State Congressman Mullin at a press conference outside the National Archives at San Francisco (located in San Bruno) on Aug. 24.
Vowing to “use any lever at our disposal to keep the National Archives here,” South San Francisco Congressman Kevin Mullin announced legislation Monday to combat Trump administration plans to shut down the local federal archives facility in San Bruno.
Mullin’s bill, H.R. 10131, comes in response to advocacy by historians and Asian American immigrant and civil rights advocates who have collected almost 14,000 signatures in just the past month on petitions to keep the federal records centers here and in Chicago open. A similar federal records center in Seattle may also be at risk. The Mullin bill would bar the archivist from closing records centers or moving the records themselves for more than six months if facilities are restructured or repaired. Five House Democrats have now cosponsored the Mullin bill while 36 House members and senators have joined his Letter of Congressional inquiry to the archivist…(more)
Bridget slides from Wakup: Explain how the protections are supposed to work but are being overwritten by Scott Wiener and YIMBY to remove protections. They are playing into he administration’s goal of erasing history.
WATER IN ENGLAND: Council leaders say crumbling infrastructure and lack of water are jeopardising government’s plans for new homes
The government’s housebuilding agenda is hitting the stark reality of a lack of water and crumbling infrastructure across the east and south-east of England.
Half the country was declared to be in serious drought this week, for the second consecutive year, with the Environment Agency warning of dire consequences for the economy, environment and wildlife.
The parts of England in extreme water stress with residents under hosepipe bans are also where the government’s “build, baby, build” agenda is being targeted. Labour has promised to build 1.5m homes by the end of this parliament – a strategy retained by Andy Burnham…
Harvey said: “The Labour government’s unrealistic imposed housing targets don’t take account of the fact that the Environment Agency, Natural England and the water companies are all waving red flags about whether the water exists to supply them.”… (more)
From Gray Brechin, “
WATER IN AMERICA: As you will see from the Guardian article below, Scott Wiener, the developers, and the YIMBYs who have gotten the California legislature to override local zoning controls and environmental constraints have their counterparts in the UK where massive new developments are projected for known floodplains and sensitive environmental sites. But now those counterparts are running headlong into the accelerating impacts of climate breakdown which is inescapable here where the heat is rising the rain has stopped, the hills and fields have bleached, the rivers, reservoirs, and aquifers are falling and the crops are failing. Although it’s still not as bad as France and Spain, wildfires have broken out in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. And El Niño hasn’t kicked in yet. But there are still people here as there are there who insist that if you build it, water (and energy) will magically be found. But what if it isn’t?
The Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary campus in Strawberry is set to be converted into housing. A new legal challenge could derail it.
A group of neighbors is challenging Marin County’s approval of a major housing development project on the Tiburon Peninsula, arguing in a lawsuit filed this month that the county was wrong to allow plans to build residences on the slopes of a ridgetop.
The new buildings would be part of a large overhaul of the former Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary campus, a 127-acre site with academic buildings and residences in the unincorporated community of Strawberry covering prime hillsides overlooking the bay.
On June 9, the county approved developer North Coast Land Holdings’ plans to build 337 residential units that would include 70 low-income sites plus a 150-unit residential care facility, a daycare, fitness center and 944 parking spaces. The plans call for demolishing all but 13 existing residences and to preserve open spaces on the property.
But 40 of those market-rate units in 25 buildings are too close to the ridgeline known as Chapel Hill, “effectively blocking views of the Bay from many vantage points,” according to the lawsuit, filed July 6 in Marin County Superior Court by the Strawberry Residents for Sensible Development. The plaintiffs, who are also suing North Coast, argue the county’s decision violated both environmental laws and local plans governing future development… (more)
A century after the historic Julia Morgan Building opened its doors on the Marina waterfront, the campus surrounding it is preparing for its biggest transformation yet: a redevelopment that would preserve the landmark structure, expand senior housing and bring Sequoia Living in as its nonprofit development partner.
