Category: Update

By Amy Campbell, Holly Arnold, Doug Zucker : gensler – excerpt

This is the second in a blog series to explore ways to reimagine the future of downtown San Francisco. Read Part 1 here and Part 3 here.

Perhaps no other U.S. city’s downtown core is grappling with post-pandemic disruption more than downtown San Francisco, which The New York Times podcast “The Daily” recently called “The Most Empty Downtown in America.” San Francisco Mayor London Breed recognized these challenges during a client panel event on Feb. 15 in Gensler’s San Francisco office where she shared her vision for downtown San Francisco’s future. “We’re not going to be what we were before the pandemic, but I truly believe we can become something better,” Mayor Breed said. “My hope is that we start thinking differently and more creatively about all kinds of spaces that exists across the city and transform those spaces to become great places to eat and gather.”

In Part 1 of this blog series, we investigated the lack of vibrancy and diversity present in most downtown financial districts and how small adjustments to them are not going to create the change necessary to make them vibrant 24/7 neighborhoods. Although they are, for the most part, the most transit connected areas of a city or region, they lack adequate diversity of use. One of the easiest ways to create diversity in an area that is primarily office use is to look at converting some of the office buildings to other uses. Residential is an obvious choice.

Gensler is leading the conversation on office-to-residential conversions. We are actively overseeing research and conversion of underperforming assets across North America and have successfully completed conversion projects in both New York and Philadelphia. We’re also partnering with municipal agencies, such as Calgary’s Economic Development group and San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), to consult on ways downtown vacancy rates could be turned into a catalyst of positive change…(more)

By Josh Koehn : sfstandard – excerpt

Few local government bodies will be more closely scrutinized in the months to come than San Francisco’s newly created Homelessness Oversight Commission.

At last count, the city had roughly 7,700 people sleeping on city streets, with little visible progress when it comes to sheltering the city’s most vulnerable residents despite spending hundreds of millions. That’s why voters signed off on Proposition C last fall to create the new commission, which will oversee the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH) by approving budgets, reviewing contracts and providing policy oversight.

Mayor London Breed, who opposed Prop. C and the creation of the commission, announced four nominees Tuesday, and the selections include: a doctor whose work focuses on the Black community, which suffers from homelessness at a disproportional rate; a longtime nonprofit leader who focused on child abuse prevention; and a politically connected small business owner.

However, one nominee’s history has raised serious concerns…

During his time as chief of staff at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from 2014 to 2017, Aiyer reportedly lied on more than 130 occasions about commuting and personal expenses, including charges at bars, restaurants, coffee shops and dry cleaners. He also impersonated current and former high-level agency officials on receipts and vouchers to avoid being caught, according to a report by the Office of Inspector General.

Last but not least, Aiyer reportedly pulled a George Santos by lying on his resume about receiving a postgraduate degree.

So why would the mayor nominate someone with a checkered past—especially in light of a City Hall corruption scandal and rock-bottom confidence in city government?…(more)

Admits the Slow Streets are a disaster when cameras were rolling.

https://youtu.be/aZL9LOM0WLY

Jeffrey Tumlin, the Director of SFMTA, apologizes for implementing the Slow Streets program in San Francisco. He subsequently elaborates that slow streets are open to all, including vehicles. Skip to the following highlights: 00:36 SFTMA screwed up the signage for Slow Streets in SF neighborhoods 01:00 Slow Street signage was confusing, incorrect, hostile, and unenforceable 01:41 Everyone is welcome to use Slow Streets — including vehicles 02:35 SFMTA BOD clarified vehicles and bicycles can use Slow Streets 03:51 Drivers can use Slow Streets for multiple blocks PAR general meeting Date: January 18th, 2023, 7PM Location: The Richmond Rec Center, 251 18th ave, San Francisco.

Or listen to this recording: https://openthestreets.or/?page_id=115

by u/TeamAsana : reddit – excerpt
https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1161icz/jeffrey_tumlin_head_of_sfmta_blames_cyclists_for/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

by Christina A. Macintosh : missionlocal – excerpt

A community meeting to discuss street conditions around the safe-sleeping site at 1515 South Van Ness Ave. devolved into accusations of defensiveness and prejudice. After perhaps 40 minutes, the three representatives of Dolores Street Community Services, the nonprofit running the site, walked out of the meeting.

