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.

Housing, Politics

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)

 

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics

Van Ness Is ‘In Crisis.’ Revival Plans Hinge On Housing Towers and Chain Stores

By Adam Brinklow : thefrisc – excerpt

Empty on brand new condos on Van Ness, shot on July 11, 2-25

This main SF thoroughfare once had grand houses and auto palaces. Now there’s a great bus line, but empty storefronts. Can it again be a place to live and linger?

“ In its May letter, the Van Ness Corridor Neighborhood Coalition asked for drastic reductions of some maximum heights, especially along eight blocks that squeeze between Pacific Heights to the west and Russian Hill and Nob Hill to the east. On the five blocks between California Street and Pacific Avenue, they want to cap heights at 100 feet, down from 250 feet. (Every 10 feet is roughly one story.) On the three-block stretch between Pacific and Green Street, they want 120 feet maximum instead of 350.”… (more)
What is truly amazing abut this article, is that they admit the program they already applied is not working. Fast buses on the street are not conducive to stopping and shopping or “hanging out:” Tall buildings are not being filled with retail or residents. So what is their solution? MORE OF THE SAME THING THAT IS NOT WORKING NOW!
Do these people actually believe the snake oil they are tryin to sell the public? Are there any people who do not see the little guy behind the big mask on the screen? After all Alice did return from Wonderland back to her normal home, and Dorothy did return to Kansas after her dream ended. Not many people want to live on a fantasy AI gameboard 24/7.

Our leaders are willing to try anything other than going back to what used to work before they destroyed to improve it.
CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Planning, Politics

Sausage Making turns to Extortion over the Weekend, brought to you by the Wiener Newsom machine.

Breaking news!

Wiener’s plan to fold his bills into the budget was refused by the state parliamentarian. So… They went with option B.

Wiener pulled his bills  and is pushing them onto the state legislature while Newsom takes the strange position of threatening to withhold his signature from his own budget, if the Wiener anti-CEQA bills don’t pass if we believe the latest news.

 

 

CEQA, deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics

Democracy Falls Apart When No One is Looking

First you have the sausage making in the backroom. The word is out that multiple bills to kill California Environmental Quality Act (CEPQ) are being withdrawn from floor votes and sent to the sausage factory in Sacramento. So far we hear rumors that some of the bills in question include components of: SB 306, 607, 609, and possibly SB 681..
Then you have the threat to hold the budget captive.  The finish line is in sight for lawmakers who reached a deal this week with the governor over California’s next budget. But one crucial component remains unresolved  — and Gavin Newsom says he won’t sign the budget without it… (more)
 
Are you live Washington? No we are in Sacramento. You are watching Newsom and Wiener at work. 
 
“ But tying hundreds of billions in state spending to one bill has raised the eyebrows of some lawmakers and legislative observers. “This is a unique provision that I am not aware has been in a bill before,” veteran lobbyist and legislative process hawk Chris Micheli wrote in an email about what he called a “reverse contingency provision.”
“It is the first time I’ve ever seen the entire budget bill contingent on being enacted on two policy bills about housing,” said Assemblymember Alex Lee, D-San Jose, during a Wednesday budget committee hearing.  “But that shows how serious we are about getting more housing built, and how dire the housing crisis is.”
Read the details in the Sacramento Bee 

Last-minute budget change brings California housing policy fight to a head

By Kate Wolffe and Nicole Nixon : sacbee – excerpt (audio)
 
Elements of California’s final budget deal are bringing to the forefront housing debates that have been simmering in the Legislature for years, forcing lawmakers to make big decisions before the new fiscal year begins July 1.
On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate pro tem Mike McGuire put out the main aspects of a three-party deal that made compromises on balancing a $321 billion budget with a $12 billion deficit.
 
However, the deal includes a few policy changes that are giving lawmakers pause. Deep in the bill outlining the budget agreement is this provision: “Notwithstanding any other law, if the Governor does not sign one of Assembly Bill 131 or Senate Bill 131 on June 30, 2025, the provisions of the Budget Act of 2025 …(read more here)