News

Posted on

The urgency of vaccines for people with disabilities

by Howard Chabner,  48hills – excerpt – download the letter

January 24, 2021

Dear Mayor Breed, Board President Walton and Supervisors:

First, credit where credit is due.Mayor Breed, you and the SF Department of Public Health have made some smart, prudent decisions about lockdowns, and about closing and reopening businesses, functions and activities.You’ve implemented a strong mask policy.These actions have saved lives and reduced serious illness.San Francisco’s Covid 19 death rate is low for a city of its size. Thank you.

I’m writing, unfortunately, about something not so good. Unconscionable, in fact.

San Francisco’s COVID vaccination policy prioritizes healthy, able-bodied people 65 and older over high-risk individuals below age 65, including individuals below 65 with major disabilities and health conditions. This policy is based on guidance from the State of California and the CDC.

This policy means that people younger than 65 with muscular dystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, Down syndrome, primary progressive multiple sclerosis, other autoimmune diseases, Huntington disease, Parkinson’s disease, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, Gaucher disease, and others at high risk of contracting COVID and at high risk of severe illness or death if they do contract it, will have to wait longer — and depending upon vaccine supply, often far longer — to be vaccinated than healthy, able-bodied people 65 and older who have no significant medical conditions.

The policy also does not take caregivers into account, which is wrong both for the caregivers themselves and for individuals who rely on them…

San Francisco must immediately change its policy to very highly prioritize:

  • People of any age with specified chronic medical conditions, including but not limited to ALS, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Huntington disease, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, and Down syndrome. People of any age with other specified chronic medical conditions should be placed in this category if they can demonstrate by compelling medical evidence that they are at great risk of severe health consequences, including death, if they contract the virus.
  • Disabled people of any age who rely on caregivers coming to their home for assistance with activities of daily living.
  • Caregivers of any age, regardless of whether they are from government agencies or programs, private agencies, hired directly by disabled clients, or are family members of the individual for whom they are caring…

Howard Chabner, is a disability rights activist and retired lawyer…(more)

download the letter. Supportive comments are appreciated on the source site.

Posted on

Environmental turnaround — 8 issues that will pivot in California’s favor under Biden

By Kurtis Alexander : sfchronicle – excerpt

As wildfires, heat waves, water scarcity and threats to wildlife intensify in the West, California’s effort to confront these environmental crises now has support in Washington, a stark change from the past four years.

Even as former President Donald Trump spent his final days in office on the sidelines, lamenting his election loss, his administration continued to roll back environmental conservation and gut climate regulations…

The following are eight changes the new president has begun to initiate — or is expected to soon — that are likely to strengthen California’s environmental protections and climate programs…

Reduce pumping in the delta: Last week Biden directed federal agencies to review a list of policies that includes pumping operations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the hub of California’s water supply and an estuary that’s struggling with too little water…(more)

This has been a huge concern for many as the governor has considered building a new single tunnel to suck more water out of the delta. Perhaps that plan can be shelved after all.

Posted on

SB 9 Would Allow 8 Units on All Single-Family Lots in California: SB 9 Fact Sheet

By Nick Waranoff : livablecalifornia

SB 9 would allow 8 units where there is now one parcel (one lot). A city, however, would not be required to approve more than 6 units.  Here is how this would happen.

1. SB 9 would add Govt Code section 65852.21 (allowing 2 units on a single parcel in a single family residential zone [the so-called “duplex” provision but in reality a “two separate houses on one parcel” provision]) and Govt Code 66411.7 (the lot split provision). 

a.)  The two separate houses on one parcel provision authorizes two separate houses on a single parcel in a single-family residential zone.

b.)  The lot split provision authorizes a single lot to be split into two lots of equal size.

c.)  An application to do either or both of these is processed ministerially, by right.

d.)  There is no requirement for affordable housing and no CEQA review.

2. Under existing law, there is a right to one Accessory Dwelling Unit and one Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit per parcel (Govt Code 65852.2).

a.)  An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) can be attached, or detached from an existing home, or a conversion of an existing space such as a garage. A local agency is prohibited from establishing a maximum size of an ADU of less than 850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet if the ADU contains more than one bedroom. When ADUs are created through the conversion of a garage, carport or covered parking structure, replacement off-street parking spaces cannot be required by the local agency (Gov. Code 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(D)(xi)).

b.)  A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) is allowed to be created within the walls of a proposed or existing single-family residence or garage and shall contain no more than 500 square feet.

c.)  A local agency can limit the places within its jurisdiction where ADUs can be located, only be based on the adequacy of water and sewer service, and the impacts on traffic flow and public safety, if the agency chooses to pass an ordinance.