The contentious nine-person meeting to discuss a 40-person sleep site encapsulated the difficulties of trying to fix a city-scale problem in a one-block radius.

Several city departments signed an agreement last week that promised the area more resources towards encampment resolution and outreach, but the fact remains that no city department can force people camped in the area to take services or leave the area. As of the meeting, there were two encampments on the site’s block, the same two from when Mission Local visited on Feb. 6…

Neighbors are also upset about the removal of unruly residents from the safe-sleeping site, leaving them on the street in the area.

“If people put themselves, others, or staff in danger, it would be negligent not to exit them,” said Laura Valdéz, executive director of Dolores Street Community Services…

“We can’t transfer a violent person from one shelter to another,” said Emily Cohen, director of communications for the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. So that means they end up on the streets and often remain in the area.…(more)

It is negligent to exit dangerous people onto the street. If the “professional supportive service staff” can’t handle them how do they expect the public to deal with them? What is the city paying these people to do? Sounds like there is something wrong with the program and it may help to send some supervisors and judges into the affordable housing projects they created to see how well they function or don’t.

By Julie Pitta : sfrichmondreview – excerpt

The job of a journalist is to inform and educate. The discussion prompted by last month’s column on homelessness made me realize, all too painfully, that many of my Richmond neighbors hold mistaken beliefs about unhoused people. Some of those misconceptions, intended or not, seem tailor-made to justify denying unhoused people the support they so desperately need.

I’ll attempt to set the record straight on the most frequently repeated myths regarding homelessness…Unhoused People Are Not “From Here…Unhoused People Come to San Francisco Because of the City’s Welcoming Attitude Toward the Homeless…Unhoused People Prefer Life on the Streets…Unhoused People are Responsible for Crime…Most Unhoused People Lost Their Homes Due to Addiction and Mental Illness…

The sight of unhoused people is distressing and has caused some of us to lash out at the most vulnerable in our community, both in word and deed. Our frustration must be focused our City’s leader, Mayor Breed, who has failed to grapple with this humanitarian crisis. Breed must do better…(more)

Thanks for trying to separate the discussions about un-housed people from all the other problems on the street. I’m not sure that anyone knows the answer to all the questions regarding who they are and what they need other than a place to stay, but, what we do need is to separate the problems and investigate them as non-related before we make assumptions that they are all linked together.

What we do know if that the reduction in local control brought to us by our state representatives who forced unwanted street improvements and up-zoning as a solution to the “homeless problems” have not resulted in a more friendly, livable downtown SF. Following the path of density and traffic calming across the city we see a trail of boarded up storefronts, un-housed people, crime, violence, and trash along empty streets and sidewalks. You may walk down Market Street to see what west side neighborhoods have to look forward to as they are forced to “ share the pain” that comes with displacement and gentrification. It is not a pretty sight.

How fitting that the solution to a red light street in the Mission is to close the street and consider designating another street to “share the pain”. What happened to finding a cure?

By Madilynne Medina : sfgate – excerpt

During her annual state of the city address Tuesday, San Francisco Mayor London Breed proclaimed that the city’s downtown, “as we know it,” is “not coming back.”

Still, Breed said the shift would not impede a broader economic recovery.

“You know what? That’s OK,” Breed said. “Empty office buildings have fueled dire predictions about economic doom and screaming headlines about the death of downtown.”

Breed recounted how even though the city has struggled to return to its pre-pandemic state, downtown San Francisco was in far worse shape after the 1906 earthquake…(more)

Tell us something we don’t know.

by Christina A. Macintosh : missionlocal – excerpt

Spurred by complaints from neighbors, five city departments have signed onto a plan to clean up the streets around the Mission’s 1515 South Van Ness Safe Sleep Site and the Division Circle Navigation Center.

A new agreement among the departments and involving the nonprofits that have contracts to run the sites details a plan to clear both garbage and encampments from the blocks around the sites. It also promises daily police presence and monthly community meetings.

Francesca Pastine, the author of a petition to end the safe sleeping site on South Van Ness at 26th Street, said she is optimistic about the updated commitment from the city…(more)

I talked to Francisca and other neighbors as well as people who are trying to set up more safe sleeping sites and they are all equally upset over the lack of progress that has been. So far no one’s circumstances have improved. Meetings bring together a lot of disgruntled people but nothing seems to fix the hot mess in the Mission. It is good to see some enthusiasm coming out of this one. I just drove by the area and saws no tents on 26th Street and barriers set against the 1515 South Van Ness building. A few people stood in front of them on the sidewalk. A successful cleanup here may convince the neighbors around 16th and Mission to accept a community of tiny houses, especially if the population is carefully selected.

