Connect with us

San Francisco, CA

Casting shade on shadows: S.F. supervisor seeks to bar using shadows to block new housing

Published

on

Casting shade on shadows: S.F. supervisor seeks to bar using shadows to block new housing


Shadows cast by tall and not-so-tall buildings alike have long been used to block housing in San Francisco, and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood wants it to end.

The District 5 legislator is announcing a law on Thursday that would eliminate the ability for people to say shadows cast by a building are an “environmental concern” that can be used to delay, and possibly block, new housing. 

“In San Francisco, we’ve literally paid the price of being too afraid of our own shadow,” Mahmood said, pointing to data showing that shadow-based concerns were used to delay or block 2,195 housing units in 11 projects since 2017.

Whenever a new housing project is proposed in the city, its developer must create an environmental impact report on a variety of factors, like toxic waste and seismic hazards. 

Advertisement

San Francisco requires that report to include a shadow analysis noting whether the new building will cast shade on any open space in the city. Mahmood’s legislation would get rid of that requirement; it is not in state guidelines, and most California cities do not consider shadows an environmental factor. 

The environmental impact report is intended to help politicians make an informed decision about whether to approve or deny a development proposal. But any resident can file an appeal if they think environmental impacts were not fully considered, which can delay, block, or alter projects. 

Shadows ultimately led to a delay for the infamous 469 Stevenson St. project from 2021, a 495 unit building on the site of a Nordstrom parking lot in SoMa.

Some SoMa residents were concerned that the project, which contained about 100 affordable housing units, would gentrify the area. 

But gentrification alone is not a legal reason for supervisors to block a project. So residents filed an appeal alleging the project’s environmental impacts were improperly evaluated. The Board of Supervisors ended up siding with them in an 8-3 vote, citing shadows cast on nearby Mint Plaza in their decision. 

Advertisement

The developer was forced back to the drawing board and had to redo his environmental report, delaying the project by several years. 

Even when projects are 100 percent affordable, shadows cast uncertainty: Residents near 16th and Mission’s “La Maravilla” housing project, a 380-unit project next door to Marshall Elementary that broke ground last month, raised concerns that the development would darken the school’s playground. That forced the nonprofit developers to hold meetings and negotiate with residents about the issue.

Mahmood said even if appeals are ultimately rejected, the length and cost of the appeals process makes it difficult to produce housing projects and leads developers to avoid building in San Francisco. 

“The housing problems we’re facing are death by a thousand cuts,” said Witt Turner of the Housing Action Coalition, a proponent of the bill. “We need to start sewing them up one by one.”

San Francisco is required by the state to plan for 36,000 more housing units by 2030, and the city’s best guess is that even under the most favorable scenarios developers will build less than half of that, and in four times as much time.

Advertisement

Mahmood, a YIMBY, has made streamlining housing a focus of his 15 months in office. His new legislation eliminates certain intermediate appeals and hearings and shortens appeal timelines, mostly from 30 days to 15 days. 

The bill will be evaluated by the planning commission and the Board of Supervisors in early summer. 

The bill is no silver bullet, however. Environmental appeals often cite more than just shadows when seeking to change projects. In the case of the Nordstrom parking lot building, for example, a failure to properly consider the seismic impact of a building was also a component of the decision. 

YIMBYs have long pursued reform to CEQA, a California law outlining the environmental appeals process.

“We shouldn’t let outdated laws get in the way of building housing, which is actually important to making progress on our climate goals,” Mahmood said.

Advertisement





Source link

San Francisco, CA

Where to watch Athletics vs San Francisco Giants: TV channel, start time, streaming for June 23

Published

on

Where to watch Athletics vs San Francisco Giants: TV channel, start time, streaming for June 23


play

The 2026 MLB season has surpassed the quarter mark, and after each team’s first 40 games, there’s plenty of reasons to tune in all summer long.

Chicago White Sox slugger Munetaka Murakami has already proven doubters wrong by launching 17 home runs, Pittsburgh’s Paul Skenes consistently looks like the best version of himself on the mound and Milwaukee ace Jacob Misiorowski is throwing harder than any starter in the majors.

Advertisement

The MLB action continues on Tuesday as the Athletics visit the San Francisco Giants.

Here’s everything you need to know to tune in for the first pitch.

See USA TODAY’s sortable MLB schedule to filter by team or division.

What time is Athletics vs San Francisco Giants?

First pitch between the San Francisco Giants and Athletics is scheduled for 9:45 p.m. (ET) on Tuesday, June 23.

How to watch Athletics vs San Francisco Giants on Tuesday

All times Eastern and accurate as of Tuesday, June 23, 2026, at 6:33 a.m.

Advertisement

Watch MLB all season long with Fubo

MLB regional blackout restrictions apply

MLB scores, results

MLB scores for June 23 games are available on usatoday.com . Here’s how to access today’s results:

See scores, results for all of today’s games.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco home with a history of squatters hits the market for $1.3 million

Published

on

San Francisco home with a history of squatters hits the market for .3 million


An abandoned house near San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood that has been popular with squatters for years is now for sale.

