December 20, 2014

Affordable housing policies in San Francisco could reduce sprawl

Low-income housing advocates in San Francisco; photo by  Steve Rhodes via Flickr Creative Commons

Low-income housing advocates in San Francisco; photo by Steve Rhodes via Flickr Creative Commons

The Sierra Club has long opposed habitat-destroying, greenhouse gas-generating sprawl. To fight sprawl, the Club supports policies to raise the minimum wage and make housing more affordable; when people can afford to live near where they work—particularly in transit-rich, walkable, urban areas like San Francisco—there is an aggregate reduction of sprawl and greenhouse-gas emissions. In the past year and a half, the Bay Chapter’s San Francisco Group has embraced legislation to preserve affordable, rent-controlled housing in San Francisco and to slow evictions that force average- to low-income people out of the city and into auto-centric suburbs.

There is good news: Mayor Ed Lee chose not to veto the latest piece of legislation to protect tenants and fight sprawl. The legislation, which was sponsored by Supervisor David Campos, passed by the Board of Supervisors this fall.

That legislation will regulate tenant buyout agreements — transactions in which property owners offer money to tenants in order to induce them to leave. Many buyout offers are preceded by threats to evict tenants using the Ellis Act, a state law that permits landlords to empty buildings and get out of the rental business. Once those buildings are emptied, they are often sold quickly and converted into tenancies-in-common, agreements in which the occupants of the units share the entire mortgage for the building. Property owners prefer not to use the Ellis Act because future conversion of the units into lucrative condominiums is restricted, and because of the public disclosure requirements.

Buyouts have usually involved paying tenants more to leave, but until now there have been no restrictions on their future conversion of property into condominiums; nor have landlords and tenants been required to publicly disclose the transactions. The recently-passed legislation will restrict the condominium conversion of units that have been emptied through buyout agreements and require public disclosure of buyout transactions.

In 2013, the Bay Chapter’s San Francisco Group supported legislation that suspends the condominium conversion lottery for tenancies-in-common for ten years and places further restrictions on those conversions. That legislation passed and is now law. The buyout legislation is yet one more measure to put a damper on speculation in residential real estate that leads to tenant evictions and ultimately sprawl.

The S.F. Group also took a position this year against the demolition of rent-controlled housing in San Francisco for the same environmental reasons it supported the buyout and tenancy-in-common condo conversion legislation. Days before Thanksgiving, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors heard an appeal of conditional use permit to demolish a small, Richmond District house with two rent-controlled units. The supervisors unanimously upheld that appeal and saved the two units. A San Francisco city planner later said that their decision was precedent setting. The S.F. Group did not take a position on the particular appeal in question, but we are very pleased with the supervisors for protecting two sound units of rent-controlled housing.

Because of state law, no residences built after 1978 can be subjected to rent control.  According to official San Francisco performance measure reports, between the 2007-2008 and 2012-2013 fiscal years, San Francisco lost 4,032 rent-controlled units to condominium conversion or demolition — dropping from 175,337 to 171,305 rent-controlled units. Only 2,507 units of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income San Franciscans were constructed during those years. These troubling figures demonstrate why the Club’s support for affordable housing and tenant rights is critical.

—Sue Vaughan

East Bay wins major open-space victories in the 2014 elections

10295384_760409887357464_664081245092806404_oEnemies of suburban sprawl scored major victories for open space on Election Day, defeating two developer-backed initiatives in Southern Alameda County in what the Contra Costa Times called “a defining moment for slow growth advocates.” Here’s more on the two open-space victories:

Dublin voters reject Measure T by 4:1; protect Doolan Canyon from development

In a stunning endorsement of open space protection, 84% of voters in Dublin (in eastern Alameda County) rejected a developer-sponsored initiative to break their new urban growth boundary and authorize urban sprawl in rural Doolan Canyon without further voter approval (see “Fate of Doolan Canyon hangs on competing ballot initiatives” in the Aug-Sept 2014 Yodeler, http://theyodeler.org/?s=doolan). Developer Pacific Union Land Company had spent over $160,000 to place Measure T on the ballot but failed miserably to find public support.

Earlier in the year, a coalition of local residents and environmental organizations including the Sierra Club wrote and qualified an open-space initiative to enact an urban-growth boundary on Dublin’s east side. In June, the City Council unanimously adopted the initiative, thereby thwarting Pacific Union’s strategy of running a confusion campaign with two similar-sounding land-use measures on the November ballot.

Measure T, formally titled the Let Dublin Decide Initiative, was billed as a way for Dublin to exert local control over unincorporated Doolan Canyon and prevent nearby Livermore from annexing and developing the area. But voters saw through that ploy. Measure T would have expanded Dublin’s new growth boundary by 2 ½ square miles, over the exact same area where Pacific Union had previously proposed a 1,990-unit housing development.

