- Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

[Sustain] Question On Transit Impact Fees (Small Residential)
by Eric Brooks 06 Mar '11

06 Mar '11

Hi all, I was just watching the replay of the March 1 MTA hearing and noticed that on the proposed Transit Impact Fee, the Residential Builders Association turned out a huge number of speakers to oppose because the fee was on both commercial -and- residential property. They were really worked up and -strongly- opposed. I thought the idea for the Transit Impact Fee was to tax large Downtown commercial property, not small residential. Are there good reasons for us to put this forward in a way that is going to freak out the small builders? It seems like we may be unnecessarily inviting opposition. thanks Eric B

1 0

Re: [Sustain] [Transpo] participating in Transpo Plank update?
by Eric Brooks 28 Feb '11

28 Feb '11

I'd like to see us expand this to a full one or even two day weekend retreat to really flesh it out in a big way... On 2/27/2011 5:44 PM, John-Marc Chandonia wrote: > Hi, > > Who's interested in participating in the Transportation Plank > update? At our monthly meeting last week, Greens decided that there > are too many potential revisions to the plank to discuss, unless > they're first vetted by the working group. > > Although the Tranportation Working Group has been inactive for > some time, we're going to hold a special meeting for 2-3 hours in > order to hash out these proposals and come to consensus on what > changes to present at a future monthly meeting. > > If you're interested in participating in such a meeting, email me > (no need to copy the whole list) and say when you would prefer to meet > (give me days in the next month, either specific dates or general > guidance such as "avoid Fridays") and where (I'm thinking of a cafe > such as Tazo, but libraries would work also). Also, please be sure > you have time to read the current plank in advance of the meeting: > http://sfgreens.org/transpo14.txt > > JMC > > > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

[Sustain] Got To Promote The Party On 'Go Vegan Radio With Bob Linden' Again
by Eric Brooks 11 Feb '11

11 Feb '11

Hi all, Bob Linden interviewed me again on his radio show 'Go Vegan' and let me kick a little more Obama and Democrat butt, talk renewables transit, localization and anti-war, and also promote the Green Party. (Interestingly we had discovered that the Green Party U.S. has an awesome animal rights platform. To read it go to http://gp.org/platform/2004/ecology.html and page down to section J. 'Ethical Treatment of Animals') To listen to the show: - go to http://www.goveganradio.com/veg/1003/Listen_to_Past_Shows.htm - then page down slightly to the links for the '30 January 2011' - then click one of the audio format links - then fast forward the audio to the 32 min 45 sec mark You can also go directly to the high bandwidth program audio at: http://www.goveganradio.com:8484/shows/128kbps/go-vegan-with-bob-linden-201…

1 0

Re: [Sustain] [SFGP CC] Call For SFGP Support Of SF Urban Ag Legislation
by Bruce Wolfe 11 Feb '11

