Annie Gaus

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday to make Shared Spaces, a program that allows businesses to set up outdoor dining and other services, a permanent fixture of the city.&nbsp;

core/paragraph

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday to make Shared Spaces, a program that allows businesses to set up outdoor dining and other services, a permanent fixture of the city.&nbsp;

The version approved by Supervisors on Tuesday reflects a compromise between an initial plan introduced several months ago by Mayor London Breed and various constituencies who raised concerns around disability and public access to city streets and sidewalks.&nbsp;

The version approved by Supervisors on Tuesday reflects a compromise between an initial plan introduced several months ago by Mayor London Breed and various constituencies who raised concerns around disability and public access to city streets and sidewalks.&nbsp;

“Great compromise, and appreciate the unanimous support,” said Sharky Laguana, head of the city’s Small Business Commission. “This is government doing great work and opens up an exciting new chapter for San Francisco.”&nbsp;

“Great compromise, and appreciate the unanimous support,” said Sharky Laguana, head of the city’s Small Business Commission. “This is government doing great work and opens up an exciting new chapter for San Francisco.”&nbsp;

The legislation makes the Shared Spaces program—which was established as an emergency measure during the pandemic—permanent, with permit applications and approvals jointly managed by the Planning Department, Department of Public Works, Municipal Transportation Agency, Fire Department and Entertainment Commission. Among other provisions, the program mandates the creation of a “one-stop” application portal and sets permit fees depending on the size and type of space.

The legislation makes the Shared Spaces program—which was established as an emergency measure during the pandemic—permanent, with permit applications and approvals jointly managed by the Planning Department, Department of Public Works, Municipal Transportation Agency, Fire Department and Entertainment Commission. Among other provisions, the program mandates the creation of a “one-stop” application portal and sets permit fees depending on the size and type of space.

Policymakers disagreed on the finer points of the legislation, however.&nbsp;

Policymakers disagreed on the finer points of the legislation, however.&nbsp;

In May, members of the Board’s Land Use and Transportation Committee <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2021/05/25/supervisors-punt-votes-shared-spaces-small-business-recovery/">voiced concerns</a> over its potential impact on seniors and people with disabilities, and posited that the public should have a right to use the privately maintained Shared Spaces during off-hours. Supervisor Aaron Peskin also questioned whether the Planning Department was the appropriate point of contact for the program.

Supervisors punt votes on permanent Shared Spaces, small business recovery

In May, members of the Board’s Land Use and Transportation Committee <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2021/05/25/supervisors-punt-votes-shared-spaces-small-business-recovery/">voiced concerns</a> over its potential impact on seniors and people with disabilities, and posited that the public should have a right to use the privately maintained Shared Spaces during off-hours. Supervisor Aaron Peskin also questioned whether the Planning Department was the appropriate point of contact for the program.

On Tuesday, Supervisors further debated whether Shared Spaces must be accessible to the public at all hours, with business owners prohibited from locking the structures overnight and held responsible for maintaining cleanliness except in cases of hazardous waste.&nbsp;

On Tuesday, Supervisors further debated whether Shared Spaces must be accessible to the public at all hours, with business owners prohibited from locking the structures overnight and held responsible for maintaining cleanliness except in cases of hazardous waste.&nbsp;

Many restaurant and bar owners objected to those terms, with some reporting issues like damage, trash, excrement and hypodermic needles in Shared Spaces left unsecured overnight. Some Supervisors also raised concerns about noise off-hours for residents who live above or nearby Shared Spaces.&nbsp;

Many restaurant and bar owners objected to those terms, with some reporting issues like damage, trash, excrement and hypodermic needles in Shared Spaces left unsecured overnight. Some Supervisors also raised concerns about noise off-hours for residents who live above or nearby Shared Spaces.&nbsp;

“There are particular areas where, if they were required to keep it open, it would create significant challenges with behavior that is disruptive, destructive or even dangerous,” said Supervisor Matt Haney, who represents District 6. “I’m concerned about being so sweeping and one-size-fits-all.”

“There are particular areas where, if they were required to keep it open, it would create significant challenges with behavior that is disruptive, destructive or even dangerous,” said Supervisor Matt Haney, who represents District 6. “I’m concerned about being so sweeping and one-size-fits-all.”

Ultimately, Supervisor Ahsha Safai introduced two amendments to the Shared Spaces legislation: One to allow businesses to lock their Shared Spaces overnight if they so choose, and another to designate Planning as the lead department for the program.

Ultimately, Supervisor Ahsha Safai introduced two amendments to the Shared Spaces legislation: One to allow businesses to lock their Shared Spaces overnight if they so choose, and another to designate Planning as the lead department for the program.

The motions passed 6-5 and 7-4, respectively, and the amended version passed unanimously. The version approved on Tuesday requires Shared Space operators to maintain a bench or other public seating, but gives them the option of locking their spaces between the hours of midnight and 7 a.m.&nbsp;

The motions passed 6-5 and 7-4, respectively, and the amended version passed unanimously. The version approved on Tuesday requires Shared Space operators to maintain a bench or other public seating, but gives them the option of locking their spaces between the hours of midnight and 7 a.m.&nbsp;

It’s likely that the Shared Spaces ordinance will undergo further revisions over time, said Laguana, who called it a sea change in how land is used in San Francisco.&nbsp;

It’s likely that the Shared Spaces ordinance will undergo further revisions over time, said Laguana, who called it a sea change in how land is used in San Francisco.&nbsp;

“I think we’ll be futzing with this for years to come,” Laguana said.&nbsp;

“I think we’ll be futzing with this for years to come,” Laguana said.&nbsp;

Restaurateurs, bar owners and other small proprietors have urged the city to codify the Shared Spaces program for months, with some reporting heavy debts from the pandemic and a need for clarity on what structures they should invest in to gradually make up some of their lost revenue.&nbsp;

