Zoning changes could put a hurt on Black homeownership

By Badly Barber : wired – excerpt

I am a Black grandparent, homeowner and member of the Altadena Town Council. I grew up in a single-family home, and my husband and I have lived in our house in Altadena for more than two decades. Homeownership helped my family build wealth and provide stable, quality housing, and gave us our piece of the American Dream. But state and local politicians are threatening homeownership among the Black community by damaging single-family zoning laws…

Our homes have been sanctuaries that people know they can always return to, and we plan to pass our homes to our children so they can build wealth. We also are very engaged in our community because we have a vested interest as homeowners. Our homes, in a real way, give us political power and a voice at the table.

But state and local elected officials in California–and across the United States– now seek to alter single-family zoning so that big developers can rush into middle- and working-class communities of color, demolish single-family homes and build pricey, market-rate apartments in their place. That dangerous agenda is playing out in California through Senate bills 9 and 10, which would gut single-family zoning and open the door for predatory developers — many of whom are regular campaign contributors to state and local politicians…(more)

Plans for a public bank could take a big step forward this week

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt
Plus: More taxpayer money going to settle police misconduct cases. That’s The Agenda for May 31 to June 6.
 

The Board of Supes is poised to take the next step toward creating a public bank in San Francisco.

The Government Audit and Oversight Committee will consider Thursday/3 a measure that would set up a committee with a mandate to develop a working municipal banking plan within one year…(more)

and… via email form SF Public Bank…

SFPBC Gearing Up for SF Reinvestment Hearing June 3rd!

Continue reading “Plans for a public bank could take a big step forward this week”

Two Legislators Take Aim at Statewide Planning Laws

In an apparent backlash against recent housing bills, two California state legislators have introduced a constitutional amendment that would essentially revoke the state’s ability to regulate land use. If approved, this amendment would allow cities to avoid compliance with state laws aimed at increasing housing production, making it more difficult to meet the housing needs of the growing California population.

The measure was introduced by Assemblymember Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) on March 16, 2021 and co-authored by Senator Glazer (D-Contra Costa). This comes after an attempt to get a similar citizen-initiated measure on the ballot, which has not reported any required signatures to the state as of this writing. In order to qualify for the ballot, two-thirds of each legislative chamber will need to approve the constitutional amendment. That amounts to a minimum of 54 votes in the Assembly and 27 in the Senate, assuming no vacancies. The governor’s approval is not required.

The constitutional amendment itself is fairly simple. It states that city or county regulations regarding “zoning or the use of land” prevail over conflicting state laws. Limited exceptions include conflicts with state statutes involving (1) the California Coastal Act, (2) the siting of certain power generating facilities, and (3) water or transportation infrastructure projects. Transportation infrastructure projects do not include transit-oriented development projects. This amendment would apply to both charter cities and general law cities. However, in charter cities, courts would determine whether a local ordinance that conflicts with one of the subject areas listed above addresses a matter of statewide concern or a municipal affair…(more)

Washington’s caution – a reminder as housing mandates descend

By Raymond Lorber : via email: (pulblished on Marinij)

George Washington was born on Feb. 22, 1732, 289 years ago. Each year, as we celebrate his birthday, we reflect upon Washington’s wisdom and character.

On Washington’s birthday, a review of his farewell address (1796) reminds us to be cautious of the thinking of our current government leaders. He warned us that, “It is important … that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another.”

With the recent happenings at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., we have seen firsthand why Washington expressed this concern. We saw the power of the executive branch encroach upon the power of the legislative branch. This could have been prevented if only we had taken Washington’s advice and exercised “caution in those we entrusted with the administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres.”

Washington’s words of caution also ring loud and clear in our local government. State legislators are submitting housing bills that will enable the state to control housing decisions. They propose to override the local control currently administered by our cities and counties with the intention of replacing our single-family homes with high density housing.

In the 2021-2022 legislative session, senators have submitted bills SB 7, SB 8, SB 9 and SB10. Every one of these bills have clauses that override local control. State legislators are encroaching on the city’s rights with a goal to control and dictate neighborhood zoning from Sacramento.

SB 7, coauthored by senators Lena Gonzalez and Susan Rubio, nullifies local control. It states, “because the bill would require the lead agency to prepare concurrently the record of proceedings for projects that are certified by the Governor, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”

SB 8, authored by Sen. Anna Caballero, promotes an override of local jurisdiction when a density bonus applies. It states, “when an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development within, or for the donation of land for housing within, the jurisdiction of a city, county, or city and county, that local government shall comply with this section.”

