‘Political dirty work’: Lawsuit filed over Friday closure of San Francisco road

 By

 
 
Calmer days on the beach are turning stormy as voters fight back for their Great Highway.

Opponents of Proposition K, the contentious voter-approved ballot measure to permanently ban cars from a portion of San Francisco’s Upper Great Highway, are pushing back with a lawsuit filed Tuesday alleging that the move is illegal.

The lawsuit, which seeks to stop the closure, scheduled for Friday, names the city of San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department and five current and former supervisors who backed the November initiative that authorized converting the 2-mile stretch of road between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard into a new oceanfront park. The plaintiffs, who include community members and LivableSF, a transportation advocacy group, argue that Prop. K violates California law, a joint news release from the group states.

n the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that the closure was implemented without environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. First passed in 1970, the act requires developers to “disclose to the public the significant environmental effects of a proposed discretionary project.” They also allege that the measure violates the section of the California Vehicle Code that governs when a local legislative body may close a highway to vehicular traffic.

In their campaign against Prop. K, opponents argued that closing the Great Highway would cost the city too much money, cause chaotic traffic on an already congested corridor and damage the nearby neighborhoods. Plaintiff Albert Chow, a Sunset resident and small business owner in the neighborhood, said in the release that working families will be affected after “thousands of cars” will be pushed into the neighborhood when the road closes….(more)

Neither Lurie nor his supporters supported Prop K. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Looks like nothing at the moment.

Community leaders demand tenant protections in new zoning plans

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Planning Commission hears how upzoning leads to speculation and displacement; can the city protect existing residents against the state Yimby housing bills?

In an extraordinary meeting, the San Francisco Planning Commission heardpresentation and hours of public testimony on the impacts the city’s proposal to increase height and density in neighborhoods would have on tenants and small business.

The Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition, the Council of Community Housing Organizations, and the Anti-Displacement Coalition told the commissioners that recent state laws and upcoming city policies would cause widespread displacement.

The city is considering raising height limits in some neighborhoods, particularly on the West Side of town, to eight stories, a process known as upzoning…

Developers will follow the Rent Board’s procedures for temporary eviction, so the tenants are displaced from their homes with the premise that the eviction is temporary. After some time has elapsed, the developer expands the scope of their project, sometimes adding units. The project takes longer than the former tenants had expected. The developer’s payment obligations end, and the tenants move on. These temporary evictions turn into permanent displacement, which is why tenant advocates call these “renovictions”…. (more)

How exactly does that work? Looks like no one knows yet.

 

 

Federal mandates put a damper on State density goals

Now that Trump is cutting housing money, what will Sacramento do about mandates?

… Right now, it’s pretty much impossible to build any substantial number of affordable housing units without federal money. Gov. Gavin Newsom has allocated some state money, but not that much. Supporters are hoping for a $10 billion statewide housing bond in 2026, which would fund 35,000 units. That’s less than what just the city of San Francisco is supposed to build, and a tiny fraction of what the state needs.

It’s clear at this point that, even with the GOP holding a slim margin in Congress, Trump’s budget plans are going to pass. So what are California and San Francisco going to do?… (more)

Cal Fire’s new fire risk maps mean big changes for California homeowners

By and

Cal Fire on Monday published updated fire maps for 125 cities from the Bay Area north to the Oregon border.

California fire officials released long-awaited maps on Monday showing fire risk in cities across the Bay Area and along the northern coast of California.

The maps, which are still in draft form, will have major implications: They will guide where stricter fire-resistant building and landscape rules apply, and are an update to fire risk maps issued more than a decade ago. For example, the state’s pending ban of plants and other combustible materials within five feet of homes will apply to properties categorized on the new maps (i.e., in local responsibility areas) as having “very high fire severity hazard.” That includes parts of Bay Area cities like Berkeley, Oakland, Tiburon, Mill Valley, Santa Rosa, San Bruno, San Jose and Palo Alto…

The maps are not expected to change how insurance companies weigh fire risk and make policy decisions, according to the California Department of Insurance. The department published a Q&A about the maps that said insurance companies are required to provide “discounts for wildfire safety actions such as community mitigation and home-hardening, which Cal Fire’s maps do not assess.”

“Insurance companies are already using risk analysis tools and models that go beyond Cal Fire’s proposed maps in determining what properties they will underwrite,” the department said….

The maps do not take account of homeowners’ mitigation efforts.

Last year, Cal Fire published new fire hazard maps for the areas of the state it protects, which includes most but not all of non-incorporated California, dubbed “state responsibility areas.” All homes in these areas must adhere to the state’s strictest fire-safe standards for buildings and landscapes, including the state’s upcoming “zone zero” landscape rules that will require homeowners to keep five feet around their homes clear of most plants and other flammable materials like bark mulch.

