SB 51: the California politics thread

xp - CA muni code is impressively convoluted and in some cases requires a lot of mental gymnastics to try and accommodate all the provisions in all the separate code chapters! ... A few months ago I spent quality time trying to figure out what exactly are the code requirements for live/work housing ... geez. But I am definitely rooting for you, burrito!! I haven't spent much time in that area of SD, but your project sounds super necessary and useful, considering the terrain and sprawl

appreciate the rooting, and it is a good project. mostly. unless you start thinking about other ways the money could be spent. but that's none of my business

CA muni code is impressively convoluted

tell me about it!

https://i.imgur.com/n1lLLM8.png

Okay, I'm dying to know ... what does Section 143.0150 say?!!!!!!

*popcorn.gif*

any odds/betting sites have this action?

§143.0150 Deviations from Environmentally Sensitive Lands Regulations
Plans submitted in accordance with this section shall, to the maximum extent feasible,
comply with the regulations of this division. If a proposed development does not
comply with all applicable development regulations of this division and a deviation is
requested as indicated in Table 143-01A, the decision maker may approve,
conditionally approve, or deny the proposed Site Development Permit in accordance
with the following:
(a) Deviations from the regulations of this division may be granted only if the
decision maker makes the findings in Section 126.0504(c).
(b) Deviations from the Supplemental Regulations for Special Flood Hazard
Areas in Section 143.0146 may be granted only if the decision maker makes
the findings in Section 126.0504(d).
(c) Within the Coastal Overlay Zone, deviations from the Environmentally
Sensitive Lands Regulations may be granted only if the decision maker makes
the findings in Section 126.0708.
(d) Deviations to the wetland regulations in Section 143.0141(b) shall not be
granted unless the development is located outside of the Coastal Overlay Zone
and qualifies to be processed as one of the three options set forth in the
following regulations and in accordance with the Biology Guidelines in the
Land Development Manual:
(1) Essential Public Projects Option
(A) A deviation may only be requested for an Essential Public
Project where no feasible alternative exists that would avoid
impacts to wetlands.
(B) For the purpose of this section, Essential Public Projects shall
include:
(i) Any public project identified in an adopted land use
plan or implementing document and identified on the
Essential Public Projects List adopted by Resolution
No. R-307377 as Appendix III to the Biology
Guidelines; or
Ch. Art. Div.
14 3 1 47
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 14: General Regulations
(2-2020)
(ii) Linear infrastructure, including but not limited to major
roads and land use plan circulation element roads and
facilities including bike lanes, water and sewer
pipelines including appurtenances, and stormwater
conveyance systems including appurtenances; or
(iii) Maintenance of existing public infrastructure; or
(iv) State and federally mandated projects.
(2) Economic Viability Option
A deviation may be requested to preserve economically viable use of a
property that would otherwise be deprived by a strict application of the
regulations. Such a deviation shall be the minimum necessary to
achieve economically viable use of the property and shall avoid
wetland resources to the maximum extent practicable.
(3) Biologically Superior Option
(A) A deviation may be requested to achieve a superior biological
result which would provide long term biological benefit and a
net increase in quality and viability (functions and value),
relative to existing conditions or the project originally
proposed by the applicant, and long term biological benefit.
(B) Wetland resources that would be impacted by the project shall
be demonstrated to be of low biological quality.
(Amended 4-22-2002 by O-19051 N.S.; effective 10-8-2002.)
(Amended 5-7-2012 by O-20161 N.S.; effective 6-6-2012.)
(Amended 2-9-2018 by O-20899 N.S.; effective 3-11-2018.)

does anyone want to learn about affordable housing density bonus regulations?

If Kamala Harris is elected vice president, Gavin Newsom gets to appoint a new California senator. Who could it be? ⁦@philwillon⁩ https://t.co/SFcaqRvaWl

— Laura J. Nelson 🦅 (@laura_nelson) August 11, 2020

Newsom himself!

he wants to be president

yeah no way is Gavin gonna give up being governor to be a senator ...

