Category Archives: Housing

Proposed waterfront tower could test California’s power to override S.F. height restrictions

By J.K. Dineen : sfchronicle – excerpt (includes audio track)

A rendered aerial view of the proposed development that would stand 23 stories tall, or more than twice the city’s height limit, on San Francisco’s Embarcadero.

In 2014 San Francisco voters delivered a strong message at the ballot box: No tall buildings on the waterfront without our approval.

The “no wall on the waterfront” Proposition B referendum, which came on the heels of voters’ rejection of a contentious housing project at 8 Washington St., required developments on Port of San Francisco property to get the voters’ approval if they exceed existing height limits. It won with 59% of the vote.

But now, a dozen years later, in a political landscape dominated by YIMBY-backed laws aimed at forcing cities to build more housing, a proposed apartment complex on the Embarcadero is emerging as a test case of whether the powerful state “density bonus” legislation preempts the local voter-approved regulations…

Strada Investment Group is proposing to build 619 units at 555 Beale St., a port-owned parking lot about four blocks north of Oracle Park that in recent years has been used as a homeless navigation center. While the majority of the complex would adhere to the parcel’s 110-foot height limit, a tower on the northern part of the site would stand 23 stories, more than twice the current limit…

But the idea that SB330 gives developers carte blanche to ignore the will of the voters is not sitting well with the San Francisco Waterfront Alliance, a small group of nearby condo owners who argue that Strada should either go to the ballot to win approval for the project or redesign it to be consistent with existing zoning...

In February, Scott Emblidge, the group’s attorney, wrote a letter to City Attorney David Chiu and Port General Counsel Michelle Sexton arguing that the city should “respect the will of the voters.”

“When San Francisco’s voters enact local legislation, they are entitled to have the City Attorney respect and defend that legislation,” he said. “If a developer wants to erect a height-limit-busting tower on waterfront property, the developer can do so if, and only if, the developer asks the voters for permission.”

In a response, Chiu said his office “will continue to defend the legality of ordinances approved by the voters or the Board of Supervisors.”

“When the State Legislature adopts statutes that purport to preempt local ordinances, we provide confidential advice to city policymakers about the implications of those statutes,” Chiu wrote. “We identify legally defensible options to address the conflicts between state and local law.” … (more)

The numbers don’t lie: The housing crisis is not caused by a supply shortage

By Niko Block : policyalternatives – excerpt

Art by sfbluecomics

Financialization, not demographics, caused the cost of housing to explode

Solving the housing crisis has been a central plank of the Liberal party during their decade in power, but progress has been elusive. Despite recognition of housing as a “fundamental human right” and pledges of tens of billions of dollars to housing programs, homelessness has risen and affordability has worsened.

Rising property values have impacted every corner of the market. As home prices have surged, the rate of homeownership has declined across the country, while buyers remain in debt for longer periods of time. Tenants pay higher rental costs, and building social housing is more difficult because of the cost of land.

Policymakers and economists blame high housing prices for a severe supply shortage. This line of thinking led the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) to call to double the rate of construction, to build 4.3 million new homes by 2035.

The CMHC’s proposal would increase Canada’s housing stock by 25 per cent over a decade, even though they anticipate population growth of only eight per cent, leading to “abnormally high levels of unoccupied housing units,” as the Parliamentary Budget Office observed. The CMHC’s projected payoff is surprisingly modest: they anticipate real housing prices would only decline to pre-pandemic levels.

These issues point toward a more fundamental question: What is the evidence that a supply shortage has created the housing crisis to begin with?…(more)

Scott Wiener is a sick bastard

By Christopher LeGras : allaspectreport  – excerpt

One day before the anniversary of the 2025 Los Angeles firestorms, Wiener will re-introduce legislation making it easier for developers to profit off victims’ losses and trauma. Photo by Christopher LeGras. I

start this post with some reflection. This Wednesday marks the one year anniversary of the January 2025 wildfires that devastated swaths of the city and county of Los Angeles. As the world well knows, the communities of Pacific Palisades and Altadena were almost completely wiped off the map. The fires destroyed 18,189 structures including homes, local businesses, community centers, places of worship, schools and others. At least 31 people died as a direct result of the fires, to which researchers attribute an additional 409 excess deaths. Nearly a quarter of a million people were evacuated, and some 100,000 remain displaced to this day.

