Category: Update

By Adam Shank : sfexaminer – excerpt

The City’s latest struggle over land use centers on its outermost edge.

The dispute involves Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin and state Sen. Scott Wiener, with the former looking to protect California’s coastline from waves of development and the latter looking to spur desperately needed new housing in San Francisco.

And once again, San Francisco is under a magnifying glass, with the repercussions potentially resonating statewide.

The Board of Supervisors approved a resolution Monday that puts local legislators on record opposing a bill proposed by Wiener in the state legislature in January that would limit the California Coastal Commission’s role in reviewing development and protecting oceanfront access near Ocean Beach…

A small but critical sliver of land in San Francisco falls under the purview of the Coastal Commission, and an even smaller portion of that footprint consists of developed land.

The Coastal Commission was created in 1972 and enshrined by the state legislature’s passage of the California Coastal Act in 1976, with the purpose of protecting the state’s rapidly developing coastline for public use and environmental sustainability.

An impassioned Peskin excoriated Wiener for introducing the bill without consulting city leaders and warned his colleagues on Tuesday that the legislation would mark “the beginning of the end” of the California Coastal Act…

Engardio, Melgar and Dorsey provided the only votes against Peskin’s resolution.…(more)

If you missed the fireworks at the meeting and want to see them, here is the link to the recording of the meeting: https://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/45353?view_id=10&redirect=true&h=950e160dea915e52141de08ce1e13fca. Jump to Item 25, 240065.

by David Sjostedt : sfstandard – excerpt

Volunteers and nonprofit workers fanned out across San Francisco on Tuesday night to count the number of homeless people on the streets, as the city does every other year. But hardly anyone, even Mayor London Breed, thinks they got an accurate number.

“How are we supposed to tell whether or not they’re really unhoused?” Breed told The Standard after she spent several hours trawling the Tenderloin with the nonprofit Code Tenderloin as part of the Point-in-Time Count. “You’ve got a lot of folks out here who are unfortunately suffering from mental illness and addiction, and that’s a big difference from being homeless.”

The one-night count, conducted by every major city across the country, is required by the federal government to determine how much homelessness funding to allocate. Two years ago, 4,397 people were counted as living on the streets of San Francisco.

Funding—and political futures—are on the line. A significant jump in the number of people counted could mean more money for San Francisco’s shelter and housing efforts, but also political baggage for Breed and other incumbents facing re-election in November…(more)

As we suspected, the numbers are questionable and they spend way too much time counting designing programs and not enough time helping people who need help. People are not numbers. We like the one person at a time and first come first served approach that some neighborhoods have been able to use fairly effectively.

By Noah Baustin : sfstandard – excerpt

Photo by Dennis Minnick of one of many boat races that passes by the Marina Green.

A grassroots neighborhood movement to stop the construction of a yacht harbor in front of the Marina Green won a victory Monday when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee approved an ordinance that would block the contentious plan.

Marina District neighbors began organizing their opposition last winter after learning that the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department wanted to spend some of a $160 million settlement with PG&E to finance the harbor extension. The funds were intended to clean up the bay after decades of pollution from a former coal gasification plant.

Instead of just using the funds to clean up the pollution, the city proposed putting the money toward a wholesale redesign of the area’s waterfront. Most controversial, the proposal would expand the existing West Harbor in front of the Marina Green, a popular community green space.

If passed, the ordinance would prohibit the city from moving forward on any project that would extend the West Harbor Marina beyond the existing jetty, home to the Wave Organ, though other versions of the project would still be allowed…

Safaí authored the ordinance that sailed through committee Monday with a unanimous vote from Supervisors Aaron Peskin, Myrna Melgar and Dean Preston…(more)

We may have witnessed a first at City Hall. There were a lot of supporters and no one spoke against the ordinance.

• By Patrick Hoge :sfexaminer – excerpt (includes audio)

Streets and buildings along San Francisco’s Embarcadero — including the iconic Ferry Building — could eventually be raised up to 7 feet, according to a sweeping draft plan unveiled Friday that would spend an estimated $13 billion to defend The City’s urban waterfront against rising seas and flooding.

The massive infrastructure scheme, spearheaded by the Port of San Francisco and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, sketches out potential measures for the 7½ miles of bayfront land under the port’s control. It is the result of more than six years of study and public engagement over how to protect a center of economic activity and more than $100 billion worth of property from flooding.

“We are celebrating a major accomplishment today,” said Port Executive Director Elaine Forbes at a waterfront press conference outside the Ferry Building on Friday…

At the highest level, the draft plan centers on a seismically engineered, raised shoreline defense to manage 1½ to 3½ feet of sea-level rise, as well as potential flooding from extreme storms and tides, along the coastline stretching from the south end of Fisherman’s Wharf south to Heron’s Head Park. The City’s waterfront would remain where it is currently. The levels of protection vary by location.

