Adding to this ⬇️ thread about @hknightsf's great new column, here's one more point about how the pending "housing element" update, required by state law, is going to blow up San Francisco land use... /1
Under new state law (AB 1397), SF cannot "recycle" sites its previous housing element deemed suitable for affordable housing, unless they're rezoned for *by right* development of 20% low-income projects. /2
Yet SF's city charter disallows by-right development, period. So SF must either get a court to find its charter preempted by state law, or else rezone a huge swath of city's SFH neighborhoods for multifamily development at density of 30+ dwelling units / acre. /3
Outcome (1) would mean no more discretionary review of 20% BMR projects.

Outcome (2) would no doubt require upzoning the west side SFH neighborhoods for small-scale multifamily apartment buildings.

Outcome (3) is that city just falls out of compliance, in which case...

/4
...SF wouldn't be able to use its zoning code or general plan to deny *any* 20% BMR project, no matter how large, in any SFH neighborhood! (This thanks to an obscure provision of state's Housing Accountability Act.) /5

lewis.ucla.edu/research/overc…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Chris Elmendorf

Chris Elmendorf Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @CSElmendorf

24 Jan
A serious question for @DeanPreston and others: How can city do value-capture rezoning while also ensuring that the required public benefits (fees, IZ, etc.) don't drive redevelopment value of sites below value of existing uses? 1/5
What makes this such a tough nut to crack is that the value of existing uses varies a lot across sites in older cities, and market conditions (prices & rents, construction costs) are in flux. 2/5
Here are three possible solutions:

(A) Replace exactions, impact fees, and IZ with a land-value tax. Great in theory, but foreclosed in California by Prop. 13. 3/5
Read 5 tweets
13 Dec 20
THREAD: A Tale of Two States

(and executive branch preemption of municipal barriers to infill housing, like parking minimums)

1/n
Oregon's LCDC just crushed minimum parking requirements for small infill projects (duplex, triplex, 4plex). @California_HCD has not done same. Why not?

2/n
Statutory authority is pretty similar. Oregon: cities may not impose "unreasonable costs or delay" on development of "middle housing." CA: cities' housing plans must "remove constraints" to "housing for all income levels" "where appropriate & legally possible"

3/n
Read 7 tweets
14 Oct 20
THREAD: Was Oregon's heralded statewide 4plex bill just for show?

That's the upshot if recently proposed implementing regs are adopted in their current form. 1/9
The statute (HB 2001) requires cities with population > 25,000 to allow designated "middle housing" types "in areas zoned for residential use." 2/9
Cities must adopt a state-approved middle-housing zoning plan by specified date, or else apply default zoning rules issued by state agency. In principle, this solves problem of cities "allowing" 4plexes on paper but making them impossible to build in practice. 3/9
Read 9 tweets
25 Sep 20
THREAD: My rebuttal of a junk report from The Embarcadero Institute (who are they?!?) about projections of housing need in California. 1/17
The EI posits that the “math is wrong” in California's new regional housing targets, owing to adjustments triggered by SB 828, a bill enacted in 2018. /2 Image
EI contrasts “the SB 828 double count” with what it calls a “conventional economist approach,” under which housing need is equal to projected household growth plus a small vacancy adjustment. /3 Image
Read 17 tweets
27 Jun 20
Earlier this month, @California_HCD posted a little-noticed memo that massively increases the amount of "zoned capacity" for new housing that local governments must provide. This thread explains it. 1/n

hcd.ca.gov/community-deve…
CA requires local govts periodically to adopt a state-approved plan, called a "housing element," to accommodate local share of regional housing need. A housing element must inventory developable sites and estimate their capacity. 2/
If aggregate site capacity is less than local govt's housing target, local gov't must rezone for greater density and allow by-right development of 20%-affordable projects (speedier permitting, fewer cumbersome conditions). /3
Read 13 tweets
1 Jan 19
CA housing folks: Why haven't builders exploited the state law exempting 20%-affordable projects from zoning / plan in cities that don't accommodate enough? @YIMBY_Law @hanlonbt @anniefryman @CAHousingPod @michaeldlane @ProfSchleich @RickHills2 @kookie13 @kimmaicutler 1/17
This thread explains relevant California law, then suggests possible answers and a legislative fix. 2/17
(And if anyone knows of examples / case studies on point, please share!) 3/17
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!