During two hellish weeks, Angelenos were glued to their TVs and to the Watch Duty app, which provided invaluable real time alerts of the fires’ progress, the ignition of new fires, evacuation orders and warnings and other critical information. Dozens of times a day the app’s distinctive whooshing tone sounded and millions of people picked up their phones to get the latest alert. That tone is etched into our collective memory.

For two hellish weeks, Angelenos were glued to the Watch Duty app.

We were also glued to our phones themselves, sending and receiving thousands of texts and making hundreds of phone calls to affected loved ones, friends and colleagues. Countless Angelenos from unaffected areas rose to the moment by volunteering or donating. Those who could — journalists, city and county staff, off duty first responders — shuttled residents back to the remains of their homes to sift through the rubble for whatever precious possessions that might have survived. Residents in neighborhoods bordering the burn zones formed watches to deter looters. A number of victims remained on their properties, camping out, protecting their neighborhoods and proving the essentialness of the Second Amendment. Unlikely bonds and friendships were forged in the flames and the aftermath…

You’ll be hard pressed, one year on, to find an Angeleno who doesn’t have direct memories of the fires, through personal experience, the experiences of family and friends, or both. Those 100,000 displaced people just celebrated their first holidays in new homes they never expected to occupy. Many will never be able to return.

Like the burn zones themselves, the psychological wounds will take years to heal. And while they ultimately will, the scar tissue will never look quite like the pre-fire physical and emotional landscapes. While a majority of Angelenos weren’t directly affected, their lives were changed, too. Their perceptions of the city they live in changed, from Santa Monica to Sunland-Tujunga, Malibu to Monrovia.

Faith shaken

Their perceptions of their city and county governments changed, too. In some cases, they changed for the better. CD 11 Councilwoman Traci Park secured her place in L.A. history as she fought tirelessly, relentlessly, for her devastated district and traumatized constituents. Out in the valley, while CD 7 Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez’s district was spared severe destruction, she nevertheless became an outspoken voice demanding accountability from city agencies…(more)

 

 

Robert Rivas Announces First-Of-Its-Kind ‘Outcomes Review’ Legislative Oversight Tool to Enhance Impac t of Laws

Press Release

Set for launch in 2026, this new approach empowers lawmakers, staff and the public, underscores the Speaker’s ongoing commitment to listening to Californians, and refines solutions for greater impact

SACRAMENTO — On Thursday, Speaker Robert Rivas announced a first-of-its-kind legislative oversight tool that empowers Assembly members to assess, review and improve implementation of enacted laws that they’ve authored or championed — aiming for elevated community engagement, better outcomes, and lasting benefits for Californians.

Set to launch in January, this new approach underscores the Speaker’s ongoing commitment to strong accountability and transparency in government.

What Speaker Robert Rivas Says – “Passing laws is only the first step. The real test is ensuring they work. Gone are the days when laws can be signed and forgotten. The Outcomes Review tool empowers Assembly members to evaluate real-world outcomes, engage directly with residents, and refine our solutions for greater impact. It’s a forward-looking approach to oversight that every 21st century Legislature should adopt.”

‘Outcomes Reviews’ Continue Assembly Commitment to Oversight – Under Speaker Rivas’ leadership, the Assembly has consistently prioritized impact, oversight and accountability.

From the formation of new committees that make sure taxpayer dollars are implemented effectively and efficiently to special affordability-focused hearings on energy prices and the top cost drivers for working families, the Assembly has prioritized robust oversight of state spending and new legislation with real impact — especially in lowering the cost of living in California.

In 2025, Speaker Rivas also lowered the number of bills legislators can introduce from 50 to 35, so that every leader in the Assembly has the greatest possible bandwidth to focus on making sure California’s laws uplift prosperity.

Now in 2026, the Speaker is empowering members to emphasize collaborative review of enacted legislation by introducing an “Outcomes Review” oversight tool, which government policy author Jennifer Pahlka described as a “bold” and “intentional, structured process for evaluating whether the laws lawmakers pass actually do what they’re supposed to do” on her Eating Policy Substack.

