Really what we need is an end to apartment bans. It’s never been about the buildings. It’s never been about the parking, or shadows. It’s always been about the people who live in them. One time years ago, I heard someone of an older generation than mine say that directly. The quiet part out loud.
It allows lots to be subdivided, but it doesn’t change whether apartment buildings are allowed. And there’s a floor area max per resulting small lot that would prevent apartment buildings anyway.
Yeah. You could make some projects work though. 5000 sq ft lot, split in two, put up two fourplexes with 780 sq ft gross for each unit. 6000 sq ft, and the units get a bit bigger, 937 sq ft.
Make sure that LA adopts city-wide signal preemption for transit and pressure the State to implement the same policy. Let’s ensure that transit doesn’t get needlessly slowed down and that it’s consistently competitive with driving.
OK, this is bullshit. The California coastal commission is protecting the beach from the encroachment of wealthy people who are trying to abscond with public spaces for their own private use. So you’re obviously a troll trying to forward wealth’s agenda by misrepresenting the coastal commission
The CCC does some good stuff but it also does things like requiring car parking and prohibiting apartment buildings near the beach that could block views from expensive single family homes
I’m not sure how exactly this could be achieved, but preventing cities from upzoning only in lower resource areas and leaving highest resource areas single family. (This interacts with Coastal Commission reform since highest resource areas are often near the beach).
Can Sacramento already issue building and occupancy permits in jurisdictions that don't have a compliant housing element? That would be neat, especially if those jurisdictions are denied standing to sue by legislation.
-End SB9 carveouts for historic districts
-Add ADU density bonuses to historic districts (e.g., 2 units) if they preserve the existing structure
-Exempt office to residential conversions from CEQA
I've got a take that defect reform is best tackled by making water intrusion and other ongoing damage defects an inspection issue, and possibly moving liability to cities that miss the issues.
Too much focus on legislation that shifts liability without preventing the defects.
To dramatically increase affordability, we have to increase productivity in our homebuilding industry. To do that, we need a recession–proof market for factory-built homes, to overcome the high cost of starting and running a successful factory.
Perhaps the state of California could provide that market by providing housing grants only for housing built using modern methods, such as in a factory?
“Minister for Housing Darragh O’Brien wrote to local authorities offering them a route to reduce debt burdens on their lands if they commit to rapidly providing social housing on the sites, particularly modular homes.”
“The Government should spearhead the adoption of Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) or off-site construction through its direct build social housing programme, a new report has recommended.”
I was going to mumble something here about affordable housing, hiring more social workers, and subsidizing coastal desalination infrastructure, but the sheer number of highly specific, detailed, quality replies makes me feel amateurish and out of place.
Most modestly, I think given Sheetz there’s an opportunity to define some limits on impact fees.
More ambitiously, assuming effective reforms add types of housing that can bypass public hearing processes, I’d like to see laws aimed at permitting a small number of truly gigantic towers by right
partly on its own merits, but also partly to test the hypothesis that missing-middle really is a lighter lift politically than defining areas where anything goes; that hypothesis has taken a beating what with recent lawsuits + CO+FL’s non-missing-middle successes, but still has its defenders
Right now, I can show developers in the central valley getting rid of all the multifamily zoning in their projects by selling the land to a school district.
A lot of the state still has separate Elementary and High School districts.
Lest you think this is a shenanigan practiced only by central valley sprawl guys, I note that in Berkeley the only "R-5" zone that exists in the entire city lies underneath Berkeley High School.
Do not let a small group of people in a neighborhood petition for historic status without having to have a community vote of all affected residents that shows majority support; also have historic district inclusion be opt-in rather than opt-out for individual home owners.
AB 2011 already does this? Seems hard to improve without lowering prevailing wage
IIRC 5ish years ago there were rumors of a deal with the Trades to calculate PW at smaller geographies, so that expensive cities have higher wages but farther out suburbs have lower wages. I think that died though
Reform historical preservation process. Sausalito is about to inventory and designate a bunch of properties as historically significant. This is what happened the last time we designated a building that was to be redeveloped as historically significant.
The crazy thing is that there is no adjacent housing. The people stopping it don't even live in the vicinity. They are just making it their life's work to have anything in Sausalito change.
Give the state authority to approve projects when local jurisdictions are found to be breaking the law. Sausalito blatantly breaks the law and HCD sends them letters asking them to do better
Reform the housing element process. Jurisdictions unable to meet their housing element let's do comprehensive downzoning or lose their ability to permit projects. Jurisdictions with less than 25,000 people should be merged into larger jurisdictions for the housing element process.
