February 24, 2010
Just Cause And Parking Legislation Postponed, And Not Just Because
San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors postponed a first vote on Supervisor Avalos’ amended legislation which would extend "just cause" eviction protections to those in buildings which have been foreclosed upon.
A second and final vote on Supervisor Chiu’s legislation "that would crackdown on the construction of parking garages in residential buildings in three San Francisco neighborhoods: North Beach, Telegraph Hill and Chinatown" was also postponed.
The [parking] vote’s postponement came as Supervisor Bevan Dufty was being called on to change his vote and oppose the legislation to ensure Mayor Gavin Newsom could successfully veto it.
∙ Just-cause eviction vote postponed until next week [San Francisco Examiner]
∙ Just Cause Eviction Rights Extension II: Now Just For Foreclosures [SocketSite]
∙ Vote postponed on parking garage restrictions [San Francisco Examiner]
∙ New Parking Restrictions For District 3 Circles The
Block Board [SocketSite]
First Published: February 24, 2010 7:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
I don't know why they are dragging this out. Why not just vote on what they really want? (total control of SF).
I propose that the Board Of Supervisors dictate how every single square inch of land in SF be used at all times, whether that inch is owned or rented, new or old, privately or publically owned.
it would be so much easier to vote on that proposal and have done with it, instead of all these millions of piecemeal propsals that simply attempt to get us there anyway.
Posted by: ex SF-er at February 24, 2010 8:05 AM
You joke, but its not too far from what people would like to see.
Posted by: Joe at February 24, 2010 8:59 AM
He he...I wrote bevan about the ridiculousness of this. I told him that planning dept already has jurisdiction on propsed garages, that 3.11's are required, and that consequently the neighbors and the general public have a chance to comment. Apparently we are in agreement, as this was his response:
I have received an outpouring of messages regarding Supervisor David Chiu's legislation requiring a conditional use approval by City Planning to add a garage in existing residential buildings in Telegraph Hill, North Beach and Chinatown.
This legislation was heard on Monday, February 8th in the Board's Land Use Committee and then scheduled for the next day at the full Board of Supervisors. When this item came up for first reading, I indicated that I was voting yes but that I had received some calls of concern, As such, I clearly expressed that my position could change.
From my discussions, calls and meetings this legislation seeks to achieve two major goals: one is sound land use decision-making around garage additions in one of the most densely populated areas of our City. As stated in the Legislative Digest "that garages are installed in a manner that does not significantly increase the level of automobile traffic, increase pollution, or impair pedestrian use on narrow rights of way. It is also intended to prevent the ability to add parking from providing an incentive to convert existing residential buildings from rental buildings to tenancies-in-common." The second concern focuses on the use of Ellis Act evictions to enable garage additions.
For me, the biggest concern is the requirement for a conditional use process. I have suggested that I can support a process that requires a 311 residential notification that would allow Planning staff to direct a discretionary review or for neighbors to request discretionary review. I feel this better balances the goal's of the legislation with the fact that most applicants for garages are not bad actors and that conditional use has heretofore been reserved for decisions related to large scale residential and commercial projects, formula retail, large retail, and such.
Supervisor Chiu has delayed consideration of this measure for two weeks to meet with stakeholders and determine the path he is comfortable taking. I will endeavor to keep you posted and welcome your continuing feedback.
Posted by: 45yo hipster at February 24, 2010 9:02 AM
I applaud Bevan for taking this stance on the issue. I actually do not believe that most San Franciscans support this legislation.
Posted by: abc at February 24, 2010 9:15 AM
"it would be so much easier to vote on that proposal and have done with it, instead of all these millions of piecemeal propsals that simply attempt to get us there anyway."
Yeah but then they would only be able to bilk their campaign contributers once rather then use each new piece of piecemeal legislation as a campaign issue and fundraiser bait.
Posted by: Rillion at February 24, 2010 9:31 AM
Just wait until they exercise eminent domain to take your house and use it to provide sanctuary to illegal aliens who have been arrested for committing crimes in our fine town.
Posted by: sacdomc at February 24, 2010 10:12 AM
What a load of hyperbole! They are just trying to do their jobs by making things work for people. The results tend to both fail outright and have unexpected consequences for all the usual reasons. If you think you can do better you should run for office or give those in office lot of specific advice or both. This rhetoric about controlling every square inch for the benefit of illegals only makes your objections appear even weaker than they actually are.
Posted by: Mole Man at February 24, 2010 2:03 PM
Mole Man is a true credit to socketsite. Those supervisors are always trying to do the right thing, especially Daly, who is a credit to his race. Did you see his bold stance reported in the Chronicle this morning? Striving for "social justice" for all jail inmates, the true victims of the capitalist roaders, especially those self-righteous ones who live in Fairfield. Why build a safe building for firemen and policemen if you do not build one for those suffering innocents in jail?
The Mad Hatter has nothing on San Francisco.
Posted by: Conifer at February 24, 2010 5:14 PM