Renters Archives — Page 4 of 8 — San Francisco Bay Guardian Archive 1966

Alerts

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks

May 15, 2012

WEDNESDAY 16

Occupy the Auction, City Hall steps, 1 Dr Carlton B Goodlett Pl, SF; www.occupytheauctions.org. 1:45pm, free. This event may not be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity — organizers at Occupy the Auction have been showing up the City Hall every single weekday since April 27 — but it‘s definitely worth checking out. Occupy the Auction works with people facing unjust evictions from their property, including homeowners that have been fraudulently foreclosed on and renters facing eviction because of their landlord‘s mortgage issues. Talk about focused and effective: this campaign stops the majority of home auctions it targets.

THURSDAY 17

Beautiful Trouble & Organizing Cools, Planet Sub-mission, 2183 Mission, SF; www.tinyurl.com/pmpress. 7pm, free. This is a book launch for two books at once. Beautiful Trouble is part history and part manual for activism, art, and creative protest. Organizing Cools the Planet is a pamphlet on environmental organizing that has won praise with the likes of Vandana Shiva and Noam Chomsky. Celebrate the books and rock out to the Brass Liberation Orchestra at this event. There will also apparently be “super special surprise happenings.“

FRIDAY 18

Decolonized Yoga, 16th and Mission BART Station Plaza, SF. 5-7pm, free. The Occupy movement in San Francisco is tumultuous and ever-changing, but the yogis and radicals who host decolonized yoga have maintained a calm and consistent outdoor free yoga practice for months now. If you’ve ever wanted to do yoga for free with talented teachers and guides, and you don’t mind doing so on colorful rugs laid out next to the BART steps, decolonized yoga could be the best way for you to decompress Friday evening.

SATURDAY 19

Malcolm X Jazz Arts Festival, San Antonio Park, 1701 East 19th St, Oak; www.eastsideartsalliance.com. Free. Fun for the whole family at a truly grassroots festival by and for East Oakland. The annual festival honors Malcolm X on his birthday and features an impressive lineup of local musicians, dancers and performers and community activists, along with a children‘s section and food stands.

SUNDAY 21

Straight Outta Hunters Point 2, Bayview Opera House, 4705 Third St, SF; www.tinyurl.com/kevinepps. 2-5pm, free. The film, a sequel to 2003’s Straight Outta Hunters Point, once again showcases filmmaker Kevin Epps’ ability to capture the mood and story of the neighborhood he grew up in. The film screened in theaters in February, but now Epps partners with the SF Arts Commission for a screening at the Opera House. As Epps said in a press release: “As a filmmaker and activist, this is the most important screening of all, premiering the film in the neighborhood where it all started.” The event will also showcase local organizations such as the San Francisco Black Film Festival and will be catered by Old Skool Café.

Eco-sexual hike, Redwood Park, 7867 Redwood Rd, Oak; www.tinyurl.com/sprinklemarks. 1pm, $25. Annie Sprinkle has helped shape San Francisco’s sex activist and cultural world for years. Now an advocate of eco-sexuality, Sprinkle will host Kim Marks, owner of a new all-green sex shop in Portland for an eco-sexual hike right here in SF. Explore the redwoods and your sexuality with this eco-sexy hike.

Long Haul oral history project: The Rodney King riots, Long Haul infoshop, 3124 Shattuck, Berk; www.thelonghaul.org. 7:30-9pm, free. The Long Haul provides a center for anarchist and radical media and organizing in the Bay Area, and produces the famous Slingshot newsletter. They also have an oral history series on the third Sunday of every month, discussing Bay Area events “with people who were there recalling what happened and how lessons we might have learned then could apply to the struggle now.“ This Sunday, the focus is on the Rodney King riots in the Bay Area, where 1400 were arrested and a 9pm citywide curfew declared all the way back in 1992.

Open Walls Baltimore: What the murals said, how the streets responded

Andrew Lam

May 14, 2012

Most of you will know the neighborhood I was walking that early evening in from The Wire. In fact, the school where season four was shot was a few blocks away. That TV show is an eternal point of reference for Baltimore’s Greenmount West neighborhood, which Open Walls, the town’s first street art festival which I was in the hood to cover, was hoping to combat. The festival, going since March, will conclude with a closing party on May 25.

“Hey! I have a question for you!” Sometimes when you’re walking through half-vacant blocks at dusk you don’t turn around when people yell at you from across the street (you know white people), but this time the Argentines and I turned. A woman was walking towards us and pointing up at Jetsonorama’s massive, half-finished wheatpaste of a man’s face hovering in the dark above our heads.

“What are you guys doing with that wall? Is that Mr. Tony?”

It should be noted that I have little to nothing to do with Open Walls, though I managed to secure a spot sleeping on a half-inflated mattress in 23-year street artist and festival organizer Gaia‘s cavernous live-work space for a week to watch the haphazard business of trucking half-cans of paint and open containers of paste across town in various station wagons by underpaid, incredibily dedicated staff and volunteers.

But even though – alongside season four’s Primary School No. 42 – hundreds of young artists lived in a massive ex-cork factory just a few blocks from where we had our exchange, it struck me the woman that evening saw us (some white and Latino scruffy-types) as a big enough anomaly on her block that she knew we had to be associated with the steet art festival.

“You know Mr. Tony?” I asked. “Yeah,” she replied, with something that sounded like worry in her voice. “Why is he up on the wall?” “You’ll have to ask the artist,” I said. “Do you like it?” “Oh yeah, it’s really nice,” she told us, walking away, back into the night.

Around the corner in an alleyway, I’d seen Jetsonorama’s mirror-image pasting on either side of the narrow corrdor; a black kid on his bike. It seemed like he was reflecting the neighborhood back at itself, in stark contrast with the neon triangles and backwards wording of Baltimore artist Josh Van Horn’ previously-completed building-sized piece or even Argentine Jaz‘s corner park, which he’d lined with regal, painterly drawings of big cats.

So that night, back at Gaia’s paint-covered live-work circus, Jetsonorama and I found a quiet place to talk about street art. Of course, I set my Android up wrong and none of the video footage of our epic, enlightening interview recorded, so I’ll steal his quotes from an epic and enlightening blog post he later wrote on his trip to Bmore.

Jetsonorama, a.k.a. 50-something family physician Chip Thomas, lives on a northeastern Arizona Navajo reservation. He initially came for a four-year engagement to pay back his medical school loans, but, he tells me, “I loved the land, loved the people. So I decided to stay on.” His street art career began in 2009 on a trip to Brazil where he was struck by the sense of community that had arisen among the street artists he met there.

And so upon his return to the rez, he began printing and posting images from photos he’d taken of people and animals there in the community. Jetsonorama saw them as an expression of the hip-hop culture he’d grown up in, love letters to the beleagured reservation he adored. He called the series Big. His next project was the Painted Desert Project, started with a friend. The work started earning props from those omnipresent street art blogs, and Jetsonorama began an online correspondence with Gaia, another artist who does “site-specific” (often a code word for “something the neighborhood will like”) wheatpastes.

The decision of what to paint is a defining aspect of street artists. Many of the artists at Open Walls like Rome’s Sten and Lex, Argentina’s Jaz, and Capetown’s Freddy Sam, create works that follow a specific artistic canon — like gallery painters, their inspiration can be culled from all over. Others, like Gaia, Jetsonorama, Chris Stain — even the New York artist LNY who dropped through Baltimore for a night to put up his wheatpaste of a boy astride a halo-ed horse — will often choose themes that reflect the geographic location of their work. This approach can often lead to a sense that a piece was created for neighborhood residents, avoiding the fate of pieces like Swoon’s Open Walls wheatpaste of an ancient woman (an Aborigine elder she met in Australia, though that fact was apparent in the finished piece.) The neighborhood, it was said around among the street artists, didn’t really get that piece, found it “creepy.”

Freddy Sam comments on his wall’s reception in Baltimore

To date, Jetsonorama is the only African American artist that is part of the Open Walls, which made his exchanges with neighborhood residents particularly meaningful.

Indeed, they shaped his time in Baltimore. When Jetsonorama’s first attempt at pasting up Mr. Tony — a neighborhood legend, by the way, known for raising pigeons and wearing quarters in the stretched holes in his earlobes, which Tony will tell you is his change for the payphone — failed on an unprepped wall, he tried again. As he and street artist-festival organizer Nanook worked into the wee hours of the morning on the first draft, the block turned out to support them, telling them how much they liked the piece. So when the wheatpaste refused to stick to the wall, Jetsonorama extended his eight-day trip, eventually staying for two weeks and turning out a second version of Tony and a few other pieces.

Open Walls Baltimore was all about balancing art and neighborhood – an apt reflection of the city’s plan for those blocks, given that Greenmount West and adjoining Charles North are both parts of the planned Station North arts district. In addition to the half-vacant blocks, Greenmount West is marked by old factories that have been filled with hundreds of working artists. Artists plus low-income renters: an age-old recipe for gentrification.

Those involved with Open Walls are well aware that their project may be a harbinger of higher rents in the neighborhood. “There’s a latent fear of this being one aspect of a changing neighborhood,” festival organizer and 23-year old wheatpaste artist Gaia told me when I interviewed him in his live-work studio space, the chaotic center of Open Walls.

“Not all developers are totally evil, despite what people may say,” says Ben Stone, executive director of Station North, the area’s arts advocacy organization that is playing a large role in the implementation of Open Walls. Our interview took place at a sidewalk cafe in front of Cafe Bohemian on Charles Street, the bustling center of the North Charles neighborhood that was once the commercial center of the city in addition to being its geographic hub (the bus and train station is a few blocks away.) Stone told me that neighborhood associations envision a future for the area that includes the same number of low income units – but no more. That means that all the infill of those abandoned buildings can be more expensive housing, even “30-story buildings,” Stone says.

Stone tells me that the aim behind Open Walls is to attract real estate developers to the area so more of the empty properties can be turned into housing and other businesses. It also looks to make visible the art scene that is going on in Greenmount West behind the doors like those of the famous Copy Cat, an ex-factory megalith of artist housing. Doing murals out on the street inspires conversation between the street artists and the other residents of Greenmount West.

Jetsonorama certainly found that to be true. He tells me a handful of stories of neighbors taking pride in the fact that a black man was participating in an endeavor that was seen as being controlled by forces outside the neighborhood. He recounts an exchange that happened while putting up a piece for Open Walls in the Station Village area. A woman stopped at a light, rolled down her car window, and yelled at him the following:

“That’s nice! I like that. Thank you for sharing your art with us. Be sure to put your name on it when you’re done because if you don’t, the white man will come along and say he did it.”

The problem with the sharing economy

May 1, 2012

steve@sfbg.com

Catbird turned me onto Airbnb almost two years ago, long before I’d ever heard of the “sharing economy” or “collaborative consumption,” terms the tech industry is now using for companies that facilitate peer-to-peer rentals or otherwise take transactions once done through Craigslist to a glitzy new commercial level.

We were working together to build the Temple of Flux for Burning Man 2010 and chatting in the shop one evening. I mentioned wanting to find someone to sublet my apartment for the nearly three weeks that I was to spend on the playa that year, and she sang the praises of Airbnb, which she had recently started using to make some extra cash by renting out a room in the house she owns on Potrero Hill.

“The reason I decided to do it instead of a full-time roommate is it fits my lifestyle better,” Catbird, aka Cathryn Blum, told me recently as we discussed her beloved Airbnb in light of recent controversies over whether such rentals should pay the city’s 14 percent hotel tax. Catbird loves to meet visitors from around the world and help show them sides of San Francisco hidden from downtown hotel dwellers, as well as being able to keep her guest room vacant for visiting friends or family.

“Airbnb has been a godsend, and it’s invigorated a lot of the neighborhoods that tourists might not come and visit,” she said. “We’re not competing with the hotels, the hotels don’t provide that kind of experience.”

That’s what she and other Airbnb customers argued last month at a San Francisco Tax Collector’s Office hearing on the issue, which resulted in the hotel tax [aka Transient Occupancy Tax] being applied to Airbnb and similar companies.

Airbnb was a godsend for me as well, a simple easing of my economic woes. At the time, I was just getting serious with a new girlfriend and spending most nights at her place. So we moved some of my stuff over there to clear space and protect my valuables, took some photos of my small studio apartment in the Mission, and created an Airbnb listing.

We initially listed my place for $75 per night, which more than covered my rent but was cheaper than most hotels, the sweet spot that would create enough demand that I could pick and choose guests to meet my needs. And it worked perfectly. Not only did I find tenants to fill most of my Burning Man vacancy, but I kept it up periodically throughout the fall, moving in with my girlfriend for days or weeks at a stretch and splitting the proceeds with her.

It seemed too good to be true. And as I began to learn, perhaps it was.

LAW AND TAXES

Something Airbnb doesn’t tell you when you sign up is that you may be breaking the law and/or your lease (its spokesperson says that warning is in its terms of service, but I never saw it). Frankly, I knew that my lease didn’t allow subletters, but my building is big, I really needed the money, and I figured that I wouldn’t get caught, a calculation that many thousands of customers of Airbnb and other companies regularly make as well.

Later, well into by first foray as a landlord, thanks to Airbnb, I began to learn about some other complications that this business model creates in big, popular cities like San Francisco and New York that have complicated laws regulating landlord-tenant relations. For example, it’s illegal in San Francisco to sublet your apartment out for more than you pay in rent.

I felt a little guilty about that one. In a city where almost two-thirds of residents are renters, yet where property owners wield tremendous economic and political power, there are good reasons for rent control, limits on converting apartments into condominiums, eviction protections, and the whole slew of complicated laws and regulations that govern the often-contentious relationship between landlords and tenants.

But nobody seemed to be getting hurt and this was easy money, thanks to an elegantly simple dot-com idea. Sure, there were risks, both from the powers-that-be and from the strangers moving into my home. A good friend of mine in San Francisco who used Airbnb kept his valuables in a locked closet, which his temporary tenants — who had used fake identities and fraudulent credit cards — broke into, stealing thousands of dollars worth of equipment and getting away with it.

By the end of the year, it began to dawn on me that this business model wasn’t as simple as it initially seemed, triggered partially when the company sent me a 1099 federal tax form for the thousands of dollars I earned in 2010. Oh yeah, taxes, shit. So I paid my state and federal taxes on what had once seemed like free money, and I began to wonder what this “godsend” really meant for San Francisco, just as various advocacy groups were beginning to explore the issue.

“We began working on this issue a few years ago when we saw a big number of tourist conversions,” said Ted Gullicksen, executive director of the San Francisco Tenants Union. He discovered thousands of apartments — sometimes even entire buildings, usually those covered by rent control laws — were being taken off the rental market for use by tourists, sometimes after evictions to clear them of tenants. If I could use these sites to make money, unscrupulous landlords could as well.

“It shouldn’t even get to a tax issue because much of this is illegal,” Gullicksen said, noting that landlords opposed legislation a few years ago to give tenants more rights to sublet their apartments or add additional roommates. “This talk of shared economy strikes me as the wealthy asking the less wealthy to sacrifice.”

Advocates of the sharing economy argue that it’s just the opposite, making environmentalist and even socialist arguments that it’s a smart way of using fewer resources that empowers working class people.

“This idea of supplementing the formal economy with an economy based on sharing and bartering is very powerful. If you supplement a formal economy with an economy based on sharing you will have a lighter economic footprint and you would rely on relationships with people and actually, with less income, have a higher standard of living,” progressive activist Van Jones — whose new book The Green Collar Economy, discusses collaborative consumption — told us last month.

But it doesn’t usually feel quite so populist. Ron Conway, the billionaire angel investor who helped funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in tech money to groups supporting Mayor Ed Lee’s election campaign last year, has significant investments in Airbnb and other “shareable” companies that Lee opposes taxing, as The New York Times reported last month.

Around that same time, I, along with many other local journalists, was invited to a fancy round-table dinner hosted by SparkPR to facilitate schmoozing with a half-dozen collaborative consumption start-ups, an event that felt more like the decadent peak of the last dot-com bubble than the launching of a people-powered economic revolution.

WINED AND DINED

Over fine wine and a seated gourmet dinner in a private room in Perbacco Ristorante + Bar, journalists representing the New York Times, San Francisco Examiner, Bloomberg, TechCrunch, and other media outlets chatted with representatives from Love Home Swap, Getaround, Zimride, Event Up, and DogVacay.

This was the latest event in the public relations blitz by advocates of “The Sharing Economy,” which was the title of an event at the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association two weeks earlier, which featured representatives from Airbnb, TaskRabbit, Shareable, Vayable, and Getaround (representatives of this car-sharing company do indeed seem to get around).

Our dinner began with introductions, and Love Swap Home founder Debbie Wosskow said she had come all the way from London for this dinner and some related meetings, on the ground just 36 hours. “I thought I could learn a lot from you guys out here,” she said in her charming British accent, later calling San Francisco the world hub for this new economic approach.

“Our business model is very simple: it’s like online dating for homes,” she said, explaining how the company registers people with cool homes that they can vacation-swap with others they meet through the site. Contrasting it with Airbnb, she said, “We’re swapping purists…I was less interested in turning my home into a money-making machine than moving my home to places around the world.”

The company caters mostly to those with higher-than-average incomes, while others at the table seem to be giving more structure to underground transactions pursued by the average Craigslist or Yelp user. “We have a platform of trusted folks who watch your dogs in their own homes,” was how Dog Vacay owner Aaron Hirschhorn described the business he started with his wife, which attracted $1 million in venture capital financing and now has 10 employees.

“I want to be the premiere national pet services company,” Hirschhorn said. “That’s the long-term play, but in the near-term we’re solving an immediate problem. And we’re giving people a chance to make money.”

As dinner was served, SparkPR’s Jamie Walker played hostess and encouraged us to chat about our common issues, so I offered an apparently impertinent topic for guests to address: “How do you all feel about taxes?”

An uncomfortable silence chilled the room, but I asked them to humor me because it was Tax Day and I was curious how they all felt about being required to pay taxes on the economic transactions they were facilitating. Again, silence, before someone finally ventured an answer.

“There are other societal benefits to this collaborative consumption industry,” was how Getaround’s Avery Lewis answered my question, talking about the many economic and environmental benefits of people being able to share their cars or avoid having to own a car for only occasional use.

And that may be true, but it doesn’t really answer the question: Why should these economic transactions be exempt from the taxes charged on most other economic transactions?

SOME THINGS DON’T CHANGE

Airbnb spokesperson Kimberly Rubey and Airbnb customers who testified at the tax hearing also speak of the wide variety of social and economic benefits of the service, and they make a compelling case that this company — with 100 employees here and 300 around the world facilitating 5 million nights booked in four years, up from just 1 million a year ago — is a boon to San Francisco.

But when you push them on the tax issue, they don’t know quite what to say. Rubey abruptly ended two short phone interviews when I pressed for an answer, both times saying she was late for meetings and would get back to me. The third time, she had this statement prepared: “We do not shy away from tax obligations, nor do we believe that all types of private residential rentals should be excluded from transient occupancy tax in all situations. That said, we do think that staying in someone’s spare bedroom or in someone’s home while they are away is different in a variety of ways than staying in a hotel.”

Yet that distinction isn’t one made in the city’s Transient Occupancy Tax law, says Greg Kato, the policy and legislative manager for the Tax Collector’s Office. “When we talk about a guest room under the law, that does include private residences,” he told us. “We want to make sure we’re taxing everyone properly.”

It was a broad and fairly unusual coalition of groups that pushed the city to begin regulating and taxing Airbnb and similar companies — from the Tenants Union and labor unions on the left to Hotel Council and Building Owners and Management Association on the other end the spectrum — making the prospects of a successful legislative challenge to the tax law interpretation unlikely.

Gullicksen said Airbnb may be one of the biggest companies affected by the ruling, but it isn’t the worst. He said Vacation Rental By Owner (www.vrbo.com) converts entire blocks of apartments into tourist hotels. By contrast, he said many renters use Airbnb to occasionally supplement their incomes.

“It depends on how often it’s used and to what scope it’s used,” he said.

Mayor Lee and some members of the Board of Supervisors recently created a Sharing Economy Working Group to hammer out those distinctions and make policy recommendations, but it has yet to be constituted or begin meeting. And Board President David Chiu has introduced legislation developed by the Tenants Union to ban the worst “hotelization” of rental units by corporations.

I’ll be curious to see how these issues play out, even though I no longer use Airbnb. Advocates for collaborative consumption seem to think they’ve invented something new under the sun and the rest of us just need to catch on. “When new business models emerge, you’re going to constantly be in ongoing discussions with policymakers to educate them about the difference with traditional models,” Rubey said.

Clearly, they’ve convinced Mayor Lee, who unsuccessfully sought a delay in the Tax Collector’s ruling, following the tax breaks he extended last year to Twitter, Zynga, and other tech companies. But I’m less convinced. Airbnb once seemed like a simple and harmless way to make extra money, but in San Francisco — where landlords and tenants often battle over the very soul and essence of the city — life here and the policies that govern it are endlessly complicated. And that’s nothing new.

Why three families, who never missed a rent payment, may face eviction

April 26, 2012

Alma Sierra has been living in her home at 490 Athens for three years. Sierra, her nine year old son, and two other mothers with their children share a rental unit. They have diligently paid their rent, and her son goes to school across the street. But last year, US Bank foreclosed on the small-time landlords that owned the property- now, the tenants face eviction.

“We’re three single mothers with children. We don’t have the means to just up and leave,” Sierra, a part-time domestic worker, told me through a translator from Causa Justa, an organization that works for tenants’ rights.

Their work helped pass the Just Cause eviction policy for which the organization is named last year.

Under city law, a landlord needs one of 14 reasons to justly evict a tenant. The reasons include failure to pay rent and trashing the property, as well as owner move-in and Ellis Act evictions.

But the foreclosure crisis has brought on a wave of bank-owned properties. These are tricky situations legally; banks generally want to sell the property, a task made more difficult if there are pesky tenants living there.

“The banks want to get rid of the tenants. The realtors for the banks always tell them they can get more money if there aren’t any tenants in it. Because that way they would have to do an owner move-in eviction,” said Tommi Mecca, a long-time tenants’ rights advocate in the city.

According to Mecca, US Bank has been pressuring the three families to leave the building, although no eviction papers have been filed yet. The Guardian is awaiting calls back from US Bank representatives.

In fact, it was only recently that the tenants even learned about the change of ownership, and contacted Causa Justa to ask for assistance.

The San Francisco Housing Rights Committee (SFHRC) got involved, as well- and discovered that the foreclosure had likely taken place in March of 2011.

“We got no notice about it,” said Sierra.

She added that she and the other tenants had continued to pay their rent to the former landlords for almost a year– even after the landlords no longer owned the property.

“It can take many months, in some cases longer, to actually sell property,” said Sarah Shortt, an organizer with the SFHRC.

“So in the meantime the bank is the landlord and they haven’t been responsible in lending or as landlords. They tend to disregard tenants’ rights and trample over the needs and concerns of renters.”

Even when tenants are made aware that the property they live in has been sold back to bank, it can often be difficult to determine who to turn to for repairs, complaints, or even the right address for rent checks.

“One of the things we see a lot of is, the bank acquires the property and then they’re just MIA. Tenants come to us and say, we don’t know who owns our building, where to pay rent, who to ask to fix leaky ceiling. We help them research to find who owner is,” said Shortt.

These situations often end with buy-outs, in which the bank pays the tenants to leave the property. The amount ranges, but according to Mecca, it can often be insubstantial.

“They start at $1,000, $3,000, something really insulting. And it’s only if tenants walk in somewhere like [the SFHRC] that we tell them, wait a minute, your tenancy is worth so much more than that.”

As for Sierra and her roommates, they are determined not to leave.

“We don’t want to leave,” said Sierra. “We didn’t do anything wrong.”

At a press conference in front of a branch of US Bank on 16^th and Mission today, more than 40 supporters came out to support the tenants in their attempts to stay in their home. In compliance with police, they left an aisle for pedestrians and blocked neither the sidewalk nor the street, and made efforts to allow customers room to enter and exit the bank. The manager opted to lock the doors anyway.

Once the door had been locked, some of the children who live in the unit taped letters they had hoped to deliver inside to the doors. One letter reads in part, “We have nowhere to go. None of our families can afford to move. And we shouldn’t have to. As tenants, we have rights in San Francisco.”

The letters cites a recent report which states that 2.3 million children in the United States have lost their homes to foreclosure that one in eight children in the United States has been affected by foreclosure (based on data for loans that were made between 2004 and 2008.)

And supporters plan to keep up the pressure on banks in these and other cases of foreclosure and eviction- there’s hardly a lull before an “occupy the auctions dance party” planned for tomorrow.

For Shortt, the housing issue fits squarely into heightened protest activity launched by occupy protesters last fall.

“I think that’s one of the most important pieces of the occupy movement, starting to educate ourselves and each other about how ubiquitous the toll that’s been taken on cities, neighborhoods, communities by banking industry and one percent,” said Shortt.

“Any of these cases we talk about homeowners, renters, it’s the 99 percent we’re talking about, and tends to be the lower tier of the 99 percent, low income people are being disproportionately hit by this.”

San Francisco’s loss

Andrew Lam

April 10, 2012

116

news@sfbg.com

San Francisco is increasingly losing its working and creative classes to the East Bay and other jurisdictions — and with them, much of the city’s diversity — largely because of policy decisions that favor expensive, market-rate housing over the city’s own affordable housing goals.

“It’s definitely changing the character of the city,” said James Tracy, an activist with Community Housing Partnership. “It drains a big part of the creative energy of the city, which is why folks came here in the first place.”

>>Is Oakland cooler than San Francisco? Oaklanders respond.

Now, as San Francisco officials consider creating an affordable housing trust fund and other legislative changes, it’s fair to ask: Does City Hall have the political will to reverse the trend?

Census data tells a big part of the story. In 2000, the median owner-occupied home in San Francisco cost $369,400, and by 2010 it had more than doubled to $785,200. Census figures also show median rents have gone from $928 in 2000 up to $1,385 in 2010 — and even a cursory glance at apartment listings show that rents have been steadily rising since then.

Tracy and other affordable housing activists testified at an April 9 hearing before the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee on a new study by the Budget and Legislative Analyst, commissioned last July by Sup. David Campos, entitled “Performance Audit of San Francisco’s Affordable Housing Policies and Programs.”

“There’s a hearing right now at City Hall about our housing stock and how it’s been skewing upward toward those with higher incomes,” Board President David Chiu told us, noting that it is sounding an alarm that, “Creative individuals that make this place so special are being driven out of the city.”

Oakland City Council member Rebecca Kaplan said that San Francisco’s loss has been a gain for Oakland and other East Bay cities, which are enjoying a new cultural vibrancy that has so far been largely free of the gentrifying impacts that can hurt a city’s diversity.

“You can add more people without getting rid of anybody if you do it right. Most of development is looking at places that are now completely empty like the Lake Merritt BART station parking lot, empty land around the Coliseum, and the West Oakland BART station,” Kaplan told us. “We have to commit to revitalization without displacement.”

Yet the fear among some San Franciscans is that we’ll have just the opposite: displacement that actually hinders the city’s attempts at economic revitalization. “What’s at stake is the economic recovery of the city,” Tracy said. “You can’t have such a large portion of the workforce commuting into the city.”

TOO MANY CONDOS

A big part of the problem is that San Francisco is building plenty of market-rate (read: really expensive) housing, but not nearly enough affordable housing. The report Campos commissioned looked at how well the city did at meeting various housing construction goals it set for itself from 1999 to 2006 in its state-mandated Housing Element, which requires cities to plan for the housing needs of its population and absorb a fair share of the state’s affordable housing needs.

