u/ShopProp

A dispute over just 25 federal housing vouchers could delay a much larger redevelopment at Alameda Point.

For those who don’t know, housing vouchers are essentially government rental assistance, where federal funding covers part of a qualifying tenant’s rent.

The former Naval Air Station has plans for up to 2,300 additional homes, including roughly 580 affordable units.
An 80-unit supportive housing project needs Alameda’s Housing Authority to transfer 25 existing vouchers to the new building.

The developer says similar transfers have been done elsewhere, while the Housing Authority says HUD regulations don’t allow it.

Until those residents can move, roughly 32 acres needed for future development can’t be cleared and turned over.

It’s a good example of how a relatively small bureaucratic dispute can potentially hold up thousands of Bay Area homes.

Source: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/housing-alameda-point-navy-base-22393544.php

The plan would let eligible buyers put down just 3% of a home’s price, with a state-backed second loan covering up to 17% more, effectively enabling a 20% down payment without requiring full upfront savings.

Eligibility could extend to households earning up to 200% of area median income, including in high-cost California markets.

The program would generally be restricted to new construction or homes sold for the first time after conversion, and participating properties would face local price caps.

Funding would come from $25B in state-issued bonds, with borrowers repaying the loans over time rather than the funds being treated as a grant.

Not sure how this will help considering the main constraint increasing home prices is supply and that can only be corrected by building. If anything, this only increases demand with a larger buyer pool which should lead to elevated prices.

Nonetheless, Californians will vote in November on the measure.

Source: https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/prop-37-home-loan-california-22383702.php

California’s SB 79 went into effect July 1, allowing significantly more housing near major transit stops and overriding local zoning in parts of the state.

San Francisco found itself a pretty sizable exemption.
The city designated nearly 1,900 parcels in SoMa, Bayview and Bayshore as industrial “employment hubs,” which exempts them from SB 79’s new transit-oriented zoning requirements.

And importantly, California’s own Department of Housing and Community Development approved those exemptions.

Now YIMBY Law, Californians for Homeownership and other housing advocates are suing both San Francisco AND the state, arguing the exemptions are illegal.
Their argument essentially comes down to timing.

They say SF failed to properly designate these areas as qualifying employment lands by the deadline established under SB 79, meaning the city shouldn’t now be able to use that designation to shield nearly 1,900 properties from the law.

If they win, this could matter well beyond San Francisco.
SB 79 was supposed to take a significant amount of zoning authority away from local governments near major transit.

But if cities can designate huge areas as exempt employment hubs, they potentially have a pretty substantial escape hatch.

If courts say they can’t do that, SB 79 suddenly has a lot more influence.

This law has been in effect for about six weeks.
We already had Palo Alto developers rush to submit hundreds of homes during a two-week window before the city reduced its SB 79 standards.

Now San Francisco is getting sued over its exemptions.
At this rate we’re going to learn what SB 79 actually means through lawsuits before anyone finishes reading the bill.

Source: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-housing-yimby-lawsuit-sb79-22385659.php?

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has entered one of the Bay Area’s biggest housing battles, accusing Menlo Park of violating multiple state housing laws in its handling of the proposed 665-unit Willow Park development at the former Sunset Magazine headquarters.

In a letter to the city, the Attorney General argued Menlo Park improperly rejected the project, kept changing its objections, and even required the developer to pay the city’s outside legal fees while reviewing the application.

The state says those actions appear to violate California housing law.

For years, many cities have slowed or blocked projects through lengthy approval processes.

Now the state appears increasingly willing to step in when it believes local governments are ignoring housing laws.

The Willow Park proposal includes 665 homes along with office, retail, hotel, and preschool space, making it one of the Peninsula’s most closely watched development fights.

This case is important to watch as it may become a precedent for how much authority California has to override local governments on housing.

Source: https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/housing-fight-menlo-park-bonta-22372361.php?

Within two weeks of SB 79 taking effect, developers submitted nine housing proposals totaling 341 homes before the city adopted a temporary alternative plan.

SB 79, which took effect on July 1, allows qualifying multifamily housing to be built at greater heights and densities near major transit stops, like Caltrain and BART, even if local zoning would normally prohibit it.