Make SDBL an alternative to local IZ programs, so if you use the SDBL with the base density you don't need to comply with local IZ
(Could water this down by making it apply only to cities that are behind on RHNA)
Could tie this to RHNA more strongly by doing:
In cities behind on low-income RHNA, SDBL projects are exempt from IZ if they include VLI or LI
In cities behind on above moderate income RHNA, all SDBL projects (including moderate income) are exempt from IZ
That would mean IZ would hit only those projects it most constrains: little projects of 5-15 units. Should be coupled with exemption from IZ entirely for projects under 15 units or so.
Bill from the perspective of solving challenges in the Inland Empire: Parcel tax on warehouses by square foot and use the revenue to build regional rail and multifamily social housing
- statewide end of parking minimums
- statewide enable 4 bike parking spots to be substituted for 1 car parking spot required
- incentives for housing developer to implement street safety improvement like protected bike lanes or traffic calming
Ideally yes, but seems hard to get over the line atm. If it means a bar cannot rent a space that includes parking, even if just applied to new ones, that closes off most options across the state
And even if you got legislators to the point of considering that it should be a universal principle, their worries will immediately turn to street parking overspill
Very serious about this one and hoping to be directly involved: SB4 but for healthcare institutions. Allow healthcare institutions / hospitals to build housing on land they own. Address impacts of homelessness on health and provide workforce housing. I am in touch with 2 interested institutions.
This sounds like a good idea for both practical & political reasons. Healthcare providers have political sway and are generally popular. This initiative should also extend to providing housing for sleep-deprived students in healthcare. Let ‘em walk home from graveyard shifts, instead of driving!
Tell me what the next steps are and I’m in to help develop and champion this. I’m on a pediatrics rotation now in a hospital that has a 7-story apartment building on its grounds for students/residents/staff. It’s been so convenient to roll out of bed and walk 15 steps into the hospital.
My home institution is in region (San Bernardino Co) w severe shortage of housing & healthcare. Main hospital is 16 stories tall & surrounded by SFH resi. Institution owns 100s acres of undev land that can only dev into clinics. Healthcare providers can become housing providers. Housing = healthcare
late add and no expertise -- I hear about construction supply chain bottlenecks from time to time -- transformers, for ex -- slowing projects down. Can we help? Can we operate a reserve? Help a factory start or retool? Provide purchase guarantees?
To experiment w at municipal level: give property owners land from ROW in exchange for them rebuilding narrower street. —> More development pencils and street is safer and cheaper to maintain.
I just saw this post from @patricksiegman.bsky.social and thought it’d create a great framework for many of the other reforms that folks have mentioned related to building codes.
1) Legalize point access blocks
2) Eliminate fire sprinkler requirements for all residential
3) Incentivize training of construction labor
4) Program for State to purchase multi-family loans (like Freddie does for single-family mortgages)
5) CEQA exemption for housing elements & implementing actions
A) Shift Caltrans’ budget to transit projects
B) Limit allowable road lane widths
C) Expand ADU laws to permit Accessory Commercial Units
D) Require cities to comprehensively update their General Plans every third housing element cycle
the Bay Area transit agencies that transported professionals to offices in Downtown SF, Peninsula and South Bay pre-pandemic have never recovered ridership and now have massive budget gaps
True. Office districts have been more affected by remote work than other kinds of employment centers, but they also tend to be the historic hubs of transit systems.
Protecting open and wild space, maintaining neighborhood character (eg, no brutalist apartment blocks in a row of Victorians-make victorian apartments). But oh, I forget you don’t value those things, only profitability for builders.
Across all regions with a Sustainable Communities Strategy, ban new commercial development of more than ~100k sqft that is not within a walk of high-quality transit.
Across entire state ban new leases or lease renewals by public agencies for office space not within a walk of high-quality transit.
A state constitutional amendment to repeal Article 13 sect 10 of the CA Constitution which exempts golf courses from paying taxes on the "best and greatest use" and locks in the golf use from 1960.
Thought about bringing up Prop 13 but I'm sure the doable legislative nibbles have all been tried, lolsob. Anyway...
Something akin to Alternative Minimum Tax for commercial? Commercial increases averaged between 2% and inflation? Something to deal w resort hotels & private schools laughing at us.
It is a red herring in the sense that people will point to it as a reason not to build, which is BS.
