If enough red tape was cleared it would be common in SF too. But the regulatory environment is so oppressive that it’s not worth doing a project unless it’s going to be a huge money-maker, which generally means large-scale.

Changing the zoning is a good first step, but not the only (or even the most significant) obstacle.

It sounds like the problem isn't just the law but also the frivolous interruptions that delay permitting. Those aren't written into the law but they still matter a great deal.

It can take 250k in permits and 5 years just to renovate a duplex. It is insane

One issue (of many) in California compared to other locations is the requirement for water sprinkler fire suppression systems in new buildings. This eats a lot of money and space in each building.

Between California and Bay Area regulations it is very challenging to turn a profit on demolitions except at the highest echelons of the housing market.

Demolition and construction are nearly completely regulated out of existence here.

I suspect where you live doesn’t have environmental impact studies and objection by basically anyone in the entire city requiring design review. Fixing the zoning is a first step, but won’t solve all the other issues.

If you fix the incentives, everything else follows eventually. If you don't fix the incentives, some other symptom will appear from the same disease.

We need Land Value Taxes.

Also scarcity of contractors, architects, and essentially anyone who works on homes. Even with the project approved costs are going to be high in the Bay Area.

Addressing the regulations, but not the financing, means this scarcity doesn't change.

Dodd Frank made speculative financing so difficult, that the industry either scaled up, as was mentioned in the article, to make it worth the trouble of pacifying HUD, or scaled down and run a business that essentially relies on clients to finance the projects. Most builders (and others in the industry) were forced to scale down.

These were the builders that might have considered 4-plex or other small multifamily projects, but they've essentially been barred from the market.

This is the stupid tax at work.

They should have pulled their heads out of their butts and respected people's property rights 20, 30yr ago when the problems were becoming obvious. But they didn't so they're gonna have to pay up.

Repealing some zoning is a small step in the right direction but they're gonna continue hemorrhaging money until they start tackling the other ideologically driven inefficiency (of which the person you are replying to has named a few types) before they really start seeing improvement.

You don't have to live in the city of the project you want to stop. You don't even have to live in the state, in the United States, or even be a natural person. The requirements for standing under CEQA are so loose that anyone can sue on any basis. This was made perfectly clear when the California Supreme Court allowed "Save the Plastic Bag Coalition" to sue Manhattan Beach. Yes, you read that correctly.

but if the CEQA proceedings are fact-based, a broader requirement for standing is not a bad thing, right?

An opposite example might be, in the East Bay hills, on a steep area of dense old vegetation, a developer wants to bulldoze the entire thing, add heavy landscaping and drainage, and built four dozen "premium" homes. If the city council member is looking at the hundreds of millions of dollars that will change hands, over an are that is literally no dollars now, then the plan gets approved. You might guess, this is a true example and a developer from Hong Kong put their name on the project and it was built.

The case of a beach is also not-obvious, as it is world-scale irreplaceable.

Those parcels are sold to the public and zoned for housing, what outcome are you hoping for here?

Developing a bunch of enormous single-family homes in hillside slide zones is just about the only thing that is legal by-right in all East Bay cities. That's the sick joke!

I'm not sure if you are referring to the big tacky mansions on Highland Terrace in Fremont, but if you are those are now the most heavily-assessed properties in Alameda County.

Can previously-approved plans be used as precedence for design review, or is everything in design review de novo?

Everything depends on the city, but in my experience it's de novo. Code changes every 3 years (usually pretty minor stuff). Additionally every site has unique features. Different shape, different elevations, different neighbors, different soils, etc so some rework of the plans is always necessary to accommodate those differences.