The plan called for 7,363 market-rate units, or 36 percent of the total housing construction, with the balance being housing for those with moderate, low, or very low incomes. Developers built 11,293 market rate units during that time, 154 percent of what was needed and 65 percent of the total housing construction. There were only 725 units built for those with moderate incomes (just 13 percent the goal) and just over half the number of low-income units needed and 83 percent of the very low-income goal met.

“We have to do a better job of monitoring and evaluating each project,” Chiu said. “Every incremental decision we make determines whether this will be a city for just the wealthy.”

The situation for renters is even worse. From 2001-2011, the report showed there were only 1,351 rental units built for people in the low to moderate income range, people who make 50-120 percent of the area median income, which includes a sizable chunk of the working class living in a city where about two-thirds of residents rent.

“The Planning Commission does not receive a sufficiently comprehensive evaluation of the City’s achievement of its housing goals,” the report concluded, calling for the planners and policymakers to evaluate new housing proposals by the benchmark of what kind of housing the city actually needs. Likewise, it concluded that the Board of Supervisors isn’t being regularly given information it needs to correct the imbalance or meet affordable housing needs.

Policy changes made under former Mayor Gavin Newsom also made this bad situation even worse. Developers used to build affordable housing required by the city’s inclusionary housing law rather than pay in-lieu fees to the city by a 3-1 ratio, but since the formulas in that law changed in 2010, 55 percent of developers have opted to pay the fee rather than building housing.

Also in 2010, Newsom instituted a policy that allowed developers to defer payment of about 85 percent of their affordable housing fees, resulting in an additional year-long delay in building affordable housing, from 48 months after the market rate project got permitted to 60 months now.

Tracy and the affordable housing activists say the city needs to reverse these trends if it is to remain diverse. “It’s not even debatable that the majority housing built in the city needs to be affordable,” Tracy said.

Mayor Ed Lee has called for an affordable housing trust fund, the details of which are still being worked out as he prepares to submit it for the November ballot. Chiu said that would help: “I will require a lot of different public policies, but a lot of it will be an affordable housing trust fund.”

GROWTH AND DIVERSITY

San Francisco’s problems have been a boon for Oakland.

“With much love and affection to my dear SF friends, I must say that Oakland is more fun,” Kaplan told us. “Also I think a lot of people are choosing to live in Oakland now for a variety of reasons that aren’t just about price. We have a huge resurgent art scene, an interconnected food, restaurant, and club scene, a place where multicultural community of grassroots artists is thriving, best known from Art Murmur.”

There is fear that Oakland could devolve into the same situation plaguing San Francisco, with rising housing prices that displace its diverse current population, but so far that isn’t happening much. Oakland remains much more racially and economically diverse than San Francisco, particularly as it attracts San Francisco’s ethnically diverse residents.

“We’re not looking at a situation where the people moving into town are necessarily predominantly white,” Kaplan said. “We’re having large growth in quite a range of communities, including growing Ethiopian and Eritrean and Vietnamese populations…If you don’t want to live in a multicultural community, maybe Oakland’s not your cup of tea.”

According to the 2010 census, a language other than English is spoken at home in 40.2 percent of Oakland households, compared to 25.4 percent in San Francisco. “Almost every language in the world spoken in Oakland,” Kaplan said.

African Americans make up 28 percent of Oakland’s population, compared to only 6.1 percent in San Francisco, and 6.2 percent of the population of California. In San Francisco, the number of black-owned businesses is dismal at 2.7 percent, compared to 4 percent statewide and 13.7 percent in Oakland. The census also finds that 25.4 percent Oaklanders are people of Latino origin, compared to San Francisco at 15.1 percent and 37.6 percent statewide. San Francisco is 33.3 percent Asian, compared to Oakland at 16.8 percent and all of California at 13 percent.

Both cities are less white than California as a whole; the state’s white population is 57.6 percent, compared to 34 percent in Oakland and 48.5 percent in San Francisco.

Gentrification shows its face differently depending on the neighborhood. Some say Rockridge, a trendy Oakland neighborhood where prices have recently increased, has gone too far down the path.

“Rockridge has been ‘in’ for a long time, but the prices are staggering and it isn’t as interesting any more,” Barbara Hendrickson, an East Bay real estate agent, told us.

The nationwide foreclosure crisis didn’t spare Oakland and may have sped up its gentrification process. “The neighborhoods are being gentrified by people who buy foreclosures and turn them into sweet remolded homes,” observed Hendrickson.

Yet Kaplan said many of these houses simply remain vacant, driving down values for surrounding properties and destabilizing the community. “I think we need a policy where the county doesn’t process a foreclosure until the bank has proven that they own the note,” said Kaplan, who mentioned that the city has had some success using blight ordinances to hold banks accountable for the empty buildings.

And as if San Francisco didn’t have enough challenges, Kaplan also noted another undeniable advantage: the weather. “The weather is really quite something,” she said. “I have days with a meeting in San Francisco and I always have to remember to bring completely different clothing. Part of why I wanted to live in California was to be able to spend more time outdoors, be healthy, bicycle, things like that. So that’s pretty easy to do over here in Oakland.”

Things you should be doing to avoid eviction

Andrew Lam

March 20, 2012

Did everyone read Friday’s Wall Street Journal home trends piece on the romance between wealthy tech workers and the Mission and Noe Valley? By way of paraphrasing, we quote:

Real-estate agents say it’s a cultural shift. The new generation of Internet executives—younger than the last generation of dot-commers—eschews the trappings and responsibilities of expensive properties. They want to bicycle, walk or take public transportation. They like living near food trucks and dive bars.

Rents in the two neighborhoods have risen 10 percent in the last six months.

HISS. Ahem. The WSJ article comes on the tail of a March 14 announcement from the Huffington Post that SF now has the highest average rent in the country. It now takes the income from 4.6 minimum wage jobs (thank goodness for our high minimum wage!) to afford the average two-bedroom apartment here.

With all this good news for landlords, it’s high time those of us without Facebook shares start taking defensive measures against losing our homes. You remember what happened in the last tech boom, right? (For those who don’t, a trip to the library for tech writer James Gleik‘s anthology of his SF Chronicle articles What Just Happened and/or Erick Lyle’s 2004 punk chronology On the Lower Frequencies: A Secret History of the City will serve you well.)

Richard Hurlburt has been practicing as a tenant’s rights attorney in San Francisco for 16 years. In a Guardian phone interview, he said that evictions are always “a hot topic,” but that with the burgeoning tech industry, he expects to see an uptick in the amount of tenants evicted. And because of that, renters should be on their toes.

“The developers have a lot of money and they have new resources,” he said. “Evictions happen so fast, they’re so litigation-intensive. Even when people have meritorious cases it’s hard to defend themselves in court. They’re afraid of the process. It’s so… it’s fast and complicated.”

But, Hurlburt says, there are things that you can do to shield yourself from a landlord who is hoping to get a new, more loaded tenant onto their property. Here is his list of things you can do to improve your chances of staying in your home. Of course, should you get any kind of fishy correspondence from your landlord, contact the Tenants Union. Should you need legal counsel, he also recommends (in addition to his own services) the Eviction Defense Collaborative, a collaborative that provides emergency legal help to 5,000 San Franciscans each year.

TIPS TO AVOID EVICTION

1. Comply with the lease. “Pay the rent, and pay the rent on time,” Hurlburt says. “You can get evicted for late payments. It’s a lot easier to just pay on time if you can.”

2. Know your unit’s legal status. This doesn’t help if you’re already in one, but those in-law apartments so common in SF are not legal housing, and as such, you don’t have the typical tenant’s rights if you live in one. “They’re not legal units if they’re supposed to be a single family house,” says Hurlburt. “The city has a policy of looking away because we need the housing, but the landlord is always able to evict from those units with a 60-day notice. There’s no defense for that.” He adds that in larger buildings, landlords are less likely to perform an Ellis Act eviction, but you’re still not safe.

3. If you can, buy. “I’m a licensed real estate broker, and I help first time home buyers,” the lawyer says. “Really, the best way to preserve your housing is if you get a chance to buy it, buy it. Sometimes people actually want to sell to their tenants. It can be a relief if the landlord wants to switch to TICs and they don’t want to evict the little old ladies. Or, just buy your unit if you can.” Again, a good tip for those who can use it.

4. Keep it clean. This one didn’t actually come from Hurlburt, but the word on the street is that one eviction excuse du jour is that a tenant has become a hoarder, and is unhealthily accumulating mountains of stuff on the property. We know your apartment’s tiny to begin with… just think simplicity (and about how moving to your sister’s house is going to suck.)

Families leaving SF: It’s housing costs, stupid

Zelda Bronstein

March 9, 2012

Families leaving SF: It’s housing costs, stupid

City officials continue to wring their hands over why families are leaving the city, and I’m sure there are a number of factors, but I can tell you that from the people I know — families who live in the city or want to live in the city — it’s all about the cost of housing.C

Critics of the SFUSD like to say that families are leaving for better schools, but those families haven’t been paying attention to the tremendous strides the district has made in recent years. Yes, middle schools are still a challenge in some areas, and yes, not all the public schools are great, but overall, most families that make the effort to find a quality school for their kids can do it.

The folks I know who work in the city hate the idea of living in the burbs. Nobody wants to commute across that bridge or through the BART tunnels every day; more important, nobody wants to be on the other side of the Bay from their house and their kids when the Big Earthquake hits. The problem is the money.

You want to keep families in San Francisco? Building housing for multimillionaires isn’t going to do it. If it were up to me, I’d float about a $5 billion revenue bond, buy up all the housing on the private market, put it all in a land trust and resell it — with the provision that the buyers had every right of ownership except the right to sell for a profit. That’s not likely to happen — but the city has to get serious about both building new affordable housing and (even more important) preserving what’s already there.

Yes, a lot of families want to buy a house, but a lot of families would be happy with a decent, affordable place to rent. Particularly if they knew that they wouldn’t be evicted so a richer person can buy or rent the place. What most families want is stability — they want to know where they’re going to live not just this year but when their kids are older. So many renters in this town live in such fear of eviction that it’s a huge incentive to move somewhere else.

You can talk about parks and playgrounds and youth programs, but San Francisco’s never going to be as family-friendly as we’d all like unless we can do something about housing costs and rental stability.

Who gets to live here?

February 21, 2012

yael@sfbg.com

Housing policy — which determines who will be able to live in San Francisco — has been a hot topic at City Hall these days.

At a Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee meeting on Feb. 13, representatives from the Mayors Office of Housing (MOH) reported on the state of middle-income housing in San Francisco, at the request of Sup. Scott Wiener. “Middle class” people make up 28 percent of the city’s population, a 10 percent decrease in the past two decades, and to reverse that decline would cost about $4.3 billion in housing subsidies, or more than half the city’s annual budget.

Wiener, who insists that “middle income and low income housing are not mutually exclusive,” said he’s raising the issue because the needs of the shrinking middle class are not being addressed. But during the public comment period, a long procession of low-income residents say city housing policies have kept them on the brink of homelessness. The takeaway message was: don’t embark on new housing efforts until you can enforce the ones that are already in place.

Also underscoring the desperate state of many San Francisco residents, Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting released a report Feb. 16 that contains shocking statistics about invalid foreclosures and illegal evictions in San Francisco. Ting found that 99 percent of all foreclosure proceedings in San Francisco in the past four years have contained paperwork irregularities, and in 84 percent of cases, banks or lenders have committed fraud or broke other laws.

With the loss of the redevelopment agencies, Mayor Ed Lee’s proposal for a housing trust fund, renewed calls for more condo conversions, and a new focus on middle income housing incentives, the conversation on housing in San Francisco is heating up.

MOVING TOWARDS RENTAL

San Francisco’s housing market is 64 percent rentals and 36 percent ownership, according to MOH. So despite the focus of politicians and developers on homeownership, housing policy in San Francisco mostly involves renters, many of whom face myriad threats.

Rents can be so steep that market-rate rental housing is becoming increasingly accessible only for parts of the middle class and the highest income brackets in the city. People in San Francisco tend to pay a huge chunk of their income towards rent.

The federal Housing and Urban Development Agency considers it reasonable for a households to pay 30 percent of their income towards rent; but for the city’s very low income households, rent is typically nearly 60 percent of income. For middle income households, the average percent paid toward rent has increased since 1990, but remains below 30 percent.

Those people fall mainly into the middle-income bracket, those earning 80-120 percent of Area Median Income (AMI.) Planning Director John Rahaim said that for the very low-income population (0-50 percent AMI) all rental housing is “virtually off-limits.”

So, for the middle class, renting a place in San Francisco is tough. For the low and very-low income, it’s next to impossible. And that reality threatens the city’s diversity.

“The highest rent burden still falls on lower income residents, many of whom pay 70 percent of their income as rent,” Sup. Eric Mar, who also sits on the Land Use Committee, said at the hearing. “In my district, people have whole families living in their living room or extra bedroom.”

But things may be looking up for renters. MOH’ Brian Cheu said developers believe that the market trends are heading towards construction of new rental housing after being almost exclusively owner-occupied units for many years. Cheu said there are 725 rental units in the pipeline for the next five to ten years, more than twice the new housing units meant for ownership slated for that time period.

Most of this will be market rate housing, and thus still unaffordable for a good deal of the population. But for those making around 100 percent of AMI — the middle class that Wiener hopes to serve — there are more rental units on the way.

“Any increase in supply of rental housing would help,” said San Francisco Tenants Rights head Ted Gullickson, “because there’s been virtually no new rental housing built in San Francisco is last 20 years.”

Even as Wiener promised to continue to prioritize the needs low-income residents, the foreclosure crisis was barely acknowledged at the Feb. 13 hearing. Many low-income residents say they are not sure they can trust the city’s claim that “this is not a matter of us vs. them.”

At public comment, many community members spoke of the housing troubles that they were already facing. Yue Hua Yu, who spoke at the Feb. 13 hearing, lives with her family of four in a single residency occupancy hotel room (SRO), units intended for single occupants.

“We would support a policy that protects the city’s affordable housing stock,” said a statement from Wing Hoo Leumg, president of the Chinatown Community Tenants Association.

Renting may be the realistic choice for most San Franciscans, but homeownership remains an important goal and achievement for many families, and the main obsession of many politicians.

Part of the middle class exodus is unmistakably due to better homeownership rates in Oakland, Daly City, Marin, and other surrounding areas. But there are neighborhoods with higher rates of homeownership than others, including Bayview-Hunters Point.

BHP has long been a prime spot for low-income homeowners, but it’s slated for extensive new housing construction in the coming decades that could compromise its affordability. It is also an area hit hard by the foreclosure crisis: there have been 2,000 foreclosures in Bayview in the past four years, according to Ed Donaldson, housing counseling director at the San Francisco Housing Development Corporation.

Rising prices and the foreclosure crisis have played a large part in the large-scale African American out-migration that has devastated San Francisco communities in recent decades.

APARTMENTS OR CONDOS?

One of the biggest points of controversy in the homeownership debate has been the issue of condo conversion, which was brought up again this past week at the Feb. 14 Board of Supervisors meeting, when Sup. Mark Farrell asked Lee if he would support legislation to let 2400 tenancy-in-common (TIC) owners bypass legal limits and fastrack towards condo conversion.

Farrell framed this as “a vehicle to allow residents of our city to realize their goal of homeownership.”

On Jan. 16, the city held its annual condo conversion lottery, in which 200 lucky TIC owners win the chance to convert their units into condos, thereby legally becoming homeowners. TICs and condo conversion have long been fraught with controversy in San Francisco, where there is never enough housing for everyone who wants it.

Condo conversion proponents say that turning a TIC — usually a building that used to be rental housing that has been purchased by a group of people that own it in common — into condos is a cheap way to become a homeowner in a city as expensive as San Francisco.

But tenants rights advocates have long opposed this process on the basis that it depletes the city of its rental housing stock. “When you have more condo conversions, you have more evictions, and it’s harmful to low-income residents” Gullicksen said.

This controversy, and the struggle to maintain a balance between opportunities for homeownership and reasonable rents has raged in San Francisco for years. In 1982, the Board of Supervisors passed a limit of 200 condo conversions per year as a compromise. There are no regulations, however, on converting rental housing to TICs.

“This has come up almost every single year for years and years about this time,” said Peter Cohen, organizer with the Council of Community Housing Organizations.

This year, however, proponents are not simply reiterating a request to bypass the condo conversion lottery. Plan C, a coalition of San Francisco moderates, is pushing for adding a fee to condo conversion, ranging from $10,000 to $25,000, which would go towards an affordable housing fund.

Mayor Lee said that he is open to considering a change in condo conversion policy, “providing it balances our need for revenue for affordable housing, the value that responsible homeownership brings to the city, and the rights of tenants who could be affected by a change in policy.”

WHOSE TRUST FUND?

This comes at a time when the city is facing a loss of millions per year for affordable housing with the dissolution of the redevelopment agency (see “Transfer of power, Jan. 31).

That dissolution led to Mayor Lee’s plan for an affordable housing trust fund, to be voted on as a ballot measure this November. The kick-off for that plan also began recently, with a press conference and big-tent meeting to discuss what it might look like.

On the day after the Land Use Committee meeting, where he started the conversation on “middle class” housing, Wiener posed a question to Lee at a Board of Supervisors meeting, asking how the mayor plans to “ensure that the housing trust fund that comes out of the process you have convened will meaningfully address the need for moderate/middle income housing.”

Some are concerned that too much of the trust fund could be allocated outside low-income demographics. “There’s a limited size pie of resources,” Cohen said. “Just in a matter of the last months, we lost the redevelopment agency. The city is madly scrambling to try to replace that through housing trust fund, and working to get us back to somewhere close to where we were…Is that pie, that has dramatically shrunk, going to be stretched further for another income band?”

That question will be important when the proposal goes to vote in November. According to Donaldson, many low-income homeowners will not vote for the measure unless it addresses their needs. The specifics of the measure calling for the trust fund are still being worked out. But, it will likely be funded by an increase of the transfer tax paid when homes change ownership.

Yet that proposal was the subject of an unusual political broadside from the San Francisco Association of Realtors, which last week sent out election-style mailers attacking the idea. “Brace yourself for an unexpected visit from the city’s tax collector,” the mailer warns, showing the hand of government bursting through the wall of a home, urging people to contact Lee’s office.

The measure may also see opposition from low-income communities, especially if, as Wiener has urged in the past week, it allocates a chunk of funds towards middle-income housing.

“It’s hard to find people who will support it. They’re saying, ‘what’s in it for me? Why would I vote for a transfer tax that I’m going to have to pay to help finance the building of affordable housing or middle-income housing. Why support programs that will support middle income people, who make more money than existing homewoners?” explained Donaldson. To agree on a way forward for housing in San Francisco, policymakers will need to reconcile a range of interests. In the worst-case scenario, the profit interests of realtors and developers will overtake the interests of San Francisco families struggling to continue to live in the city they love. But housing advocates are willing to work together to come to a solution. “Let’s put everything on the table, and let’s figure it out. In the spirit of cooperation, and with the understanding that each respective constituent group is not going to get everything that they want, but let’s put all the cards of the table,” said Donaldson.

We’re trying to buy a condo in SF

Andrew Lam

February 14, 2012

marke@sfbg.com

Somehow, we thought we’d timed it perfectly. We’d saved up for decades (or at least my husband had — I’m a writer). We’ve lived in San Francisco for close to 20 years, sometimes holding down three jobs at a time and spending every available hour enmeshing ourselves in the cultural fabric of the city. Mortgage rates are insanely low; credit is loosening up again. We’re not looking for anything extra-fancy, just somewhere with a little charm to finally set down financial roots and maybe even have enough room to start a family.

So boring! And yet, in the era of Zynga and Facebook … so seemingly impossible.

Hunky Beau and I have spent the last year looking for a two-bedroom condo, and it has been hilarious. Sometimes Three Stooges hilarious, like when open houses are so mobbed you almost catch a flying checkbook in the eye. Sometimes Saturday Night Live hilarious, like the broker who introduced himself with, “If you know what gentrification means, then you’ll know the rapidly gentrifying Bayview neighborhood might be for you!” But mostly The Office hilarious, like the time we excitedly put in a bid on a place right after the open house, only to be told there were seven bids already in, three of them $50,000-plus above asking, two all cash. Sad honk.

Of course, we’re being a little fussy. If my husband and I are going to spend more than half a million for somewhere to live in San Francisco — and $500K is pretty much the base price here for a non-studio condo — then we want it to be situated somewhere we can bike to work in less than 30 minutes, easily accessible by Muni or within stumbling distance of the clubs, and built before 1940 with some charm intact. We may not be rich but, dammit, we’re still gay. (Dear quickie-flip contractors: whoever told you all to slap horrid sandstone travertine tile into every bathroom and kitchen was wrong in the 1990s, and still is.)

And yes, we’re small potatoes, too, and definitely more fortunate than most: I moved here when a tragic confluence of AIDS, earthquake, recession, and urban population incarceration made San Francisco real estate cheap, and it’s only by virtue of a rent controlled apartment, one I’ve been basically trapped in since the first Internet Boom raised rents sky-high, that I’ve been able to stay in the city I love. Yet it’s become especially obvious in the past three or four months — since Zynga went public in fact, and Facebook announced its IPO — that the market has become almost absurdly competitive.

Paula Gold-Nocella, managing broker at Vanguard Properties, confirmed my observations. “On top of the notoriously low inventory that’s part of the winter season here, we’re seeing an incredible interest due to recent technology developments,” she said in a phone interview. “With Twitter moving in downtown, Saleforce, the Facebook IPO announcement … the seller’s market is especially hot right now. I have a broker down the Peninsula who’s fielding offers where they’re waiving the inspection contingency. And some sellers are most likely waiting to see what happens with Facebook. It’s kind of a perfect storm that’s brewing.”

I don’t think we’ve missed the buyers boat just yet — and for my friends who are renters I know the situation is getting far worse. But Oakland and the Outer Avenues are looking more and more attractive, even if that means remaking our lives from scratch to buy into the current economy. At least we may meet other artsy types there.

Meet the new supervisor

February 10, 2012

Christina Olague, the newest member of the Board of Supervisors, faces a difficult balancing act. She was appointed by Mayor Ed Lee, whom she supported as co-chair of the controversial “Run Ed Run” campaign, to fill the vacancy in District 5, an ultra-progressive district whose voters rejected Lee in favor of John Avalos by a 2-1 margin.

So now Olague faces the challenge of keeping her district happy while staying on good terms with the Mayor’s Office, all while running in her first campaign for elected office against what could be a large field of challengers scrutinizing her every vote and statement.

Olague has strong progressive activist credentials, from working with the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition to protect low-income renters during the last dot-com boom to her more recent community organizing for the Senior Action Network. She co-chaired the 2003 campaign that established the city’s minimum wage and has been actively involved in such progressive organizations as the Milk Club, Transit Riders Union, and the short-lived San Francisco People’s Organization.

“One of the reasons many of us are so supportive of Christina is she is grounded in the issues of low-income San Franciscans,” said Gabriel Haaland, who works with SEIU Local 1021 and accompanied Olague to a recent interview at the Guardian office.

She also served two terms on the Planning Commission — appointed by Board of Supervisors then-President Matt Gonzalez in 2004 and reappointed by then-President Aaron Peskin in 2008 — where she was known for doing her homework on complicated land use issues and usually landing on the progressive side of divided votes.

“Coming from the Planning Commission, she can do a lot of good,” said Tom Radulovich, executive director of Livable City and a supporter who has worked with Olague for 15 years. “We lost a lot of collective memory on land use issues,” he said, citing the expertise of Chris Daly and Aaron Peskin. “We do need that on the board. There is so much at stake in land use.”

Olague disappointed many progressives by co-chairing Progress for All, which was created by Chinatown power broker Rose Pak to push the deceptive “Run Ed Run” campaign that was widely criticized for its secrecy and other ethical violations. At the time, Olague told us she appreciated how Lee was willing to consider community input and she thought it was important for progressives to support him to maintain that open door policy.

In announcing his appointment of Olague, Lee said, “This is not about counting votes, it’s about what’s best for San Francisco and her district.” Olague also sounded that post-partisan theme, telling the crowd at her swearing-in, “I think this is an incredible time for our city and a time when we are coming together and moving past old political pigeonholes.”

With some big projects coming to the board and the working class being rapidly driven out of the city, progressives are hoping Olague will be a committed ally. There’s some concern, though, about her connections to Progress For All campaign’s secretive political consultant, Enrique Pearce.

Pearce has become a bit of a pariah in progressive circles for his shady campaign tactics on behalf of powerful players. In 2010, his Left Coast Communications got caught running an independent expenditure campaign partly funded by Willie Brown out of Pearce’s office, even though Sup. Jane Kim was both its beneficiary and his client — and that level of coordination is illegal. Last year, Pearce was hired by Pak to create the “Run Ed Run” campaign and write the hagiographic book, The Ed Lee Story, which also seemed to have some connections with Lee’s campaign. The Ethics Commission hasn’t fined Pearce for either incident, and he didn’t return a Guardian call for comment.

Olague told us not to worry. “He’s a friend…and I think it’s an exaggerated concern,” she said, confirming but minimizing his role so far. Yet she hired one of Pearce’s former employees, Jen Low, as one of her board aide. Olague’s other aides are Chris Durazo from South of Market Community Action Network (SOMCAN) and Dominica Henderson, formerly of the SF Housing Authority.

Debra Walker, a progressive activist who served on the Building Inspection Commission and has worked with Olague for decades, said she’s a reliable ally: “She’s from the progressive community and I have no equivocation about that.”

Olague makes no apologies for her alliances, saying that she is both independent and progressive and that she should be judged by her actions as a supervisor. “People will have to decide who I am based on how I vote,” she said, later adding, “I support the mayor and I’m not going to apologize for that.”

OLAGUE’S PRIORITIES

Olague was born in Merced in 1961 to a Mexican immigrant father who fixed farming equipment and a stay-at-home mother. She went to high school in Fresno and moved to the Bay Area in 1982. She attended San Francisco State University but had to drop out to help support her family, working at various stock brokerage firms in the Financial District. She later got a degree in liberal studies from California Institute of Integral Studies.

In 1992, Olague’s mother was in serious car accident that left her a quadriplegic, so Olague spent the next seven years caring for her. After her mother died, Olague left the financial services industry and became a community organizer for the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition, battling the forces of gentrification and then-Mayor Brown and becoming an active player in the ascendant progressive movement.

But Olague never abided progressive orthodoxy. She backed Mark Leno over the more progressive Harry Britt in their 2002 Assembly race and backed Leno again in 2007 when he ran for state Senate against Carole Migden. She also voted for the Home Depot project on Bayshore Boulevard despite a progressive campaign against the project.

Olague worked with then-Sup. Chris Daly to win more community benefits and other concessions from developers of the Trinity Plaza and Rincon Tower projects, but now she is critical of Daly’s confrontational tactics. “Daly’s style isn’t what I agree with anymore,” Olague said, criticizing the deals that were cut on those projects to approve them with larger than required community benefits packages. “I think we romanticized what we got.”

So how does Olague plan to approach big development proposals, and is she willing to practice the brinksmanship that many progressives believe is necessary to win concessions? While she says her approach will be more conciliatory than Daly’s, she says the answer is still yes. “You push back, you make demands, and if you don’t think it’s going to benefit the city holistically, you just fucking say no,” Olague said.

Walker said Olague has proven she can stand up to pressure. “I think she’ll do as well as she did on the Planning Commission. She served as president and there is an enormous amount of pressure that is applied behind the scenes,” Walker said. “She’s already stood up to mayoral pressure on some issues.”

Yet even some of Olague’s strongest supporters say her dual — and perhaps dueling — loyalties to the Mayor’s Office and her progressive district are likely to be tested this year.

