Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
This result comes courtesy of AB 1893, signed into law yesterday, which for present purposes made three significant changes to California's Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
/2
First, it clarifies that HAA subd. (d)(5)(A) protects projects on sites that a housing element proposes for rezoning to accommodate low- or mod-income housing, not just projects on sites that housing element deems suitable for such housing under status-quo zoning.
/3
Second, it declares that any moderately dense market-rate project of up to 10 units counts as "moderate income housing" for purposes of HAA subd. (d).
/4
Third, it establishes a framework for determining which, if any, local zoning and dev. standards may be applied to subd. (d)(5)(A) projects -- projects which are otherwise exempt from local zoning & GP standards. See screenshots.
/5
Here's how it will work:
- developer looks up their parcel in housing element inventory to determine max density that HE contemplates for site
- developer can then propose *any* project design consistent with that density
/6
- if there's a zoning district anywhere in the city that would allow the developer's project (if site were located in that district), then that district's standards are the "objective standards" that apply to the project
/7
- if there's more than 1 such zone, city must elect which zone applies w/in 30 days of receiving complete project application
x.com/CSElmendorf/st
/8
Quote
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="48" height="48"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Chris Elmendorf
@CSElmendorf
Replying to @CSElmendorf
Step 3: If City disagrees w/ GP or zoning classification that developer chose for project in Step 1, city must notify developer of standards that do apply to project w/in 30-60 days of city's completeness determination, per subd. (j)(2). Else project is "deemed to comply."
/11
Show more
- if there's no such zone, things get messy as the law is unclear (developer is supposed to propose a zone that "facilitates" the project; city then may have to waive standards of that zone that get in the way--or maybe not)
/9
Quote
Chris Elmendorf
@CSElmendorf
Replying to @CSElmendorf
But for BR projects w/ 10 or fewer units--which aren't required to have a BMR component and thus won't qualify for SDBL waivers--what happens if there's no local zoning or GP classification that can accommodate the project?
The answer is unclear (and maybe bad).
/16
Show more
Now, the nifty thing about SF's housing element is that virtually every parcel in central, western, and northern neighborhoods is "proposed" for additional density under one of 3 rezoning scenarios.
/10
And, conveniently, every such parcel appears to be classified for *some* low- or mod-income housing in the housing element sites inventory.
(If site is assigned units in an "above-mod" column, then it's also included in the "mod" column. See screenshot for examples.)
/11
So, if you want to build <= 10 units, look up parcel in inventory (Table B), find biggest number in the {M1, M2, M3} max density cols, conform project to that density, & pick a zoning district you like anywhere else in the city and call it yours.
/12
AB 1893 doesn't make your project ministerial, but if city pulls any funny business, you'll be armed w/ newly strengthened HAA safeguards against permitting delays.
*And* you're HAA-protected against discretionary conditions of approval that render proj "infeasible."
/13
In SF, the HAA feasibility protections are crucial since demolition of an existing use usually requires a CUP. If city denies the demo CUP, they'll almost certainly have rendered the project infeasible, violating the HAA.
/14
Alternatively, you can choose to designate a 10th unit for "very low income" housing and get ministerial permitting via SB 423.
(SF's IZ ordinance also kicks in when project hits 10 units, I think.)
/15
Or, if site is already zoned for MFH, you can probably get ministerial approval--including subdivision--thru SB 1123.
SB 1123 requires compliance w/ "applicable" standards, and for the projects we're considering, AB 1893 would determine what is "applicable."
/16
(An aside: is an HE's designation of an R1 site as suitable for multifamily housing itself tantamount to "zoning" the site for MFH, within meaning of SB 1123? Probably not, but it's not a totally crazy theory.)
/17
Since you're in SF not LA, you don't have to worry about SB 1123's requirement for low-income housing on sites HE said could accommodate low-income housing. SF's housing element doesn't designate small or R1 parcels for such housing.
/18
Quote
Chris Elmendorf
@CSElmendorf
Replying to @CSElmendorf
3rd CA-brain problem: If project is on site that city's housing element said could "accommodate" a portion of city's lower-income housing target, project must have at least the number of "low" & "very low" income units specified in HE.
/13
Show more
I don't know whether 4-9 unit condo or rental projects are economically feasible in SF's residential neighborhoods these days, but if you're a developer and you think they are, it's time to buy some sites!
Disclaimer: talk to a lawyer first. This 
isn't legal advice.
/end
isn't legal advice.
/end
Who knows someone living in Las Vegas or Nevada? 
That state dishes out $8,000 per grant for each student and processes applicants faster than you can say "Jimmy John's" – under 2 weeks! 
I can help them enroll 8-10 students per month.
You do the math – that's some
That state dishes out $8,000 per grant for each student and processes applicants faster than you can say "Jimmy John's" – under 2 weeks!
I can help them enroll 8-10 students per month.
You do the math – that's someShow more
This all sounds great in theory but the process seems so muddled that I fear we just end up back here in 2 years talking about the next law meant to address the city blocking all attempts at building anything via some other process.
We’ll see. City has been working on a lot of process reforms too. Single-stair reform is still a pretty big missing piece though, for 4-9 unit projects on small lots.
No, but how it applies to cities w/ an adopted housing element depends on what's in their housing element.
Every week thousands of contracts are posted on the internet for devs
We read them all, find the top 1%, and send them out every week. Check it out 
Guten Tag, please find the unroll here: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1837339 Share this if you think it's interesting. 
What a ride! And it sounds like these rules while good just make it a game of whose land use lawyers can injest this the quickest and deploy it. I would like more simplicity in our state but hey you take the wins!
A return to those midcentury 4-6 unit small apartment buildings which comprise most of the "naturally affordable" housing stock of the Westside
to clarify to you, all of the Residential zoned lots qualify for min. 4 units or 6 units for corner ones in San Francisco . This is part of an overlay got into law in 2022
How can VCs and startups succeed when product development is pure guess work?
Quote
M. Nolan Gray
@mnolangray
If this were legal in all residential zones, we wouldn't have a housing shortage. (And we would have much more diverse neighborhoods.) x.com/Lanefab/status…
Discover more
Sourced from across X
Pictured: seven story dystopia
Quote
Darren Mckeeman 
@tjcrowley
YIMBYS look at this kind of scene and want to evict everyone in every building you see so they can tear it all down and build seven story luxury towers. They are evil people. x.com/ArleighFrisco/…
The bus lane is carrying more people than the car lanes.
Rate proposed Community Notes