Category: Land Use

Posted on

Letter to the Editor: Plenty of Questions About the New Ocean Beach Park

via email from richmondsunsetnews – excerpt

Editor:

To Mayor Lurie and the Board of Supervisors:

Don’t you think you had better slow down ramming this park idea down our throats and what artwork should be commissioned? The sand, wind, and graffiti will make quick work of destroying whatever you plan to put up. The graffiti on the art sculptures at the end of the Taraval line have had graffiti on them for months. Who’s in charge of cleaning it up?

Who is in charge around here anyway, giving away taxpayer dollars without the community allowed any input? Have other supervisors of the City had any input? Why don’t you use the money to buy art and school supplies for the children and public schools in the City? Our schools are broke, laying off teachers and cutting programs. Trump is talking about cutting off funds that San Francisco and California badly need. This is not a playground for children, it’s for adults who want to see the ocean from their high rise condos. The people backing this are mostly out-of-town millionaires. Their skin in the game is making money.

We already have over 250 parks and playgrounds in the City. Why don’t you paint murals at our schools and playgrounds and better maintain what we already have? The schools are laying off staff, and contemplating closing schools and you folks want to paint murals on the ground and walls next to the sand? Isn’t the purpose of going to the beach, is to go to the beach, lay in the sand and look out at the ocean and watch the waves? Art is nature itself! How many statues and murals do you see when you go to Yosemite or Yellowstone national parks?

I am including all of the supervisors whose areas suffer from a lack of funds in their own areas. SFMTA and Muni are millions of dollars in debt. They are cutting Muni lines, and want to raise parking fees to raise money. Our large and small businesses are leaving. Is it OK for all of you to approve money for art projects, money that we don’t have? How many of you supervisors have had input in this Ocean Beach playground? How many of you know what the city budget is for this two-mile playground? We have a lack of transparency!

Maybe you should have murals of high rise condos painted to match the view looking east.

Friends of Ocean Beach Park have become the Elon Musk of the west side of the City. Like Elon, Friends of Ocean Beach Park are not part of the city government, yet they are out there making decisions for the City. The same with the San Francisco Bike coalition and Walk SF who are funded with taxpayer dollars yet are not part of the city government. It’s rather embarrassing.

Tony Villa, D4 resident

RELATED:
TRUMP, NEWSOM ATTACK CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
protestors are out in force today, March 23, 2025 

Posted on

Planning Commission rejects landlord plan to convert SRO rooms to tourist hotels

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

In a huge victory for tenants, the Planning Commission rejected tonight a permit that would have allowed a residential hotel owner to convert 72 rent-controlled units to tourist use.

The voted sent a clear message to landlords: The city won’t reward you for intentionally keeping low-cost units off the market.

The vote was 5-2, with Commissioners Amy Campbell and Sean McGarry, both appointees of former Mayor London Breed, siding with the landlord...(more)

RELATED:
Commissioners also voted to support Connie Chan’s noticing legislation that seeks to return to the more traditional public noticing system.

 

Posted on

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

 By Madilynne Medina : sfgate – excerpt (audio)

 
 
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.

Posted on

Supervisor Walton bristles at Lurie’s plan to expand Bayview shelter to ‘200-plus’ beds

by JOE RIVANO BARROS and JOE ESKENAZI : missionlocal – excerpt

District 10 supervisor says Lurie’s warehousing homeless people in city’s southeast

Mayor Daniel Lurie is proposing to more than double in size a homeless shelter proposed for the Bayview last year and eliminate RV parking spots on the site, a move that District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton is calling “inequitable” and “unfair” because it “makes sure unhoused folks are warehoused in the southeastern part of San Francisco.”

“How are you going to expand something in Bayview Hunters Point when we’re talking about equitably providing shelter across the city?” asked Walton.

Last year, under Mayor London Breed, San Francisco leased a 2.25-acre industrial site at 2177 Jerrold Ave. in the Bayview to build a homeless village of 68 “tiny homes” and 20 RV parking sites. Tiny homes are a novel approach to homeless shelters, one Lurie himself touted while on the campaign trail, pointing to his nonprofit Tipping Point helping to build 70 of them at 33 Gough St. for about $34,000 each.

