Minor earthquake shakes Bay Area

Joshua Sabatini, The Examiner


SAN FRANCISCO - A 3.4-magnitude earthquake about two miles east of Berkeley briefly shook the Bay Area late Friday afternoon, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

The earthquake, which rumbled at 3:46 p.m., apparently caused no damage in The City but was felt there. Both the San Francisco Fire and Police departments said no emergency calls came in following the quake.

BART followed usual protocol and stopped trains for five minutes to make sure there was no damage, which there wasn’t, and then resumed service.

The quake originated from the active Hayward Fault, which was responsible for a series of other quakes felt in the Bay Area in December.

Stephanie Hanna, spokeswoman for the USGS, said it was a “little quake,” but should remind people of the need to prepare for larger ones. She said experts predict the Hayward Fault will result in a major quake about every 150 years and the last one was in 1876. The fault is often described these days as “locked and loaded,” she said.

Steve Sarver, owner of San Francisco Soup Company, said employees and customers at their location in the Westfield San Francisco Centre never knew a quake occurred. “We didn’t feel it.

There was business as usual,” Sarver said.

Leilani Lynch, who was eating a sandwich at Café Corbis on Hayes Street at the time of the quake, said the shaking was barely detectable. “It was only a couple of seconds. A small rumble and that was it. I wasn’t even sure it was an earthquake,” Lynch said.

Beautiful S.F. has a few notably ugly buildings

Ken Garcia, The Examiner


SAN FRANCISCO - A group of American citizens recently weighed in with their thoughts on the top architectural gems in America, and San Francisco was rightly honored with some of their monumental achievements on the list, notably the Golden Gate Bridge, City Hall and the Fairmont hotel.

Of course, the Hyatt Regency hotel on Market Street also made the cut, showing that taste is a relative thing and that the difference between the Eiffel Tower and a towering eyesore can be the configuration of a few large beams.

But all the best lists in the world can’t compare to the compilations of the worst, and for every Jefferson Monument there is a monument to bad taste. In that regard San Francisco’s landscape is particularly rich, for while Chicago may be the cradle of architecture in the United States, San Francisco is more of a modern footstool, scarred by a generation of poor planning and unsightly structures that fail to stand the test of time and any other test.

I am hardly an arbiter of architectural taste — I have always thought that the Transamerica Pyramid was a distinctive gem, putting me in the group that did the recent survey by the American Institute of Architecture. But that would probably place me near the bottom of the pile among my fellow San Francisco-philes — the late Herb Caen couldn’t resist a regular slam of the building and many people view it as a towering geometric mistake.

I would have voted for the Conservatory of Flowers as one of the finest structures in America, but either the survey participants weren’t shown a picture of it or it somehow didn’t make the cut based on other criteria, such as “no Victorian greenhouses allowed.”

Yet a “worst of’’ list would probably have more of a consensus among the locals, where the primary differences would focus not on which well-known buildings qualified for public condemnation, but in which order. While most people will have a pet peeve on their roster of offending structures, I’ll bet these would be near the top of many lists.

SUTRO TOWER: This metallic pox on San Francisco’s landscape is not only The City’s highest-reaching structure, it’s also the ugliest. How this humongous erector set ever got placed right in the middle of our graceful city of hills should be the topic of a book someday on the worst planning gaffes in American history. Built to hold television and radio transmitters, this unsightly behemoth actually ruined airwave signals prior to the advent of cable. Residents near the tower have been fighting additions to this beast for years, and one can only hope that future generations will one day see the light — not the blinking ones near the top of the tower — and hold the biggest civic demolition party ever when they take it down.

HALL OF JUSTICE: It seems somehow fitting that a concrete slab used to process and hold law-breakers should itself be a crime, and this is one of the most egregious offenders in a lineup of losers. The building at 850 Bryant is so dark and dreary and downright ugly that it makes you wonder how the architectural design managed to slip through the handcuffs of city planners to blight the South of Market area. In terms of its sheer aesthetic appeal, the hall is strictly an emergency response.