11 Feb '11

I know a lot about this and request we move slow on this considering the HANC Recycling Center. Alos, I know the lead person on this effort in the city, Kevin Bayuk, my next door neighbor. Bruce Sent from Samsung mobile Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com> wrote: >Hi all, > >See the email below from Casey Allen who would like the SF Green Party >to endorse new legislation supporting local urban agriculture in the >City. Casey also would like our support for three proposed amendments to >make the measure even stronger. > >Please read below and voice any concerns/support. The measure goes >before the Planning Commission on Thursday Feb 17th, so we need to >approve this before then. > >CC members, can you decide after folks comment? > >Also, I may not be able to attend that Planning Commission hearing when >that item comes up around 1:30pm, so if one of you is a strong supporter >of local urban ag, can you commit to speak on behalf of SF Green Party? > >The legislation text can be found at >http://www.sfuaa.org/uploads/4/8/9/3/4893022/_sf_urban_agriculture_zoning_p… > >Here is Casey's email: > >I hope the new year is going well. As you know I own and run a >landscaping company and we grow food for some folk. My company is part >of a national trend, urban agriculture. I and others are really happy >to see that the planning dept has released a proposed change to the >city’s zoning to allow commercial small scale farming. We think this is >great and this will allow us to sell the food we are growing and this is >a big improvement. I am part of a group called the San Francisco Urban >Agriculture Alliance and we have recently come together to promote >commercial agriculture as well as non-commercial agriculture in SF. I >would like to start a conversation with the Green Partyand yourself >about how we may be able to improve on this great proposaland to see if >the Green Partycould support us in asking the city for a better policy. >Here is the link to review thecity’s proposal: > >http://www.sfgsa.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=7437 > >Check out the SFUAA’s website info page: >http://www.sfuaa.org/urban-ag-zoning-proposal.html > >Here is a write up/press release of the group’s concerns:** > >*Urban Agriculture Alliance Applauds Introduction of Proposed Urban >Agriculture Zoning Changes * > >/New regulations would open more land to community gardens and / > >/help city farms be economically viable, but amendments are needed / > > >San Francisco, CA – Yesterday, Mayor Gavin Newsom and the San Francisco >Planning Department introduced an ordinance that would amend the >Planning Code to allow for greater food production within the city. The >proposal would update San Francisco’s zoning regulations to explicitly >permit gardens in all areas of the city and also allow for the sale of >produce from those gardens. While the San Francisco Urban Agriculture >Alliance applauds the Mayor and Planning Department for introducing this >forward-thinking legislation, the group is concerned about a number of >provisions that could make garden projects prohibitively expensive and >limit their potential. > >“The Planning Department’s proposal is a great step forward, but some of >the draft provisions could hinder the expansion of gardening that the >City wants to encourage,” said Eli Zigas, co-coordinator of the San >Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance (SFUAA). “Community gardens and >urban farms operate on slim budgets and expensive fencing requirements >and permitting fees can prevent a garden project from breaking ground. >We encourage the Planning Commission to ensure that community groups and >city farmers across San Francisco can afford to start gardens and urban >agriculture projects in their neighborhoods.” > >Advocates are specifically calling on the Planning Commission to amend >the proposed ordinance to reduce its costs. The proposal requires that >any fencing around a garden site must be either wooden or ornamental >fencing. The addition of significant start-up costs to meet this >requirement could deter a project from turning a vacant lot into a >vibrant new greenspace