Restaurateurs, bar owners and other small proprietors have urged the city to codify the Shared Spaces program for months, with some reporting heavy debts from the pandemic and a need for clarity on what structures they should invest in to gradually make up some of their lost revenue.&nbsp;

In a <a href="https://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Economic%20Analysis/210284_economic%20impact_final.pdf">report</a>, the San Francisco Controller’s Office estimated that businesses with parklets—an earlier, much more limited outdoor dining program—grew their quarterly revenues by 29%, or $56,000 on average, compared to 10% revenue growth among similar businesses that did not install a parket. That suggests a benefit both to struggling businesses and to the broader city economy, according to the Controller.&nbsp;

In a <a href="https://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Economic%20Analysis/210284_economic%20impact_final.pdf">report</a>, the San Francisco Controller’s Office estimated that businesses with parklets—an earlier, much more limited outdoor dining program—grew their quarterly revenues by 29%, or $56,000 on average, compared to 10% revenue growth among similar businesses that did not install a parket. That suggests a benefit both to struggling businesses and to the broader city economy, according to the Controller.&nbsp;

To date, 2,481 businesses have applied for <a href="https://sfgov.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/b1e37820230a4017ae53d645a96c774b">Shared Spaces permits</a>, of which 1,900 have been approved.&nbsp;

To date, 2,481 businesses have applied for <a href="https://sfgov.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/b1e37820230a4017ae53d645a96c774b">Shared Spaces permits</a>, of which 1,900 have been approved.&nbsp;

Mayor Breed, who is slated to sign the legislation in the coming weeks, praised the vote in a statement on Tuesday.&nbsp;

Mayor Breed, who is slated to sign the legislation in the coming weeks, praised the vote in a statement on Tuesday.&nbsp;

“By taking the necessary steps to make Shared Spaces permanent, we are providing another lifeline for local businesses to thrive and creating a clear path forward towards rebuilding our economy as San Francisco recovers from COVID-19,” said Breed.&nbsp;

“By taking the necessary steps to make Shared Spaces permanent, we are providing another lifeline for local businesses to thrive and creating a clear path forward towards rebuilding our economy as San Francisco recovers from COVID-19,” said Breed.&nbsp;

‘Shared Spaces’ for outdoor dining to be made permanent, with some tweaks

A Board of Supervisors vote on Tuesday that will at least temporarily block a 495-unit housing complex on a South of Market parking lot has become a flashpoint for long-simmering frustrations around the slow pace of housing development in San Francisco.&nbsp;

A Board of Supervisors vote on Tuesday that will at least temporarily block a 495-unit housing complex on a South of Market parking lot has become a flashpoint for long-simmering frustrations around the slow pace of housing development in San Francisco.&nbsp;

The proposed building at 469 Stevenson Street would include 24% affordable units and was approved by the city’s planning department in June. But after the decision was appealed by an affiliate of the Tenants and Owners Development Corporation (TODCO), a politically powerful affordable-housing operator, the Board of Supervisors rejected the developer’s environmental impact report, effectively delaying the project indefinitely.

The proposed building at 469 Stevenson Street would include 24% affordable units and was approved by the city’s planning department in June. But after the decision was appealed by an affiliate of the Tenants and Owners Development Corporation (TODCO), a politically powerful affordable-housing operator, the Board of Supervisors rejected the developer’s environmental impact report, effectively delaying the project indefinitely.

The reasons cited—including shadows over Mint Plaza and supposed earthquake risks—struck critics as cynical excuses.

The reasons cited—including shadows over Mint Plaza and supposed earthquake risks—struck critics as cynical excuses.

“If you&#8217;re wondering how we got into our housing crisis, this is how,” fumed Mayor London Breed on Twitter. “Supervisors raised vague concerns about gentrification and possible shadows to justify rejecting the analysis of the experts at the Planning [Department]. This was in a hearing over supposed environmental concerns. We&#8217;re talking about a parking lot in SoMa surrounded by high-rises.”

“If you're wondering how we got into our housing crisis, this is how,” fumed Mayor London Breed on Twitter. “Supervisors raised vague concerns about gentrification and possible shadows to justify rejecting the analysis of the experts at the Planning [Department]. This was in a hearing over supposed environmental concerns. We're talking about a parking lot in SoMa surrounded by high-rises.”

“If you&#8217;re wondering how we got into our housing crisis, this is how,” fumed Mayor London Breed on Twitter. “Supervisors raised vague concerns about gentrification and possible shadows to justify rejecting the analysis of the experts at the Planning [Department]. This was in a hearing over supposed environmental concerns. We&#8217;re talking about a parking lot in SoMa surrounded by high-rises.”

Only Supervisors Catherine Stefani, Ahsha Safai and Matt Haney—who represents District 6, the site of the proposal—voted to move the project ahead.&nbsp;

Only Supervisors Catherine Stefani, Ahsha Safai and Matt Haney—who represents District 6, the site of the proposal—voted to move the project ahead.&nbsp;

For many local politicians, housing advocates and<a href="https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/1453566474883256330"> business leaders</a>, the vote—and the hours-long discussion preceding it—encapsulated the systemic issues behind San Francisco’s housing crisis.

For many local politicians, housing advocates and<a href="https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/1453566474883256330"> business leaders</a>, the vote—and the hours-long discussion preceding it—encapsulated the systemic issues behind San Francisco’s housing crisis.