Doolan Canyon is a rural valley of rolling hills and grasslands now used for ranching, a dozen rural homesteads, and an equestrian center. It is habitat for numerous rare and special status species including the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Golden eagle, Western burrowing owl, Congdon’s tarplant, and more.

With the overwhelming margin by which Dublin voters defended their urban-growth boundary, and with voter-approved urban-growth boundaries in place around Livermore, Pleasanton, and Alameda County, developers will think long and hard before proposing new sprawl developments in Alameda County’s Tri-Valley area.

Measure KK defeated in Union City

With the endorsement of the Sierra Club and other state and local environmental organizations, the Save Our Hills Committee in Union City earned a smashing victory on November 4 with the defeat of Measure KK, the Flatlands Development Initiative. The measure was soundly defeated, with voters casting 5,296 (65.14%) “no” votes to a meager 2,834 (34.68%) “yes” votes. This victory ensures that the 63 acres of flatlands to the northeast of Mission Blvd. and the undeveloped hills to the east of the flatlands will remain as open space.

In 1996, the Sierra Club-endorsed Measure II—which codified the Union City Hillside Area Plan and protected 6,100 acres of open space—passed with approximately 65% of the vote. That measure required that any changes to the Plan would have to go before the voters; Measure KK was the first attack on the 53 policies in Measure II.

The proponents of the Flatlands Development Initiative (the Masonic Homes of California) spent about $610,000 in their failed campaign. A major theme of their misleading messaging was a ruse to “Protect the Hills.” This disingenuous slogan was designed to get voters to cast a “yes” vote. The Save Our Hills Committee’s message was to “Save Our Hills.” Given the likelihood that many voters may in fact have been confused as to what a “yes” vote meant, the percentage of voters who do not want new development on the Union City hills and flatlands is probably even higher than the 65% who correctly cast a vote for open space.

——Dick Schneider and Bob Garfinkle

Sierra Club files suit to protect California coast

marin

Marin coastline; Photo by Louis Nuyens.

In 1976, the California Legislature enacted the Coastal Act, which created a mandate for coastal counties to manage the conservation and development of coastal resources through a comprehensive planning and regulatory program called the Local Coastal Program. New action in Marin County threatens to weaken these coastal protections, but the Sierra Club is fighting back.

Last month the Club filed legal action to challenge a dangerous amendment to Marin’s Local Coastal Plan. The amendment was submitted by Marin County and approved by the Coastal Commission in May. If allowed to stand, Marin’s amended Coastal Plan would substantially weaken environmental protections and set a precedent for poor process and lack of environmental review along the entire California coast. The result would be to open up our coastline to increased development and allowed uses without public process.

The Coastal Commission’s approval of the Local Coastal Plan Amendment ignored five years of repeated warnings from the Sierra Club, other environmental groups, and even its own staff, that the document was in violation of the California Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission’s action could result in less environmental review and protection for coastal areas than in similar areas outside of coastal zones. This would create a confusing and unequal application of land use planning laws.

Marin’s Local Coastal Plan update needs to be more protective of the environment than the original 1981 Plan—not less. The Sierra Club believes that if allowed to stand, the Marin County amendment will set a statewide precedent and result in more inappropriate development and less environmental protection for California’s sensitive coastal areas.

The Bay Chapter’s Marin Group has set up a Marin Coastal Defense Fund to help protect and preserve our spectacular California coastline. For more information or to make a donation, visit the Group website.

—Elena Belsky, Sierra Club Marin Group

Dublin Council votes to protect Doolan Canyon!

Looking south-southeast down Doolan Canyon at the area that Pacific Union Homes wants to develop. Doolan Road is in the middle of the picture. The ridge in the distance is the East Bay Regional Park District's Ohlone Regional Wilderness containing Rose Peak, the highest peak in Alameda County, just 32 feet lower than Mount Diablo. Photo by Dick Schneider.

Looking south-southeast down Doolan Canyon at the area that Pacific Union Homes wants to develop. Doolan Road is in the middle of the picture. The ridge in the distance is the East Bay Regional Park District’s Ohlone Regional Wilderness containing Rose Peak, the highest peak in Alameda County, just 32 feet lower than Mount Diablo. Photo by Dick Schneider.

The Dublin City Council did an extraordinary thing Tuesday night. It unanimously adopted the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014, immediately enacting an Urban Limit Line along the eastern city limits to protect Doolan Canyon from urban sprawl (see “Doolan Open Space Initiative submits signatures”.

