Looks like tomorrow's committee hearing on @BuffyWicks's "Builder's Remedy Grows Up" bill, AB 1893, will be make-or-break.

The committee's bill analysis is out. It's pretty hostile.

This 🧵covers the main objections and quickly responds.


1/18 leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnal…
Objection #1: By amending the HAA's definition of disapproval to cover de-facto disapproval thru "unjustified, dilatory, or egregious" course of conduct, the bill would expose local governments to liability for reasonable, good-faith actions.
/2

.@Planning4LA has issued new CEQA streamlining checklist for projects within scope of housing element EIR.

Here's a 🧵comparing L.A. & S.F.'s use of housing element EIRs to streamline CEQA review of projects & rezoning.
1/16
planning.lacity.gov/odocument/d9f4… Both cities (wisely) did a full EIR for their housing elements, saving time, grief & litigation risk down the road.

Even more wisely, both cities put most developable parcels in their housing element site inventories, w/ p(dev) adjustments.
/2

California shoots self in foot, again:

@AsmChrisWard's bill to revisit CA Building Code w/ goal of reducing construction costs by 30% has been gutted.

It now just prescribes study of whether to allow 3-10 unit buildings under residential code.



1/12 leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavC…
CA's "housing crisis policy" has been to pass dramatic bills allowing big apartment & condo projects to be built as of right & in derogation of local zoning--but only if the projects would be so costly that (almost) none get built.
/2
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

Pictured below is a S.F. & California housing policy failure unfolding in my neighborhood.

The corner lot, upzoned in 2009, was designated in city's housing element for up to 72 units of housing.

It's now being gut-renovated for 2.

1/🧵. The lower level of the building is a storefront and has been boarded up for as long as I can remember. Ages.

The upper level is listed in city records as a single dwelling unit and I think was occupied (probably rented).
/2

🥳New papers! A cornucopia! (well, 3).🎆

#1: "What State Housing Policies Do Voters Want? Evidence from a Platform-Choice Experiment" (w/@ClaytonNall & @stan_okl)

written for a @JPIPE_journal symposium on political economy of housing



🧵/21 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
#2: the long-awaited revision of "Folk Economics and the Persistence of Political Opposition to New Housing" (w/@ClaytonNall & @stan_okl)

a/k/a, our "Housing Breaks Brains" paper

now greatly improved, thanks to @aletheia_tweets peer-review process


/2 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

New superior court decision holds that California's SB 9 (duplex and lot-split bill) unconstitutionally infringes on charter cities' "home rule" authority.

It's a weird, narrow decision that turns on a lawyerly sleight of hand. I don't think it will hold up on appeal.🧵/15 Under California law, legislation that limits local control over a traditional field of municipal concern like land use must be reasonably tailored to advance a matter of statewide concern.
/2

Must read @SFjkdineen story on SF's "inclusionary housing" program for middle-income households.

It's yielding mass vacancy rather than housed middle-income families.

Why? B/c of panoply of death-by-good-intention allocation & pricing rules.
🧵/12.

sfchronicle.com/sf/article/mis…
Sin #1: An arcane set of "preference" categories, which make applications cumbersome to fill out & review, and which result in units sitting vacant b/c they've been pre-allocated to a different preference group.
/2

Here's an excellent story on @BuffyWicks & @AGRobBonta's AB 1893, the "builder's remedy grows up" bill.

In a nutshell: more predictability + more feasibility, in exchange for new limits on density. Read the rest of this 🧵 if you want the details.
1/20
calmatters.org/housing/2024/0… Predictability:

The law currently says that cities may not apply zoning or GP to a builder's remedy project, yet there's a savings clause for any "development standards" that are consistent with meeting city's share of regionally needed housing. Huh?

/2papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

Time for me to eat some 🐦‍⬛.

I try to provide dispassionate legal analysis of housing issues. Sometimes that means saying @California_HCD or YIMBYs have taken weak positions.

Yesterday, L.A. Sup. Ct. sided w/HCD on an important question I thought HCD had got wrong.
1/6 The question is whether cities are "in compliance" w/housing element law from the moment they adopt a substantively adequate housing plan, or only from moment that HCD signs off on the plan.

(the BR application in this case was submitted in the interim period)

/2

New builder's remedy decision!

LA Sup Ct. has released tentative opinion in 600 Foothill v. La Cañada Flintridge. Oral argument is happening now.

Looks like a huge win for @housingdefense, @AGRobBonta and @California_HCD!
🧵/12. The holdings:

#1: City's refusal to process BR application as a BR project is a "disapproval" within meaning of HCD, notwithstanding that city hadn't begun CEQA review.

