San Francisco Light's Up Our Lives

The single LED at Olympia and Clarendon overpowers yellowish lamps

by George Wooding

Say goodbye to the golden glow of San Francisco's street lights.

 

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is replacing approximately 18,500 city-owned street light fixtures with bright, Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs). Since starting in April, 2017, the SFPUC replaced 13,000 of the high-pressure sodium (HPS) "cobra head"-style fixtures with LEDs, and is in the process of converting the remaining 5,500 fixtures. SFPUC crews expect to complete the changeover by early 2018.

LEDs produce light by passing a one-way electric current through semiconductor material. As the electricity is transferred through the semiconductor diode from one electrical terminal to another, it releases energy in the form of light.

The HPS conventional incandescent and fluorescent lamps work by heating a filament or gas to a temperature that produces light. While LEDs, like other lamps, release heat as well as light, they are considered far more efficient because they produce more light per watt of energy consumed.

The PUC promised that LEDs "will improve lighting conditions throughout the city and will last about four times longer than existing lights while using half as much electricity."

They also promised that the switch over would be fast and efficient. It takes about 30 minutes removing the old HPC lamp head from a lighting fixture and attaching a new LED light. The switch from HPS to LED lighting costs approximately $135 per light.

The street light changeover is happening rapidly in District 7. If your street has clear bright lighting, your street has already been converted to LED lights. Almost all of D7 will be using the new LED lights within the next six months.

The decision to change most of the HPS street lights owned by the SFPUC to LEDs was made for a variety of reasons: LEDs use 50% less energy; cost less to maintain; and will improve lighting for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers.

The SFPUC estimates that the new fixtures are good for 100,000 hours of illumination, or roughly 20 years of glow time. HPS lamps need to be replaced every four to five years.

No Environmental Impact Review was ever done on the LED lights. The SFPUCs Bureau of Environmental Management completed internal review called "The Guide to San Francisco Street Lights" on January 10, 2012 examining environmental impacts of the LED Street Light Conversion Program, and concluded that the program is categorically exempt from environmental review. On June 2, 2010 the Major Environmental Analysis Division of the San Francisco Planning Department concurred that the proposed program is exempt because it entails "replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity" (California Environmental Quality Act, section 15302, class 2).

The lack of an EIR based on "replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities" is unbelievably shoddy work by the SFPUC and the Planning Department. Both agencies are saying that the existing light poles are OK, but they are not considering the impact of the LED lights on flora, fauna, or people. That's like approving the fuse of a bomb, but not examining the bomb.

The 2016 American Medical Association's (AMA) report from its Council On Science and Public Health, human and environmental effects on LED lighting states: "Despite the energy efficiency benefits, some LED lights are harmful when used as street lighting." AMA Board Member Maya A. Babu, M.D., M.B.A. noted, "The new AMA guidance encourages proper attention to optimal design and engineering features when converting to LED lighting that minimize detrimental health and environmental effects."

High-intensity LED lighting designs emit a large amount of blue light that appears white to the naked eye and creates worse nighttime glare than conventional lighting. Discomfort and disability from intense, blue-rich LED lighting can decrease visual acuity and safety, resulting in concerns and creating a road hazard.

In addition to its impact on drivers, blue-rich LED street lights operate at a wavelength that most adversely suppresses melatonin during night. It is estimated that white LED lamps have five times greater impact on circadian sleep rhythms than conventional street lamps. Recent large surveys found that brighter residential nighttime lighting is associated with reduced sleep times, dissatisfaction with sleep quality, excessive sleepiness, impaired daytime functioning, and obesity.

The detrimental effects of high-intensity LED lighting are not limited to humans. Excessive outdoor lighting disrupts many species who need a dark environment. For instance, poorly-designed LED lighting disorients some bird, insect, turtle, and fish species, and U.S. national parks have adopted optimal lighting designs and practices that minimize the effects of light pollution on the environment.

Recognizing the detrimental effects of poorly-designed, high-intensity LED lighting, the AMA encourages communities to minimize and control blue-rich environmental lighting by using the lowest emission of blue light possible in order to reduce glare. The AMA recommends an intensity threshold for optimal LED lighting that minimizes blue-rich light. The AMA also recommends all LED lighting should be properly shielded to minimize glare and detrimental human health and environmental effects, and consideration should be given to utilize the ability of LED lighting to be dimmed for off-peak time periods.

Even before the AMA warning, someresearchers raised health concerns. Some noted that exposure to the blue-rich LED outdoor lights might decrease people's secretion of the hormone melatonin. Secreted at night, melatonin helps balance the reproductive, thyroid, and adrenal hormones, and regulates the body's circadian rhythm of sleeping and waking.

Large cities such as New York, Seattle, and Phoenix all had problems as early adopters of the LED lights, Once LED lighting was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the EPA pushed the lighting onto large municipalities across the country.

The real LED problem was that the lights that were initially approved at a 4000K and 5000K level were too bright. [Note: Kelvin is a temperature scale on an absolute scale, not a relative scale, and is used, in part, to measure the range of color temperatures. It is expressed with a "K" but without a degree sign used with Celcius and Farhenheight.] The three primary types of color temperature for light bulbs are: Soft White (2700–3000K), Bright White/Cool White (3500–4100K), and Daylight (5000–6500K). The higher the Kelvin, the whiter the color temperature.

Wisely, in 2014 the AMA issued LED guidelines to limit blue-light emission by outdoor lighting by lowering the acceptable color temperature for approved lighting products to 3000K or below. More recently-engineered LED lighting is now available at 3000K or lower. At 3000K, the human eye still perceives the light as "white," but it is slightly warmer in tone, and has about 21% of its emission in the blue-appearing part of the spectrum. This emission is still very blue for the nighttime environment, but is a significant improvement over the 4000K lighting because it reduces discomfort and disability glare. Because of different coatings, the energy efficiency of 3000K lighting is only 3% less than 4000K, but the light is more pleasing to humans and has less of an impact on wildlife.

San Francisco has learned from the mistakes of other cities. The SFPUC will match existing lighting levels on City streets to prevent over-illumination. The SFPUC is doing one-to-one replacement with existing fixtures to maintain the existing lighting levels. The SFPUC states, "During our outreach, residents expressed a preference for lights with a warmer color temperature. That's why this project will feature LEDs with a Color Coordination Temperature (CCT) of 3000K. These LEDs will feature a warmer white light than the LEDs installed by most of the other cities and counties across the U.S., which feature a CCT range of 4,000–6,000K. In this regard, San Francisco is approaching its LED streetlight conversion differently than other cities in the country. In fact, for the past few years, San Francisco has only purchased LEDs with a CCT of 3,000K.

The new LED streetlights cannot be controlled remotely.

The yellow cobra head lights will soon be gone and technology inexorably marches on. It appears that once the City develops a central LED monitoring system, San Francisco will be at the forefront of safe, efficient street lighting. Let us hope that the 3000K level is as safe as San Francisco, the AMA, and the EPA all believe over the long term. Enjoy the new lighting!

George S. Wooding, President, Coalition For San Francisco Neighborhoods. Feedback: wooding@westsideobserver.com

December 2017

Far,Far Away, in the Shadows

War on Residential Housing

by George Wooding

On December 7, the San Francisco Planning Department will try to destroy all of the residential housing codes throughout the City that pertain to housing demolition.

If the new codes are approved, Planning will allow residential housing to be built almost twice as large as existing housing. You may soon be living in the shadow of your neighbor’s home.

Housing speculators, developers, realtors, and contractors will make a fortune building larger homes next to smaller homes. Let’s not forget 90% of Planning Department revenue comes from building permits.

Mayor Lee will be happy because he is hoping that the newly-modified homes will build additional units. This will help the mayor build the 5,000 units annually that he has promised. The Mayor loves housing density.

The residential housing neighborhoods won’t know what hit them.

Neighborhood streets will become unrecognizable, with larger “McMansion” homes replacing smaller homes. Neighborhood character will be destroyed. Worse, even the larger units could be built in excess of permissible limits. For the sake of density, the City has declared war on residential housing.

Believe it or not, San Francisco claims to have almost no enforceable demolition codes. The Department of Building Inspection’s (DBI) building codes are vague and subject to favoritism and interpretation.

Many might remember that Mel Murphy, the former president of the DBI, had his house slide down Twin Peaks during a demolition/rebuild. The work on his steep slope appears to have been “dramatically different than the approved plan,” according to a report by Department of Building Inspection chief Tom Hui. Hui found that Murphy “failed to follow and implement the approved plans and the sequence of construction” in his permit.

The Planning Department is not inept when it comes to enforcing its own demolition guidelines. Planning is telling the public that Planning Code section 317 has to eliminate “Tantamount to Demolition” (TTD) and replace it with “Residential Expansion Thresholds” (RET). These building thresholds will determine whether or not a building is a “demolition” based on how much of the existing structure is retained through a major alteration.

By tightening modifications, and enforcement, Planning’s current TTD demolition guidelines would work fine. The proposed thresholds are not much of a limit and, in fact, are an incentive to demolish and build bigger structures to gain more dollars for more square feet

What Planning is really trying to do with the RET is to enlarge residential homes and create density in neighborhoods throughout the City by creating Floor Area Ratios (FAR). FAR is the ratio of a building’s total floor area to the size of the lot upon which it is built. These are the FAR numbers that Planning has selected. They are supposed to represent citywide averages of each type of residential zoning.

The definition of demolition is a necessary part of the Planning Code. Without it, the only definition to control demolitions is the one defined by DBI, which is as broad as tearing down an entire building to the ground. With no demolition definition, the older, more affordable housing stock will be at risk of replacement with luxury housing that is the least affordable to average families. And with no demolition definition, the great majority of tenant-occupied residential buildings will be at risk of being demolished and replaced with bigger and less affordable dwellings. The demolition risk to these buildings is obviously a displacement risk to tenants who occupy them.

For example, if your neighbor has a RH-1(D) lot of 2,500 square feet, they will be able to build 1.2 times that: 2,500 X 1.2 = 3,000 square feet, plus 750 square feet for an accessory Dwelling unit (ADU). This will increase the unit size by 1,250 square feet.

The owner of a RH-1 lot of 2,500 square feet, will be able to increase their square footage by 1.4 times that: 2,500 X 1.4 = 3,500 square feet, plus 750 square feet for an ADU. This will increase the unit size by 1,750 square feet.

The owner of a RH-2 lot of 2,500 square feet can increase the total square footage of the unit to 5,250 square feet, and an owner of a RH-3 lot of 2,500 feet as a triplex can increase the total square footage of the unit by 7,250 square feet.

The Planning Department staff’s data in support of their proposed FAR “trigger” limits is non-existent. Planning was “Sunshined” by this reporter and asked for documents relevant to the RET and FAR programs. Analysis of the data discredited FAR averages. In fact, over 100,000 rows of data provided under a records request and extracted for RH zoning districts shows the opposite of what the staff claims. Currently, the great majority of RH homes in all districts and all neighborhoods, including duplexes and triplexes, are only half to one-third as large as the limits the Planning Department is proposing.

Planning was using its extremely over-inflated FAR threshold numbers so that the average FAR numbers would be much higher than actual figures. These averages were automatically selected, possibly using Global Information System (GIS) software. GIS systems capture, manipulate, analyze, and present all types of geographical data. The involved planners were Brittany Bendix, Audrey Butkus, Elizabeth Watty, and Maya Small.

Here is the copy of an August 1, 2017 email that GIS mapping data expert Paolo Ikezoe sent to Brittany Bendix: “Hey Brittany, Good news ... I think I did it already! Bad news is I don’t have write access to the BOS section of the “I” drive. So I made a folder in the GIS section here: I:\GIS\Citywide\projects\city\20170801_FAR_for_RET. I’m also attaching a super drafty map showing FAR, measured as building square footage (from the Assessor) divided by parcel area. The thresholds you see (0 – 0.75, 0.75 – 1.25, etc.) were automatically chosen by the GIS software. We can tweak these based on what figures we’re considering for the legislation.”