As icing on the cake, the Council also voted unanimously to oppose the developer’s counter-initiative and agreed to write the ballot argument against that initiative.

We’re talking Dublin here, the third fastest-growing city in the state!

We can bask in the satisfaction of having won an extraordinary victory, oh, for about two days, but we will have to regroup shortly because the developers will certainly run an expensive, distortion-filled campaign in the fall to pass their initiative. If we can’t defeat it, their measure would trump our Open Space Initiative.

Dick Schneider

Don’t sign Union City hills initiative

The Masonic Home in Union City is circulating an initiative petition to remove protection from 63 acres of flatlands in front of its assisted-living facility on Mission Boulevard. The land is currently protected from development by the Union City Hillside Area Plan.

The Plan was approved as Measure II in 1996, with strong Sierra Club support, by 65% of Union City voters. Voters have said loud and clear that we want no visible development in our hillside area. Masonic’s attempt to circumvent the Hillside Plan is an attack on our hillsides and a waste of our time.

The Masons claim that this whole effort is to build a memory-care facility, but the site is laced with Hayward Fault traces that would preclude such a use.

Don’t sign the Masonic petition.

Now is time to stop Faria project in San Ramon

Aerial view of the two ridges that would be flattened for the “Faria Preserve” development. Note the two red symbols denoting earthquake epicenters.

Aerial view of the two ridges that would be flattened for the “Faria Preserve” development. Note the two red symbols denoting earthquake epicenters.

Update (May 28, 2014): the project has been appealed, and the appeal will tentatively be heard by the City Council on Tue., July 8.

 

On May 6 the San Ramon Planning Commission approved a new 740-home version of the Faria project.

The commission approved a Recirculated Negative Declaration, rather than requiring a full Environmental Impact Report, even though the project would be on 450 acres of environmentally sensitive hills and valleys just north of Crow Canyon Road (see Dec. 2013, page 6).

We expect that the project will be appealed to the City Council.

WhatYouCanDo

Write to the San Ramon City Council at:

2226 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, CA 94583
www.ci.san-ramon.ca.us/council/members.htm

Urge the Council to reject the project as proposed, and to require that any subsequent version of the project should receive a full Environmental Impact Report.

Doolan Open Space Initiative submits signatures

Looking south-southeast down Doolan Canyon at the area that Pacific Union Homes wants to develop. Doolan Road is in the middle of the picture. The ridge in the distance is the East Bay Regional Park District's Ohlone Regional Wilderness containing Rose Peak, the highest peak in Alameda County, just 32 feet lower than Mount Diablo. Photo by Dick Schneider.

Looking south-southeast down Doolan Canyon at the area that Pacific Union Homes wants to develop. Doolan Road is in the middle of the picture. The ridge in the distance is the East Bay Regional Park District’s Ohlone Regional Wilderness containing Rose Peak, the highest peak in Alameda County, just 32 feet lower than Mount Diablo. Photo by Dick Schneider.

Dublin’s Save Doolan Canyon initiative (officially titled the “Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014″) was submitted on April 16 with 3,670 signatures. It took just eight weeks of an all-volunteer signature drive to gather the signatures. The state Elections Code allows 26 weeks for the process. The initiative needs 2,282 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

As the Yodeler went to press, the Alameda County Registrar of Voters was verifying the signatures. We expect verification to be complete and the initiative reported as sufficient to the Dublin City Council on May 20.

Dublin voters were eager to sign the petitions because they are fed up with the rapid growth in their city, and they want to prevent additional sprawl into open space areas in and around Dublin. They frequently voiced their thanks to petitioners for doing what they clearly felt was long overdue.

Just as the signature drive was ending, developers wanting to build in Doolan Canyon began circulating a competing initiative. The developers found from their own polling that they would be unable to defeat the Open Space initiative directly, and so they decided to run a counter-initiative to confuse the electorate. Posing as an open-space-protection measure, the developers’ “Let Dublin Decide” initiative would allow their 2,000-unit subdivision to be built in Doolan Canyon without voter approval.

To win in Dublin will require enough resources—volunteers and money—to get our message out. The developers will surely unleash a massive, confusing mail campaign. Fortunately, we know what the voters want, and if we can clearly distinguish the Open Space initiative from the sham Decide initiative, we will prevail.

To help in the campaign, or for more information, go to www.SaveDublinOpenSpace.org or contact Dick Schneider at richs59354@aol.com or (510)926-0010.

Vote yes on Proposition B–waterfront height-limit initiative in SF

YESonB_ 191x300

Update (April 21, 2014): “We thank the Warriors for abandoning their wall on the waterfront and encourage the voters to make their voices heard by passing Proposition B.” — Sierra Club Bay Chapter chair Becky Evans.

