SF Apartment building


The Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 to pass a resolution opposing State Senator Scott Wiener's housing legislation SB 50. Only Supervisors Ahsha Safai & Vallie Brown opposed the resolution.

The anti-SB50 resolution was a moment of sharp hypocrisy blasted by both the SF Chronicle and BeyondChron. Randy Shaw of BeyondChron argued, "The supervisors want to continue the city’s practice of forcing tens of thousands of people into three hour round trip greenhouse gas creating car trips rather than allowing apartments to be built in most San Francisco neighborhoods. The Board figures that as long as they talk Climate Emergency and Green New Deal they don’t actually have to change housing policies to match their words."

The SF Chronicle Editorial Board wrote: "In the long fight to keep California’s wealthy, homogeneous, exclusive suburbs just the way they are, Palo Alto and Beverly Hills have an ally they might not have expected: San Francisco."

State Senator Scott Wiener clapped back at the anti-SB50 resolution with a four-page letter outlining the resolution's significant inaccuracies.

Supervisor Vallie Brown created a duplicate copy of the resolution and sent it back to the Government Audit and Oversight Committee, arguing that the Board of Supervisors should specify out what amendments they believe need to be corrected in SB 50. Brown's suggestions include SB 50 amendments that would further enhance tenant protections & increase inclusionary zoning requirements.


Continuing the trend of housing votes, the Board of Supervisors also rejected 63 units of housing (including 15 affordable housing units) in at 1052-1060 Folsom St. and 190-194 Russ StSoMa because it would have cast a shadow on 19% of a nearby park for 100 minutes or less every evening

The San Francisco Chronicle quoted Supervisor Matt Haney as saying: "We absolutely need more housing and affordable housing," right before he voted against the housing development.

BeyondChron called it a "moment of truth on housing": 

"Opponents want the project killed because it will shadow Victoria Manalo Draves Park from February 23 to October 17 from 5:15 pm to 6 pm and from June 21 from 6 pm to 7:30. The primary shadow impact is on the basketball court. Although legendary New York City playground leagues play hoops at night under the lights, it’s argued that increased shade on a San Francisco court should prevent 10 low-income households and 15 non-rich households from living in San Francisco. Killing the project eliminates 59 additional housing units overall.

75% of the park, including the majority of the children’s area, the community garden, and picnic areas would not be impacted by the Project. The Recreation and Park Commission found that the shadow’s impact on the park was insignificant."


In a terrific example of micro-managing City departments, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an ordinance mandating the exact size of the "Harvey Milk Terminal" signage at the San Francisco International Airport. 

In her legislation, Supervisor Ronen expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed Terminal 1 sign designs from the SFO staff because the words "Harvey Milk Terminal" were smaller than the words "Terminal 1." SFO staff defended their designs, saying that the words Terminal 1 needed to be larger so airport users could find their way.

The new legislation demands that the terminal sign have the words "Harvey Milk Terminal" at least four feet high, and the words "Terminal 1" below it, approximately two feet tall.

Another major City issue solved at the Board of Supervisors.

Sign up for the Bay City Beacon weekly newsletter! It's a free way of getting the best of political gossip and cutting-edge culture in your inbox every Friday.

comments powered by Disqus