Reasonable people have to wonder just how much “tweaking” went on at Planning while drafting proposed legislation!

The Planning Department was shaping residential housing data for its own purposes. The goal was to build the largest homes possible and hopefully increase each home’s density. Additionally, there was little to no public transparency or meetings that included regular citizens, because Planning felt that its real constituencies were developers and architects.

Records obtained through the Sunshine requests show that the great majority of all dwellings in all districts have a FAR under 1.0. To be exact, there are 94,196 homes on the spreadsheet Planning provided that have a FAR of less than 1.0. That is why the threshold ranges chosen for the FAR map don’t reflect the reality on the ground. Choosing a range of FAR’s between .75 to 1.25 ignores the fact that 86% of homes in the RH zoning districts have a FAR of under 1.0. That is to say, the Planning Department’s FAR map bundled the vast majority of homes in San Francisco with a tiny minority that have a much larger FAR.

To get an accurate picture of existing FAR’s in San Francisco, we need to define more granular threshold ranges, such as the following: 0.0 to 0.55, .055 to .085, 0.85 to .99, and 0.99 to 1.25.

According to data analyst Ozzie Rohm:

“99% of all RH-1 homes in Twin Peaks are under 0.69 FAR. For RH-1(D) homes, we have 58% that are under 0.69 FAR. So RH-1(D) homes are slightly larger but still, the majority of RH-1(D) homes are under 0.99 FAR.

Twin Peaks

There are a total of 934 RH-1 and RH-1(D) homes in Twin Peaks neighborhood and they make up 5% of all homes in District 7.

RH-1 Homes

There are 816 RH-1 homes, or 87% of all RH dwellings in Twin Peaks.

806 homes fall between the FAR’s of 0.08 and 0.69 – 99%

9 homes fall between the FAR’s of 0.70 and 0.99 – 1%

There’s only one home above the FAR of 0.99, and that is at 51 Mountview with a FAR of 1.97.

The largest concentration of RH-1 homes is in the FAR range of 0.08 to 0.69.

RH-1(D) Homes

There are 118 RH-1(D) homes, or 13% of all RH dwellings in Twin Peaks.

69 homes fall between the FAR’s of 0.23 and 0.69 – 58%

28 homes fall between the FAR’s of 0.70 and 0.99 – 24%

14 homes fall between the FAR’s of 1.0 and 1.24 – 12%

6 homes fall between the FAR’s of 1.25 and 1.49 – 5%

There’s only one home above the FAR of 1.49, and that is at 67 Clarendon with a FAR of 1.75.

The largest concentration of RH-1(D) homes is in the FAR range of 0.23 to 0.69.”

The “one size fits all” FAR’s do not address the need for a contextual, granular FAR based on thorough research and analysis of a large sample size of homes within different parts of the City.

Citizen activist Matt McCabe summarizes why he is against Planning’s proposed RET Proposal:

“No control over demolitions. Period. Create ‘Wild West’ expansions in the RH-1, -2, and -3 zones, and virtually unlimited expansions in other zones. Less affordable housing. More tenant displacement. More luxury housing that our City can ill afford. A homogenization of design across the City. Loss of unique neighborhood character and scale. A major ‘shushing’ of citizen input. And a reduction of work for the Planning Department.”

Please come to the December 7 Planning Commission meeting, room 400, City Hall to voice your opposition to the Planning Department’s attempt to replace its current demolition guidelines with a density plan that will ruin your neighborhood’s character, and may exile you into the shadows from your neighbor’s “McMansion” home. The open season on the destruction of existing residential housing stock must be stopped. Let’s kill this proposal.

George Wooding is president of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (CSFN).

November 2017

Gus Vardakastanis,
Gone Too Soon

 

Gus and his sons

By George Wooding

My friend, Konstantinos "Gus" Vardakastanis, was killed in a horrible hit-and-run accident on Friday night, September 22.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Vardakastanis was killed early Friday when he was struck by a hit-and-run driver while crossing a street in the city's Bayview neighborhood, where he had gone to the San Francisco Produce Market to peruse and purchase goods for his stores. The 57 year-old owner of Haight Street Market, Noriega Produce, and Gus's Community Market died at the scene of the collision, according to the San Francisco medical examiner."

Gus and his wife Georgia had immigrated from Greece in the early 1980's. With the help of their two sons, Bobby and Dimitri, they worked hard every day and built the Haight Street Market into a neighborhood institution. Everyone on Haight Street loved Gus. He was widely considered to be a neighborhood character. He sometimes seemed unapproachable, but he had a heart of gold.

Gus would get-up every morning at 1:00 a.m. to buy the best fruit at the city produce center. He was crossing Jerrold Street at 2:12 a.m. when he was run down by a car traveling at excessive speed.

Jerrold Avenue is a busy thoroughfare that divides the two sides of the San Francisco Wholesale Produce Market. Jerrold Street is dangerous for all of the people who work and do business there throughout the night.

The city had announced a $100 million development plan in 2012 that would reroute public traffic away from the market, but of course, that work has not yet happened.

I met Gus because he always worked hard and was always at the store in the morning stocking the shelves. Over time, brief hellos turned into conversations. I will miss my friend Gus. He was a working man's hero: A son, a husband, a father, a brother, and a grandfather. Rest in peace, Gus.

Summary and Vision Zero Context

The goal of Vision Zero is zero traffic deaths, period. Too many people die on the streets of San Francisco each year. Every death in this report represents an indescribable loss suffered by the individual and their family, friends, classmates, co-workers, and community. The report summarizes traffic death patterns to inform Vision Zero monitoring and initiatives to save lives.

The overall number of traffic deaths in 2016 was 30, compared to 31 in 2015 and 2014. Pedestrians made up the largest number of deaths, comprising over 50% of all traffic fatalities. Over 40% of all traffic fatalities were suffered by seniors. The most frequent primary collision factors for fatalities included red light running, vehicle failure to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, and speeding.

San Francisco's number of traffic deaths has been relatively flat despite the increases in population that have occurred in the city over the last few years. This is in stark contrast to traffic collisions on a national level. Preliminary data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) points to the number of traffic deaths rising in other cities nationwide. Road deaths in the U.S. rose 8% in the first nine months of 2016 compared to the same period in 2015, driven by increases in pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorcyclist deaths. Regardless, any traffic fatality is unacceptable.

City agencies are supposed to be working diligently to improve the safety of our streets, taking a comprehensive approach that includes engineering, enforcement, education, policy and evaluation, requiring coordination across multiple city agencies.

So far, the coordination between city agencies has been poor. The bulb-outs built by the Department of Public Works (DPW) have made it extremely difficult for fire trucks to make turns at narrow intersections. The bulb outs are six inches high and new city firetrucks can only go over four-inch curbs.

If you ever wondered why city speedbumps have large cuts in them — which will allow cars to drive through the speedbump rather than having to slow down and go over the speedbump — understand that they were damaging city firetrucks.

Three years ago, the entrance to San Francisco General Hospital's emergency room was on 23rd Street. The emergency vehicle entrance has now been moved to 22nd Street, in front of which a median has been installed, reducing access for emergency vehicles and patients in route to the emergency room. To reach the hospital entrance, vehicles must now make a U-turn on Potrero Street and drive the wrong way on Potrero.

Pedestrian deaths are rising at a rate of about 11% a year. The real problem is the lack of personal responsibility of both drivers and pedestrians. Everyone has heard of distracted drivers texting on their smart phones or driving under the influence, but few people think of distracted walkers, (smartphone zombies).

A smartphone zombie is a pedestrian who walks slowly and without attention to surroundings because they are focused upon their smartphone. This is now a significant safety hazard since distracted pedestrians cause accidents. Cities such as Chongqing and Antwerp have introduced special lanes for smartphone users to help direct and manage them.

In 2014, China had over five hundred million smartphone users and more than half of them have a phone addiction. In Chongqing, the government built a cellphone sidewalk, separating the phone users and the non-cell phone users. In Hong Kong, they are called dai tau juk ("the head-down tribe").

A ban on pedestrians looking at mobile phones or texting while crossing the street will take effect in Hawaii's largest city in late October, as Honolulu becomes the first major U.S. city to pass legislation aimed at reducing injuries and deaths from "distracted walking."

The ban comes as cities around the world grapple with how to protect phone-obsessed "smartphone zombies" from injuring themselves by stepping into traffic or running into stationary objects. San Francisco has plenty of irresponsible, distracted walkers and drivers.

Starting October 25, Honolulu pedestrians can be fined between $15 and $99, depending on the number of times police catch them looking at a phone or tablet device as they cross the street, Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell told reporters gathered near one of the city's busiest downtown intersections on Thursday.

Who knows if San Francisco's Vision Zero program can save pedestrians from themselves. The millions spent, the endless construction, the narrowing of car lanes, the bulb-outs, the added medians clogging the streets cannot save wandering pedestrians. Only vigilant car drivers can save these zombies from themselves as they carelessly place their lives in the hands of drivers.

I miss my friend Gus Vardakastanis and wish that we could have had just one more conversation, just one more laugh. Tomorrow night, September 28, I am going to attend Gus' memorial service to say good-bye to a great, noble man who died far too soon, far too young.

George Wooding, President, Coalition For San Francisco Neighborhoods

October 2017

Smash & Grab: City's Streets Are Littered in Glass

by George Wooding & Frank Noto

Car smash-and-grab break-ins have reached epidemic proportions in San Francisco

During a recent citizen and police gathering in District 7, Park Station police captain John Sanford stated that "97% of the crime in D7 is due to car break-ins and 67% of those break-ins were to rental cars."

All too often, residents and visitors/tourists to San Francisco experience the disappointment of finding their car window smashed and valuables gone. In 2015, auto burglars in the City and County of San Francisco walked off with more than $19 million in stolen goods. The problem of stolen property and cars damaged by break-ins has become so common it is considered part of the cost of City life.

Unfortunately, auto burglary in San Francisco occurs more than 70 times a day, every day, across all neighborhoods, and to all kinds of people — especially to visitors driving rental cars. Thieves can recognize rental cars because of company decals and bar codes on windshields, bumpers, and side windows.

Car break-ins in San Francisco really took off shortly after state voters passed Proposition 47 on November 4, 2014. The purpose of Proposition 47 was to reduce California's population of prisoners who had been convicted of non-violent, low-level crimes. Additionally, crimes including many car break-ins that used to be felonies were reduced to misdemeanors.

While statewide evidence for a link between Prop. 47 and car break-ins may be mixed, the new state law created a perfect environment for car break-ins: more released criminals and misdemeanor charges for many car break-ins. Now, if someone breaks into your car and steals less than $950 they may be charged with a misdemeanor rather than a felony. Additionally, there must be an eyewitness to the crime or tangible evidence such as broken glass on a suspect's clothing. A misdemeanor charge may mean no more than a night in jail, particularly after first-time convictions. These "get out of jail for free" citations allow a perpetrator to be breaking into cars the next day.

The 2016 Grand Jury report, Auto Burglary in San Francisco, stated: "This report is based on an investigation conducted from June 2015 through March 2016 into the crime of auto burglary in the County of San Francisco. In the early phase of the research, we learned that the number of car break-ins in 2015 had reached a five-year high — 24,800 recorded incidences. Media sources indicate this is a 34 percent increase over the previous year and almost three times more than reported in 2011. We make a conservative estimate, based on 2015 SFPD data, that theft of property related to these crimes cost victims a minimum of $19 million. This estimate excludes the costs of repairs to vehicles and inconvenience to the victim.

"This conservative figure calculated from reported incidents only is based upon $1 for each report classified as a misdemeanor and $950 for each report classified as a second degree felony, where $950 is the lower limit for felony property theft. Thus, 20,280 [auto break-ins] X $950 = $19,266,000 minimum value of felony reports plus 4,546 X $1 = $4,546.00 minimum value of misdemeanor reports amounts to a total of $19,270,546."

In a related story, the New York Times reported, "Recent data from the F.B.I. show that San Francisco has the highest per-capita property crime rate of the nation's top 50 cities. About half the cases here are thefts from vehicles, smash-and-grabs …" Unfortunately, of the 24,800 reported incidents in San Francisco in 2015, only 484 (1.9%) arrests were made. Most large Cities have an arrest rate of over 14%. San Francisco has become the national Mecca for people who break into cars.

