Category: Land Use

Posted on

Notice Ordinance Passed

via email from Neighborhoods United SF

This week, the Board of Supervisors approved long-overdue legislation requiring direct notice to residents and businesses when their property, or one within 300 feet, is proposed for upzoning, specifically increases in height and/or density.

The measure passed with an 8–3 supermajority!

We are especially grateful to Supervisor Chan (D1) for championing this effort, and to the Supervisors who stood with her for transparency and the public’s right to know: Sherrill (D2), Sauter (D3), Engardio (D4), Mandelman (D8), Fielder (D9), Walton (D10), and Chen (D11).

Unfortunately, Supervisors Mahmood (D5), Dorsey (D6), and Melgar (D7) opposed the measure, citing concerns that transparency could “scare residents.” This is deeply troubling—especially given that more than 400,000 homes and businesses could be impacted by sweeping zoning changes. A simple notification should not be controversial.

We urge every Supervisors to host public town halls and explain this permanent shift in land use policy to their constituents. We remain hopeful Supervisors will respond to the growing demand for common sense, fairness, and community involvement as these changes move forward.

If you have time write a letter of thanks to the supervisors who support notice and transparency.

 

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

Waymo to operate on car-free Market Street

The robotaxis are coming to the city’s largest car-free roadway, but critics worry about pedestrian safety… (more)

If anyone had any questions about where our new mayor’s alliance lies, we learned it this week. He wants to expand and upend the city in an effort to find more revenue in pushing land values and he favors more Wamos as a mean to transport the wealthy new patrons he envisions coming to drink till 4 AM on his closed downtown streets. We hope they don’t stay too long or they will become his new nightmare.

Posted on

See where The City’s upzoning proposal would add 36K homes

By Keith Menconi : sfexaminer – excerpt (audio and maps)

A recently released proposal to upzone large swaths of San Francisco aims to add enough density for developers to build as many as 36,000 additional new homes.

This newly updated upzoning map — which has been in the works for two years — has already stirred fierce pushback from many neighborhood opponents of added density. But where would all those new homes actually go?

To help readers see for themselves, The Examiner created two interactive 3D representations of the new zoning map that lays out how much the maximum allowable height limit would increase on every parcel in The City under the proposal released last Thursday by the Planning Department… (more)

Look at the article for the maps and another point of view. How many existing home must be demolished in order to build the 36,000 new  homes and how many residents and businesses will be displaced from the “high opportunity zones”?

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.