Category Archives: Politics

Politics

MTC/ABAG’s Bay Area population projections are way too high

By Gaetan Lion : medium – excerpt (see graphics with projects on the source)
Executive Summary

MTC/ABAG’s Bay Area Population Projections Are Fundamentally Flawed This analysis examines the Plan Bay Area 2050+ population projections and concludes they are fundamentally unrealistic, built on demographic impossibilities and questionable economic assumptions. These projections were developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC) in conjunction with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

The Core Problem MTC/ABAG projects the Bay Area population will grow 24.1% from 2025 to 2050 — nearly 10 times faster than the rest of California (2.5%) — despite facing severe demographic headwinds. This projection requires reversing decades of trends and overcoming structural challenges that make such growth implausible.

Demographic Reality The Bay Area faces fundamental constraints making rapid population growth extraordinarily unlikely. With a median age of 41 years (compared to California’s 38.4), the region produces more deaths than births, yielding minimal or negative natural population change. Post-pandemic migration has turned consistently negative as remote work enables relocation to more affordable regions. Reflecting the impact of remote work, San Francisco now has the nation’s highest office vacancy rate at 35.4%, continuing to rise five years after the pandemic began…

Global demographic aging fundamentally constrains migration flows. UN projections show U.S. population growth from 2025–2050 will be 59% lower than 2000–2025, while major source countries like Mexico face 62% declines in such growth rates. Asian countries are experiencing rapid population contraction. Bipartisan convergence toward restrictive immigration policies further limits migration pathways.

Benchmarking Reveals Unrealistic Assumptions Two alternative benchmarks expose MTC/ABAG’s flawed projections. The California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit (DRU) projects only 6.4% Bay Area growth from 2025 to 2050 — still unrealistically assuming the Bay Area will grow nearly three times faster than the rest of California (2.5%). An Alternate Scenario, adjusting for historical deceleration trends, projects just 1.9% growth, aligning with the remainder of the state’s 2.5% projection. MTC/ABAG’s forecast dramatically diverges from both benchmarks; its 24.1% projected growth for the Bay Area over the 2025–2050 period is nearly 10 times higher than DRU’s projection for the remainder of the state at 2.5%… (more)

Source: DRU, MTC/ABAG, author’s calculations. Note that 2020 and 2025 are Actuals. As noted MTC/ABAG has slightly different figures for these two periods.

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

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

Politics

News Update from Save Our Sausalito

Via email : from savoursausalito – excerpt

Thank You City Council & SOS Supporters

On Tuesday night (12/2), the City Council voted unanimously to keep Chapter 3: View Protection in Sausalito’s new Objective Design & Development Standards (ODDS). With strong turnout both in person and on Zoom — and more than 115 public comments submitted — the community’s support for protecting Sausalito’s views was clear.

This is a significant win for SOS supporters and all of Sausalito.

The unanimous vote shows the Council heard residents’ concerns, and it reflects the strength of Chapter 3, which was carefully developed by Sausalito volunteers over many months.

“If not for this effort by these volunteers and by the members of the city there wouldn’t be view protection.” – Mayor Joan Cox

What Was At Stake

Heading into the meeting, View Protection was at risk. Some Planning Commissioners had pushed to remove Chapter 3 and leave Sausalito without View Protection. Without this Chapter, a developer could get approval for a project and still block resident views.

Your advocacy helped ensure that did not happen.

Software Enabling Chapter 3: ViewSync

Chapter 3’s View Protection standards require a reliable, objective way to measure view impacts. The answer was a software tool called ViewSync which was created by talented Sausalito based software developers and other experts with input from SOS supporters. It provides a clear, consistent analysis that gives the City a fair enforcement tool and developers predictable standards. Without a software tool Chapter 3 could not be adopted.