Drivers of rental cars are constantly targeted because smash-and-grab thieves know that they will often have luggage, high-technology equipment, and the most difficulty coming back to town to testify in court. Golden Gate Heights resident and co-founder Frank Noto states, "San Francisco has the highest rate of auto burglaries per capita of any major American city. Tourists and rental cars are an easy target, and from there burglars go on to the cars of neighborhood residents. If the pickings are good, they then go on to case out nearby residences and move on to home burglaries. We can take action to fight crime, and we will."

Another person unhappy with car break-ins is D7 Supervisor Norman Yee. Yee has had enough. He is working diligently with the local police to stop car break-ins for local residents, but he has also introduced an ordinance amending the Police Code to prohibit visible barcodes and advertising on rental cars rented in the City or at San Francisco International Airport.

Yee's rental car ordinance would remove any and all barcodes on all rental car windows; any identifying slogans used by the rental car company; any identifying mark used by the rental company; any address, phone number, e-mail address, website address, or other contact information used by the Rental Company; the words "rent" or "rental," or any variation thereof; and finally, any other advertisement for the rental company.

"I have heard one too many times the lasting negative impact car break-ins have on our neighborhoods and the dreadful impressions they leave on our tourists who are victimized when visiting our world-renowned city. Enough is enough. My legislation is a step forward to protect tourists and rental car consumers from being further targeted. It is a small step forward. Public safety requires a multi-pronged approach and I am willing to take decisive action on different strategies that will abate property crime," stated Supervisor Norman Yee.

Noto agrees with Yee, "Supervisor Yee's rental car legislation is just a small part of the answer. The City needs to take more effective action on stopping crime, and the first step is to provide the public data on handling individual crimes as well as neighborhood and citywide crime data. Because there's some truth to the saying, 'if you can't measure it, you can't improve it.' And we need to keep working with the SFPD, District Attorney, Public Defender, Courts, and Probation Departments to keep San Francisco safe. One critical activity we need help on is our Court Watch — watching trials on burglaries and a recent kidnapping — so the judges know we care. If neighbors want to help or join us, they can e-mail us at info@goldengateheights.org."

Not too surprisingly, rental car companies and the Teamsters union are opposed to Yee's rental car Ordinance.

According to the April 26, 2017 edition of Auto Rental News, Sharkey Laguna, a Board Member of the American Car Rental Association (ACRA) said, "As the owner, and often insurer, of tens of thousands of vehicles in San Francisco, no one is more interested in stopping car break-ins and theft than the car rental industry." Laguna is the owner of Bandago, a van rental company based in San Francisco, and a member of ACRA's board of directors. "If more signs, notices, and removing bar codes would significantly reduce break-ins, we would not wait for a law in order to take action.

"This legislation makes no sense: It blames the victim for tempting thieves, does nothing to prevent crime, and will over time cost the industry millions of dollars — costs which will ultimately be passed onto consumers in the form of higher rates," added Laguna. "Like burning your house down in order to prevent graffiti, the proposed cure is worse than the disease. It appears the answer to this problem simply lies in better policing [SF has an arrest rate of just 2.25%; the national average is 14%], not putting up more meaningless notices or making it harder to do business."

Finally, Mark Gleason, the Secretary/Treasurer for Teamster Union Number 665 takes a confusing stance against Yee's Proposition in a June 6, 2017 letter. "We understand that your proposed legislation would include elimination of barcodes used by rental car companies to track and inventory their fleets. Discussion with our members and rent-a-car operation's management make clear that this is not a feasible business practice. Implementation would create numerous fleet inventory mishaps. Security experts in the industry assert that the elimination of barcodes will increase auto theft. And independent research shows no correlation of break-ins, as it relates to barcode rental card, versus private autos."

It is understandable that Gleason is trying to keep his members happy, but please cite your research. It would be very easy for car rental companies to upgrade their less expensive stone-age barcodes with more expensive Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) technology. RFID technology uses electromagnetic fields to automatically identify and track tags attached to objects. The tags contain electronically-stored information. These passive tags collect energy from nearby RFID interrogating radio waves. RFID chips costs are dropping rapidly and cost about $.50 per chip. RFID chips can also be placed out of sight. When rental cars adopt RFID due to insurance increases, Mr. Gleason's opinion will change.

Please support Supervisor Norman Yee's amendment to remove visible bar codes on car rentals.

George Wooding, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (CSFN). Feedback: wooding@westsideobserver.com

Frank Noto, Golden Gate Heights Neighborhood Association

September 2017

Park Department Math: 9 – 1 = 7 Drones

by George Wooding

According to a recent 2016 Google survey the average American is filmed at least 50 times per day by Closed Circuit Security Cameras (CCSC).

Closed-circuit TV cameras are installed almost everywhere today, due to increasing security concerns, and because the price of equipment has fallen dramatically over the last several years. As a result, the average American consumer has their image recorded by dozens of cameras every day.

Here is an example of a typical day, with a running total of 58 CCSC views, and the number of cameras likely present at each stop:

• 8:00 a.m.: 4 Cameras – Get a cup of coffee; 4 cameras in Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts

8:30 a.m.: 20 Cameras – School or office; cameras in parking lot and interior, you will be picked up at various angles.

• 12:15 p.m.: 10 Cameras – Stop at ATM before lunch for cash. Bank will have exterior cameras, ATM will have close-up camera

• 12:30 p.m.: 8 Cameras – Go get lunch; 4 cameras at lunch spot, plus easily 4 more at surrounding businesses

• 5:00 p.m.: 7 Cameras – Leave work, go to gym to work out. Camera at check-in desk, plus 6 to 8 in workout area

• 5:45 p.m.: 1 Camera – Stop to pick up dry cleaning. Camera at front register

• 6:00 p.m.: 6 Cameras – Stop for gas. Cameras at pumps and in store

• 6:15 p.m.: 2 Cameras – Quick car wash. Cameras at entry and in bay

• 7:00 p.m.: 4 Cameras – Pick up kids from game practice. Cameras in school parking lot or on building exterior

Add in traffic cameras and other city cameras in urban areas, and you will easily be picked up at most major traffic intersections and often simply walking down the street.

Weekends may be a different schedule, but a single trip to the mall or a large shopping plaza can easily add in hundreds of additional cameras, and an individual can regularly be caught by dozens of them.

Drones, the New Eyes and Ears in the Sky

Drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are small aircraft that can fly by remote control without an onboard human operator. Drones usually cost less than $1,000.

They can be part of a system that includes a digital network and personnel on the ground, and can be equipped with high-powered cameras, or infrared devices that sense objects through walls, and with laser radar that can see through trees and foliage, the Congressional Research Service said in a2013 report.

On April 1, 2014 Wisconsin State Representative Christine Taylor warned the citizenry about eyes in the sky and attacks on privacy by drones.

Taylor stated, "Drone technology now allows an individual to be recorded in their homes by drones as small as birds and immediately uploaded to the Internet."

California Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced legislation called, The Drone Federalism Act that would give San Francisco and other local governments far greater authority over drones. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee plans to introduce a resolution Saturday, June 23rd at the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Miami to support Feinstein's bill.

Feinstein's legislation is aimed at dissuading the federal government from preempting any laws a city might enact, such as outlawing drones over parades.

A January 2016 study by Oxford University called the Hostile Use of Drones by Non–State Actors Against British Targets states, "There is no doubt that unmanned vehicles are here to stay and will have a considerable impact on society, both beneficial and detrimental. Although there is still a large gap between the capabilities of military and civilian drones, commercially available drones are giving hobbyists, companies and hostile groups access to capabilities previously only available to the military. Law enforcement agencies and policymakers are struggling to respond appropriately to this development. This report is a contribution to countering that threat."

Drone usage is currently controlled by the FAA. Local municipalities have limited say in drone oversight.

According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) figures, there are currently 2.7 million drones in the United States. The FAA estimates that 7 million drones will be in use by 2020.

The sales of commercial drones will rise as high as 2.7 million (from 600,000) and the number of hobbyist drones will increase from 1.9 million to 4.3 million between now and 2020.

In San Francisco it is currently illegal for drones to fly through residential areas; however, it will be easy for drones equipped with cameras and listening devices to do so.

If you buy a new drone in the United States to fly non-commercially, you no longer have to register your drone with the Federal Aviation Administration, according to a decision issued by a federal court in Washington, D.C. on March 17, 2017.

The court ruled that the FAA's drone registration rules, which have been in place since 2015, were in violation of a law passed by Congress in 2012. That law, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, prohibited the FAA from passing any rules on the operation of model aircraft — in other words, rules that restrict how non-commercial hobbyist drone operators fly.

Drones are currently being sold with legal settings and no-fly zone area maps. According to a local Best Buy sales representative, "an experienced drone operator can easily circumvent these settings and reprogram the drone."

Under current FAA rules, a drone must be flown within the line of sight of the operator, less than 400 feet above the ground, during daylight conditions, inside uncontrolled airspace, and more than five miles away from any airport or other location with aviation activities.

I recently had a drone hover over my house in the Midtown Terrace neighborhood for over two minutes and I don't know why.

According to a June 24 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, "At least 78 drone flights were detected during the June 15 NBA championship parade in downtown Oakland, even though police tried to make the celebration a no-drone zone, according to San Francisco startup Dedrone, which was enlisted to track the devices."

Will Mayor Lee use drones flying above City Hall's rotunda to deliver his City budget to the Board of Supervisors?

The little known "San Francisco Committee on Information and Technology" just passed a series of rules which will dictate City drone guidelines. The committee has been working on these drone rules for over two years. Where has the Board of Supervisors been? Has there been any public transparency?

The CCSF CITY EMPLOYEE DRONE POLICY (DRAFT) states, This Drone Policy ("Policy") is intended to guide officers, employees, and contractors of participating departments with pre-approved drone programs. This Policy is subject to a one-year evaluation period. After the evaluation period, a Drone Oversight Committee composed of representatives from the Mayor's Office, the City Administrator, and Committee on Information and Technology COIT will review the drone programs of all participating departments and provide recommendations to COIT on revisions to this Policy, as necessary.

Five City departments will initially have the authority to use the devices: The Controller's Office, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Port Commission, Fire Department and Recreation and Park Department (RPD).

Has anybody asked why the Controller's Office would need to use drones? They want an aerial view of areas affected by disasters or emergencies. If an emergency requires squeezing the last dime out of citizens pockets, Controller Ben Rosenfield will be a great pilot.

The RPD has certainly played the "fool" in the drone regulation process. The 15-member Committee on Information and Technology began studying the drone issue in 2015, after one of the RPD's nine drones was stolen from a city vehicle after just one test flight.

Currently, the only City department with any drones is the RPD, which now has seven drones that have been grounded until the policy is adopted. Was drone number eight sold at a yard sale? Did it crash into Lake Merced, or into the side of McLaren Lodge?

A new provision that would have allowed RPD to fly drones to monitor large events was deleted altogether. A regulation that would have permitted the RPD to use drones for security purposes like "boundary patrols" of properties and assets was also eliminated. People's right to privacy is deemed more important than the RPD's right to compile private information.

Despite the RPD's efforts, the Committee on Information Technology's drone policy focuses on privacy rights, spelling out how any City agency or employee can use a drone even for seemingly benign flights like search-and-rescue missions or pier inspections.

If any department is destined to fail and abuse drone guidelines and privacy rights, it will be the Phil Ginsburg-led RPD. This is the RPD's drone mission:

- Construction Management: Inspection of SFRPD project sites for contract and environmental compliance. - Disaster Response & Recovery: Inspection of properties, facilities, and assets during and after disasters.
- Emergency Response: Park Rangers rapid response to emergencies on park land.
- Environmental Monitoring: Flora and fauna type and health, spills and leaks, erosion. - Inspections: Surveys and assessments of SFRPD properties, facilities, and assets.
- Mapping: Digital elevation models, land use maps, 3D models, contours.
- Marketing: Capture videos and still photographs.
- Search & Rescue: Reconnaissance and assist during an emergency, both for water and land operations.