Cal Fire developed the new draft maps using scientific models that evaluated factors like terrain and vegetation. These new models found the risk of fire had grown in cities and towns, and expanded by 1.4 million acres the California areas designated as either “high” or “very high” fire hazard… (more)

Tariffs, LA wildfires throw SF housing rebound into question

Hopes among San Francisco housing boosters that 2025 could deliver a sudden home-building boom are already fading after the year opened with a series of economic curveballs, driving fears that construction costs could soon rise.

The first shock came only days after the new year began, when fast-moving wildfires erupted in Los Angeles County and went on to consume thousands of homes. The disaster has set the stage for a massive rebuilding effort that some market watchers worry could, eventually, drive up labor and material costs throughout California.

Another shock arrived weeks later when President Donald Trump followed through on his promise to levy steep tariffs on steel and aluminum, both essential materials for construction projects… (more)

San Francisco’s Right-Wing Tech Bros Go National

By Lincoln Mitchell : excerpt

Many of the acsendant crypto-goniffs in Washington have roots in San Francisco.

As recently as a few years ago many would have indentified San Francisco as the capital of liberal, or at least Democratic, America. The Vice-President was from the Bay Area and had gotten her start in elected office in San Francisco. One former mayor of San Francisco was the governor of California and an emerging national leader of the Democratic Party. Another former mayor was an aging, but groundbreaking, US Senator. The Speaker of the House and longtime leader of her party in that chamber was San Francisco’s congresswoman. This was still a time when people would, inaccurately, say things like a conservative in San Francisco was a radical in the rest of America.

Over the last few years, something began to change. In San Francisco, right-wing politics reemerged, initially in the form of self-styled feel-good civic groups sneaking conservative messaging into other fora-come for the garbage clean-up and the opportunity to mingle with other young singles, and stay for the right-wing spin about San Francisco…(more)

First thing they said was, “Parking isn’t a right it is a privilege.” Second thing they said was, “Disruption is good before it forces change.” After that the systems all fell apart. If the author is right, the country  will soon look like San Francisco. We were the Petri dish.

 

NEWSOM JUST QUIETLY FLOATED AN IDEA THAT COULD HELP FIX CALIFORNIA’S HOUSING AND FIRE RECOVERY CRISES

By Ben Metcalf : sfchronicle – excerpt (audio track)

Rebuilding after the Los Angeles fires is going to be time-consuming and expensive. Accordingly, much attention has been given to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent executive actions to speed up the process and cut red tape, including by waiving environmental reviews, sidestepping Coastal Commission oversight and providing additional state resources to city and county planning and building officials

However, a different and little-noticed idea from the governor, included as part of his budget proposal to the Legislature early in January, also has the potential to be impactful. A small paragraph teases a big vision for housing: a new California housing and homelessness agency.

This proposed agency — which would replace the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency that oversees a kitchen sink of other state functions (such as horse racing and cannabis regulation) — promises instead a “more integrated and effective” administrative framework for addressing the state’s housing and homelessness challenges. It would oversee all of the existing housing entities and be tasked with leading the state’s response on aligning housing policies with transportation, climate and community planning… (more)

We need to look into the process for creating and dissolving state agencies because that is what Newsom is suggesting. What happens to the staff? We might want to talk to them.

What is the connection between an agency that oversees Business, Consumer Services and Housing and one that oversees Housing and Homelessness issues. Are they eliminating state oversight of Business and Consumer Services, combing them with other agency, or setting up a new oversight agency?

The new agency just adds climate and community planning to housing and transportation. How does combining “housing policies with transportation, climate and community planning” solve homelessness? Is this a ploy to circumvent CEQA more than they already have?

This makes no sense unless it is a power play. Once again the state wants to force change on us and is eliminating some basic services and oversight we need in the process.

Once again our state representatives are trying to control us while eliminating the basic services and oversight we need.

Newsom announces new accountability measures for cities that receive homelessness aid

By Mollie Burke : sfchronicle – excerpt

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced new requirements Friday for cities and counties receiving state money to address homeless encampments.

Newsom, who has been cracking down on local governments that refuse to accommodate new housing projects or homeless shelters, said that the state will “claw back” funding for localities that fail to comply with their housing goals.

San Francisco became the first city to fall out of compliance with the housing element law, the California Department of Housing and Community Development ruled in July. San Francisco is required to plan for 82,000 new units between 2023 and 2031, but the city authorized just over 3,000 new units in 2023 and 831 units in the first half of this year, according to the city’s Planning Department. The state announced in August that San Francisco was back on track to return to compliance.

Under a law passed in 2023 by San Francisco Sen. Scott Wiener, cities that fail to comply must streamline the approval of most projects.

Newsom also said Friday that cities must follow “all state housing and homelessness laws” to hold on to their millions in state aid from encampment resolution funds…(more)

How did we end up with an anti-San Francisco governor and an anti-San Francisco Senator? What is wrong with our city that no one who likes us runs for state office?

