Category Archives: Planning

California’s clashes over business regulation rage on as legislative session nears end

By Dan Walters : calmatters – excerpt (excerpt)

Back room dealers

Keep an eye on these 5 deals as California lawmakers close out the legislative session

Assembly Bill 2564, carried by Assemblymember Christopher Ward, …would prohibit retailers from engaging in “surveillance pricing,” which is a form of algorithmic pricing in which sellers use personal information to tailor prices to specific consumers….

Assembly Bill 1776, authored by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, .. would broaden California’s anti-monopoly Cartwright Act, first enacted in 1907 to allow civil or criminal actions against corporations that monopolize markets….is aimed at collusion between two or more corporations to stifle competition and raise prices. But AB 1776 would also sanction actions against corporations that become dominant without colluding….The change was recommended by the California Law Revision Commission to curb monopolistic behavior framers of the original law never envisioned. It is backed by a long list of consumer advocates and unions…

RELATED:
Keep an eye on these 5 deals as California lawmakers close out the legislative session

Who does your representative work for?  How much help are the voters getting and how much help are our elected  representatives selling to the highest bidder?

‘We cannot magic up more water’: the supply problems putting housing targets in England at risk

By Sandra Leville : theguardian – excerpt

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?

 

One of Marin’s biggest new housing projects could get derailed by a lawsuit

By Julie Johnson : sfchronicle – excerpt
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)

BUILT ON PROMISES, MANAGED BY CONTRADICTIONS – PRICE OF BEING POOR – PART 9

By Malik Washington : davisvanguard – excerpt

A federally subsidized “showpiece” of San Francisco redevelopment is telling its residents that mold, roaches, ventilation failures and a reported cluster of deaths are their problem – and that their overdue rent is the city’s. Before pouring billions more into Candlestick Point, the City and County of San Francisco owes the public an independent investigation into what has actually happened at Alice Griffith Apartments.

Editor’s note. This article distinguishes among documented facts, publicly reported allegations, and reasonable inferences drawn from the record. It does not accuse the John Stewart Company, McCormack Baron Salazar, the Tabernacle Community Development Corporation, FivePoint, RBC Capital Markets, the San Francisco Housing Authority, the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure, the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, or any city official of fraud. It argues that the public record, as it currently stands, justifies an independent fact-finding investigation – and it identifies the specific questions such an investigation should answer.

Editor’s note. This article distinguishes among documented facts, publicly reported allegations, and reasonable inferences drawn from the record. It does not accuse the John Stewart Company, McCormack Baron Salazar, the Tabernacle Community Development Corporation, FivePoint, RBC Capital Markets, the San Francisco Housing Authority, the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure, the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, or any city official of fraud. It argues that the public record, as it currently stands, justifies an independent fact-finding investigation – and it identifies the specific questions such an investigation should answer.

One of those tenants, alarmed by the notice they had found waiting for them at the threshold of their own home, contacted this reporter directly. That contact is how this investigation obtained the two notices analyzed in the pages that follow, and how the pattern documented here – a landlord that moves at scale when it is collecting from tenants, and moves slowly, if at all, when tenants are asking it to protect them – came into public view. This reporter has been covering conditions at Alice Griffith Apartments at length in previous installments of “The Price of Being Poor,” published in partnership with The Davis Vanguard. The July 14 door-notice campaign is the newest, and one of the most publicly visible, chapters of that continuing record.

For months before those envelopes went out, residents of the same buildings had been publicly reporting a very different set of grievances: mold, water intrusion, ventilation failures, roach and rodent infestations, broken elevators, malfunctioning fire systems, recent roof concerns, and – most gravely – a reported cluster of approximately ten deaths since January 2026, including community activist Dewayne Gaines. Those grievances have not, to date, produced a comparable operational response from the landlord, from the property manager, or from the City and County of San Francisco… (more)

 

Exclusive: Historic ‘Julia Morgan’ campus to be redeveloped a block from Marina Safeway

By Laura Wasxman : sfchronicle – excerpt

Marina Safeway

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)

 

SANDAG spared 2 North County cities from more aggressive housing development — a move at odds with state guidance

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)

The Chron discovers, sort of, that Wiener’s housing bills are a con

By Zelda Bronstein : 48hills – excerpt

Con man Wiener failed to sell SB50 because the men with the money did not believe his claims. Now they just don’t care whether he makes sense or not. He is working for them. Photo by sfbluecomics.

Finally, a story that mentions the real issue: Cities can’t force developers to build

In countless editorials and news stories, the San Francisco Chronicle has championed state Sen. Scott Wiener’s claims that city Nimbyism is the major culprit in California’s housing crisis, and that his legislation has finally brought growth-resistant local governments to heel.

California cities, for their part, have argued that Wiener’s legislation penalizes them for something they can’t control: developers’ willingness to build.

Given the Chronicle’s anti-city line, it was surprising to find the cities’ complaint reinforced by an article the paper ran on July 5. To be sure, that corroboration appears at the very end of the story and doesn’t mention Wiener. Moreover, the headline—“These Bay Area suburbs are the furthest behind on their housing goals”—suggests that, as ever, cities are to blame.

The piece is a bit confusing, because it considers two related but different sorts of local housing goals set by the state. Reporter Olivia Borgula briefly discusses the requirement that cities’ general plans include a housing element that’s certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Lack of certification triggers the “Builders Remedy,” which allows developers to do pretty much anything they want.

But Borgula’s main focus, and mine here as well, is on the state’s requirement that each city issue a certain of number housing permits or be forced to “streamline” (a euphemism for approval without a public hearing) certain housing projects. The required number of permits corresponds to each city’s “Regional Housing Need Allocation” or RHNA (sounds like ree-nuh)…

Behind the enormous RHNAs: Wiener’s bills…

The Chronicle’s unexpected exposé

Borgula concludes by citing David Garcia, deputy director of policy at the state Legislature’s go-to consultancy, UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation:

Garcia said the number of homes permitted in a city largely depends on the area’s economics, including construction costs and the availability of subsidies for low-income housing.

“A city can have a perfectly good housing element, perfectly good zoning, all geared toward getting housing built, but if the market is not really working for developers, then that stuff just doesn’t get built,” he said…(more)

 

 

USDA Payments for Organic Farmers Delayed

By Lisa Held : organicconsumers – excerpt

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

April 1, 2026 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has yet to initiate the 2025 application and payment process for funds authorized by Congress to help farmers afford organic certification.

Three months into 2026, the agency has not indicated when those funds might be made available. Due to rising costs of both certification and other farm necessities, it will likely result in fewer farmers pursuing certification, said Kate Mendenhall, executive director of the Organic Farmers Association.

“It’s the small farms where it really makes a financial impact,” said Mendenhall, who is an Iowa livestock farmer. “I would anticipate that farms might hold off on certifying for a few years, and we’ll probably lose some smaller farms.”

Data from the Organic Trade Association (OTA) shows an increase in organic food sales, up to more than $70 billion in 2025. But that increase is primarily from imported food. Other data points to a decrease between 2021 and 2023 in the number of U.S. acres certified organic, with many existing organic farms going out of business or dropping certification…(more)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

SF affordable-housing fee cuts weren’t enough to spur residential construction

By Patrick Hope : sfexaminer – excerpt

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?

 

 

Cities scramble to comply with or fight major state housing law

By Ben Christopher : calmatters – excerpt
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

Los Angeles opted for a strategy of maximum delay last month when the city council voted to overhaul a portion of its zoning map in order to buy itself a few more years of planning time.

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?