The great thing about the RPD flying drones all over the City parks is now its administration will never have to leave the office.

Between the drones, closed-circuit TV cameras, social media, Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in cars, smart televisions, smart phones, computers, laptops and notebooks which allow navigation and transit monitoring, electronic credit cards and financial transaction monitoring systems, your entire day and your life can be reconstructed. There is no privacy left.

A great Google joke submitted one month ago by hellohibyee:

Google's Pizza

Hello? Gordon's pizza?

No, sir, it's Google's pizza.

So it's a wrong number?

No sir, Google bought it.

OK. Take my order please.

Well sir, you want the usual?

The usual? You know me?

According to our caller ID, in the last 12 times, you ordered pizza with cheeses, sausage, thick crust.

OK! This is it.

May I suggest to you this time ricotta, arugula with dry tomato?

What? I hate vegetables!

Your cholesterol is not good.

How do you know?

Through the subscribers guide. We have the result of your blood tests for the last 7 years.

Okay, but I do not want this pizza, I already take medicine …

You have not taken the medicine regularly. Four months ago, you only purchased a box with 30 tablets at Drug Sale Network.

I bought more from another drugstore.

It's not showing on your credit card.

I paid in cash.

But you did not withdraw that much cash according to your bank statement.

I have other sources of cash.

This is not showing as per you last tax form, unless you bought them from an undeclared income source.

WHAT THE HELL? Enough! I'm sick of Google, Facebook, Twitter, What's App. I'm going to an island without Internet, where there is no cell phone line and no one to spy on me!

I understand sir, but you need to renew your passport as it expired 5 weeks ago.

Beware of drones! They will soon fill the skies, and invade neighborhood privacy.

George Wooding, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhood (CSFN)

July/August 2017

Housing "Supply and Demand" Isn't Working

by George Wooding

The laws of "supply and demand" often don't work as intended — especially with San Francisco housing.In 2014, Mayor Ed Lee pledged to construct 30,000 new and rehabilitated homes throughout the City by 2020, with half available to low-, working-, and middle-income San Franciscans. According to the Mayor, San Francisco is well on track towards those goals. Other observers aren't so sure of the Mayor's press reports. Since announcing his Housing Plan in January 2014, over 17,100 units have been built or completely rehabilitated, with over 6,100 of those units permanently affordable to low- and moderate-income San Franciscans.

Obviously, 6,100 of the permanently affordable units built for low- and moderate-income households represents just 35.7% of the 17,100 units built since January 2014, not 50%, as basic math shows.

Over successive Housing Balance Reports issued by San Francisco's Planning Department, the amount of net new affordable housing has dropped from 30% of all new construction in the first ten-year report in July 2015 to just 22% in the fifth ten-year report issued just two years later in May 2017, an 8% decline in net new affordable housing.

Citywide, the 6,166 new affordable housing units, plus 1,838 acquisitions and rehabilitation of existing affordable units in the fifth report issued in May, totaled an increase of 8,004 affordable units citywide, but that was offset by the loss of 4,182 affordable units due to a variety of factors (including various types of evictions, Ellis Act conversions, and other reasons). That left a new gain of 3,822 affordable units. Adding in "entitled" or "permitted" units (those that have received permission or permits, but have not yet been built, and may never be built) resulted in a projected cumulative affordable housing balance of just 13.6% between units built and "entitled" units citywide, assuming the entitled units come to fruition.

But the data for District 7 during the same period for Report 5 was much worse. Although there were 99 net new affordable housing units built in D-7, we lost 220 affordable units, for a net loss of 121 affordable units, because D-7 had no new "entitled" affordable units and no affordable existing housing acquisitions. While the citywide affordable housing balance was 13.6%, the affordable housing balance in D-7 was a negative 19.1%, down from a negative balance of 35.3% in Report 4.

D-7 wasn't alone: There were an additional seven supervisorial districts that had negative housing balances, and only Districts 5, 6, and 10 had positive housing balances. The hardest hit districts were Supervisor Katy Tang's D-4 with a negative 197.2% balance, and District 1 with a 70.9% negative balance, offset by the gains in the three Districts with positive gains.

For that matter, across the five housing balance reports, Supervisor Tang's District 4 has consistently had negative balances ranging from 375.8% in Report 1, 189.4% in Report 2, 181.2% in Report 3, and 196.6% in Report 4. All were mostly driven by the failure to build new net affordable housing in D-4, remaining stagnant at just 10 net new affordable units over the past three housing balance reports, compounded by affordable housing units removed in D-4 that have fluctuated between 389 lost units in Report 2 to 437 lost units as of the most current Report 5 (including overlaps across reports). And Tang is the one brazenly pushing the alternative HOME-SF legislation, "inclusionary affordable housing" be damned?

With over half of the Mayor's 30,000 units built or rehabilitated in only three years, why is the cost of housing rising?

Mayor Lee and his housing allies at San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), the Housing Action Coalition (HAC), the San Francisco Renters Federation (BARF), and Yes In My Back Yard (YIMBY) all believe that by building more housing, the average price of a unit of housing will decrease in San Francisco. That has yet to trickle down to lower housing prices.

The Mayor and these pro-development groups receive funding from pro-development contributors, developers, and high-tech companies. Not surprisingly, the people who make donations get to help shape politician's opinions, and/or each organization's pro-development policies.

Watch how these connected groups work together to build more housing. SPUR, which likes to bill itself as a "think tank," writes a report on how San Francisco needs more housing. In 2013, SPUR's Director, Gabriel Metcalf, then wrote an article that stated that San Francisco needed to build 5,000 units of housing annually. HAC, a group founded by Metcalf, is a lobbyist for developers. Tim Colen, the former Executive Director of HAC, is now on the YIMBY Board of Directors. Last and least, BARF helped to found YIMBY.

SPUR rewarded YIMBY and HAC with the following forum at SPUR's downtown headquarters on May 8:

"The Bay Area's housing shortage has led to a grassroots movement of millennials who say 'yes' to the building of high-density housing. In a conversation fueled by soaring real estate prices, by threats to the environment and by an increasingly homogeneous society, learn from three individuals on the front line about how they're leading the pro-housing movement. Co-presented by SPUR."

The three individuals who presented at the forum were, Laura Foote Clark from YIMBY Action, Kim-Mai Cutler from Initialized Capital, and Corey Smith from HAC. Admission was free for SPUR and HAC members, and $10 for non-members.

It sounds like non-millennials missed a good program.

Meanwhile, BARF is dedicated to suing people with different opinions than building for millennials. BARF's director, Sonya Trauss, says, on BARF's website:

"Last year we raised and spent or committed about $250,000. Last year's expenses were one full time employee (me, Sonja) and two lawsuits. Next year's expenses will be two full time employees (welcome aboard Brian Hanlon) and at least twice as many lawsuits. We made incredible progress this year, but we also let good lawsuits pass because we didn't have the resources to pursue them."

Although the Mayor's simplistic trickle-down housing plan of "build it and they will come" has been successful in building more units, the density program has failed to reduce unit prices. In fact, the program has made units smaller and increased the costs of housing units.

In San Francisco, when unit production goes up, unit prices will also go up for the following reasons: 1) New housing construction represents a small amount of total construction — approximately 18%; 2) In San Francisco, there is little land on which to build housing; and 3) A number of market rate units in San Francisco are being purchased by speculators and will primarily serve to house multi-millionaires, while lining the pockets of realtors, landlords, and developers, without any meaningful improvement in housing affordability.

"New development in the City may lower prices regionally even while it raises prices in a specific neighborhood. An increase in units in San Francisco may lead to lower costs in San Mateo and higher costs in the City."

William Fulton the author of Guide to California Planning wrote:

"The folks taking the cool jobs may not be uber-rich, but they have tons more money than everybody else, and so they drive prices out of sight. Build more market-rate housing, and you'll just accelerate the cycle – more smart kids will show up wanting to work for tech start-ups, and that means you'll have more tech start-ups, and pretty soon demand will rise faster than supply – in large part because you increased the supply."

There are better ways to solve the San Francisco housing crisis than simply building for the sake of density and extra property taxes for the City. A new program that helps senior citizens share extra space in their homes is called HomeMatch.

Homeowners will have an additional source of income and companionship. Both parties can agree to an exchange of services for reduced rent.

HomeMatch is a joint program of Northern California Presbyterian Homes and Services and Episcopal Senior Communities and is partially funded by the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. It was conceived by San Francisco Supervisors, who sought to ease the housing shortage for students, teachers, nonprofit staff, health care workers, and other low- and moderate-income renters.

For more information on Homematch either email them at info@homematchsf.org or call them at 415 351-1000.

Homematch's services are free of charge to anyone who qualifies for the program. They provide interviews, applications, background screening, and assist with the housing agreement for all parties involved; mediation and referral services are available as needed.

Parties are matched based on compatible living styles, and have an opportunity to describe their ideal home arrangement, personal characteristics, and other factors regarding living with another person. Parties meet and decide if they are a good fit for each other.

District 7 has 16,930 (23.7%) people who are at least 60 years old, and 3,068 of them live alone.

District 7 Supervisor Norman Yee is very excited about the potential of HomeMatch to help the elderly and said:

"When I was growing up, family members took care of each other. My parents sacrificed so much to raise me and my four siblings, to make sure we had a roof over our heads, food on the table and a better future. That's why when my parents and aunt became older and less able to care for themselves, I wanted to return at least a fraction of the care they had given us. It was important for me to show my parents and my aunt the love, respect, and dignity they deserved in their old age. Though it was challenging at times — both emotionally and financially — to be their primary caregiver, I don't regret any of it. I am grateful for the years I spent caring for my parents and my aunt before they passed away, and hope that more family members will commit to caring for their own parents as they age.

Though I managed to care for my elderly parents, we could have used additional support, like in-home health care workers. Also, I understand that not everyone has the means to care for their aging parents, so that's why we need to support other programs such as HomeMatch SF."

According to the 2000–2010 San Francisco Housing census, there are 31,131 vacant housing units (8.3%) in San Francisco. The next census will be taken in 2020. With programs like HomeMatch, existing vacancies, and the units being built, everyone should have a place to live — but it will still be very expensive to live here, in part because housing "supply and demand" isn't working.

George Wooding, Coalition For San Francisco Neighborhoods

June 2017

Tang’s Radical Housing Proposal

by George Wooding

District 4 Supervisor Katy Tang is attempting to dramatically alter San Francisco’s zoning laws, planning amendment processes, and small businesses.

Tang’s proposed legislation, “HOME-SF,” radically up-zones the entire City by expanding zoning exceptions (even in RH-1 and RH-2 parcels) in combination with Urban Design Guidelines (UDGs), and by using a new “Form-based Density” that does not correlate a building’s square footage size to lot size.

City zoning is currently based on Floor Area Ratios (FARs) that allow building units based on their square footage.

By classifying two-unit buildings as middle-class family housing with no mention of square footage, Tang’s HOME-SF legislation may end-up allowing units as small as 400-square-foot, sardine can-sized housing for middle-class families. This will not be a great help to the middle class who want to stay in San Francisco with their families. Who wants to live in a sardine can with kids?

Like the fierce debate currently being waged in City Hall over revising voter-approved inclusionary housing percentages, Tang’s legislation also pits middle-income households against lower-income households.

Reportedly, HOME-SF is an optional, voluntary program offering zoning incentives to housing builders and developers. As with Tang’s precursor legislation, HOME-SF’s biggest incentive is allowing up to two additional stories above current zoning limits to increase the overall number of housing units that can be built.

In late 2015, Tang, Mayor Ed Lee, and the Planning Department were badly defeated by concerned San Franciscans when they tried to sneak a developer-friendly planning ordinance proposal called the Affordable Bonus Housing Program (AHBP) through the Planning Commission during the Christmas Holidays.