SB 610: Senator Wiener attacks Fire Hazard Maps as impediments to housing.

By Amy Kalish : marinpost -excerpt

Fire truck got stuck in a tight turn. Had to get another. Use a different approach. Hydrant was 300 feet away Here’s something fresh!

There is a new and dangerous assault on local control. Senator Wiener is not content to merely wrest zoning from cities. He is now targeting Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps as “impediments” to housing.

SB 610 upends local considerations — and would eliminate the State Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps and familiar terms — most noticeably “ember resistant zones.” A whole new system would instead declare portions of the state “Wildfire Mitigation Areas.” There would be no comparative maps to see where changes were made.

Wiener introduced SB-610 “Fire prevention: wildfire mitigation area: defensible space: State Fire Marshal” as a “gut and amend” bill, meaning the contents were completely changed after it had already passed the Senate in an innocuous form (a proposed annual report by the chair of the State Energy Resources Commission).

The Assembly had no time to digest the language or its ramifications and it has sailed through.

Wiener bluntly states the reasons to ditch a functioning system in his SB 610 Fact Sheet:

  • “to keep localities from weaponizing the fire hazard mapping as anti-housing/development tools.”
  • “LRA (Local Responsibility Area) maps can functionally result in restrictions on growth in those areas through imposing costly building standards, increased disaster planning and mitigation requirements, or increasing home insurance premiums.”
  • “Local jurisdictions have the ability to misuse this process and make the majority of their community a high or very high FHSZ (Fire Hazard Severity Zone) map that could impact housing development.”
  • In other words, the Maps must go in order to keep cities and counties from cheating their way out of “fair share housing.”…(more)

How can anybody be so callous about human lives?

URGENT — OPPOSE SB 7

This is an URGENT call to action. SB 7 is a terrible bill, and it needs to be opposed before it’s next heard on 6/26. Letters and calls should be in ASAP. Today if possible.

What is the Problem with SB 7?
This is a housing bill that makes HCD stronger and RHNA worse. SB7 takes recommendations from a 176 page report — “California’s Housing Future 2040: The Next Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)” — sent to legislators just two months ago, and hastily tries to get them passed into law in the next few weeks.

Through a sneaky process called “gut and amend,” new language has been put into SB 7 — which already passed the Senate in another form — and is now working its way through the Assembly.

No underlying problems of 6th cycle RHNA are addressed. This bill relies on unsubstantiated claims about the state’s housing crisis to justify usurping local control.

The 6th cycle RHNA is not even mid-way through, and all cities are failing its metrics. The solid reasons why are heavily documented — to the point that a housing element audit was recently authorized to examine the process.

The HCD is doing an end run around the audit and any flaws it might uncover; the new language of SB 7 bolsters their powers for 7th cycle RHNA, and they want it done now.

WHAT HCD GETS WITH SB 7:

  • An increase in authority, zero oversight, no transparency
  • Heavier hand against cities, bolstered by new punitive legislation
  • Further control over local zoning control
  • Eliminates the right to appeal RHNA mandates
  • Allows unchecked lobbyist influence
  • Continue to disregard infrastructure costs and other impacts to cities
  • Continue to disregard actual data, including population projections that show California’s numbers flat through 2060
  • Inclusion of open space in their calculation for how much new development a jurisdiction can absorb
  • No requirement to base policy on robust economic theory
  • No requirement to base RHNA mandates on legitimate population projections
  • RHNA allocations will continue to increase market rate housing
  • RHNA will require — but not advance — affordability.
  • Unelected bureaucrats will continue creating policy with no accountability

THIS IS HAPPENING FAST:
SB7 is being rushed through without due diligence.
This “gut and amend” bill bypassed normal deadlines, and showed up at the last minute. In the Senate it was an innocuous bill about group housing.

June 10th: Amended in Assembly
June 18th: Passed Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee
June 26th: Up for a vote in the Local Government committee

your message can be this simple: I OPPOSE SB 7.
Contact for direct representatives are below, they also need to hear from us.

First Last Email Phone
Chair, D Juan Carrillo juan.carrillo (916) 319-2039
V-Chair, R Marie Waldron marie.waldron (916) 319-2075
R Bill Essayli bill.essayli (916) 319-2063
D Matt Haney matt.haney (916) 319-2017
D Ash Kalra ash.kalra (916) 319-2025
D Blanca Pacheco blanca.pacheco (916) 319-2064
D James Ramos james.ramos (916) 319-2045
D Chris Ward assemblymember.Ward (916) 319-2078
D Lori Wilson lori.wilson (916) 319-2011
Chief Cons. Angela Mapp angela.mapp (916) 319-3958

SB 7 Verville sample letter