But I do think the way they manipulate vacancies can have a material effect on prices at any given time. Plus I’d rather have the state do it than go city by city, which is starting to happen.
RHNA targets still need serious reform. Setting BMR targets 10x higher than what can be realistically achieved is a very misleading frame for policy discussions.
Sure, but I can tell you from firsthand experience that it drives support for high inclusionary rates and fiscally reckless bond measures. People look at a chart and say that we’re “overproducing” market rate housing and underproducing BMR housing.
How about naming each city’s RHNA goal its “minimum fair share housing goal”? This would emphasize that each city has to do its fair share, and each goal is only a minimum, not a maximum.
The way to make low income housing is to build lots of market rate housing, which makes old housing cheaper. We shouldn't expect brand new shiny items to be affordable to people with low income. It's ok to buy used cars, and it's ok to buy/rent used housing.
Ok, but the “minimum” for the BMR categories are still complete fantasies. Oakland’s BMR target is about 13k units. That would require *at least* $1.3 billion dollars in subsidies, and probably closer to double or triple that.
Comments
apart from the vacant lot constraint, you only get to 5 on lots larger than ~6k sq ft (larger in some jurisdictions)
-Add ADU density bonuses to historic districts (e.g., 2 units) if they preserve the existing structure
-Exempt office to residential conversions from CEQA
cap impact fees,
cap IZ (ideally at zero, if a city wants to improve state's density bonus they can do that),
single stair
Too much focus on legislation that shifts liability without preventing the defects.
Single stair reforms, not studies (look at the ridiculous work arounds) https://sfyimby.com/2024/10/residential-infill-proposed-for-5172-mission-street-san-francisco.html
Not allowing unfunded IZ mandates
Take SD ADU laws statewide
https://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en/sectors/high-tech-construction-and-housing
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/taoiseach-keen-to-see-more-modular-homes-built-to-tackle-housing-crisis-1410388.html
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2024/02/01/government-urged-to-spearhead-adoption-of-rapid-build-modular-housing/
That is how I got lucky to be housing secure in coastal socal on a mere mortal salary.
More ambitiously, assuming effective reforms add types of housing that can bypass public hearing processes, I’d like to see laws aimed at permitting a small number of truly gigantic towers by right
A lot of the state still has separate Elementary and High School districts.
feel like this change would be a double edged sword tho
Kamala needs writers that do not own The PORN Kitchen ?
That's it.... PORN KITCHEN.....
IIRC 5ish years ago there were rumors of a deal with the Trades to calculate PW at smaller geographies, so that expensive cities have higher wages but farther out suburbs have lower wages. I think that died though
Cap impact fees at 3% of assessed value
(Could water this down by making it apply only to cities that are behind on RHNA)
In cities behind on low-income RHNA, SDBL projects are exempt from IZ if they include VLI or LI
In cities behind on above moderate income RHNA, all SDBL projects (including moderate income) are exempt from IZ
- statewide enable 4 bike parking spots to be substituted for 1 car parking spot required
- incentives for housing developer to implement street safety improvement like protected bike lanes or traffic calming
2) Eliminate fire sprinkler requirements for all residential
3) Incentivize training of construction labor
4) Program for State to purchase multi-family loans (like Freddie does for single-family mortgages)
5) CEQA exemption for housing elements & implementing actions
A) Shift Caltrans’ budget to transit projects
B) Limit allowable road lane widths
C) Expand ADU laws to permit Accessory Commercial Units
D) Require cities to comprehensively update their General Plans every third housing element cycle
We can’t do another SB50 in the places needed most if transit frequencies are slashed to fill budget gaps
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/bart-office-work-tax-19824343.php
Across entire state ban new leases or lease renewals by public agencies for office space not within a walk of high-quality transit.
FWIW, I also mentioned the importance of having public facilities near transit, since that may be a more specific lever to push on
Anyway, California somehow needs to better integrate activity centers + transit + more housing
Something akin to Alternative Minimum Tax for commercial? Commercial increases averaged between 2% and inflation? Something to deal w resort hotels & private schools laughing at us.
Statewide RealPage ban.
I’d also encompass some form of SFH - maybe on owners with 3 or more in the state. But that rule would be a bit finicky.
I think RealPage is largely a red herring.
But I do think the way they manipulate vacancies can have a material effect on prices at any given time. Plus I’d rather have the state do it than go city by city, which is starting to happen.
- CEQA reform
- Coastal Commission reform