admin – Page 73 – Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods

June 30, 2020

A Historic Heat Wave Roasts Siberia

By Anton Troianovski : nytimes – excerpt

Wildfires are spreading. The mosquitoes are ravenous. People are shielding their windows from the midnight sun with foil and blankets.

MOSCOW — They used to ride snowmobiles in June in Russkoye Ustye, a Siberian village by the Arctic Ocean coast.

Last week, the temperature in the area hit 88 degrees.

“Nature is taking its revenge on us, probably,” Sergei Portnyagin, the village head, said by telephone. “We’ve been too bloody in how we’ve treated it.”

The climate has been warming rapidly in the Arctic for years, but even by those standards, a heat wave roasting northern Siberia for the past few weeks has been shocking… (more)

June 17, 2020

Exclusive: How SF sidestepped state law on developing toxic sites

By Cynthia Dizikes : sfchronicle – excerpt

Contaminated gas stations, vehicle repair shops and parking garages have become prized development commodities in San Francisco in recent years as the city struggles with a crushing housing shortage.

But city officials have repeatedly stymied public oversight when assessing whether these chemical-tainted properties are safe for hundreds of new homes by allowing developers to bypass environmental reviews required under state law, a Chronicle investigation has found.

The California Environmental Quality Act prohibits certain exemptions for the tens of thousands of properties on a statewide roster of hazardous-waste sites called the Cortese list. “Categorical” exemptions are only supposed to go to projects with no significant impact on the environment or human health. The prohibition was designed to protect the public, construction workers and future occupants from exposure to dangerous substances, environmental lawyers said… (more)

June 17, 2020

Plan to streamline environmental reviews for S.F. development projects hits opposition

By Laura Waxman : bizjournal – excerpt

A San Francisco ordinance aiming to standardize policies and requirements for proposed housing and development projects in a bid to expedite the environmental review process was stalled this week following community pushback.

Under the Standard Environmental Requirements Program Ordinance, introduced earlier this year, pre-determined mitigation requirements would be applied to projects that would otherwise face a longer and more intensive environmental evaluation. Currently, mitigation measures are applied on a project-by-project review basis, and streamlining the process is expected to allow mandated reviews to be conducted “roughly three months faster on average” for certain projects, said Planning Department spokesperson Candace SooHoo… (more)

June 17, 2020

RescueSF Speakers

https://www.rescuesf.org/

To solve the seemingly intractable problems that are rotting our city, They are implementing a strategy that combines evidence-based solutions with people-powered activism. They are setting up a series of webinars.

Margot Kushel, MD, Director of the UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations and renowned authority on homelessness – Jun 18, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM RSVP

Kevin Fagan, After covering homelessness for many years, seasoned Chronicle reporter shares his insights on potential solutions for San Francisco – Jun 24, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM RSVP

David Faigman, Hastings Dean to discuss Hastings’s lawsuit to force the city of San Francisco to clean the streets and house the homeless in the Tenderloin – Jul 01, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM RSVP

June 12, 2020

Muni rolls back fare increases after pressure from SF supervisors

By Rachel Swan : sfchronicle – excerpt

San Francisco’s transportation board has pulled back a 30-cent fare increase in a deal with two supervisors that followed months of jockeying in City Hall.

In exchange, Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Dean Preston withdrew a proposed charter amendment that would have stripped power from the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, including its authority to decide fares…(more)

May 29, 2020May 29, 2020

WeWork Accused of Abandoning San Francisco Development Project

By Malathi Nayak : bloombergquint – excerpt

Bloomberg) — WeWork was accused in a lawsuit of reneging on a pledge to invest $450 million in a San Francisco development project that was supposed to showcase the WeLive communal living initiative.

Parkmerced Investors LLC sued the troubled co-working startup Thursday in New York state court, saying it abandoned a promise to help build WeWork-designed apartments and communal living space with media rooms, hot tubs and activities such as happy hours and yoga classes. Parkmerced Investors is seeking at least $100 million in damages.

The sprawling Parkmerced neighborhood, flanked by a lake and the San Francisco Golf Club, dates back to the 1940s and now offers high-rise apartments and town homes spread across 150 acres. Over the years, the complex has had backing from high-profile investors including the late real-estate billionaire Harry Helmsley and Fortress Investment Group.

The lawsuit comes after WeWork sued Parkmerced Investors in March in the same New York court, claiming it didn’t meet financing conditions for the deal and refused to return a $20 million exclusivity fee to complete the equity investment in the project…(more)

How stable is a project that relies on WeWork to succeed? The current tenants of the existing affordable garden apartments at Parkmerced are watching the corporate investors preparing to demolish their homes fight over millions, after they spent millions for the right to tear it down. The infamous State Supreme Court case overturned a ballot initiative voters fought for to protect the office housing balance that made the city a freedom loving comfortable highly popular cultural icon. Since that case was settled, San Francisco has been tuned into the golden goose that everyone wants a bite of. The city is being picked to the bone by greed and the corruption that it breeds. Hopefully the investors will eat each other and leave the residents in peace.

May 27, 2020

Homeless crisis: Newsom proposes ditching environmental review when converting hotels into housing

By Kevin Fagan : sfchronicle – excerpt

Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing that state environmental regulations be waived for cities and counties that want to convert hotels into homeless housing using federal coronavirus relief funding.

His plan was sent to the California Legislature on Friday to be added to the state budget negotiations, and if it remains intact it would eliminate a key tool opponents use to fight projects they don’t want in their neighborhoods. By law, the budget is supposed to be passed by June 15.