With this work, Members will undergo three key steps, including:

  1. Announce laws to evaluate and review as part of an Outcomes Review, in coordination with policy committees, and identify partners for collaboration at the start of the legislative session
  2. Work with policy staff and stakeholders to host Outcomes Review-related committee hearings and community meetings starting in the spring, empowering Californians directly impacted by enacted laws to have a strong voice in this public process
  3. At the end of the legislative year, highlight Outcomes Review findings, actions and solutions that will improve implementation of laws

Speaker Rivas Invites Members to Utilize ‘Outcomes Review’ Oversight Tool – The Speaker’s office is working with Members and inviting lawmakers to participate in the new “Outcomes Review” legislative tool. In January, a first cohort of Assembly members will be announced. So far, the following lawmakers are already scheduled to begin Outcomes Review work at the start of 2026:

  • Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry will continue her work on health care access for California families by reviewing implementation of Assembly Bill 744, which was enacted into law in 2019 and delivers telehealth solutions that improve care for all residents
  • Assembly Bill 2011 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, also known as the Middle Class Housing Act. It was enacted in 2022 to make it easier to build affordable and mixed-income housing projects in cities and metro areas where shops or offices are already allowed. Assembly member Wicks will review the enacted law to make sure it is having a meaningful impact.
  • Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin enacted Assembly Bill 488 in 2021 to make sure charitable donations have their intended impact. She will look closely at how this law is being implemented and the experience of victims of the Los Angeles firestorms.
  • Assembly Bill 457 by Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria was enacted in 2025 with the goal of building more affordable farmworker housing within 15 miles of farm or grazing land in the Central Valley. The Assembly member will take a close look at outcomes and review whether the law is resulting in more homes for California’s farmworkers.

What Assembly Members are Saying About Outcomes Reviews…(more)

Rivas District Map: https://speaker.asmdc.org/district-map

From John Crabtree, who read the entire Upzoning Plan

Read The Fine Print
Upzoning & Ocean Beach
True Clarity on page 818

https://crabtreej.substack.com/p/readthefineprint?utm_medium=email

…I read it [The Mayor’s Upzoning Plan] Mayor Lurie. And now my readers are going to read about it too. With any luck they will share this with others as others have shared it with me. The jig, as they say Mayor Lurie, is definitely up.

There are manifold examples of horrible development and redevelopment concepts in Mayor Lurie’s Upzoning Plan, too many to detail in one essay. So, I will focus on the one that is most steeped in deception and betrayal — the Western Shoreline Area Plan amendments.

 

That image is just the first 9 lines; it goes on after that and there are more specifics elsewhere in Mayor Lurie’s Upzoning Plan. Honestly though, there is little reason to go any further than the page that I included above.

The Western Area Shoreline Plan policy objectives, as amended, would read — “ENSURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL ZONE ADVANCES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOALS APPROPRIATE FOR THE LOCATION OF EACH PARCEL.”

I have already heard pushback from Mayor Lurie’s office saying, “no, no, that does not mean ‘ensure development,’ that is not why that is in there.” Oh, really? Then why the hell is it in there? It fails every credibility test to say that this amending language will not actually change coastal protections. Opening the door to coastal zone development is unpopular, frighteningly so. I get why your wrecking-ball planning office would try to hide it on page 818.

Remember that Engardio kept telling us this was all, “Fake News!”

It is not “Fake News!” Moreover, now that it is no longer hidden, please do not insult me and, more importantly, do not insult my friends, my neighbors and my community by saying you want to make this change, but the change would have no impact. It is patently absurd to risk the political fallout from such a move if the underlying amendments lacked real-world impact, insultingly absurd.

Mayor Lurie, take out the changes to the Western Area Shoreline plan that begin on page 818 and all of the other amendment provisions that emanate from it.

While I am at it, here are some other line-in-the-sand issues for me and a lot of other people, in The Sunset and beyond:

  • Open The Great Highway, reinstate the compromise!
  • Protect the Coastal Zone and Western Shoreline from upzoning and development!
  • Infrastructure before density — utilities, sewer, transit, water, public safety & local schools.
  • Small business stability — preserve and encourage a diversity of retail spaces and other small businesses, including older and more affordable storefronts.
  • Stop with the blanket upzoning that look for all the world like someone took a highlighter to a map in the Western neighborhoods. Upzoning and redevelopment needs to look like it was done with a fine tip brush and not a paint roller.

Mayor Lurie, we can do better than this, we must do better than this… john

Guest Opinion: To build housing, we need to fix RHNA

By Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) : paloaltoonline – excerpt

A case for reforming California’s housing allocation process

As my colleagues and I enter the final weeks of the legislative session, housing is rightly at the center of our attention. But as high-profile bills move across the floor, I keep returning to an elephant in the room: our broken Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. It is the very mechanism meant to drive housing production, but it is too costly and confusing to do the job we ask of it.