The idea is to encourage more homes where people can rely less on cars while making it harder for cities to block transit-oriented housing.

This seems to be a step in the right direction of what California needs after decades of underbuilding. Local governments have had the opportunity to build and they simply haven’t so the state government needed to step in to ensure building ramps up.

Regardless of where you stand, the response to SB 79 was immediate. 341 proposed homes in just two weeks.
SB 79 may end up being the future of Bay Area housing. Now the question is does this actually get built?

Source:

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/palo-alto-housing-proposals-22368057.php

This is what we could’ve had but the Anthropic, SpaceX, and ChatGPT IPOs are taking them away 😔.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1279-Gilman-Ave-San-Francisco-CA-94124/15154573\_zpid/

This is what we could’ve had but the Anthropic, SpaceX, and ChatGPT IPOs are taking them away 😔.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1279-Gilman-Ave-San-Francisco-CA-94124/15154573\_zpid/

Welp, it happened. After Marin approved new homes, a lawsuit naturally followed.

A lawsuit has been filed to stop Marin County’s approved redevelopment of the former Strawberry seminary site, which would add 337 homes, including 70 affordable units, plus a senior living facility.

The lawsuit argues some of the homes would block Bay views and violate environmental and planning rules. The county says state housing laws required approval and a judge will now decide what happens next.

Source:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/strawberry-seminary-housing-marin-22365588.php?

Instead of trying to convert outdated office buildings, San Ramon is rebuilding the sites as housing.

As of mid-2026, the overall office vacancy rate in San Ramon stands at 21.6%, which reaches up to 27.8% specifically for its premium Class A spaces. This is considered very high.

At Bishop Ranch alone, 1,501 homes are already under construction or approved, with additional housing planned for the former Chevron campus. Office vacancy along the I-680 corridor exceeds 30% in some areas.

Unlike dense downtown towers, suburban office parks are easier to redevelop because they’re typically low-rise buildings surrounded by large parking lots. That makes it feasible to replan entire sites into streets, blocks, housing, parks, and retail rather than attempting piecemeal retrofits.

Bishop Ranch is already in the process of shifting from a corporate campus into a mixed-use neighborhood.
The broader question is whether this model spreads across the Bay Area.

San Ramon isn’t the only place where office vacancies are high. Oakland, SF, San Jose, and other areas in the Bay have vacancy rates around or above 30%. This is considered very high.

Replacing underused office parks with housing could make more sense than leaving them partially empty or trying to adapt them incrementally.

At some point, the choice is between vacant offices and housing that actually gets used. In 2019, Bay Area office vacancy averaged just 6.9% according to BizJournals. With remote and hybrid work becoming a lasting part of the post-COVID environment, it seems unlikely we’re returning to those levels anytime soon.

So it’s time we decide what to do with these spaces.

Source:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/office-housing-conversion-san-ramon-22352877.php

Redwood City is officially putting a pretty aggressive rent control measure before voters this November.

The proposal would cap annual rent increases at 5% or 60% of inflation (whichever is lower) and would generally apply to rental buildings constructed before 1995. It also includes additional eviction protections.

The part that jumped out to me is the cost.

The city estimates administering the program could cost roughly $5 million to $11 million per year, funded in part through annual landlord fees estimated at $246–$622 per unit.

Supporters argue the measure would give renters badly needed stability as Redwood City rents have climbed above $3,500 on average.

Opponents argue it could discourage rental investment and new housing while creating an expensive new bureaucracy, potentially making the underlying housing shortage worse.

This happens in some places on the Peninsula already. Mountain View already has rent stabilization, while similar proposals have previously failed in places like San Mateo, Burlingame and Pacifica.

Landlords already face significant regulation, and I worry that if policies like this become widespread, we’ll end up with less rental housing and more consolidation under large private equity and corporate landlords rather than individual owners.

Source:

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/redwood-city-rent-control-22355738.php

The battle over the Marina Safeway redevelopment is heating up, and the NIMBYs have had enough once again.

