Dylan Casey
@caseydyl.bsky.social
ED of CalHDF.org. May post about housing, other stuff once I figure out how this place works.
Reposted by Dylan Casey
Please call the Governor and ask him to sign SB 79!
(916) 445-2841
(916) 445-2841
September 30, 2025 at 5:48 PM
Please call the Governor and ask him to sign SB 79!
(916) 445-2841
(916) 445-2841
Matt Haney is sort of following a similar path, no? Also some of NYC's gatekeeping (relying on low-turnout off-year primaries to protect party candidates) actually backfired by allowing outside candidates in.
August 13, 2025 at 7:52 PM
Matt Haney is sort of following a similar path, no? Also some of NYC's gatekeeping (relying on low-turnout off-year primaries to protect party candidates) actually backfired by allowing outside candidates in.
The obvious answer here is that we should make it as easy to build apartment buildings as we have made it to build ADUs in California.
August 12, 2025 at 7:24 PM
The obvious answer here is that we should make it as easy to build apartment buildings as we have made it to build ADUs in California.
Nearly every other city in the state did their housing element rezoning by doing simple changes to base zoning, and none have attempted as brazen of an opt-out from state housing law reforms.
August 12, 2025 at 4:21 AM
Nearly every other city in the state did their housing element rezoning by doing simple changes to base zoning, and none have attempted as brazen of an opt-out from state housing law reforms.
I agree that it is substantial by SF standards, but that is a low bar. What bothers me is that SF shouldn’t get it’s own rules that allow it to put more local restrictions on development.
August 12, 2025 at 4:19 AM
I agree that it is substantial by SF standards, but that is a low bar. What bothers me is that SF shouldn’t get it’s own rules that allow it to put more local restrictions on development.
It is more that the changes to the base zoning are just not that substantial. The city is relying on the bonus program to account for a lot of capacity, but that capacity is already there through state law.
August 12, 2025 at 1:00 AM
It is more that the changes to the base zoning are just not that substantial. The city is relying on the bonus program to account for a lot of capacity, but that capacity is already there through state law.
(2) is an issue because under this framework cities could simply exempt all new zoning capacity created through their housing plans from state laws designed to provide streamlined permitting, increased density or relief from development standards.
August 11, 2025 at 7:18 PM
(2) is an issue because under this framework cities could simply exempt all new zoning capacity created through their housing plans from state laws designed to provide streamlined permitting, increased density or relief from development standards.
(1) is a problem because if most of the upzoning is done through the local bonus program, the city clearly isn't doing enough because you can already achieve most of that density through state DBL.
August 11, 2025 at 7:14 PM
(1) is a problem because if most of the upzoning is done through the local bonus program, the city clearly isn't doing enough because you can already achieve most of that density through state DBL.
The main issues in my mind are (1) most of the actual upzoning happening is tied up in the local bonus program, and (2) allowing cities to do this sets a really bad precedent that could be abused even more than what SF is proposing here.
August 11, 2025 at 7:13 PM
The main issues in my mind are (1) most of the actual upzoning happening is tied up in the local bonus program, and (2) allowing cities to do this sets a really bad precedent that could be abused even more than what SF is proposing here.
Great, that is helpful. That is clearly illegal if it is prior to the pre-application, and I don't think they can require that prior to complete application either. It isn't on their checklist.
July 30, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Great, that is helpful. That is clearly illegal if it is prior to the pre-application, and I don't think they can require that prior to complete application either. It isn't on their checklist.
I am just wondering how this review gets triggered. If the city is preventing housing permit application from moving forward while these review hearings are conducted there might be an enforcement angle for us here.
July 30, 2025 at 7:07 PM
I am just wondering how this review gets triggered. If the city is preventing housing permit application from moving forward while these review hearings are conducted there might be an enforcement angle for us here.
Is there also a project associated with this one?
July 30, 2025 at 6:21 PM
Is there also a project associated with this one?
While Gov. Code § 65913.10 allows for historic determinations at the time a complete application is submitted (after the SB 330 preliminary application), I don't think the city can prevent the submission of the application while they complete the review.
July 30, 2025 at 6:20 PM
While Gov. Code § 65913.10 allows for historic determinations at the time a complete application is submitted (after the SB 330 preliminary application), I don't think the city can prevent the submission of the application while they complete the review.
Always more fun to see what we are dealing with in these cases:
July 22, 2025 at 5:38 PM
Always more fun to see what we are dealing with in these cases:
It is not. The city can’t force the developers to do anything prior to submitting the preapp. If the developer submits everything on the checklist they have submitted one and vested regardless of what the city says.
July 22, 2025 at 4:05 PM
It is not. The city can’t force the developers to do anything prior to submitting the preapp. If the developer submits everything on the checklist they have submitted one and vested regardless of what the city says.
Seems like a good case for a pro-housing group to intervene in, and argue against any form of preliminary relief.
June 27, 2025 at 4:09 PM
Seems like a good case for a pro-housing group to intervene in, and argue against any form of preliminary relief.
For SoCal it looks like only LA and San Diego would be above 15, or am I missing something?
May 14, 2025 at 9:49 PM
For SoCal it looks like only LA and San Diego would be above 15, or am I missing something?
I don’t think so. Montana is about the same for SFH but allows for more development standards on <800 sq ft ADUs. If you factor in multifamily ADUs then California is way ahead.
April 23, 2025 at 4:22 PM
I don’t think so. Montana is about the same for SFH but allows for more development standards on <800 sq ft ADUs. If you factor in multifamily ADUs then California is way ahead.
The federal government doesn’t own this anymore. When they sold/gave it to the city they capped the number of housing units that could be developed on it at around 1500. Your point still stands though.
March 21, 2025 at 1:45 AM
The federal government doesn’t own this anymore. When they sold/gave it to the city they capped the number of housing units that could be developed on it at around 1500. Your point still stands though.
🚨Victory Alert 🚨CalHDF secures $14 million appeal bond to cover costs of delay to La Cañada Flintridge builder's remedy development.
CalHDF Secures $14 Million Appeal Bond for Development in La Cañada Flintridge – CalHDF
CalHDF Secures $14 Million Appeal Bond for Development in La Cañada Flintridge
calhdf.org
March 4, 2025 at 8:59 PM
This situation is the closest I've come to a collision while biking and the driver had to have passed the cyclist shortly before. If the cyclist couldn't stop before the collision then the car was basically turning directly into the cyclist.
February 20, 2025 at 7:43 PM
This situation is the closest I've come to a collision while biking and the driver had to have passed the cyclist shortly before. If the cyclist couldn't stop before the collision then the car was basically turning directly into the cyclist.