AHBP moved very quickly after it was introduced by Mayor Lee and co-sponsor Supervisor Tang at the Planning Commission on September 24, 2015. Within three weeks, the Planning Commission was scheduled to approve General Plan amendments required for AHBP implementation. No one in the neighborhoods was ever asked to review this legislation, or to provide neighborhood input.

Tang and Mayor Lee believe that the more concessions given to developers, the more units, i.e., housing density, will be built. This half-baked, trickle-down theory will not work well, because as unit sizes become smaller and smaller, developers cannot make money building units for lower-income people, and higher-income people will eventually end up displacing the original lower-income people.

Tang’s legislation only mentions the number of units. There is no discussion about, or legislative language specifying, square footage. The public assumption is that a two-bedroom unit is a middle-income unit. Even Tang’s HOME-SF legislation considers two-bedroom housing to be middle-income family housing.

The 2015 AHBP program allowed affordable housing developers to select from a range of zoning exemption incentives in ABHP development projects. The incentives included: adding at least two stories in height; extending bulk; reducing setbacks, rear yards, exposure and common open space; expanding buildings to the property line; eliminating off-street loading areas; and severely cutting requirements for on-site parking to 50%.

AHBP was designed to reward developers by amending the City’s planning code to provide bonuses and zoning modifications to developers building ten or more units.

Tang and Mayor Lee’s 2015 AHBP program failed to be passed by the Planning Commission but was still sent to the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUT-C) in 2016. After then-District 8 Supervisor and LUT-C member Scott Wiener stated that the Planning Commission was only an “advisory body,” the LUT-C adopted Tang’s flawed ABHP program so that it could be amended and brought back later before the committee at the “Call of the Chair” of LUT-C.

The cleverness of parking the AHBP legislation at the LUT-C was that Tang’s amended version, HOME-SF, and its amendments, did not have to be reviewed by the public. There was no public transparency and almost no new meetings.

It now seems certain that the LUT-C will vote on the amended version of AHBP, HOME-SF, sometime in May, and then forward the legislation to the Board of Supervisors for a final vote, again with almost no citizen or neighborhood involvement, despite Tang’s claims that public meetings were held in almost every district seeking feedback and comments on her new legislation. The last time the public reviewed a version of this legislation was almost two years ago.

Tang sits on the LUT-C and will pass her HOME-SF legislation without even the Planning Commission’s review. The Planning Commission can make suggestions, but Tang can do whatever she wants.

Deceptively, the amended version of AHBP has been renamed HOME-SF and is now being sold to the public as, “an opportunity for families to stay, grow, and succeed while maintaining our diverse workforce in San Francisco.”

The Planning Department stated, “This optional program is designed to incentivize building more family-friendly and affordable housing across San Francisco through zoning modifications.” This should be read as: “Higher profits for developers.”

Planning also stated, “HOME-SF includes a number of provisions to protect and grow local small businesses in our city’s many neighborhood commercial corridors.” No, No, No! Home-SF will destroy small San Francisco businesses, by the hundreds.

Merchants are not protected; there is no right of return or rent control for businesses.

San Francisco’s commercial corridors will become the prime target for HOME-SF development. With no rent control for businesses, and a promise to leave residential housing alone, HOME-SF will be aimed squarely at tearing down small businesses and rebuilding them as residential units with a business space at street level. Building lots can be linked up to 125 feet. The existing business will have to relocate during the rebuilding process, and if the business actually survives the demolition and rebuild of its original location the rent may be three to five times higher.

According to Fernando Marti, the Co-Director of the Coalition of Community Housing Organizations, “A first approach would be a ‘do-no-harm’ approach, protecting existing neighborhood-serving businesses, as the HOME-SF legislation (rightfully) was amended to protect existing tenants. The sites would be limited to those that did not contain in the five years prior to submittal of the application any neighborhood serving uses.”

A lot of small businesses will be forced out of business. Say goodbye to the character of your neighborhood.

Tang’s HOME-SF legislative solutions will not work to save small businesses. SF-HOME states, “The Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD), in coordination with the Office of Small Business, currently coordinate on referrals to and deployment of a range of services to small businesses including but not limited to: Small business consulting, lease negotiation assistance, small business loans, ADA Certified Access Specialists (CASp) inspection services, legacy business registry, façade improvement assistance, commercial corridor management, grants and assessments, relocation and broker services for production, distribution and repair (PDR) businesses, business permit assistance, and coordination with city agencies.” How will this legal jargon really save small businesses from being displaced?

Finally, Planning stated, “HOME-SF is designed to serve working class families.” This used to be true when AHBP was designed for 100% affordable housing. Tang and Mayor Lee have redesigned HOME-SF so that it will now be funding middle-class housing by reducing funding for lower-income housing.

As usual, poor people will get the shaft. It will be time for them to leave San Francisco, move to Antioch, and commute back to the City for a lousy $14.00 per hour job. Gentrification is wonderful — if you’re the person with the money.

HOME-SF creates affordable homes for families making $118,450 to $150,800 annually for a family of four. Tang’s legislation will increase the Average Median Income (AMI) to 110% of AMI ($118,450) for a family of four seeking to rent, and to 140% of AMI ($150,800) for four-person families seeking to purchase a home, based on the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development’s AMI guidelines for 2016.

Tang’s proposal clearly focuses on developing housing for higher incomes, another “incentive” developers love, since developers can choose to exclude developing housing for renters earning less than 110% of AMI and exclude families seeking to purchase who earn less than 140% of AMI. If you were a developer, which “customers” would you choose to help maximize your profits?

Prior versions of AHBP allowed a maximum of 100% of AMI for a family of four, which is now only $107,700 annually for a family of four in 2016.

The $118,450 to $150,800 per year earners are households for whom no public housing programs or subsidies currently exist, and who are generally unable to afford the high cost of housing in San Francisco. These are the people who will be targeted under HOME-SF:

30% of all new housing is required to be permanently affordable

All new housing includes units affordable to middle-income, working class families

40% of new units are required to include two or more bedrooms

No displacement of existing tenants

Tang simply dusted off her initial AHBP legislation, gave it a catchy new acronym (HOME-SF), and upped the AMI to increase developer profits.

It’s time to stop pitting middle-income households against lower-income households. Pitting one group of San Franciscans against another is not a San Francisco “value.” Contact the Board of Supervisors and encourage them to defeat Tang’s radical up-zoning of the entire City.

Wooding is President of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (CSFN); feedback: wooding@westsideobserver.com.

May 2017

 

Why now? Why groundwater?

by Jeffrey Gilman, SF Public Utilities Commission

Note: the Westside Observer offered the SFPUC an opportunity to reply to last month's report by George Wooding and Chris Bowman

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) owns and operates Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System (Regional Water System). We deliver high-quality water to 2.6 million customers in the Bay Area, including approximately 800,000 residents and businesses here in San Francisco. On average 85% of our supply is sourced from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park, and the other 15% comes from 5 local reservoirs in the Bay Area. For the week of April 17th, approximately 55% of our supply was from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and 45% is from Bay Area reservoirs. Our blend of sources routinely changes in response to seasons, climate and operational needs.

On a typical day, the City of San Francisco – including our residents, businesses and visitors – relies on the six reservoirs in the Regional Water System for about 60 million gallons of drinking water. The San Francisco Groundwater Supply Project further diversifies that supply by supplementing our drinking water sources with high quality groundwater. The inclusion of groundwater is the best way to diversify our drinking water supply and is consistent with using the best water for its best and highest use.

Delivering high-quality water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week is a basic necessity for public health. This constant supply is our top priority. Routine maintenance, climate change, higher snowpack elevations, earthquakes, droughts, security incidents, environmental regulations, population growth and other factors represent risks to water delivery today, tomorrow and decades into the future. Diversifying our water sources represents one of the most important steps we can take to plan for these risks to water delivery and make our water supply more reliable.

San Francisco already receives its drinking water from six great sources, we're now adding a 7th source, our own local groundwater. Groundwater – also known as well water – is a renewable source of naturally occurring water that is found in underground reservoirs called aquifers. Aquifers are replenished primarily by rainfall. For most of California, groundwater is an essential source of water: In fact 80% of Californians depend on it for all or part of their drinking water supply, and have been doing so safely for generations.

The Benefits of Groundwater

• Local: natural environment and our City face many unknowns in the future from possible drought, earthquake, climate change and other risks. A local water source gives us more control over the use and operation of our water supplies.

• Sustainable:Groundwater is a renewable water source that is replenished through natural processes.

 • Reliable:Groundwater diversifies the City's water supply portfolio and makes us less vulnerable to disrupted services.

 • Responsible:Groundwater pumping in San Francisco's Westside Basin is regularly monitored, its quality is tested, and will be managed to ensure we operate in a responsible and sustainable manner. This basin will provide high quality groundwater for generations to come.

• Smart: Two supplies are always smarter than one. In the event of a catastrophic emergency, we can rely on local groundwater to supplement San Francisco's drinking water supply.

• High Quality: Groundwater is a high quality water source that is naturally free from pathogens and low in turbidity, due to filtration through the aquifer's layers of sand, silt and clay.

San Francisco's groundwater is sourced from the Westside Basin aquifer, an underground reservoir extending 300 to 500 feet underground.  We have been monitoring this aquifer, for quality and sustainability, for over 10 years through a series of wells along the Great Highway, around Lake Merced, and other areas. This monitoring program will continue.

Groundwater is blended in small quantities with our Regional Water System supply at Sunset and Sutro reservoirs, before entering our distribution system. We will begin adding 1 million gallons per day (mgd) of groundwater, or about 3% of the reservoirs' contents, and over the next 4 years, increasing that amount to 4mgd, or up to 15% of the reservoirs' contents.

Sodium hypochlorite (chlorine) is added to the groundwater to maintain the required level of disinfectant in the City's distribution pipelines. Chlorine is already added for disinfection in our Regional Water System. Sodium hydroxide is added as needed to raise the pH of the blended water, as is done throughout the Regional Water System for corrosion control. The blending process itself provides additional water treatment.

The State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water, (DDW) has established drinking water quality standards that we consistently surpass. For example, in the case of nitrate, the State Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for public health and safety is 45 milligrams per liter (mg/l), as nitrate. The nitrate level in the water we will distribute at full buildout of the groundwater program in 2020 will be about 10 times lower than the State's MCL. Our blended water will surpass federal and state MCLs for all other constituents.

The 10+ year implementation process for the groundwater project has included rigorous scientific study, hydrologic and geologic evaluations of the aquifer, water quality monitoring, and extensive community outreach, engagement and education. The DDW, San Francisco Planning Department and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have all approved this project.

We recognize the challenge in accepting change, let alone in San Francisco's drinking water supply in which we all take pride. That's why we are working hard to make sure this small change in water supply sources produces positive results for all of our customers and stakeholders by ensuring a high quality, reliable and sustainable supply of water for generations to come.

Jeffrey Gilman is project manager of the San Francisco Groundwater Supply Project. He is a Certified Hydrogeologist and has over 40 years of experience in groundwater resources management.

May 2017

Carcinogenic “Blended Water” From Your Tap?

by George S. Wooding and Christopher L. Bowman

Neighbors who live in San Francisco’s west side, in the OMI, and in several other parts of the City should take a close look at the water that comes out of their taps.

Will the water look the same, smell the same, feel the same, and taste the same? Maybe “yes,” maybe “no.” Will the water be safe to drink, or will increased contaminants represent a health hazard to the general public, and those with weakened immunity?

Starting in the next couple of days, water from six wells from the Westside Groundwater Basin (Aquifer) will be “blended” with Hetch Hetchy water. The “blended” water will “serve” nearly 60% of San Francisco residents.

Initially, only 4% of the water serving those residents will be “blended” well water, but that percentage will increase to 15% by 2020 — roughly one part of well water for every five parts of Hetch Hetchy water.

Three of the six wells are located in Golden Gate Park, two in the Outer Sunset, and one on the east side of Lake Merced.1

Well water will be treated on-site with sodium hypochlorite (a disinfectant) and sodium hydroxide (to maintain pH levels), piped to the Sunset Reservoir where it will be treated again and blended with Hetch Hetchy Water, and then pumped to Sutro, Stanford Heights, and Summit Reservoirs for distribution.

