Category: Action

Posted on

What you should know about the Upzoning

If you live in SF, or in the state of California you have probably heard something about Upzoing plans. If you are confused about the maps and the plans, you are not alone. See the September meetings listed on the calendar for where you may go to learn more: https://csfn.net/csfn-events/

People who try to follow it are constantly finding themselves running down another rabbit hole that leads back to Sacramento and our most controversial State Senator Wiener. After Wiener and Newsom removed the authority of the California Coastal Coastal Commission to control development on the California coast, Wiener is pushing SB 79 to remove single family zoning from the entire state. See the map below that attempts to illustrate the effects of SB 79 on the SF Zoning map

This iMap is supposed to indicate he targeted areas for SB 79

Wieners enemies may outweigh his friends, but his friends hold a huge,  powerful purse and they are shifting him toward Washington. Some would like to see him go just to get him out of Sacramento, but others want him permanently out of politics. Given his close ties to the most unpopular SF Supervisor in SF, and the disdain hundreds of cities and communities around the state have for him, Scott may need more than money to win the Washington post he covets.  But we are here to look a the maps.

The SF Planning Department has created many maps and overlays and new ones are popping up all the time.  Everyone appears to be confused.

The below map that indicates where density decontrol may be applied  is perhaps the most disturbing as it covers the entire city, including those neighborhoods that were already up zoned in the Eastern Neighborhoods.
Density decontrol is a new term that applies to the minimum size of a unit. It appears there is no minimum requirement where destiny decontrol is applied.

We understand the height limits along the pink areas are also open to density decontrol.

Given all the various maps and re-zoning at the state and local levels, the one question no one can answer is, how do all the state and local density laws affect each other? Can developers apply state density bonuses on top of city height limit increases? No one seems to know the answer.

Find out more by attending one of the September meetings where discussion will be held and SF Planning explains the plans and the public gets to ask what is means to them.

Posted on

High Drama at Bayview Opera House

By John Crabtree : substack (excerpt)

Supervisor Joel Engardio loses again, but by the narrowest of margins at SF DCCC

It had all the makings of a grand political soap opera, when the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee gathered for their monthly meeting at the Ruth Williams Bayview Opera House on Wednesday night. The true excitement, the high at the old Opera House, was down the agenda a bit at #7 and innocuously labeled — 7. Endorsement of Local Measures for the September 16, District 4 Special Election.

That is, of course, the matter of the recall of Supervisor Joel Engardio. After hours of public testimony and a lengthier that usual debate among the DCCC members, a vote on whether or not to endorse the special recall election, the body ended up deadlocked 11 to 11 and the San Francisco Democratic Party officially took no position.

Now that may not sound like high drama, but it was. Most political observers expected the county Democratic Party, which is dominated by political moderates and conservatives, to side with Engardio. Without a doubt Engardio and his campaign were counting on it. And the Recallers spared no effort to keep the party on the sidelines, as many of them who testified said, “let The Sunset decide” or some variation on that theme…

“Time and again, candidates in the city have come to the Chinese community when they need votes. They come when they need campaign volunteers. They come when they want to win. But when it comes to policy, when it comes to listening to our concerns and our voices, too often we are ignored.”

Wilson Chu, Chinese American Democratic Club, in support of Engardio Recall…

… I believe this recall is more justified than earlier ones. As so many have stated this evening and over the past year, Supervisor Engardio misled voters about one of the most contentious issues in our district, presenting one position in order to get elected and then reversing himself once in office. Not only that but he then led the effort to put a citywide measure on the ballot, without input from the constituents he had misled. And while much of his campaign for Supervisor was built on fueling the divisiveness and anger around the 2022 recalls, he now argues that he shouldn’t be subject to similar anger when it comes to neighborhood street issues. That contradiction has not gone unnoticed in our community.”

Gordon Mar, DCCC member and former District 4 Supervisor…

Below the screenshot of Engardio’s voter intimidation video I have shared excerpts from California DOJ Division of Law Enforcement Bulletin #2024-DLE-11. I share it because I think it is important to understand what violations of these laws can mean.

