Thread by @CSElmendorf

Ok, now let's break down @sfplanning's analysis of "constraints" to housing.
Context: this is a required component of city's housing element & it must be accompanied by concrete programs to "mitigate or remove" any identified constraints. /1

https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1507937948330647554

However, @California_HCD hasn't offered much substantive guidance about what counts as an actionable or unreasonable constraint.
In last planning period, many cities just summarized their rules & summarily concluded that they had no constraints. /2
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

@sfplanning's analysis of constraints is a curiosity.
On one hand, it reads like a plea for putting SF into land-use receivership. It's full of jibes against Bd of Supes & neighborhood groups. The subtext is, we can't solve our problems; CA must do it for us. /3

Supes are faulted for:
- Creating an impossibly complex planning code
- Adopting & then doubling down on putatively green "non-potable water" standard that makes dense, garage-free projects infeasible
- Ratcheting up fees & inclusionary requirements /4

- Requiring conditional use permits (= public hearing & supes meddling) for everything.
- Trying to cut out speculators & make homeowners "do development themselves," even though homeowners "are not in a resilient position to take on such risk" /5

- Enacting civil service & labor rules that make it impossible for @sfplanning to ramp up/down staffing across the business cycle, using contract workers like planning depts in other cities do /6

The draft is spiced with quotes from developers panning SF as an impossible place to build: It's a "blackhole of timing," it does CEQA like no other city, its discretionary review process is ridiculous, its IZ requirements are a massive tax on new housing, etc. /7

More examples. /8

Yet the draft largely ignores the specific state laws that SF (likely) violates on regular basis.
This omission is bizarre b/c @California_HCD's Housing Accountability Unit sent a public letter to the city a few months ago demanding this analysis. /9

https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1489040857688797184

The Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) and the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) require cities to take certain steps within 30-60 days of date on which a project application is "determined" or "deemed" to be complete." /10

Per HAA, a project is "deemed to comply" with any local zoning, plan or development standards of which city fails to give written notice of noncompliance within 30-60 days of this date. /11

Per PSA, a CEQA-exempt project is "deemed approved" if city fails to approve or deny it w/in 60 days of date of the exemption finding, which in turn is to be made within 30 days of project's determined-to-be-complete date. /12

Yet as @ONeillMoiraK discovered in her study of the project entitlement process in 20 California cities, San Francisco *doesn't even record* the determined-to-be-complete date in its project-tracking software. /13
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

It's no secret that SF flaunts the PSA: the former head of SF planning's enviro review division acknowledges it, as does a 20-year-old study on planning's own website! /14

https://twitter.com/sbjinsfo/status/1501437769368834052

https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1470481290759753736

Though @sfplanning's draft "analysis of constraints" is mum on fact that city doesn't record the determined-to-be-complete date as defined in state law, it does report certain "typical processing times" that appear to violate state law. /15

For example, CEQA exemption determinations are said to take "1 day to 9 months," w/median of 122 days (should be 30 days or less); and CEQA exempt projects are "targeted" for a "hearing date within 9 months" (not 60 days as required by PSA). /16

Projects that require CUP (e.g., anything that redevelops an existing home) are said to take 300-609 days to review.
This despite fact that nearly all projects in SF qualify for CEQA exemption & so should be approved or denied (per PSA) within 60 days of exemption finding. /17

There's a minimal solution to these problems, which @California_HCD should insist on as a condition of housing element approval. /18

First, SF must record determined / deemed complete date for every project, & also date of any HAA notice-of-noncompliance.
Second, city must establish admin pathway within Building Department for recognizing & issuing building permits for "deemed approved" entitlements. /19

Third, to insulate the deemed-approved entitlements from due-process challenges, city should tell developers to include the deemed-approval warning required by Court of Appeal in notices to neighbors. /20 casetext.com/case/mahon-v-c…

Insisting on this solution--which amounts to developer self-certification of compliance with planning requirements--might seem radical, but it's not. It's what the PSA already requires. /21

Another oddity: while analysis of constraints presents veiled critique of Bd of Supes for infeasible inclusionary requirements, it doesn't mention that @sfplanning applies those IZ requirements to state density bonus units, relying on idiosyncratic interpretation... /22

of state density bonus law followed (to my knowledge) by no other city in the state. This is more low-hanging fruit for @California_HCD to pick. /23

The ultimate conclusion of the analysis is that SF has now rendered infeasible almost all housing development (except for high rise towers in the highest-demand neighborhoods). This notwithstanding the fact that SF's home prices & rents are tops in the nation. /24

So, what will @California_HCD have to say about this? I can't wait to find out! /end
@GVelasquez72 @MeganKirkeby @CaHousingGuy @ShannanWestCA @Jason_Elliott @Scott_Wiener @AsmPhilTing @DavidChiu @LondonBreed