Other San Francisco agencies are working to develop strategies to address coastal flood risk outside of the Port’s jurisdiction.…(more)

By J.K. Dineen : sfchronicle – excerpt

For nearly two years, San Francisco officials have been pitching a plan to add thousands of new housing units by allowing taller apartment buildings on transit corridors: wide boulevards such as Geary, Irving and Judah, where streetcars and major bus lines ply busy shopping strips.

So when Lakeside residents saw the proposed rezoning map, they were baffled to discover that nearly half of their neighborhood — an enclave of narrow one-way streets and single-family homes with lemon trees and white picket fences across 19th Avenue from Stonestown Galleria — was targeted for eight-story buildings.

Resident Barb Debaun, who attended a recent community meeting on the proposal, said she was shocked when she looked at the plan’s fine print.

“We were blindsided,” she said. “It was presented as if it were a done deal. What they are planning would have a destructive impact on the quality of life in this neighborhood.”.

For the past two years, the Planning Department vision for upzoning transit corridors on the west side, and other neighborhoods, has been hashed out in commission meetings and at neighborhood presentations. But while revamping a city’s zoning mostly involves drawing lines on a map, the reality of those changes — how they might impact the look and feel of a neighborhood like Lakeside — is just starting to sink in…

“They just took a red pen and everything that touched 19th Avenue went from 28 to 85 feet,” said Katherine Petrin, an architectural historian and preservation planner who lives in Lakeside.

Supervisor Myrna Melgar, who represents Lakeside, said she was surprised that so many parcels in Lakeside were upzoned…(more)

Good reason to be careful who you elect to represent you in Sacramento. And become a lot more aware of who is fighting these battles and working on a ballot initiative to put zoning controls back in the hands of local government. That would be ourneighborhoodvoices.com

By Julie Johnson : sfchronicle – excerpt

The gray area above indicates the Coastal Commission jurisdiction along the San Franciscos Coast. (see 48hills article for more on this subject)

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), and San Francisco Supervisor Aaron Peskin, have dueling views of the need to protect the coastline amid development pressures.

Building housing is difficult virtually anywhere in California — but especially along the coast, where there can be an extra layer of permitting.

One of the Legislature’s strongest advocates for more home-building is trying to change that — and he’s starting with the coastline of San Francisco.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, introduced legislation this month that would chip away at the authority of the California Coastal Commission, the state agency charged with preserving public beach access and evaluating coastal development, over neighborhood areas along Ocean Beach. (See the recent allegations Wiener made at the Coastal Commission meeting that were denied by the Coastal Commissioners.)…

The Coastal Commission’s authority over San Francisco is already slim — very few homes actually fall into the coastal zone, which is mostly beach, bluffs and cliffs…

Senate Bill 951 would narrow the coastal commission’s domain by removing privately owned urban parcels along the city’s western edge from commission oversight. These parcels make up only about 5% of the coastal zone in San Francisco.

The Commission’s 12 members are charged with regulating the use of land in the coastal zone, which typically runs about 1,000 yards inland from California’s shoreline. That means the commission in some cases has final say over coastal developments. The commission has existed since the 1970s, after being created via ballot initiative and enshrined by subsequent legislation called the California Coastal Act.

Peskin and coastal advocates said they worry SB 951 is an opening salvo in a bigger battle over how much to continue protecting California’s coast amid the state’s frantic push for new housing.

See a sample letter to support Peskin’s Resolution to oppose Wiener’s SB 951: Download and edit this sample letter

“Once you do it in San Francisco they’ll be able to do it in San Diego and Crescent City, and it’s the beginning of the end of the model law that’s worked for California that’s the envy of the nation,” Peskin said …(more)

Interesting to note that when it suits him, Senator Wiener promotes the rights of local jurisdictions to override a state Commission. Does he feel that way about the CPUC that reset the state unity rates? If so let’s hear him say that. Of course the real reason Wiener wants to give the cities jurisdiction is because he already gave the state legislature the right to override local cities and counties. What is is doing is giving himself the right to dictate what happened to the California Coast. He appears to want to hand it over to the developers as he will do with every inch of state land that he can get away with.

The only solution to stopping Wiener is to vote him out of office, which we may do this year if he continues to drive people into a corner. First he wants to force density where is it not wanted. Then, he wants to remove cars and parking. Now he wants to install a new tracking system on our private cars and set up a surveillance system to track our every move SB961. Why does he want to turn ordinary citizens into criminals while not supporting bills like SB44 to relax some of the laws that prevent prosecuting serious offenders who are turning our streets into nightmares? Since we know the senator does not support his constituents, who is he working for? Who wants to turn our pristine Pacific coastline into Miami Beach West?

For a better understanding of how Senator Wiener is using his voice to undermine anyone who gets in his way, watch him in action at the Coastal Commission Meeting where he accused the Commissioners of taking actions they denied. (Link to article covering the meeting)

Report By State Liaison Eileen Boken, (SPEAK) with comments by Mari Eliza

Link to CAL-SPAN Video of California Coastal Commission Meeting Dec. 14, 2023 Agenda Item #5 document : Informational Briefing on Housing (no vote)

Link to recording : https://cal-span.org/meeting/ccc_20231214/

Bochco is the outgoing Chair of the Coastal Commission who resigned from the Coastal Commission effective this month. This is her last meeting.. Hart is the incoming Chair of the Coastal Commission. Commissioner Katie Rice represents the North Central Coast District which includes San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma and San Mateo counties.

