|
|||||||||
| City Approves Ski Jump Over Strong Neighborhood Objections |
|
“Better Neighborhoods” sounds like something that everybody would favor, but in the view of the directors of PHRA and many other neighborhood organizations the name for the Planning Department’s new initiative is completely misleading. As originally written, the Better Neighborhoods plan has many of the same flaws that made the recent Housing Element an anathema to neighborhood groups, and is opposed by the same groups that sued the city to prevent adoption of the Housing Element. Like the Housing Element, Better Neighborhoods was created with little input from neighborhood people. It takes away neighbors’ right to file for a Discretionary Review of plans for objectionable construction. It makes it possible to build affordable housing just about anywhere – and eases controls on building height to make it economically viable. Better Neighborhoods also eases up parking requirements for construction. It “fast-tracks” Environmental Impact Reports, so that they are prepared at the same time as construction plans. Greg Scott, PHRA president, asked rhetorically at a recent board meeting, “How can you begin calculating the impact of a building when its plans aren’t complete?” Amendments that could make Better Neighborhoods more palatable are in the works. One of them would retain the Discretionary Review process. “That exists for a reason,” Scott said. Another amendment would maintain the current EIR process. Another would require that committees reviewing plans for neighborhoods be drawn from local residents, not outside housing advocates with a different agenda. “Our purpose is to put empowerment back into the neighborhoods,” Scott said. “We can’t have affordable housing towers built in areas zoned for one or two units.” He reaffirmed that PHRA will “stick with” the appellants, the group opposing the Housing Element. The Planning Commission, which heard public comment on the topic at many of its meetings in the last few months, was due to make a decision at its September 15 meeting whether to go ahead with the program. Instead, the Commission postponed a decision to October 6. Representing SPUR (San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal), George Williams said the legislation has evolved, including changes right up to September 15 and he recently went through a very thorough review with the Planning Department staff. He expressed surprise at opposition from the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods because the legislation had been modified so it would apply only where there’s enough neighborhood support to justify undertaking it. Commissioner Dwight Alexander complained of all the “holes” in the legislation and said these “gaping holes open themselves to exploitation of the process. Instead of helping, he said Better Neighborhoods could bog down the planning process. He added that “it has a long way to go before it could be implemented without killing the planning process. Kathryn Devincenzi of Laurel Heights said Russian Hill has joined in opposition to Better Neighborhoods, along with PHRA, Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors,, Cow Hollow and other groups. She noted that even in the writing of the September 14 -15 amendments, the neighborhood groups weren’t consulted. Meanwhile, the lawsuit brought by PHRA and a dozen
other neighborhood groups will be heard in Superior Court in early
November. For details, call the PHRA Hotline, 922-3572. |
|
Two of the most popular speakers ever to appear at a PHRA annual meeting will be with us once again as the Pacific Heights Residents Association briefs members on current city and neighborhood issues. The meeting is scheduled Tuesday, October 25, 6-8 p.m. at the Flood Mansion of the Schools of the Sacred Heart, 2222 Broadway. Phil Matier and Andy Ross are the speakers. Their three-times-weekly column in the San Francisco Chronicle is always notable for having inside information that nobody else seems to have. As always, the meeting will include an update of happenings in the neighborhood, summarized by PHRA President Greg Scott. The meeting will open with a wine and hors d’oeuvres reception, an opportunity for neighbors to meet neighbors and socialize. Sponsors of the evening include Vino, Inc., 2425 California Street, and the Schools of the Sacred Heart. Members have
been sent an invitation which also provides an opportunity to pay annual
dues. The cost is $35 per member for checks received by Oct. 14 and $45
thereafter. Charges for guests are $10 higher. Additional information is
available at (415) 922-3572. |
|
City Approves Ski Jump Over Strong Neighborhood Objections Despite opposition from PHRA, our neighbors in the Presidio Heights Neighbors Associtation, and many residents near Fillmore Street, the Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transportation on September 22 voted to approve the highly publicized Fillmore Street ski jump, scheduled September 29. It appeared to some of the opponents that the decision was made by committee members before the meeting because there was so little discussion among them after all the testimony. However, the vocal organized opposition that resulted in a postponement from the original date also forced the promoters to improve security arrangements dramatically and to increase insurance coverage many fold. Brian Dusseault, a DPT Transportation Engineer and chairman of the committee, acknowledged that the reason there was no opposition to the original plans laid out in March was that notification of neighbors had been insufficient. As publicity grew, so did opposition, and estimates of the crowds that the event would attract. Connie McCole, a PHRA director whose house is near where the jumpers will land, cataloged the city code requirements that were waived. Those include:
McCole also noted that even without the snow melt there is leakage on Fillmore Street resulting in a dangerous green slimed down the sidewalk. Tests have found it contains e-coli bacteria, she said. Her neighbor, George Pfau, seconded the idea that snow, slime and the steps are a “dangerous combination.” Pfau said that 15 years ago a woman sued him after falling on those Fillmore steps. His insurance company had to pay a $150,000 settlement, then closed his account. Neighbor Meryl Steinberg said the plan was “placing people’s lives in jeopardy for a quirky event of questionable value.” She, too, listed the various city code sections that were being passed over. A group of the numerous speakers represented the Vedanta Society at the corner of Fillmore and Vallejo. Ramesh Kapadia, a board member and vice president, said his church does a lot of meditation and would have to skip a Wednesday night service because of the noise and disruption. Kapadia said it was an exciting event, but in the wrong place. Margot Parke, a PHRA director, noting that the supporters and opponents were pretty much divided by age, said she still skis – but doesn’t jump – and nonetheless supported the opponents. William Lowenberg, president of the residents association at the corner of Broadway, said he was deeply concerned about the building’s elderly residents. The three dozen speakers at the hearing included neighbors who supported the idea, as well as a parade of younger people who praised the ski jump concept as unique, “cool,” contributing to diversity, original, and an “only in San Francisco” occurrence. The various city departments said preparations were in place to provide for security. Moving the event to a Thursday was one step in controlling the crowd size. Other actions included:
None of those actions satisfied residents' irritation about lack of access to their cars or garages. (As it turned out, the promised valet parking didn't function at all.). Connie McCole again raised the question of access to fire hydrants. The Fire Department’s response was that with an engine on the scene there would be instant response to any problem and a hydrant isn’t needed on the scene because they have 1,000 feet of hose. Knut Akseth, who owns the India Basin parking lot on which the snow is to be dumped, volunteered to pay the premium on up to $30 million in insurance. The day before the ISCOTT hearing the city’s Entertainment Commission denied a permit for amplified music. Without even being asked, the Entertainment Commission called a special meeting for September 27 to reconsider the matter and unanimously reversed its earlier decision. An unforeseen problem was the noise of helicopters hovering over the scene during the day. Organizers failed to meet the 8 p.m. deadline for
cleanup and reopening of the streets. |
|
A significant proportion of Planning Code variances being requested are for extensions into rear yards. Open space in the center of the block is a valuable green area that needs to be preserved, in keeping with preserving the residential character of the area. Some of the requests are relatively minor. One recent case involved moving a house’s rear wall nine inches into the required rear yard. However, remodeling projects that encroach severely on open space – addition of a garage or extending a room six feet into the space, will be opposed by PHRA. Sometimes, neighbors oppose a proposed extension of a house, even if it falls within the code limits. Although it’s rarely the stated reason, the motivation in many of these cases is fear that a view will be blocked. Those objections rarely succeed; protecting views is not a Planning Commission policy.return to top |
|
PHRA Fights to Maintain Family Housing Units The future of 2615-2623 Pacific Avenue ultimately may be decided in Superior Court. Owner Paul Chow’s plan to convert the huge property from five flats to a single family dwelling was turned down by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals. Chow indicated to the PHRA Board at its September meeting that he expected to lose a Sept. 21 rehearing at the Board of Appeals and would go to court. However, when he learned that a commissioner would be absent on Sept. 21 he asked for a continuance to the October 5 meeting. PHRA has opposed Chow’s plans and supports the Planning Commission policy against the merging of housing units. PHRA makes an exception when merging units would restore a building to its original configuration. The original status of the building is one of the issues. Chow says he was told by the previous owner that it had been built as a single-family home although the multiple addresses clearly indicated otherwise. As an experienced developer, Chow might also have been expected to recognize whether a building had been remodeled. Further, he seemed to acknowledge the need to maintain multiple units when he submitted a plan for one very large unit and four units of only 250 square feet each. In all, the building has – or had — 15,000-17,000 square feet of space; Chow apparently removed some flooring to give some rooms double height. He contends the building is 12,000 square feet and the rest is “garage and common area.” Chow denied that he gutted the property. He said he had to remove the walls and ceilings to install steel reinforcement. The multi-unit building is an anomaly; it is surrounded by blocks of single family homes. However, the large flats – about 2,500 square feet each – were family units, a rarity in Pacific Heights that contributed to the diversity of the neighborhood. They housed older residents and single mothers with children, and newcomers to the city, allowing all a neighborhood experience. PHRA thanks all the neighbors who signed the petition
supporting the Planning Commission and PHRA in opposition to the loss of
these housing units.
|
|
What's your opinion about "Formula Retail," chain stores with more than a dozen outlets that all look alike? Do you think Fillmore Street is safe from being "mauled" or "malled". Or do you think that Pacific Heights should mount a campaign like the one that brought Hayes Valley the strictest rules in the city about who could open a shop? PHRA plans to test the neighborhood attitude during the annual meeting October 25. We'll have petitions on hand for those who want more control on who comes in. If there is a rush to sign them, we will proceed. If the response is cool, the matter will drop. A key part of the definition is the appearance of the store. Starbucks and Peet's, with their distinctive signage, uniformed staff and interior design are considered "formula retail," as is Burger King, between Sutter and Post streets. On the
other hand, Eileen Fisher, due to succeed the Body Shop near Sacramento street,
has more than two dozen stores across the country but isn't considered
"formula" because each store is different. |
|
| Board | Mission Statement | Hot Issues | Membership | Events | Newsletter | Contact Us | Home | |