“It’ll be challenging for her to navigate,” Radulovich said. “The Mayor’s Office is going to say I want you to do X and Y, and it won’t always be progressive stuff, so it’ll be interesting to see how that plays out.”

But he said Olague’s land use expertise and progressive background will likely count for more than any bitter pills that she’s asked to swallow. “Sometimes, as a policy maker, you have to push the envelope and say we can get more,” he said. “It helps if you’re willing to say no to things and set boundaries.”

When we asked Olague to lay out her philosophy on dealing with land-use issues, she said that her approach will vary: “I have a very gray approach, project by project and neighborhood by neighborhood.”

Only a couple weeks into her new role, Olague said that she’s still getting a lay of the land: “I’m in information gathering mode, meeting with neighborhood groups to try to figure out what their issues are.”

But Olague said she understands that part of her job is making decisions that will disappoint some groups. For example, after Mayor Lee pledged to install bike lanes on Fell and Oak streets to connect the Panhandle to The Wiggle and lessen the danger to bicyclists, he recently stalled the project after motorists opposed the idea.

“I’m a transit-first person, for sure. I don’t even drive,” Olague said of her approach to that issue, which she has now begun to work on. “We’ll try to craft a solution, but then at some point you have to fall on one side or the other.”

THE “JOBS” FOCUS

One issue on which Olague’s core loyalities are likely to be tested is on the so-called “jobs” issue, which both Lee and Olague call their top priority. “Jobs and economic revitalization are very important,” she told us.

Progressives have begun to push back on Lee for valuing private sector job creation over all other priorities, such as workers’ rights, environmental safeguards, and public services. That came to a head on Jan. 26 at the Rules Committee hearing on Lee’s proposed charter amendment to delay legislation that might cost private sector jobs and require extra hearings before the Small Business Commission. Progressives and labor leaders slammed the proposal as unfair, divisive, unnecessary, and reminiscent of right-wing political tactics.

But when we interviewed Olague the next day, she was reluctant to criticize the measure on the record, even though it seemed so dead-on-arrival at the Board of Supervisors that Mayor Lee voluntarily withdrew it the next week.

Olague told us job creation is important, but she said it can’t squeeze out other priorities, such as protecting affordable rental housing.

“We always have to look at how the community will benefit from things. So if we want to incentivize for businesses, how do we also make it work for neighborhoods and for people so that we don’t end up with where we were in the Mission District in the ’90s?” she said.

Olague also said that she didn’t share Lee’s focus on jobs in the technology sector. “There’s a lot of talk of technology, and that’s fine and I’m not against that, and we can see how it works in the city. But at the same time, I’m concerned about folks who aren’t interested necessarily in working in technology. We need other types of jobs, so I think we shouldn’t let go of the small scale manufacturing idea.”

The 100 percent

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks

January 10, 2012

steve@sfbg.com

In his inaugural address on Jan. 8, and then again the next day as he appointed progressive Christina Olague to the District 5 seat on the Board of Supervisors, Mayor Ed Lee signaled an intention to bring all sides together to solve vexing city problems, from job creation to the need for more affordable housing.

“At its best, San Francisco is a city for everyone,” Lee said at his inauguration. “We are a city for the 100 percent.”

But that analysis, with his clever riff off of the Occupy movement’s 99 percent paradigm, masks deep political divisions and challenges that will likely play out repeatedly this year, particularly as he partners with a handful of wealthy individuals and corporations — members of the 1 percent, on which he lavished praise during his speech, such as venture capitalist Ron Conway — to craft his economic agenda.

Lee stressed his focus on creating private-sector jobs and his acceptance that “local government will have to do more with less,” while arguing that he can create broad prosperity by embracing high-tech innovations. “We’re poised to invent the future, right here and right now,” he said, shortly before interrupting his speech to post an employment infographic on Twitter.

The next day, after she was sworn in as supervisor representing one of the city’s most progressive districts (replacing Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi), Olague echoed Lee’s focus on job creation and the belief that “it’s time to roll up our sleeves to get things done” in a fashion that transcends ideology.

“I think this is an incredible time for our city and a time when we are coming together and moving past old political pigeonholes,” Olague said, while Lee said, “This is not about counting votes, it’s about what’s best for San Francisco and her district.”

Yet that optimistic spirit alone won’t provide for the renters and low-income homeowners being squeezed out of this gentrifying city, battles that both fought as activists — Olague with the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition, Lee with the Asian Law Caucus — before joining city government. “We both came from backgrounds fighting for the rights of tenants and immigrants,” Lee said.

At his inauguration, he said he would take on that challenge directly.

“We need to create a permanent stream of revenue to fund housing in San Francisco,” Lee said, announcing the formation of a working group to craft a measure for the November ballot that would create a “permanent housing trust fund” to help finance low- to middle-income homes. “San Francisco must remain a place every one of us can call home.”

Olague listed her top priorities as job creation, affordable housing, helping shepherd redevelopment projects after the state abolished redevelopment agencies, and public safety. And she pledged to be an independent vote: “Every decision will be based on what’s best for my constituents and the people of San Francisco.”

Progressive political leaders were nonetheless thrilled with the choice. While Olague was an early supporter of Lee’s mayoral bid, she has deep roots in the progressive community and was a consistently good vote during her eight years on the Planning Commission.

“I am surprised by the choice, but I think it’s a good one,” Matt Gonzalez, the former D5 supervisor who appointed Olague to the commission, told us. “It’s an appointment that recognizes that D5 is the most progressive district in the city.”

Activist and building inspection commissioner Debra Walker agreed: “It’s an acknowledgment that District 5 is progressive.”

Green Party activist Susan King noted that Olague used to be a Green, as was new Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi and Sup. Jane Kim, before all switched to the Democratic Party in recent years. “It’s the second former Green sworn in over the last 24 hours,” King said. “It’s very exciting.”

“I’m elated. This is the best political news I’ve heard this year. I’ve known Christina for 15 years and I think she’ll be a fantastic supervisor,” Tom Radulovich, director of Livable City, told us. He also praised Lee for the gesture, saying, “He said he wants to work with everyone and this is a signal that he really means it.”

Sup. David Campos said Olague has good values and a wealth of experience in land use issue. “She brings a lot to the table and I can see why he chose her,” he told us.

Even Sup. Scott Wiener, a moderate, praised the Lee’s pick. “I think it’s an excellent choice. She’s thoughtful and independent,” he said. “I don’t always agree with her, but I respect her and I’ve always enjoyed working with her.”

Gonzalez told us he wonders whether the appointment would clear the field of progressive candidates, a long list of whom have expressed interest in running this year. The answer: probably not. Community College Board member John Rizzo contacted the Guardian shortly after the appointment to say, “I’m still in the race and planning to mount a vigorous campaign.”

So much for the 100 percent.

Alerts

Andrew Lam

January 10, 2012

yael@sfbg.com

THURSDAY 12

Dinner for the 99 percent

Rebecca Solnit, author of A Paradise Built in Hell, will speak with her brother, long-time activist and OccupySF organizer David Solnit, about “hope, strategy and actions to build a better world.” A dinner featuring gluten-free spaghetti and real or tofu meatballs will be served. Following dinner, hosts will screen a documentary of the life and work of Martin Luther King Jr.. This event will raise money for the San Francisco 99% Coalition.

6 p.m., $10-20

Unitarian Universalist Center

1187 Franklin, SF

(415) 608-1585

www.occupysf.org/2012/01/09/spaghetti-dinner-for-the-99

FRIDAY 13

The shame of Guantanamo

Historian, journalist, and author of The Guantanamo Files, Andy Worthington, will join investigative reporter Jason Leopold for a “freewheeling interview” discussing the history of torture and illegal detention without accountability spanning the George W. Bush and Barack Obama presidencies. This event marks the 10-year anniversary of the opening of the Guantanamo Bay Prison.

Noon-2 p.m., free

Louis B. Mayer Lounge, UC Hastings College of the Law

198 McAllister, SF

www.andyworthington.co.uk

SATURDAY 14

Run on the banks

The Occupy Housing Coalition will demonstrate to protest evictions of renters for condo conversions in the Mission District. Join them to demand that Wells Fargo stop all pending evictions for profit.

Noon, free

16th and Mission, SF

www.occupysf.org/2012/01/07/run-on-the-banks-mission-district-january-14

SUNDAY 15

Mission community forum

For the first time, Occupy SF will hold its weekly community forum, a space to air general concerns and foster discussion, outside the Financial District. Come speak about topics specific to the Mission community, and discuss how to build a broad movement that “mirrors the diversity of San Francisco.”

6-8 p.m., free

Location TBA

Email Lisa Guide: lgru3221@gmail.com

MONDAY 16

MLK Day gathering

Celebrate the life of Martin Luther King Jr. and “call for a ceasefire in the streets” after a tragic year of 110 homicides in Oakland. A community gathering will include gospel, spoken word, drama, and time to talk with your neighbors.

10 a.m.-noon, free

Regeneration Church

238 E. 15th, Oakl

(510) 508-4888

www.regenerationweb.com/node/86

An open letter to Ed Lee

Andrew Lam

January 3, 2012

OPINION Dear Mr. Mayor,

During the next week you will be appointing the a supervisor for District 5, an area of the city that has been historically considered the most progressive part of one of the most progressive cities in the country. It will be a signature decision for you in the next year, and will reveal the tone of your administration. Will you be a consensus mayor — or will you carry on your predecessor’s fight with progressives?

You have many qualified choices, but there is probably only one on your list that a majority of progressives would consider a clear progressive choice: Christina Olague, president of the Planning Commission. There are some who have hesitations about her, but ironically those hesitations are based on her relationship to you and her support for your candidacy for mayor. I have to admit, as a supporter of progressive Supervisor John Avalos for mayor, I shared some disappointment that she didn’t support John.

I’m sure there’s intense pressure on you to choose a more moderate choice, and I’m sure there are from your perspective some valid points to that argument. That said, District 5 deserves progressive representation.

I am a Haight resident, and I ran for Supervisor in District 5 in 2004. Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi came in first, I came in second, and Lisa Feldstein came in third. Both Lisa and I have spoken repeatedly about whether we would run next year, and we have even discussed running as a slate. Most political analysts think one of us would have a decent shot at winning — but I think both of us would support Christina, assuming that her votes continue to reflect her commitment to the progressive values of the district.

Christina not only supported you, she also supported Mirkarimi in 2004, and Matt Gonzalez when he ran for supervisor in 2000. She was appointed to the Planning Commission by Gonzalez and has been reappointed repeatedly by progressive supervisors to that commission. While her votes have not been perfect, by and large, her record is excellent; she has never succumbed to pressure, has listened well to all sides, and has ultimately done what she thought was right.

For example, she stood up for tenants’ rights when the landlord from Park Merced came to the Planning Commission to ask that 1,500 apartments be demolished, all of which were subject to the city’s rent control ordinance. She recognized the flaws in the landlord’s argument that a side agreement (negotiated without the local tenant groups involved) would prevent rent hikes and evictions. Olague was on the right side of history on the Park Merced deal, and has a long record of building tenant and senior tenant power. That’s the kind of leadership we need for District 5, an area comprised of primarily renters. I believe Olague will be a supervisor tenants can trust.

I can’t guarantee that all progressives will stand down if Olague gets the seat. The ego game is what it is. You have learned that from politics, I’m sure. But I think most progressive institutions and progressive activists will see her appointment as a victory and will support her candidacy for Supervisor next fall, as they should if she shows that her votes reflect the trends and values of District 5.

With Christina Olague, you have a win-win. You appoint a supervisor who reflects the progressive values of the district and who is also electable in November.

Gabriel Haaland is an elected member of the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee and an LGBT labor and tenant activist.

The odd evictions at Parkmerced

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks

November 8, 2011

rebeccab@sfbg.com

The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office has started investigating conditions at Parkmerced in the wake of housing advocates’ concerns that tenants have been issued a high volume of notices warning that they could face eviction due to unpaid utility fees.

The questions surrounding back payments and pending evictions, many of which impact low-income renters, have emerged only a few months after the Board of Supervisors narrowly approved a controversial redevelopment project at the neighborhood-scale housing complex. When it was under consideration, project opponents voiced concerns that housing for low-income residents could be jeopardized under the plan if tenant protections guaranteed by the developers did not stand up in court.

“The timing of it is a little suspicious,” said Tyler McMillan, executive director of the San Francisco-based Eviction Defense Collaborative. “A lot of folks suddenly are moving toward the eviction process … right after they got approved for this big development. It all just smells really bad.”

Parkmerced spokesperson PJ Johnston told the Guardian the notices had nothing to do with the development approval, and were simply a consequence of unpaid bills. “I don’t think the city attorney is going to find anything of particular interest,” he said. “This is an issue of a property owner telling people who owe bills that they have to pay their bills.”

Stellar Management, Parkmerced’s property management company, issued 196 notices this past summer and in September warning tenants that they could face eviction if they did not take steps to bring their accounts current within three days.

In some cases, back payments had piled up for more than a year, and the bills ranged from around $400 to $1,200 — a burdensome dilemma for very low income residents getting by on fixed incomes.

The issue wasn’t payment of rent; most of the charges stemmed from water, sewer, and trash pick-up fees administered by a third-party billing company called American Utility Management (AUM). Parkmerced cited breach of the lease agreement as grounds for eviction.

Some tenants dispute the charges, and have told the San Francisco Rent Board and other agencies that they were surprised to receive the bills and didn’t know they had past-due amounts until they were presented with the high bills.

In any case, it’s an unusual situation — San Francisco tenants rarely face eviction over water or garbage bills.

A HUGE GROUNDSWELL

Many tenants have since been given a chance to set up payment plans and were granted a 45-day timeline to work out a payback system, noted San Francisco Rent Board director Delene Wolf. But not everyone was lucky enough to dodge the bullet. Since the notices went out, the Eviction Defense Collaborative has taken on cases for 14 separate eviction proceedings at Parkmerced, McMillan said.

“They are evicting a lot more people in the last couple months than they were at this time last year,” McMillan noted. Wolf confirmed this, saying, “We saw a huge groundswell.”

The city attorney has been responsive to advocates’ concerns. “We met with the City Attorney’s office, and they’re collecting cases,” explained Sara Shortt, executive director of the Housing Rights Committee. “A key question is, why are these low-income renters behind?”

So far, the answer remains unclear. Tenant advocates remain skeptical that the charges are legitimate, in part because they have questions about how fees were assessed. There have also reports of monthly parking fees charged to tenants who don’t own vehicles. “They’re really questionable amounts … that are years and years old,” McMillan noted. “There’s so much doubt about whether they owe this money.”

Some of the 196 tenants who received warning notices claimed they didn’t know they were responsible for the fees. John Martinek tried to help his friend, a 55-year-old Parkmerced resident and veteran, after he was hit with a bill totaling more than $600.

“He might’ve owed it, but here’s the thing: They never told him anything about paying water and garbage,” Martinek said. “They never once asked him, they never once said a word. They were trying to scare him, there’s no question about it. They were trying shake him out of there.” He said his friend had been spared from eviction thanks to legal assistance.

Johnston, meanwhile, dismissed the idea that tenants were in the dark on how much they owed. “It’s patently ridiculous to suggest that residents who have signed a lease weren’t aware that they had to pay their bills,” he said.

In most cases, garbage charges in San Francisco are either included in the rent or are completely separate from rent, collected by a private company and can’t be grounds for eviction. Water bills are typically included in monthly rent or collected by the city — and thus aren’t grounds for eviction either.

WHERE IS DAVID CHIU?

Of the 14 eviction proceedings that are going forward, McMillan said, 10 involve tenants who receive Section 8 housing assistance, a federal program administered by the San Francisco Housing Authority. Of those 10, eight concerned disputed fees, he said.

There are a total of 170 Section 8 tenants at Parkmerced, according to figures cited by Megan Baker of Catholic Charities CYO, and 82 of them were among the 196 tenants who received three-day notices.

While Parkmerced previously attracted renters enrolled in the Section 8 program, Stellar stopped accepting those housing applications about a year ago, Baker said. Her organization provides emergency financial assistance for families at risk of homelessness and has been working with Parkmerced tenants since October 2009.

Baker added that she’d met with some tenants who were charged attorney’s fees on top of the back-payments. “They don’t have the means to pay legal costs,” she said. “These very large charges are not going hand-in-hand with their monthly statements. It’s all of a sudden. It leads us to think that in the process of changing management and gearing up for redevelopment, they really don’t want low-income tenants.”

In the wake of recent coverage about the trend of eviction notices in the Guardian and other publications (See “Low Income Tenants Face Possible Eviction at Parkmerced,” Politics Blog, Oct. 7, 2011), the three-day notices have slowed, reports Wolf, of the Rent Board. “There were no notices this month,” she said, referring to October, which could be a sign that management had taken a different tack under pressure from housing advocates and media scrutiny.

Shortt, of the Housing Rights Committee, noted that she had sought assistance from Board President David Chiu after her organization began working with impacted tenants. Chiu cast the swing vote on Parkmerced, sparking the ire of tenant advocates, but professed to be looking out for tenant interests.

Chiu introduced 14 pages of amendments to the Parkmerced development agreement intended to strengthen tenant protections, and used those changes to justify his support for the project. However, the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force determined Nov. 1 that members of the Land Use and Economic Development Committee violated the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance when it considered Chiu’s amendments, because the public wasn’t provided with full documentation of the proposed changes.

Chiu’s office contacted Parkmerced with questions about the eviction notices, but Shortt said she came away with the impression that the board president was not about to exert pressure on Stellar Management or Parkmerced developers over this issue. Chiu’s office indicated to Shortt that they planned to collaborate with Sup. Sean Elsbernd, whose District 11 includes Parkmerced, to decide how to proceed.

“We haven’t seen any evidence that this is connected to the development in any way,” Judson True, Chiu’s legislative aide, told the Guardian. “We’re committed to working with Parkmerced, Sup. Elsbernd’s office, and the residents to keep as many people in their homes as possible.”

The San Francisco City Attorney’s office is urging any Parkmerced tenants experiencing questionable late-payment charges to contact the Code Enforcement Hotline at 415-554-3977.

Low-income tenants face possible eviction at Parkmerced

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee

October 7, 2011

106

Low-income tenants face possible eviction at Parkmerced

At least nine eviction proceedings have started at the Parkmerced housing complex, the site of a controversial new housing development, in response to an effort by the property management company to collect back payments on rent and utility bills, the Guardian has learned.

In recent months, nearly 200 residents received official notices warning that they would face eviction if they did not take steps to bring their accounts current within three days, according to Sara Shortt, executive director of the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco. About 80 three-day notices were issued to tenants who are on Section 8, a federal low-income housing assistance program that subsidizes rental payments using public funds provided by the local housing authority.

“They’re extremely low-income renters, and they’re suddenly being asked to pay large balances,” Shortt explained. “It’s blood from a turnip.” Most of the amounts owed ranged between $600 and $800, she added.

Shortt said that while some tenants were being allowed to set up payment plans, this measure wasn’t guaranteed for every tenant attempting to address the problem within the three-day timeframe. And she was skeptical that the payment-plan arrangements being presented by management were realistic in every case.

“I don’t know if Parkmerced is doing anything illegal,” Shortt said, acknowledging that she was receiving conflicting accounts of the situation. “But they’re executing something about legitimate recovery of money in an unfair manner. To allow people to slide for years and suddenly come at them for back bills is a one-way ticket for eviction.”

The Guardian was unable to reach Stellar Management, the real-estate management company at Parkmerced, but Shortt said she had spoken with Stellar representatives on behalf of tenants who were contacting the Housing Rights Committee in a panic.

Stellar representative Bryce Boddie explained the situation to her by saying a previous property management company had left billing records in disarray, and the company was finally getting around to straightening out its books by demanding payments that had long since been owed. “Their contention was that they basically decided it was time to clean house and recoup payments,” she said. Shortt said she’d also been told that Stellar had come under pressure from Fortress Investment Group, a firm that took ownership of the property last year, to get payments in order.

But P.J. Johnston, a public relations representative for Parkmerced, rejected that account, saying, “We absolutely follow up with residents who are not paying their bills.” Johnston said the number of three-day notices served this year were in keeping with last year, indicating that there had been no drastic changes in policy since the approval of the new housing project. He did not know how many Section 8 tenants received the warning notices in 2010. “Whether someone is a Section 8 certificate holder or just a regular resident, everybody’s got to pay their rent,” he said.

Johnston bristled at the criticism that renters were being asked to fork over unrealistically high sums on the spot for payments that had lapsed for long periods, saying, “If we had moved swiftly to evict residents sooner, we’d be hearing that we didn’t give them a chance.”

The issue comes on the heels of Board of Supervisors approval for a controversial housing development project at Parkmerced that tenant groups opposed because they felt it didn’t go far enough to protect renters. A development agreement negotiated between Parkmerced Investors and the city guarantees that rent-controlled tenants will be able to move into brand-new units at the same rent-controlled rate once the old units are demolished. Some residents are suspicious that management’s decision to issue three-day notices and take steps to evict tenants who cannot pay is a strategy for skirting these requirements.

Shortt said she couldn’t be sure that this was the case, but worried nevertheless that low-income tenants could wind up being tossed out of Parkmerced, which is just the scenario that tenant advocates had feared. “The end result really is in clear conflict with the spirit of negotiations and tenant protections,” she said.

The America’s cup confusion

Zelda Bronstein

September 2, 2011

If the sponsors (and city officials) are right, the America’s Cup is going to be a huge event, attracting hundreds of thousands of spectators, many of whom will want to be on the San Francisco waterfront to watch. But it’s never been clear to me exactly how that’s going to work — how are all those (rich) people who are used to getting around in limos going to travel from their downtown hotels to the viewing areas? If the city wanted to do this right, we should close down the Embarcadero and some of the feeder streets to all vehicles (except ambulances — always needed when rich old people get excited) and force everyone to travel by pedicab. Buy up a fleet of several hundred of the human-powered vehicles and let all the unemployed teenagers get a shot at driving them. Job creation for youth; environmentally sound transportation; potentially fun bumper-car action with well-heeled patrons screaming in fear.

Remember: The f-line, even with improvements, can’t possibly handle the necessary traffic. And the AC types aren’t going to ride the train anyway. No way private cars can all fit without massive gridlock.

So: Pedicabs. My suggestion.

In the meantime, there’s this little problem of 8 Washington.

See, the developer of what would be the city’s most expensive condos ever is planning on excavating 110,000 cubic yards of soil for a massive underground parking garage — right along the Embarcadero, and right during the America’s Cup events. The Draft Environmental Impact Report for 8 Washington indicates that the dump trucks (about 20 big trucks per day, and possibly a lot more) would be using that roadway to get to 101 or 280.

Actually, if activist Brad Paul is correct, there’s no way the developer can excavate that much dirt in the time frame that it’s supposed to happen unless the number of trucks is closer to 300 a day. Imagine all of that happening while 100,000 people are trying to get to the waterfront to watch the show. Oh, and according to the DEIR for the America’s Cup, the Embarcadero will be CLOSED during that period.

The fact is, the 8 Washington project is not only a terrible idea (just what the city needs — more condos for mega-millionaires) but would directly screw up the whole America’s Cup effort. And the amazing thing is that the AC people and the Mayor’s Office don’t seem to be paying attention.

Paul has put together a lengthy critique of the whole mess that makes great reading if you’re into this sort of thing. So I thought I’d just post it all here. Warning: It’s long. Enjoy.

August 15, 2011

Bill Wycko
Environmental Review Officer
San Francisco Planning Department
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103

Re: COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR FOR 8 WASHINGTON STREET/
SEAWALL LOT 351 PROJECT
Case No. 2007.0030E

Dear Mr. Wycko:

I am writing to my provide my comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for this project, a document that is incomplete, inadequate and in places quite misleading. I’ve organized my comments in sections beginning with a detailed discussion of how the project’s construction schedule has been greatly underestimated. This is followed by discussions of the DEIR’s failure to address key Housing and Population issues, misstatements regarding historic obligations related to Golden Gateway, comments on recreation issues, and more. In general, I believe the DEIR fails to present objective information and analysis, it omits a number of relevant issues that are critical to the ability of public officials to make objective and informed decisions about the project and it is filled with judgments and assertions that are not supported by facts.

The DEIR is incomplete and inadequate in the following areas:

I. THE DEIR CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR 8 WASHINGTON IS BOTH INACCURATE AND MISLEADING.

The DEIR construction schedule is based on overly optimistic assumptions that are totally unrealistic; the ramifications of these erroneous assumptions need to be carefully considered as they will cascade throughout the project requiring major revisions to the DEIR before it can be considered accurate and complete.

At the bottom of page II.19 it states:

      Project construction, including demolitions, site and foundation work,
      construction of the parking garage, and construction of the buildings,
      would take 27-29 months. Assuming that construction would begin in 2012,
      the buildings would be ready for occupancy in 2014. The first phase of the
      construction would take about 16 months and would include demolition
     (2 months), excavation and shoring (7 months), and foundation and below
      grade construction work (7 months).

While the DEIR unequivocally states the project will take 27-29 months to construct, from 2012 to 2014, facts provided elsewhere in the DEIR together with current city policies, the City’s America’s Cup Host and Venue Agreement and basic math indicate that this schedule is not tenable. The remainder of this section provides the data and analysis that lead to the conclusion that construction of 8 Washington will take much longer than 27-29 months, almost TWICE AS LONG, with excavation taking 2.5 to 3 TIMES longer.

Table 1: Requested Changes to the overall DEIR construction schedule

ACTIVITY MINIMUM MAXIMUM

DEIR’s construction schedule: 27 months to 29 months

    Actual excavation schedule:  18 months          22 months
    — DEIR estimate for excavation – 7 months           – 7 months
    + Increased excavation time  11 months      to       15 months
    + Archeology delays              .5 months      to         2 months
    + America’s Cup delays                  2.5 months       to         5 months
    + Weather delays                        .25 months      to         1 months

ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION TIME 41 months to 52 months

To refute the numbers in Table 1, project sponsors must present additional, verifiable data supporting their unrealistic assumptions, beginning with the claim that the first phase of construction takes 16 months with a mere seven months allocated for excavation/shoring.

A. The DEIR fails to accurately ascertain and analyze the excavation/shoring schedule.

The DEIR states on page II.20 that “approximately 110,000 cubic yards of soil” will be excavated from the site for an underground garage (approximately 90,000 cubic yards) and other foundation work during the seven (7) month “excavation” portion of the projected timeline. It later states excavation will take place 6.5 hours per day with an average of 20 truck trips per day (pg.IV.D.31). Assuming the average dump truck holds 12 cubic yards of dirt (typical payload for a dump truck), that would mean:

· 110,000 cu. yards/12 cubic yards per truck = 9,166 truck trips

· 20 trucks/day X 12 cubic yards/trip = an average of 240 cu. yards/day

· 110,000 cu. yards/240 cu. yards per day = 458 working days for this task

Could this task be completed in seven (7) months as claimed in the DEIR? NO.

     ·5 working days per week X 52 weeks = 260 working days per year
             – 11 holidays per year
                   249 total working days/year

·458 days to finish task/249 working days per year = 22 months (not 7)

For this to take 7 months as the DEIR asserts, the following would have to be true:

· 20 trucks/day X 7 months (145 working days ) = 2,900 total truck trips

· 110,000 cu. yards/2,900 trucks = each truck must average 38 cubic yards/trip
Empirical evidence exists, however, proving the DEIR’s claim that the excavation portion of the schedule will take seven months is inaccurate and misleading:

CASE STUDY #1: San Francisco General Hospital Rebuild Project

A recent SF General Hospital (SFGH) Newsletter reports the hospital’s contractor just finished hauling 120,000 cu. yards of dirt from the 45’ deep hole that was dug to build two basement levels and the foundation for a new hospital building. This is as close as anyone is likely to get to replicating what 8 Washington proposes, a three level 40’ deep underground garage accounting for most of the 110,000 cubic yards of dirt that must be removed from the site.