469 Stevenson Street parking lot street view in the Tenderloin District on October 28, 2021.

<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Stevenson-09.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-12994"/><figcaption>469 Stevenson Street, site of a proposed apartment building, in San Francisco&#8217;s South of Market district on October 28, 2021. | Photo by Camille Cohen</figcaption></figure>

core/image

<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Stevenson-09.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-12994"/><figcaption>469 Stevenson Street, site of a proposed apartment building, in San Francisco's South of Market district on October 28, 2021. | Photo by Camille Cohen</figcaption></figure>

<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Stevenson-09.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-12994"/><figcaption>469 Stevenson Street, site of a proposed apartment building, in San Francisco&#8217;s South of Market district on October 28, 2021. | Photo by Camille Cohen</figcaption></figure>

The developer behind the project is Build Inc., a group with several other mixed-use projects in the works in and around SOMA. The Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium, a TODCO affiliate, appealed Build Inc.’s environmental review to the full Board of Supervisors. The process which allows this kind of appeal on individual projects is itself seen by pro-development groups as a major impediment to more housing construction.

The developer behind the project is Build Inc., a group with several other mixed-use projects in the works in and around SOMA. The Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium, a TODCO affiliate, appealed Build Inc.’s environmental review to the full Board of Supervisors. The process which allows this kind of appeal on individual projects is itself seen by pro-development groups as a major impediment to more housing construction.

While the hearing was supposed to be about the environmental review, supervisors aired unrelated grievances such as concerns about high rents and gentrification. Supervisors Connie Chan and Dean Preston called the developer’s environmental study “biased” and voted to reject it. TODCO president John Elberling, in a telephone comment at the meeting, vented that a package of community benefits provided by the developer was weak.

While the hearing was supposed to be about the environmental review, supervisors aired unrelated grievances such as concerns about high rents and gentrification. Supervisors Connie Chan and Dean Preston called the developer’s environmental study “biased” and voted to reject it. TODCO president John Elberling, in a telephone comment at the meeting, vented that a package of community benefits provided by the developer was weak.

San Francisco stands apart from other California cities in how long it takes to get approvals for housing development: A study by two researchers at the University of California at Berkeley found that the median length of time to get the required entitlements was 26 months in San Francisco, the longest time frame of any city included in the analysis. By comparison, median time frames were 17 months in San Jose, 16 months in Santa Monica and 13 months in San Diego.&nbsp;

San Francisco stands apart from other California cities in how long it takes to get approvals for housing development: A study by two researchers at the University of California at Berkeley found that the median length of time to get the required entitlements was 26 months in San Francisco, the longest time frame of any city included in the analysis. By comparison, median time frames were 17 months in San Jose, 16 months in Santa Monica and 13 months in San Diego.&nbsp;

In San Francisco, rejections and appeals at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors afflict even smaller housing developments: Just weeks ago, the supervisors unanimously rejected a 316-unit development in the Tenderloin, earlier authorized by the Planning Department, over supposed concerns that it <a href="https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2021/10/06/city-rejects-micro-homes-project-in-tenderloin/">would become a “tech dorm” </a>instead of family housing. The project’s authorization had been appealed by Tenderloin Housing Clinic, a major operator of single-room-occupancy units in the area.&nbsp;

In San Francisco, rejections and appeals at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors afflict even smaller housing developments: Just weeks ago, the supervisors unanimously rejected a 316-unit development in the Tenderloin, earlier authorized by the Planning Department, over supposed concerns that it <a href="https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2021/10/06/city-rejects-micro-homes-project-in-tenderloin/">would become a “tech dorm” </a>instead of family housing. The project’s authorization had been appealed by Tenderloin Housing Clinic, a major operator of single-room-occupancy units in the area.&nbsp;

<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Screen-Shot-2021-10-28-at-1.00.19-PM.png" alt="" class="wp-image-12997"/><figcaption>A rendering of the proposed 495-unit apartment building in SOMA. | Image courtesy of Build Inc. </figcaption></figure>

For the Stevenson Street project, forcing the developer to conduct another environmental review—a legal requirement under the California Environmental Quality Act—could tack on a year or more to the project and, according to some housing advocates, and may violate state law.&nbsp;

For the Stevenson Street project, forcing the developer to conduct another environmental review—a legal requirement under the California Environmental Quality Act—could tack on a year or more to the project and, according to some housing advocates, and may violate state law.&nbsp;

State Sen. Scott Wiener, who’s particularly active on state housing issues, rebuked the Board of Supervisors’ determination as arbitrary and said it “probably” violated state accountability laws around new housing development.&nbsp;

State Sen. Scott Wiener, who’s particularly active on state housing issues, rebuked the Board of Supervisors’ determination as arbitrary and said it “probably” violated state accountability laws around new housing development.&nbsp;

Under the state’s <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB167">Housing Accountability Act</a> (HAA), projects that conform to a city’s existing zoning standards must be approved if they have no adverse health, safety or environmental impacts that can’t be mitigated. In the case of 469 Stevenson, Build Inc. had also taken advantage of a state density bonus that relaxes requirements for projects that meet a certain density threshold.&nbsp;

Under the state’s <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB167">Housing Accountability Act</a> (HAA), projects that conform to a city’s existing zoning standards must be approved if they have no adverse health, safety or environmental impacts that can’t be mitigated. In the case of 469 Stevenson, Build Inc. had also taken advantage of a state density bonus that relaxes requirements for projects that meet a certain density threshold.&nbsp;

In a letter, YIMBY Law, the legal arm of the pro-housing group Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY), argued that rejecting the project would amount to a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under HAA. Sonja Trauss, YIMBY executive director, wrote that the “city has not identified any health and safety impacts that cannot be mitigated” and thus cannot legally deny approval of the project.&nbsp;

In a letter, YIMBY Law, the legal arm of the pro-housing group Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY), argued that rejecting the project would amount to a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under HAA. Sonja Trauss, YIMBY executive director, wrote that the “city has not identified any health and safety impacts that cannot be mitigated” and thus cannot legally deny approval of the project.&nbsp;

Asked by Here/Say what its next steps are, Build Inc. declined to comment. YIMBY Law, which advocated in favor of the Stevenson project, said it was studying possible legal remedies in light of the Board of Supervisors’ Tuesday vote.&nbsp;

