By
In 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 35, a new law that demands California cities build more housing or risk temporarily losing control of some of their permitting and entitlements processes.
Few metros meet the state’s regular Regional Housing Needs Assessments—hence the need for a law to motivate more building—but it wasn’t until Friday, when the California Department of Housing and Community Development released the first assessment of cities that would be subject to the state’s new “streamlining process,” that the full extent of the law’s scope became clear.
It’s almost a clean sweep across the board: 97.6 percent of California cities and counties fall under some provision of SB 35 or another.
Only 13 places have satisfied housing expectations to a legally sufficient degree, among them Hillsborough, Napa County, and Sonoma County. (Note that this refers to the counties at large. Individual cities, including Sonoma and Napa themselves, failed to make the list.)
The overwhelming majority of metros—378 statewide—are subject to “streamlining for proposed developments with at least ten percent” affordable housing (priced for people making 80 percent of the area median value, per the law), including places like Alameda County at large, Carmel, Colma, Emeryville, Half Moon Bay, Los Altos Hills, Martines, Mill Valley, Millbrae, Pacifica, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, Sausalito, Sonoma, South San Francisco, Tiburon, and Union City.
Posted by Steve Sinai
19 comments:
The jack-a-moles at Pacifica planning wanted a check for $20,000 along with the application for a plannig permit. The reason: "review study session".
Without doubt they are biased against single family home development. Just look at the number of outstanding permits even with the dire housing situation.
Unfortunately, I am sure that current city council will have no problem " temporarily losing control of some of their permitting and entitlements processes" in order to block any development in this city. They did not blink an eye giving back 10 million in our taxes to stop any HWY 1 work.
Our illegitimate council is corrupt and owned by a completely unethical cabal known as the Pacifica Progressive Alliance. They only care about their small radical group of "I got mines". They will use any tactic imaginable to inflict as much damage to our city as is necessary to block any growth or development which they label as the work of evil realtors.
This is a very sick group of sanctimonious hypocrites. They are the enemies of Pacifica.
Source for your statement that they gave back $10 million?
Hey Steve can you help with this one? Thought I saw the 10 mil figure but darned if I can find it
Anon 6:15, check city agendas jan/feb then the minutes of the meeting they vote to give back.
Nobody can show $10 million give back because it's not true.
The county and state had allocated $52 million for the highway widening. By asking that the project be cancelled, the city gave that up.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/caleraparkway
$52 million was never allocated. The funds weren't there. Needed future funding to build the project and funding sources were to be determined, never identified. Can't give back funds that aren't there.
If the project was approved, the $52 million would have been allocated. We lost that.
The $52 million wasn't there to be allocated.
Not in Jan.-Feb. Had to go back to Sept. 11 meeting to find the resolution. It withdrew the city's interest in $6.9 million of funds programmed for the right-of-way phase of the highway widening.
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Supporting the Re-Purposing of $375,000 of Measure A Funds, Previously Designated for the Design Phase of the Calera Parkway (Widening of Highway 1), Towards the Study of Other Alternatives, or the Combination Thereof, to Address the Peak Hour Congestion Along Highway 1 and Rescinding Resolution No. 64-99, Which Previously Supported the Construction of the Calera Parkway Project as aProposed Widening of Highway 1; and Authorize transmittal of letter to the City County Association of Government (C/CAG) formally withdrawing the City's interest in $6.9 Million of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds currently programmed for the Right-of-Way phase of the Calera Parkway Project.
Deirdre Martian led this charge or more correctly, was led into this charge by Loeb, Verby, Keener and Digre. She was more than happy to step right up and do this deed because her puppet masters know that she is a narcissist who craves the accolades of her Socialistic masters and she's too stupid to understand that she is their perfect cover if this whole thing blows up.
Pacifica has been so screwed by this "I got mine" cult and guess who gets to pay for all of this malfeasance?
Deirdre is the best City Council Member Pacifica has ever had.
...and Trump is the greatest President the United States has ever had. Just ask him.
1:45
Sour grapes!
8:46 .... Get a clue.
Here is an idea: Build small, affordable condos on the east side of HWY 1 with a direct shuttle/SamTrans link to BART, frequent service outside of just commute times. Eureka Square might be an easy retrofit into a multistory below market rate housing , retail, and transit center. Ideally, priority will be given to local empty-nesters (and retirees/seniors) who have already lived in Pacifica for 15+ years. If I could buy a small condo in some future fantasy development for say , $275k or less, knowing I'll be dead in less than 30 years from old age, I would gladly sell my 4-bedroom, 3-bathroom house, adding to housing stock.
Over a year ago, several folks and I met with some city planners and Lori Tinfow suggesting that Pacifica re-zone to allow micro-homes (tiny homes). We suggested the city could provide some small unused lots for this (lots too small for regular zoning). The big idea was to find land in Pacifica for we-who-want-to-downsize and live tiny-while-staying-in-Pacifica. The city said they'd get back to us but never did. I would gladly give up my too-big house to "housing stock" if I could have a safe and small dwelling here in Pacifica. It's a win-win if they eventually consider this type of housing. Homeowners can downsize into smaller spaces in Pacifica, housing stock gets freed up, the city/county get more tax $$$ from the resale and reassessment of the home. It was so disappointing they couldn't get back to us and move forward on our reasonable and do-able idea.
Post a Comment