RHNA is how the state tells cities how much and what kind of housing to plan for. In theory, it should be a pragmatic, data-driven way to match housing supply with demand. In practice it has become a logistical nightmare for many communities on the Peninsula. Smaller cities are being forced to overhaul complex land-use and zoning codes through consultant-driven processes that are expensive in both dollars and staff time.

Across my district, expenditures on consultants and related implementation work have run into the millions. Local governments here have spent roughly $25 million on the sixth RHNA cycle alone, and individual cities have diverted as much as 10–15% of constrained local budgets to compliance rather than construction. That’s money that could have gone to shovel-ready projects, infrastructure improvements, or the services residents rely on every day…. (more)

Continue reading Guest Opinion: To build housing, we need to fix RHNA

San Francisco mayor’s ‘Family Zoning Plan’ met with strong opposition

By Sergio Quintana : nbcbayarea – excerpt

Mayor Daniel Lurie’s proposal to boost housing could bring taller buildings to parts of the city, where current residents fiercely oppose them.

What was supposed to be a rally for Mayor Daniel Lurie’s proposal to boost housing in San Francisco turned into a shouting match on Thursday.

A well organized group of opponents hurled insults at nearly every speaker at Lurie’s event, much to the surprise and dismay of the mayor.

Lurie had scheduled an event on the steps of San Francisco City Hall to rally support for his “Family Zoning Plan.”

While about half the crowd came to support the mayor, the other half appeared bent on shouting him down over the proposal.

The mayor’s plan, if approved, would make multi-family homes like duplexes, triplexes and apartment buildings in parts of the city that are currently zoned only for single family homes.

The plan also reforms the city’s permitting process with the goal of green lighting about 36,000 new homes by 2031.

Lurie’s proposal could bring taller buildings to parts of the city, where current residents fiercely oppose them… (more)

The Planning Commissioners vote 3 nays and 4 ayes so the matter goes to the Board of Supervisors to approve.

And the Democrats wonder why they lost the election? They better start  listening  to the voters and quit telling people how to live. All the upzonoing and car removal bills have not lowered  rents or added riders to the public transit system. The draconian laws are driving people out of the state. They are losing seats in congress.

All those claims of how the future is going to unravel have not panned out as predicted and there has been very little recognition of this or flexibility on dealing with the new reality.

Re: SB 79 Amendments as of August 3, 2025

Most cities that opposed SB 79 are not impressed by the latest amendments.  Some legislators may believe that the numerous amendments now make the bill acceptable but most disagree for the following reasons:

Problems with SB 79 that amendments did not fix:

SB 79 still does not provide for enough affordable housing.

SB 79 will reduce affordable housing by allowing older, naturally affordable buildings to be replaced by largely market-rate buildings.

Local control of affordable inclusionary housing in SB 79 projects is a red herring  – HCD severely limits this “option”.  Local inclusionary built under SB 79  should override any limitations by state administrative agencies.

SB 79 is a major state override of local control. – overrides the state approved housing element and mandates unneeded density in inappropriate places.

SB 79  is misleading by offering local control through allowing alternate plans by localities. – Any such plan still requires inappropriate density, overrides the state approved housing element, and requires approval of HCD.

Bus routes are an inappropriate basis for rezoning property. Routes can change or be manipulated in weeks. The housing built under SB 79 will be permanent.

SB 79 is unnecessary for cities that already have approved plans to meet their state-mandated housing requirements.

SB 79 needs a 5 year sunset clause.

California affordable housing programs are on the chopping block after Supreme Court ruling

By Ben Christopher : calmatters – excerpt

East Palo Alto, like cities across California, has a law on the books that forces developers of new housing projects to foot the bill for the state’s shortage of affordable homes.

New residential projects need to set aside a share of the units they plan to build for lower-income renters and homeowners under the terms of the city’s “inclusionary zoning” ordinance. Builders who refuse have to instead pay a fee, ranging from the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

An East Palo Alto homeowner filed a lawsuit in federal court on Thursday challenging the constitutionality of that law, likening it to “extortion” — and he had a little help from the U.S. Supreme Court…

The implications of the lawsuit range far beyond the Bay Area. A 2017 report estimated that 149 cities and counties across California have some form of inclusionary zoning rule, though the specific terms vary. That makes it one of the most commonly used affordable housing programs both in California and in the country.

Now all that may be on the constitutional chopping block… (more)