All water customers in the City served by those four reservoirs — plus the Forest Knolls, Mt. Davidson, and La Grande water tanks — will receive “blended” water.

All water customers in the City served by the Merced Manor, University Mound, College Hill, Hunters Point, Potrero Heights, and Lombard Street Reservoirs, will continue to receive 100% Hetch Hetchy water.

Supervisorial Districts and neighborhoods that will receive “blended water” include:

All of District 7, except for the John Muir apartments and parts of Lakeshore Village, Sunset Heights, Twin Peaks, and Clarendon Heights;

The eastern two-thirds of District 4;

Most of District 1, except between Balboa and Fulton, Ocean Beach and 43rd Avenue, and north of Geary between 36th and 44th Avenues;

Most of District 11, except for Mission Terrace; and

Portions of Districts, 2, 5, and 8; a third of Districts 3 and 9; about 10% of District 10; and roughly a dozen blocks in District 6 will receive “blended” water.

Unfortunately, if you want to determine whether or not you are receiving “blended” water, you cannot do so using the “Groundwater Blend Distribution Areas” map provided by the SFPUC in its SF Groundwater Supply Project. The map is both inaccurate (in that it erroneously includes the Presidio as receiving “blended” water, but excludes the service area of the Stanford Heights Reservoir that will provide “blended” water), and because the map is insufficiently detailed (in that it doesn’t include a street grid).

One would think the SFPUC could provide notice to all landlords, property owners, and tenants as to whether or not they are receiving “blended” water, but they have chosen to not do so, nor do they have any plans to do so in the future.

Rather, one must contact the customer service office of the SFPUC — providing the staff with your name and address to get the information you need to determine whether or not you wish to continue to use tap water or buy bottled drinking water.

A bit of history, and why you should be concerned about the quality of “blended” water.

Since the 1930’s, San Francisco’s 862,000 residents, and nearly 1.8 million customers in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, have enjoyed high-quality water provided by the Hetch Hetchy System. Fully 85% of our water comes from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in the High Sierras, and another 15% from five Bay Area reservoirs.

In 2002, San Francisco voters approved a revenue bond measure to retrofit and upgrade the Hetch Hetchy system so that our residents would continue to enjoy a reliable supply of high-quality water. The project, which is now about 91% complete, will cost about $4.8 billion. Little did voters know then that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) would spend $66 million to provide 60% of San Franciscans with lower–quality, so-called “blended” water starting this year.

The SFPUC justified its “groundwater supply project” on the basis of the on-going drought; fear of a natural disaster, such as an earthquake, that could cut off our water supply; and state legislation that required the City to find new sources of water to accommodate additional growth.

The Westside Groundwater Basin (Aquifer), from which San Francisco’s “blended” water will come, is between 400 feet and 700 feet deep. The aquifer is made up of sand, silt, and other permeable materials that can readily yield water to springs or wells. It is replenished by surface water or fresh water lakes, such as Lake Merced, which seeps into the ground. Also seeping into the ground are fertilizers (which produce nitrates), pesticides, herbicides used in our golf courses and parks, byproducts from artificial turf, and leakage from our waste-water system that is transported along Ocean Beach to the Southwest Water Treatment facility near the Zoo.

There are conflicting findings in reports from the SFPUC on the level of nitrates detected in the wells that will be part of the “blended” water system.

California sets the Maximum Contamination Level (MCL) for nitrates at 45.0 mg/L.

According to the SFPUC’s 2015 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report (September 2016), the Elk Glen 2 (site of the Central Pump Station) had nitrate levels of between 48.9 mg/L and 55.0 mg/L from 2000–2005. The Merced Pump ST MW155, which is located at the site for the new Merced Lake well, had nitrate levels of 48.0 mg/L to 49.0 mg/L from 2005–2007. And the South Windmill well had nitrate levels of 64% to 72% of the MCL, between 28.9 mg/L and 32.4 mg/L from 2013–2015.

These levels are problematic, particularly in light of the cumulative effect from years of drinking water contaminated with nitrates.

According to nitrate expert Linda Daily Paulson, “… high levels of nitrate in the water can cause health problems. … Medical studies show nitrates in the drinking water are a particular problem for infants, especially those under the age of six months, notes the EPA. This can cause a condition known as methemoglobinemia, or ‘blue baby syndrome.’ Excess nitrates decrease the ability of blood to carry vital oxygen through the body. Additionally, drinking water with high levels of nitrates can also pose health problems to older adults.”

Dr. Ian Shaw, professor of toxicology at the University of Canterbury, states, “[T]here is a more sinister side to nitrate that is far less well understood and of uncertain impact on human populations. High nitrate doses are associated with some cancers. This is thought to be because nitrate is reduced to nitrite in the gut and nitrite reacts with specific food breakdown products (amines) to form highly-carcinogenic nitrosamines. This is a convoluted path to cancer, but is assuming greater importance as nitrate in food and drinking water slowly increases worldwide.”

The EPA (that the Donald Trump administration has proposed downsizing), and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes: “Well water is particularly liable to have high nitrate levels since improper well construction and location can contribute to excess nitrates in the water. … The most effective means of removing nitrate from drinking water supplies are ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and electrodialysis.”

Unfortunately, none of those means are being used by the SFPUC to remove nitrates from our groundwater.

Finally, one of the major reasons for the SFPUC initiating its “blended” water project was to make up for the drought conditions that started in 2011. The State of California is now officially out of the drought. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Station Precipitation Summary for California/Nevada RFC, as of March 25, 2017, 46 of 48 climate stations in California are above normal in rainfall for this time of the year, and 39 of the 48 stations have received more rainfall than they normally receive in an entire year. And that doesn’t even account for the largest snow pack in the Sierras since 1982–1983 that will translate into record run-offs this spring and summer.

The key point here is that there is no need this year — or perhaps even through next year, if we have normal rainfall in 2017–2018 — to turn on the spigot quite yet of groundwater being “blended” into our tap water supply.

According to a July 2016 report by San Francisco’s Budget and Legislative Analyst, over the next 45 years the number of seniors (aged 65+) in San Francisco will increase from 131,163 to 298,536 (a 128% increase).

Our elderly, along with the nearly one million residents of the City, shouldn’t face greater risk from nitrate carcinogens in “blended water”, nor should our children and young adults, who face the prospect of the cumulative effects of nitrates from decades of drinking tap water contaminated with nitrates.

Given the possible health risks due to high concentrations of nitrates in the City’s groundwater, would it not be prudent, since we have the time to do so, for the City to construct and institute a nitrates decontamination system, using either ion exchange, reverse osmosis, or electrodialysis, so that when we do need to augment our water supply from Hetch Hetchy using groundwater, the quality of our drinking water won’t be degraded?

Contact the Board of Supervisors and demand that it hold hearings to require that the SFPUC install nitrate decontamination systems in “blended water.” Tell the Board that it must require SFPUC to notify all property owners, landlords, and tenants whether they will be fed blended water containing un-decontaminated nitrates.

Your health — and cancer risk — may depend on the outcome of those hearings.

George Wooding, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (CSFN); he can be contacted at wooding@westsideobserver.com. Bowman is a Political Analyst.

1.

1) North Lake well — in the western part of Golden Gate Park, south of Fulton St., adjacent to Chain of Lakes Drive;

2) South Windmill Replacement well — in the western part of GG Park, north of Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive and west of the Murphy Windmill;

3) Central Pump Station well — located near Elk Glen just west of Crossover Drive near Overlook Drive;

4) West Sunset well — located at the W Sunset Playground at 40th and Quintara;

5) South Sunset well — located at the South Sunset Playground at 40th and Wawona; and

6) Lake Merced well — west of Lake Merced Boulevard, south of Harding Park and west of Brotherhood Way.

April 2017

Budget Democracy Comes to D-7

by George Wooding

It's very important that District 7 (D7) residents take the time to vote for your favorite Participatory Budgeting (PB) project(s); voting takes place between March 17 and March 31. Projects selected will be funded from the Fiscal Year 2017–2018 budget shortly after July 1st.

In-person voting will take place at the Ingleside Library at 1298 Ocean Avenue, and at the West Portal Library at 190 Lenox Way. The on-line link for voting is sfpbd.sfgov.org/d7/vote. (After March 17th)

PB is a shining democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. It gives citizens power in setting budget priorities and allocations to community projects to be funded. The process involves: brainstorming project ideas, developing initial proposals, and selecting winning projects through D7 citizen voting.

Due to SF's financial cesspool of budget mismanagement, trickery, collusion, and deceit, PB offers a real chance for residents to determine how some tax dollars are actually spent.

D7 Supervisor Norman Yee, and to a lesser extent D-10 Supervisor Malia Cohen, are utilizing PB in their respective districts. PB eliminates the budget middleman — the City — and allows district residents to select and fund projects they want built through PB grants from the City Budget.

Supervisor Yee was able obtain $550,000 for his PB and Cohen managed to receive $200,000 for hers. Yee was able to allocate $300,000 this year for PB General Projects, and an additional $250,000 for Pedestrian Safety Vision Zero Projects.

"I came into office wanting to encourage civic engagement and participation by as many D7 residents as possible." Supervisor Yee said, "D7 has a rich history of community activism by some, but not the majority of, people. It was important to me that I heard from the diverse population that makes up D7 to build stronger connections between the neighbors. A Participatory Budgeting program offers such connections.

"Who better to decide on which projects are needed and what should be funded than D7 residents themselves? The participation occurs at different levels, from the nine members in the volunteer Neighborhood Council to residents submitting proposals, to all the residents who cast their votes to decide which projects receive funding.

"I have secured funding from our City for the program over the last four years. This year there is $550,000 available for D7 residents to make decisions on what projects they want to support. My hope is that more City residents will have an opportunity to experience participating in a participatory budgeting program."

Yee's Legislative Aide, Erica Maybaum, said,

"PB is an opportunity for residents to fully participate in decision-making and see direct outcomes from their involvement. It is inspiring to support leadership development and work with residents who love D7 and are passionate about building stronger and more connected neighborhoods."

Maybaum can be contacted at Erica.Maybaum@sfgov.org, or (415) 554-6517, for questions.

This year's PB was a very competitive process: 46 project proposals were submitted — the most ever — and 21 projects were selected. Proposals not selected either didn't fit the PB parameters (such as being one-time or an on-going project), the description was too vague, or the project wasn't ranked high enough by the Neighborhood Council.

The Neighborhood Council — nine volunteer residents from across D7 — met several times to decide process parameters and help with outreach, and then reviewed, ranked, and discussed all proposals. Proposal's meeting guidelines were averaged. Highest-ranking proposals were reviewed by City departments for feasibility and budget confirmation. Proposals selected were translated and placed on the ballot for D7 residents to vote on which projects receive funding.

A project must receive at least 300 votes to advance. Voters must be a 16-year-old and a D7 resident.

Don't forget to vote during the PB period!

Check out the Participatory Budget Projects.

George Wooding Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods; contact: wooding@westsideobserver.com

March 2017

Can You Afford to Live in San Francisco?

By George Wooding

As San Francisco's general taxes, special taxes, property taxes, parcel taxes, and assorted fees rise to feed an insatiable City government budget appetite, seniors, middle-income families, low-income workers, and small businesses are being starved, forced to move out of the City.

Depending on your age and income, you may be among the next residents forced out of the City.

City budget overseer's — the Board of Supervisors and Mayor Ed Lee — have been derelict in their responsibilities to voters and City residents.

As I stated in my September article, Where Does The Money Go? "San Francisco's FY 2016–2017 fiscal budget just increased by $700 million, to $9.6 billion. A million here, a million there and now we're talking 'real' money. What's the difference in the City by the Bay? If passed, the City budget will have grown by 41% since FY 2010 –2011. San Francisco's annual budget is already larger than the budgets of 20 states."

Mayor Lee has been spending City money like a drunken sailor since he was appointed by the Board of Supervisors on January 11, 2011 to serve out the remainder of former Mayor Gavin Newsom's second term, and assumed his predecessor's final budget.