The Sierra Club urges San Francisco voters to vote yes on Proposition B–”Voter Approval for Waterfront Height Increases”–on the June 3 ballot. The measure would require voter approval for waterfront luxury-condo towers or other waterfront development projects that violate existing legal building height limits (see Feb., page 4).

A record-breaking petition drive by a coalition of environmental and community groups collected 21,000 signatures, more than twice the required 9,702 in just three weeks. The initiative is backed by the Sierra Club and the No Wall on the Waterfront coalition, who came together to defeat the 8 Washington waterfront luxury-condo towers, which were rejected by 67% of San Francisco voters last November.

“The overwhelming success of this petition drive shows just how strongly the people of San Francisco feel about keeping the waterfront a special place that is open and accessible for everyone to enjoy,” said Becky Evans, chair of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club and the official proponent of the initiative.

Despite the overwhelming voter rejection of the 8 Washington luxury condos, the San Francisco Port Commission has proceeded to move forward with a series of other proposals to raise waterfront height limits for luxury-condo high-rises, office towers, and hotels. Waterfront height limits can currently be changed by a majority of the Board of Supervisors.

The initiative builds on a previous initiative passed by San Francisco voters in 1990 that required the creation of a Waterfront Land Use Plan to guide development along the city’s waterfront.

To volunteer in the campaign, or for more information, see www.NoWallOnTheWaterfront.com,

Vote yes on Proposition B.

SF Elections Department certifies waterfront height-limit initiative for June ballot

B

B

Update (March 4, 2014): The ballot measure has been designated as Measure B on the June 3 ballot.

After reviewing the 21,000 petition signatures submitted earlier this week by a coalition of environmental and neighborhood groups (see Feb., page 4), the San Francisco Department of Elections has issued a letter officially certifying an initiative for the June 3 election ballot that would require voter approval for waterfront luxury-condo towers or other waterfront development projects that violate existing legal building height limits. A record-breaking petition drive collected more than twice the required 9,702 signatures in just three weeks. The Waterfront Height Limit Right To Vote Initiative is backed by the Sierra Club and the No Wall on the Waterfront coalition that came together to defeat the 8 Washington waterfront luxury-condo towers, which were rejected by 67% of San Francisco voters last November.

“The overwhelming success of this petition drive shows just how strongly the people of San Francisco feel about keeping the waterfront a special place that is open and accessible for everyone to enjoy,” said Becky Evans, chair of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club and the official proponent of the Waterfront Height Limit Initiative.

Despite the overwhelming voter rejection of the 8 Washington luxury condos, the San Francisco Port Commission has proceeded to move forward with a series of other proposals to raise waterfront height limits for luxury-condo high-rises, office towers, and hotels. The Waterfront Height Limit Right To Vote Initiative would require voter approval for proposals that would increase existing waterfront height limits, which can currently be changed by a majority of the Board of Supervisors. The initiative builds on a previous initiative passed by San Francisco voters in 1990 that required the creation of a Waterfront Land Use Plan to guide development along the city’s waterfront.

For more information see www.NoWallOnTheWaterfront.com.

Sierra Club and San Francisco Waterfront Coalition to submit 21,000 petition signatures today to put initiative to protect waterfront height limits on June ballot

Former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos calls this “the most beautiful spot on the waterfront”. Should this land be used for the Warriors’ sports arena or for better public access to the shoreline? Photo courtesy San Francisco Waterfront Alliance.

Former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos calls this “the most beautiful spot on the waterfront”. Should this land be used for the Warriors’ sports arena or for better public access to the shoreline? Photo courtesy San Francisco Waterfront Alliance.

A record-breaking signature drive has collected more than twice the number of needed petition signatures in just three weeks with the help of more than 300 volunteers citywide

At 3 pm today, a coalition of environmental and neighborhood groups today will submit more than 21,000 petition signatures to qualify an historic measure for the June ballot that would require any proposed height-limit increases along San Francisco’s waterfront to be approved by city voters.  The Waterfront Height Limit Right To Vote Act will require voter approval for proposals to increase existing waterfront height limits for high-rise hotels or condo towers that would exceed the current legal building heights.

The Waterfront Initiative is backed by the Sierra Club and the No Wall on the Waterfront coalition, which came together to defeat the 8 Washington waterfront luxury condo towers, which were rejected by two-thirds of San Francisco voters last November.

After the 21,000 petition signatures are submitted this afternoon, the SF Department of Elections has up to 30 days to verify whether there are at least the 9,702 valid signatures required to certify the initiative for the June 3 San Francisco ballot.