Wiener was the first to call in during Public comments (around 2:54:50 on the tape) after the Key Takeaways presentation. His blamed the Coastal Commission for slowing the pace of building on the coast. He accused them of taking 9 years to process one of the sites in their jurisdiction. His manner was rude and his claims were refuted in a calm and casual manner by commissioners when they responded after public comments. They claimed other parties held up the project for 9 years before they received the application they needed to review and process and that once they had it they turned it around in 5 months. Scott’s bullying manner did not appear to phase them but he looked like a bully.

Commissioners Bochco, Brownsey and Hart mentioned Wiener. Commission Vice Chair Escalante didn’t mention him, but she did request friends in the Bay Area join in a discussion with SoCal. Commissioner Rice, who represents San Francisco,did not mention Wiener but referred to Bayview / Hunters Point as being in harm’s way.

by Michael Barba :sfstandard – excerpt

The allegations of financial mismanagement piling up against a San Francisco nonprofit that enjoys millions in taxpayer funding are nothing new for the charity’s freshly ousted executive director. Her tenure began on the heels of controversy.

Before getting hired to lead San Francisco SAFE six years ago, Kyra Worthy was the executive director of For Richmond, a now-defunct East Bay nonprofit that contracted with the West Contra Costa Unified School District to run educational programs for Black students.

What happened next raises questions about how effectively public entities monitor the nonprofits they fund and whether they have a responsibility to vet their leaders…

For Richmond failed to complete many services and, in some instances, did not perform them at all, despite receiving payment for such services from the district,” an associate superintendent for the district wrote in the letter to Worthy, which was obtained by The Standard.

It was only months later that Worthy landed her job in January 2018 as the executive director of SF SAFE, a longtime nonprofit partner of the San Francisco Police Department, which played a role in her hiring process, according to the president of the nonprofit’s board…

But all that power was suddenly stripped away in a matter of days this week, when allegations of financial mismanagement at SF SAFE burst into public view and ultimately toppled Worthy.

First, a report by the Controller’s Office concluded that SF SAFE had improperly billed SFPD for luxury gift boxes, valet parking at an exclusive club and limo rides on a trip to Lake Tahoe. Then, vendors who did business with the nonprofit came forward with allegations that SF SAFE stiffed them on at least $1.2 million worth of bills. Finally, an internal investigation inside the nonprofit discovered depleted bank accounts—and indications of possible check forgery...(more)

This leads one to question what the HT department is doing for the 9 months it takes them to fulfill a new hire. We know what they do not do. They do not appear to take much time looking at the past positions of the applicants. And they don’t look at the staff of the non-profits they contract with.

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

Plus: Yimby leader calls for rents to go higher. That’s The Agenda for Jan. 22-28.

The Board of Supes will hear an appeal Tuesday/23 of an issue involving a modest historic building on Sacramento Street that could raise much larger issues about the future of environmental review, not just in this city but in the state of California.

In essence, a developer and the City Planning Department are arguing that any project that falls under the Housing Element—that is, all future residential development in the city—is exempt from all review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

That, city planners say, is because the city already did an Environmental Impact Report on the latest Housing Element, a plan that happens to be based largely on fantasy.

Richard Drury, the lawyer for the appellant, notes in his letter that: “If the [Planning Department] approach is condoned, then arguably, CEQA review will never be required for any residential project in the City ever again.”

That may be what the Yimbys want, but it’s still a pretty radical change, particularly since the Housing Element EIR, which you can download here, specifically states that it’s a “programmatic EIR,” not a project-specific EIR, and that individual projects that might have a significant impact on the environment beyond what was analyzed in the program EIR would still need further CEQA review.

From the appeal letter: What the [Environmental Review Officer] fails to mention is that the Housing Element EIR did not analyze this Project at all. It analyzed the Housing Element that applies to the entire City of San Francisco. The analysis was at a very general programmatic level, analyzing the impacts of adding 50,000 new residents to the City. The Housing Element EIR specifically stated that it was not conducting any project-level CEQA analysis and that further CEQA analysis would be required for specific projects when they are proposed…

This one is weird: I thought the main Yimby argument was that more housing, including more market-rate housing, will eventually bring down rents. That’s the central reason that the state is mandating so much new housing—because a housing shortage, which can best be solved by the private sector, drives costs up for everyone…

From a number of sources including a video link on X and on 48hills:

On Jan. 18, 2024 at the Planning Commission Meeting, Corey Smith, executive director of the Housing Action Coalition, told the commissioners that “we need the rent to go back up” if new housing is going to be built. “I know that’s counter-intuitive and insane to say out loud, but it’s the truth,” he testified…(more) Stay tuned. It’s going to be a rocky ride.