Asked by Here/Say what its next steps are, Build Inc. declined to comment. YIMBY Law, which advocated in favor of the Stevenson project, said it was studying possible legal remedies in light of the Board of Supervisors’ Tuesday vote.&nbsp;

Shortly after the vote on Tuesday, the group released <a href="https://twitter.com/Yimby_Law/status/1453223287090302983?s=20">an open letter</a> on Twitter outlining the legal argument for suing the city should it not comply. The group argues that denial of the project based on CEQA would in fact be a violation of CEQA under the Housing Accountability Act.&nbsp;

Shortly after the vote on Tuesday, the group released <a href="https://twitter.com/Yimby_Law/status/1453223287090302983?s=20">an open letter</a> on Twitter outlining the legal argument for suing the city should it not comply. The group argues that denial of the project based on CEQA would in fact be a violation of CEQA under the Housing Accountability Act.&nbsp;

The imbroglio over 469 Stevenson “reveals how much of a problem we have” in state housing laws, added Chris Elmendorf, a law professor at the University of California at Davis who specializes in housing policy.&nbsp;

The imbroglio over 469 Stevenson “reveals how much of a problem we have” in state housing laws, added Chris Elmendorf, a law professor at the University of California at Davis who specializes in housing policy.&nbsp;

“When a project is stuck in the CEQA eddy, there is no established way to get it out,” he said.&nbsp;

“When a project is stuck in the CEQA eddy, there is no established way to get it out,” he said.&nbsp;

It may take further revisions to California law or court challenges of housing delays to change the status quo in San Francisco.&nbsp;

It may take further revisions to California law or court challenges of housing delays to change the status quo in San Francisco.&nbsp;

“What anyone on the outside would say is: ‘This is absurd what the city did, and a court should order the project approved,'&#8221; Elmendorf said.&nbsp;&#8220;But that remedy is not one that courts traditionally give.”

“What anyone on the outside would say is: ‘This is absurd what the city did, and a court should order the project approved,'" Elmendorf said.&nbsp;"But that remedy is not one that courts traditionally give.”

“What anyone on the outside would say is: ‘This is absurd what the city did, and a court should order the project approved,'&#8221; Elmendorf said.&nbsp;&#8220;But that remedy is not one that courts traditionally give.”

Editing by Jonathan Weber.

Supervisors under fire: Vote against proposed SoMa apartment building sparks furor, may violate state law

In response to a planned reopening of the Great Highway to vehicle traffic, a number of residents are pushing back and issuing last-minute appeals to the city to stop or delay the change.&nbsp;

In response to a planned reopening of the Great Highway to vehicle traffic, a number of residents are pushing back and issuing last-minute appeals to the city to stop or delay the change.&nbsp;

Last week, Mayor London Breed and Supervisor Gordon Mar <a href="https://twitter.com/HereSayMedia/status/1423429560910057480?s=20">announced</a> that a two-mile stretch of the Great Highway, which has been <a href="https://sfstandard.com/great-highway-closure-climate-change-erosion/">closed to cars</a> since April 2020, will reopen to vehicle traffic on weekdays starting Aug. 16. The plan was characterized by Mar as a “meaningful compromise” between residents who disagreed over whether the Great Highway should remain a pedestrian promenade permanently.&nbsp;

Last week, Mayor London Breed and Supervisor Gordon Mar <a href="https://twitter.com/HereSayMedia/status/1423429560910057480?s=20">announced</a> that a two-mile stretch of the Great Highway, which has been <a href="https://sfstandard.com/great-highway-closure-climate-change-erosion/">closed to cars</a> since April 2020, will reopen to vehicle traffic on weekdays starting Aug. 16. The plan was characterized by Mar as a “meaningful compromise” between residents who disagreed over whether the Great Highway should remain a pedestrian promenade permanently.&nbsp;

“The timeline here has been very short—the mayor announced on Thursday, Aug. 5 that the&nbsp; Great Highway was going to turn from a park into a driving place on Aug. 16,” said Brian Coyne, a resident who supports a permanent closure of the Great Highway. “Anyone who follows city projects knows that’s not the usual timeline city projects fall into.”&nbsp;

“The timeline here has been very short—the mayor announced on Thursday, Aug. 5 that the&nbsp; Great Highway was going to turn from a park into a driving place on Aug. 16,” said Brian Coyne, a resident who supports a permanent closure of the Great Highway. “Anyone who follows city projects knows that’s not the usual timeline city projects fall into.”&nbsp;

On Tuesday, Coyne and a fellow advocate, Scott Feeney, filed a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) appeal with the Board of Supervisors, asking for the change to be delayed until the appeal is reviewed.&nbsp;

On Tuesday, Coyne and a fellow advocate, Scott Feeney, filed a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) appeal with the Board of Supervisors, asking for the change to be delayed until the appeal is reviewed.&nbsp;

In a letter, Coyne and Feeney asserted that the reopening of the Great Highway to cars constitutes a “project” and is thus <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MavJzOOx4F8L_ZZNWnxHC7iEj9hspE-yt6onFJLjFUE/edit">eligible for CEQA review</a>. The two delivered the appeal in person at City Hall on Tuesday in the hopes that it can be reviewed quickly.&nbsp;

In a letter, Coyne and Feeney asserted that the reopening of the Great Highway to cars constitutes a “project” and is thus <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MavJzOOx4F8L_ZZNWnxHC7iEj9hspE-yt6onFJLjFUE/edit">eligible for CEQA review</a>. The two delivered the appeal in person at City Hall on Tuesday in the hopes that it can be reviewed quickly.&nbsp;

CEQA, a California state law enacted in 1970, sets forth an environmental oversight process for development: With some exceptions, developers must submit to an environmental review of their projects, and remediate any impacts where appropriate. Third parties are also permitted to appeal CEQA exemptions, though most CEQA appeals don’t wind up approved. According to records provided by the Planning Department, there were 22 CEQA appeals filed in 2020; of those, 19 were either denied or withdrawn, and only one appeal was upheld.

CEQA, a California state law enacted in 1970, sets forth an environmental oversight process for development: With some exceptions, developers must submit to an environmental review of their projects, and remediate any impacts where appropriate. Third parties are also permitted to appeal CEQA exemptions, though most CEQA appeals don’t wind up approved. According to records provided by the Planning Department, there were 22 CEQA appeals filed in 2020; of those, 19 were either denied or withdrawn, and only one appeal was upheld.

The CEQA appeal process has also been criticized for providing a way for appellants to stop or delay projects—such as housing, homeless shelters or even bike infrastructure—for reasons that may have little to do with environmental protection.&nbsp;

The CEQA appeal process has also been criticized for providing a way for appellants to stop or delay projects—such as housing, homeless shelters or even bike infrastructure—for reasons that may have little to do with environmental protection.&nbsp;

Coyne said that an appeal of the Great Highway reopening meets the spirit of CEQA, if not the letter: “[Mayor Breed] and Supervisor Mar explicitly said that the goal here is to make it faster to drive into downtown San Francisco,” he said. “But the question is: Is such a project exempt from environmental review?”

Coyne said that an appeal of the Great Highway reopening meets the spirit of CEQA, if not the letter: “[Mayor Breed] and Supervisor Mar explicitly said that the goal here is to make it faster to drive into downtown San Francisco,” he said. “But the question is: Is such a project exempt from environmental review?”

“It’s easy to be cynical about CEQA, but we feel this is exactly what it’s meant for,” Coyne added.&nbsp;

“It’s easy to be cynical about CEQA, but we feel this is exactly what it’s meant for,” Coyne added.&nbsp;

Coyne is far from alone in opposition to the Great Highway plan.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Coyne is far from alone in opposition to the Great Highway plan.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Advocates for the oceanfront promenade balked at what they called a backroom deal by the Mayor and Supervisor Mar, which will override a Great Highway planning process that was already underway. Since the Great Highway’s initial closure last year, San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency (SFMTA) has conducted a series of meetings, and issued surveys and <a href="https://www.sfcta.org/projects/district-4-mobility-study">reports</a>, to determine a permanent path forward for the approximately 17-acre stretch.

Advocates for the oceanfront promenade balked at what they called a backroom deal by the Mayor and Supervisor Mar, which will override a Great Highway planning process that was already underway. Since the Great Highway’s initial closure last year, San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency (SFMTA) has conducted a series of meetings, and issued surveys and <a href="https://www.sfcta.org/projects/district-4-mobility-study">reports</a>, to determine a permanent path forward for the approximately 17-acre stretch.

For their part, opponents of the Great Highway closure contended that it pushed traffic onto surrounding roads, and some complained of <a href="https://twitter.com/D4GordonMar/status/1327304875177197568/photo/1">unsafe driving</a> on Outer Sunset roads resulting from the closure of a main thoroughfare. San Francisco County Transportation Authority, which manages congestion on local roadways, approved a <a href="https://www.sfcta.org/projects/lower-great-highway-pedestrian-improvements">traffic calming plan</a> for nearby roads earlier this year.&nbsp;

For their part, opponents of the Great Highway closure contended that it pushed traffic onto surrounding roads, and some complained of <a href="https://twitter.com/D4GordonMar/status/1327304875177197568/photo/1">unsafe driving</a> on Outer Sunset roads resulting from the closure of a main thoroughfare. San Francisco County Transportation Authority, which manages congestion on local roadways, approved a <a href="https://www.sfcta.org/projects/lower-great-highway-pedestrian-improvements">traffic calming plan</a> for nearby roads earlier this year.&nbsp;

“We are so disappointed by this news from Supervisor Mar,” said Heidi Moseson, an Outer Sunset resident and organizer with the <a href="https://www.greathighwaypark.com/">Great Highway Park Initiative</a>, which supported a permanent closure, at a meeting last week. “There’s a process in place that we’ve all spent thousands of hours organizing around, talking to neighbors, talking to our representatives, and talking to city agencies, and that’s all been completely subverted.”&nbsp;

“We are so disappointed by this news from Supervisor Mar,” said Heidi Moseson, an Outer Sunset resident and organizer with the <a href="https://www.greathighwaypark.com/">Great Highway Park Initiative</a>, which supported a permanent closure, at a meeting last week. “There’s a process in place that we’ve all spent thousands of hours organizing around, talking to neighbors, talking to our representatives, and talking to city agencies, and that’s all been completely subverted.”&nbsp;

<a href="https://kidsafesf.com/">KidSafeSF</a>, a parents’ group that advocates for safe, open spaces for children, is organizing a demonstration and March this Sunday at the Great Highway.&nbsp;

<a href="https://kidsafesf.com/">KidSafeSF</a>, a parents’ group that advocates for safe, open spaces for children, is organizing a demonstration and March this Sunday at the Great Highway.&nbsp;

Coyne called the CEQA appeal a “last-ditch effort” to save the walkway, and it’s unclear if and when the Board of Supervisors will hear the appeal.

Coyne called the CEQA appeal a “last-ditch effort” to save the walkway, and it’s unclear if and when the Board of Supervisors will hear the appeal.

Because the Board of Supervisors is on recess until Sept. 6, there is no calendared date yet for the board to consider the CEQA appeal. The clerk&#8217;s office can&#8217;t anticipate what the board will and will not consider, said Board of Supervisors deputy director Wilson Ng, but he advised members of the public contact their representatives in the meantime.

Because the Board of Supervisors is on recess until Sept. 6, there is no calendared date yet for the board to consider the CEQA appeal. The clerk's office can't anticipate what the board will and will not consider, said Board of Supervisors deputy director Wilson Ng, but he advised members of the public contact their representatives in the meantime.

Because the Board of Supervisors is on recess until Sept. 6, there is no calendared date yet for the board to consider the CEQA appeal. The clerk&#8217;s office can&#8217;t anticipate what the board will and will not consider, said Board of Supervisors deputy director Wilson Ng, but he advised members of the public contact their representatives in the meantime.

“We think it’s worth it,” Coyne added of the appeal. “San Francisco and other cities have started to rethink how we use our public space&#8230;I think these moments of emergency give us a chance to rethink how we do things.”&nbsp;

“We think it’s worth it,” Coyne added of the appeal. “San Francisco and other cities have started to rethink how we use our public space...I think these moments of emergency give us a chance to rethink how we do things.”&nbsp;

“We think it’s worth it,” Coyne added of the appeal. “San Francisco and other cities have started to rethink how we use our public space&#8230;I think these moments of emergency give us a chance to rethink how we do things.”&nbsp;

City’s plan to reopen Great Highway to cars met with pushback

Pacific Gas &amp; Electric (PG&amp;E), the troubled utility giant that powers much of the state, has a very interested buyer for its local assets: the City of San Francisco.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Pacific Gas &amp; Electric (PG&amp;E), the troubled utility giant that powers much of the state, has a very interested buyer for its local assets: the City of San Francisco.&nbsp;&nbsp;

At a press conference on Tuesday, state and local officials said that the city filed a petition with the California Public Utilities Commission, the state’s utilities regulator, to assess the value of PG&amp;E’s San Francisco assets. In 2019, PG&amp;E rejected a $2.5 billion offer by the city for its local assets.&nbsp;

At a press conference on Tuesday, state and local officials said that the city filed a petition with the California Public Utilities Commission, the state’s utilities regulator, to assess the value of PG&amp;E’s San Francisco assets. In 2019, PG&amp;E rejected a $2.5 billion offer by the city for its local assets.&nbsp;

“PG&amp;E&#8230;is the poster child for a utility that puts profits ahead of people,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who is slated to become the next director of San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). “That’s why San Francisco has to take control of its power future and why we are taking the action we are doing today.”

“PG&amp;E...is the poster child for a utility that puts profits ahead of people,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who is slated to become the next director of San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). “That’s why San Francisco has to take control of its power future and why we are taking the action we are doing today.”

“PG&amp;E&#8230;is the poster child for a utility that puts profits ahead of people,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who is slated to become the next director of San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). “That’s why San Francisco has to take control of its power future and why we are taking the action we are doing today.”

In the filing, Herrera argued that San Francisco has been providing electric service for years through SFPUC. SFPUC owns and operates Hetch Hetchy Water and Power, which provides hydroelectric power to city facilities, and Clean Power SF, a city-managed energy option for San Francisco residents and businesses. 

In the filing, Herrera argued that San Francisco has been providing electric service for years through SFPUC. SFPUC owns and operates Hetch Hetchy Water and Power, which provides hydroelectric power to city facilities, and Clean Power SF, a city-managed energy option for San Francisco residents and businesses.

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img height="1660" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/20210727-DSC_4432-1-2500x1660.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-7598"/><figcaption>Photo by Sophie Bearman</figcaption></figure>

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/20210727-DSC_4432-1-2500x1660.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-7598"/><figcaption>Photo by Sophie Bearman</figcaption></figure>

San Francisco is “confident in its ability to execute financing” for a PG&amp;E deal, wrote Herrera. Any purchase would likely be funded through bonds, according to the filing.&nbsp;

San Francisco is “confident in its ability to execute financing” for a PG&amp;E deal, wrote Herrera. Any purchase would likely be funded through bonds, according to the filing.&nbsp;

Herrera, Mayor London Breed, State Sen. Scott Wiener and SFPUC President Sophie Maxwell said that a local buyout of PG&amp;E’s assets is long overdue, and aired grievances regarding the utility’s failures in San Francisco and elsewhere. 

Herrera, Mayor London Breed, State Sen. Scott Wiener and SFPUC President Sophie Maxwell said that a local buyout of PG&amp;E’s assets is long overdue, and aired grievances regarding the utility’s failures in San Francisco and elsewhere.

In 2016, PG&amp;E was <a href="https://www.enr.com/articles/40050-guilty-verdict-for-pge-in-2010-san-bruno-pipeline-blast">found guilty</a> of violating federal pipeline safety regulations and of obstructing an investigation into an explosion that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes in San Bruno.&nbsp;

In 2016, PG&amp;E was <a href="https://www.enr.com/articles/40050-guilty-verdict-for-pge-in-2010-san-bruno-pipeline-blast">found guilty</a> of violating federal pipeline safety regulations and of obstructing an investigation into an explosion that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes in San Bruno.&nbsp;

In 2018, the company <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/879008760/pg-e-pleads-guilty-on-2018-california-camp-fire-our-equipment-started-that-fire">pled guilty</a> to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter following a blaze that devastated Paradise, CA. A grand jury report found that the fire was caused by aging power lines and that PG&amp;E had repeatedly ignored warnings about the danger.&nbsp;

In 2018, the company <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/879008760/pg-e-pleads-guilty-on-2018-california-camp-fire-our-equipment-started-that-fire">pled guilty</a> to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter following a blaze that devastated Paradise, CA. A grand jury report found that the fire was caused by aging power lines and that PG&amp;E had repeatedly ignored warnings about the danger.&nbsp;

Facing hefty fines and mounting legal liabilities, PG&amp;E filed for bankruptcy in 2019 and reached a $23 billion deal with the state that included tighter oversight of the company’s board and a debt repayment plan.&nbsp;

