will play a decisive role in answering that question is state Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Fremont, whom Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, recently appointed as leader of the Senate Housing Committee.
Committee leaders have significant sway in the Legislature. Not only can their stance on a bill meaningfully influence its chance of passage, but they also can decide whether to give a bill a hearing or kill it in cold blood.
Wahab isn’t the only committee leader or legislative power broker who will determine the fate of California’s “abundance” agenda, but she may be one of the biggest wild cards. In her first hearing as housing committee chair last month, she proclaimed that it’s time for California to “move away from development, development, development” and also stated “transit-oriented development doesn’t necessarily work.”
By Ben Christopher : calmatters – excerpt
Several efforts to minimize the power and influence of the California Coastal Commission have stalled…
Housing advocates thought that this was going to be the year when they finally cracked the California Coast.
In early spring, Democratic lawmakers, and the Yes In My Backyard activists backing them, rolled out a series of bills aimed at making it easier to build apartments and accessory dwelling units along California’s highly regulated coast and to make it more difficult for the independent and influential California Coastal Commission to slow or block housing projects. The 15-member group oversees almost all of the state’s 840 miles of coastline, a stretch of land that just under a million Californians call home.
The pro-construction push built off last year’s success for the coalition when the Legislature passed a major housing law and — breaking from long-standing legislative tradition — did not include a carveout for the coast. This year’s pack of bills was meant to cement and build off a new political reality in which the 48-year-old Coastal Commission no longer has quite so much say over housing policy.
Fast forward to mid-August and those new bills are either dead or so severely watered down that they no longer carry the promise of a more built-out coastline. Whatever happened last year, the California Coastal Commission is still a force to be reckoned with…(more)
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)
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:
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.
By Kendra Smith : sfgate – excerpt
The developer has withdrawn permit applications for the hotly debated 50-story tower near SF’s Ocean Beach
A proposed 50-story tower in San Francisco that caused a stir when its permit applications were filed last year will not be built. According to an email sent on May 21 by a manager at developer CH Planning, LLC, to San Francisco Planning, which was obtained by SFGATE, the company is withdrawing all existing applications filed since December 2021 for its 2700 Sloat Blvd. property…
CH Planning had submitted several plans for residential buildings at the site over the years — but none were so controversial as the proposed 589-foot skyscraper in the city’s Outer Sunset neighborhood. The building would have been 316% taller than the area’s zoning regulations allow for, according to a response from city staff to the developer’s proposal. It also did not comply with the city’s planning code, and would have required rezoning in the area in order to be built.
But it wasn’t just the city that had words to share about the proposed tower. A group called Save our Neighborhoods San Francisco launched a petitionwith nearly 4,000 signatures asking the city to stop the development — even though it hadn’t yet been approved. The petition also asked the city to “create a vision and plan for SF that enhances our neighborhoods, and not allow randomly placed towering complexes.”…
The developer is selling the site to a nonprofit buyer that will build eight stories of affordable housing on the site, the San Francisco Chronicle reports… (more)
People want to know what the numbers are. Here are some numbers. 4,000 signatures get noticed. If it really important to pool our resources and support and to do the work to stop or support government plans for our lives. To that end, please review this site for actions you may take on causes you are “mad as hell” about: https://votersrevenge.wordpress.com/
By Paula Mejía : sfgate – excerpt
A unique confluence of factors has stymied the Third Street Promenade, a car-free outdoor mall by the iconic Santa Monica Pier
Yet that same liveliness evaporated a mere three blocks over at the city of Santa Monica’s Third Street Promenade. Although the shopping and dining enclave is a car-free, open-air mall not unlike other heavily visited sites including Universal CityWalk and the Grove, only a small handful of people venture over to the outdoor esplanade these days. An estimated 10 million people visit the pier yearly; only a tiny fraction of them appear to be interested in the promenade. The leisurely Adirondack chairs lining the sidewalks sit vacant, the once-plentiful street performers have mostly vanished, and it’s not unusual to spot back-to-back-to-back retail vacancies along each nearly empty block.
It’s all one giant missed opportunity for Santa Monica, the standalone Los Angeles County city with the multimillion-dollar coastline. For decades, the promenade was seen as a masterful reimagining of public space, a rare pedestrian-only area in a region with underperforming public transit and too many cars…(more)
From Awattorneys via email:
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP Secures A Legal Win for Restoring Local Control on Housing: Court Rules In Favor of Five California Charter Cities Declaring Senate Bill 9 Unconstitutional
On April 22, 2024 at 11:00 AM, the Honorable Curtis A. Kin in Department 86 of the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a ruling granting a Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 9, as applied to charter cities. Senate Bill 9 requires all California cities to ministerially approve an application for a lot split, and up to four total housing units, on a single family residential lot that meets certain specified criteria.
Five charter cities – Carson, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Del Mar, and Whitter – initiated a lawsuit in early 2022 against the State of California claiming that Senate Bill 9 is unconstitutional and invalid against charter cities. The League of California Cities and the City of Cerritos filed respective amicus briefs in the Trial Court in support of the Charter cities’ position. After extensive briefing and two hearings in Department 86, the Court ruled in favor of the five charter cities. In this litigation, the charter cities are represented by Managing Partner Sunny Soltani, Equity Partner Pam Lee, Partner Michelle Villarreal, and Associate Shukan Patel of Aleshire & Wynder, LLP along with Michael Webb from the Redondo Beach City Attorney’s office
For further information on what this ruling means or how your city can benefit from this decision, please contact Pam Lee at plee or visit awattorneys.com… (more)