or a project that would provide a source of >fresh, nutritious food in a neighborhood lacking access to good produce >options. Similarly, the Planning Department’s existing “change of use” >fee structure would require urban agriculture projects to pay more than >$300 before they could begin any work. The SFUAA encourages the Planning >Commission to remove any mention of a fencing requirement and waive the >change of use fees for urban agriculture. > >With this legislation, San Francisco will be the first major American >city to modify its zoning to encourage the sale of produce from urban >gardens and farms. Similar legislation to allow for on-site sales of >city-grown produce became law this year in both Seattle and Kansas City >and a proposal is currently being considered in Berkeley. > >For city farmers starting small businesses, being able to sell what you >grow is critical. Little City Gardens, which cultivates a three-quarter >acre garden in the Mission Terrace neighborhood, cannot sell any of the >greens or herbs it grows because of restrictions in the current zoning >code. “This proposal is crucial for the success of commercial urban >farming in San Francisco,” said Little City Garden’s co-owner Caitlyn >Galloway. “We want to demonstrate the viability of market gardening here >in San Francisco, but we can’t do that until we’re allowed to sell what >we grow. And we can’t sell from our farm until this proposal passes.” > >For San Francisco to truly position itself at the leading edge of urban >agriculture, the SFUAA urges the Planning Commission to amend the >proposal to allow gardens and farms to pool together their harvest and >also allow them to sell value-added products made from their produce. > >“As it’s written now, the proposal would allow an urban farmer to sell >their strawberries on the farm, but not their strawberry jam,” Zigas >explained. “Expanding the proposal to allow for on-site sales of >value-added products as well as produce from multiple sites would help >small urban farms make the most of their harvest and make San >Francisco’s policy an innovative model for the rest of the country.” > >The positive impact of the proposal would stretch beyond creating new >greenspace and supporting new urban farming businesses. “This zoning >legislation is crucial for the health of San Francisco. Urban farming >and community gardens not only provide residents with access to healthy >non-toxic produce, but they help engage people in personal nutrition and >can improve the health of the entire community. It’s easy for people to >become removed from our food sources and those who produce our food," >said Dana Perls, community organizer with Pesticide Watch. "This >proposal offers San Franciscans more spaces to produce their own food. >With the SFUAA’s proposed amendments, the new zoning code will be an >investment in healthy communities.” > >### > >/The San Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance (SFUAA) seeks to increase >the amount of food grown within San Francisco and promote greater access >to and consumption of that food through advocacy, education, and >grassroots action. We pursue our mission by leveraging the strengths of >our members, building bonds with other organizations and government >agencies, and promoting healthy food cultures. / > >/More information on the San Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance can be >found at: www.sfuaa.org <http://www.sfuaa.org> / > >Let me know if there is a good time we can talk. I would like to set up >a meeting, if possible.I don’t think anyone from our group has >approached the Green Party yet. > >Thanks, > >*Casey Allen*, Permaculture Designer, Maintenance Manager > >Qualified Bay-Friendly Design Professional, SF Naturalist > >*San Francisco Landscapes Corporation* CA Lic # 932022 > >P.O. Box 170182 SF, CA 94117 > >Cell: 415-572-1144 > >Office: 415-585-9137 > >E-mail: Casey(a)SFLandscapes.com > >Web: SFLandscapes.com > > >_______________________________________________ >San Francisco Green Party CC mailing list >CC(a)sfgreens.org To unsubscribe or change options, go here: >https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cc