Facing hefty fines and mounting legal liabilities, PG&amp;E filed for bankruptcy in 2019 and reached a $23 billion deal with the state that included tighter oversight of the company’s board and a debt repayment plan.&nbsp;

“This is not just a short-term issue; this has been going on forever and ever,” said Wiener. “We’ve seen the problems caused when you have a utility that is so massive, and covering such an untenable geography, that it’s not keeping up its assets.”&nbsp;

“This is not just a short-term issue; this has been going on forever and ever,” said Wiener. “We’ve seen the problems caused when you have a utility that is so massive, and covering such an untenable geography, that it’s not keeping up its assets.”&nbsp;

Wiener described an acrimonious relationship between the city and PG&amp;E, accusing the utility of trying to undercut San Francisco’s public power projects in “petty and vindictive” ways. Wiener and others asserted that PG&amp;E attempted to overcharge San Francisco customers to the tune of $1 billion in a recent service change, and said that it had delayed supplying power to city facilities such as museums and schools.&nbsp;

Wiener described an acrimonious relationship between the city and PG&amp;E, accusing the utility of trying to undercut San Francisco’s public power projects in “petty and vindictive” ways. Wiener and others asserted that PG&amp;E attempted to overcharge San Francisco customers to the tune of $1 billion in a recent service change, and said that it had delayed supplying power to city facilities such as museums and schools.&nbsp;

“PG&amp;E is trying to strangle and kill San Francisco’s power enterprise,” Wiener said.&nbsp;

“PG&amp;E is trying to strangle and kill San Francisco’s power enterprise,” Wiener said.&nbsp;

The city said that a buyout of PG&amp;E’s assets would not affect local ratepayers, given that San Francisco customers represent less than 8% of PG&amp;E’s electric retail accounts. In 2019, Mayor Breed <a href="https://sfmayor.org/node/18282">commissioned a survey</a> which found that 68% of San Franciscans would support a public utility managed by the city.&nbsp;

The city said that a buyout of PG&amp;E’s assets would not affect local ratepayers, given that San Francisco customers represent less than 8% of PG&amp;E’s electric retail accounts. In 2019, Mayor Breed <a href="https://sfmayor.org/node/18282">commissioned a survey</a> which found that 68% of San Franciscans would support a public utility managed by the city.&nbsp;

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img height="1660" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/20210727-DSC_4416-1-2500x1660.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-7580"/><figcaption>Photo by Sophie Bearman</figcaption></figure>

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/20210727-DSC_4416-1-2500x1660.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-7580"/><figcaption>Photo by Sophie Bearman</figcaption></figure>

PG&amp;E had previously rejected San Francisco’s $2.5 billion bid for its local assets on the basis that the price tag didn’t match the market value of those assets, which include its local grid and facilities.

PG&amp;E had previously rejected San Francisco’s $2.5 billion bid for its local assets on the basis that the price tag didn’t match the market value of those assets, which include its local grid and facilities.

The valuation request filed on Tuesday is intended to establish a fair value of the assets, but it remains uncertain whether PG&amp;E would entertain a buyout offer from the city. 

The valuation request filed on Tuesday is intended to establish a fair value of the assets, but it remains uncertain whether PG&amp;E would entertain a buyout offer from the city.

In a statement to Here/Say, PG&amp;E spokesperson Lynsey Paolo said that its “assets are not for sale.”

In a statement to Here/Say, PG&amp;E spokesperson Lynsey Paolo said that its “assets are not for sale.”

“San Francisco’s request today for a valuation of PG&amp;E’s electric assets by the California Public Utilities Commission is another waste of time and resources,” wrote Paolo in an email. “While CCSF has repeatedly offered to buy PG&amp;E’s infrastructure for pennies on the dollar, PG&amp;E&nbsp;doesn’t agree that the outcomes of this type of ownership change will benefit customers, taxpayers, other local communities, the state or our economy.”

“San Francisco’s request today for a valuation of PG&amp;E’s electric assets by the California Public Utilities Commission is another waste of time and resources,” wrote Paolo in an email. “While CCSF has repeatedly offered to buy PG&amp;E’s infrastructure for pennies on the dollar, PG&amp;E&nbsp;doesn’t agree that the outcomes of this type of ownership change will benefit customers, taxpayers, other local communities, the state or our economy.”

San Francisco angles to buy out PG&E’s local assets in move to public power

Kevin Truong

It wasn&#8217;t hard to spot the family of tourists ascending the Powell Street Station escalator. Luggage in tow and squeezed between a busker banging on a makeshift drum set and a speaker blasting Sade’s “Smooth Operator” the group stared at their phones quizzically as they emerged into the chaos of Market Street during the holidays.

It wasn't hard to spot the family of tourists ascending the Powell Street Station escalator. Luggage in tow and squeezed between a busker banging on a makeshift drum set and a speaker blasting Sade’s “Smooth Operator” the group stared at their phones quizzically as they emerged into the chaos of Market Street during the holidays.

It wasn&#8217;t hard to spot the family of tourists ascending the Powell Street Station escalator. Luggage in tow and squeezed between a busker banging on a makeshift drum set and a speaker blasting Sade’s “Smooth Operator” the group stared at their phones quizzically as they emerged into the chaos of Market Street during the holidays.

Brian DeBellevue sprang into action. Decked out in a vivid orange jacket and baseball cap—and with a smile that’s hard to miss, even behind a mask—<meta charset="utf-8">he looked a bit like a walking traffic cone.&nbsp;

Brian DeBellevue sprang into action. Decked out in a vivid orange jacket and baseball cap—and with a smile that’s hard to miss, even behind a mask—<meta charset="utf-8">he looked a bit like a walking traffic cone.&nbsp;

After a quick greeting and a self-deprecating joke, DeBellevue pointed them to their Union Square hotel.&nbsp;

After a quick greeting and a self-deprecating joke, DeBellevue pointed them to their Union Square hotel.&nbsp;

&#8220;You get a sense pretty quickly of the people who really need you,” DeBellevue said, miming a person buried in their smartphone map spinning around to figure out which way to walk. “Sometimes people are a little off put, but most of the time they’re really thankful to have someone help them out.”