“This software is brilliant, and it works.” – Vice Mayor Steven Woodside

How it works: ViewSync is built on a super-detailed specialized aerial map of Sausalito with elevation data recorded every six inches, capturing buildings, hillsides, trees, and terrain. These billions of data points create a precise digital “LEGO” model of the entire city.

Using that model, we can draw a straight line from any property to the water and see precisely what is in the way. Because the dataset is so large, the calculations run on Google’s cloud computers, giving us access to the same scale and high reliability that powers Google.

“This is a design tool that we architects really welcome.” – Michael Rex, Architect

Through a simple web app, developers can insert a proposed building and quickly see how it affects surrounding views. Developers will appreciate this benefit too: once they build a project, their own views will be protected under the same standards as everyone else’s.

The magic of this system is that it also allows us to identify perfect places and forms for development that fit into the community.

“Congratulations. It’s really cool and innovative.” – Councilmember Ian Sobieski

Watch the presentation and discussion of view protection here >>

Politics

Planning commissioners reject Housing Element

by Juan Pablo Perez Burgos : BenitoLink – excerpt

Toward the end of a process that began more than four years ago, the San Benito County Planning Commission voted on Nov. 19 to recommend that the San Benito County Board of Supervisors reject the Housing Element, one of California’s key housing requirements, and start over from scratch.

Without a state-approved housing plan, the county could face lawsuits, loss of state funding and unbridled development.

To earn state certification, the county must plan for more than 700 new units in its unincorporated areas and rezone specific parcels to accommodate them. That rezoning plan was approved by planning commissioners and supervisors six months ago, but several landowners whose properties are on the list now say they were never notified.

Commissioner Robert Gibson argued that those owners should have been informed more than two years ago, during the first public discussions of the Housing Element.

“I was under the assumption that these people were notified at the time that we started discussing these particular parcels because to me that’s basic decency,” he said. “At this point, I’m not comfortable going forward, and it’s unfortunate that we’re at the 11th hour and the 59th second, but it’s unacceptable.”

Today, San Benito County’s lack of a certified Housing Element has enabled the planning of more than 2,300 units on land designated as rural or agricultural, according to county planning records…(more)

State Senate District 17 From Santa Cruz to San Luis Obispo: John Laird – how did Lair vote on SB 79?
State Assembly is the Assembly Speaker Rivas. We know how he voted.

Looks as if the County officials approved the housing element.

The green sites represent parcels the county plans to rezone, while the yellow ones are what the county calls “pipeline projects”—developments already in the planning process; some have been approved and others are still under review.

Politics

Bay Area homeowner beats $55,000 fee for expansion project after legal fight with city

By Jessica Roy : sfchronicle – excerpt (includes audio)

Wesley Yu had a plan to create multigenerational housing on his residential property in East Palo Alto. But after getting hit with a nearly $55,000 fee from the city, the small-scale project devolved into a legal fight — one that was eventually settled in his favor.
The case underscores a broader tension in California’s efforts to ease its severe housing crisis, and how it can wind up impacting homeowners…

Yu first submitted his proposal in January 2024, and the city approved it the following October. In May, the city sent an email acknowledging an oversight on its end: Because Yu was building more than one unit of housing (both the new home and the ADU), his project was subject to the city’s inclusionary zoning laws, which have been in place since 2019. According to the lawsuit, the ordinance mandated that he either charge below-market rates to rent out one of the units or pay an in-lieu fee, known as an exaction, of nearly $55,000.

Yu decided to fight the city in court, with help from the Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento-based nonprofit organization that represents property owners and individuals facing what it considers to be government overreach. (“Suing the government since 1973,” its homepage declares.)…

In this case, Waisanen said, Yu was not building market-rate housing because he wasn’t planning to charge anyone to live there. He had no immediate plans to rent out either new unit, and no plans to charge family members or his own child for staying there. The city’s ordinance would have forced him to either pay the fee or become a landlord and subsidize his tenant by charging below-market rent, Waisanen said.