Lee's financial guidance was provided to him by high-tech companies, former San Francisco politicians, Rose Pak, and a sundry of other current professional politicians, lobbyists, developers, foreign entrepreneurs, and SPUR.

The people's job is to pay, not get in the way. Subsequently, advice from citizens has little value. If someone did ask an average citizen if it would be wise to increase the San Francisco budget by $700 million in one year — $58.33 million monthly — they probably would say "No."

People who live within their means typically don't run up their credit card bills an extra $25,000 a month. Why should City government run up an extra $58 million monthly?

Where's the Beef?

San Francisco revenue generation is constrained by requirements of California's 1997 Proposition 218 to generate new taxes.

In order to impose or increase a tax, local governments must comply with the following provisions:

• All general taxes must be approved by a simple (50%+1) majority vote of the people. General taxes go into the general fund.

• Elections for general taxes must be consolidated with a regularly-scheduled election for members of the local governing body, in our case for Board of Supervisors and other elected officials' elections.

• Any tax imposed for a specific purpose is a "special tax," even if its funds are placed into the community's General Fund. Proposition 218 defines a special benefit as a particular benefit to land and buildings, not a general benefit to the public or a general increase in property values. If a project or service would not provide such a special benefit.

The City has been trying to bypass Proposition 218 "special tax" requirements by passing (50%+1) general taxes, and then taking the money that goes into San Francisco's General Fund by earmarking the money as dedicated set-asides designated for a specific purpose.

In last November's general election, Mayor Lee and Supervisor Mark Farrell wanted to increase San Francisco's sales tax by using a general tax (50%+1) by passing Proposition K. Proposition K would have increased the City's sales taxes from 8.75% to 9.25%, and would have generated revenue of $150 million annually. Voters overwhelming voted "No" on Proposition K by 65.29% and the Proposition was roundly defeated.

A Sleight of Hand

The City creatively tried a sleight of hand: Supervisor Mark Farrell also tried to fund Proposition J, another (50%+1) budget set-aside last November tied to passage of the Mayor's General Fund sales tax which read, "Shall the City amend the Charter to create a Homeless Housing and Services Fund, which would provide services to the homeless including housing and Navigation Centers, programs to prevent homelessness and assistance in transitioning out of homelessness by allocating $50 million per year for 24 years, adjusted annually; and create a Transportation Improvement Fund, which would be used to improve the City's transportation network by allocating $101.6 million per year for 24 years, adjusted annually?"

Proposition J passed by 67.17% of the vote.

Please note that Farrell's Proposition J budget set-aside would have cost $151.6 million per year, while the Mayor's and Farrell's failed Prop K sales tax increase would have generated approximately $150 million annually.

Proposition J would have created a set-aside in the General Fund that would appropriate $101.6 million per year for transportation and another annual set-aside of $50 million for homelessness. Both propositions — "J" as a set-aside, and "K" as a sales tax — were for very "specific purposes" and should never have been placed on the ballot as General taxes.

Combined, they were effectively a tax dedicated to a specific purpose, but the pair of propositions were tied together in a way both could be snuck into law with a 50%+1 majority vote, instead of a two-thirds (66.6%) vote! Indeed, the Prop K sales tax increase was the second half of an end-run around the two-thirds voter requirement for taxes that go to named, specific purposes. The City knowingly violated Proposition 218 guidelines by trying to make both thresholds low enough to succeed in passing propositions J and K.

This is not the first time that Supervisor Farrell and the City have placed set-asides on the ballot that were contrary to Proposition 218 and other existing San Francisco laws.

The City's 2008 Proposition S made it a City policy that local ballot measures authorizing new set-asides or spending mandates must identify a new source of funding. It also made it City policy that the voters cannot approve a new set-aside with a cost-of-living adjustment or other annual increase of more than 2%. Additionally, according to the terms of Proposition S, any new or extended set-aside proposed in a local ballot measure must automatically expire 10 years after it goes into effect.

In the June 7, 2016 election, Farrell — a future mayoral candidate — helped pass Proposition B, a Charter amendment providing funding for parks, recreation, and open space. Proposition B — billed as a 50%+1 ballot measure — created a $4.5 billion, 30-year set-aside that was not attached to any revenue stream. The money comes straight out of San Francisco's General Fund, another violation of the City's Prop S set-aside law.

City Controller Ben Rosenfield noted regarding Proposition B, "This proposed amendment is not in compliance with a non-binding, voter-adopted City policy regarding set-asides. The policy seeks to limit set-asides which reduce General Fund dollars that could otherwise be allocated by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in the annual budget process."

Further, Rosenfield stated "Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a significant impact on the cost of government."

Rosenfield also stated "The proposed amendment would create a new baseline funding requirement for parks, recreation, and open space that would grow over time. These funds are currently part of the City's General Fund discretionary revenues, available for any public purpose. As funds are shifted to meet the proposed baseline established in the amendment, other City spending would have to be reduced or new revenues identified to maintain current City service levels."

Fooling the Public?

The City continues to believe that it can financially fool the public via sleight-of-hand.

In a December 8, 2016 letter to President of the Board of Supervisors London Breed, Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee Supervisor Mark Farrell, and City Controller Ben Rosenfield, the Mayor stated, "As noted in my early termination letter for Proposition J dated November 10, 2016, I made the difficult decision to cancel the set-asides for homelessness and transportation that were included in my balanced budget on June 1, 2016. The voters did not approve Proposition K, a sales tax increase that would have paid for the increased spending, which is why this rebalancing plan is required."

The SFMTA will now only receive a $3 million increase annually, when it had originally asked for a $100 million annual increase.

The Mayor went on to state, "I want to thank you, Chair Farrell, for your leadership on this issue and helping establishing this new homeless department through the budget process this year."

The Mayor will now be trying to decrease the City budget by 3% in FY 2017–2018 and another 3% decrease in FY 2018–2019 through June 30, 2019. He should be trying to decrease the budget by over 10% annually, but can't due to drastic over-hiring of City employees and increased City employer-share of contributions to the City employees' pension fund.

While the Mayor claims there is a looming $431 million pension shortfall — over several upcoming decades — driven by pension increases, longer life expectancy of retired City employees, and lower-than-expected returns on pension portfolio investments that has the potential to increase City pension obligations, that's only part of the problem. He's totally ignoring the bloat in City government hiring caused during his tenure as Mayor. He needs to turn inward and examine truthfully his own culpability of year-in and year-out increases to the City's on-going payroll!

Patrick Monette-Shaw's article in this edition of the Westside Observer notes that of the $665.7 million annual payroll increase to the City budget since Lee took office, fully 79% ($525.2 million) is attributable to the additional 3,178 City employees who earn over $100,000 annually Mayor Lee has added to the City budget. Their pension costs are a large part of overall increased pension-related costs, but that pales in comparison to the payroll bloat of 6,414 additional full- and part-time employees Lee has added since becoming mayor.

Donald Trump, our new President, is threatening to cut federal funding to any city having a Sanctuary City policy to not aid federal immigration agents. San Francisco receives about $1 billion annually from the federal government. When push comes to shove, we'll see what happens to San Francisco's Sanctuary City policy, and whether the Mayor caves in to Donald Trump.

The good financial times for Mayor Lee and company may be coming to an end. As proven by Proposition K, San Francisco citizens are at a financial breaking point, and no longer want to fund a bloated, ineffective government. As Monette-Shaw notes, it is long past time Mayor Lee's hiring binge be fully audited.

The cost of San Francisco's infrastructure is causing people to leave the City because we are no longer receiving value for the high taxes that we pay.

San Francisco has to start working on reasonable budgets with ballot propositions that follow the letter of the law.

As Mayor Lee says, "It is important to underscore that we are not in the midst of a recession. We are not cutting services or laying employees off. We do, however, need to make responsible decisions and remain disciplined with our City's budget as we prepare for the expected yet uncertain changes at the federal level with new administration in Washington D.C."

San Francisco will have a $100 million budget deficit beginning in FY 2017–2018 set to begin July 1, 2017 and an additional $286 million budget deficit in FY 2018–2019 beginning July 1, 2018 — for a total of nearly $400 million. In the midst of plenty, these budget deficits are ridiculous.

The Mayor ended his Rebalancing Plan memo by saying, "Thank you to all the members of the Board of Supervisors, community groups, and departments that I heard from during this rebalancing process. Your input has been critical, and I am proud of the balanced and thoughtful approach we have taken that embraces true San Francisco values. We are always stronger when we stand as one, and I look forward to working with the current and new members of the Board of Supervisors in the coming months."

None are so blind as those who will not see. Is our Mayor the blindest of them all?

Will you be the next one forced to move out of San Francisco?

George Wooding Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods; contact: wooding@westsideobserver.com

February 2017

Westside Wins the Clean & Tidy War, but Watch Your Step

By George Wooding

It’s official: Supervisorial District’s 7 and 4 have less human feces, hypodermic syringes, broken glass, graffiti, and homeless people than any other supervisorial districts in San Francisco. The Westside is not free of — but at least has fewer complaints than other supervisorial districts have — feces and syringe complaints. Indeed, District 7 saw a massive spike in the number of service calls involving human waste in the past year, so we need to keep watching where we step!

On October 25, the 2016 Street and Sidewalk Maintenance Standards Report (SSMS) report was issued. By law, the SSMS report must be issued every two years. Among other things, the report records the level of feces, broken glass, graffiti, and syringes by supervisorial district.

The City Services Auditor (CSA) charter amendment — created by Proposition C on the November 2003 ballot — requires that the Controller’s Office and Department of Public Works (DPW) develop and implement standards for street and sidewalk maintenance and that the CSA issue an annual report of the City’s performance under the standards. The current report provides an overview of the standards, highlights the results of evaluations and includes recommendations to improve work in these areas.

According to the 2015–16 report our, “population has grown by nearly 8% since 2010, adding more than 60,000 residents to reach a total of 866,583 as of Jan ‘16. About 136,000 new jobs have been created in the City over the past five years — an increase of 24.8% between Dec’10 and ‘15, and more than 1,234,000 people fill San Francisco during daytime work hours.”

Additionally, “This continued growth…places additional demands on the City’s service systems. Public service requests submitted to the City’s 3–1–1 Customer Service Center increased significantly in recent years, growing by 25% in FY 2015-16 and reaching an average of 34,480 requests per month. The City collected more than 24,000 tons of loose garbage and abandoned items in FY 2015-16, an increase of 7.8% over FY 2014-15, and more total weight than any year since FY 2009-10.”

Sadly, many of the areas in the City that have the highest amounts of complaints involving feces and hypodermic needles correlate directly with the highest amounts of homelessness. The San Francisco Homeless Point-In-Time Count (p. 2) shows that District 7 had only 19 homeless people in ‘13 and 29 homeless people in ‘15, while District 4 had 136 homeless people in ‘13 and only 7 homeless people in ‘15. In 2015, 6,686 homeless individuals were found to be living in the City, up slightly from 6,436 homeless people in 2013. District 7 and District 4 each had less than 1% of the total homeless population.

Human Waste: Watch your step in Supervisorial District 6! Data from 3–1–1 call reports shows service requests related to human waste increased across all Supervisorial Districts in San Francisco in FY 2015–16 at a rate well above the average growth in overall 3–1–1 use. District 6 had far more service requests related to human waste than any other district — three-times as many as the next highest count in District 9 — and nearly 30% more requests compared to FY 2014–15. This change appears to be driven mostly by additional reports along Market, south of 8th Street between Mission and Howard, and the area south of Hayes Valley between South Van Ness and the Central Freeway/Octavia.

Sadly, District 7 experienced a 67% increase in 3–1–1 service calls involving reports of human waste, surging from 90 reports in FY 2014–15 to 150 reports in FY 2015-16. Citywide, reports involving human waste soared 39% — 4,274 more reports — increasing from 11,058 in FY 2014–15 to 15,332 in FY 2015-16!