3 2

[Sustain] Call For SFGP Support Of SF Urban Ag Legislation
by Eric Brooks 09 Feb '11

09 Feb '11

Hi all, See the email below from Casey Allen who would like the SF Green Party to endorse new legislation supporting local urban agriculture in the City. Casey also would like our support for three proposed amendments to make the measure even stronger. Please read below and voice any concerns/support. The measure goes before the Planning Commission on Thursday Feb 17th, so we need to approve this before then. CC members, can you decide after folks comment? Also, I may not be able to attend that Planning Commission hearing when that item comes up around 1:30pm, so if one of you is a strong supporter of local urban ag, can you commit to speak on behalf of SF Green Party? The legislation text can be found at http://www.sfuaa.org/uploads/4/8/9/3/4893022/_sf_urban_agriculture_zoning_p… Here is Casey's email: I hope the new year is going well. As you know I own and run a landscaping company and we grow food for some folk. My company is part of a national trend, urban agriculture. I and others are really happy to see that the planning dept has released a proposed change to the city’s zoning to allow commercial small scale farming. We think this is great and this will allow us to sell the food we are growing and this is a big improvement. I am part of a group called the San Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance and we have recently come together to promote commercial agriculture as well as non-commercial agriculture in SF. I would like to start a conversation with the Green Partyand yourself about how we may be able to improve on this great proposaland to see if the Green Partycould support us in asking the city for a better policy. Here is the link to review thecity’s proposal: http://www.sfgsa.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=7437 Check out the SFUAA’s website info page: http://www.sfuaa.org/urban-ag-zoning-proposal.html Here is a write up/press release of the group’s concerns:** *Urban Agriculture Alliance Applauds Introduction of Proposed Urban Agriculture Zoning Changes * /New regulations would open more land to community gardens and / /help city farms be economically viable, but amendments are needed / San Francisco, CA – Yesterday, Mayor Gavin Newsom and the San Francisco Planning Department introduced an ordinance that would amend the Planning Code to allow for greater food production within the city. The proposal would update San Francisco’s zoning regulations to explicitly permit gardens in all areas of the city and also allow for the sale of produce from those gardens. While the San Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance applauds the Mayor and Planning Department for introducing this forward-thinking legislation, the group is concerned about a number of provisions that could make garden projects prohibitively expensive and limit their potential. “The Planning Department’s proposal is a great step forward, but some of the draft provisions could hinder the expansion of gardening that the City wants to encourage,” said Eli Zigas, co-coordinator of the San Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance (SFUAA). “Community gardens and urban farms operate on slim budgets and expensive fencing requirements and permitting fees can prevent a garden project from breaking ground. We encourage the Planning Commission to ensure that community groups and city farmers across San Francisco can afford to start gardens and urban agriculture projects in their neighborhoods.” Advocates are specifically calling on the Planning Commission to amend the proposed ordinance to reduce its costs. The proposal requires that any fencing around a garden site must be either wooden or ornamental fencing. The addition of significant start-up costs to meet this requirement could deter a project from turning a vacant lot into a vibrant new greenspace or a project that would provide a source of fresh, nutritious food in a neighborhood lacking access to good produce options. Similarly, the Planning Department’s existing “change of use” fee structure would require urban agriculture projects to pay more than $300 before they could begin any work. The SFUAA encourages the Planning Commission to remove any mention of a fencing requirement and waive the change of use fees for urban agriculture. With this legislation, San Francisco will be the first major American city to modify its zoning to encourage the sale of produce from urban gardens and farms. Similar legislation to allow for on-site sales of city-grown produce became law this year in both Seattle and Kansas City and a proposal is currently being considered in Berkeley. For city farmers starting small businesses, being able to sell what you grow is critical. Little City Gardens, which cultivates a three-quarter acre garden in the Mission Terrace neighborhood, cannot sell any of the greens or herbs it grows because of restrictions in the current zoning code. “This proposal is crucial for the success of commercial urban farming in San Francisco,” said Little City Garden’s co-owner Caitlyn Galloway. “We want to demonstrate the viability of market gardening here in San Francisco, but we can’t do that until we’re allowed to sell what we grow. And we can’t sell from our farm until this proposal passes.” For San Francisco to truly position itself at the leading edge of urban agriculture, the SFUAA urges the Planning Commission to amend the proposal to allow gardens and farms to pool together their harvest and also allow them to sell value-added products made from their produce. “As it’s written now, the proposal would allow an urban farmer to sell their strawberries on the farm, but not their strawberry jam,” Zigas explained. “Expanding the proposal to allow for on-site sales of value-added products as well as produce from multiple sites would help small urban farms make the most of their harvest and make San Francisco’s policy an innovative model for the rest of the country.” The positive impact of the proposal would stretch beyond creating new greenspace and supporting new urban farming businesses. “This zoning legislation is crucial for the health of San Francisco. Urban farming and community gardens not only provide residents with access to healthy non-toxic produce, but they help engage people in personal nutrition and can improve the health of the entire community. It’s easy for people to become removed from our food sources and those who produce our food," said Dana Perls, community organizer with Pesticide Watch. "This proposal offers San Franciscans more spaces to produce their own food. With the SFUAA’s proposed amendments, the new zoning code will be an investment in healthy communities.” ### /The San Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance (SFUAA) seeks to increase the amount of food grown within San Francisco and promote greater access to and consumption of that food through advocacy, education, and grassroots action. We pursue our mission by leveraging the strengths of our members, building bonds with other organizations and government agencies, and promoting healthy food cultures. / /More information on the San Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance can be found at: www.sfuaa.org <http://www.sfuaa.org> / Let me know if there is a good time we can talk. I would like to set up a meeting, if possible.I don’t think anyone from our group has approached the Green Party yet. Thanks, *Casey Allen*, Permaculture Designer, Maintenance Manager Qualified Bay-Friendly Design Professional, SF Naturalist *San Francisco Landscapes Corporation* CA Lic # 932022 P.O. Box 170182 SF, CA 94117 Cell: 415-572-1144 Office: 415-585-9137 E-mail: Casey(a)SFLandscapes.com Web: SFLandscapes.com

1 0

[Sustain] SF Transit Survey For Transportation Plan
by Eric Brooks 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