d.)  “Although cities and counties are mandated to permit ADUs and JADUs, they are not required to adopt ADU and JADU ordinances. However, any city/county that does adopt an ADU ordinance, must submit the ordinance to HCD within 60 days.”

e.) There is no requirement that an ADU or a JADU be limited to any category of affordable housing.

f.)  Here is link to the HCD website. https://hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/accessorydwellingunits.shtml

g.) Here is a link to the HCD Handbook. https://hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/adu-ta-handbook-final.pdf

3. Under SB 9, there are three scenarios that illustrate how many units could be built on one existing parcel:

a.) Scenario One:  The “two free-standing houses” provision of SB 9 (sometimes mistakenly called the “duplex” provision, even though not limited to “duplexes”) is invoked but not the lot split provision: One parcel now has two free-standing houses. An ADU and a JADU are allowed as of right on the parcel. Total of 4 units: two free-standing houses plus an ADU and a JADU on the single parcel.

b.) Scenario Two:  The lot split provision of SB 9 is invoked but not the “two free-standing houses” provision: one parcel becomes two. Each parcel can have a free-standing house plus an ADU and a JADU. Three housing units on each parcel for a total of 6 units.

c.) Scenario Three:  Both the lot split provision and the two free-standing houses provision are invoked. Two parcels. Each parcel has two houses, PLUS each parcel is entitled to an ADU and a JADU. Four housing units per parcel, for a total of 8 units.

Note re Scenario Three: Under SB 9, a city is not required to approve an ADU or a JADU where BOTH the lot split provision and two free-standing houses provision are invoked, so a city could limit this scenario to four housing units on what was formerly one parcel. See proposed section 65852.21(e), part of the “two free-standing houses” provision, that would provide, “Notwithstanding Section 65852.2 [the existing ADU law referenced above], a local agency shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within this section [the two free-standing houses section] and the authority contained in Section 66411.7 [the lot split section]” and proposed section 66411.7(h), part of the proposed lot split section, that would provide “Notwithstanding Section 65852.2 [the existing ADU law], a local agency shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within this section and the authority contained in Section 65852.21 [the two free-standing houses section].

Posted on

‘No Slums In The Sunset’: Backlash over affordable housing development intensifies in western S.F. neighborhood

By J. K. Dineen : sfchronicle – excerpt

In early January, anonymous attack posters were slipped into mailboxes and left on doorsteps in San Francisco’s Sunset District.

The poster read, “No Slums In The Sunset.” It informed residents that a “7-story, 100-unit high-rise slum” was planned for the neighborhood and predicted that within two years the property in question — at 26th Avenue and Irving Street — would “become the best place in San Francisco to buy heroin.”…

…A Mid-Sunset Neighborhood Association survey of 133 immediate neighbors found that 82% opposed the project, 15.7% supported it with modifications and just 2.1% supported it outright. About 80% said they were concerned about crime and safety, 70% about property devaluation, and 81% about lack of infrastructure, especially parking. Nearby public transit in that part of the Sunset consists of the Muni Metro N-Judah light rail, one of the system’s busiest lines, and the 29-Sunset bus line.
Opponents say a seven-story building would be out of scale with neighboring structures, which are mostly single-family homes. Several neighbors said they would welcome a three- or four-story building with 50 units and sufficient parking but not a 90- or 100-unit complex with only 11 parking spots. They say it would cast shadows on backyards, overcrowd Muni, and take street parking away from merchants and their customers…
It’s not the nature of the people who would live there we are against, it’s the nature of the building.”…(more)
This looks like too much too soon. A gradual approach to change might be the best solution. Also consider building more larger family style units instead of small crowded units. Someone needs to look into the actual density of people in the family units compared to the density of the microunits. 3 kitchen and bathrooms instead of a shared kitchen and 1.5 baths should cost less to build as the plumbing is the most expensive part of the job. Less bathrooms in a larger, more flexible living space may be a better fit for humans and cost less to produce.
Posted on

Advocates propose model for community-based response to homelessness

By Ida Mojadad : sfexaminer – excerpt

Plan to divert calls from police could save as much as $11 million, group argues

Community advocates unveiled a plan Tuesday that they say would reduce police responses to homelessness and save millions annually — if it is fully funded.

Under the Compassionate Alternative Response Team proposal, or CART, calls related to homelessness and behavioral health would be rerouted from police and first responders to a new hotline with a 24/7 staff of social workers behind it. It would be implemented by a non-government organization and staffed with people who have experienced homelessness themselves.