A call to the SFGH Rebuild office revealed their excavation process took seven (7) months with an average truck load of 13 cu. yards per trip. How was that possible?

“The average truck load was 13 cubic yards. Some days we had
over 300 truck loads hauled in one day. This volume was possible
through use of a paved drive that allowed trucks to enter the side, be
loaded up then tires washed to prevent dirt on road causing storm-
water pollution and dust.”

The SF General site is just a few blocks from U.S. 101 with direct access via Potrero Ave., thus minimizing potential traffic conflicts. The 8 Washington site will require driving long distances on city streets including “The Embarcadero, Harrison Street, and King Street… likely the primary haul and access routes to and from I-80, U.S. 101, and I-280 (pg. IV.D.31).” Imagine 300 trips a day on one of these streets.

CASE STUDY #2: SF PUC’s New Hetch Hetchy Reservoir Tunnel

A recent Oakland Tribune story (4/8/11) describes construction of a new 3.5-mile tunnel designed to protect the water supply from SF’s Hetch Hetchy reservoir from major earthquakes by boring a 2nd, state-of-the-art tunnel from Sunol to Fremont alongside the existing 81-year-old Irvington Tunnel. The article states:

      “By the time the New Irvington Tunnel is completed in 2014, crews will have
        excavated about 734,000 cubic yards of material—the equivalent of 61,000
        dump-truck trips, said officials with the SF Public Utilities Commission.”

Dividing 734,000 cubic yards of soil by the 61,000 dump truck trips that the PUC says are necessary equals 12 cubic yards per truck trip. Given this job’s overall size and $227 million budget, it would seem to confirm the fact that the most efficient excavation equipment for the 8 Washington site will be 12 cubic yard dump trucks.

In light of these facts and the analysis provided above, the only way 8 Washington could meet its proposed seven (7) month excavation schedule would be to:

a) schedule up to 300 TRUCK TRIPS A DAY, over 10 TIMES the average number of trips per day (20) stated in the DEIR and 3 TIMES the absolute maximum of 100 truck trips per day (pg. IV.D.31) along the Northeast Embarcadero during a period of time that directly overlaps with the major America’s Cup events and activities, something specifically prohibited by the City’s America’s Cup Host and Venue Agreement ,

b) average 38 cubic yards of dirt per truck trip, 3 TIMES the average truck payload of both the PUC’s Irvington Tunnel project and SF General Hospital’s 120,000 cubic yard excavation project—assuming that 38 cubic yard trucks: a) exist in sufficient quantity in the Bay Area, b) would be available during that period of time described and c) would be allowed on The Embarcadero, Harrison St., King St., Washington St. and Drumm St. by the City. [see photo comparison of 12 cubic yard vs. 30 cubic yard trucks below]

Unless the project sponsor can demonstrate that one of these two highly unlikely scenarios is possible, then the EIR must reanalyze a number of impacts (e.g. Land Use, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases) based on a revised excavation schedule, one that takes 2.5 to 3 TIMES as long as the one described in DEIR to complete excavation work, and this 22 month timeline assumes NO archeological remains are found on site and the City imposes NO stop work orders related to America’s Cup (see below).

This 15-month difference between the excavation period analyzed in the DEIR and the ACTUAL time it will take to complete the excavation (22 months vs. 7 months) is a major deficiency in the DEIR with profound impacts. For instance, some of the most significant unavoidable negative impacts described in the DEIR involve degraded air quality both during and after construction. Adjusting the environmental analysis to reflect how long excavation will actually take means significant air quality impacts related to excavation (with the greatest detrimental effect on seniors, children and people exercising) will persist for 2.5 to 3 TIMES LONGER than described in the DEIR. This flaw also requires significant revisions to other sections of the DEIR.

In light of this new information, the next draft of the EIR must contain an analysis of this longer overall construction period—two months for demolition; a range of 18 to 22 months for excavation (not seven months); a built-in range of time for the shutting down of the site when archeological artifacts are uncovered, documented and extracted (something the DEIR’s archeology consultant states is “likely” ); and the building construction period. Finally, given these overly aggressive excavation schedule estimates, all other estimates for later construction phases must now to be cross checked for accuracy by independent contractors (e.g. not working for 8 Washington developer or the source of the prior DEIR excavation estimate).

B. The actual construction timeline for 8 Washington will be 41-52 MONTHS.
If the project sponsors disagree with this assessment, they must provide the Planning Department with much more detailed information on how they expect to achieve a shorter construction period given the restrictions described in the DEIR itself as well as mathematical analysis described above. For instance,

– Did the developers err when they reported that the average number of truck
   trips per day would be 20 as analyzed in the DEIR? If so, what number do they
   choose to use now and how does that impact various aspects of the DEIR analysis
   such as air quality, conflicts with pedestrians, MUNI and America’s Cup, etc..

– Does the developer plan to raise the limit of truck trips per day from 100 (as
   per the DEIR) to 300 truck trips per day? If so, how often will this happen and
   how will these changes impact various aspects of the previous EIR analysis (e.g. air
   quality, traffic/transit/pedestrian conflicts, America’s Cup)?

– Does the developer plan to lengthen the average workday or work six days a
   week? If so, how often and how would this impact the previous DEIR analysis?
   NOTE: The DEIR construction schedule (27-29 months) was not predicated on the
   trucks operating 6 days a week EVERY WEEK. But even if the developer ran dump
   trucks 6 days a week for the ENTIRE excavation period it would still take TWICE AS
   LONG as the DEIR states to remove 110,000 cubic yards of dirt .

– Where is the project sponsor planning to route 100 to 300 trucks a day as they
   leave the site, particularly during the various America’s Cup trials (2012) and
   finals (2013) when vehicular traffic will be severely limited or prohibited?
   Washington Street? The Embarcadero? Drumm Street? Clay Street?, where exactly?

– Have the developers located a source of 30+ cubic yard trucks and secured
   city permission to use them on the specific streets described in the DEIR?
   It seems fair to assume the SF General Hospital’s excavation contractor would have
   done this if it were possible (and the SF PUC’s Irvington Tunnel contractor). See the
   three photos below to get a sense of the size difference between a typical 12 cubic yard
   dump truck and the type of tractor-trailer rig required to carry 30 cubic yards or more.

As the questions and examples (SF General Hospital) above demonstrate, the DEIR’s claim that 110,000 cubic yards can be excavated in seven months defies the laws of physics and math, not to mention the America’s Cup Host & Venue Agreement between the City and Larry Ellison’s Oracle BMW Racing Team

A thorough reading of the DEIR’s Archeology section and the America’s Cup Host and Venue Agreement indicate that additional time must be built into the construction schedule for predictable work stoppages related to both issues.

KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IDENTIFIED ON THIS SITE IN THE DEIR

On page IV.C.12, the DEIR’s archeology consultant, Archeo-Tec, identifies the Gold Rush ship Bethel as located under a portion of the site and states that “If discovered, the Bethel would be the oldest known (and perhaps most intact) archeological example of an early Canadian built ship (Pg. IV.C.3)”. On page IV.C.11, the archeology consultant states “Significant archeological resources are likely to exist at this site”. The DEIR, goes on to state the proposed project will destroy a portion of city’s original Seawall causing “the largest disturbance of the Old Seawall to date”.

As a result of these DEIR findings, the archeology consultant should now be asked for an estimate of the time required to mitigate the discovery of the Bethel and other likely finds (e.g. original Seawall, other Gold Rush ships, original Chinatown). This “likely” work delay should be built into the construction schedule and stated as a range. For purposes of the matrix below (Table 1) we chose a time of two weeks to two months based on anecdotal information from other similar sites. Archeo-Tec, the archeology consultant, should be able to come up with a more precise estimate.

KNOWN AMERICA’S CUP SCHEDULING CONFLICTS

Based on recent MTA staff presentations on protocols for the America’s Cup, it seems clear that traffic, particularly construction dump trucks, will be banned from Washington Street, Drumm Street and The Embarcadero during major America’s Cup events that include, at a minimum, the America’s Cup World Series warm-up races (July/Sept. 2012), the penultimate Louis Vuitton Cup Series (July/August 2013) and the America’s Cup finals (Sept. 2013).

This represents a minimum of 2.5 months that must be added to the construction schedule, something the DEIR authors should have included if they had read the America’s Cup DEIR which states there are 9+ weeks of races associated with this event in 2012/2013. The extra few weeks added to the low end range in Table 1 (below) are there to accommodate last minute weather delays and various large non-racing events held along the waterfront that will require closure of The Embarcadero, Washington Street, Drumm Street, etc.

Table 1 below lays out a more credible and realistic construction schedule based on the factors described at length above, taken directly from the DEIR or readily available from the city (e.g. America’s Cup DEIR) and the America’s Cup Host and Venue Agreement.

Table 1: Requested Changes to the overall DEIR construction schedule

ACTIVITY MINIMUM MAXIMUM

DEIR’s construction schedule: 27 months to 29 months

    Actual excavation schedule:  18 months          22 months
    — DEIR estimate for excavation – 7 months           – 7 months
    + Increased excavation time  11 months      to      15 months
    + Archeology delays              .5 months      to         2 months
    + America’s Cup delays                   2.5 months        to         5 months
    + Weather delays                        .25 months      to         1 months

ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION TIME 41 months to 52 months

To refute these numbers, the project sponsors must not only present a verifiable and detailed plan to remove 110,000 cubic yards (9,167 truck trips) in seven months that the City has signed off on but also produce a letter from the City and Oracle BMW Racing granting a waiver from Section 10.4 of the America’s Cup Host and Venue Agreement that would allow 20 to 300 trucks a day to drive along The Embarcadero, Washington Street or Drumm Street during major America’s Cup events in 2012 and 2013.

D. Significant Transportation and Energy issues that were not addressed in DEIR.

More specific information related to the construction process needs to be provided and analyzed in the EIR, particularly regarding the far reaching impacts of those 9,166 dump truck trips, impacts that go beyond the immediate Northeast Waterfront.

The DEIR states “While the exact routes that construction trucks would use would depend on the location of the available disposal sites, The Embarcadero, Harrison Street, and King Street would likely be the primary haul and access routes to and from I-80, U.S. 101, and I-280”. At a minimum, The EIR needs to include information on where the two or three most likely disposal sites are located, based on recent experience (SF General Hospital excavation) so that one can analyze the extent of potential conflicts on the Bay Bridge or 101 South where other trucks will be transporting dirt to and/or from the Transbay Terminal project, Hunters Point Shipyard, Mission Bay, Treasure Island, etc. Without this information, the City could find itself creating significant traffic conflicts on the Bay Bridge or highway 101 that greatly increase air quality, traffic and transit problems without having analyzed these potential impacts in a flawed EIR.

Simply saying “While the exact routes that construction trucks would use would depend on the location of the available disposal sites” isn’t adequate or acceptable. Assumptions must be made regarding most likely disposal sites and routes to those sites and what additional cumulative impacts these routes (and 9,166 trucks) will create. The EIR must provide a MAP of the route to be used for hauling soil, all the way from the departure point at 8 Washington to the final destination(s) with an explanation of where trucks will drive and what restrictions there are on hours, size of payload, safety, etc. for the various streets, highways and bridges they will travel on. If the options include trucking the soil to San Francisco’s southern waterfront to transfer it to barges, then this needs to be disclosed and analyzed, including the potential routes and destinations of those barges.
In addition, to accurately compare the environmental impacts of the project sponsor’s ‘Preferred Project’ to the “No Project” alternative (energy consumption, traffic impacts, air quality degradation, etc.), one needs to know not only the destination of the approximately 9,166 dump truck trips but also the average miles per gallon of a typical dump truck. For instance, if the final destination for the soil was 100 miles away and a typical dump truck averages 8 miles per gallon of diesel fuel, then:

9,166 truck trips X 200 miles per round trip = 1,833,200 miles for all dump trucks;

1,833,200 gallons/8 MPG = 229,150 gallons of diesel fuel that would be burned.

In other words, the city’s choices would be:

229,150 gallons of diesel fuel used to transfer 110,000 cubic yards 1,833,200 miles

VS.

ZERO (O) gallons of diesel fuel used if the NO PROJECT alternative were approved.

E. Importance of accurate, detailed information re: the construction process.

Given the above discussion, it is clear that the construction schedule set forth in the DEIR is inaccurate at best and has led, in many cases, to the significant understating of major negative impacts associated with this project. The lack of a detailed discussion of some of the key aspects of the construction process, e.g. the route and destination of 9,166 dump trucks, is also highly problematic.

Without a complete and thorough analysis of the impacts of a of an overall construction schedule that is TWICE AS LONG as the one analyzed in this DEIR, city officials will be missing much of the critical information they need to determine whether or not the developer’s ‘Preferred Project’ is necessary, desirable or feasible. A complete and factual analysis of this issue must be included in the next draft of the EIR which, given this and other major inaccuracies and omissions (see below), should be recirculated in draft form.

II. THE DEIR FAILS TO DISCUSS OR ANALYZE ANY CRITICAL HOUSING ISSUES RELEVANT TO 8 WASHINGTON OR UNIQUE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACTS THOSE HOUSING ISSUES CREATE.

A. Impacts of the project on the City’s Housing Needs were Not Analyzed in DEIR. The DEIR states that potentially significant impacts to Population and Housing will not be discussed because the 2007 NOP/Initial Study found that the proposed project would not adversely affect them. Unfortunately the DEIR lacks the basic information needed to reach such a conclusion and, as we will demonstrate, an objective review of relevant 2008-2011 housing data contradicts this conclusion.

The world, particularly regarding housing, has changed radically since 2007. Relying on housing and population information from 2007 ignores the financial and housing meltdown of 2008 and is simply indefensible. In addition, back in 2007, the EIR consultants were relying on stale, seven-year-old census data while today they have access to a multitude of fresh 2010 census data. No one can dispute that the housing environment today could not be more unlike the housing environment in 2007.
By relying solely on pre-2008 housing data from the 2007 NOP/Initial Study, this DEIR lacks any of the basic information needed to conclude that this project would not have adverse effects on Population and Housing and must now revisit and thoroughly analyze these issues.

B. The DEIR fails to analyze how the type and price of housing proposed for
8 Washington determines whether or not it meets the city’s housing needs.

One of the project objectives (Pg II.14) is to “help meet projected City housing
needs.” How is that possible, given the fact that the developer has publicly stated
that these will be “the most expensive condominiums in the history of SF” ? With a
$345,000,000 project cost , 8 Washington’s 165 units will cost $2.0 million a unit
just to build . To secure financing and a ‘reasonable’ profit, each unit will have to
sell for $2.5-$5 million with penthouses selling for $8-$10 million.

Nowhere in the DEIR is ANY of this discussed. There is no analysis of how these
very high sales prices will determine who lives at 8 Washington (e.g. how many San
Francisco families could afford these prices?) and how the incomes of these new
residents ($250,000 to over $1 million/year) will dramatically change a number of
the environmental impacts of the project, with major implications for sustainability
and energy use, among other things.

The final EIR must state the average cost to build each unit and the range of
sales prices expected so that public officials can assess for themselves whether
the proposed condos will or will not “help meet projected City housing needs.”

The 2009 Housing Element, signed into law by Mayor Ed Lee on June 29, 2011, states that 61% of the housing need in San Francisco is for below-market-rate housing—serving families making 30-120% of Area Median Income (AMI), and only 39% of the city’s housing need is for market rate housing (120% to 500+% AMI).

As Planning staff and Commissioners know from their Housing Element discussions, the luxury condos proposed for this project are so expensive they will not help the city meet its current unmet housing needs. If this project objective (Pg II.14) is left in the final EIR, it should include a note explaining that the project, as proposed, is unlikely to meet this objective for the following reasons:

Condominiums selling for $2.5 million and more fall into the one segment of the city’s housing market that is currently overbuilt and has historically been over represented in relation to the state’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals that underpin the updated 2009 Housing Element of the city’s General Plan. An ABAG report on housing needs vs. housing production in SF (1999-2006) that came out in 2007—a report that should have informed the 2007 NOP/Initial Study for 8 Washington—states RHNA Allocations (Goal), Permits Issued (Permitted) and % of Allocation Permitted (% of RHNA Goal) by income category as follows:

Table 2: SF Housing Production (1999-2006)*

Housing Type  Very Low    Low              Moderate       Market Rate
by Income    Income Income Income           Housing
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
% of AMI:    21-50% 51-80% 81-120%         120-500+%
Annual income: [21-50K] [57-81K] [85-123K]   [123K-$1million+]
———————————————————————————————————-
·RHNA Goal (units)   5,244       2,126   5,639                7,363

·Permitted 4,203 1,101 661 11,474

·% of RHNA Goal 80% 52% 12% 156%

* from a 2007 ABAG report entitled: A Place to Call Home

A chart like this, showing housing goals by income group (based on RHNA numbers from the State Office of Housing and Community Development), must be included in the DEIR so public officials can analyze what portion of the city’s unmet affordable and middle income housing needs, if any, the proposed project would meet. It illustrates something local housing experts have long known, that the city consistently comes in well above its RHNA goals for market rate condos, and has historically fallen short of its goals in all other categories for affordable housing, the housing that serves the 61% of San Franciscans that cannot afford ‘market rate’ housing.
C. Dramatic changes to the San Francisco housing market since the 2007 NOP/ Initial Study were not acknowledged and analyzed in the DEIR. All the traditional (pre-2007) sources of funding for the city’s affordable housing programs have dried up since the 2008 housing crash. Redevelopment tax increment funds will either be significantly reduced to pay the state to avoid closure of the SF Redevelopment Agency, or they will be eliminated altogether. Proceeds from the state’s $2.8 billion Affordable Housing Bond (Prop. 1C) are all spent. The federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit, a major source of funding for affordable housing, is under attack by House and Senate Republicans and may not survive.

This indicates that San Francisco won’t come close to meeting its pre-2007 affordable housing production levels until we find a new permanent local source of funding for affordable housing. How long will that take? The DEIR must address this issue.

Another chart that must be included in the DEIR shows the city’s RHNA goals by income category combined with a summary of a recent SF Business Times (6/24/2011) chart showing all San Francisco residential projects under construction, permitted or in the planning pipeline . Such a chart would look something like Table 3 below:

Table 3: Where does the city need help in meeting its RHNA goals?

          Extremely Low       Very Low            Low             Moderate          Market Rate
                 Income          Income           Income            Income               Housing
         Below 30% AMI          31-50%            51-80%           81-120%              120-500+%
    [21K-30K]         [35K-50]        [57K-81K]      [85K-120K]        [120K-$1M+]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

RHNA      439/yr.                   439/yr.           738/yr.            901/yr.                    1,632/yr.
Goals:      10.5%        +          10.5%      +      18%        +     22% = 61%           39%
# of units                    of total        of total
% of goal
                             All Affordable Categories Combined            Market Rate_

Underway: 470 units 1,557 units

Approved: 8,751 units 30,878 units

In Pipeline:                   780 units                     4,184 units
________________________________________________________________________
                          10,000 units             36,619 units
            or                     or
          21.5% of all units                 78.5% of all units

56% of RHNA goals 300% of RHNA goal
in all affordable categories in market rate category
Some version of Table 3 must be included in the revised DEIR to help public officials determine whether the significant negative environmental impacts this project creates are outweighed by the ‘need’ for the type of housing that 8 Washington provides given the priorities set forth in the Housing Element of the General Plan and what the above-mentioned SF Business Times chart tells us about likely housing production for each segment of the city’s housing needs (from 2011-2014).

Table 3 demonstrates that in a few years, if nothing changes, the city will have approved and built out 300% of its RHNA goal for Market Rate projects (such as 8 Washington) but only 56% of its RHNA goals for all other housing that serves San Franciscans making 30% AMI to 120% AMI. But given what we now know about the current lack of funding for affordable housing, the exact opposite of what was true in 2007 (when the city had significant amounts of Redevelopment tax increment and other affordable housing funds), many of the affordable housing projects listed by the Business Times are now on hold and unlikely to come on line by 2014. This means the mismatch between market rate (39% of need but 300% of production) and all categories of affordable will be even greater than Table 3 indicates.

To be fair, one could argue that some of the market rate housing on the Business Times chart may not be built soon either given that banks have been reluctant to lend money lately. However, a recent article in the SF Chronicle (8/11/11) entitled “Rents Go Through Roof” indicates that the city’s housing market is roaring back; Dennis Robal, property manager with Chandler Properties, reports “Noe Valley apartments that were $2,000 a month a year ago are now going for $2,400”. These kinds of increases, driven by new renters from the tech sector, are prompting major increases in investments by financial institutions in new rental housing.

Regarding the condo market, the one group of potential condominium buyers that
have not suffered financially from the economic meltdown are the very people who
caused it, the Wall Street investors, derivatives specialists, hedge fund managers,
etc. who are now making record salaries and bonuses. These are some of the people
8 Washington will be marketing to because they have the cash to spend $2.5-$10
million on a second, third or fourth home in San Francisco.

NONE of this housing analysis appears in the DEIR yet including it in the DEIR is
critical to the ability of public officials to make informed, rational decisions on this
project, particularly claims by the developer that this project will “help meet
projected City housing needs”. The information and analysis described above is
necessary to allow city officials and all readers to determine accurately and
objectively what portion of San Francisco’s unmet affordable and middle income
housing needs, if any, 8 Washington would meet.

Each year, as the City assesses how well it is meeting its RHNA (state) housing goals, the one area that has consistently over produced is high-end market rate housing affordable to people making $250,000 to $1 million+ a year.
How does building second, third and fourth homes for this demographic “help the city meet its housing needs?”

The unmet housing needs in San Francisco are for people making from 30%-50% of median income all the way up to 100-120%, not people making $250,000 to $1,000,000+ a year (200-500% or more of area median income). The DEIR needs to discuss the following questions to be considered complete, adequate and accurate, questions such as:

How does this project relate to the objectives, policies and goals of San Francisco’s recently enacted 2009 Housing Element of the General Plan?

What portion of San Francisco’s affordable and middle-income housing needs will this proposed project actually meet?

How many other projects under construction, approved or in the pipeline (see June 24,
2011 SF Business Times chart) will meet the needs of San Franciscans who can afford market rate housing vs. those that meet the needs of the 61% of SF residents needing below market housing?

What percentage of “residents” of these condos will be using this housing as their primary residence vs. as second, third and fourth vacation homes?

Given that numerous studies show transit use goes down as income goes up,
how likely is it that these new owners will use public transit?

Again, the answer to each of these questions provides critical information that public
officials need to assess for themselves whether the proposed condos will or will
not “help meet the projected City housing needs.”

Everything that’s happened since the 2008 economic/housing meltdown has made our housing problems worse, something the DEIR doesn’t attempt to analyze, arguing instead that a 2007 NOP/Initial Study—competed a year before the housing bubble burst—absolves it of all such responsibility, an argument that is factually absurd.

D. The DEIR fails to acknowledge, measure or analyze the unique environmental impacts generated by owners who can pay $2.5 to $10 million for luxury condos.

Building housing for this demographic has measurable impacts on transit and energy use that were not included in the DEIR. We know from national studies that low-and middle- income residents are far greater consumers of public transit than people with higher incomes. Imagine how much different public transit use will be when this inverse relationship includes people who can afford $2.5-10 million condos that come with 1-for-1 parking (costing almost $100,000 a space to build).

But a far greater environmental impact than driving private cars was not addressed in this DEIR, an impact resulting from lifestyle differences one can anticipate with some members of this highest of high-end demographics: owning and/or using private jets.

It’s reasonable to assume that five of the 165 condo buyers at 8 Washington (just 3% of all buyers) are Wall Street hedge fund managers, derivatives traders or venture capitalists using these condos as second, third or fourth homes. It’s also reasonable to assume that these five buyers will use their condos 1.5 times a month on average and commute to and from SF aboard private business jets, a perfectly rational assumption for Wall Street executives making tens of millions in salary and bonuses each year. Why would they fly private jets rather than take Southwest…because they can. The fact that a handful of people that are this wealthy will buy units at 8 Washington must be factored into any environmental analysis of a project that will explicitly market to this high-end demographic. That analysis must include, among others, the following:

Table 4: The Jet Fuel Burn Rate for Luxury Condominiums
___________________________________________________________________________
Mid to large size business jets used to fly cross country (e.g. Hawker 800XP, Gulfstream G2/G3, Bombardier Global Express) average 400 gallons of jet fuel per hour and take six hours to fly New York to SF and five hours to fly back for an 11 hour round trip :

     · 11 hours X 400 gallons per hour = 4,400 gallons of jet fuel per trip
          a typical family car burns 1,200 gallons of gas per year so one flight from
          NYC to SF equals almost four years of driving a typical family car.
               ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

        · 1.5 trips/mo. = 6,600 gallons/mo. X 12 mo. = 79,200 gallons of jet fuel/year

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Using our example of 5 residents, the numbers over one year and 20 years are:

· 5 X 79,200 gallons/per year = 396,000 GALLONS OF JET FUEL A YEAR or
equivalent to driving a family car 330 years, A THIRD OF A MILENNIUM, per year.

· 396,000 gallons/year X 20 years = 7,920,000 GALLONS of jet fuel in 20 years
equivalent to driving family car 6,600 years, OVER 6 MILLENIUM, in 20 years.

Given these condos cost $2+ million to build and will sell for $2.5 to $8 million or more, it seems quite reasonable to assume a mere 3% of these buyers—just five (5) buyers out of 165 —will be part-time residents wealthy enough to commute to San Francisco by business jet. If this is a reasonable assumption , then the DEIR must include the mathematical calculations above to show the true energy costs of this project. In fact, it would also be reasonable to assume a few other buyers will use private business jets to commute from LA, San Diego, Denver, etc. The only way to prevent this, forbidding buyers to own or use corporate jets, is of course impossible.
This is just one example of how housing prices—and who lives in that housing—greatly changes environmental impacts and why this analysis must be included in the DEIR for 8 Washington. As condo prices reach $2.5-10 million, it’s reasonable to assume a number of buyers will use them as a second, third or fourth homes and that some of those buyers will travel here by jet, not car or public transit. On the other hand, if units at 8 Washington were affordable or market rate rental or affordable-by-design condos (80%-150% AMI), it’s very unlikely any of its residents would own or use business jets. Price does matter with regard to energy consumption and transit use.

Given these facts, the 8 Washington DEIR must analyze such questions as:

How many solar panels do you need to make up for 396,000 gallons of jet fuel per year?

How many low flow toilets make up for 396,000 gallons of jet fuel per year?

How many double pane windows make up for 396,000 gallons of jet fuel per year?

How many on-demand hot water heaters make up for 396,000 gallons of jet fuel per year?

Looking at the longer term impacts of this excessive consumption of energy resources:

How many solar panels compensate for 7,920,000 gallons of jet fuel over 20 years?

How many low flow toilets make up for 7,920,000 gallons of jet fuel over 20 years?

How many double pane windows make up for 7,920,000 gallons of jet fuel over 20 years?

How many on demand water heaters make up for 7,920,000 gallons of jet fuel over 20 years?

Having this information in the DEIR is necessary for the Planning Commissioners or Board of Supervisors to make informed decisions about 8 Washington, especially when the project sponsor keeps touting it as state-of-the-art, sustainable, LEED certified (at Gold or Platinum level), etc. When added to the project sponsor’s insistence on building a 420-car underground (below sea level) garage, one has to question how one can call this a model of sustainable development or let the DEIR include sustainability as a project objective.