Before the pandemic hit this winter, the governor had said he wanted regulations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) eased for many types of homeless housing, and this current plan — sent in the form of a “trailer bill” addition to budget talks — narrows that ambition… (more)

A few people may explode over this, but, it sounds like the perfect karmic solution. Sort of a boomerang effect, correcting a major flaw in that turned housing into hotels and through many people out onto the street who were previously housed in those hotels. It could be like a happy homecoming to some, moving back into recently repaired rooms they were kicked out of. There are all kinds of possibilities here. Who might object?

May 21, 2020

Tell SF Planning that the Balboa Reservoir Project Must be Postponed

The Commission must hear from you by Friday, May 22 to assure that CCSF will be preserved and protected.

Next Thursday, May 28, the SF Planning Commission will be deciding the fate of CCSF by ruling on the Balboa Reservoir Project. We recently asked you to write the Commission asking them not to approve the project. If you’ve sent a letter, thank you. If you haven’t, we hope you will. In the meantime…

RIGHT NOW we need your immediate help!

We’ve just learned that the City and developers were supposed to enter into written agreements with CCSF regarding parking, transit and roadway access through City College. But despite assurances that this would happen…it hasn’t.

We’ve been told for years that this project is a collaboration with CCSF. Yet there’s never been a written agreement with this assurance. The Planning Commission must not rule on a project that doesn’t consider the needs of City College! We need to stop this train before it leaves the station. The future of students at City College is at stake.

Please write the Planning Commission NOW and ask them to postpone the May 28 Balboa Reservoir Project Hearing until these important agreements between CCSF, the City, and the developers have been reached.

Thank you for all you do to save CCSF.
Public Lands for Public Good

Copoy and past to Send Urgent Message to:
SF Planning Commission
commissions.secretary@sfgov.org; joel.koppel@sfgov.org;
kathrin.moore@sfgov.org;
sue.diamond@sfgov.org;
frank.fung@sfgov.org;
theresa.imperial@sfgov.org;
milicent.johnson@sfgov.org;
aaron.starr@sfgov.org;

Be sure to Copy:
SF Board of Supervisors, CCSF Chancellor, and CCSF Board of Trustees
Matt.Haney@sfgov.org; MandelmanStaff@sfgov.org; Gordon.Mar@sfgov.org; Aaron.Peskin@sfgov.org; Dean.Preston@sfgov.org; Sandra.Fewer@sfgov.org; Hillary.Ronen@sfgov.org; Ahsha.Safai@sfgov.org; Catherine.Stefani@sfgov.org; Shamann.Walton@sfgov.org; Norman.Yee@sfgov.org; dgonzales@ccsf.edu; swilliams@ccsf.edu; ttemprano@ccsf.edu; bdavila@ccsf.edu; ivylee@ccsf.edu; alexrandolph@ccsf.edu; jrizzo@ccsf.edu; tselby@ccsf.edu; studenttrustee@mail.ccsf.edu;
Sample email
Subject line:
URGENT: Balboa Reservoir Approvals Must Be Delayed Until

Dear Commissioner,
The City and Balboa Reservoir developers were supposed to enter into written agreements with CCSF regarding parking, transit and roadway access through City College. This hasn’t happened yet!

This project is supposedly a collaboration with CCSF. Yet there’s no written agreement with this assurance.

You must postpone the May 28 Balboa Reservoir Project Hearing until these important agreements between CCSF, the City, and the developers have been reached.

Please do not rule on a project that doesn’t consider the needs of City College. The future of students at City College is at stake!

Sincerely,

www.publiclandsforpublicgood.org
publiclandsforpublicgood@gmail.com

May 14, 2020May 14, 2020

Employers Can Let Workers Change Health Plans Without Waiting

By Margot Sanger-Katz and Ron Lieber : nyt – excerpt (via linkedin editor)

The I.R.S. is giving companies flexibility to allow those decisions, and on pretax accounts for medical expenses and child care, outside an enrollment period.

The Internal Revenue Service on Tuesday made it easier for employers to allow workers to make adjustments to their health insurance plans and flexible spending accounts in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Normally, strict rules prevent employees from changing health insurance plans in the middle of a year. But the I.R.S. is giving employers a way to let workers make changes without waiting for the usual enrollment period.

Under the new guidance, employers can let their workers drop out of their health insurance if they have another option, or sign up if they failed to earlier in the year. Workers could also be allowed to add more family members to their plan, or switch from one workplace plan to another.

The change doesn’t require employers to offer these options; they must opt in if they want to give their employees the added flexibility…(more)

May 13, 2020May 13, 2020

The Risks – Know Them – Avoid Them

By Erin Bromage :

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them

Please read this link to learn about the author and background to these posts

It seems many people are breathing some relief, and I’m not sure why. An epidemic curve has a relatively predictable upslope and once the peak is reached, the back slope can also be predicted. We have robust data from the outbreaks in China and Italy, that shows the backside of the mortality curve declines slowly, with deaths persisting for months. Assuming we have just crested in deaths at 70k, it is possible that we lose another 70,000 people over the next 6 weeks as we come off that peak. That’s what’s going to happen with a lockdown.

As states reopen, and we give the virus more fuel, all bets are off. I understand the reasons for reopening the economy, but I’ve said before, if you don’t solve the biology, the economy won’t recover.

There are very few states that have demonstrated a sustained decline in numbers of new infections. Indeed, as of May 3rd the majority are still increasing and reopening. As a simple example of the USA trend, when you take out the data from New York and just look at the rest of the USA, daily case numbers are increasing. Bottom line: the only reason the total USA new case numbers look flat right now is because the New York City epidemic was so large and now it is being contained… (more)