…(more)

Could this be a case of a desperate man who will stoop at nothing to save his career? Or is he just not very smart enough to follow campaign laws? Either way, he is winning a prize for the most egregious politician. He should lay off the nasty.

Posted on

Problems with SB 79 after Amendments

  • SB 79 still does not provide for enough affordable housing.
  • SB 79 will reduce affordable housing by allowing older, naturally affordable buildings to be replaced by largely market-rate buildings.
  • Local control of affordable inclusionary housing in SB 79 projects is a red herring  – HCD severely limits this “option”.  Local inclusionary built under
  • SB 79  should override any limitations by state administrative agencies.
  • SB 79 is a major state override of local control. – overrides the state approved housing element and mandates unneeded density in inappropriate places.
  • The bill is misleading by offering local control through allowing alternate plans by localities. – Any such plan still requires inappropriate density, overrides the state approved housing element, and requires approval of HCD.
  • Bus routes are an inappropriate basis for rezoning property. Routes can change or be manipulated in weeks. The housing built under SB 79 will be permanent.
  • SB 79 needs a 5 year sunset clause.

 

Posted on

‘Take your concert and go f*** yourselves’: Park neighbors lose it after weeks of chaos

By George Kelly and Tomoki Chien : sfstandard – excerpt

The Richmond has had it. 

After four consecutive weekends of major events that cumulatively will bring half a million people to Golden Gate Park, neighborhood residents are reeling from the impact of crowds, noise, trash, drunken foolery, and traffic disruptions that have transformed their neighborhood into a nonstop bacchanal.

The surge of large-scale events began in late July with the San Francisco Marathon and continued through three days of Dead & Company performances, three more for the Outside Lands Music Festival, and one last large-scale concert Friday, with legions making their way to and from Golden Gate Park through the Richmond.

Of course, when hundreds of thousands of revelers pour into a typically sleepy district, there are bound to be tensions — and complaints.

“Take your Outside fucking Lands and go fuck yourselves,” said one rant submitted to San Francisco’s 311 system. “Take your fucking Grateful Dead concert and go fuck yourselves. Take your Golden Gate Park concert and go fuck yourselves. This is a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood.”

In the nearly 100 submissions logged with 311, residents reported pee bottles on the street (including a photo), cars blocking their driveways, smoking concertgoers, and trash on the sidewalks. Mostly, though, callers complained about the “insufferably loud” thumps of bass.

Residents have long complained about noise at Outside Lands. In 2019, two peace-loving San Franciscans filed a California Environmental Quality Act appeal in an attempt to bar the city from renewing the festival’s permit.

This year, neighbors took to Nextdoor to air grievances, calling on residents to bring their gripes directly to Supervisor Connie Chan, who represents the Richmond…(more)

Posted on

SF PARKS ALLIANCE SINKS DEEPER INTO CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION

By : borkeassstuart – excerpt (June 19)

The more people who speak out, the more this case looks like massive corruption and misallocation of funds was conducted by certain people in the SF Parks Alliance (SFPA). The organization faces a criminal investigation by the district attorney, and the city attorney is conducting a probe to determine whether millions in public and private money were misused.

The SF Parks Alliance is a nonprofit that partners with public and private agencies to help with park-related projects across San Francisco. And to be fair, we’ve had a lot of amazing park-related programming here, like the art installations at Entwined or the Golden Mile in Golden Gate Park, to SF Live concerts in Crane Cove or Sundown Cinema in neighborhoods citywide, and those lovely murals painted on our slow streets…just to name a few!…

Rumors of financial mismanagement began to swirl in February, when the Head of SF Parks nonprofit Drew Becher resigned, and Parks COO Justin Probert was fired. Then, in May, the Chronicle reported on leaked emails between board chair Louise Mozingo and a donor over $3.8 million of misused funds…

Many neighborhood groups say the Parks Alliance was holding their funds when it folded in February. For example, The SF Standard reported that this week that Parks Alliance had $148,000 of the Friends of Franklin Square‘s money, which is now lost. At a conversation on Tuesday at Manny’s cafe featuring Recreation and Parks General Manager Phil Ginsburg, a Friends of Alta Plaza Park member, Anita Denz, said a $50,000 bequeathment was now missing. 

