4 ms·

You are confused; the 48hills article is referring to a different bill[1] (affordable housing bonus) than the Governor’s budget trailer bill that Sam Altman is

by yonran 10y ago

You are confused; the 48hills article is referring to a different bill[1] (affordable housing bonus) than the Governor’s budget trailer bill that Sam Altman is referring to[2]. The Governor’s bill requires that localities deterministically and expediently approve projects near transit that provide some low-income housing and comply with local zoning laws. But speaking of the affordable housing bonus, Tim Redmond’s specific concerns seem to be that height limits, setbacks, and backyard requirements may be waived, not that there would be any reduction in affordable housing. But I agree that the affordable housing bonus law is somewhat open-ended so who knows what concession a developer might request. [1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2501 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... [2]: http://web1a.esd.dof.ca.gov/Documents/bcp/1617/FY1617_ORG2240_BCP859.pdf http://web1a.esd.dof.ca.gov/Documents/bcp/1617/FY1617_ORG224...

abalone 10y ago
I guess, thanks, but it looks like exactly the same problem: It sets affordability requirements as low as 5%. See: 65913.3(b)(4)
- yonran 10y ago
  The Governor’s budget trailer bill says that if a developer sets aside a certain fraction of the units for inclusionary housing and the proposal complies with the local zoning code, then the locality must approve it deterministically and quickly. This does not prevent a local government from setting a higher inclusionary requirement in their zoning code; it would remain 12% in San Francisco (or higher if Proposition C of June 2016 passes). The inclusionary fraction in the bill is just the threshold at which the other provisions begin to apply. By the way, the Legislative Analyst’s Office has released an endorsement[1] of the bill which provides background, justification, and proposed improvements. [1]: http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/3470 http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/3470

by yonran 10y ago

abalone 10y ago

I guess, thanks, but it looks like exactly the same problem: It sets affordability requirements as low as 5%. See: 65913.3(b)(4)

yonran 10y ago
The Governor’s budget trailer bill says that if a developer sets aside a certain fraction of the units for inclusionary housing and the proposal complies with the local zoning code, then the locality must approve it deterministically and quickly. This does not prevent a local government from setting a higher inclusionary requirement in their zoning code; it would remain 12% in San Francisco (or higher if Proposition C of June 2016 passes). The inclusionary fraction in the bill is just the threshold at which the other provisions begin to apply. By the way, the Legislative Analyst’s Office has released an endorsement[1] of the bill which provides background, justification, and proposed improvements. [1]: http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/3470 http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/3470