The city disputed that: According to its statement, Yu could have avoided the fee by agreeing to a deed restriction that he charge affordable rates only if he rented the unit out. If he never rented out the unit, no price restriction would have come into play. The statement said Yu refused to agree to that…

Last week, Yu’s attorneys announced the city had settled the lawsuit. The city of East Palo Alto did not admit fault or wrongdoing in the settlement. But the homeowner will be allowed to proceed without paying the $54,891 affordable housing fee, and East Palo Alto agreed to pay $5,000 in attorney fees. The city is also amending the inclusionary housing ordinance in its municipal code to exclude projects like Yu’s…

In a City Council special meeting agenda from Nov. 18 that City Attorney John Le provided to the Chronicle, it was noted that Section 18.37.40 of East Palo Alto’s municipal code would be amended to facilitate small-scale lot split projects by removing the in-lieu fees.

“In September 2025, as part of a larger effort to facilitate SB 9 lot splits, the City Council adopted an amendment to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Ordinance No. 06-2025) to exempt parcels that are given an approval under SB 9 from the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The amendment mooted Mr. Yu’s claims,” Le wrote in a Nov. 18 City Council staff report that he also provided to the Chronicle. “Although the City may vigorously defend its rights in a court of law, in the interest of conserving resources, the City Council has decided to settle this matter.”… (more)

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics

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

Politics

Gateway from Hell

by Carol Harvey :sfbayview – excerpt

The global warehouse developer Prologis is requesting approval from the Planning Commission for the San Francisco Gateway, a two-building, 2.16 million square foot industrial facility bridging Interstate 280 in the Bayview. The three-story structures would rise over 100 feet tall, in order to accommodate trucks on every level of the building, with 2,000 parking spaces. Potential Gateway construction raises concerns about heavy traffic congestion, air pollution from diesel emissions and environmental racism in this over-industrialized, radiologically and chemically contaminated largely African-American community.

A note to the reader: Watching the attached video (immediately following this sentence) will immeasurably enhance your enjoyment and understanding of the story:…(more)

AND:

San Francisco Planning Commission will hear items on the Prologis Gateway project  Items # 15 (a) – (e)  described below and agenda attached. Please note: These items appear later in the meeting and there is no way to know the exact time of the Prologis hearing. So please be prepared.
Planning Meeting

Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

San Francisco, CA 94102-4689

Thursday, September 25, 2025
12:00 pm
Please share widely and join us at City Hall! Make your voice heard: No more truck pollution in the Bayview!
Please see the video below for details and previous public comment. And read the SF Bayview article. Thank you Carol Harvey!
Attachments to this email include the Planning Agenda and All Things Bayview’s Opposition letter. Take a look.
In solidarity,
Ann Colichidas
SF Gray Panthers
9/25 Planning Commission Item #15 a – e
a) Adoption of Findings under the California Environmental Quality (Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt CEQA Findings)

Act (CEQA) to allow the redevelopment of approximately 17.1 acres in the Bayview neighborhood

b) Planning Code Text Amendment, pursuant to Planning Code Section 302, to create the San Francisco Gateway Special Use District (SUD) at 749 Toland Street, Assessor’s Block 5284A, Lot 008, and 2000 McKinnon Avenue, Assessor’s Block 5287, Lot 002 (Preliminary:  Adopt a Recommendation for Approval)

c) The proposed Development Agreement will address delivery of public benefits related to workforce,street improvements, and Bayview small businesses.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve

d) Request for Adoption of the San Francisco Gateway Special Use District’s Design (Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt)

Standards and Guidelines Document (DSG) Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt

e) Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections

249.7 (pending), 303, and 304, and Board File No. 250426 to allow the redevelopment of approximately 17.1 acres in the Bayview neighborhood with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) (Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions)

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

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

Image

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 →

CEQA, Housing, Planning, Politics

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

Video 1 Comment

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.

Housing, Politics

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.