The proposal arrives as another major redevelopment effort just a block away has become one of the neighborhood’s fiercest battles. The contrast between the two projects was on display Thursday evening at Fort Mason, where hundreds of Marina residents gathered to debate the future of the nearby Safeway site on Marina Boulevard, where a plan to add 850 homes has sparked organized opposition…
Residents leading the Safeway opposition said they are not fighting the creation of new homes, but a project they believe does not fit the neighborhood’s scale, character and waterfront setting. Just a block away, the Heritage on the Marina’s proposal for its campus offers a very different model of transformation: preserving the Julia Morgan Building, one of San Francisco’s most significant historic landmarks, while expanding an existing senior care community rather than introducing a new, glass-heavy high-rise residential complex.
Together, the two projects offer a window into a larger question confronting the Marina: What kind of change will the neighborhood accept?…
The Julia Morgan redevelopment plan represents a different kind of transformation.
Heritage on the Marina, the nonprofit that owns and operates the senior living campus, says the redevelopment is intended to modernize aging facilities, expand services for older adults and preserve a piece of San Francisco history.
The centerpiece of the campus is the Julia Morgan Building, a three-story brick landmark completed in 1925 for the San Francisco Ladies’ Protection and Relief Society. Named after California’s first licensed female architect — whose portfolio includes Hearst Castle — the U-shaped building occupies a prominent position on the 1.6-acre site, surrounded by later residential and administrative additions, including health care facilities and a caretaker’s cottage.
The redevelopment plan would preserve the Julia Morgan Building while replacing all other structures with a single, new eight-story residential building. The proposal would increase the campus’s residential capacity from its current level to 122 units while adding modern amenities and care facilities…
Carolyn Kiernat, a principal at Page & Turnbull, the preservation-focused architecture firm working on the restoration and expansion alongside HKIT Architects, said the proposal “carefully balances preservation with progress.”
“Great cities are measured by how well they care for people across every state of life,” said Sara McVey, Sequoia Living’s president and CEO. “The proposed plan preserves an important piece of San Francisco’s history while ensuring it can continue serving older adults and the Marina community for another 100 years.”…
The Julia Morgan campus redevelopment and the Safeway project have become symbols of two competing visions for the Marina’s future. Thursday’s community meeting underscored a growing reality facing neighborhoods across the city: They may have to make room for both. … (more)
By Lucas Robinson and Madeleine Kashkoolie : sandiegotribune – excerpt
Pro-housing groups say the agency’s decision to not upzone the areas around two transit hubs reeks of political influence.
For months, many North County leaders have criticized and tried to blunt the impacts of a new state law that overrides local zoning to allow high-rise housing near transit stops.
They just got some help in that effort from the San Diego Association of Governments.
In a move that conflicts with state guidance, SANDAG exempted Solana Beach and parts of Oceanside from the most dramatic potential impacts of that law, Senate Bill 79, which took effect at the beginning of July.
On the regional planning agency’s board of directors, North County politicians hold outsized sway — among them Solana Beach Mayor Lesa Heebner, who has chaired the board for a year and a half….
The law allows for buildings up to 95 feet tall within a certain distance of transit stops, even if the area is zoned for single-family housing. It applies within a quarter-mile of all eligible transit stops, but for the busiest ones, it applies to everywhere within a half-mile.
In San Diego, the law could have a greater reach than the city anticipated. Officials had estimated only four bus stops would be subject to new higher-density allowances — but in SANDAG’s maps, 21 meet the criteria…
Yet in Solana Beach and Oceanside, a different story played out.
The area surrounding Solana Beach’s train station, which is serviced by the North County Transit District and Amtrak, is not subject to upzoning, according to the maps.
In Oceanside, the neighborhood around the city’s downtown transit center will see a laxer upzoning designation despite being serviced by four different train lines.
In an interview, Heebner said she gave agency staff no input on how to draft the maps… (more)
A recently listed house in San Francisco’s Duboce Triangle promises “the perfect backdrop for your new life” — one that “will redefine how you live.” The property in question is 160 Noe St.: a fully renovated 1907 Edwardian on a tree-lined slow street featuring three bedrooms, two bathrooms and 2,495 square feet full of Calacatta marble, designer lighting and custom woodwork. Listed for $2,995,000, the home has another standout characteristic..