I think it's gonna be either:

Schiff
Lee
Porter
Breed
or
Newsom

Need some oddsmakers to chime in!

i guess it's politically impossible for him to pick the person who is in some ways next in line by virtue of his strong performance in the runoff with feinstein, i.e. kevin de leon because, well, he tried to primary feinstein.

it better not be garcetti

it's going to be that turd schiff isn't it

what about the woman who lost to Harris in the election -- it was super close?

though my preference would be Libby Schaaf -- take my mayor ... please!

though if he picks Barbara Lee, then maybe we can "upgrade" one of our less appealing City Council members ... oh Lynette G-M ... please seek higher office.

though it would be "hilarious" if Gavin chose his patron, Willie Brown ...

lol

Given that Uber rides have cratered during the pandemic, I wonder if people will care about this threat as much as they would have, say, a year ago https://t.co/MtQrfcUYdI

— Laura J. Nelson 🦅 (@laura_nelson) August 12, 2020

iirc spending (almost entirely from uber/lyft/doordash etc.) on the AB5 ballot measure is ~$110m. spending on prop 15 (the actual big deal about split roll property tax) is like 10% of that. to zuck's credit, almost all the pro-prop 15 money comes from his foundation.

Anyway I nominate caek to be our senator.

Haha thank u I hereby repeal proposition 13 and make it illegal to enforce “no soccer” rules at public parks.

For anyone enjoying the rolling blackout drama, the iso today app is very well done!

The stakes are too high to sit out this election. This November we will put #SchoolsAndCommunitiesFirst by voting #YesOn15. Thank you @JoeBiden for being an early champion of #YesOn15! pic.twitter.com/0q7kHKj5Pu

— Yes on Prop 15! (Schools & Communities First) (@Schools1stCA) August 21, 2020

you know who hasn't endorsed prop 15? the governor.

here are my ballot measure endorsements if you want to vote the caek slate

15: eliminate part of california's insane, unique property tax break, yes
16: repeal law banning affirmative action, yes
17: allow people on parole to vote, yes
18: allow people who will be 18 years old by general to vote in primary, yes
20: classify more crimes as felonies, collect more DNA, no
21: allow more local rent control, yes
22: undo law that made uber/lyft/etc. drivers employees, no
24: more privacy online, yes
25: replace cash bail (which sucks) with (algorithmic?) risk assesements (which also suck, but maybe a bit less), yes

no opinion: 14 (stem cell money), 23 (dialysis clinics), 19 (technical thing about inheritance of property tax breaks that bundles in some weird stuff about fires and honestly seems kind of weird given who is supporting it)

I’d vote yes on 19 I think.

so why is Lyft pulling out now when their ballot measure hasn't even been decided?

They’re not. They got a stay in court on ab5 enforcement yesterday.

meanwhile Doordash is sending out "sympathize with us" emails about how horrible it is that the mean state wants them to classify their workers as employees

Are absentee ballots mailed out yet?

I haven’t seen any yet

Looking forward to reminding these people that trump said the quiet part out loud for them

Here, a liberal homeowner and retired teacher in San Jose who converted a 1930s triplex into a single-family home, grapples with his stance on single-family zoning and President Trump's embrace of it for exclusionary reasons https://t.co/lrlR41Y7Tp pic.twitter.com/XM6Lm0oE7T

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) August 21, 2020

usual shitty legislation under deadline at the end of the session last night, and also this. great job everybody.

I wrote about how @BuffyWicks brought her 1-month-old baby to the Assembly floor after being denied a proxy vote request because she wasn't considered high risk for coronavirus, as her Republican colleagues next door voted from home.

https://t.co/fe39s61mYV

— Mackenzie Mays (@MackenzieMays) September 1, 2020

damn, and she didn't even have one of those organic baby chest wraps that are de rigeur with her constituents (which also include Berkeley, and only part of Oakland fyi) ... she is really making a point there ... good job, Buffy!

also this:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/28/editorial-prop-15-wont-fix-biggest-california-property-tax-problem/

the editorial's argument is kinda specious tbh, even to me, who generally ends up in arguments here on ilx as the "advocate for small businesses" lol.