On Yukon Street at the edge of Kite Hill in the Eureka Valley neighborhood, the house with arched windows over the garage, including one that’s broken, is listed for $1.3 million.

Listing agent Zara Rowbotham and her brother, James, put together a promotional video highlighting the home’s fixer-upper potential.

There is no running water or power at the house. Neighbors have reported to the city that squatters relieve themselves at the top floor atrium.

Advertisement

“They needed a place to do it, so they had the nice manners to do it in one basket,” Rowbotham said. “Unfortunately it was an outside basket right in front of one of the neighbors’ houses.”

With the nature of San Francisco’s red-hot housing market, Rowbothom said they already have a potential buyer.

Rowbothom added the city is swirling with money right now and there are few places to buy, so properties like the one on Yukon Street – even with a history of squatters – are being snapped up quickly. Rowbothom said they’re going for millions of dollars, with people paying cash a lot of the time.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

The U.S. Government Secretly Tested Biological Weapons. The Citizens of San Francisco Paid the Price.

Published

on

The U.S. Government Secretly Tested Biological Weapons. The Citizens of San Francisco Paid the Price.


Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story:

  • During the early decades of the Cold War, the U.S. government conducted 239 open-air germ warfare tests around the country to assess to dangers of a possible chemical attack on civilian populations.
  • One of the most infamous, known as Operation Sea-Spray, purposefully pumped aerosols of the bacteria Serratia marcescens and Bacillus globigii—both believed to be harmless to humans—over the San Francisco Bay Area.
  • While the operation itself was a success, it’s likely that the test resulted in the death of one man and the sickening of at least 10 others.

San Francisco is known for its fog. Sitting at the intersection of warm air flowing from California’s interior and cool air moving in from the Pacific, low-lying fog and clouds are a common sight. But in 1950, from September 20 until September 27, a different kind of cloud descended on the city of some 800,000 people—a cloud that had been purposefully released by the U.S. government as a secret bioweapons test.

No, this wasn’t some dastardly plan by the government to conduct a macabre experiment on its own citizens. Rather, it was a measure intended to safeguard against other rival nations trying to poison an American city. The government selected San Francisco for its ideal dispersal conditions, tall buildings, and large population, and to pull this off safely, the government relied on the bacteria Serratia marcescens and Bacillus globigii—both believed to be harmless to humans.

“They needed something that was, first of all, thought to be harmless,” Matthew Meselson, a molecular biologist from Harvard, told KQED last year, “because they certainly didn’t want to kill everybody in San Francisco or Oakland. And [they also needed something] that could easily be detected by simple methods.”

Since the Second Battle of Ypres during World War I, when the German army killed thousands of French Algerian colonial troops by unleashing chlorine gas on April 22, 1915, followed by a second gas attack on Canadian troops two days later, nations had been grappling with the threat of unconventional weapons. With its illusion of geographic imperviousness shattered by the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the United States moved to address its own vulnerabilities. In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the creation of the first U.S. biological weapons program. Part of the mission of this program was to determine just how vulnerable U.S. cities could be to a biological attack.

Advertisement

In 1948, the Committee on Biological Warfare—led by University of Wisconsin bacteriologist Ida Balwin—suggested simulating chemical attacks through air, water, and infrastructure (such as subway systems) with non-harmful organisms to understand the threat under real environmental conditions. So, two years later, the stage was set for Operation Sea-Spray, and the entire operation almost went without a hitch. Almost.

Serratia marcescens is found naturally in water and soils, and it’s known to be harmless to humans. But it isn’t typically sprayed in the air in large quantities, and unfortunately, one of those bacteria-filled clouds descended on Stanford University Hospital on Clay Street in San Francisco. There, eleven patients developed inexplicable Serratia marcescens infections. In the case of a 75-year-old Irish American named Edward Nevin, who was recovering from prostate surgery, the bacteria found its way to his heart, killing him. Doctors at the hospital were so puzzled that they even published a scientific paper regarding the infections in October of the following year.

President Richard Nixon ended U.S. research into bioweapons in 1969, and a treasure trove of information about that research was declassified in the 1970s. It revealed that the U.S. had performed 239 open-air germ warfare tests around the country, including in the subway in New York City, on the Pennsylvania turnpike, and in the national airport in Washington D.C. According to KQED, Edward Nevin III—the grandson of the man who died during the faux attack—read these reports and decided to sue the U.S. government, even though he accurately foresaw that he’d eventually lose.

“But we still had to tell the story,” he told KQED. “To have a citizen submitted to that kind of risk is awful.”

Advertisement

Darren lives in Portland, has a cat, and writes/edits about sci-fi and how our world works. You can find his previous stuff at Gizmodo and Paste if you look hard enough. 



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending