Time to Testify; Sunshine Ordinance Task Force
Ballot measure E: Requirements for Public Meetings
Sue the Suburbs (Lafayette)
City leaders here have agreed to consider a plan to place 44 or 45 single-family homes on a Lafayette hillside instead of a 315 moderate-income apartment development known as the Terraces of Lafayette.
Agent Based Model of the Housing Market
CfA Presentation of the Model
Written explanation of the Model
Video explanation of the Model
Units in Limbo Map
Units in Limbo Spreadsheet
37,000 (as of Q3 2014) units have their entitlements, but they don’t have their building permits. Why? Are they waiting in line at DBI? Are they still going through EIR lawsuits? Is the land being sold?
Bring Sierra Club Back to its Mission
The SF Bay Area Sierra Club chapter has gone rogue. Here is their official position on transportation & compact growth:
As population grows, rising housing costs push lower-income residents out into the suburbs, creating sprawl that puts pressure on our open spaces and wildlife and increases car time. We can fight that trend by building compact communities that are walkable, bikeable, and served by a robust public transit system.
In April, the Bay Chapter’s San Francisco Group unanimously adopted a resolution opposing height-limit increases for the 75 Howard and 160 Folsom luxury tower projects and encouraging the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to reject them. – The Yodeler
It’s time to get our local chapter back on mission. If you’re already a member, come with us to the Group Conservation Committee meeting on Tuesday August 18th, 6 – 8 pm at Club Headquarters, 85 Second St. (near Market). FB event page.
If you’re not a member, Join the Sierra Club, send me your transaction number so I know you joined. You will use this # to vote for board members who won’t oppose urban infill.
Housing PRODUCTION Monitoring
A symmetrical process in response to Jane Kim’s April 21 Housing Balance Monitoring legislation. Housing Balance monitoring was prompted by Prop K, which articulates 2 policy goals:
(1) build 30,000 units/ year by 2020 (equivalent to 5,000 units/ year)
(2) 30% of these should be deed restricted affordable units to < 55% median income workers, 50% should be deed restricted affordable for < 120% median income workers.
The housing balance legislation monitors progress on the 2nd policy goal. Which is fine. But SF citizens deserve a similar process to monitor progress towards the implied goal of 5000 units per year. SF did not get to its goal of 5000 last year – We need a hearing and a bi-annual report examining the laws, policies, procedures that are getting in the way of building 5000 units per year.
The point of both of these hearings/ reports/ data collection processes is to justify law changes. For Jane Kim, she wants to find, next spring, that SF has NOT reached it’s 30% goal and therefore, should require a Conditional Use Permit for any new market rate housing unit that will cause the ratio of new MR to new Subsidized to go above 70:30.
If SF does NOT reach its implied goal of 5000/ units per year and therefore, should relax height and density restrictions, or, therefore, should hire more planners or building inspectors or, therefore … ?? Something else. Thus the questions: What are the law changes that we most need to get housing production going? What kinds of data would support those law changes?