Don’t gut coastal protections for housing
Regarding “California coastal protections versus housing: The battle is on” (Bay Area, SFChronicle.com, Jan. 25): All those who treasure California’s coast and beaches should be alarmed by a recently introduced bill in Sacramento — SB951.
The bill, if passed, seeks to remove the California Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction from the neighborhood fronting San Francisco’s Ocean Beach.
Other coastal cities and towns could follow next.
SB951 was introduced by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and it has the support of Mayor London Breed.
The goal is to remove barriers to new housing along the lower Great Highway and nearby streets.
The bill is well-intentioned. However, there are many good reasons for the coastal commission to have jurisdiction over shoreline neighborhoods such as Ocean Beach.
One is the protection of public access. In urban shorelines such as in San Francisco, this includes preserving visitor parking.
The commission also mandates that new buildings fit the existing character of the local neighborhood, preserving the visual experience for those who stroll or cycle the shoreline.
Ocean Beach is a beautiful coastal area.
Addressing San Francisco’s housing crisis is a worthwhile goal, however, it should not require undermining critical state protections for our beach. Bill McLaughlin, San Francisco
Rethink Valencia Street
Regarding “Future uncertain for Valencia Street bike lane, SFMTA says” (San Francisco, SFChronicle.com, Feb. 1): There are too many programmatic requirements to fit the given space, much less for a universally acceptable design for Valencia Street.
District-wide streetscape planning offers the best chance for a holistic solution.
Otherwise, whack-a-mole projects will solve one problem and trigger displeasure elsewhere.
Intrinsically, Valencia Street’s charm has been its mixology of urban chaos — new trendy retail, kitschy shops, oldtime restaurants, businesses and buildings.
Laissez-faire double-parking enabled quicker transactions.
Truck and car parking in the middle of the street was pragmatic and good for business.
Street activation was a function of just getting people there easily by any travel mode.
Less onerous upgrades can be explored for the Valencia corridor.
Sidewalks could become shared public spaces for seating and dining — negating the need for costly parklets.
The vehicle speed limit could be lowered to a reliable/safe crawl.
A free bus loop could connect transit hubs, garages, parking lots, merchants and key nodes.
Embracing Valencia Street’s free spirit can amplify the essence of its neighborhood raison d’être. Howard Wong, San Francisco
Cut red tape
Regarding “He got S.F.’s code changed, but permit nightmare over two sheds was ‘final straw’ for ex-resident” (San Francisco, SFChronicle.com, Feb. 4): It has always amazed me that when a citizen approaches a building department for a permit to change or modify their property, often the response is, “You can’t do that. Period!”
It would be refreshing if city departments took the approach of assisting and suggesting how citizens might comply with codes while meeting their needs rather than being a roadblock.
If this were the case, folks would gladly pull permits for work rather than doing it under the radar.
Just a simple thought. Dan Smith, Alameda
Cheap passage
Regarding “Why it could soon cost more than $11 to drive across the Golden Gate Bridge” (Bay Area, SFChronicle. com, Feb. 1): What a bargain! When the Golden Gate Bridge opened in 1937, the round-trip toll was $1, which is the equivalent of more than $21 in today’s money. Randy Alfred, San Francisco