FEDERAL BUILDING: Consider this the Hall of Justice’s more-evil twin, another big, unsightly box built by and for bureaucrats without any regard to form or function. Over the years this building has been the focus of nearly every form of protest imaginable — but the biggest protest should have taken place when this building was under consideration by the city fathers. The new federal building has received early praise for its “green’’ aspects, and while the jury is still out on its overall likability, anything would be an improvement on the original.

FOX PLAZA: This civic misfire makes the list for two reasons — for the objectionable structure that it is, as well as for the beautiful one that it replaced. Our more recent arrivals probably don’t know that this development got its name from the old Fox theater, which at one time was one of the most ornate and expensive show palaces built in the United States. Mention this theater to old-timers here and you will likely get a rueful, teary-eyed response. The Fox Plaza’s only saving grace is that it’s just far enough from the Civic Center to not mar the graceful synergy of our beaux arts showcase.

There are many other qualified candidates — and some too obvious (Candlestick Park) to include. But it’s the only list these sad structures should be on, besides the endangered one.

Mayor honors same-sex marriage anniversary

Bonnie Eslinger, The Examiner

SAN FRANCISCO - Although a recently revealed affair with a married woman has been a public setback for Mayor Gavin Newsom’s political career, on Monday he was able to redirect press attention to the widely lauded move he made three years ago this week on behalf of gay civil rights.

At a press conference held in his office, Newsom, along with three same-sex couples, went back in time to remember the firestorm of excitement and controversy that ensued in 2004, after Newsom authorized The City to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Feb. 12.

After an injunction to stop the marriages was granted on March 11, 2004, San Francisco’s city attorney filed a lawsuit against the state, challenging the constitutionality of laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

That case is now before the state’s Supreme Court, which is expected to hear the matter by the beginning of next year.

Although in March 2005 a California trial court ruled that to deny marriage to homosexual couples violated their constitutional right to equal protection, in October of last year, the state’s appellate court upheld a law approved by voters in 2000 that limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

Nationwide, 26 states have legal bans against gay marriage. On Monday, conservative groups in New Jersey launched a petition drive to amend that state’s constitution to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.

Massachusetts is the only U.S. state to allow same-sex marriage; it is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and South Africa.

Two attempts have been made to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, in 2004 and 2006, but both efforts failed to garner the legislative votes to move forward.

Newsom said it was President Bush’s words against gay marriage, in his January 20, 2004, State of the Union address, that inspired him to authorize same-sex marriages in San Francisco.

Kate Kendell, the executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said that when she received a call from Newsom’s office saying he wanted to enlist the group’s help in giving out marriage licenses, that it launched “a transformative and powerful series of events.”

The organization is now representing 11 couples who are plaintiffs in the California marriage case.

The first same-sex couple married in San Francisco on Feb. 12, 2004, was Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, an elderly lesbian couple who had been together for 50 years.

Newsom said they were specifically chosen for the honor.

“What we intended to do ... was put a human face on this issue,” he said. “A narrative of a life of 50 years dedicated to constancy and love and devotion, which was the life of those two.”

Newsom said he has never regretted the controversial action, which some people say caused a backlash that resulted in gay marriage bans across the country. Newsom pointed out that in that same time frame, civil unions and domestic partnerships — which offer gay couples some of the rights provided within marriage — are gaining mainstream acceptance.

“I don’t think there’s ever a wrong time to do the right thing,” Newsom said.

Couples go to court seeking nuptials

Paula Cooper and Jeanne Rizzo had already been together for 18 years when they walked into San Francisco’s City Hall three years ago, with friends and family in tow, for their March 11 appointment to get married.

“We live as a family, little league games, preparing for college, the death of loved ones,” Cooper said.

Nonetheless, Cooper said she was “overwhelmed” by the feelings inside of her.

But when the couple, with the teenage son they had raised together, got to the appropriate city clerk’s counter, they saw a sign announcing that the state’s Supreme Court had just put a stop to San Francisco’s gay marriage spree.

Cooper and Rizzo are now plaintiffs, along with 11 other couples, in a case facing the state’s Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the state laws that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. Three of the couples spoke at a press conference Monday about their relationships and their desires to be married.

John Lewis and his partner of 20 years, Stuart Gaffney, were one of the first couples to be married, and proudly held up their pink and blue city-issued marriage license.