The seller will consider Anthropic or OpenAI stock as payment.
That single line in an otherwise typical luxury listing may be the most succinct summary of what’s been going on in San Francisco for the past two years. It’s hard to believe that just a few years ago, the city’s obituary was being written in real time. Office vacancies soared. Retailers fled downtown. Then, of course, there was the doom loop… (more)
San Francisco may be proud of its role in making California the most expensive state in the union. Perfect for millionaires and whoever they need to augment their life of leisure that is not yet handled by AI and personal robots.
FILE: California apple farmers in Watsonville are bulldozing their orchards after Martinelli’s abruptly canceled their contracts. The company will continue to grow and source applies in the Pajaro Valley.
Karell Reader’s heart sank when she saw acres of apple trees piled up on her neighbor’s Watsonville farm last month. Her neighbor used to sell apples to California cider empire S. Martinelli & Company, but he was forced to bulldoze dozens of apple trees after the company canceled his contracts…
Lookout reported that the shift in vendors could be a strategic financial move by Martinelli’s as the company looks to find cheaper apples from out of state. According to the most recent Crop Report for Santa Cruz County, apples cost about $400 per ton in 2024. Comparatively, apples from Washington cost $135 a ton that same year. Farmers also relied on Martinelli’s for labor, equipment and chemicals for pest control, according to the Lookout… (more)
Another loss for California farmers who are operating the most expensive state in the unions. How much more of our state’s agricultural business will be replaced by water and power hungry AI computer centers in the name of progress?
District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan, and running against Scott Wiener, author of the sone of the most aggressive upzoning bills, said: “I am interested in doing everything we can to unlock the housing that’s already in the pipeline.”
Amid rising construction and financing costs, the tax and fee incentives adopted in 2023 by San Francisco in an effort to spur housing construction weren’t enough to reverse the decline in The City’s residential building activity, according to a new report — but without those measures, it said, the slowdown likely would have been worse.
The analysis, conducted by the Board of Supervisors Budget and Legislative Analyst at the request of Supervisor Connie Chan, examined the effects of temporary reductions in inclusionary housing requirements approved in September 2023, along with incentives that included cuts in development-impact fees assessed on residential projects.
It concluded that while fee reductions and other policy actions might have provided financial relief for some projects in the pipeline, the changes were insufficient to offset or counteract broader macroeconomic conditions largely outside city control, including high building costs, interest rates, and the slow recovery of rents and condominium prices.
“We all want to build more housing, particularly housing that people can afford,” Chan said in discussing the report. “And so how do we do that in a way that is thoughtful?”… (more)
RELATED:
Supervisor wants city voters to grow Housing Trust Fund
We are seeing a slowdown in the building and sales of homes due to a lot of economic conditions that have nothing to do with housing density or upping or carrots or sticks. It is refreshing to hear a few of the candidates running for governor mention some of the obvious moves that may be easily made to preserve the affordable housing we have rather than tear it down during this slow down when many buildings are being put up for auctions as the overly optimistic owners are losing them to the lenders.. Some of comments on that subject may be heard on this recording of a Ezra Klein interview posted on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HETwu7Kfu8
What happened to the 2024 Prop A voter-approved $300 million affordable-housing bond money? What did the voters get out of it? Does passing another bond measure make sense?
How likely is Scott’s appetite for SF land going to help him win votes for his next big leap to Washington? How mad are the voters over the treatment they got from him in Sacramento?
For California’s local governments hoping to have some say over where and how large apartment buildings get packed near major transit stops, it’s crunch time.
Last fall, state lawmakers made it legal for developers to build mid-rises — some as tall as nine stories — in major metro neighborhoods near train, subway and certain dedicated bus stops.
But the final version of Senate Bill 79, which goes into effect on July 1, offered local governments plenty of wiggle room over the where, when and how of the new law.
With the summer deadline rapidly approaching, cities across the state are starting to wiggle…
The move took advantage of a set of escape clauses written into the state law: Transit-adjacent areas that already allow at least half of the housing required under SB 79 can hold off on changing the rules until a year after the next state-mandated planning period.