"You get a sense pretty quickly of the people who really need you,” DeBellevue said, miming a person buried in their smartphone map spinning around to figure out which way to walk. “Sometimes people are a little off put, but most of the time they’re really thankful to have someone help them out.”

&#8220;You get a sense pretty quickly of the people who really need you,” DeBellevue said, miming a person buried in their smartphone map spinning around to figure out which way to walk. “Sometimes people are a little off put, but most of the time they’re really thankful to have someone help them out.”

DeBellevue is one of the roughly 50 Welcome Ambassadors that have been hired to act as the front door greeters for San Francisco. They are responsible for welcoming people to the city, offering directions, taking photos, answering questions and functioning as a concierge for both visitors and residents alike.&nbsp;

DeBellevue is one of the roughly 50 Welcome Ambassadors that have been hired to act as the front door greeters for San Francisco. They are responsible for welcoming people to the city, offering directions, taking photos, answering questions and functioning as a concierge for both visitors and residents alike.&nbsp;

“The primary goal is to welcome people to the city, give information and help people feel comfortable and safe in San Francisco,” said Rena Leddy, vice president of Urban Place Consulting Group, which was enlisted to help design the program. It&#8217;s managed by Louisville, K.Y.-based Block by Block, which runs about 120 programs around the country.

“The primary goal is to welcome people to the city, give information and help people feel comfortable and safe in San Francisco,” said Rena Leddy, vice president of Urban Place Consulting Group, which was enlisted to help design the program. It's managed by Louisville, K.Y.-based Block by Block, which runs about 120 programs around the country.

“The primary goal is to welcome people to the city, give information and help people feel comfortable and safe in San Francisco,” said Rena Leddy, vice president of Urban Place Consulting Group, which was enlisted to help design the program. It&#8217;s managed by Louisville, K.Y.-based Block by Block, which runs about 120 programs around the country.

Paulita Elliott, director of operations at Block by Block, said the San Francisco program was unique in that ambassadors here, rather than being limited to a single main tourist district, are often assigned to multiple locations and take public transportation to travel between their postings.

Paulita Elliott, director of operations at Block by Block, said the San Francisco program was unique in that ambassadors here, rather than being limited to a single main tourist district, are often assigned to multiple locations and take public transportation to travel between their postings.

The program formally <a href="https://sfstandard.com/eyeing-conventions-san-francisco-installs-welcome-ambassadors-downtown/">started in November</a> and has conducted more than 230,000 public greetings.&nbsp;

The program formally <a href="https://sfstandard.com/eyeing-conventions-san-francisco-installs-welcome-ambassadors-downtown/">started in November</a> and has conducted more than 230,000 public greetings.&nbsp;

The Welcome Ambassador program operates 7 days a week, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., with ambassadors posted in key tourist areas like Fisherman’s Wharf, Union Square and the Powell St. Cable Car Turnaround.&nbsp;

The Welcome Ambassador program operates 7 days a week, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., with ambassadors posted in key tourist areas like Fisherman’s Wharf, Union Square and the Powell St. Cable Car Turnaround.&nbsp;

Brian DeBellevue is one of the roughly 50 Welcome Ambassadors that have been hired to essentially act as the front door greeters for San Francisco. | Photo by Mike Kuba

<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Still_10.png" alt="Welcome Ambassadors 1" class="wp-image-21353"/><figcaption>Brian DeBellevue is one of the roughly 50 Welcome Ambassadors that have been hired to essentially act as the front door greeters for San Francisco. | Photo by Mike Kuba</figcaption></figure>

Some of the initial hiccups in its rollout have stemmed from the lack of reliable public transit and retaining workers unprepared for the hospitality role or the physical nature of the job.

Some of the initial hiccups in its rollout have stemmed from the lack of reliable public transit and retaining workers unprepared for the hospitality role or the physical nature of the job.

“Being outside in the Bay weather and walking 10 to 13 miles is not always what they think it is,” Elliot said.&nbsp;

“Being outside in the Bay weather and walking 10 to 13 miles is not always what they think it is,” Elliot said.&nbsp;

The program is just one of several efforts to encourage more visitors to downtown and other tourist attractions. Other initiatives include <a href="https://sfstandard.com/san-francisco-to-deploy-additional-police-officers-tourist-areas/">staffing tourist areas with police officers</a>, another downtown ambassador program comprised of retired police officers, and beautification projects in and around Union Square.

The program is just one of several efforts to encourage more visitors to downtown and other tourist attractions. Other initiatives include <a href="https://sfstandard.com/san-francisco-to-deploy-additional-police-officers-tourist-areas/">staffing tourist areas with police officers</a>, another downtown ambassador program comprised of retired police officers, and beautification projects in and around Union Square.

Mayor London Breed has positioned the effort as part of the gradual recovery of San Francisco’s struggling tourism sector and a signal of safety to both residents and tourists.&nbsp;

Mayor London Breed has positioned the effort as part of the gradual recovery of San Francisco’s struggling tourism sector and a signal of safety to both residents and tourists.&nbsp;

Search Results for: london breed

‘Shared Spaces’ for outdoor dining to be made permanent, with some tweaks

Supervisors under fire: Vote against proposed SoMa apartment building sparks furor, may violate state law

City’s plan to reopen Great Highway to cars met with pushback

San Francisco angles to buy out PG&E’s local assets in move to public power

Meet the ‘orange people’ who are helping visitors and buffing SF’s battered image