Presented by a coalition of community groups, Police Commission members and city departments on Tuesday, the plan recommends CART staff to respond to calls with dispatch codes regarding a mentally disturbed person, well-being check, select sit/lie violations, trespassing, aggressive panhandling and suspicious people…(more)

Posted on

Renderings Revealed for 321 Florida Street, Mission District, San Francisco

New building permits have been filed for a nine-story mixed-use building at 321 Florida Street in the Mission District, San Francisco. Led by DM Development, the project will replace surface parking with 168 new apartments and ground-floor retail. 31 affordable units will be included thanks to the State Density Bonus program, first passed in 1979, with several amendments since. Construction is expected to cost $42 million, with DM Development in charge of the project…(more)

There were 7 stories, and then there were 9. Thanks to our Sacramento politicians for pushing the envelope every higher. We had a 7 story project that would have been a much better fit for the neighborhood, without imposing a nasty shadow over the block and the nearby park, but, now we have a proposal for another ugly tower that will impose a shadow over the entire block, including an existing solar power system.

Allowing this project to proceed is an affront to all independent solar power owners who may face similar threats if this matter is not addressed. The government has invested tax payer dollars, set up tax incentive programs and encouraged people to invest in alternative energy systems in an effort to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Now is the time to protect our investments, and our right to continue relying on the sun.

 

Posted on

Climate Change Is Turning Cities Into Ovens

By Matt Simon : wired – excerpt

A new model estimates that by 2100, cities across the world could warm as much as 4.4 degrees Celsius. It’s a deadly consequence of the heat-island effect.

Whichever side of the subjective city-versus-rural debate you’re on, the objective laws of thermodynamics dictate that cities lose on at least one front: They tend to get insufferably hotter, more so than surrounding rural areas. That’s thanks to the urban heat-island effect, in which buildings and roads readily absorb the sun’s energy and release it well into the night. The greenery of rural areas, by contrast, provides shade and cools the air by releasing water…

Climate change is making the urban heat-island effect all the more dire in cities across the world, and it’s only going to get worse. Like, way worse. An international team of researchers has used a new modeling technique to estimate that by the year 2100, the world’s cities could warm by as much as 4.4 degrees Celsius on average. For perspective, that figure obliterates the Paris agreement’s optimistic goal for a global average temperature rise of 1.5 degrees C from preindustrial levels. In fact, the team’s figure more than doubles the agreement’s hard goal of limiting that global rise to no more than 2 degrees C…(more)

If we needed another excuse to add to the long list of reasons to slow urban growth this may be the most viable yet. We need to preserve all the green plants on the planet, not just the jungles in South America.

Posted on

California First Appellate District Court of Appeal publishes its opinion in LC/CVP v ABAG

Posted by Bob Silvestri : marinpost – excerpt

On January 6, 2021, the First Appellate District Court of Appeal issued an Order Granting Publication of its opinion in the case of New LivableCA/Community Venture Partners v ABAG, stating that

“For good cause, the request for publication is granted. Pursuant to rule 8.1105(c) of the California Rules of Court, the opinion in the above-entitled matter is ordered certified for publication in the Official Reports.”

That means the opinion of the Court of Appeal is now case law. This opinion will have broad applicability and impacts throughout the state’s legal system. To put it plainly, this is a very big deal.

The significance of this reversal of the decision by the San Francisco Superior Court, to dismiss this case, and its publication cannot be over-stated. The Appeal Court’s opinion has now become case law and as such is the law of the land in California that will impact future Brown Act petitioners for years to come.

To read the appellate court’s opinion CLICK HERE…(more)

 

Posted on

The safety of Treasure Island residents must be addressed

By Guest Columnist  : sfexaminer – excerpt

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news-columnists/the-safety-of-treasure-island-residents-must-be-addressed/

“… It’s not surprising residents struggle to trust the Navy, which is why Supervisor Matt Haney called the hearing. After years of inaction, Treasure Island residents deserve transparency and accountability. They also could use a groundswell of action from San Franciscans who care about environmental justice and systemic racism…

“The health situation is pretty bad,” Carol Harvey, an investigative reporter who covers Treasure Island for the San Francisco Bay View National Black newspaper, told me.

At the upcoming hearing, Harvey plans to anonymously list residents’ health issues. She has photos of people’s painful skin rashes, pustules and lesions. She has reports of above average rates of miscarriages, stillbirths and birth defects. Cancers and strokes are common. Bones break — an indication of radiation exposure. Family dogs have seizures.

robynpurchia.com…(more)