When the Plan Bay Area density growth program was introduced the authors of the plan admitted their plan would displace around 40% of the residents. Turns out they were right. Large numbers of displaced residents left San Francisco and the state and many more plan to leave soon. There are mixed reports on how many of the people living on the street are SF residents and who many are coming from out of town. At this point it may not matter.

I am talking to people in the Richmond and the Sunset about documenting the changes they anticipate will come to their neighborhoods as rezoning for dense development heads west. SFMTA is already bringing street “improvements” that are closing businesses. Many landlords are pressuring merchants to leave and single family homes are on track to be torn down to make room for denser housing.

What makes anyone think the Richmond and Sunset residents will escape the same fate that killed the downtown and eastern neighborhoods as they were gentrified? Certainly not the businesses that are already closing and residents making plans to fight or flee.
We can only hope that a recent election that brought a new supervisor to District four may get the attention of more city leaders and they may start to listen to their constituents.

by Noah Baustin, Josh Koehn : sfstandard – excerpt

San Francisco officials announced a new policy Tuesday that puts more than 100 nonprofits with roughly $300 million worth of city contracts at risk of being barred from doing business with the city unless they come into compliance with state regulations.

In January, The Standard reported that San Francisco doled out more than $25 million in taxpayer dollars last year to nonprofits that were blocked by state law from receiving or spending funds because they failed to maintain good standing with the California Attorney General Registry of Charitable Trusts.

As of December, the city had contracts for the current fiscal year with 139 nonprofits that were out of compliance with the state registry. Those nonprofits, which deal with issues ranging from homelessness and drug addiction to education and the arts, still had remaining contract balances totalling nearly $304 million.

The new policy, issued jointly by the offices of the City Controller, City Attorney and City Administrator, explicitly states that San Francisco is not authorized to continue doing business with any nonprofits in delinquent, suspended or revoked status with the state registry…

Supervisor Ahsha Safaí, who announced legislation to address the oversight of city-funded nonprofits following The Standard’s first report, issued a statement Tuesday saying more accountability is needed in managing taxpayer money. Last year, the city had nonprofit contracts totaling $1.4 billion… (more)

By Thomas Elias : taftmidwaydriller – excerpt

If you’re looking for sure things among bills under consideration in the state Legislature, think of one word: housing.

It’s not yet certain just which new housing measures will be proposed this year, but if the recent past is prologue, almost anything that includes new housing – permanent homes, tiny homes or temporary hotel and motel rooms for the homeless and new construction for other folks – will pass easily.

Some of that housing is needed, but there’s no hard evidence backing the state’s claims that 1.8 million new units must be built by the end of 2030 both to avert a disastrous rise in homelessness and fill the needs of first-time home buyers looking for something they can afford.

In fact, the state auditor last April reported that estimates of need from the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) are unreliable because they’re based on information inputted to state computers by workers who never vetted it at all. Devastating as this report should have been, it was completely ignored by both lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom; no one in any office that deals with housing said a single public word about it…

Instead, they keep leaning on the unproven assumption that HCD estimates are correct. Never mind that HCD’s current estimate of housing need is about 1.2 million units lower than five years ago, but only a fraction that many units have actually been built or converted from commercial space emptied by the COVID-19 pandemic…

In short, this state’s housing policy operates in a kind of fantasy world first pushed by Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, whose plans to densify the state languished for years in legislative committees before Newsom began supporting and signing them.…(more)

by Michael Barba : sfstandard – excerpt

Controversy over Mayor London Breed asking her appointees to sign undated resignation letters in a perceived attempt to control them hasn’t convinced a city lawmaker that San Francisco should ban the practice.

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman on Monday came out against the ban proposed by his colleague Dean Preston, saying he didn’t have a problem with the practice depending on what role the commission plays in city government…

The revelations raised concerns that Breed was assaulting the independence of mayoral appointees by gathering the undated letters to one day be used against them. Under local law, she can’t remove many of her appointees on her own without the consent of the Board of Supervisors…(more)

RELATED:

Mayor Breed’s Former Nonprofit Gets Millions From City While Flouting State Law