/1

🎆New CEQA case has the makings of landmark.🎇

W/o relying on AB 1633, Hilltop Group v. Cnty of San Diego holds that decision to require further enviro study of an arguably exempt project was (1) reviewable and (2) an abuse of discretion. 🧵. 1/16.

courts.ca.gov/opinions/docum…
To best of my knowledge, this is the first CEQA case holding that a lead agency's decision to require more analysis than CEQA in fact requires can be challenged in court.
/2

Great pod! It was gratifying to hear Reps @SeanCasten & @MikeLevin engage w/ my critique of the NEPA & local-participation provisions of their Clean Energy Transmission Act.

But I think they're still overlooking or not connecting the dots b/t some pretty basic points. 🧵. 1/10.

https://twitter.com/drvolts/status/1757829736187990341

#1. In defense of expanding legal requirements for community participation & CBAs, they say that a survey of clean energy developers found that most believe that early community outreach -> faster project approvals.

That's very plausible *holding constant the legal regime.*
/1

Whoa, the NEPA provisions tucked into the new "Clean Electricity & Transmission Acceleration Act" are like a wish list for greenmailers.

There's lots of good in the bill (⤵️), but the NEPA stuff is stunning. Come take a look.
🧵. 1/14.

https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1736038953373839438

1. The bill defines "enviro impact" to include not only enviro impacts, but also "aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health" effects.

(Whereas CEQA is still about "physical environment"--even in the infamous Berkeley case.
)

/2

https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1629525148947857409

A 🧵 on what I'd like to see on the housing front from California & other blue-state policymakers in the New Year.

In two words: relentless pragmatism.

What would this mean in practice? Read on.

1/25 Since Yimbys came on the legislative scene circa 2017, California has passed housing laws by the bucketful, yet the state hasn't moved the needle on overall production.
/2

https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1702188603244417308

A 🧵 on how California enviros lost the plot on infill housing & got rolled by sprawl builders.

trigger warning: if you give money to mainstream green groups in CA, this thread may be hard to read.
1/25 Back in 2018, Cal. Building Industry Association lobbyists came up w/an ingenious scheme:
Make local govs approve any housing project whose density is within range allowed by local gov's General Plan, even if zoning of site is much more restrictive.
/2

Big new HAA decision from CA Court of Appeal ("Snowball").

Court decisively rejects Yimby argument that cities must approve housing projects whose density is consistent with city's general plan, notwithstanding more restrictive zoning. 🧵.

1/12 courts.ca.gov/opinions/docum…
Background: A 2018 bill (AB 3194) amended the HAA to say that if a project is consistent with GP but zoning is inconsistent w/GP, city has to approve project w/o a rezoning (s/t usual health/safety caveat).
/2

A 🧵 on California's just-released audit of land-use practices in S.F., and where we go from here.
1/18

https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1717268301498200452

Context: @GavinNewsom & @California_HCD launched the audit a year ago, in response to multiple complaints of state-law violations & SF having by far the slowest development permitting process of any local gov't in the state.
/2
hcd.ca.gov/about-hcd/news…

The Assembly has concurred, unanimously. AB 1633 is headed to @GavinNewsom's desk!

This is a truly momentous achievement by @PhilTing. Here's why. 🧵.
1/25

https://twitter.com/louismirante/status/1702094299259871414

Since Yimbys became players Sacramento (circa 2017), they've scored lots of legislative & media wins, but the actual housing-production results have been, well, disappointing.
/2

🧵 Today is big test for California legislators -- and for environmentalists: the floor vote on @PhilTing AB 1633, which partially closes a massive loophole in state housing law.
1/23 Here's the loophole:
- Housing Accountability Act says cities may not deny zoning-compliant projects.
- Permit Streamlining Act lays down strict timelines for cities to approve or deny project
- But PSA timelines & HAA kick in only after city completes CEQA review...
/2

🧵A must-read profile of the new breed of "standing-on-my-state-law-rights" California housing developers.

@dillonliam's story also illustrates both the need for, and the need for new limits upon, CA's density-bonus law and builder's remedy.
1/10
latimes.com/homeless-housi… The DBL requires cities to waive almost any zoning/development standard that "physically precludes" the project as proposed.

As @BenTMetcalf says, "It's kind of an amazing law."
/2

🧵It's wild (and not good) that, due to state Density Bonus Law, city's authority to deny this proposed 590' tower on site zoned for 10 stories may depend on courts gutting California's Housing Accountability Act.

tl;dr: DBL amendments needed.

1/16

https://twitter.com/_fruchtose/status/1684404275957604353

Under DBL, developer first shows how many units they could build under base zoning. This determines number of "bonus" units. Then, they get waiver of any zoning & dev standards that "physically preclude" *the project they want to build* w/that unit count + amenities they want.
/2