News

Posted on

Dozens of Mission homes could gain historic preservation protections

By Keith Menconi : sfexaminer – excerpt

Two miniature neighborhoods in the Mission district could soon gain historical-preservation protections.

A committee of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors advanced a pair of resolutions Monday marking the first step in a legal process that could eventually result in the residential areas — which together comprise 53 properties — receiving official historical-landmark designations.

Monday’s resolution, sponsored by Board President Rafael Mandelman, is part of a decades-long campaign to preserve buildings within the Mission Dolores neighborhood, the historical core of the broader Mission district with roots tracing all the way back to the 18th-century Spanish settlement that sprung up around the still-standing Mission Dolores adobe chapel that now gives the neighborhood its name.

Two miniature neighborhoods in the Mission district could soon gain historical-preservation protections.

A committee of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors advanced a pair of resolutions Monday marking the first step in a legal process that could eventually result in the residential areas — which together comprise 53 properties — receiving official historical-landmark designations.

Monday’s resolution, sponsored by Board President Rafael Mandelman, is part of a decades-long campaign to preserve buildings within the Mission Dolores neighborhood, the historical core of the broader Mission district with roots tracing all the way back to the 18th-century Spanish settlement that sprung up around the still-standing Mission Dolores adobe chapel that now gives the neighborhood its name…

If the full board approves Mandelman’s resolution, it will trigger further rounds of public review by San Francisco’s Historic Preservation Commission. Final approval of the designations will still require another sign off from the Board of Supervisors as well as the mayor.

The two districts would join a roster of other highly recognizable historic districts in San Francisco, including Alamo Square, Civic Center and Dogpatch.

In recent years, local preservationists have redoubled their efforts to add historical protections to San Francisco buildings in response to a raft of housing legislation aimed at spurring widespread development in the coming years.

During his remarks Monday, Mandelman echoed their fear that unchecked construction could lead to demolitions that would erase San Francisco’s history from the cityscape.

“The reality is that healthy cities do change and grow,” Mandelman said, “but as we prepare for that growth and that change, I think it is especially important that we take steps to preserve our architectural heritage.”… (more)

Posted on

S.F. city departments are billing each other millions as city faces down massive deficit

by XUEER LU : missionlocal – excerpt

San Francisco city departments are leaving tens of millions of dollars in unspent — and, oftentimes, unaccountable — funds every year after billing one another for services, according to a new city report published Monday.

The report suggests that, at a time when San Francisco is facing an $818 million deficit, basic fiscal transparency measures are still not the norm across a city with a $16 billion budget.
“At a time when the Mayor is proposing drastic cuts to our most critical social services, and trust in government is fragile, the City must hold itself to the highest standards of accountability,” wrote Supervisor Jackie Fielder, who is pressing for a hearing on the report from the San Francisco Budget and Legislative Analyst.
 
The report revealed that since 2018 city departments have left between $53 million to $80 million in unspent “work orders.” Certain departments routinely bill others for their services: The Public Utilities Commission, for instance, might pay the Department of Public Works for installing new sewer lines, and the City Attorney’s Office might bill departments for legal services…
The Budget and Legislative Analyst looked into three departments: the Controller’s Office, which greenlights any such billings, the City Attorney’s Office and the Department of Public Works —  two departments that offer services to other arms of the city.
It also looked into the Mayor’s Budget Office, which holds conversations with all city departments regarding their budget proposals.
Some other key findings from the report are:
  • Departments, such as the City Attorney’s Office, routinely bill for services months after the work is done.
  • Public Works frequently fails to provide detailed breakdowns of how much it will cost departments to maintain their facilities, making it hard to track funds.
  • There is no documented and standardized process to review interdepartmental expenditures, causing inconsistency and inefficiency across all departments.
  • City departments are skirting Board of Supervisors’ oversight by funneling funds for their positions through other departments.

The report is now heading to the Government Audit and Oversight Committee. Supervisor Fielder, who chairs the committee, is hoping for a hearing, which is a common next step for any audit released by the Budget and Legislative Analyst.  Fielder’s legislative aide Preston Kilgore, for his part, underscored the report’s timeliness: Mayor Daniel Lurie is required to present his initial budget on June 1…(more)

Comments welcome  at the source.

RELATED:

Weird accounting could free up millions of dollars for next SF budget

 

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

Supes approve public notice for neighborhood zoning changes

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Chan bill approved; Dorsey, Melgar, however, say the city should not ‘alarm’ people by telling them what’s about to happen to their communities.

The Board of Supes approved by a veto-proof majority today a bill that would require the Planning Department to notify tenants, businesses and property owners about the massive new zoning changes proposed for the West Side of town.

The 8-3 vote came after two supes, Matt Dorsey and Myrna Melgar, warned that notification would cause under alarm in the impacted neighborhoods.

Dorsey said the notices would be “incredibly alarming.” Melgar said the city would be “needlessly alarming” people…(more)

Wow! and Wow! Why would Matt Corey care since his site is already densified and up-zoning the West side will not affect his constituents.

I can see why Melgar may be concerned because she is already on the bad side with many of her constituents, who will see major changes in their neighborhoods as the development shift to them. Was she planning to hide the plan and spring it on them after it is too late? Of course the are alarmed. They are more than alarmed. They are angry and she knows it.

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