SB 9, coauthored by senators Mike McGuire and Gonzalez, as well as Assembly member Robert Rivas, overrides local control. It states, “the bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require in approving the construction of two residential units.”

SB 10, coauthored by senators Toni Atkins and Caballero, as well as Rivas, limits local control for proposed 10-unit housing. It states, “notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances enacted by the jurisdiction, including restrictions enacted by a local voter initiative, that limit the legislative body’s ability to adopt zoning ordinances, a local government may pass an ordinance to zone a parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified by the local government in the ordinance.”

Are 10-unit complexes, on a single-family lot, appropriate for downtown Sausalito or for Mill Valley? (analysis of the latest amended version, may indicate up to 14 per site may be allowed.)

Furthermore, our governor is promoting a bill that would place state employees as monitors in the meetings of our supervisors, our city council members and our planning committees. The objective of these monitors is to “hold local governments accountable to increase housing production.”

In addition to the state encroachment, the regional authorities are infringing upon the local governments.  The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the next cycle disregards the water supply or the sewage resources needed to support 2,785 additional units in San Rafael or the 1,018 units in Larkspur. The RHNA numbers do not take into consideration each particular city’s resources for supporting the additional housing.

“One size fits all” state and regional mandates are drastic encroachment measures that take away local control from our cities, counties and planning commissions. This overstepping is what Washington cautioned in his farewell address. Our current government leaders need to consider the wisdom and character of Washington.

Raymond G. Lorber, of San Rafael, is the author of “George Washington’s Providence.”

Special Public Hearing on Proposed Great Highway Pilot on June 10

Tune in on Thursday June 10 at 1 p.m. at www.sfgovtv.org for a special joint hearing with the SF Recreation and Park Commission and the SFMTA Board to discuss a proposed pilot on the Great Highway.

Members of the public are encouraged to call in during the hearing or provide feedback via email:

For additional meeting information, see the flyer below, or call 311.

And consider signing the petitions here:
https://www.discoveryink.net/wp/petitions/

 

Proposed San Bruno Avenue Project Criticized for Lack of Parking, Shadows

by : 48hills – excerpt

Most of the roughtly 100 participants at last month’s virtual meeting about a proposed development at 1458 San Bruno Avenue vehemently opposed the project. “For the people in the neighborhood, it seems like an alien spaceship is landing and completely gentrifying the neighborhood,” said one attendee, who didn’t disclose his name.

The Goode family has owned the property, located at the southern tip of San Bruno Avenue, abutting Potrero del Sol Park, since 1927. They want to build a stepped seven-story residential development; the portion closest to the park would be five stories, rising to seven at the furthest point. The design hasn’t significantly changed since the proposal was last floated at a community meeting in 2019. The main difference is the number of units. Two years ago, plans reflected 205 homes: 122 studios, 83 two-bedrooms. The new scheme includes 232 units, with two additional one-bedroom units and one three-bedroom unit. The unit mix remains 60 percent one bedroom or smaller, 40 percent two bedroom or larger. However, Chris Goode, the family’s chief spokesperson, said the development could drop to 204 units to add space to allow for the maximum amount of parking, 51 spaces…(more)

I am sorry I did not make it to this meeting but I was out of town. My concerned neighbor, who gardens in Potrero del Sol told me about it. This project appears to have a rare case of a reasonable property owner, who is opon to dialogue. it seems the biggest problem with the area is the height creating shadows on one of the most popular neighborhood parks. And the ever present parking problems for the neighbors. Nevertheless, this one is friendlier than most. We have hopes for an amicable outcome. Larger family-size units might be nice for a change. Too bad they don’t count bedrooms instead of units. That would clear up the problem of micro units and reduce the number bathrooms and kitchens, cutting some of the expense.

 

Fire commissioner says Safe Streets SF program could put community at risk

By Andre Senior : ktvu – excerpt

Fire Commissioner criticizes continuing Safe Streets SF program

SAN FRANCISCO – There’s been a lot of support for the Safe Streets SF project, which began in April of 2020 to give residents of San Francisco more elbow room to physically distance outdoors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Safe Streets SF led several streets across the city to be closed to cars to emphasize pedestrian activity…

San Francisco’s Fire Commission devoted much of Wednesday’s meeting to the topic where during public comment, a resident commented that he welcomed the continuation after previously being hit twice while on his bicycle. He said he can now safely navigate from one end of the city to the other through the network of Safe Streets converted roads…

Was he perchance one of the cyclists joy-riding through the stop signs or swirling in and out of traffic?