Unless the DEIR seriously and objectively addresses questions of how the price of housing and who lives in that housing impacts environmental sustainability, we risk creating a backlash against things like LEED certification and terms like “sustainability”. They could easily become just another example of slick marketing and “greenwashing”. Everyone agrees that building 10,000 s.f. McMansions in the Sierra Foothills on 2-acre lots—even if they’re LEED certified at the highest level—is NOT sustainable development. Why is it any less absurd to use “green” and “sustainable” to describe $2.5-$10 million condos built as second and third homes for extremely wealthy part-time residents, some of whom commute from their primary residence by private jet?

The DEIR must provide public officials with the data and information they need to analyze all the significant impacts that units this expensive have on the environment. With this information, decision makers might choose to require a much smaller garage or no garage at all (insisting on more efficient use of nearby existing garages). They might also choose to support a much smaller project or no project at all, based on the lack of demonstrable need for this housing type and all the other negative impacts described above. But they cannot make any of these decisions in a rational and objective manner without all the facts, many of which are missing from this DEIR.

E. The DEIR confuses project “objectives” with city mandated requirements with regard to Inclusionary Housing, then fails to discuss any of the relevant issues around this city policy.

The project objective (Pg II.14) that talks about the project’s ability “to help meet
projected City housing needs” reads in full:

“To develop a high-quality, sustainable and economically feasible
   high-density, primarily residential, project within the existing
   density designation for the site, in order to help meet projected
   City housing needs and satisfy the City’s inclusionary affordable
         housing requirement;”

Satisfying the city’s inclusionary affordable housing requirement, for this or any market rate housing development, IS NOT an Objective, and stating it as such is misleading. It is, in fact, legally mandated by city ordinance. The developer doesn’t have a choice in the matter and it should be stricken from this Objective. However, this reference to inclusionary housing leads one to ask several questions that are never addressed in the DEIR but should be. An Inclusionary Housing section must be added that answers questions such as:

What are the specific requirements for including permanent below market rate (BMR) units in all market rate projects and how many would be required on-site for this one?

Did the developer ever consider building on-site BMR units and if not, why not?

If the developer did consider and reject on-site BMR units, why?

If the developer has decided to pay the in-lieu affordable housing fee, what would it be and how and where (e.g. within a 1-mile radius of the project) would it be spent?

Given that the in-lieu fee charged developers to buy out of providing BMR units on-site is based on construction costs and sales prices for “average” condos, how will the extraordinarily high construction costs and sales prices for these condos impact the in-lieu fee? If it doesn’t impact the fee, would an appropriate mitigation measure be amending the Inclusionary Housing policy so that it does?

Mentioning the inclusionary requirement as part of an objective stating that the project seeks to “help meet projected City housing needs” is misleading and inaccurate. It tries to infer that the funding for 30 affordable units provided by the developer’s inclusionary requirement is helping to meet this objective when, in fact, relying on inclusionary payments to advance the city’s affordable housing goals will only drive the city further out of compliance with its state mandated RHNA goals. The following example clearly demonstrates the validity of this claim:

TNDC’s proposed affordable family apartment project at Eddy and Taylor Streets is typical of the projects now stalled in the city’s affordable housing pipeline due to the lack of affordable housing funding from traditional sources. But the Eddy and Taylor project is a 150 unit development, not 30 units. For it to go forward, you would need the inclusionary housing funds from FIVE market rate projects like 8 Washington. What would that do to San Francisco’s RHNA goals:

         If: 165 market rate units are needed to fund 30 affordable units,
Then:   825 market units (5X) are needed to fund 150 affordable units (975 total units).

         If: out of a every 975 new housing units, 825 are market rate & 150 are affordable,
   Then: for each new 975 units built in SF: 85% are market rate, 15% affordable.

But the 2009 Housing Element of San Francisco’s General Plan (based on the state RHNA goals) calls for 39% OF NEW HOUSING TO BE MARKET RATE (NOT 85%). Relying on Inclusionary Housing off-site payments to fund affordable housing clearly runs counter to the housing production goals set forth in the 2009 Housing Element in the General Plan as well as the RHNA goals for San Francisco established by the state of California. Furthermore, as SB375 Sustainable Development funding criteria begins influencing state funding decisions, by driving our RHNA numbers toward 85% market rate, projects like 8 Washington could jeopardize San Francisco’s ability to apply for and receive state and federal infrastructure and transit funding.

The only way to bring San Francisco’s housing production numbers back into line with the goals in the Housing Element (and RHNA numbers) is to create a new local permanent and dedicated source of funding for affordable housing. These relevant facts regarding the impacts of inclusionary housing must be included in the DEIR.

III. THE DEIR IGNORES THE GENTRIFICATION/DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS OF THIS PROJECT THAT WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF HUNDREDS OF RENT CONTROLLED UNITS IN THE GOLDEN GATEWAY BY ENCOURAGING THE FURTHER HOTELIZATION OF ITS 1,200 RENTAL APARTMENTS

The other ‘partner’ in this project is Timothy Foo, who bought Golden Gateway from Perini Corp. about 20 years ago. Only 20% of the 8 Washington site is on Port land, while 80% of the site is on land owned by Mr. Foo and currently occupied by Golden Gateway’s community recreation center. However, Mr. Foo’s only mention in the DEIR is in a footnote to the first sentence of the Introduction which states: “On January 3, 2007, an environmental evaluation application (EE application) was filed by San Francisco Waterfront Partners II (the “project sponsor”) on behalf of the Golden Gateway Center*”. That footnote says “*Golden Gateway Center, Authorization Letter from Timothy Foo, December 27, 2006”).

In addition to violating the original Golden Gateway development agreement that required Perini (and future owners) to preserve the recreation center in exchange for deep discounts in land prices charged by Redevelopment, for some time now Mr. Foo has also been converting rent controlled apartments in the Golden Gateway to short term rental use (e.g. on one floor of a high-rise tower, a third of the units are rented this way). These conversions have been documented by the Golden Gateway Tenants Association, the Affordable Housing Alliance and the San Francisco Tenants Union. While such conversions are not unique to the Golden Gateway Center (see attached Bay Citizen article), they are illegal and violate city zoning, rent control and apartment conversion ordinances.

The DEIR must address this issue by posing the following questions to Mr. Foo and incorporating his answers into the DEIR. He must provide this information because as the owner of 80% of the underlying land that comprises the 8 Washington site, he has had and continues to have a direct financial stake in this project. He must be asked the following questions:

How many of Golden Gateway’s 1,200 rental apartments are currently being used as hotel rooms and/or short-term rentals and/or rented to persons other than those using them as primary residences or directly related to the person residing there (e.g. corporations, business organizations, apartment brokers).

Has Mr. Foo consulted with either the Rent Board or the Planning Department as to the legality of his use of apartments in Golden Gateway as hotel rooms or short-term rentals under applicable city zoning codes, the San Francisco Rent Control ordinance or the city’s Apartment Conversion Ordinance?

Upon receiving and analyzing this information from Mr. Foo, the DEIR must then answer the following questions:

Is the ‘hotelization’ of Golden Gateway and other large apartment complexes likely to increase with the approval of 8 Washington, a development that:

a) builds 165 high-end luxury condos ($2.5 – $10 million each)
on Mr. Foo’s property—creating a much more upscale
environment adjacent to his Golden Gateway apartments;

b) provides Mr. Foo with $10-15 million (what he’s likely to
be paid for his 80% of the site) that can be used to upgrade
his rent controlled apartments at Golden Gateway in order to attract even more higher paying hotel users; and

c) if no mention of these conversions is made in the DEIR, after these written comments have been submitted, will send a clear
message to Mr. Foo and others that the City has no intention of
enforcing its own zoning, rent control and apartment conversion
ordinances, thereby encouraging even more conversions.

If conversions like those at Golden Gateway are not stopped soon, the city is at risk of losing thousands of residential apartments in its downtown neighborhoods.

What kind of mitigations would prevent the further hotelization of the Golden Gateway’s 1,200 rent controlled apartments?

With larger apartment complexes such as Golden Gateway, Parkmerced and Fox Plaza, owners get around the current prohibition on renting residential apartments for less than 30 days as hotel rooms (an action that is legally prohibited by the San Francisco Apartment Conversion Ordinance) by leasing them for more than 30 days to third parties (e.g. corporations, apartment brokers). These intermediaries then rent the apartments for anywhere from a day or two to a few weeks to a month or two.

A simple amendment to the Apartment Conversion Ordinance that changes “you cannot rent an apartment for less than 30 days” to “you cannot rent or occupy an apartment for less than 30 days” would prevent Golden Gateway and others from renting apartments for anywhere from a few days to up to four weeks. Preventing 30-60 day rentals would be a more complicated matter.

The DEIR must address how constructing 8 Washington could encourage, help fund and accelerate Mr. Foo’s conversion of the 1,200 units at Golden Gateway from rent controlled apartments to hotel use as well as the impacts this would have on the city’s housing goals as set forth in the San Francisco’s 2009 Housing Element and its RHNA goals. For instance, if we’re converting housing to non-housing (hotel) uses as fast or faster than we are creating new housing units, we will never dig ourselves out of our current housing crisis and that outcome would have catastrophic impacts on the environmental and economic sustainability of San Francisco as a city.

The DEIR must also describe, in detail, the kind of mitigations (see above) that, if enacted, could mitigate the potential impact of losing more that 165 rent controlled apartments at the Golden Gateway, erasing the gain, on paper, of 165 luxury condos.

IV. FREQUENT USE OF THE WORD “PRIVATE” AS A MODIFIER OF THE GOLDEN GATEWAY RECREATION FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE DEIR IS BOTH MISLEADING AND INNACCURATE IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT PRIVITIZATION AND FEE STRUCTURES IMPOSED ON THE CITY’S “PUBLIC’ RECREATION FACILITIES AND SWIMMING POOLS.

The current fee structure for public recreation facilities in San Francisco results in situations where the cost of attending ‘public’ pools can often exceed fees charged by the “private” Golden Gate Tennis & Swim Center (GGTSC).

The use of the term “private” in this context throughout the DEIR appears to be an attempt to justify the loss of GGTSC facilities for the 3-4 years that it would be shut down if the “preferred project” were approved (see section I.A for actual construction schedule) as well as the permanent loss of five of nine tennis courts, the basketball court and the current, family-friendly ground level swimming pools, Jacuzzi and open space.

In the past, the city’s public recreation facilities, including its swimming pools, were “public” in every sense of the word—open long-hours, open 6-7 days a week and “free” to residents. In recent years, however, the San Francisco Recreation & Parks Department has increased resident user fees, reduced hours and increased the privatization of its facilities in response to ongoing budget deficits. Today, both the ‘private’ Golden Gateway facility and ‘public’ pools are open to anyone, anyone who is willing to pay the fees that they charge. Neither is free.

A. The DEIR fails to discuss the privatization of the City’s recreation centers: According to a 7/9/11 SF Chronicle article, the city is now leasing 23 of its 47 recreation centers to outside interests (e.g. nursery schools, private classes) with the city staffing only a dozen (12) of the 47 former “public” recreation centers. Seven (7) of the remaining recreation centers are under renovation and five (5) are vacant, unavailable for any kind of use “because no one has leased them and there is no money for city workers to run them”. Out of a total of 47 city recreation centers, only 12 are staffed by city workers who run programs for residents, many of them for a fee, during reduced days and hours.

The City also runs nine “public” swimming pools in neighborhoods such as North Beach, the Mission, Bayview, Visitacion Valley, etc. These pools used to be open five or six days a week and were free for residents. Today, residents pay $5 for each swim and $7 for adult swim lessons/water exercise. Children under 17 pay $1 per swim and $2 for swim lessons/water exercise ($3 for a swim & a class together).

Active Recreation Facilities: Public vs. Private… is there a difference anymore?

Each time a family of two adults goes to a city pool it costs $10 per visit to swim and up to $14 per visit if they participate in swim lessons or water exercise. If that family went three times a week, it would cost them $120-$168 per month depending upon how many times they took a swim vs. participated in swim lessons/water exercise. That comes to at least $1,440 dollars per year. Additional swim lessons/water exercise classes drive costs of using a “public” pool even higher.

Now imagine a family of two adults living at the Golden Gateway who currently swim every day at the Golden Gate Tennis and Swim Center. At the city’s North Beach (public) pool, it would cost them $200 a month ($10/swim X 20 days) to swim Tuesday through Saturday (the pool is closed Sunday/Monday) and their schedules would have to match specific windows each day when the pool is available for adult lap swimming. Compare that to the two pools at the Golden Gateway Tennis and Swim Center—one just for swimming laps; one for kids, families and seniors that are open seven days a week for longer hours.

B. Comparative Costs. Because our hypothetical couple live at the Golden Gateway Apartments they automatically receive a discounted membership of about $170 per month ($85 each) to use the two pools, full gym across the street and have the ability to reserve tennis courts at $20 per use. Since the Golden Gateway was built (1960’s), residents have always received discounted membership at this facility, one of two community benefits Redevelopment required, along with Sidney Walton Square, in exchange for entitlements to build both the Golden Gateway (1,150 rental units) and the adjacent Gateway Commons (condominiums). Redevelopment felt both amenities were needed to meet the open space and active recreation needs of what was to become one of the densest residential communities in San Francisco and discounted the land for the GGTSC and Gateway Commons in exchange for the owner maintaining an active recreation facility at the GGTSC in perpetuity.

Even for those who don’t get the Golden Gateway resident discount, memberships to the Tennis and Swim Center that don’t include automatic access to the tennis courts cost about $220 a month to swim 30 days a month, the same price two adults would pay to swim only 20 days a month at the North Beach pool, a facility with no gym and only one pool and therefore greater restrictions on when they could swim laps. It should also be noted that over 300 “guests” are admitted free to the Golden Gateway recreation facility each month, a total of 3,000 to 4,000 guests each year. We are not familiar with a similar policy for free guests at the North Beach pool (or any other city pools).

Clearly, the recent privatization and escalating fee structures at the city’s “public” recreation centers/swimming pools have erased any real distinctions between public facilities and private facilities as viewed by local families and residents. But one of 8 Washington’s main justifications for closing the Golden Gateway Tennis and Swim Center for 3-4 years during construction—and downsizing the replacement facility—
is that it is a “private” club maintained for the selfish interests of the few.

Putting aside the fact that 8 Washington’s condos will cost $2 million each to build and will sell for $2.5 to $5 million each and up (for upper floors), making them unaffordable to 97% of all San Franciscans (talk about catering to “the few”), the issue of who uses the current recreation facilities on this site is an important one that the DEIR must address. The similarities outlined above between today’s Golden Gateway recreation facilities and the City’s current “public” recreation centers/swimming pools contradicts the impression created by the DEIR in its current form with so many derogatory references to GGTSC as a ‘private’ club.

It is imperative that public officials have the information outlined above regarding the current costs of “public” recreation in front of them so they can decide for themselves what distinctions, if any, exist in today’s world between this ‘private’ club and so called “public” alternatives. This information is precisely what an EIR is suppose to provide to officials charged with making these kinds of decisions.

For these reasons, we must insist that you provide—in the Comments and Responses document—a clear, complete explanation of this issue, with a chart (see attached for potential template) that compares the facilities, hours, programs and costs to San Francisco residents of the city’s nine (9) “public” swimming pools with the current Golden Gateway recreation facility fee structure. Without such an analysis critical information will be lacking, information that Planning Commissioners, Park and Recreation Commissioners, Port Commissioners and the Board of Supervisors will clearly need as they assess the validity of the developer’s claims about who is served by the current facilities (and what environmental impacts they have) versus those who’ll be served by the proposed project (and its environmental impacts).

Without this information, it will be difficult for these public bodies to make informed decisions as to whether to grant or not grant the conditional use authorizations, upzonings and dozens of separate approvals and permits needed for this complicated and controversial project to proceed.

V. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADDRESS OR ANALYZE ANY OF THE MAJOR ECONOMIC ISSUES RELATED TO THIS PROJECT, ISSUES THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL AND FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY.

Several of the project sponsor’s and the Port’s objectives for this project speak to the “economic” benefits of the project for the developers, the Port and the City. The DEIR and other Port documents talk about the need to develop SWL 351 in order to generate revenue for badly needed Port infrastructure work. But the Port’s financial term sheet for this project is unrealistic, misleading and relies on depriving the city of $32 million in general fund dollars as part of a proposed Infrastructure Financing District.

This section addresses the DEIR’s lack of analysis or scrutiny regarding the ‘alleged’ financial benefits of the project as described in the Port’s Term Sheet for Seawall Lot 351 with San Francisco Waterfront Partners (“Term Sheet”) and how that Term Sheet, if executed, would have very real environmental impacts with regard to transit, open space, recreation, housing and population. An examination of the Term Sheet demonstrates that the stream of income on which the term sheet’s finances rely cannot be achieved. An objective analysis of “payments” described in this Term Sheet leads one to a much more pessimistic set of income projections than those presented in the September 23, 2010 Director’s Recommendation to the Port Commission. That report describes three payment sources as follows:

(1) a land lease with annual payments of $120,000 per year;
(2) future payments triggered by resale of condos created by the Project;
(3) a to-be-established Infrastructure Financing District (IFD) that allows
a portion of growth in property taxes to be reinvested in public facilities;

That third source of funding is particularly troubling since it requires a sizeable appropriation of City General Fund revenues ($32 million) by the Port for its own purposes. We will now examine each of these proposed “payment” schemes to determine how realistic they are as well as the potential environmental and economic consequences they create for San Francisco’s residents and taxpayers:
1. Lease Payments. It is easy to refute the likelihood of the $120,000/year lease payment for parcels to be used as open space with related facilities. The second paragraph of Director’s Recommendation (page 5) states: “If engineering and cost analyses deem additional funding is needed to finance agreed upon public improve- ments, the Port agrees to designate some or all of the $120,000 per year park rent to augment financing of these public improvements.” If the developer produces “engineering and cost analyses” showing “additional funding is needed to finance agreed upon public improvements,” the Port will “designate some or all of the $120,000/year in park rent to finance public improvements,” improvements that the developer is responsible for. Suddenly this $120,000 of alleged “rent” could become no rent. Is that likely to happen? You be the judge:

A Little Recent History

The developer of 8 Washington is San Francisco Waterfront Partners, a partnership between Pacific Waterfront Partners and CALSTRS, the same partnership that developed Piers 1½, 3 and 5 across the street. According to the Port’s rent rolls, San Francisco Waterfront Partners makes rent payments for Piers 1½, 3 and 5 of $41,666.67 per month or $500,000 annually. But 90% of this is wiped out by a rent credit of a $450,000 annual rent credit ($37,500.00 per month). This means that the actual rent for Piers 1½, 3 and 5 paid by San Francisco Waterfront Partners isn’t $500,000/year, but $50,000/year or 1/10 of the original rent. Knowing this, it seems highly likely that the Port will grant a similar rent credit to 8 Washington, a credit that it has already offered in the Term Sheet approved last year.

The DEIR needs to discuss this and ask the following questions to help establish for public officials whether or not 8 Washington has the possibility of generating resources to fix up the Port’s historic infrastructure.

Was the $450,000 rent rebate given Piers 1½, 3 and 5 given for “public improvements” in the same way the 8 Washington Term Sheet proposes to give 8 Washington an up-to-$120,000/year (100%) rebate for “public improvements?

How much of this $120,000/year lease payment to the Port is guaranteed?

Based on recent history with this developer (see above box), it would appear that claiming a $120,000 per year lease payment is, at best, a gross overestimate.

2. Future payments triggered by resale of condos (aka increased transfer tax). The second source of payments (around $25 MILLION over life of the lease) involves the developer recording covenants “committing all owners to transfer payments to the Port of ½ percent of sale value for all sales of the residential condominiums and all re-sales of commercial condominiums” (from Director’s Report, Page 4), in other words, a ‘voluntary’ increase in the transfer tax.

This idea of obligating future owners to a special transfer “fee” was already tried, unsuccessfully, several years ago by then Mayor Gavin Newsom’s office as a way to provide ‘stimulus’ for large condo developers with approved projects who were trying to get financing. In exchange for agreeing to binding future condo owners to ‘voluntarily’ pay a 1% increase in the real estate transfer tax (but not calling it a “tax”), the Mayor’s Office proposed relieving the developers of 1/3 of their affordable housing requirement. That idea failed to get off the ground for both legal and political reasons. Regarding this proposal:

How does the Port plan to argue this increase in the real estate transfer TAX is not really a tax and do so in a way that convinces the Pacific Legal Foundation, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and SF Board of Realtors not to sue?
Mayor Newsom’s failed proposal did trigger an multi-stakeholder discussion of a broader, legally defensible strategy, going to the voters for a permanent, across the board increase in the transfer tax on ALL real estate transactions (above the median home price) generating tens of millions of dollars a year for affordable housing. A portion of this new money would fund traditional affordable housing built by non- profit housing development corporations, but a portion would also be available to for-profit housing developers to buy down their affordable housing obligations. All sides agreed to this compromise and to place it on the November 2010 ballot, because it HAD to go to the voters, just as the ½% transfer tax increase proposed in this Term Sheet would need voter approval.

NOTE: The reason that this proposal was not on the ballot that November, as reported in the New York Times, was because Mayor Newsom refused to support it or ANY tax increase, no matter how much support it had, for fear of giving his Republican opponent in the Lt. Governor’s race an issue to use against him in the 2010 election.

If the best legal and political minds in the city couldn’t figure out a way to “voluntarily” increase the real estate transfer tax without going to the voters then, how does the Port propose to do the same thing for 8 Washington now?

3. New IFD Funding Mechanism. The third weak link in this financing plan is the as yet “to-be-established Infrastructure Financing District (IFD) that will allow a portion of growth in property taxes to be reinvested in public facilities.” Port Director’s Recommendation, page 2. While the concept is an interesting one, it is in its infancy in San Francisco. The Board of Supervisors is in the process of setting up a pilot IFD with seven or eight property owners on Rincon Hill to test this model.

To date, citywide discussions about the use of tax increment financing tools, such as the IFD, have linked their use to funding a larger set of neighborhood infrastructure needs and public benefits previously identified through adopted Area Plans such as Eastern Neighborhoods, Market Octavia and Rincon Hill and not for the specific needs of individual projects or developers (e.g. 8 Washington).

Looking ahead, it isn’t hard to imagine the kind of criteria the Board of Supervisors might adopt to determine what developments could avail themselves of IFDs. Those with significant legal, political and financial challenges, such as 8 Washington, would not score well. Nor would projects that dramatically reduce and eliminate active recreation facilities serving middle-income families and seniors for over 45 years. Finally, projects that undo decades old community benefits agreements, provided as part of a Redevelopment plan (e.g. Golden Gateway’s permanent active recreation center), probably wouldn’t pass muster .

Assuming the city eventually creates IFDs in certain circumstances, how does the Port make the case for THIS project, given the growing political and legal opposition to it, the long standing community resource that it destroys and the fact that the Board of Supervisors won’t give up $32 million for it (see below).

4. Diversion of property taxes from the General Fund to the Port. The majority of the 8 Washington/SWL 351 site is NOT Port property, but under the jurisdiction of the City and County of San Francisco. Exhibit A of the Term Sheet shows the boundary of the 0.64 acre under Port control (SWL 351) and the 2.51 acres portion currently privately owned by Golden Gateway on AB168, 171, 291 (80% of the site). SWL 351 (the Port land) is only 20% of the total development site.

While these blocks were under the jurisdiction of the Redevelopment Agency, the property tax increment was diverted from the City’s General Fund to that Agency. Following termination of the Redevelopment project area several years ago, however, ALL property tax revenue from this land flows to the General Fund. The Port now proposes to divert the property tax increment from the portion of this site NOT UNDER PORT JURISDICTION away from the General Fund and to the Port.

The Port Director’s Term Sheet Recommendation on page 6 proposes “a new Port IFD” covering both SWL 351 and the Golden Gate Tennis and Swim Club (WHICH IS NOW ENTIRELY UNDER THE CITY’S JURISDICTION AND TAXING AUTHORITY). Under the “new Port IFD” all the property tax increment from development on non-Port property would be diverted FROM the General Fund TO the Port. Toward the end of the Term Sheet recommendation the Port Director does state that the Board of Supervisors would have to agree to this arrangement, which prompts several questions that should have been asked and answered in the DEIR:

Who from the city, not the Port, agreed to including these IFD financial terms in the Term Sheet?

Which members of the Board of Supervisors were consulted regarding this planned appropriation of property tax revenue from the city’s general fund?

What would lead the Port to think ANY current or future Board of Supervisors would ‘voluntarily’ turn over $32 million in General Fund dollars to the Port, providing a $32 MILLION CITY SUBSIDY FOR LUXURY CONDOS when the Board is struggling with massive budget deficits, layoffs and cuts to vital city programs?

The DEIR must address whether or not this project is financially viable because if it is not, then the public facilities and infrastructure the project has promised to provide cannot be built. The DEIR must also assess the likelihood of the Board of Supervisors turning over $32 million in General Fund monies as a subsidy to the Port for this and other Port projects and analyze what environmental impacts this loss of $32 million to the city would create over time: what parks wouldn’t be maintained, which parks and recreation centers closed, what transit lines discontinued or run less frequently, etc.; actions that would not have been necessary had the city kept that $32 million. Specifically, the DEIR must answer the following questions:

Can 8 Washington’s public facilities (e. g. Jackson Commons, other open space) ever be built with IFD funding, given that:

a) the IFD is predicated on the Port capturing 100% of the tax increment generated by 8 Washington even though the Port only owns 20% of the site, and

b) according to recent testimony before the Planning Commission by Michael Yarne (OEWD), under state law IFD’s are prohibited on land that “is currently, or was previously part of a redevelopment area”?

Under what circumstances does the Port anticipate that the current (or a future)
Board of Supervisors would voluntarily give up its 80% of this tax increment
($32 million out of $40 projected by the Port) to fund public improvements for
LUXURY CONDOS at 8 Washington or other Port projects?

Has the Port had any discussions with the Board of Supervisors regarding this?

If so, what was the Board’s reaction?

Has the Port or project sponsor had state legislation passed (or introduced) that
provides the necessary waivers from the current state prohibition against
setting up IFD’s in former redevelopment areas?

Again, this is information that public officials must have to make informed, objective
decisions about the impacts of this project.

VI. THE DEIR FAILS TO DISCLOSE THAT 8 WASHINGTON IS THE FOURTH ATTEMPT TO CONVERT THE GOLDEN GATEWAY TENNIS & SWIM CLUB FROM CITY MANDATED ACTIVE RECREATION USE TO CONDOMINIUMS. IT PRESENTS VERY BRIEF AND MISLEADING INFORMATION REGARDING THE HISTORIC RECORD SUPPORTING THE REQUIREMENT TO PRESERVE THE CURRENT ACTIVE RECREATION FACILITIES ON SITE IN PERPETUITY.

The DEIR addresses this issue very briefly in a footnote on page II.3 that states:

2 The original development agreement governing the Golden Gateway Center Lots required the developer to provide non-profit community facilities as part of the overall development with the Golden Gateway Center. In Section 4 (a) of the Agreement for Disposition of Land for Private Development (“Agreement”) between Perini-San Francisco Associates (the “Developer’) and the Redevelopment Agency, dated August 27, 1962, the Developer agreed to maintain “community facilities of a permanent nature… designed primarily for use on a nonprofit basis” (page 25 of the Agreement). Subsequent to the Agreement, the Agency and Golden Gateway Center (the successor to the Developer) entered into a Second Supplement and Amendment to the Agreement (“Second Supplement”) on March 14, 1976. Section 1(d) of the Second Supplement deleted Section 4(a) of the agreement (page 12 of Second Supplement) and thereby removed the requirement to maintain community facilities on the property in exchange for the dedication of Sydney Walton Park for perpetual use as a public park.

This interpretation of those documents contradicts evidence previously by individuals with intimate, first hand knowledge of those Golden Gateway redevelopment agreements. Those comments are attached as:

Exhibit A: A May 9, 1984 letter from then Mayor Dianne Feinstein that begins:“As a supervisor and as mayor, I have a long history with the redevelopment plan and agree with those who maintain that this site has always been considered set aside for recreation and open space.”

Exhibit B: An August 8, 1990 letter from Robert Rumsey to then redevelopment director Ed Helfeld that states:

“I happened to be Deputy Director of Redevelopment in the late 1950’s and early
    1960’s when the Golden Gateway redevelopment plan was adopted by the city and
    when Perini Corp. was subsequently selected as the developer of the Golden Gateway
    over eight other competitors… I feel it is important to place on the record the view of
    the staff and commissioners of the agency at the time of selection: The provision of that
    open space and recreational space was a significant factor in the selection of the
    Perini proposal. And clearly, the space was presumed to be kept that way in
    perpetuity” (underlining Mr. Rumsey’s).

Exhibit C: A January 24, 2003 letter from Senator Dianne Feinstein reiterating that:

   “I have a long history with the redevelopment area at Washington and Drumm Streets
    and concur with those who believe this space was intended for recreation and open
    space. Please oppose further development of the Golden Gateway Tennis & Swim Club.”

These letters came in reaction to THREE previous unsuccessful attempts to develop the Golden Gateway Recreation Center as condominiums. Those attempts included:

1. Perini Corp. (early 80’s). The original developer of the Golden Gateway project proposed replacing the Golden Gate Tennis & Swim Club (GGT&SC) with a 9-story condominium project, in violation of its original approvals for the larger project that called for the GGTSC to serve as one of two major community benefits (along with Sidney Walton Sq.) in perpetuity. NOTE: This took place after the Second Supplement and Amendment to the Agreement referenced in Footnote 2 (above) was executed. Clearly, then Mayor Feinstein, had a very different interpretation of the Second Supplement than that of the author of Footnote 2 when she says in her letter that “I agree with those who maintain that this site has always been considered set aside for recreation and open space.”

2. Perini Corp. (early 90’s). Again the owners of the Golden Gateway proposed replacing the project’s active recreation center with a condo project. This time, a letter from former Redevelopment Director Robert Rumsey date 8/8/90 provides extensive evidence that the interpretation of events contained in Footnote 2 is neither complete nor accurate. His detailed first hand description of that transaction which took place in the 1970’s is quite instructive. In addition to his comment that:

     “I feel it is important to place on the record the view of the staff and commissioners
      of the agency at the time of selection: The provision of that open space and
      recreational space was a significant factor in the selection of the Perini proposal.
      And clearly, the space was presumed to be kept that way in perpetuity”

his letter states that “if it is now proposed that there is a loophole permitting that space to be invaded by condominiums, I would consider that to be most unfortunate for the city” and describes the land use negotiations that allowed Perini to substitute 155 low-rise condos for the four remaining high-rise rental towers that were suppose to be built as Phase III of the redevelopment plan. According to Rumsey, the agency finally, “albeit reluctantly” agreed to let Perini make this change “because some seven years had elapsed since completion of Phase II and there was otherwise no prospect for building on those long-barren blocks”.

Rumsey then states that the Agency’s October 28, 1975 minutes show the debate over what the Agency should charge Perini for the land that made up Phase III (now Gateway Commons condominiums) focused on “whether it should be $8.45 a square foot, the price established 15 years earlier, or a more realistic 1975 price of $15-$20 a square foot”. He then states:

      “My new successor, Arthur F. Evans, said he might agree with the higher number if
      the land was offered without restrictions, such as requirements of open space. And
      he added: Amenities such as Sidney Walton Square and the Golden Gateway tennis
      courts were on land that was not income producing, and since no one could build
      highrise buildings on this area, its value could be considered zero.”

As a result of this discussion, according to Rumsey, “Evans and the commission agreed to hold the land sales price to the original $8.45 a square foot, as the agency continued to view the open and recreation space to be in perpetuity.”

Based on Rumsey’s letter and substantial community opposition, this second attempt to replace the GGT&SC was defeated.

3. John Hamilton, developer (2003-04). In the mid-90’s Perini sold Golden Gateway to Timothy Foo and a group of investors. In 2003, developer John Hamilton proposed another condo tower on the site. Senator Feinstein’s January 24, 2003 letter was responding to that proposal. After reiterating her conclusion that “this space was intended for recreation and open space”, she goes on to say, “increasing the height of the Club would drastically change the picturesque panorama of the Bay and would create shadow effects on the newly constructed Embarcadero. Further, development of more residential units would increase traffic noise and pollution, and disregard the original understanding between City officials and area residents that open space and recreational amenities should be preserved.”

4. Current 8 Washington Street/SWL 351 proposal is the 4th Attempt (2006-present) to develop condos on this site and demolish the Golden Gateway’s active recreation center, a facility that’s successfully fulfilled its intended purpose for almost 50 years.

In his written comments on 8 Washington’s DEIR dated August 11, 2010, Mr. Edward Helfeld, Director of the Redevelopment during the second attempt to demolish the Golden Gateway Tennis and Swim Club speaks to the original purpose of the facility, how it has successfully served San Francisco’s recreation needs for over four decades and how relatively inexpensive it is compared to other tennis facilities in the city. He also writes that “As Executive Director (1987-1994) I was in total support of retaining Golden Gateway Tennis and Swim Club”.

Any public official or member of the general public reading the current DEIR would have no knowledge of these three previous attempts to build on this site, their outcome and the role former city officials have played in confirming that the Golden Gateway active recreation center was meant to be preserved as an active recreation center in perpetuity. The Comments and Responses to the 8 Washington Street/SWL 351 DEIR must include this historic information in order to be considered accurate, complete and objective.

VII. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE 8 WASHINGTON DEIR

A. The DEIR’s Introduction presents confusing and conflicting information regarding how, when and by whom environmental review for this project was initiated. The first two paragraphs of the DEIR’s Introduction (pg. Intro.1) raise some troubling questions about how environmental review for 8 Washington was carried out that need to be addressed more completely and forthrightly. The timeline for environmental review is described as follows (quoting from the DEIR):

1. “On January 3, 2007, an environmental evaluation application (EE application) was filed by San Francisco Waterfront Partners II (the “project sponsor”) on behalf of the Golden Gateway Center for a project at 8 Washington Street and the adjacent Seawall Lot 351, which is owned by the Port….(the Port is not a co-sponsor of the proposed project, but has authorized San Francisco Waterfront Partners II to submit an EE application that includes Seawall Lot 351).”

2. “On August 15, 2008, the Port issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development of Seawall Lot 351. Two parties submitted timely proposals: SF Waterfront Partners II and a development group led by Dhaval Panchal (which later withdrew its proposal).”

3. “On November 10, 2008, the Port reissued the RFP for this project.”

4. “On February 24, 2009, the Port Commission authorized Port staff to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with SF Waterfront Partners II, finding that the proposal submitted by SF Waterfront Partners II meets the requirements of the RFP and meets the Port’s objectives for Seawall Lot 351.”

It appears from this timeline that the ‘project sponsor’, SF Waterfront Partners, was selected to carry out the 8 Washington project on January 3, 2007 when they were “authorized” (by the Port) to submit an Environmental Evaluation (EE) application officially beginning environmental review. However, there’s no explanation in the DEIR as to why, 18 months later (August 2008), the Port decided to issue an official RFP to select a developer for Seawall Lot 351.

This makes no sense given that Seawall Lot 351 was included in the January 3rd EE application submitted by SF Waterfront Partners (if not as designated developer, then in what capacity?). Then three months later (November 2008), we’re told the Port reissued the RFP with no explanation as to why. Finally, on Feb. 24, 2009, twenty five months after SF Waterfront Partners filed the EE application and began the environmental review process, the Port Commission authorizes staff to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with SF Waterfront Partners (SFWP) to develop SWL 351. This raises troubling questions that need to be addressed in the DEIR to give public officials (and the general public) a clearer sense of the appropriateness, completeness and legality of the current environmental review process.

The DEIR must explain:

1. Is this how environmental review is normally sequenced? Is it routine for a developer that has not yet been selected by the Port to undertake a specific project, let alone negotiated an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with the Port for said project, to submit an EE application to Planning for this project that they haven’t yet been selected to develop and then for the Port, eighteen months later, to issue the first RFP to select a developer for the project and have a developer other than the one who submitted the EE respond to the RFP—then drop out (with no explanation why in the DEIR), then have the RFP reissued six months later and then finally,
25 months after the current developer of 8 Washington submitted the EE, the Port finally selects said developer (SFWP) as the official developer of 8 Washington and begins negotiating an ENA? Is this NORMAL procedure?

2. How could the Port authorize SFWP’s EE application without a written agreement designating SFWP as the approved developer of SWL351? Is this standard procedure in these matters?

3. If this EE process was, in fact, legal prior to August 2008, why did the Port reverse course on August 15, 2008 and issue an RFP for SWL 351 (a site already included in the EE application filed 18 months earlier)? Doesn’t the initial applicant in the EE process have to be either the property owner or his designated developer and be able to demonstrate site control? How would that have been possible back in January 3, 2007 for SWL 351?

4. What role did SFWP play in drafting the RFP (and Port’s objectives for SWL351)?

5. What reasons did the second respondent to RFP give for “withdrawing his proposal?”

6. Why was the RFP reissued on November 10, 2008?

7. When on January 3, 2007, the Planning Department accepted an environmental evaluation application (EE) “filed by San Francisco Waterfront Partners II (the “project sponsor”) on behalf of Golden Gateway Center for a project at 8 Washington Street and the adjacent Seawall Lot 351”, was Planning aware that San Francisco Waterfront Partners had not been and could not be legally designated as “project sponsor” for SWL 351 at that time?

8. Why didn’t the fact that SFWP had no legal basis to claim that it was the “project sponsor” for SWL 351 invalidate the EE application? The DEIR states that the Port “authorized San Francisco Waterfront Partners II to submit an EE application that includes Seawall Lot 351” but wouldn’t that imply SFWP would eventually be selected as the developer and discourage other developers from submitting responses to the Port’s August 15, 2008 RFP given that SFWP had been working with Planning staff on the environmental evaluation for 18 months already?

9. Is what happened in January 2007 legal? If not, when did the Planning Department become aware of this problem and what did it do about it?

10. Having now publicly described this chronology in the DEIR, what legal impact does this have today on the environmental and project review process?

11. Would any other developer be allowed to begin the environmental review process on a project for which they had neither been designated developer nor had site control?

These questions MUST be answered in the DEIR given the bizarre and confusing chronology that now appears in it regarding how environmental review was initiated for this project.

B. In other Port documents related to 8 Washington, San Francisco Waterfront Partners II is described as a partnership between Pacific Waterfront Partners (PWP) and California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS). However, the involvement of CalSTRS in this project appears nowhere in the DEIR. Given that CalSTRS has already spent over $23 million dollars in predevelopment funds for 8 Washington, the DEIR must contain some mention of CalSTRS as a member of this partnership and the fact that the same partnership (PWP and CalSTRS) developed Piers 1½, 3 and 5 across The Embarcadero from this site.

Finally, the first sentence of the Introduction to the DEIR refers to the fact that “on January 3, 2007 an environmental evaluation application (EE) was filed by SF Waterfront Partners on behalf of the Golden Gateway Center for a project at 8 Washington”. That footnote references “Golden Gateway Center, Authorization Letter from Timothy Foo dated Dec. 27, 2006.”

For this DEIR to be complete and accurate it must address several key questions including:

1. Who is developing this project? Pacific Waterfront Partners? CalSTRS? Golden Gateway Center (Timothy Foo)? What are their relationships to each other and the proposed project?

2. What precisely is the relationship between these three entities and the Port?

3. What was the understanding between SFWP, Timothy Foo and the Port when SFWP submitted its EE application on behalf of Golden Gateway Center? All three are mentioned in the relevant discussion in the DEIR.

C. The DEIR is inadequate and incomplete due to its failure to include A Community Vision for San Francisco’s Northeast Waterfront. The DEIR is inadequate and biased in discussing the Planning Department’s Northeast Embarcadero Study (NES), while failing to include an equally detailed discussion of the background and recommendations of the study prepared by Asian Neighborhood Design entitled A Community Vision for San Francisco’s Northeast Waterfront, dated February 2011, which was presented to the Planning Commission on July 7, 2011.

The second sentence in the third paragraph of the Introduction states that the purpose of the Northeast Embarcadero Study (NES) was “to foster consensus on the future of Seawall Lot 351 and at other seawall lot properties on the northern waterfront” and leaves the reader with the impression that it succeeded in this goal by stating how many public workshops were held (five) and “on July 8, 2010, the San Francisco Planning Commission adopted a resolution that it ‘recognizes the design principles and recommendations of the Study’ and urges the Port of San Francisco to consider the recommendations of the NES when considering proposals for new development in this area”.

To be accurate and truthful, the DEIR should mention the level of anger and frustration expressed by the majority of the public that attended these five workshops who felt the Port, who was paying for the NES, was dictating its conclusions in order to facilitate the approval of the
8 Washington. For example, when 30-40 people at a workshop opposed the notion advanced by Planning staff that The Embarcadero needed a “hard edge” and that “higher heights” were appropriate for the 8 Washington site and only 6-8 people expressed support for these ideas, the notes from that meeting would later say that opinion was divided on these matters. To its credit, the Planning Department states clearly in the final draft of the NES that they failed in their goal of achieving consensus on the future of SWL 351.

The DEIR needs to include this information to provide a more accurate representation of the outcome of the NES process.

People were so upset by what they perceived as a transparent attempt to ‘justify’ 8 Washington, that they began their own community-based planning process to address the larger issues of reconnecting Chinatown, North Beach, Russian Hill and Telegraph Hill to the Waterfront; healing the wounds left by the ramps to the Embarcadero Freeway by making Broadway, Washington and Clay Streets more pedestrian, bicycle and transit friendly; and fostering consensus on the future of Seawall Lot 351 and at other seawall lot properties on the northern waterfront.

Four major community organizations representing thousands of local residents, small businesses and property owners became the primary sponsors/organizers of this “Community Vision for the Northeast Waterfront” and hired Asian Neighborhood Design to assist them in developing it. These organizations included: Friends of Golden Gateway; Golden Gateway Tenants Association; Telegraph Hill Dwellers and Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association. Stakeholders from Chinatown, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Fisherman’s Wharf and other neighborhoods also participated.

On July 7, 2010, when the Planning Department staff presented the NES to the Planning Commission, AND and the four sponsors of the “Community Vision for the Northeast Waterfront” were invited to present a summary of their planning work to date.

The DEIR fails to make any mention of the alternative plan created by these four community groups with AND’s help. It needs to describe this study, how it differs from Planning’s NES and include it in the final EIR so public officials can evaluate the merits of both studies for themselves.

The DEIR must describe the reasons why this alternative community planning process was undertaken and include a detailed discussion how the proposed project would or would not conform to each of the recommendations contained in A Community Vision for San Francisco’s Northeast Waterfront?

I am attaching a copy of the AND Study: A Community Vision for San Francisco’s Northeast Waterfront to these comments and ask that it be included in the EIR so that readers and public officials can gauge for themselves if it was more successful in “fostering consensus on the future of Seawall Lot 351 and at other seawall lot properties on the northern waterfront” than the Planning Department’s Northeast Embarcadero Study (NES).

D. The DEIR tries, unsuccessfully, to minimize the loss of iconic views of Coit Tower and Telegraph Hill from in front of the Ferry Building with its argument about ‘episodic’ views and a new claim that “trees” already obscure the views of Coit Tower from in front of the Ferry Building, views enjoyed by millions of tourists, residents and office workers each year. As demonstrated in Figure IV.B-3: View B (page IV.B.7), the height and mass of the proposed project would completely obstruct views of Coit Tower and Telegraph Hill currently seen from the Embarcadero Promenade at the northern end of the Ferry Building. This significant adverse effect on the visual quality and scenic vistas enjoyed by the public puts the project in direct conflict with a number of city and Port planning policies. The DEIR’s conclusion that this would not create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista because “Coit Tower and Telegraph Hill would continue to be visible from numerous vantage pointes in the vicinity of the Project site and the City” is a biased and subjective judgment that is not based on fact. This ‘episodic’ argument could be used to claim that NO building ever blocks an important view because if you walk far enough past the offending structure, you might get the view back.
The comment about trees blocking the view of Coit Tower from in front of the Ferry Building must be stricken from the document. I just came from standing at the main entrance of the Ferry Building and I could clearly see Coit Tower and most of Telegraph Hill. While several trees in front of the F-line stop across the street did impede the view around the edges, these trees could easily be pruned to eliminate the problem.

E. The DEIR’s Traffic and Transit Data is Seriously Out of Date.

The traffic data relied upon by the DEIR in reaching its conclusions is incredibly stale, having been based on surveys done in 2006-2007 and with 2000 census data (page IV.D.5 of the DEIR). These studies must be updated. For example, the assumptions made in the DEIR that the existing conditions at the Embarcadero/Broadway and Embarcadero/Washington intersections are “satisfactory” (at LOS D) defy logic. Anyone familiar with the real time conditions at these intersections knows that this assessment could not be based on a factual analysis of current conditions at peak periods which, by the way, often occur on weekends (not studied in DEIR).

Also out of date is the transit information relied upon by the DEIR in reaching its conclusion that the project would not result in significant transportation impacts to transit systems (Impact TR-2), having been based upon data on capacity and utilization of individual MUNI lines from 2007 (page IV.D.9 of the DEIR). This data should also be updated. For example, whoever was responsible for the assumption in the DEIR that the F-Line is not at capacity during peak periods has never ridden the F-line at peak periods. The America’s Cup will only make this worse.

F. The DIER belittles Pedestrian Safety Issues. The DEIR states that: “Conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles could occur at the project garage driveway, which could cause the potential inbound vehicles to queue onto Washington Street. Outbound vehicles would queue inside the garage and would not affect street traffic. Conflicts between outbound vehicles and pedestrians could still occur, but their effect on pedestrians would be reduced because pedestrians on the sidewalk have the right-of-way.” (page IV.D.25). I’m sure the fact that pedestrians have the right-of-way is of great comfort to families of children and seniors who’ve been struck and killed by cars. This statement is insulting and MUST be stricken from the DEIR. It’s also not true.

In the very next paragraph the DEIR makes the following statement about these potential vehicular and pedestrian conflicts at the garage driveway:

“The number of vehicles and pedestrians per minute are relatively small (about one vehicle and three pedestrians every 30 seconds on average) and it is therefore not anticipated that the proposed project would cause any major conflict or interfere with pedestrian movements in the area.” (page IV.D.25)

These numbers translate to 2 cars and 6 pedestrians every minute or 120 cars and 360 pedestrians an hour (or approximately 1,440 cars and 4,320 pedestrians coming into potential conflict in any given 7 am to 7 pm period). The DEIR’s conclusion that such conflict between vehicles and pedestrian movement would be “less than significant” makes no logical sense and is simply not supported by the facts presented in the DEIR.

G. The DEIR must include a new fence around the Golden Gateway Tennis and Swim Club in its NO PROJECT Alternative. Finally, the comments often heard about the “ugly green fence” around the GGTSC reminds us that the DEIR must let the reader know that it is the owner of the property, Mr. Timothy Foo, who is responsible for the ugly “green fence”. First, he has put the GGTSC operator on a month-to-month lease making it difficult for them to make a substantial investment in a nicer fence. Second, Mr. Foo himself stands to gain financially if 8 Washington is approved, so he has no incentive to fix the fence since its unsightliness is being used as an argument for demolishing the current facility. This simplest way to correct this bias would be to:

Include a rendering of the site with a new, attractive fence in the NO PROJECT alternative .

For the reasons stated in this letter, I believe this DEIR is seriously incomplete and inadequate to address the potentially significant impacts of this project. I urge you to revise the document and re-circulate it in draft form.

Sincerely,

Brad Paul

Stark raving mod

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks

August 16, 2011

TRASH One of the longer-running Holy Grail pursuits among a certain type of movie fan finally ended last month with the official DVD release of Otto Preminger’s Skidoo, a legendary 1968 boondoggle that was the veteran Hollywood prestige director’s attempt to tap the new “youth market.” Someone deemed those crazy kids might be magnetized, in the year of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Rosemary’s Baby, and Yellow Submarine, by a gangster farce starring the fossilizing likes of Jackie Gleason, Carol Channing, Frankie Avalon, Mickey Rooney, and 78-year-old Groucho Marx (as God).

Possibly impressed by the dancing-trash-cans production number, a presumably well-paid Timothy Leary opined “I think this movie’s going to ‘turn on’ the country.” But between the script’s attempted surrealism, Preminger’s cement-block flair for levity, and the cast’s general bewilderment, Skidoo could only become Hollywood’s most grotesquely square attempt to groove with the Now Generation. A major flop, notoriety made it a sought-after curio for later generations who mostly had to dig its bad trip in crappy 10th-generation TV dupes. Now that it’s available through above-ground channels, everyone can experience the satisfaction of finally seeing something they’ve always wondered about, even if Skidoo will always be better in theory than actual viewing.

But how to see such yea more obscure relics of cinema’s most flailingly adventuresome era as Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up To Me (1971), The Magic Garden of Stanley Sweetheart (1970), or B.S. I Love You (1971)? What about the umpteen “kinky” pre-porn sexploitation epics and Pop Art-flavored spy spoofs from Europe that never achieved the cult (let alone the budget) of 1968’s Barbarella? Or those early TV movies which scarred late-wave boomer kids’ memories, then were left to gather studio library dust?

Good luck — considered to be of no remaining commercial value, most of the above eluded salvage even at the height of the 1980s VHS craze, when it seemed almost anything shot on celluloid (or not) got shunted out to hungry renters. What is the fan of post-“Golden Age,” pre-mall flick moviegoing to do?

Fortunately, meeting the demands of a discerning, frequently obsessive few have been such variably gray-shaded online market purveyors as Video Search of Miami, Something Weird, Subterranean Cinema, and Modcinema. Modcinema (www.modcinema.com), currently celebrating its third year anniversary of “exploring ’60s/’70s culture through rare and hard to find films,” is run by Los Angeleno Dante Fontana. He blames the no-show of some psychedelic relics and Me Decade titles on music rights issues — before VCRs, soundtracked songs were licensed for very limited use, and can now be very expensive to renew.

Things are looking up, however. Warner Bros. and Sony/Columbia have launched on-demand DVD-R services, Fontana says, noting “we’ll see many rare movies become available over the course of the next several years. Many studios are in debt and they want to make money off of their titles currently being sold on the gray market by people such as myself.”

He’s not worried about the competition, however. “I love these films and want them to become available on an official level. I consider what I do preservation, [selling] titles that are in danger of being completely forgotten about, raising awareness so that the studios will see there is in fact a fanbase of people who’d buy a DVD of a movie like Skidoo if they saw it.” Still, there remain “thousands and thousands of movies out there being neglected. Films that simply don’t have any known stars in them, or experimental-art films, made-for-TV movies, international films that never got any U.S. distribution.”

Among the nuggets Modcinema has unearthed in such categories are vintage telepics like The Feminist and the Fuzz (Barbara Eden as middle America’s then-idea of a Women’s Libber — forever fuming at imaginary sexist offenses, requiring a he-man to settle her down), vanity biker flick J.C. (as in Jesus Christ, which is how producer-writer-director-star William F. McGaha’s character humorlessly sees himself), or leeringly Italian crime caper You Can Do A Lot With Seven Women. And those are just from 1971.

Fontana also has a particular fondness for vintage Franco pop. In his collection you’ll find plenty of showcases for Françoise Hardy, Serge Gainsbourg, etc., plus multiple episodes of the incredible monthly 1965-70 TV program Dim Dam Dom, which made the best use of a go-go dancing ensemble this side of Shindig! while offering musical guests both native and imported (from the Bee Gees to Jimi Hendrix).

Modcinema has also packaged some unique compilations: The “Colorspace” series is a party sampler of movie trailers (“Now you’ll know the thrill of wrapping your legs around a tornado of pounding pistons, like The Girl on a Motorcycle!”), fashion promos, commercials (007 Deodorant), and whatnot. Hearing Nancy Sinatra trill “Shake that cola drag/Try the one that’s really mad!” for RC Cola — well, it can really blow your mind. (Dennis Harvey)

Deep court cuts favor landlords over tenants

Sasha Cuttler

July 19, 2011

Deep court cuts favor landlords over tenants

When I read about the latest manifestation of California’s voluntary descent toward Third World status – in this case, the defunding of San Francisco’s civil court system thanks to the deep state budget cuts caused by Republicans – in this morning’s SF Chronicle, I tried to fight through my despair and search for a silver lining.

“With a few exceptions, only criminal cases will go to trial,” the article said, listing those exceptions as mostly family law cases, such as child abuse and neglect and domestic violence.

Hmmm, I thought, is there a way for the average San Franciscan to somehow benefit from this virtual shutdown of our justice system? Then, we at the Guardian had an idea: in a city where two-thirds of residents are renters, perhaps a civil court system that will now take years to get a hearing would be a boon to those contesting eviction proceedings.

Yay, we thought, free rent! And given that it’s mostly the property-owning class that has caused this decimation of basic government services, people who have benefited mightily by having Prop. 13 keep their property taxes artificially low but still block other efforts to increase tax revenues, there seemed to be a certain poetic justice in the possibility that the courts would stop helping them evict their tenants.

So I called San Francisco Tenants Union Director Ted Gullicksen to run our idea past him and find out if we were onto something, but he doused the idea with a bucket of ice-cold reality. It turns out that evictions will continue to move rapidly through the otherwise gutted civil court system (as I would have learned from the Bay Citizen article on the issue).

“Unfortunately, tenants and criminals are being fast tracked,” he told us. And it gets even worse than that because while landlords will still be able to demand action on their evictions within five days, tenants will find years-long delays when they seek justice from landlords acting illegally or unfairly. “While they will move quickly on evictions, they will move slowly on wrongful eviction lawsuits,” Gullicksen said.

Ann Donlan, spokesperson for the San Francisco Superior Court, told us that eviction proceedings will still move quickly because “it’s a statutory requirement.” But, I asked her, as a matter of fairness and equity, why the courts will still delay wrongful eviction suits for years, even though they often deal with the same set of facts as the eviction cases? Doesn’t that bias the courts toward landlords? She told me to please submit my question in writing and she’ll try to get me an answer.

But there really aren’t any good answers to the gross inequities that these deep cuts will cause in the court system, with a 40 percent overall cut being disproportionately focused on the civil side of the equation.

“This is pretty heavy duty,” attorney Stephen Sommers, who handles wrongful termination, civil rights, and other cases on behalf of the little guy. He said many businesses in San Francisco already wantonly disregard their employees’ rights. “They feel like they can get away with murder and now they’ll be highly incentivized to continue that.”

Attorneys facing five-year waits for a trial will be less likely to handle cases on contingent for poor plaintiffs, he said, and people in positions of power of all kind will be more likely to abuse their authority in myriad ways, knowing that their victims will have far less recourse in the courts.

“It’s going to be the wild west out there,” he said. “I wonder, if people can’t turn to the courts, whether they’ll take matters into their own hands and the crime rate will go up.”

