Category: California

Posted on

ABUNDANCE MEETS RESISTANCE: ARE DEMOCRATS FINALLY READY TO GO ALL IN ON BUILDING HOUSING?

By JEANNE KUANG : calmatters – excerpt

Amid a post-2024 wave of Democratic interest in the burgeoning pro-development “abundance” movement, this seemed to be an easy year for California’s yes-in-my-backyard housing development activists.
Democratic leaders in the state Legislature declared their intention to tackle affordability this year. Gov. Gavin Newsom and other politicians have since embraced the “abundance” platform, which argues that Democrats must do more to quickly deliver housing, transportation and other infrastructure projects to their constituents.
Lawmakers have introduced ambitious bills that would, for housing developments in existing neighborhoods, blow a hole through the longstanding thicket of environmental reviews and regulations that often slow down projects and add costs. One of those passed its first committee on Monday.
Still, YIMBY-ism hit a stumbling block Tuesday in the form of the Senate housing committee. The committee, led by Sen. Aisha Wahab, nearly killed a closely watched bill to require cities to allow taller, denser apartments and condo construction near public transit stations.
Wahab said she was acting on a chorus of familiar objections from progressives and others who have long delayed housing construction in California: The legislation didn’t guarantee that projects would be built with union labor. It didn’t require that the new units be affordable for low-income residents. It could infringe on local governments’ ability to block or green-light projects. It opened up the possibility of bypassing certain environmental reviews.
In the end, the committee voted 6-2 against Wahab’s objections to narrowly advance Senate Bill 79, by Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat and prominent advocate for housing production. Some Democrats were absent or didn’t vote. The committee also killed a different Wiener bill that would have further loosened restrictions on property owners who want to split single-family homes into duplexes. It was a stark reversal from prior years in the Legislature, when Wiener chaired the housing committee and pushed through several bills to spur housing production…
A progressive who is focused on preserving explicitly affordable units for low-income tenants, Wahab, a Hayward Democrat, was pushing for legislation to help cities that enact rent caps compete with other municipalities for state housing and planning grants. Some studies have found rent control in San Francisco has reduced rental supply, while other economists say capping rents is still needed to help those who are housing insecure.
“The state has prioritized development, development, development,” Wahab said. “The types of development that are going up with zero parking and all these giveaways to developers have also not translated to housing that has dignity that people want to stay in and raise their families in.”
Her bill (SB 262) drew skepticism from some colleagues on the committee, who noted the state funding programs are for development and production, but nevertheless voted to advance it… (more)

SB 262: Housing element: prohousing designations: prohousing local policies. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb262

Posted on

SF upzoning could displace small businesses, advocates warn

By Keith Menconi : sfexaminer – excerpt (audio)

A new front is opening up in the brewing political battle over San Francisco’s still-in-progress plan to upzone large swaths of the west and north of The City.

A coalition of local businesses and progressive advocates is raising the alarm about the possibility that widespread upzoning could result in a large number of mom-and-pop shops getting displaced as looser zoning rules unlock a wave of new residential construction projects.

Such projects often force small businesses to relocate for lengthy periods to make way for demolition or remodeling work, they contend.

“As commercial corridors are upzoned and the value of buildings and parcels in these corridors increase as a result, we anticipate a substantial increase in landlords using these tactics to push long-term community-serving businesses out,” said Justin Dolezal, a co-founder of local advocacy group Small Business Forward.

For the most part, small businesses in San Francisco do not own their own buildings, according to the group. That leaves local establishments — including bars, restaurants, retailers, and nail salons — highly vulnerable when landlords decide to increase rents or simply choose not to renew lease agreements.

Dolezal’s group is making the case that as city leaders consider adopting a new zoning map that would increase height and density limits along dozens of commercial corridors, The City should first put stronger safeguards in place to protect the thousands of small businesses dotting San Francisco’s cityscape.

Local small-business advocates turned out in large numbers during last Thursday’s meeting of the Planning Commission to present their list of proposals, including additional requirements that developers provide financial support to small businesses displaced as a result of building demolitions.

In making the case for such safeguards, they described such small businesses as beloved local institutions that serve as valuable engines of commerce as well as highly prized communal hubs for the neighborhoods they serve… (more)

 

Posted on

Good News out of Sausalito and San Diego

San Diego – Cities Can’t Assume Infill Development Reduces VMT 
By William Fulton – March 30, 2025
CEQA, Infill, San Diego County, SB 743, VMT
In a major opinion that could unravel implementation of SB 743 throughout the state, an  appellate court has ruled that cities and counties can’t assume infill development will  automatically lead to lower vehicle miles traveled.
The case was published and therefore  can be used as precedent around the state…  read more about the case: San-Diego_Infill_VMT_4thAppealsCourt
Posted on

The Average PG&E Utility Bill Has Gone Up Nearly 70% Since 2020

By Matthew Green : kqed – excerpt

The average utility bill for Pacific Gas and Electric Co. customers increased by about 67% over the last five years, driven in large part by a steep hike in electricity rates.