Meanwhile, the Parks Alliance continued laying off staffers in June. Ironically, the Park’s home page is still asking for donations, with the slogan, “SF Public Places Are in Danger: Budget cuts threaten our parks–DONATE TODAY!”…

Supervisor Shamann Walton has subpoenaed documents from the Parks Alliance and is calling for Ogilvie, Becher, and board treasurer Rich Hutchinson to testify. Supervisor Jackie Fielder has called for an audit of the nonprofit’s relationship with the Recreation and Parks Department.  

It will be a lengthy process to find out where all the money went, and if the organizations that were working with the SFPA, will ever be made whole…(more)

Posted on

A ‘poison pill’ in California’s budget deal ties state spending to construction

By Alexei Koseff : calmatters – excerpt

IN SUMMARY: A state budget is headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature, but it won’t take effect unless the Legislature makes changes to housing and infrastructure development rules that he has demanded…

After days of confusion in which a deal with Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened to unravel over his demand to include new housing and infrastructure regulations, the California Legislature passed an updated state budget on Friday.

With the start of a new fiscal year looming on July 1, budget negotiations — already challenged by a $12 billion and growing deficit — dragged on this week as Newsom and legislative leaders struggled to reach an agreement on waiving state environmental reviews for priority projects.

The details of that proposal were only made public Friday morning, hours before the budget vote, despite a poison pill that would invalidate the entire $321 billion spending plan if the Legislature does not also approve the infrastructure proposal, Senate Bill 131. Lawmakers are expected to take it up on Monday, alongside the housing measure Newsom sought, Assembly Bill 130, which was unveiled and then amended this week following fierce blowback from organized labor.

Officials involved in those negotiations have been loath to explain why the budget process staggered to such an odd and protracted conclusion this year, even as California is now set to adopt sweeping changes to how it builds without much public notice. Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas refused to speak with reporters after the vote…

The final budget relies on reserves and internal borrowing … (more)

Internal borrowing?

Posted on

New S.F. planning director’s appointment process was illegal, commissioner says

By Queer Lu : missionlocal – excerpt

Commission president wrangled votes for mayor’s pick to lead department, commissioner alleges, in violation of open meeting laws

pastedGraphic.png
Kathrin Moore, Gilbert Williams and Theresa Imperial walk out of a planning commission meeting on June 18, 2025.

A San Francisco planning commissioner is challenging the legality of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s appointment of the city’s new planning director, Sarah Dennis Phillips.

Kathrin Moore, the planning commission’s vice president, emailed the city attorney’s office stating that Lydia So, the president of the commission, has “clearly and unequivocally” violated the law.

Moore recounted that So called her and two other commissioners separately the night before the June 18 vote suggesting that they “act in support of the Mayor’s wish to recommend a particular individual to the Mayor to be the new Planning Director,” according to an email addressed to Deputy City Attorney Austin Yang that was obtained by Mission Local…

Multiple City Hall veterans with varying views on development have told Mission Local that they think Dennis Phillips, who was the director of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development and a former city planner, is “fantastic” and “qualified for the job.”…

“The whole purpose of these laws like the Brown Act … is transparency,” Wheaton said. “It’s to try as much as we can to wring the politics out of politics, to try to get people to do things on the merits and to be proud of what they’ve done and not have it be done with secret phone calls.”… (more)

It seems the problem is not with the appointee but with the process. Given the massive number of processes that and being ignored and circumvented, it is heathy to revisit this one that is so bravely contested. We at least have a chance to discuss the importance of our elected and our civil servants following the law. So much is being made of the lack of legal process on the national front which is seemingly difficult to address. There is no reason not to investigate the problem when it is close to home. No one after all is able the law.

It would be good for the citizens of San Francisco to be aware of the law and the ramifications for ignoring it where the Brown Act is concerned. People might be more likely to recognize improper actions when they see them and speak up.

We have been investigating other cases involving questionable actions taken by other departments through sunshine requests. It appears that normal protocol for condudcting business that effects the public has been dropped by some departments. 

It will be interesting to see who is responsible for the decision to ignore the legal proceedings in such a public manner. What may the remedy be and how may we get back to legal proceedings?