But during the meeting, one issue took center stage following a report from Fire Marshal Dan de Cossio who said that there has been a delay in response times on average of five to 30 seconds over the last year…

The revelation drew a sharp response from Fire Commissioner Francee Covington, who expressed concern that the Safe Streets project could put the community at risk.

“When you talk about a delay of five seconds or 30 seconds, you have to really if your house is on fire, that’s a lifetime to you that is not just a stopwatch period of time,” said Covington…(more)

New Renderings Revealed for 300 De Haro Street, Potrero Hill, San Francisco

Jay Alex of Potrero HIll on nextdoor referred to this article: By: Andrew Nelso : sfyimby – excerpt

New renderings have been revealed from planning documents for a twelve-story group housing project at 300 De Haro Street in Potrero Hill, San Francisco. The recent iteration of the proposal is poised to create 450 co-living units on the neighborhood border with SoMa, including affordable housing. DM Development is responsible for the project, with BAR Architects in charge of design…

The 120-foot tall structure will yield 216,890 square feet, with 134,360 square feet of rentable residential space, 24,590 square feet for amenities, 3,580 square feet for retail use, and 2,780 square feet for 150 to 180 bicycle parking spaces. Vehicular parking will be included for 35-53 vehicles using second-level stackers…

The project includes affordable housing because of the State Density bonus from Senate Bill 35. Over half of the units will be affordable, for a total of 239 affordable units. These affordable units will be offered at various tiers, with 40 units to be priced for residents earning 50-55% of the Area Median Income, i.e., AMI, 185 at 80% AMI, and 14 at 110% AMI…(more)

Jay’s comments:

I want to raise awareness of a development that is coming our way. I have personally been involved with this developer, trying to meet in the middle of a design plan, density plan, that is actually affordable housing as well as forward thinking for the neighborhood and specifically the 16th street corridor. Im a big advocate of affordable housing, as well as I understand that 16th street is absolutely prime for development. As a Potrero Hill neighbor, I know we don’t have the infrastructure, parking, sewage etc to support this density. This is also a developer loop hole. Consider the current building has 18000 sq ft of retail, and we are now looking at 3500. I live in a building where developers used the Live/Work zoning to circumvent dues to the community, schools, taxes etc. We are about to suffer the effects of SB35, which is an aggressive law, projects have to be approved in 90 days, zero environmental review.

This is not a Nimby issue, we have always been supportive of a building at 60 feet (current zoning). however a 120 foot building with 500 units at 300 square feet is not housing that supports a neighborhood. The initial plan had 15000 square feet of retail, 3500 is nothing As you see info come about regarding this, please read the fine points, this is not affordable housing…And the focus is an 8 – 12 month tenant. Not good. No ownership. No neighborhood. Just visitors…

https://sfyimby.com/2021/05/new-renderings-revealed-for-300-de-haro-street-potrero-hill-san-francisco.html

The Plan set:  https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52082f45e4b0734e32db0224/t/60a85302aa94945b3ac375ff/1621644053133/300+DeHaro+SB35+BAR+plan+set+-+April+28+2021.pdf

Most of the YIMBY’s commenters oppose this building. That could be a first. I don’t know what the developers are thinking unless they want to insult everyone and see who blinks first. I think it is called pushing the envelope.

Potrero Hill  gets and Amazon distribution center as well.

While plans to build up to 500 residential units, between 550,000 and 625,000 square feet of office space and an additional 200,000 to 312,500 square feet of “PDR” space with ground floor retail on the nearly 6-acre Recology site at 900 7th Street – which is bounded by 7th, Berry, De Haro, Carolina and Channel – have been in the works since 2018, Amazon has just announced that it has paid $200 million for the prime Showplace Square site and plans to build a 510,000-square-foot distribution center on the parcel instead.

Not one dollar of state rent-relief money has arrived in SF

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Hundreds of millions in federal funding is available — but tenants aren’t getting it.

Governor Gavin Newsom is talking about spending $12 billion on housing for homeless people and rent relief for tenants. It’s a great picture.

But in reality, the existing state program to help tenants who can’t pay rent because of the pandemic has not sent a single check for a single dollar to a single tenant or landlord in San Francisco, public records show.

It’s not much better on a statewide basis: Of the $403 million requested by landlords and tenants, only $4 million – that’s one percent – has actually been paid out.

“It’s just unacceptable,” Molly Goldberg, staff director for the San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition, told me. “The state of the need is huge.”

The story is a complex issue of federal, state, and local agencies, but the bottom line is simple:

California is leaving vast sums of federal money on the table because Newsom’s administration can’t seem to get it together to send the money where it’s needed…(more)

Too much talk and not enough positive action out of Sacramento. What is the hold up? Who are what is to blame?