Jewelle Gomez, 58, said she’s old enough to remember the civil rights movement for African-Americans and compared the struggle to the fight for gay marriages. Sitting next to her partner of 14 years, Diane Sabin, she was dismissive of domestic partnership laws that offer same-sex couples many of the same provisions as marriage.

“Just as it was then, separate is not equal,” Gomez said.

San Francisco Mayor admits affair with staffer, apologizes

Bonnie Eslinger, The Examiner

SAN FRANCISCO - It was a quick and somber statement that lasted two minutes but put to rest months of rumors and 24 hours of drama that had seized the corridors of City Hall. Facing a crush of cameras and reporters at a press conference Thursday morning, Mayor Gavin Newsom admitted that he had an affair with a former secretary — the wife of one of his top advisers.

Newsom’s confession confirmed media reports that surfaced Wednesday of his sexual relationship with Ruby Rippey-Tourk, the wife of Alex Tourk, who until resigning Wednesday was Newsom’s re-election campaign manager and is his former deputy chief of staff.

Although the affair reportedly occurred about a year and a half ago, Rippey-Tourk, 34, had recently confessed the affair to her husband as part of a rehabilitation program she’s going through for alcohol and substance use, according to a friend of the family, Sam Singer, who is also acting as her spokesman. Since Newsom was out of town last week in Davos, Switzerland, Alex Tourk waited until this week to confront the mayor and quit the Newsom re-election campaign Wednesday afternoon.

Tourk, 35, was part of Newsom’s inner circle of advisers, having run his election campaign four years ago and then ascending to deputy chief of staff. Often referred to as a dedicated and loyal Newsom aide, Tourk had designed and implemented one of the most successful programs of the mayor’s term, Project Homeless Connect, which allowed one-stop shopping of services for homeless individuals. The program is being copied on a national level.

In addition to working together, Alex Tourk and Newsom were friends, having known each other for 10 years.

“They were friends. They went to dinner together. They went to ballgames,” said political consultant Eric Jaye, who is also working on Newsom’s re-election campaign.

The mayor’s press office released a statement Wednesday afternoon in which Tourk said he was leaving for “personal reasons,” but the affair had not been a secret to some City Hall insiders who leaked the full story to members of the media upon hearing of Tourk’s resignation.

“I’m deeply sorry that I’ve hurt someone I care deeply about, Alex Tourk, his friends and family. That’s something I have to live with and something I am deeply sorry for,” Newsom said on Thursday at the press conference.

After making his statement, Newsom walked out of the room, without taking any questions from reporters.

News of Newsom’s confession, notably, did not fuel a fire under his political critics, who responded to questions about the affair with restraint.

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin called the situation a “very sad, unfortunate, personal matter.”

Supervisor Chris Daly said the incident has put a spotlight on the issue of Newsom’s integrity.

“No one was more loyal to Gavin Newsom than Alex Tourk. The most important things in politics are trust and respect,” said Daly, who also expressed concern about the legality of Newsom’s actions, since Rippey-Tourk was a subordinate.

Although others within City Hall echoed Daly’s thoughts that Newsom’s former appointments secretary had grounds for a sexual harassment lawsuit, Singer said she had no intention of pursuing any legal action against Newsom or The City.

“She considers this a personal matter,” Singer said.

If the relationship was consensual, there are no legal grounds for a sexual harassment claim, said Art Hartinger, a former deputy city attorney who now works in private practice. According to San Francisco Administrative Code, although consensual romantic relationships between a supervisor and a subordinate “may create a potential for conflict or an appearance of impropriety,” they are not prohibited.

Nonetheless, Newsom’s relationship with Rippey-Tourk, which reportedly occurred during the breakup of his own marriage, was not just personally reckless, it was politically rash, said Corey Cook, a political science professor at San Francisco State University.

“There are affairs, and then there’s cheating on your close friend who’s directing your re-election effort,” said Cook. “Everyone in City Hall knew all three of the people involved. The bigger story on this, is how does he be mayor tomorrow? How does he deal with the Board of Supervisors? How does this affect his ability to do his job and interact with his staff?”

After the press conference, his spokesman, Peter Ragone, said the mayor’s top advisers are united in their support of Newsom. He also said the mayor has no intention of resigning and will move ahead with his re-election campaign.