One thing that is unclear to me, is whether this affects what the state refers to as investment property. For example, where does residential rental property (e.g. large apartment buildings) fall on the split-roll? Do they stay with the unaffected owner-occupied houses because they are residences, or ...?

sarahell, what do you disagree with from the editorial? this makes sense to me: In short, the big problem is not the disparity between residential and other types of property. It’s the disparity between the taxes paid by long-time property owners and those who purchased recently — an inequity that’s found for both residential and commercial properties.

that article is full of concern trolling. vote yes on prop 15 to begin to chip away at prop 13.

California’s property tax system is a mess. Proposition 15, the “split roll” measure on the Nov. 3 ballot, attempts to fix it. Unfortunately, it only makes matters worse.

I skimmed, so I might have missed it, but there is not even a claim, much less any evidence that it will "make matters worse" than the status quo in the article.

I disagree with its conclusion that people should vote no on 15, for one thing.

Also, the rationale that the brunt of the increase will fall on small business owners thus we should vote no. It's the same type of argument as "we should not waive rents during Covid because of the hypothetical poor little old ladies that rent out the family home". They provide no data to back up how much of the increase would affect small business owners (potentially), and how much would be large real estate companies passing through property tax increases to large retail conglomerates or other major corporations. ... Like, would you feel bad if large corporations had to pay more in property taxes to the state of California?

The editorial spends a bunch of time arguing about the share of property taxes paid by homeowners vs. the proportion of residential real estate to commercial ... which is kinda missing the point. If owners of commercial property were to pay more, it is possible that fewer special initiatives would be required that increase property taxes on homeowners. Yeah, I know people can (and will) take the cynical opinion that local jurisdictions will still take every opportunity to increase property taxes in order to fund government bloat and reward government inefficiency, corruption, and incompetence (though mostly on FB groups and not on ilx).

that article is full of concern trolling.

in short, yes, otm.

it is so thin that my suspicious is that is intentional FUD

*suspicion

also, the concern trolling is even more troll-y as there are provisions that support small businesses as well as recent legislation (maybe this is just at local levels and not statewide) that puts small businesses into the protected category for covid related eviction moratoriums ...

ah, makes sense.

it is so thin that my suspicious is that is intentional FUD

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:16 PM (two minutes ago)

Yeah -- it totally reads that way. Like, it makes me suspect this was ghost-written by some commercial property owners lobbyists. The Mercury/EB Times has actually done some great reporting and supported "my people" ... so this was super disappointing. It does remind me of the editorial voice/stance of the paper when I was growing up in the 1980s though.

(apart from the Gary Webb series on the CIA / war on drugs connection, which I remember reading at my parents' dining room table)

yeah on re-read it really is yech. must remember to wear my appropriate paranoia hat.

apologies for the SF-specific content but I saw some leftists eyerolling this, can anyone tell me why?

Proposition K: A measure that would authorize San Francisco to build or rehabilitate up to 10,000 units of affordable housing. Under the state Constitution, voters must approve low-income housing developments before they can be built. Prop. K, authored by Preston, would give the city the go-ahead to build such housing if it passes with simple-majority vote. The measure does not provide funding for the housing, however.

(I don't think they were eyerolling the lack of funding, they just saw an ad for Prop K were reacting)

the only thing i can think of is that there's an element of the left that thinks new housing necessarily results in gentrification and displacement. this is sometimes true. it seems unlikely to be true in the case of actual public housing.

San Francisco leftists are a special bunch ... (and not entirely unified) ... looking at the SF Planning Code is very telling in terms of how SF progressives view development vs. progressives in most of the rest of the country.