That’s according to a KQED analysis of PG&E charges, which found that residential ratepayers now pay an average of about $300 a month for their combined gas and electric service, up from $179 in 2020.

Electricity charges, which make up well over half of most ratepayers’ bills, have increased by more than 60% over that time period — from a monthly average of roughly $125 in January 2020 to about $202 in January 2025.

The utility’s gas rates have also risen markedly in recent years, including an additional 8.6% rate increase that went into effect in January.

The increasingly steep cost of keeping the lights on and the heat flowing comes as PG&E last week asked California regulators if it could increase the rate of return for its investors, to 11.3%, up a percentage point from the current limit — a move that would result in yet another rate hike.

If PG&E’s application is approved by the California Public Utilities Commission, the average ratepayer would see an increase of about $5.50 per month, PG&E bistarting in January 2026 at the earliest, according to the utility.

The company said in a statement that it pays the lowest dividend in the utility industry and that the increase is needed to attract investors, who provide the upfront capital for crucial system improvements, wildfire mitigation and safety and reliability projects. PG&E is California’s largest utility, serving more than 5 million customers across a 70,000-square-mile service area in Northern and Central California…(more)

Posted on

Letter to the Editor: Plenty of Questions About the New Ocean Beach Park

via email from richmondsunsetnews – excerpt

Editor:

To Mayor Lurie and the Board of Supervisors:

Don’t you think you had better slow down ramming this park idea down our throats and what artwork should be commissioned? The sand, wind, and graffiti will make quick work of destroying whatever you plan to put up. The graffiti on the art sculptures at the end of the Taraval line have had graffiti on them for months. Who’s in charge of cleaning it up?

Who is in charge around here anyway, giving away taxpayer dollars without the community allowed any input? Have other supervisors of the City had any input? Why don’t you use the money to buy art and school supplies for the children and public schools in the City? Our schools are broke, laying off teachers and cutting programs. Trump is talking about cutting off funds that San Francisco and California badly need. This is not a playground for children, it’s for adults who want to see the ocean from their high rise condos. The people backing this are mostly out-of-town millionaires. Their skin in the game is making money.

We already have over 250 parks and playgrounds in the City. Why don’t you paint murals at our schools and playgrounds and better maintain what we already have? The schools are laying off staff, and contemplating closing schools and you folks want to paint murals on the ground and walls next to the sand? Isn’t the purpose of going to the beach, is to go to the beach, lay in the sand and look out at the ocean and watch the waves? Art is nature itself! How many statues and murals do you see when you go to Yosemite or Yellowstone national parks?

I am including all of the supervisors whose areas suffer from a lack of funds in their own areas. SFMTA and Muni are millions of dollars in debt. They are cutting Muni lines, and want to raise parking fees to raise money. Our large and small businesses are leaving. Is it OK for all of you to approve money for art projects, money that we don’t have? How many of you supervisors have had input in this Ocean Beach playground? How many of you know what the city budget is for this two-mile playground? We have a lack of transparency!

Maybe you should have murals of high rise condos painted to match the view looking east.

Friends of Ocean Beach Park have become the Elon Musk of the west side of the City. Like Elon, Friends of Ocean Beach Park are not part of the city government, yet they are out there making decisions for the City. The same with the San Francisco Bike coalition and Walk SF who are funded with taxpayer dollars yet are not part of the city government. It’s rather embarrassing.

Tony Villa, D4 resident

RELATED:
TRUMP, NEWSOM ATTACK CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
protestors are out in force today, March 23, 2025 

Posted on

‘Political dirty work’: Lawsuit filed over Friday closure of San Francisco road

 By Madilynne Medina : sfgate – excerpt (audio)

 
 
Calmer days on the beach are turning stormy as voters fight back for their Great Highway.

Opponents of Proposition K, the contentious voter-approved ballot measure to permanently ban cars from a portion of San Francisco’s Upper Great Highway, are pushing back with a lawsuit filed Tuesday alleging that the move is illegal.

The lawsuit, which seeks to stop the closure, scheduled for Friday, names the city of San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department and five current and former supervisors who backed the November initiative that authorized converting the 2-mile stretch of road between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard into a new oceanfront park. The plaintiffs, who include community members and LivableSF, a transportation advocacy group, argue that Prop. K violates California law, a joint news release from the group states.

n the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that the closure was implemented without environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. First passed in 1970, the act requires developers to “disclose to the public the significant environmental effects of a proposed discretionary project.” They also allege that the measure violates the section of the California Vehicle Code that governs when a local legislative body may close a highway to vehicular traffic.