Needles: Citywide, 3–1–1 reports of hypodermic needles increased by 40% in FY 2015-16, reaching a total of 3,551 service requests, after monthly reports reached an all-time high of 396 in May 2016. That year-over-year increase is well above the average growth in overall 3–1–1 use. Internal counts of needles collected by DPPW “Hot Spot” crews also increased nearly 40% , from roughly 16,000 to 22,300.

There were fewer 3–1–1 reports of needles in District 7 and District 1, but those were offset by significant year-over-year increases in District 6, 9, and 10. Reports of needles were heavily concentrated in District 6 and 9, though nearby areas were also affected, including the Castro, Hayes Valley, Civic Center, and Potrero Hill neighborhoods. Several areas included exceptionally concentrated clusters of reports of needles between FY 2014–15 and 2015–16, particularly in District 6 that saw a 49% increase to 1,653 calls to 3–1–1, and in District 9 that saw a 45% increase to 752 calls. District 7 saw a 39% drop in the number of needles and syringes to just 14, from FY 2014–15. District 4 had a 58% increase, from 12 to 19. Citywide, there was a 41% increase, with an additional 1,024 calls (from 2,527 calls in between FY 2014–15 to 3,551 calls in FY 2015–16).

Broken Glass: Average 3–1–1 calls involving broken glass generally increased in FY 2015–16. However, reports of broken glass citywide increased by 24% in FY 2015–16, driven by large increases in District 3, 6, and 9. District 8 appeared to decrease slightly, reporting 206 instances in FY 2015–16 compared to 233.

Once again, District 7 and 4 have the lowest rates involving broken glass. Much of the broken glass comes auto break-ins.

The rampant looting of autos soared last year, with break-ins jumping 31% from 2014, nearly tripling since 2010, according to the Police Department —certain to inflame a growing debate.

The City took 25,899 reports of car break-ins in 2015, or more than 70 per day, in an epidemic centered in the downtown area that has left pavements littered with broken glass.

Graffiti: Up 21% citywide, with a particularly high jump (76%) in District 3, largely driven by a 170% increase in Chinatown. District 7 had a small, 14% decline in graffiti.

In a clever legal maneuver, the City Attorney’s Office is asking the Courts to allow it to sue for damages to pay for graffiti cleanup. It makes for some odd phrasing when the court complaint filing says, “Plaintiff is … the owner of real personal property in San Francisco, consisting of City Hall,” as if the single block City Hall sits on is the only area of the City experiencing the same problem the other 10 supervisorial districts face on a daily basis. One question for City Attorney Dennis Herrera is: Why weren’t those other neighborhoods included as plaintiffs in the City’s lawsuit and also allowed to sue for damages?

Homeowners in District 7 and District 4 are some of the luckiest people in San Francisco. Things can only get better if we keep maintaining our neighborhoods and are kind to one another.

Editor: Data in this article will be posted on the Westside Observer’s web site, along with links to the two City reports.

George Wooding, Coalition For San Francisco Neighborhoods; contact: wooding@westsideobserver.com

December 2016/ January 2017

Midtown Terrace Rezoned to RH-1(D)

By George Wooding

The Midtown Terrace Homeowners Association and District 7 Supervisor Norman Yee just defeated a deceptive rezoning maneuver initiated by District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener. Midtown Terrace has been rezoned as a RH-1(D) (Residential Housing, 1 Unit Detached) neighborhood!

RH-1 zoning allows in-law units — also known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) — to be built in RH-1 zoned areas, but not in RH-1(D) zoned areas. Wiener’s amendment attempted creating a hybrid RH-1(D) neighborhood that allowed ADU’s in Midtown Terrace, if the neighborhood were rezoned to RH-1(D).

An ADU is an “additional, self-contained dwelling unit located within the same lot as an existing residential building.” They’re often located in converted garages or in backyards as a separate structure. It is estimated that there are anywhere between 30,000 and 40,000 ADU’s in San Francisco — all built without obtaining the required permits.

Midtown Terrace residents were only trying to amend their neighborhood’s current RH-1 (Residential Housing, 1 Unit) zoning to RH-1(D) (Residential Housing, 1 Unit Detached) zoning to preserve neighborhood lot lines.

Midtown Terrace meets all of the criteria for RH-1(D) zoning. There is only one dwelling per lot. The lot width is 33 feet, with a lot area of 4,000 square feet.

Fifteen minutes before the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Transportation (LUT) Committee hearing began on September 19, 2016 Wiener ambushed Supervisor Yee and Midtown Terrace neighbors by trying to amend the proposed RH-1(D) housing legislation.

A Snake Eats Its Own Tail

A slight digression to history: Introducing amendments to legislation shortly before hearings begin is nothing new to Wiener, as if he’s condemned to repeat history through forgetfulness.

During the Land Use Committee’s May 24, 2011 hearing, then-Supervisor David Chiu introduced 14 pages of amendments to the Parkmerced Development Agreement without notice on the meeting agenda of the amendments. Introducing the amendments during the hearing deprived Land Use Committee members, Parkmerced residents, and the general public of knowing the contents of the amendments. Although Land Use Committee member Eric Mar noted the amendments violated the Sunshine Ordinance because they weren’t noticed on the meeting’s agenda, he was outvoted by Supervisors Chiu, Wiener, and Malia Cohen. The amendments were approved without continuing the item to a future LUT hearing, and forwarded to the full Board.

As a result, the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force ruled September 27, 2011 on Sunshine Complaint 11048 that Supervisors Chiu, Wiener, and Cohen (but not Mar) had violated Sunshine Ordinance §67.7(b), and referred the complaint to the Ethics Commission for willful failure and official misconduct. Wiener wasn’t pleased at having been found engaging in official misconduct.

Wiener’s Midtown Terrace Fiasco

Back to the LUT hearing on September 19, 2016: Wiener was upset because 820 homes in Midtown Terrace were about to be “downsized.” Quirky but true, Wiener and the Planning Department believe that the lack of in-law units and/or ADU’s will reduce Midtown Terraces’ housing density. Thus, the false claim that Midtown Terrace would be “downsized.”

Apparently, Wiener forgot about not introducing amendments during a hearing! Wiener’s September 2016 amendment was nonsensical, because the Midtown Terrace rezoning was about building homes out to lot lines, not about building ADU’s. The rezoning of Midtown Terrace had absolutely nothing to do with ADU’s.

As Supervisor Yee stated, “The Midtown Terrace Home Owners Association worked for over a year on a community-driven process to correct the Planning Code. They went door-to-door, collected petitions, held a number of community meetings, and met with City staff multiple times before moving forward with the rezoning request. It was clear that the Planning Code was wrong and should be fixed, and I was so impressed by the level of engagement from the residents. That is why I was so disappointed when Supervisor Wiener and special interest groups decided to introduce an amendment at the eleventh hour to call for Midtown Terrace to be the only RH-1(D) area to allow in-law units.”

Yee added, “There was no outreach or discussion. It was disrespectful to the neighborhood and to the process that we had undertaken. Ultimately, I urged my colleagues to reject the amendment and push our original proposal forward on behalf of Midtown Terrace residents. The residents asked us as City leaders to fix the zoning to reflect what exists now: Single residential detached homes. They never asked us to decide whether or not to legalize in-law units. Ultimately, the voices of the neighborhood prevailed.”

On April 8, 2014 former District 3 Supervisor David Chiu’s legislation “Legalization of Dwelling Units” was passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors. His legislation amended the Planning and Building Codes to provide a process for granting legal status to existing accessory dwelling units constructed without the required permits, temporarily suspending the code enforcement process for units in the process of receiving legal status. Readers may recall my December 2013 Westside Observer article, “Here Come Da In-Laws” reporting on Chiu’s effort to rezone all San Francisco neighborhoods to legalize ADU’s.

The board voted 8–2 in April 2014 to let property owners voluntarily apply to legalize units built before January 1, 2013. The vote came after more than 90 minutes of debate and several attempts by D7 Supervisor Norman Yee to weaken then-Board President David Chiu’s legislation.

Yee, whose district includes Midtown Terrace, said “[Chiu’s] legislation unfairly gives property owners who have broken the law an opportunity to make more money and could have the unintended consequence of driving up rents and encouraging real estate speculation.”

Yee also asked to exempt areas of The City zoned solely for single-family homes, swaths largely in his district, and proposed making it a limited pilot project. Both of Yee’s amendments in 2014 failed.

The big secret? Citywide, ADU programs have been an absolute failure ever since!

On April 16, 2014 Supervisor Wiener passed legislation legalizing ADU’s in District 8, which includes the Castro and Noe Valley. Subsequently, Julie Christensen followed suit in 2015 for District 3, which includes Chinatown and North Beach. To date, no ADU’s have been built in either district.

According to Betty Lee, a permit technician for the Department of Building Inspection, only 61 homeowners have legalized their illegal ADU’s under Chui’s legislation. People aren’t stupid. Chiu wanted property owners to rebuild ADU’s to code, but not allow passing any of the costs on to tenants. Rented ADU’s may become rent controlled. Property taxes for Chui’s ADU’s could be charged at current rates.

Respecting Community Participation

Midtown Terrace resident Joe Humphreys states, “Preserving neighborhood character is a major goal of the Planning Code. The Midtown Terrace neighborhood is characterized by openness with modest-sized detached homes nestled into the contours of Twin Peaks. But it was mistakenly zoned for attached, rather than detached houses.”

Humphreys added, “With the recent trend of squeezing large houses onto relatively small lots, that zoning error posed a threat to maintaining the open character of Midtown Terrace. Homeowners undertook a year-long-plus effort of conversations, meetings, petition-gathering, and posting website information. Working with their homeowners’ association and district supervisor, they navigated the legislative process to correct the zoning error.”

Midtown residents Joyce Mordenti and James Pohl stated, “The character of Midtown Terrace — individual, detached homes with green belts, side yards, and trees — will be preserved with the zoning correction of our neighborhood.”

David McAdams, a Midtown Terrace project leader added, “Our group canvassed the neighborhood door to door over several months collecting hundreds of signatures in support of the rezone. We also raised the issue at numerous HOA-sponsored neighborhood events and publicized it via an informative presentation on the neighborhood’s website. Once we had amassed sufficient support, Supervisor Yee’s office assisted by drafting legislation to implement the rezone. The legislation was passed unanimously on August 11 at the Planning Commission on first hearing.”

McAdams continued, “It was then heard by the Land Use Committee, which forwarded it to the full Board of Supervisors, without a recommendation regarding approval. Despite considerable discussion regarding the affects of the rezone on ADU’s, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed the legislation. We are grateful to Supervisor Yee’s office for his support, and we are thrilled to have successfully corrected Midtown Terrace’s zoning. RH-1(D) zoning is appropriate to the existing character of our neighborhood, and will protect that character for many years to come.”

Midtown Terrace President Rick Johnson said, “When the time came and the legislation was introduced by Supervisor Yee, many of us spoke at the Board’s Land Use Committee. The legislation passed 3–0. We were hoping for a 6–5 vote at the full Board, but were very surprised when the first reading vote was 9–1 (one absent), with only Supervisor Weiner wanting an amendment to include ADU’s (Additional Dwelling Units) included in our neighborhood. It would be the only RH-1(D) neighborhood with such a restriction.”

Johnson observed, “First, we were shocked at the 9–1 vote, and then when Supervisor Weiner’s amendment was defeated, the legislation finally passed on second reading on October 14, 2016 by a vote of 11–0. To say that we were thrilled is an understatement. The Board of Supervisors comments about respecting community participation indicated that was paramount in their decision.” The tireless work of Roger Ritter, president of the West of Twin Peaks Central Council, on behalf of Midtown Terrace’s rezoning should also be noted. Ritter was there when the neighborhood needed him!”

Many attempts were made to contact Supervisor Wiener for comment for this article. Wiener failed to respond. Ultimately Wiener voted for Midtown Terrace’s rezoning to RH-1(D) and against his own amendment. Apparently, eating snake tails isn’t so tasty.

Congratulations to Midtown Terrace, a RH-1(D) neighborhood that now has the zoning ability to protect its neighborhood lot lines!

George Wooding, Midtown Terrace Home Owners Association; contact: wooding@westsideobserver.com