Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Results 1 to 4 of 4

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    newclay's Avatar

    Ca state "mandated" SB35 "housing crisis" bill

    This is a edited copy, toned down, hoping for better response
    In State Bill SB35, Sonoma County somehow skirted the other 97.3% of government intaties in the state of California that are "mandated" to create new zoning and permitting laws to fix "the housing/homeless crisis"... Only 12 made the list... Some of which are Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Santa Barbera... Etc. You get it. And then gets deeper when you look to see where we could transfer funds from other depts. in county to help this... In reviewing further the County books we see some real discrepancies... I have a Planning and Development Busisness certificate from SMSU in Springfield MO. Any bookkeeper out there interested in combing with me sometime? And at least clear my own consciousness in this matter?... email or text is good, maybe a group meet up at Coffee Cats to discuss... Bless to you and yours
    Last edited by newclay; 10-12-2018 at 11:32 AM. Reason: Tone down and better wording
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. TopTop #2
    newclay's Avatar

    Re: Ca state "mandated" SB35 "housing crisis" bill

    Is there a local bookkeeper that is willing to look over books with me? I have showed this to a few business owners and they are all scratching their heads... Yes, I understand the persecution this may bring... But I have seen something that seems to be a core issue with the problem and needs addressed to move forward with balanced resolve. Please, a concerned citizen...that has witnessed a major Exodus in 2 years and fear of the tax payers losing their properties for trying to "safely" house people... Please help
    -Clay Inthepottershands and BB with RRC
    The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals, ensured by the First Amendment to the United States
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  3. TopTop #3

    Re: Ca state "mandated" SB35 "housing crisis" bill

    Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill last week that lawmakers hope will encourage a surge in housing development in Southern California and throughout the state. But some real estate experts and developers say it does not go far enough, since it maintains restrictions based on outdated zoning laws.

    When Senate Bill 35 goes into effect on Jan. 1, it will require California cities that lack adequate housing to streamline their permitting processes. Those cities must approve all apartment and condo developments — provided that they comply with zoning laws and 10 percent of the units are affordable, among other requirements. This will allow developers of projects that meet the guidelines to skip the expensive and often years-long review process that involves environmental impact reports, city council votes and court challenges.

    Under SB-35, height or unit count cannot be altered in the design review process, which will be expedited and focused on architectural design. Also, all minimum parking requirements will be waived.

    SB 35, Streamlined approval for multifamily housing development -

    This bill would authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development, which satisfies specified planning objective standards, that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit. The bill would require a local government to notify the development proponent in writing if the local government determines that the development conflicts with any of those objective standards by a specified time; otherwise, the development is deemed to comply with those standards. The bill would limit the authority of a local government to impose parking standards or requirements on a streamlined development approved pursuant to these provisions, as provided. The bill would provide that if a local government approves a project pursuant to that process, that approval will not expire if that project includes investment in housing affordability, and would otherwise provide that the approval of a project expire automatically after 3 years, unless that project qualifies for a one-time, one-year extension of that approval. The bill would provide that approval pursuant to its provisions would remain valid for three years and remain valid thereafter so long as vertical construction of the development has begun and is in progress, and would authorize a discretionary one-year extension, as provided. The bill would prohibit a local government from adopting any requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project receives ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2026.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. TopTop #4

    Re: Ca state "mandated" SB35 "housing crisis" bill

    SB 35 Determinations Issued; What’s Next for Cities

    February 2, 2018
    It is not surprising that the SB 35 Statewide Determination Summary includes nearly every city and county in California because state formula-generated housing need numbers have always ignored actual market conditions and the availability of affordable housing subsidies.

    Prior to the recession, development was booming at over 200,000 units per year. Local redevelopment agencies were also spending over $1 billion per year on affordable housing. Then the market crashed and foreclosures gripped communities throughout the state and nation. The state only produced 40,000 units in 2009. The Legislature two years later eliminated redevelopment agencies and most affordable housing subsidies vanished. However, even with these factors, the state did not adjust the number of housing units it determined should be produced.

    The housing market is now slowly recovering and in 2019, 130,000 units are expected to be built. In addition, apartment construction levels are at a 26-year high. Few resources, however, exist for affordable housing. The League is supporting a $4 billion housing bond that will appear on the statewide ballot in November 2018.

    The League believes when the state determines the number of housing units that need to be built it should carefully consider actual market conditions and the lack of adequate resources available to build affordable units.

    SB 35 and Streamlining

    Cities subject to SB 35 streamlining are likely considering what they must do. There are several important provisions of the bill that cities may want to review.

    If a developer requests SB 35 streamlining, the project and the developer must comply with the following:
    • The site is suitable for development. The following sites are excluded from SB 35 streamlining:
      • Sites in Coastal zone;
      • Sites on which housing occupied by tenants demolished in last 10 years;
      • Sites with existing rental housing occupied by tenants in last ten years required to be demolished;
      • Sites with historical structure required to be demolished for project;
      • Sites subject to Mobilehome Residency Law, the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law, the Mobilehome Parks Act or the Special Occupancy Act;
      • Sites on prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance;
      • Sites on wetlands;
      • Sites within delineated earthquake zone;
      • Sites within a FEMA floodplain unless flood plain development permit;
      • Sites within a FEMA floodway unless no rise certification;
      • Sites on habitat for protected species; and
      • Sites zoned for non-residential use (unless the General Plan allows residential).
    • The site contains a multifamily housing development which 75 percent adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.
    • The project includes the following affordability:
      • 10 percent of the units are available for households with incomes of below 80 percent of the area median income (AMI) if the annual report reflects fewer units of above-moderate approved than required;
      • 50 percent of the units are available for households with incomes below 80 percent of AMI if the annual report reflects fewer units of lower income issued building permits than required; or
      • If both apply, then the developer chooses.The project is consistent with objective zoning standards and objective design review standards.
    • The project is consistent with objective zoning standards and objective design review standards.
    • The development is a “public work” or construction workers will be paid at least the general prevailing wage rate and a “skilled and trained workforce” will be used.
    Additional Information

    Given the number of site exclusions and developer requirements, it is unclear how many projects will be constructed using SB 35 streamlining.

    - See more at:
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

Similar Threads

  1. Housing "crisis" part two
    By newclay in forum Political Action Alerts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-22-2017, 01:44 PM
  2. Housing "crisis" part two
    By newclay in forum WaccoTalk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-22-2017, 01:42 PM
  3. Housing "crisis"... part two
    By newclay in forum General Community
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-22-2017, 01:40 PM
  4. "Deep Voodoo";"fairy tale”;"not ready for prime time" - Bernienomics Considered
    By Hotspring 44 in forum National & International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-21-2016, 07:04 PM

Tags (user supplied keywords) for this Thread