San Francisco is in the process of updating the San Francisco Transportation Plan (SFTP), which will identify goals, needs and investment priorities for the city's transportation system for the next 25 years. The SF Transportation Authority has created an online survey to get input for the project: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/sftp The web site for the Transportation Plan is http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/822/416

2 1

[Sustain] New Report Targets Unreasonable Ag Water Use in California
by Eric Brooks 16 Jan '11

16 Jan '11

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/14/18669206.php *New Report Targets Unreasonable Water Use in California* by Dan Bacher /Friday Jan 14th, 2011 6:04 PM / The Reasonable Use Doctrine is the cornerstone of California's complex water rights laws. New Report Targets Unreasonable Water Use in California by Dan Bacher Craig Wilson, the Delta Watermaster, will present a highly-anticipated report to the State Water Resources Control Board on January 19 suggesting that a "particularly contentious area" of California's water law be applied more broadly, according to the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) Insider. In his report, Wilson recommends that the State Board employ the California Constitution's "Reasonable and Beneficial Use Doctrine" to promote agricultural water use efficiency. The doctrine states a water right does not include the right to waste water and mandates that "the water resources of the state be put to beneficial use.'" In California, a small percentage of increased agricultural water use efficiency adds up to significant water savings, according to Wilson. Specifically, the report recommends the State Board convene a Reasonable Use Summit to develop specific actions to improve efficiency, and the creation of a "Reasonable Use Unit" within the Division of Water Rights. "The Reasonable and Beneficial Use Doctrine (Reasonable Use Doctrine) is the cornerstone of California's complex water rights laws," says Wilson. "All water use must be reasonable and beneficial regardless of the type of underlying water right. No one has an enforceable property interest in the unreasonable use of water." "Maximizing the efficient use of water by projects that reduce consumptive water use is particularly important for the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta," Wilson stated. "More efficient use of water upstream of the Delta can increase water flows into the Delta. More efficient water use within the Delta can increase Delta outflows. Reducing the amount of agricultural return Delta flow, both upstream of and in the Delta, has important water quality benefits." For many years, environmentalists, fishermen and Indian Tribes have pointed to the irrigation of drainage impaired land, laced with selenium and other toxic salts and heavy metals, by Westlands Water District and other water contractors on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley as a prime example of "unreasonable use" of water. Imperiled Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish are confronted with a double whammy because of these unsustainable agribusiness practices. First, water is exported from the estuary, resulting in less water for fish and the killing of millions of fish in the state and federal Delta pumps. Second, selenium and other salts and minerals go back into the San Joaquin River drainage after the land is irrigated, resulting in declining water quality on the Delta. Wilson will present his report, entitled "The Reasonable Use Doctrine and Agricultural Water Use Efficiency," at the next State Board Meeting Session on Wednesday, January 19. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. in the Coastal Hearing Room, Second Floor, Joe Serna Jr./Cal/EPA Building, 1001 I Street, Sacramento. For more information, go to: http://waterboards.ca.gov/board_info/agendas/2011/jan/011911_12.pdf

1 0

[Sustain] Mar and Kim Help Make Traitor David Chiu Board President
by Eric Brooks 08 Jan '11

08 Jan '11

Eric Mar and Jane Kim just supported the traitor for Board president and David Chiu therefore has won Board president 8-3 with only Campos, Mirkarimi and Avalos voting against.

1 0

[Sustain] How Newsom, Willie Brown, Rose Pak, Orchestrated Ed Lee Maneuver - Chilling & Outrageous!
by Eric Brooks 08 Jan '11

08 Jan '11

Eric Mar and Jane Kim just supported the traitor for Board president and David Chiu therefore has won Board president 8-3 with only Campos, Mirkarimi and Avalos voting against.