But it is unclear whether the homeless village will be built after all, according to Walton, whose district includes the site. In a Monday meeting, Walton was told by Lurie’s team that the mayor now wants to build a homeless shelter with “200-plus” homeless beds, and remove the RV parking spaces altogether… (more)

Posted on

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.

 

 

Posted on

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)

Posted on

Tariffs, LA wildfires throw SF housing rebound into question

 : sfexaminer – excerpt

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)

Posted on

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.

Posted on

City of San Francisco set to close parking site for homeless living in vehicles

KPIX CBS News

This is a problem that someone should be able to fix as soon as the new administration steps in.

We understand there is a well-managed private RV park close by that cost less to operate than the city managed one. Perhaps there is someone better able to manage this safe parking site and our new Mayor will find that person in time to save it. Trailer parks are a perfectly legal and widely accepted lifestyle for many. Why San Francisco opposes them is somewhat of a mystery.

Posted on

Mayor Breed’s Hypocrisy

by  : beyondchron – excerpt

Mayor Blocked 3 Permanent Drug-Free Housing Projects

Mayor Breed allocated $3.7 million for permanent drug-free SRO housing in her 2023-24 budget. None of this money has been spent.

Did drug problems end in San Francisco? No. Did other permanent drug-free housing options available to graduates from transitional programs emerge? No.

The mayor did not spend a dime of the $3.7 million allocated for permanent supportive drug-free housing in the 2023-24 budget year. Instead, Mayor Breed intervened three times to block the program she claimed to support.

The North Beach Hotel

“I think a project like this could be a game changer, and very transformative and exciting for so many people who deserve a second chance to live a life free and clean and sober in the city and county of San Francisco,” Breed said.”–SF Chronicle, February 8, 2024…

The San Remo Hotel

The San Remo Hotel, 2237 Mason, was completely vacant (it is legally a tourist hotel). I met with Peskin to assess his support. Peskin not only supported the project but said he would take responsibility for community outreach and community support. I thought that was great. But when I conveyed that to the mayor’s office I was told they didn’t want Peskin doing that. They wanted me to do the outreach.

So I began outreaching to North Beach groups. None expressed opposition. Some asked that I meet with their Board and this was scheduled. All was going well when the mayor’s office told me that wanted one of their close political allies, Cedric Akbar of Westside Community Services, to do door-to-door outreach around the San Remo.

I thought that was odd. We did not need Akbar’s help to do outreach. Akbar was running for the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee at the time and I assumed the mayor was looking to help his campaign by assigning him outreach to potential voters (he was elected). Wanting to move the project forward, I said fine to Akbar’s plans…

Steve Adami of Salvation Army also said that permanent drug-free housing didn’t work. I thought that was odd because the Salvation Army was co-sponsoring Matt Haney’s statewide bill mandating money for permanent drug-free housing. After our call I alerted the Bay Area Council about this contradiction (they were co-sponsoring Haney’s bill) and heard from Salvation Army that Adami did not speak for them. He later recanted his opposition to permanent drug free housing expressed at the meeting.

Residents in Westside/Salvation Army programs do not get tenants’ rights.  These are transitional “programs” that residents must leave to get the permanent drug-free housing they need.

What I realized was going on here was Mayor Breed trying to shift $3.7 million from the Tenderloin Housing Clinic to her favored nonprofits. The mayor was also reversing her support for THC’s plan to provide a bridge to permanent drug-free housing for those graduating from transitional programs. The Salvation Army and Westside do not provide permanent drug-free housing so that was not where the mayor now wanted this money to go.

What I anticipated would happen after that meeting did happen. The mayor killed her once heavily promoted permanent drug-free housing plan…(more)

Reading this makes me feel some-what vindicated. For some time I have watched Breed flit from one shiny new object to another, never giving any of her proposals time to work. What is particularly galling is the facts that she blame everyone else for not building any affordable housing, when all along it was her holding onto the money, and or, frittering it away on someone else. We shall soon see what she did with it if it is not in the coffers waiting to be spent.