When San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener went before the Planning Commission in November proposing to attach a deadline to some California Environmental Quality Act appeals, he was met by 90 minutes of strong opposition from public commenters and commissioners, who told him to come back with a better plan done with more public outreach.

Thirty-four amendments later, Wiener will be back at the commission Thursday hoping to change an appeals process that he calls unpredictable and chaotic.

“If you’re not a land-use lawyer, it’s completely opaque. It’s unclear even when the deadline is to file the appeal,” Wiener said.

San Francisco is one of few cities where smaller projects that don’t require environmental impact reports aren’t subject to a set deadline for appeals to the Board of Supervisors. Wiener wants to establish a deadline so that any appeal of the state environmental quality act would be made within 30 days of a project’s approval.

Currently the city attorney determines on a case-by-case basis whether an appeal is timely.

“The bottom line is we’re not taking away anyone’s right to appeal the CEQA decision,” said Planning Director John Rahaim, who supports Wiener’s efforts. “What this does is establish some very basic rules around deadline appeals.”

Simplifying process

Gabriel Metcalf, the executive director of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, said that the city’s planning code is thousands of pages long and that Wiener’s legislation would simplify things without resulting in material changes for bigger projects.

“We have a system that is designed for maximum confusion and maximum frustration,” he said. “The amendments we’re talking about here would help clear up a little bit of the confusion and a little bit of the frustration for a small set of projects.”

Wiener stresses that his legislation is focused on smaller projects that can least afford to have an unpredictable environmental process, as opposed to large developers who can afford to wage long, costly legal battles.

“This isn’t about the Parkmerceds, the Treasure Islands and America’s Cups of the world,” he said. “This is the much larger category ranging from small park projects, to pedestrian projects, to people doing work on their homes.”

But some groups wary of development say they do believe the legislation puts unreasonable constraints on the appeals process.

“Scott Wiener’s legislation puts forward a time frame that will hamper our ability to effectively file an appeal,” said Michelle Myers, the director of the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay chapter.

Eric Brooks, an organizer for the Our City activist group that opposed past efforts by supervisors to streamline the CEQA process, said he also shares Myers’ concern about a provision in Wiener’s legislation that would allow some appeals to be heard before a board committee instead of the full Board of Supervisors.

“Basically what the legislation is doing is taking some small problems in the current law that do need some fixing and using them as a vehicle to completely gut the public’s ability to use CEQA to support San Francisco and its neighborhoods from bad real estate developments,” Brooks said.

Miss appeal window

He also worried that project opponents would miss the appeal window if the legislation is approved.

Brooks and Myers said they are working with Supervisor Jane Kim on alternative CEQA legislation that would involve the full board in appeals and push back the appeal deadlines, which Wiener said would make the process worse than it already is.

Other neighborhood leaders say they welcome clear rules for appeals on smaller projects. Raymond Holland, president of the Planning Association for the Richmond recalled that when ATT started adding utility boxes on sidewalks in his neighborhoods a few years ago, there was a debate over whether it was too late to appeal.

“It was real unclear when the decision of the exemption was made and secondly when the clock started to run,” he said. “It’s been sort of a free-for-all whenever you have an appeal, so I think codifying makes sense.”

Once the Planning Commission makes its recommendation Thursday, there will be several more public hearings before the legislation is voted on by the Board of Supervisors.

Neal J. Riley is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: nriley@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @realdealneal

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Supervisor-s-2nd-try-to-change-environmental-4352827.php

“There is this kind of middle man investor who is doing the flipping,” says RealtyTrac’s Daren Blomquist, who ran a webinar last month titled, “Why Property Flipping is Flying High in 2012.” Blomquist says the difference for today’s flippers is that they must add value to the home before selling, because price appreciation alone won’t net the profit they seek. That means rehabbing, which can be pricey, depending on the condition of the property. Many of the distressed homes now that flippers seek have been either ransacked by former owners or left vacant and untended for years.

(Read More: How to Play the Housing ‘Boom’)

“You don’t see any of that highly speculative flipping where it’s solely reliant on the home prices going up for the flip to work,” says Blomquist, which is why many flippers are middle men. They flip to other investors in order to get the profit they need. “It’s probably easier to flip to another investor because this person is an experienced buyer and should have their ducks in a row in terms of being able to finance the property, if not pay up front in cash.”

Large-scale, big money investors, like hedge funds, have flooded the single family real estate market, looking for rental properties that will produce good yield. While some have their own teams attending foreclosure auctions and doing the rehabilitation and remodeling, many would rather buy turn-key products, even if the price is slightly higher. The “pure” property flip appears to be less popular, although in some stronger markets it is certainly still happening.

(Read More: Cities With the Most Affordable Homes)

“I have seen a return of flipping, but only at the individual or small investor level. In some cases, these investors are targeting larger, institutional investors as potential buyers,” says Rick Sharga of Carrington Mortgage Holdings, a large fund investing in single family rentals. “I haven’t seen institutional investors doing much flipping (although they will occasionally sell off a few properties from a pool if the homes don’t fit their business model).”

Investors planning a REIT would not be flippers, Sharga notes, as what they need is a large pool of rental homes delivering the cash flow a REIT would require. Most of the larger investors are paying market price (sometimes a little less, sometimes more), which makes profitable flipping difficult.

(Read More: A Risky Lifeline for Seniors Is Costing Some Their Homes)

Until the rental market chills and the housing market shows strong price gains, pure property flipping will not be nearly as lucrative as it once was. On the positive side, continued strength in the single family rental market and the ensuing large investors interest offers smaller investors willing to do the dirty work a large pool of cash-heavy buyers.

Sector Watch: Construction General Building Materials

• The Home Depot
  [HD 
  Loading... 
   
   
  ()
   
  ]
• Lowe’s Companies
  [LOW 
  Loading... 
   
   
  ()
   
  ]
• The Sherwin-Williams Company
  [SHW 
  Loading... 
   
   
  ()
   
  ]
• E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
  [DD 
  Loading... 
   
   
  ()
   
  ]
• Apogee Enterprises
  [APOG 
  Loading... 
   
   
  ()
   
  ]

Questions?  Comments?  And follow me on Twitter @Diana_Olick