Neighbors, activists vent about planned development at 16th, Mission streets

By J. K. Dineen : sfchronicle – excerpt (includes video)

Opponents of the proposed development at 16th and Mission streets delivered a blistering message to the San Francisco Planning Commission on Thursday night at Mission High School. Speaker after speaker ripped the project as a luxury complex that would worsen the displacement and gentrification that have become as synonymous with the neighborhood as burritos and murals… (more)

Planning Commissioners will continue to review the two alternatives. Maximus has threatened to bring the project to the voters if they do not get their plan approved.

 

Advertisements

Do displaced tenants from deadly 22nd and Mission fire have a right to return?

By Laura Wenus and Julian Mark: missionlocal – excerpt

The Department of Building Inspection stated in October that a portion of the burned building is intact — but now it’s keeping silent

More than three years after a lethal fire ripped through 2588 Mission Street, killing a man and displacing more than 50 tenants, no city department can definitively answer whether residents will ever be allowed back in their homes

This is a really messy case,” he said. “Most likely this will be determined in Superior Court’s jurisdiction.”

Ronen, meanwhile, is determined to stick up for the displaced tenants. In a statement, she said she’s asked Lou to sell the building to the city for affordable housing, “but he just won’t budge.”… (more)

Clipper Cove marina boondoggle is back

By Hunter Cutting : sfexaminer – excerpt

Over the holiday break the Mayor’s Office quietly submitted to the Board of Supervisors a proposed 66-year lease to build a controversial private luxury marina in Clipper Cove at Treasure Island. Currently the Cove hosts the sailing programs of the non-profit Treasure Island Sailing Center that put thousands onto the Bay each year, including over 1,500 4 th graders from San Francisco public schools.

Disturbingly, the Mayor’s proposal disregards a stakeholder agreement and Board resolution approved last year that established a set of development guidelines to protect both the public interest and the pocketbooks of City taxpayers…

Under the proposed lease, the developers will not be held responsible if their project causes the rest of the Cove to fill in – as has occurred elsewhere around the Bay after construction of other marina projects…

New sedimentation also threatens to smother the protected sea grass beds on the south side of the Cove. In an inexplicable twist, City staff recommend that the Supervisors approve the 66-year lease now before the threat is evaluated, arguing that the analysis will be done later.

All of these issues were addressed by the Board resolution approved last year. So, it is surprising that the developers are now trying to work their way around the Board’s direction… (more)

This will be a big test for the new Board of Supervisors’ ability to stand up for their constituents in a show of unity.

RELATED: Proposed Treasure Island marina faces hurdles

 

Lawsuit filed challenging San Francisco’s new Central SoMa zoning plan

A nonprofit housing group has filed the first of what is expected to be several lawsuits challenging the rezoning of San Francisco’s Central South of Market area, suits that could significantly delay the development of more than 6 million square feet of office space and thousands of housing units.

In the lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court on Monday, the Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium, the legal arm of the affordable housing group Todco, argues that the plan’s environmental study was inadequate because it didn’t take into account the impact the neighborhood changes would have on public services such as police, fire and recreation…

The deadline for filing a legal challenge to the plan’s environmental study is Thursday, and as many as three other lawsuits could be coming…

Even if there were no lawsuits, the realities of the time required for approvals and permitting in San Francisco means it’s unlikely that any construction would start before 2020. Elberling added that delays beyond that could be avoided if the city agrees to community demands.

“It’s up to the city. If the city wanted to work with us and address the problems, it would be finished this year,” he said. “If we resolve the problems this year, we could drop our lawsuit.”… (more)

Thousands of SF properties could come with flood risk warning for buyers, renters

By Joshua Sabatini : sfexaminer – excerpt

After a deluge of costly settlements with the owners of properties damaged by flooding, San Francisco is employing new strategies to curb impacts of the heavy rains — among them, a proposed “buyer-beware” requirement for property buyers.

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission earlier this month approved a resolution calling on the Board of Supervisors to require sellers and landlords of properties prone to flooding due to rainfall and related stormwater runoff to disclose the risks in writing to prospective buyers or renters.

The proposal is only for those 2,100 properties, or 1 percent of parcels citywide, located in the agency’s new 100-year storm flood risk map. About half are residential properties and the others commercial, industrial or public parcels… (more)

 

SF residential projects languish as rising costs force developers to cash out

: sfchronicle – excerpt

Just 3 miles separate 2675 Folsom St., a vacant former restaurant equipment warehouse in the Mission District, and 160 Folsom St., a former parking lot near the Transbay Transit Center where a condo tower is under construction.

But in the current economic landscape of the San Francisco’s housing development, the two properties are a world apart.

While the next crop of luxury condo towers like 160 Folsom, which developer Tishman Speyer has branded as Mira, continue to rise in the fast-growing eastern end of South of Market, other approved housing projects across the city, like 2675 Folsom St., are stalled and on the market because of soaring construction costs and fees, developers and other industry sources say.

The growing number of developers seeking to cash out rather than risk losing money on building is fueling concerns that residential production will start to decline even as the Bay Area’s housing crisis worsens… (more)

Some of us have been predicting this for months. It is easier to solve the housing problem once you take the “build more” option off the table. Keep people in their homes by keeping homes affordable if you want to solve the housing problem. Repeal inflationary bills at the root of the income disparity problem. Repeal Prop 6 and Prop 10 in November.

Repealing Prop 6 should lower the cost of all consumables, including food.

Repealing Prop 10 will allow individual cities to deal with rent control issues on a local basis. The voters can enact the control they want in their district.

California Senate passes bill to build more housing at BART stations

By Kate Murphy : mercurynews – excerpt

SACRAMENTO — A state bill to replace surface parking lots with housing at East Bay and San Francisco BART stations passed the California Senate on Thursday, propelling the proposal one step closer to becoming law.

After a passionate debate on the Senate floor, the bill passed 26-13…

Championed by housing, transit and business interests but fought by some cities and others wary of losing local control over land-use decisions, Assembly Bill 2923 would force cities and counties to zone BART property in accordance with an ambitious policy the transit agency adopted in 2016. That policy calls for 20,000 new apartments and town homes — 35 percent of them to be rented at below market rate, system-wide — by 2040.

Perhaps more significantly, the bill would also fast-track the approvals of such developments, a process that has been known to take decades… (more)

REGIONAL POWER: This is an example of state elected officials handing power to non-elected regional officials to override the constitutional authority of elected city and county representatives. This is the picture of the new REGIONAL GOVERNMENT being developed to avoid public scrutiny and review of changes in our communities.

So far as we know, this power is only being use to usurp local zoning and development decisions, however, since much of these decisions were the purview of environmental review and studies, this does not bode well for the environment at a time of great concern over the supply and quality of our water and other essential elements needed to expand these communities. Who is protecting us now?

Will the voters fight back in court and will they reward the elected officials who cut their power by re-electing them to office, or will they start recall proceedings in protest against those elected representatives? If San Francisco Bay Area can pass local regional control laws, so can other other regional groups.