The latest proposal actually makes the buildings shorter while increasing the project from 790 to 848 homes, including 86 affordable units.

Normally, this would be the beginning of what San Francisco does best: spending the next several years fighting over whether a new building will destroy the neighborhood.

Except California has changed the rules.
Remember, SF had built only about 7% of its state mandated housing target by the end of 2025, and the state government is understandably pretty unhappy about this.

So the developer is pursuing approval under AB 2011, which allows qualifying housing projects on commercially zoned land to receive streamlined approval and avoid the traditional discretionary approval process and project-level CEQA review.

That’s now becoming the center of the fight.

Supervisor Stephen Sherrill argues the Safeway site shouldn’t qualify for AB 2011 because the law requires at least 75% of the site’s perimeter to adjoin parcels developed with qualifying “urban uses.”

With Fort Mason, Marina Green, and the Yacht Harbor surrounding the property, he argues the site doesn’t meet that requirement.

After all, much of the surrounding land is parkland and recreational space rather than typical urban development.
But SF Planning disagrees and has determined the project is eligible.

Then there’s California’s Density Bonus Law.
The developer was previously seeking a 39% density bonus but is now requesting 49%, helped by adding more two-bedroom units and new four-bedroom units.
That allows substantially more housing than the site’s base zoning would otherwise permit.

So what looks like a neighborhood fight over a giant Safeway redevelopment is becoming something much bigger. Which is how much power do wealthy neighborhoods still have to stop housing when state law says it should be built?

And apparently the fight isn’t stopping at City Hall.

Opposition surrounding the project is now helping fuel an effort for a 2030 California constitutional amendment aimed at limiting state housing mandates when cities allegedly lack sufficient infrastructure.

So we may have officially reached the final boss of California NIMBYism. Changing the state constitution.

Sources:

https://sfstandard.com/2026/07/24/marina-safeway-project-ballot-measure-housing/

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/california-cities-court-state-housing-planning-deadlines/825785/

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/720-Clementina-St-San-Francisco-CA-94103/80747682\_zpid/

The neat thing about San Francisco is even when homes do get approved to be built, they still won’t be built!

San Francisco approved nearly 5,700 new homes at Parkmerced back in 2011.

15 years later, construction still hasn’t started.

Now part of the project has gone through foreclosure.
Yellowstone Real Estate Investments just took control of four development parcels entitled for nearly 1,700 units after the previous owner ran into major financial trouble.

COVID, financial distress and San Francisco’s brutal construction costs helped derail it.

The new owner says it plans to pursue the “long-term vision” for the property, but it’s still unclear whether construction will actually begin.

Nearly 1,700 approved units now have a new owner.
Does Parkmerced finally get built?

Source: https://sfstandard.com/2026/07/22/yellowstone-parkmerced-foreclosure-redevelopment/

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/720-Clementina-St-San-Francisco-CA-94103/80747682\_zpid/

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/720-Clementina-St-San-Francisco-CA-94103/80747682\_zpid/

Seattle just announced $110 million in funding for affordable housing, including at least $100 million for new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of affordable rental properties.

Normally, that would just be another affordable housing funding announcement.

The timing though makes this much more interesting.

Private housing construction in Seattle has slowed dramatically. Development costs, interest rates, and city fees have made a growing number of projects difficult to pencil.

One particularly interesting example is Seattle’s Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program.
Developers can satisfy MHA requirements by including affordable units or paying a fee.

According to the Housing Development Consortium, Seattle had collected only about $3.8 million in MHA payments through May, despite an early budget estimate of roughly $22 million.

Obviously, you can’t collect development fees from projects that don’t get built.

Now Seattle is considering temporarily reducing some MHA fees to encourage private construction while simultaneously putting another $110 million of public funding toward affordable housing.

To me, this feels like a city becoming increasingly desperate to get housing construction moving again.
Seattle obviously needs affordable housing.

If private development has become so difficult that the city has to subsidize construction while considering lowering its own development fees, has** **Seattle made housing too expensive to build in the first place?

Source: https://publicola.com/2026/07/21/with-major-reforms-years-away-city-could-make-temporary-changes-to-housing-fees-next-year/?