1 0

[Sustain] How Newsom, Willie Brown, Rose Pak, Orchestrated Ed Lee Maneuver - Chilling & Outrageous!
by Eric Brooks 07 Jan '11

07 Jan '11

Everyone with any pull on David Chiu needs to read the article below and then contact Chiu to tell him we will bring down his political career if he continues to take part in this bullshit. In yesterday's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/us/07bcmayor.html New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com> Behind-the-Scenes Power Politics: The Making of a Mayor From left, Justin Sullivan/Getty Images; Heidi Schumann For The New York Times; Adithya Sambamurthy/The Bay Citizen Beyond City Hall, from left, Mayor Gavin Newsom, former Mayor Willie L. Brown Jr. and Rose Pak played crucial roles in the selection of an interim mayor. By GERRY SHIH Published: January 6, 2011 On Sunday afternoon, former Mayor Willie L. Brown Jr. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/willie_l_jr_br…> made an urgent call to Rose Pak, his longtime political ally and the powerful head of the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce. Word had trickled out that San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors had narrowed the list of interim candidates to replace Mayor Gavin Newsom <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/n/gavin_newsom/i…>, the lieutenant governor-elect. But the contenders — Sheriff Michael Hennessey, former Mayor Art Agnos and Aaron Peskin, the chairman of the city’s Democratic Party <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democra…> — were deemed too liberal by Ms. Pak, Mr. Brown and Mr. Newsom, who are more moderate. With momentum fizzling around Ms. Pak’s favored candidate, David Chiu, the board president, Ms. Pak and Mr. Brown decided to pool their efforts on behalf of another Asian-American official: Edwin M. Lee. Over the next 48 hours, Ms. Pak, Mr. Brown and the Newsom administration engaged in an extraordinary political power play, forging a consensus on the Board of Supervisors, outflanking the board’s progressive wing and persuading Mr. Lee to agree to become San Francisco’s first Asian-American mayor, even though he had told officials for months that he had no interest in the job. “This was something incredibly orchestrated, and we got played,” Supervisor John Avalos, a progressive, said in an interview. “I’m still trying to figure out what happened. I don’t know what the game was about, except that it was to muscle someone into office.” Barring another last-minute development, the board is expected to ratify Mr. Lee’s appointment Friday in its final session. The incoming board, to be sworn in on Saturday, is expected to vote to install Mr. Lee next week — the last step needed for him to become interim mayor, until the election in November. The behind-the-scenes drama was a stark reminder of the enduring power of Ms. Pak and Mr. Brown and their ability to influence city politics at the highest levels, even seven years after Mr. Brown left office. In separate interviews, Ms. Pak and Mr. Brown described Mr. Lee as a committed liberal Democrat, and they emphasized the importance of the symbolism of an Asian-American mayor. “This was finally our moment to make the first Chinese mayor of a major city,” Ms. Pak said. “How could you let that slip by?” Mr. Brown said progressives should be “ashamed” of “subtle biases” in their opposition to Mr. Lee, a former civil rights lawyer who in 1978 led city tenants in the first rent strike against the State Housing Authority. “To present an opportunity to a person of color, well-credentialed and well-qualified, ought to be one of the tenets of the progressive movement,” Mr. Brown said. “That’s genuine progressivism.” Progressive supervisors said that they did not question Mr. Lee’s credentials or his politics. A career bureaucrat, Mr. Lee — who was appointed to his current post as city administrator by Mr. Newsom in 2005 — has a reputation among insiders as one of most competent public officials at City Hall. Rather, the progressives bristled at how his candidacy was engineered by Mr. Brown and Ms. Pak, whose bare-knuckled style of politics they have come to resent bitterly. “I like Ed Lee, and I’ve always been open to him,” Supervisor David Campos said. “If they had given us an opportunity to have the conversation with Ed Lee and consider it, maybe we wouldn’t have had those issues.” The last-minute push to install Mr. Lee involved political maneuvering, as well as misdirection and some luck, according to people involved in the effort. For months, a number of supervisors had asked Mr. Lee if he was interested in being interim mayor, but he