In their campaign against Prop. K, opponents argued that closing the Great Highway would cost the city too much money, cause chaotic traffic on an already congested corridor and damage the nearby neighborhoods. Plaintiff Albert Chow, a Sunset resident and small business owner in the neighborhood, said in the release that working families will be affected after “thousands of cars” will be pushed into the neighborhood when the road closes….(more)

Neither Lurie nor his supporters supported Prop K. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Looks like nothing at the moment.

Posted on

Community leaders demand tenant protections in new zoning plans

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Planning Commission hears how upzoning leads to speculation and displacement; can the city protect existing residents against the state Yimby housing bills?

In an extraordinary meeting, the San Francisco Planning Commission heardpresentation and hours of public testimony on the impacts the city’s proposal to increase height and density in neighborhoods would have on tenants and small business.

The Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition, the Council of Community Housing Organizations, and the Anti-Displacement Coalition told the commissioners that recent state laws and upcoming city policies would cause widespread displacement.

The city is considering raising height limits in some neighborhoods, particularly on the West Side of town, to eight stories, a process known as upzoning…

Developers will follow the Rent Board’s procedures for temporary eviction, so the tenants are displaced from their homes with the premise that the eviction is temporary. After some time has elapsed, the developer expands the scope of their project, sometimes adding units. The project takes longer than the former tenants had expected. The developer’s payment obligations end, and the tenants move on. These temporary evictions turn into permanent displacement, which is why tenant advocates call these “renovictions”…. (more)

How exactly does that work? Looks like no one knows yet.

 

 

Posted on

Federal mandates put a damper on State density goals

Now that Trump is cutting housing money, what will Sacramento do about mandates?

… Right now, it’s pretty much impossible to build any substantial number of affordable housing units without federal money. Gov. Gavin Newsom has allocated some state money, but not that much. Supporters are hoping for a $10 billion statewide housing bond in 2026, which would fund 35,000 units. That’s less than what just the city of San Francisco is supposed to build, and a tiny fraction of what the state needs.

It’s clear at this point that, even with the GOP holding a slim margin in Congress, Trump’s budget plans are going to pass. So what are California and San Francisco going to do?… (more)

Posted on

Cal Fire’s new fire risk maps mean big changes for California homeowners

By Julie Johnson and Harsha Devulapalli : sfchronicle – energy (interactive map)

Cal Fire on Monday published updated fire maps for 125 cities from the Bay Area north to the Oregon border.

California fire officials released long-awaited maps on Monday showing fire risk in cities across the Bay Area and along the northern coast of California.

The maps, which are still in draft form, will have major implications: They will guide where stricter fire-resistant building and landscape rules apply, and are an update to fire risk maps issued more than a decade ago. For example, the state’s pending ban of plants and other combustible materials within five feet of homes will apply to properties categorized on the new maps (i.e., in local responsibility areas) as having “very high fire severity hazard.” That includes parts of Bay Area cities like Berkeley, Oakland, Tiburon, Mill Valley, Santa Rosa, San Bruno, San Jose and Palo Alto…

The maps are not expected to change how insurance companies weigh fire risk and make policy decisions, according to the California Department of Insurance. The department published a Q&A about the maps that said insurance companies are required to provide “discounts for wildfire safety actions such as community mitigation and home-hardening, which Cal Fire’s maps do not assess.”

“Insurance companies are already using risk analysis tools and models that go beyond Cal Fire’s proposed maps in determining what properties they will underwrite,” the department said….

The maps do not take account of homeowners’ mitigation efforts.

Last year, Cal Fire published new fire hazard maps for the areas of the state it protects, which includes most but not all of non-incorporated California, dubbed “state responsibility areas.” All homes in these areas must adhere to the state’s strictest fire-safe standards for buildings and landscapes, including the state’s upcoming “zone zero” landscape rules that will require homeowners to keep five feet around their homes clear of most plants and other flammable materials like bark mulch.

Cal Fire developed the new draft maps using scientific models that evaluated factors like terrain and vegetation. These new models found the risk of fire had grown in cities and towns, and expanded by 1.4 million acres the California areas designated as either “high” or “very high” fire hazard… (more)

Posted on

Tariffs, LA wildfires throw SF housing rebound into question

 : sfexaminer – excerpt

Hopes among San Francisco housing boosters that 2025 could deliver a sudden home-building boom are already fading after the year opened with a series of economic curveballs, driving fears that construction costs could soon rise.

The first shock came only days after the new year began, when fast-moving wildfires erupted in Los Angeles County and went on to consume thousands of homes. The disaster has set the stage for a massive rebuilding effort that some market watchers worry could, eventually, drive up labor and material costs throughout California.

Another shock arrived weeks later when President Donald Trump followed through on his promise to levy steep tariffs on steel and aluminum, both essential materials for construction projects… (more)