But if there is any silver lining for the powerless at all, Gullicksen said the powerful will also find less recourse in an overwhelmed court system. So he suggested, “It might be a good time for a citywide rent strike because they don’t have many resources in the court system anymore.”

Big solar, little solar

Andrew Lam

July 12, 2011

rebeccab@sfbg.com

At a business conference this past May hosted by Wired Magazine, Bill Gates, the billionaire chair of Microsoft and an influential philanthropist, offered his two cents on solar energy. “If you’re going for cuteness,” he told Wired, “the stuff in the home is the place to go. It’s really kind of cool to have solar panels on your roof. But if you’re really interested in the energy problem, it’s those big things in the desert.”

Those big things in the desert are solar farms, designed to concentrate energy from the sun using arrays of mirrors or parabolic troughs spanning vast swaths of land. They’re green versions of the types of power plants big energy companies have always relied on — centralized, dependent on transmission lines, and requiring billions of dollars in investment. Some rely on water from desert aquifers for cooling, cleaning, and steam generation. Yet the plants can replace electricity that traditionally has been derived from burning coal, representing a significant advancement away from fossil fuels.

It’s too early to say whether California’s energy future will follow Gates’ maxim that rooftop solar is “cute” while desert solar represents the serious stuff. Others have argued just the opposite, and momentum is building on both fronts. Gov. Jerry Brown has endorsed the idea of installing 12,000 megawatts of rooftop solar, and was expected to bring stakeholders together in late July to discuss how to accomplish that goal.

At the same time, large-scale desert solar is attracting billions in investment, and big-name companies such as Bechtel, Chevron, AECOM, and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. are engaged in its development. The California Energy Commission approved nine desert solar-thermal projects last year, capable of producing 4,100 megawatts.

As California moves toward fulfilling a mandate of generating 33 percent of electricity from renewable power sources by 2020, there’s bound to be a political edge to solar development too. Giant utility companies profit by sending power along their transmission lines from desert solar farms to the grid. On the other hand, if energy-conscious customers generate more power than they use with rooftop solar panels, the utility company has to cut them a check. So there’s little incentive for utilities to encourage customer-owned, distributed generation of renewable power.

Jeanine Cotter, CEO of San Francisco-based Luminalt, a small solar installer, says it takes her work crew about a day and a half to mount new panels onto a rooftop. “That will produce power for that home for the next several decades,” Cotter notes. “It’s a rapidly deployable technology that is durable and will last a long time.”

Cotter practices what she preaches. “At my house, if you turn on all the appliances, you can look at the meter and see that we’re still relying on PG&E to bring us power,” she says. Cutting down results in the meter showing that the panels are producing electricity for the grid.

Self-empowerment is a major draw for proponents of rooftop solar. “The choice is pretty clear: pay for the ongoing cost of remote central-station renewable power or pocket the savings of locally-generated renewable power,” Al Weinrub of the Sierra Club writes in a pitch for decentralized solar generation in a January 2011 report. “Businesses with large rooftops or parking lots can become small power companies that feed electricity into the grid. Community cooperatives can pool the rooftop area of their neighborhoods to form, for example, an East Oakland Power Company.” The revenue could be rolled into job creation and more green-energy development.

Rooftop solar has gained traction in California over the past five years with a $3 billion program to subsidize installations. The California Public Utilities Commission recently touted the California Solar Initiative (CSI) program’s success — a 47 percent growth in installations since 2009. All told, the Golden State boasts 924 megawatts of solar generation capability, installed at 94,891 locations. Consultants for the California Public Utilities Commission found that 11,543 megawatts of solar could be generated on large urban rooftops statewide, while another 27,000 megawatts could be generated on empty lots near rural substations.

The potential is huge, but a cost barrier remains. Even with incentives, residential solar remains largely inaccessible to people who aren’t rich enough to own property or finance the upfront cost. In San Francisco — recently declared the greenest city in North America by Siemens — roughly 70 percent of residents are renters who almost never have the option of going solar. Proponents of desert solar farms claim that the large-scale, centralized technology offers something that rooftop panels can’t — the potential to bring renewable energy to the masses.

The largest desert solar plant under construction worldwide is BrightSource’s Ivanpah plant, which Bechtel is building in the Mojave Desert. Spearheaded by an Oakland company, the plant uses sunlight and mirrors to generate steam to power a turbine. The energy will flow onto the grid to serve PG&E and Southern California Edison customers. It’s a dramatic improvement compared with burning coal, but there are other issues. On a yearly basis, it will use enough groundwater in the arid desert to cover 100 acres, one-foot deep. And it riled environmentalists who worried that it would affect the habitat of an endangered tortoise.

No one disputes that on a per-watt basis, it’s cheaper to install desert solar than rooftop solar. According to estimates from Go Solar California, it costs more than $8 per watt to install small-scale rooftop solar systems, while recent costs for desert solar farms have been calculated at around $4 per watt. “Because they have the economy of scale, they can be built at less cost,” notes John White, executive director of the Sacramento-based Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies.

Yet a renewable energy expert who formerly worked for the California Energy Commission (CEC) says comparing costs of desert and rooftop solar from the point of view of the customer tells a different story. In April, Sanford Miller delivered a presentation at UC Davis that could have been considered subversive. His analysis essentially found that ratepayers shell out less to subsidize rooftop solar installations than they do to finance the purchase of energy from desert solar farms once the full cost of transmission and environmental mitigation are factored in.

“From a ratepayers’ perspective, rooftop solar would be significantly cheaper than the desert solar,” Miller says. When he sent his findings around to his colleagues at the CEC, “no one disputed it,” he said. “But the view was that desert solar was inevitable.”

But that still leaves the question of who can afford solar — and this is where Tom Price, former executive director of Black Rock Solar and now part of a solar investment firm called CleanPath, believes he’s found a middle way. As things stand, every utility customer chips in to subsidize the cost of individualized solar panels for the lucky few who are installing them, he points out, and those same customers are footing the bill for energy companies to buy power from giant solar farms. He’s pushing the Community Solar Gardens bill as an alternative.

Introduced as Senate Bill 843 by Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis), the bill would allow any customer to purchase a subscription to a centralized renewable energy facility, and receive credit on their utility bill in exchange for the monthly fee.

White takes the view that all the different solar technologies are needed — rooftop, desert, and “intermediary” — the kind of small-scale, centralized facility that is located closer to the customers who will use it, like the solar array at the Sunset Reservoir in San Francisco. “After Fukushima [Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan], we need to begin talking seriously about reducing our dependence on nuclear power,” White says. “When you look at what we’re trying to replace and what we’re trying to avoid, it’s like we’re trying to assemble a new portfolio.”

Chiu’s choice

Andrew Lam

June 14, 2011

135

For 10 years — from 2000 to 2010 — progressives controlled the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. It was a defining era in city politics, with the left-leaning board not only providing a check on the power of downtown-backed mayors Willie Brown and Gavin Newsom but producing a long list of important reforms that, generally, sought to level the playing field between the haves and have-nots.

It wasn’t the most harmonious decade. Battles between the legislative and executive branches of government often got nasty, particularly when the political and economic stakes were high — and after the national recession and fiscal conservativism left various constituencies fighting over shrinking public resources.

But San Francisco’s modern progressive era was still a decade of unprecedented responsiveness at City Hall to the interests of workers, renters, immigrants, the poor, bicyclists, environmentalists, communities of color, and the other component groups of the city’s progressive movement.

It was a decade in which San Francisco adopted one of the nation’s highest minimum wages, when most employers were required to provide employee health insurance or pay into an expanded city clinic program, when it became far more difficult for landlords to evict their tenants, and when developers knew they wouldn’t get their projects approved without significant concessions to the progressive constituencies.

Then suddenly, just as that decade ended and 2011 began, everything changed. And the person who presided over that change and did more to usher it in than any single individual was Board President David Chiu, who is now running for mayor.

Chiu was elected as a supervisor and then president in 2009 with progressive support, yet he now distances himself from the progressive wing and casts himself as playing the central role in a new political reality.

“Clearly, I’m at the center of the board,” he told the Guardian. “My goal as president of the board is to try to figure out how to bring our colleagues together to coalesce around values that move our city forward with our shared progressive values. And I think I’ve done a good job at that.”

Yet the left-leaning members of the board feel as if they’ve been pushed to the margins, particularly after Chiu created a committee structure that elevated the moderate supervisors who kept Chiu in the president’s seat. To many progressives, Chiu’s shift has allowed powerful interests to move forward while progressive constituencies fall behind.

“There’s been a palpable shift to the middle at City Hall,” said Sup. John Avalos, whose own mayoral campaign has galvanized progressives. “David has shifted to the center. He’s become more comfortable representing himself as a centrist — before, he wouldn’t have done that.”

There’s more to the story. While it is true that Chiu essentially switched sides — elected president by board progressives in 2009 and then reelected by its fiscal conservatives in 2011 — it is also true that there were other powerful players working behind the scenes to help sabotage the progressives and create a new political alignment.

But while Chiu talks constantly about representing the city’s “shared progressive values,” he’s a very different type of politician than the activists who ran the board after the first district elections. Supervisors like Tom Ammiano, Matt Gonzalez, and Aaron Peskin saw themselves as fighters, engaged in an ongoing epic struggle to organize and protect the less powerful against the wealthy, entrenched interests that have controlled the city for decades. That’s not Chiu’s style or inclination; he seems much more interested in making the system work than in changing it.

He’s also in a strange political place right now. He’s alienated a lot of his one-time allies on the left — but downtown and the big city power brokers still don’t fully trust him. And it’s not clear where he’s going find the political base he needs for a citywide campaign.

“In an sense,” Peskin said, “he’s a man without a country.”

CHIU’S ROOTS

On the evening of June 1, Chiu and members of his mayoral campaign team went to the Polk Gulch neighborhood for the first of 29 fundraising and organizing events his campaign was staging in San Francisco living rooms, a grassroots strategy borrowed from President Barack Obama.

Speaking to a small crowd, Chiu gave his well-rehearsed campaign rap. It starts with a nod to his parents, who emigrated from Taiwan to the United States in the 1960s. “I watched my parents sacrifice everything,” he said, adding that his experience was similar to that of many sons and daughters of immigrant parents. “I am motivated to serve because of the sacrifices they made.”

Chiu grew up in Boston, the oldest of three brothers, all of whom attended Harvard. His father was a doctor in private practice; his mother was a substitute teacher who poured everything into raising her sons. During his 2008 campaign for supervisor, Chiu’s parents temporarily relocated to San Francisco to pitch in, and they’ll likely return again once his mayoral bid is in full swing.

When Chiu was reelected board president in January — an outcome he achieved without the support of the most progressive supervisors — his parents watched from the front row. Chiu comes across as someone who grew up with a high expectation for success, something those close to him say is perhaps his strongest motivator.

So far, it’s been borne out in his relatively short political career. He became the first Chinese American politician to represent Chinatown when he was elected in 2008 with the support of predecessor Aaron Peskin and progressive groups. After taking his oath as supervisor, Chiu took advantage of progressive infighting to clinch the board presidency, catapulting to the second-most powerful position in the city just after emerging from his first run for political office.

“It’s a meteoric rise,” said Jon Golinger, who managed Chiu’s campaign in 2008. “He’s inherently talented, smart, friendly, a quick learner, and a hard worker.”

Chiu had excelled in all the positions he previously held, Golinger said — as a student at Harvard Law School; as an aide to Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois in Washington, D.C.; as a prosecutor in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office; as a civil rights lawyer; and as the cofounder with Republican politician Matt Fong of a consulting firm called Grassroots Enterprises.

That company’s work with right-wing clients on campaigns that sometimes demonized liberals made some progressives nervous. Chiu countered by noting that most of its clients were liberal and that he didn’t work on the conservative campaigns. And he won the endorsement of the Guardian and progressive groups.

“My sense is that in all these contexts, people saw him as full of potential and had high hopes for him,” Golinger said.

Diane Chin, an associate dean at Stanford Law School, first met Chiu when he served as a law clerk, fresh out of Harvard. She later recruited him to join the board of Chinese for Affirmative Action. He also joined the board of the Chinatown Community Development Center, a post he was recruited to by his then-housemate Jane Kim, who was elected District 6 supervisor in 2010.

“David is somebody who is really committed to public service and is really thoughtful about governing,” Chin said. “I think of him as a progressive,” she added when asked how she’d describe his political stance. “But I know that is parsed 27,000 different ways in San Francisco.”

Kim echoed Chin’s comments, using the word “genuine” multiple times during an interview to describe Chiu and asserting that she too views him as a progressive. “David’s a genuine person, which is what I really like about him. I find him to be honest.”

She also emphasized how engaged he is with the business of governance. “He takes every decision seriously … he really believes in his vote.”

In a city where coalitions play an important role in governance, Chiu’s tendency to place himself in the swing vote position has increased his power — but some say his failure to cultivate or communicate with potential allies has sometimes turned them into enemies.

“I think David Chiu is a decent person, but he gets a little lost in his ambitions,” Avalos said, noting that Chiu placed himself in the pivotal position on big development projects and by naming himself as the fifth member of the Budget Committee and booting Avalos off a committee he used to chair. “He’s the one everyone wants to communicate with.”

THE PROBLEM WITH CIVILITY

Peskin objects to Chiu’s oft-repeated mantras — “shared progressive values” and “the new tone of civility” — calling them poll-tested platitudes that undermine the difficult struggles progressives must engage in to win support for their reforms against entrenched economic and political powers.

“It really means, in his case, that he’s not wiling to fight for things,” Peskin said. “Our shared progressives values are progressives who fight for change and to make the world more just. But in his case, it’s become code for stasis and not fighting for the little guy. And civility is just another way of being part of the problem and not part of the solution.”

Chiu told us he sees things differently.

“We certainly have a different style at City Hall, a leadership that still believes in our shared progressive values but that also believes we need to figure out how to work better with each other at City Hall and the diverse stakeholders we have in San Francisco,” he said. “So while people will speculate on the direction that we’re moving in, I actually think I am where I’ve always been.

“We can talk about specific decisions I’ve made,” he continued. “But I actually think that every key decision that some of you feel may have moved City Hall one direction or another, I would characterize as both coming from the values I’ve always had as well as reflecting a different style of leadership than what we’ve had at the Board of Supervisors.”

Chiu refuses to be pinned down to any ideological label — another clear difference with the previous three board presidents, who all saw themselves as part of the city’s left.

After discussing his belief in the potential of business tax exemptions to rejuvenate the Tenderloin and Mid-Market area (controversial legislation he championed and progressives opposed), we asked whether he considers himself a fiscal conservative.

“I consider myself to be someone who is fiscally disciplined,” he replied. He also said he is open to considering more revenue measures than he had already supported, and emphasized that the city budget had to be crafted in such a way that the pain of cutting to address a revenue shortfall was shared equally.

Golinger, who helped get Chiu elected, serves as president of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, an influential District 3 neighborhood group that Peskin previously presided over. The difference between Peskin and Chiu, Golinger said, is “like a cup of very strong dark roast versus a mild blend that goes down easy.” Peskin aggressively tackled key land-use issues, he added, whereas Chiu appears hesitant to make waves. “David is far more comfortable pushing the positive than pointing out the flaws,” he said.

Chris Daly — the former supervisor who now owns Buck Tavern, which has become a hub for progressive political strategizing and gossip — doesn’t consider Chiu to be a progressive and says he probably never was. “His position has certainly changed. But I don’t think he’s changed who he is or what he believes.”

It’s a position Daly shares with his old ideological nemesis, Sup. Sean Elsbernd, who told the Guardian: “I don’t think David has changed who he is in any way. How he is, is how he’s always been.”

Instead, Daly said the problem was that progressives had brought Chiu into the fold because he was a far better alternative than downtown-backed Joe Alioto Jr. in the 2008 race for the District 3 seat on the board.

Elsbernd has a different analysis. “All four supervisors who got elected are more moderate than their predecessors,” he said of last supervisorial races, adding that he thinks that ideological difference was clear during the campaigns. “Nothing has happened in the last six months that surprises me.”

And while Daly used his last days as a termed-out supervisor trying to prevent Lee from becoming mayor and Chiu from being reelected board president, he concedes Elsbernd’s point that the battle was probably lost before then. “There’s a lesson we’ve learned — that when we’re bring up new leaders, there has be vetting. They need to be deeply rooted in our community,” Daly said.

END OF THE PROGRESSIVE ERA

Corey Cook, a political science professor at the University of San Francisco, said the rapid rise of Chiu has been a fascinating story, one that’s open to interpretations that vary from Chiu’s claims to constancy to the feeling among many progressives that he used and then betrayed them.

“That’s the $1 million question — whether he adapted to the changing politics, or whether he changed the politics. It’s probably a little of both,” Cook said, raising another question that voters will ponder this year. “Is he viewed as the great compromiser in a positive or negative way?”

Yet Cook said one thing is clear: “The almost decade-long progressive era has come to an end.”

Cook cited a series of Chiu votes — from development deals to the Twitter tax break — and the rare feat of consecutively being elected president with the majority support of the board’s two rival factions. But rather than switching sides, Cook said Chiu has hovered somewhere between them.

“I don’t think there’s anyone who would claim he’s ideologically in one camp or another,” Cook observed, noting how Chiu has opted to play the centrist swing vote. While many progressives might look down on that kind of ideological flexibility, Cook said voters in general won’t necessarily see it that way.

“After the divisive politics practiced by Peskin, Daly, Newsom, and others, perhaps being someone without a political base isn’t a liability at this point,” Cook said. “The sense is we’ve gotten beyond acrimony.”

Cook said it’s notable that even progressive supervisors are praising — or at least declining to criticize — the new era of civility that has settled in at City Hall, and that might feed Chiu’s message that he’s presiding over positive changes in the political system. “Everyone is contributing to the narrative that this is a good and productive kind of politics,” he said. “Even the progressive in this race has reinforced that narrative.”

Daly said it’s difficult and not tactically smart for Avalos to criticize the new tone at City Hall, even though he and other progressives argue that all this talk of consensus and civility is simply a ruse that favors the powerful, particularly given the resources that they can marshal to push their projects and how the history of political progress for the less-fortunate has always come through struggle and conflict.

“There is no inherent problem with civility. The problem is when you give up a principled position,” Daly said.

“If he can do it all with civility and compromise, but he still gets progressive results, more power to politics in San Francisco,” Peskin said.

Instead, they say recent votes show that powerful business interests have been getting their way at City Hall to a degree not seen since the days before the progressive era began — a message that Avalos and his progressive supporters will be delivering to voters this year.

“We are in an era of wealth being consolidated in fewer and fewer hands, and people are upset about that,” Avalos said, noting that City Hall leaders have aided and abetted that consolidation and refused to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes.

But Cook isn’t so sure, at least not without a real change in the city’s dominant political narrative now, arguing that that the still-sluggish economy is crowding out other concerns. “There are a bunch of problems with the progressive narrative right now. The thing that seems to be winning every argument is jobs.”

Political consultant David Latterman, who traditionally worked for downtown-backed candidates but is now consulting on Chiu’s mayoral campaign, agrees that job creation is the top issue. He also believes that voters are tired of the conflicts that have defined City Hall politics. “That model doesn’t really work. We need a more consensus-based approach and he represents that.”

It’s hard to see “consensus” in the series of 6-5 votes on the most divisive issues this year, but Cook said this year’s political realignment has drained the energy out of many of the conflicts. “Not only did the ideology of the board shift, but also the force and energy of the board,” he said.

Elsbernd said the biggest change in the board dynamics has nothing to do with Chiu. “It’s the absence of Chris [Daly]. He played a huge role here,” Elsbernd said of his ideological adversary, someone who defined what it meant to be a progressive and pushed his colleagues to remain true to that ideology. “And no one has filled that void.”

“I was the whip,” Daly agreed, using the legislative term for the enforcer of party or ideological discipline. “I was trying to get John to be that after I left. But with him running for mayor, he can’t really be the bad guy.”

Similarly, Chiu’s replacement of Peskin also drained the chamber of much of its ideological energy, particularly after he and Daly’s successors opted for a centrist governing style after being elected as progressives who promised to fight for tenants and the less powerful.

“The realignment didn’t happen at the ballot box. The realignment happened with people who ran as progressives and lost their way,” Peskin said.

WHERE’S THE CENTER?

Chiu argues that there’s nothing inconsistent between his progressive values and his centrist governing style.

“I think the center of the city shares San Francisco progressive values. It’s what stood up for universal health care, it’s what supported sick leave, it’s what supports a living wage, it’s what supports the opportunity for everyone to be able to live here. And that means that tenants are not being evicted; it means homeowners are not being unfairly or illegally foreclosed upon; it means that immigrants get to have a real opportunity here in an environment where they are respected. I think that is the center of SF values,” Chiu told us.

Nonetheless, there is near-universal agreement that the center of San Francisco politics moved to the right this year. Power has consolidated around Mayor Lee, as well as those who convinced Chiu to put him there, including the powerful players who helped elect District 6 Sup. Jane Kim, who has notably been withholding her mayoral endorsement.

The perception that Chiu switched allegiances was reinforced by his picks for board committees, which gave the board’s most fiscally conservative members the most power, including naming Sup. Carmen Chu as chair of the Budget Committee and placing Sups. Mark Farrell and Elsbernd on the Rules Committee, where they’ve been actively sabotaging progressive appointments and initiatives.

Chiu’s defense for his committee structure was that their decisions could be reversed by the full board. “We have reversed the handful of decisions that have come out of there that may have been problematic,” Chiu said of the Rules Committee recommendations, even though he supported some of the most controversial recommendations, such as voting against the progressive favorites for the Police and Ethics commissions.

When we relayed the progressive criticism of an Ethics Commission that is ineffective at best and corrupt at worst — refusing to enforce any Sunshine Ordinance Task Force decisions, rubber-stamping every ethics waiver it receives, and failing to investigate even clear campaign finance violations that had been exposed by the press — Chiu offered only hollow rhetoric. “The Ethics Commission needs to continue to fight for transparency, fight for accountability, fight to make sure lobbyists, political candidates, folks who work for city government are held to the highest ethical standard.”

“GOVERNMENT WAS DYSFUNCTIONAL”

The kickoff for Chiu’s series of neighborhood campaign events was held in the living room of Ron Case and Carolynn Abst, cofounders of Lower Polk Neighbors (LPN). The room, which looked out over Polk Street, was adorned with elephantine tropical shrubs and a row of birch branches lining the entranceway against a lavender wall.

LPN consists of about 35 people and was formed to clean up the streets, beautify the neighborhood, and promote public safety in partnership with law enforcement. Case and Abst, both architects, purchased and renovated the property 11 years ago. Things didn’t start out smoothly, Case said, since they were accused of gentrifying the neighborhood. The group has come under fire in the past by groups like Gay Shame San Francisco, a radical queer organization, which faults LPN for trying to change the neighborhood by working with police to drive out the homeless, drug addicts, and the down-and-out.

The small crowd was made up of mostly white, middle-aged professionals from Districts 2 and 3 (one introduced herself by saying she was friends with D2 Sup. Farrell). Chiu told the group that he had decided to run for office in 2007 for one reason: “City government was frankly pretty dysfunctional.” Politicians from different political factions bickered with one another, he said, and “they literally couldn’t even sit in the same room.”

Chiu described the challenges he hoped to tackle as mayor. First, San Francisco is doing a poor job “becoming the 21st-century economy” it has the potential to blossom into, he explained, so he wants to look at ways to stimulate job growth. Second, steps have to be taken to protect tenants and working-class residents by ensuring San Francisco does not turn into an exclusive bedroom community for Silicon Valley professionals. Third, the transportation infrastructure needs to be revamped since Muni is always late and pedestrian fatalities are unacceptably high. Fourth, he wants to find ways to streamline the byzantine bureaucracy of city government by cutting through red tape to boost efficiency.

It wasn’t clear if the tenant or transit messages were resonating with this particular crowd, which Chiu later said contained faces that were new to him. One of the questions he got was whether he thinks it is helpful to have a dearth of Republican representation in city politics. To this, he responded that San Francisco’s political factions are split more into progressives vs. moderates “and that gridlock has held us back from finding commonalities.”

Chiu had to cut out of the architects’ home early to make it to the second living room meeting that night in the Outer Sunset. When he slid into the passenger’s seat of a Zipcar (Chiu doesn’t own a car and primarily commutes by what he calls “a really cheap beater bike”), his driver and campaign volunteer handed him dinner in a takeout container. Chiu is constantly eating on the go since he attends up to five meetings and campaign events each night. Dark rings under his eyes suggested a lack of sleep.

The people who came to the second living room meeting represented a different cross-section of San Francisco, mostly Asian professionals in their 20s and 30s. This one was at the home of Ramie Dare, a campaign volunteer and former classmate of Chiu’s from graduate school.

Chiu ran through the campaign rap again. His speech was followed by a presentation from a campaign volunteer who distributed flow charts and tables describing how they would execute the grassroots-level campaign strategy. Using Google Earth, he zoomed in to Dare’s neighborhood. According to the data linked with the map of surrounding turf, “we have 825 registered voters and 435 frequent voters” in the area, he explained. This was clearly going to be a tech-savvy campaign.

CAMPAIGN CHALLENGES

But it’s going to be a campaign with serious challenges. While progressives feel betrayed and abandoned by Chiu, their ideological opponents downtown also have yet to embrace him, not trusting him to fight for them because he has sought to assert his independence from their agenda.

Chiu was openly considering a deal with Newsom to be named district attorney — which would have allowed Newsom to appoint his replacement in D3. Chinatown power broker Rose Pak was furious — he hadn’t discussed the move with her.

Even those around Chiu have emphasized his independence from Pak, who has desperately been looking for someone she could count on to back and prevent Yee from winning the mayor’s office. If Chiu can’t trusted to carry water for Pak’s Chinese Chamber of Commerce agenda, she will likely throw her support behind a different candidate.

“David Chiu has no chance of winning the mayor’s race,” Daly flatly declares. “He has no base, there are too many people fighting for the middle, and he has no clear path to victory.”

Chiu cites his record as a champion for tenants’ rights as one of three areas where his progressive credentials are strongest, along with his advocacy for immigrants’ rights and improving Muni.

“Our shared progressive values are very important, and they’re something I’ve been fighting for before I came into office as well as while I’ve been in office,” he said during a Guardian interview. “I am the one major mayoral candidate in this race who is a tenant, and I’ve stood up for tenants’ rights during my time before I was in office,” he said. “I’ve stood with tenants time and again throughout my time in office.”

Yet Chiu was the swing vote that approved the Parkmerced overhaul, an ambitious development project that would substantially increase density at the housing complex while demolishing 1,500 rent-controlled units.

“Chiu reached a back-room deal with the developer and provided the crucial sixth vote to approve the largest demolition of rent-controlled housing in San Francisco since the redevelopment of the Fillmore,” Influential tenant advocate Dean Preston, who heads a statewide organization called Tenants Together, wrote in an editorial on BeyondChron.org (which has generally been supportive of Chiu) the following day. “Despite a good record on tenant rights issues before his work on Parkmerced, Chiu has now earned the distrust of tenants across the city.”

But Chiu insists the Parkmerced deal had to happen.

“Not doing anything was not in the best interest of the city,” Chiu said, reiterating that he had thought it was the best choice for the sake of the city when asked whether he was concerned that his decision had sparked the ire of tenant groups. Despite the criticism and fallout from his choice, Chiu seems to genuinely believe his explanation although opponents of the deal just as strongly believe it speaks ill of Chiu.

“The Parkmerced vote is really a line of demarcation because there are acts that could have been taken by the board that could have insured the tenants will be taken care of — and on a 6-5 vote that didn’t happen,” Peskin said. “This isn’t the politics of compromise; it is just compromised politics,”

A little more than a week after casting the swing vote for Parkmerced, Chiu sought the endorsement of the San Francisco Building & Construction Trades Council.