had always said no. The critical stumbling block for Mr. Lee, several people said, was his concern about a rule in the city charter that prohibited elected officials from taking appointed positions within a year of leaving office. Mr. Lee, who is putting two daughters through college, was confirmed to a new term as chief administrator in December. He told officials he did not want to risk forfeiting the remainder of his five-year contract as city administrator, worth $1.25 million. As his anxieties became clear, Mr. Newsom’s staffers asked the office of Dennis Herrera, the city attorney, to begin quietly drafting a charter amendment to allow Mr. Lee to return to the administrator’s post after he served as mayor, according to several City Hall officials. The amendment still needs board approval. On Monday morning, Mr. Chiu, the board president, joined Supervisor Sean Elsbernd and others in pushing Mr. Lee as a candidate among the board members. But Mr. Lee remained deeply ambivalent about the nomination as late as Monday evening. “I am tremendously reluctant,” Mr. Lee wrote in an e-mail to Ms. Pak as he prepared to leave Hong Kong for the hot springs of Yangmingshan National Park in Taiwan. “But Newsom would like to take care of as many concerns that I have, including the exemption from work prohibition after serving,” the e-mail continued. Mr. Lee asked Ms. Pak for guidance, writing: “As you know, I love serving my city. Would this be the best way?” Ms. Pak was fortunate to connect with Mr. Lee shortly before he boarded his flight to Taiwan — and an area with spotty cellphone service — and urged him to consider becoming the first Chinese mayor of San Francisco. It was only then, less than 24 hours before the board vote, that the Lee camp persuaded its candidate to accept a nomination. On Tuesday, just hours before the board was to consider nominations and vote for an interim mayor, Mr. Newsom and his allies knew they needed a single vote more to push through Mr. Lee. Mr. Newsom turned to Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who had initially favored Mr. Lee but had signaled to progressive stalwarts like Chris Daly, Mr. Campos and Mr. Avalos that he would back Mr. Hennessey. The mayor summoned Mr. Dufty and another supervisor, Michela Alioto-Pier, a supporter of Mr. Lee, to his office shortly before the board meeting. According to Mr. Dufty, Mr. Newsom urged him to support the “consensus candidate.” When Mr. Dufty went to the board chamber that evening for what turned into an eight-hour session, he told Mr. Campos that he “felt good about Hennessey,” Mr. Dufty said. That led progressives to nominate their favored candidate, Mr. Hennessey, in an effort to lock up his appointment. But their plan was thrown into chaos when Mr. Dufty refused to vote for Mr. Hennessey, leaving the sheriff one vote shy of the six he needed to secure the nomination. Mr. Dufty then called for a recess and met with Supervisor Sophie Maxwell and Steve Kawa, Mr. Newsom’s chief of staff, in Mr. Kawa’s office, with Mr. Newsom on speakerphone. In an interview, Mr. Dufty said he wanted to confirm Mr. Lee’s positions on immigration <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_…> before voting for him. He denied that he brokered a deal with Mr. Newsom. “I could just see the waters shifting around Mr. Hennessey,” Mr. Dufty said. Shortly before 10 p.m., Mr. Dufty emerged from Mr. Newsom’s suite to declare that he was ready to vote for Mr. Lee. Mr. Daly was enraged. He had spent months working to install someone he hoped would be the first truly progressive mayor in 30 years, and that dream had been blown apart. He sharply criticized Mr. Dufty and vowed revenge on Mr. Chiu, who he had believed would side with the progressives, and who could have provided the sixth vote for Mr. Hennessey. Mr. Chiu, who was mentioned as a possible candidate for interim district attorney (to fill the position vacated by Kamala Harris, the new state attorney general), announced Thursday that he was taking himself out of the running. Mr. Chiu is expected to run for mayor in the fall. “I will haunt you,” Mr. Daly told Mr. Chiu on Tuesday night. “After this vote, I will politically haunt you. It’s on, like Donkey Kong.” Twice, he muttered “30 years,” then slammed his fist against a banister and stormed out of the chamber. Across town, Ms. Pak gleefully watched the proceedings from a bar at the New Asia Restaurant. She was in a boastful mood the next day, several hours before she planned to have celebratory drinks with Mr. Brown at the Chinatown Hilton. “Now you know,” she told a reporter, “why they say I play politics like a blood sport.”

1 0