For Los Angeles and much of Southern California that’s 2030…(more)
Why is San Francisco rushing to do what other cities are putting off till 2030?
The map that adds heights and density where it was already added and plans were drawn up to stabilize the gentrified neighborhoods that were designed by the community to protect what needed protecting:
Added base height limits by Scott Wiener’s SB 79 in 2025. This will take away any hope Scott had of dividing and conquering the city. He has now touched every district in SF with his density bills and anti-CEQA actions. Base heights starting at 95′ going down to 85′ around the BART stations and trains and for some reason around General Hospital? 85′ on the piers? No exit plans or any emergency options will be left to anyone on the east or west side of San Francisco the way they are now configured on the west side.
After three years of labor and argument, San Francisco passed the Family Zoning Plan in December. It lifted 50-year-old restrictions on building heights and densities across many neighborhoods, including the Sunset, Richmond, and Marina Districts.
But the plan avoids many other neighborhoods considered “priority equity” areas where residents are more likely to be low-income renters than in other neighborhoods. The Tenderloin is one of the city’s lowest-income, for example, and Chinatown, the Mission, and the Bayview are home to minority populations that at various times in SF history have been subject to restrictive racist policies and redevelopment.
But the city’s decision not to loosen building restrictions in these neighborhoods doesn’t mean they’re off-limits. Thanks to a new law from SF’s own state Sen. Scott Wiener, whose earlier work also led to the Family Zoning Plan, select parts of south and east neighborhoods, including the Bayview, Mission, and Excelsior, must be unlocked as well.
The law, SB 79, also calls for changes to parcels in Potrero Hill, along Guerrero and Valencia Streets, and in other areas that are not designated for equity protection.
SB 79 requires California cities to make housing easier to build near major transit lines. In many cases, this new round of zoning only means small-bore changes, such as making room for a single new home near St. Mary’s Playground in the Outer Mission. But some parcels will be zoned for more, such as 20-plus units next to the former Candlestick Park site or at the corner of Cesar Chavez and Guerrero Streets. In all, planning documents call them “modest zoning changes.”…
The new rules will then make their way to the Board of Supervisors, which must approve them by July 1.
If SF doesn’t meet that deadline or tries to modify the rules, SB 79 could trigger more dramatic upzoning across much more of the city. “Even if they are against this type of legislation, supervisors don’t really have a choice,” says Zach Weisenburger, policy analyst at SF-based Young Community Developers… (more)
2019 cranes were everywhere. There are very few today.
If you were herein 2019 you may remember a lot of tall cranes in the air all over the city. Dozens of office towers were being built due to the belief that they would be needed for the next tech wave. It hit San Francisco with a bang but fizzled out when AI came to town and started laying off tech workers. Vast amounts of square footage built to meet the “imagined demand” sit idle. The only game in town now is buying and selling over priced real estate. And the Mayor wants to cut that revenue under the familiar guise of incentive to grow the down town again. Isn’t this a familiar tune?
So much for politicians’ predictions, and response to reality when their dreams and aspirations do not go as planned. Instead of changing their strategy when reality pokes holes in their theories, they go charging full steam ahead and digging ever bigger holes in their budgets. When their funds run out they go screaming to the voters demanding more money and higher taxes to fulfill their flawed schemes.
Now SF Planning claims we need more density to provide for more housing, even though people are losing their jobs to AI and leaving the city at a very fast pace. Realtors report that the new wealthy buyers only want single family housing and many prefer to live and work in mansions. They are shying away from office downtown offices and condos. Aaron Peskin was right when he said, most people want the housing that developers want to demolish, not what the developers want to build.
Housing is much like transportation. Everyone in our friendly city wants other people to live in crowded quarters and take the bus.
Many cities are demanding a pause in the enforcement deadlines so they can figure out what they are supposed to do with all the complicated contradictory bills that their state legislators cannot explain. Senator Wiener has considered holding off on the deadline, so why is San Francisco in such a rush to upzone more now?