Sup. Eric Mar, a strong tenant advocate, defended Chiu’s vote. “Though he voted for the Parkmerced development, I think he tried very hard … to listen to the concerns of the tenants and to try to build in stronger protections for the tenants,” Mar told us.

He also rejected the view that Chiu is no longer a progressive. “I’ve always known him to be somebody that has strong progressive values,” he said, noting that Chiu often votes along with left-leaning colleagues.

Peskin said there is a silver lining to the troubling board votes and the political realignment at City Hall. After 10 years with a progressive majority on the board, many leftist activists moved on to other struggles, confident that the board would defend the interests of the poor, renters, and others without much economic or political power.

“This is a wakeup call,” Peskin said. “Now it’s back to the ’80s and ’90s, with San Franciscans realizing that they’re fighting for the soul of their city again.”

TAKING SIDES

Chiu articulates a vision for city government that has things running more smoothly: Political factions work in collaboration with one another rather than being at odds; Muni is upgraded to become an efficient transportation system serving a world-class city; and the way small business interfaces with city agencies is streamlined.

The board president thinks deeply about technical issues in government and how to improve the nuts-and-bolts of the system. What sets Chiu apart from that of his predecessor and the political leaders who have traditionally defined themselves as progressives, however, is that they considered themselves as leaders of the struggle to challenge an entrenched power structure represented by big business, major developers, and moneyed consultants and lobbyists. And — generally speaking, with some exceptions — they took their cues from the activists organizing around key issues.

While Chiu was willing to remove the six-vote roadblock to Parkmerced by securing what he seemed to think were adequate amendments, a substantial group of Parkmerced tenants bitterly opposed the project — and Chiu was not willing to act on their behalf to halt the plan from moving forward.

And while the dynamics of San Francisco’s political realignment may seem like a discussion topic of interest only to a narrow group of wonky insiders sipping beer at Buck Tavern, the consequences of the shift has real-life implications. As commissioners vetted by a more moderate Rules Committee make decisions that favor private over public interests, and as major development projects such as Parkmerced and Treasure Island march forward — bringing with them more wealthy homeowners — the lives of everyday San Franciscans will be changed.

Saving the soul of the city — and protecting the people who suffer when budgets are cut and affordable housing is lost — isn’t just a management job. It’s a fight, sometimes a decidedly uncivil fight, against people who have more money and power. That’s what has defined the progressive movement in this city — and people who walk the line down the center, like Chiu, will eventually have to decide which side they’re on.

Not in our neighborhood

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks

May 31, 2011

news@sfbg.com

San Francisco faces an enormous shortage of affordable housing for young people at risk of homelessness, but a pair of projects intended to address the issue are under fire from neighborhood activists in supervisorial District 2, home to the city’s wealthiest residents.

The proposed conversion of the defunct Edward II Hotel and the major overhaul at the Booker T. Washington Community Service Center (BTWCSC) could create a combined 74 units of affordable housing for vulnerable youth, complete with services and support systems to help young people coming from foster or homeless families.

“We are building houses for young people who are getting their start in life,” said Julian Davis, president of the board of BTWCSC. “There was a great need for foster youth housing that has been studied ad nauseam … Our center wanted to contribute.”

But both projects have run into strong neighborhood opposition that appears to have turned D2 Sup. Mark Farrell against the projects as proposed, despite initial support for the BTWCSC project by both Farrell and his predecessor, Michela Alioto-Pier. Farrell’s approach has frustrated project opponents and caused the representative of a neighboring district, Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, to sponsor the project.

“The project emanated from Michela Alioto-Pier and she supported the original project, which is why I joined her in support and it initially appeared that Sup. Farrell was joining that support,” Mirkarimi told us, noting that he is continuing to champion the project because it borders his district and because “the Booker T center has a long reach and serves clients from throughout city.”

After hearing from constituents concerned about parking, the size of the five-story building that is proposed, and other issues, Farrell dropped his sponsorship of the project and submitted alternative legislation that cut the building to four stories, presenting it to project proponents without their input as a take-it-or-leave-it proposal.

“The thing I find most puzzling about this is the lack of communication with me personally,” BTWCSC Executive Director Pat Scott said of Farrell, noting how helpful Alioto-Pier and Farrell’s staff had been before opponents convinced him to drop his support for the project. “I was a little taken aback, quite frankly. I would just assume that he’d talk to me.“

But Farrell said he was simply trying to heed neighborhood concerns and craft a compromise that would get neighbors to drop their lawsuit threats and appeal of the Planning Commission’s 6-1 vote to approve the project. “I can’t control what happened in the past, I’m only here to make sure everyone is happy now,” Farrell told us. “I absolutely support the project, I think the community center is great … We’re arguing over a story.”

Yet Scott noted that project proponents already had compromised on a project that was initially proposed for eight stories, and she said that even at five stories, it isn’t coming anywhere near what the city actually needs. So while Farrell casts it as a fight over one story, Scott said, “10 units is a big thing in a city that has nothing for these kids.”

That need was outlined in a 2007 report by the Mayor’s Transitional Youth Task Force. The group of city officials and nonprofit providers, convened by then-Mayor Gavin Newsom, studied issues affecting at-risk youth between the ages 16 and 24 and one of the major needs identified was housing.

A follow-up study found that 4,500 to 6,800 young people are “homeless or marginally housed each year.” The citywide affordable housing stock for this population sat at meager 314 units at the time.

“We are not doing a good enough job as a city and as a state [to help at-risk youth],” Davis said. “Once they leave the foster care system, there is very little support for them.”

The report called for 400 new affordable housing units for this population to be completed or under construction by 2012. Edward II and BTWCSC are located in the Marina and the Western Addition, respectively, in proximity to affluent neighborhoods in a district with a dearth of affordable housing.

“With supportive housing [going] into neighborhoods that never had affordable housing, there is a certain unknown and it makes people uncomfortable,” said Gail Gilman, Executive Director of Community Housing Partnership, which owns and manages the Edward II project.

Patricia Vaughey, a resident of the Marina-Cow Hollow area since 1976, is perhaps the most vocal critic of the project. She has used the neighborhood associations and every other city forum she can find as platforms to lambaste the plans. “It just kills my soul to see this project,” she told us, voicing a variety of concerns about how the project would be managed. “I am so worried about the kids … We are asking for the best program in the country and we are not getting it.”

Yet Gilman said that considerable energy and many resources have been invested in designing Edward II and that she trusts Larkin Street Youth Service, a respected nonprofit agency, to do the programming. “We chose to partner with Larkin Street because they are the experts in this area,” she said.

Vaughey characterized the stretch of Lombard Street between Divisadero and Van Ness streets, where Edward II will be located, as marred by crime and prostitution and unsuitable for this project. “We have a little Tenderloin down here,” she said.

Gilman disputed that characterization and said the building was chosen after an extensive search and that it met the criteria of having the right sized building in a safe neighborhood with good access to public transit and open space.

But many residents have expressed concern over the pending change to zoning for the building. And if the BTWCSC project couldn’t win Farrell’s support, the Edward II project faces an even more uphill battle because Farrell told us, “There’s an even stronger level of neighborhood concern over that project…. It’s going to be a tough hill to climb.”

The contentious issue under review by the Planning Department is an application to expand the density limit from 16 units to 24.

John Miller, president of the Marina Community Association, said that “from a neighborhood dynamic perspective,” a change to density is problematic. He said changing the density for one building is a slippery slope that could hurt the entire neighborhood. “Higher density is inconsistent with the neighborhood. It could work beautifully at lower density.”

Miller said potential renters in the vicinity would be concerned with “loitering that could occur when people are coming and going … With so many people there is no sense of community”

Yet as with BTWCSC, proponents say simply slashing the project to a smaller size would kill it because then it wouldn’t pencil out financially. Making an issue of density is therefore obstruction of the project because compromise cannot be reached on the issue.

Farrell, a venture capitalist, said he ran the numbers on BTWCSC and believes it would still be a viable project at four stories if the Mayor’s Office of Housing is able to offer some unspecified assistance, as he said the officials there have pledged to him they would. “I know we need more affordable housing,” Farrell said, rejecting suggestions that D2 residents tend to oppose all affordable housing projects. “I don’t think that should be a part of this conversation.”

Farrell criticized the outreach done by Edward II proponents, telling us, “I don’t think it was done in a tactful way.” But Miller said a recent meeting with Gilman and others was positive. “It was an effort on their part to respond to the neighborhood concerns as best they can,” Miller said.

“We are confident we can partner with the community in a proactive way to address the concerns that are addressable,” Gilman said. “If we diligently work with the community, we can have positive project.”

Edward II is on track to come before the Planning Commission in mid-July, while the appeal of the BTWCSC project is scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee on June 6 at 1 p.m. Neither Mirkarimi nor Farrell offered predictions, but both said the issue of whether the project should be four or five stories will likely be a key part of the discussion.

“Coming through the process has made me super supportive of all plans for transition age housing. I was already a supporter but this made me a fervent supporter,” Scott said. “The amount of opposition by people who don’t care what happens to our children — it makes you want to fight.”

Evicting hoarders

Andrew Lam

May 3, 2011

news@sfbg.com

People who collect massive amounts of stuff in their apartments often suffer from a mental disability that causes them to become hoarders. Even so, they can face eviction — despite state laws that protect renters with disabilities. And when hoarders get evicted, they usually become homeless.

“Hoarding behaviors may result in a landlord issuing an eviction notice on the basis that the tenant has created a nuisance, fire hazard, or other danger in the building. If the tenant is diagnosed as disabled, the tenant may notify the landlord of the disability and request the landlord provide a reasonable accommodation to enable the tenant to remain in the apartment rather than being evicted,” reads a recent report from San Francisco’s Mental Health Association, which is seeking to educate renters, landlords, and the general public on the issue.

Evictions in San Francisco are on the rise. Between March 1, 2010 and Feb. 28, 2011, 1,370 evictions were filed, an 8 percent rise from 1,269 evictions the previous year. The Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) offer protections to those who have a disability, but landlords say there are liability issues associated with excessive hoarding.

Tenants can fight evictions by asking their landlords for a “reasonable accommodation” whose duration depends on the situation. A reasonable accommodation could be a plan that requires 30 days of cleaning and support service for hoarders in an effort to avoid eviction.

According to Mayoclinic.com, hoarding is labeled an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). But many researchers consider it a distinct mental health problem that can be treated with therapy or counseling. California law defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more life activities, such as walking, seeing, hearing, working, learning, or caring for oneself.

Sandra Stark, 66, hasn’t allowed anyone in her home for five years. She collects kitchenware and antiques. Like most hoarders, she started collecting after a traumatic event. It occurred when she was in her 30s and was gaining weight. Stark had never heard of the term “hoarder” until she watched a special on The Oprah Winfrey Show.

She claims her hoarding is a symptom of depression and disability, not OCD. “I feel like, with my weight, the clutter is a barrier between me and the world that hurt me,” she told us.

Before TV shows uncovered the lives of hoarders, family and friends often were the ones to call for help. These days, hoarders often seek help themselves. A&E’s Hoarders receives 1,000 submissions every month. After we spoke to some hoarders, they were all willing to seek change.

MHA recognized the problem and created a task force in 2007. Its goal was to build a plan of action to combat compulsive hoarding in San Francisco. The task force puts the costs of compulsive hoarding at more than $6 million per year. In 2009, the task force completed its report and estimated that between 12,000 and 25,000 residents in San Francisco struggle with this condition.

Most landlords try not to evict hoarding tenants right away. “Landlords may be compassionate and, in many cases, I believe, try hard to prevent evictions. However, they still have liability insurance and strict guidelines to follow,” said Tim Ballard, a social work supervisor for the city. “It is their responsibility to protect the other tenants, and the painful result used as a means of harm reduction is often the legal option of eviction proceedings.”

He said the heavy cleaning required on a hoarder’s home can cost between $6,000 and $8,000 and can include removing trash to create safety in their home. The largest amount spent was $16,000. Currently, Ballard has 300 clients who are hoarders or clutterers in San Francisco.

On March 10, MHA hosted its 13th Conference on Hoarding and Cluttering. Keynote speaker Christiana Bratiotis, who has her doctorate in social work and is director of the Hoarding Research Project, defined compulsive hoarding as the “acquisition of, and failure to discard, a large number of possessions that appear to be useless or of limited value.”

Michael Badolato, administrative assistant of Broderick Street Adult Residential Facility, attended to find a reasonable approach to deal with a hoarding resident living in his facility. “The challenge of hoarding is the mental health issue involved,” he said. Other attendees included educators, landlords, healthcare workers, attorneys, and hoarders themselves.

One panel discussion topic was how hoarding and cluttering are portrayed in the media. The panel included Michael Gause, associate director of MHA; Robin Zasio, a physician on A&E’s Hoarders; and Kari Peterson, an organizer from Hoarding: Buried Alive. Hoarders was created to show people in crisis and prevent the behaviors through the show.

The panelists claim that in order to show what the crisis is, a sensational aspect is involved. Ceci Garnett, whose mother was featured in an episode of Hoarders, says knowing that others are out there is “worth it to let people know they are not alone.

“And at least now there is treatment,” she continued. “We have to risk sensationalism to start a conversation.”

Ray Cleary, who was on season one of TLC’s Buried Alive, also appeared on the panel. Featured before and after treatment, he is still in the process of recovering. “I didn’t have to throw everything away,” he says. “I still have boxes and don’t know what to do with them.”

Another hoarder, who asked to remain anonymous to avoid eviction, was critical of the media attention on hoarding. “It’s a cult. People are going to make a career off my circumstance — making it a disease.”

These people have “already decided it’s a pre-mental disease,” she continued.

Inside her home near Van Ness Avenue, a small path led from the door to her living room. By the door hung green bead necklaces from years of parades; yellowing stacks of paper filled every space in the rooms. An information junkie, she collects newspapers and books. A San Francisco resident for 45 years, she used to be homeless and has suffered from a head injury. “Throwing something away is like throwing away memory — and that means it’s gone forever,” she says.

When she was homeless, her belongings went to storage. But when she got housing, she couldn’t throw anything away. Everyone she knows who has suffered from a head injury has this problem as well, she says, claiming it comes from gradually mixed emotional issues from losses and her health.

For years she tried to find someone to help her recycle or donate items, but she couldn’t find the help she needed, even from her case manager. Other hoarders claim that most caseworkers aren’t aware of their condition and assume they just need to throw everything out at once — something hoarders don’t feel they can easily do.

Her landlord isn’t involved with the property and doesn’t know of the situation. She would like someone to sit and accompany her as she cleans, but she doesn’t know of any service that provides this. During the interview, she picked up a phone call from someone who was going to stop by later to help. “But they usually flake on me,” she acknowledged. Her hoarding, she says, is part of a physical health issue, not a mental health problem.

But San Francisco does offer places such as the MHA conference to discuss the issue. Hoarders‘ Dr. Zasio says the show helps the people who are willing to go on TV. In exchange for going public, the network pays for six months aftercare, including services such as home repairs and therapy sessions. Although the network recognizes that it gains ratings by sensationalizing the condition for 44 minutes, it also wants to raise public awareness.

Of the 1,370 evictions in San Francisco in the past year, 442 cases were prompted by a breach of rental agreement and 271 cases were for committing a nuisance. These cases could include hoarding, but the city doesn’t specify that in its statistics.

As Teresa Friend from the Homeless Advocacy Project said: “If the person with a disability including hoarding is without family or friends to turn to or is not part of a legal intervention process and evicted, they will end up homeless.”

Scumlords settle

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks

March 29, 2011

news@sfbg.com

Five years after the Guardian’s award-winning, three-part series about how representatives for the Lembi family allegedly engaged in illegal and unethical tactics intended to force protected renters from their homes (“The Scumlords,” March 2006), City Attorney Dennis Herrera has concluded contentious negotiations to reach a multimillion dollar settlement with CitiApartments and other Lembi-controlled corporations.

The two sides have agreed on a settlement worth anywhere between $1 million and $10 million to the city, depending on the crumbling real estate empire’s future worth and whether the Lembi family decides to “forever cease property management operations within the City and County of San Francisco — permanently and irrevocably,” as the City Attorney’s Office put it.

That agreement and an injunction barring the landlords from future harassment of tenants was scheduled for submission to San Francisco Superior Court on March 29 and still must be approved by a judge, although that is usually pro forma in cases like this in which both sides have agreed to the terms.

In its lawsuit, the city alleged that the defendants “employed a business model that systematically and unlawfully dispossessed long-term residential tenants of their rent-controlled apartments, leaving defendants free to make significant unpermitted renovations and to re-rent those newly renovated units at dramatically increased market rates.

“Ostensibly, this illegal business model enabled Lembi family interests to aggressively outbid competing investors for perhaps hundreds of residential properties throughout San Francisco,” the complaint continued, further alleging that the defendants’ business entities were organized and operated in such a way that they were “the alter egos of defendants Frank Lembi, Walter Lembi, and David Raynal.”

The defendants disputed those claims, the injunction notes, “by reaching a settlement and agreeing to injunctive terms and payment of civil penalties, defendants are not admitting any wrongdoing or making any admission of liability.”

But the City Attorney’s Office said that this is “the most exhaustively detailed settlement in memory, and the strongest possible agreement to protect the public interest.” And Herrera told us that the settlement reflects “the pervasiveness of the conduct” the city looked at, regarding tenant treatment and the litigation process.

“So, it was necessary to get as tough and detailed an injunction as possible to ensure that tenants will be protected going forward, and in terms of trying to extract a maximum dollar settlement,” Herrera told us. “For us, their conduct is the most important thing, but the financial penalties are not insignificant. This ensures they do business under strict circumstances, play by the rules, and do not present a threat to tenants. But if they want to leave, obviously, there’s a dollar amount connected to that.”

The lowest possible settlement, $1 million, requires the Lembi companies to quickly get out of the rental business in San Francisco. The settlement comes almost five years after Herrera first filed suit against CitiApartments — and 18 months after former CitiApartments’ tenants sued the Lembi empire (see “SF vs. Frank Lembi,” 10/6/2009), following a financial crash that involved banks foreclosing on dozens of the group’s properties (see “Triumph of tenacity,” 6/1/2010).

The City Attorney’s litigation included evidence from tenants and other witnesses identified by former Guardian reporter G.W. Schultz, and Herrera credited the Guardian with originating the case. CitiStop, a coalition of labor and tenants groups, also referred tenants and helped the case, and almost 300 tenants and witnesses came forward after the city’s 2006 filing.

The City Attorney’s Office noted that Herrera amended his original complaint three times to fully capture the Lembi family’s “byzantine array of business entities, trusts, and partnerships within the scope of the lawsuit,” fighting through corporate stall tactics that were the subject of fines issued by the courts.

Even after their unscrupulous tactics were exposed, the Lembis continued to be celebrated by business groups such as the San Francisco Apartment Association, although city officials told us “real estate observers had long speculated that the Lembi family’s unlawful business model was ultimately unsustainable. And the severe economic downturn that began in late 2008 appears to have been cataclysmic for the aspiring real estate empire.”

Selling the Tenderloin

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks

March 29, 2011

steve@sfbg.com

Nobody wants Twitter to leave San Francisco, even if there is disagreement about whether it’s a good idea to give the company an estimated $47 million tax break to stay. But the most unsettling aspects of this deal are the unexplained, dramatic expansion of the tax giveaway zone and the unsupported claims that it will “revitalize” the mid-Market and Tenderloin areas without gentrifying them.

Nonetheless, the legislation creating a six-year payroll tax holiday for new jobs is on the fast track for approval after the Board of Supervisors Budget & Finance Subcommittee sent it on to the full board for consideration on April 5, denying the request by Sup. Ross Mirkarimi and other critics of the deal that the public be allowed to comment on a community benefits agreement with Twitter that is still being negotiated.

The deal was crafted mostly by the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, starting last year under Mayor Gavin Newsom (who has close ties to Twitter and its would-be landlord, Shorenstein Properties LLC) and seamlessly continuing under Mayor Ed Lee. For top OEWD staffers Jennifer Matz and Amy Cohen, keeping big businesses happy is a core mission, so their advocacy for this tax-cut package isn’t really surprising. It’s an article of faith with them.

David Chiu, the board president and mayoral candidate who is cosponsoring the measure, also professes a basic faith in the power of cutting business taxes and has a particular disdain for the payroll tax, which he calls a “job killer.” Chiu, who supported extending the payroll tax holiday for biotech companies last year, says this deal is consistent with his fiscally conservative approach to economic development and has even suggested doing similar tax exclusions in other San Francisco neighborhoods.

But the motivations are less clear for two other key proponents of the measure: Sup. Jane Kim and Randy Shaw, the Tenderloin Housing Clinic director and self-styled power broker for a part of town that he’s been seeking rebrand as Uptown.

Kim told us that she’s a progressive who philosophically opposes these sorts of supply-side economic schemes, but that she decided to champion the measure to keep Twitter from leaving and address blight in the neighborhood. Yet that doesn’t explain why she has drastically expanded the giveaway zone or made several public statements that aren’t supported by the facts, and Kim has stopped answering questions from the Guardian.

City Economist Ted Egan testified that there are no discernible economic development benefits to including the entire Tenderloin, and that the Twitter-induced economic boost would increase commercial rents. In other words, the primary economic benefits would be to commercial landlords.

At the same March 16 hearing, Kim claimed the measure will revitalize the Tenderloin without gentrifying it, something she calls one of her top concerns.

Shaw strongly supported Kim’s supervisorial campaign and is pushing this deal with almost messianic desire to call the shots in the neighborhood where he’s been building an empire with public funds for 30 years.

POWER BROKER

A Guardian investigation (see “Behind the tweets,” March 15) revealed that Shaw was a key architect of the deal: working closely with OEWD staff, adding properties into the tax exclusion zone, developing the talking points, rallying support for the legislation, and being given credit for the deal when city officials talked to landowners.

Being the champion for corporate tax breaks and large landlords is a new role for Shaw, who began his career as a progressive advocate for low-income renters, using lawsuits against landlords and social services contracts with the city to grow THC into a $25 million nonprofit corporation that controls much of the city’s single-room-occupancy housing stock. THC was a prime beneficiary of Newsom’s Care Not Cash program, which converted cash assistance for the poor into housing subsidies and support services, increasing THC’s government grants from $9 million in 2004 to $15.7 million in 2009. Recently THC was awarded a five-year city contract worth $82 million.

But if Shaw is still trying to promote the needs of the poor, he’s now doing it by casting his lot with landowners.

Shaw has lately been in fundraising mode as he tries to open a Tenderloin history museum next year in the Cadillac Hotel (where THC has acquired an ownership interest), and he has ambitious fantasies of turning a neighborhood that has long been one of the city’s poorest into an international tourist destination (see “The Test of the Tenderloin,” 9/28/2010). Who is he soliciting money from? We asked him, in writing, and he won’t tell us.

Shaw once stood with housing-activist-turned-supervisor Chris Daly in protesting plans by UC Hastings College of the Law to tear down low-income housing and build a parking garage — but now Shaw sat through the March 23 hearing on the tax break deal with Hastings CFO David Seward, who spoke in support of the proposal after Shaw added the property into the tax-free zone, saying it might help the ground floor retail businesses on the garage property.

Shaw still plays up his progressive roots and long advocacy for the Tenderloin, as he did during an emotionally overwrought presentation to the Budget & Finance Subcommittee on March 16, detailing his advocacy work over 30 years. “We are a neighborhood starved for investment,” said Shaw, who actually lives in the Berkeley Hills. “We cannot compete on a level playing field.”

But the “we” Shaw refers to isn’t really the poor people in his hotels, or the progressive leaders or movement that he has repeatedly criticized over the last year as “a political machine” that he’s fighting against in BeyondChron, a political blog he runs out of THC. Given the scant information in public records on why so many properties have been added into the district or the private discussions that led to those decisions, it’s hard to say who Shaw’s “we” is these days. But we’ve dug up a few more clues.

HIDDEN AGENDA?

In August 2009, THC entered into a partnership with Giampaolo “Paul” Boschetti, to buy a 50 percent interest in THC’s office building, a 3,692-square-foot space at 126 Hyde St. What was unusual about the deal was its documentary transfer tax of just $750, which translates into a purchase price of $150,000.

Records with the Assessor/Recorder’s Office show that even with Prop. 13 limiting annual property tax increases after the property’s base year of 1991, the THC building was actually assessed at $964,161 — and that the reappraisal triggered by the sale would value the building in the millions of dollars, based on comparable buildings in the area.

The city and THC/Boschetti have been in negotiations to determine what the building is really worth for property tax purposes. Those negotiations are confidential, although one city official told us that the financial claims by this property owner are very unusual. The Guardian has repeatedly asked Shaw whether he has any financial interests in properties in the district, questions he ignored until we unearthed the Boschetti deal.

“We own our headquarters at 126 Hyde with Paul Boschetti. We have no other business dealings or investments with him, and our entire space is used by THC,” Shaw wrote. Responding to a follow-up question about whether he has any other financial interests in the district, he wrote, “only 126 Hyde.” When we asked about the strange undervaluing of that property and his financial arrangements with Boschetti, Shaw asked for detailed questions in writing, which we provided but he still refuses to answer. Boschetti also has not returned repeated Guardian calls.

But Shaw’s tax-break advocacy could also help another Boschetti-owned property: the Aida Hotel on Market Street. Helping “two growing hotel chains” buy a hotel on mid-Market Street was cited as a top reason for giving the tax breaks in OEWD e-mails we reviewed, although references to hotels was blacked out in dozens of other documents provided to the Guardian, with city officials claiming they were exempt as “propriety information or trade secrets.”

Matz denies knowing about Shaw’s business arrangements and says the redactions were to protect the identities of the national hotel chains that have been negotiating deals to come here. Boschetti appears to be an active real estate speculator, cutting deals in the Tenderloin and mid-Market areas.

An SF Weekly cover story (“Randy Shaw’s Power Plays,” 3/27/1996) details how Boschetti bought the Hotel Burbank in 1986, renaming it the Hotel Verona and converting it from a residency hotel for the poor into a tourism hotel, despite a city law against such conversions that Shaw worked on and has sued landlords under. “And though Shaw has battled tourism hotel conversion since the beginning of his career, he won’t comment on Boschetti, although he takes time out to praise the hotel owner as a good landlord,” reads the article.

City records show Boschetti also owns a 4,499-square-foot, 44-unit apartment building at 656 O’Farrell St.— just inside the tax exclusion zone that Shaw helped extend all the way to Geary and Polk streets — appraised at $2.6 million, as well as a commercial property at 2260-2264 Union St. worth $1.5 million.

An article in Poor Magazine (“Goodbye Mr. Stag,” 9/11/01) details Boschetti’s brief yet profitable ownership of properties at 1041 and 1035 Market St., once home to Mr. Stag Fashion Center. The article says Boschetti, “owner of the nearby Aida and Verona Hotels,” bought the property for $650,000, then sold it for $5.5 million in the spring of 2000 to a limited liability company, which then resold it four days later to another LLC for $7.75 million.

It is precisely this kind of lucrative real estate speculation — and its potential to affect the poor through rising rents and police crackdowns, such as the 18-hour-a-day police foot patrols that the city is promising Twitter — that most worries critics of the deal that Shaw is pushing.

“The people who are going to profit the most on this deal are big landlords,” said Gabriel Haaland with SEIU Local 1021, which is opposing the legislation.

Even those who support cutting a deal to keep Twitter here say they don’t understand why so many other properties were included. As Egan told us, “If you take Twitter out of the equation, this thing doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

Asaf Shalev helped with research for this story.

1...345...8 Page 4 of 8