 

Posted on

VC billionaire Michael Moritz’s foundation gives $3.4M to S.F. immigrant defense

by JOE RIVANO BARROS : missionlocal – excerpt

Gift is latest of $36 million donated by foundation to San Francisco city departments

The personal foundation of Michael Moritz, the venture capitalist billionaire who has been one of the most active donors in San Francisco politics, has given $3.4 million to the San Francisco Public Defender’s office to hire more immigrant defense attorneys in light of President Donald Trump’s recent crackdown.

The gift by the Crankstart Foundation, Moritz’ vehicle for philanthropy, would pay for three additional attorneys and a paralegal for the next four years. The public defender’s office applied for the funds and was awarded the gift on March 11. It’s set to be approved by the Board of Supervisors in the coming weeks.

The “immigrant defense unit” of the public defender’s office, which currently has six attorneys, is rare: It is one of a few across the country that provides free legal counsel for immigrants in deportation proceedings. It was started in 2017 in response to the anti-immigrant wave during Trump’s first term. .. (more)

Posted on

What did the director of Rec-Park know and when did he know it?

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

The Government Audit and Oversight Committee will hold a hearing Thursday/5 on the allegations of financial mismanagement at the San Francisco Parks Alliance and the impact that’s had on city agencies.

Sups. Jackie Fielder and Shamann Walton called for the hearing, and have asked the Recreation and Parks Department, as well as the Parks Alliance, to appear and answer questions.

Among the issues that should, and I suspect will, come up: What role has Rec-Park Director Phil Ginsburg played in the management, direction, financing, and operations of the private alliance? What did he know about the current mess, and when did he know it?… (more)

UPDATE:

S.F. supervisor seeks to subpoena ex-leaders of collapsed parks nonprofit

By Michael Barba : sfchronicle – excerpt (audio)

A city supervisor is seeking to subpoena the former leaders of the collapsed San Francisco Parks Alliance, compelling them to testify about the demise of a prominent and politically connected nonprofit that is the subject of multiple investigations.

Supervisor Shamann Walton plans to subpoena the Parks Alliance’s last CEO, Robert Ogilvie, and his predecessor, Drew Becher, as well as its former treasurer Rick Hutchinson.

His request for a subpoena, which needs approval from his colleagues, comes after the Parks Alliance began to wind down its operations this week ahead of a scheduled hearing on its collapse and outstanding debts to the city at a Board of Supervisors committee.

The hearing was supposed to be held Thursday, but has since been postponed…

The Parks Alliance was in the grips of a deepening financial crisis long before its decision to shutter. Its board chair, Louise Mozingo, admitted in a leaked email obtained by the Chronicle that the organization had misspent $3.8 million in restricted funds on its operating expenses.

The shutdown left small neighborhood groups around San Francisco that entrusted the nonprofit to safeguard their money unsure about the fate of their savings. Before all of its board members resigned and itsremaining staffers were terminated, the Parks Alliance hired an outside firm to liquidate its remaining assets through a process akin to bankruptcy...

“I want to know how the city will collect the outstanding dollars and how the Parks Alliance could get away with using city and organization resources for their own operations,” he said.

Supervisor Jackie Fielder, who joined Walton in his call for a hearing, still plans to introduce a motion Thursday calling for a full audit of the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department, including its long-running financial ties to the Parks Alliance, her office said.

The district attorney, controller and city attorney are investigating…(more)

Posted on

Engardio Recall – Press Release

Department of Elections
City and County of San Francisco
John Arntz, Director

For Immediate Release:

SAN FRANCISCO, Thursday, May 29, 2025 – Today, the San Francisco Department of Elections announced the certification of the petition to recall Joel Engardio, Member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors representing District 4. The petition, submitted on May 22, 2025, was determined to contain 10,523 valid signatures, above the required threshold of 9,911 signatures.

With the petition deemed sufficient, the Department will proceed with preparations for a special municipal election, which will take place on Tuesday, September 16, 2025, in accordance with San Francisco Charter Section 14.103. Only voters registered and residing in Supervisorial District 4 will be eligible to participate in this election.

San Francisco Department of Elections
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
City Hall, Room 48
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 554-4375
www.sfelections.gov