Category: Land Use

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

Supply Constraints do not Explain House Price and Quantity Growth Across U.S. Cities

By Schuyler Louie,  John A. Mondragon  & Johannes Wieland : nber – excerpt

The standard view of housing markets holds that the flexibility of local housing supply–shaped by factors like geography and regulation–strongly affects the response of house prices, house quantities and population to rising housing demand. However, from 2000 to 2020, we find that higher income growth predicts the same growth in house prices, housing quantity, and population regardless of a city’s estimated housing supply elasticity. We find the same pattern when we expand the sample to 1980 to 2020, use different elasticity measures, and when we instrument for local housing demand. Using a general demand-and-supply framework, we show that our findings imply that constrained housing supply is relatively unimportant in explaining differences in rising house prices among U.S. cities. These results challenge the prevailing view of local housing and labor markets and suggest that easing housing supply constraints may not yield the anticipated improvements in housing affordability… (more)

RELATED:
New study by Fed economists directly contradicts Yimby narrative on housing prices: Dramatic data suggests gentrification and income inequality are far more important than ‘constraints’ on development as the cause of high housing prices. By Tim Redmond : 48hills

Posted on

Planning Commission – Big Meeting on April 8

I’m reaching out to make sure you are aware of an important small business anti-displacement hearing taking place at City Hall Thursday April 10th at 1pm.

In the face of upzoning plans on commercial corridors driving small business displacement, as was recently seen in the Fillmore (1) (2), the Race and Equity in all Planning coalition and Small Business Forward have written a letter to the Planning Commission asking for permanent controls for neighborhood-serving businesses for equity and protections in displacement situations.

Please review the Permanent Controls for Neighborhood-Serving Businesses Letter here https://bit.ly/controls-neighborhood-serving

We are collecting sign-ons from representatives that can speak for small business names that will be listed on the letter. We started collecting signatures this week, currently the list includes Bangin’ Hair Salon, SF Beauty Network (Geary Blvd Merchants Association), Joe’s Ice Cream, Booksmith, Bar Part Time, Mercury Cafe and many others. We are looking to get as many small business names on the list as possible, especially in upzoned areas! You can see the upzoning map here https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/6e0e399f9c82456dbda233eacebc433d
Please reach out to discuss more at 415-649-0522 and I hope your small business and merchant association can sign onto the letter which will give small businesses more protection and equity in the face of displacement.
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

Planning Commission rejects landlord plan to convert SRO rooms to tourist hotels

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

In a huge victory for tenants, the Planning Commission rejected tonight a permit that would have allowed a residential hotel owner to convert 72 rent-controlled units to tourist use.

The voted sent a clear message to landlords: The city won’t reward you for intentionally keeping low-cost units off the market.

The vote was 5-2, with Commissioners Amy Campbell and Sean McGarry, both appointees of former Mayor London Breed, siding with the landlord...(more)

RELATED:
Commissioners also voted to support Connie Chan’s noticing legislation that seeks to return to the more traditional public noticing system.

 

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

Supervisor Walton bristles at Lurie’s plan to expand Bayview shelter to ‘200-plus’ beds

by JOE RIVANO BARROS and JOE ESKENAZI : missionlocal – excerpt

District 10 supervisor says Lurie’s warehousing homeless people in city’s southeast

Mayor Daniel Lurie is proposing to more than double in size a homeless shelter proposed for the Bayview last year and eliminate RV parking spots on the site, a move that District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton is calling “inequitable” and “unfair” because it “makes sure unhoused folks are warehoused in the southeastern part of San Francisco.”

“How are you going to expand something in Bayview Hunters Point when we’re talking about equitably providing shelter across the city?” asked Walton.

Last year, under Mayor London Breed, San Francisco leased a 2.25-acre industrial site at 2177 Jerrold Ave. in the Bayview to build a homeless village of 68 “tiny homes” and 20 RV parking sites. Tiny homes are a novel approach to homeless shelters, one Lurie himself touted while on the campaign trail, pointing to his nonprofit Tipping Point helping to build 70 of them at 33 Gough St. for about $34,000 each.

But it is unclear whether the homeless village will be built after all, according to Walton, whose district includes the site. In a Monday meeting, Walton was told by Lurie’s team that the mayor now wants to build a homeless shelter with “200-plus” homeless beds, and remove the RV parking spaces altogether… (more)

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

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)