Neighbors Taking a Larger Role on Issuance of City Permits

Led by a PHRA Director, residents of the Fillmore Street hill are at last being heard by city officials on the subject of disruptive street closures.

The situation was brought to a head by closure of the street for the Icer Ski Jump event. PHRA Director Connie McCole and her neighbors said that neighborhood notification of the event was totally inadequate.

As preparation for the event proceeded, neighbors became alarmed that issues impacting the neighbors beyond the inconvenience of the street closure had not been adequately addressed. For example, they felt that the event was under-insured and their properties were at risk. They pointed out that the tons of melting ice could exacerbate drainage problems. They wanted more police supervision and fire/emergency protection than the sponsors planned. As taxpayers, they wanted to be sure the city was reimbursed for these services.

According to Connie McCole, one of the Fillmore Street residents, Icer Air still owes $5,240 to the Department of Parking and Traffic and $435.90 to the Police Department. The Fire Department was paid.

The question of reimbursement was addressed by District 2 Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier. She introduced legislation at the Board of Supervisors to make sure the city is fairly and promptly reimbursed. 

The neighbors say the only advance notice of the ski jump event had been some fliers taped to street lamp poles, although Icer claims to have made an effort to inform them. The neighbors asked that notification become the responsibility of the Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transportation (ISCOTT), rather than the permit applicant.

That, too is happening. In mid-January, a representative of the Department of Parking and Traffic called all the neighborhood groups in District 2 at the urging of Supervisor Alioto-Pier to notify them of an application for street closures for the annual Bridge to Bridge Run next October. As it happens, none of the streets involved are in Pacific Heights.

McCole and other neighbors are continuing to meet with Supervisor Alioto-Pier, a representative of the Mayor’s office and others to seek other changes in the process. They want street closure applications to go first to the Planning Commission for a decision on whether the event is compatible with the nature and character of the neighborhood. They want to be able to appeal ISCOTT’s granting or denial to the Board of Appeals and to the Board of Supervisors. They want the city to decide how much insurance should be in place and they want neighbors of the event to be included in the list of beneficiaries. 

At a meeting with Supervisor Alioto-Pier and her aide Sarah Ballard in January, McCole and her group pushed the idea of some form of guaranteed payment of bills and fines and reimbursement to the City and affected property owners for expenses incurred due to the sponsor’s failure to meet all the permit conditions. Having a fund would avoid using city employees’ time to track down the debtors.

Neighbors also want each City agency that issues a permit as part of a street closure to send a representative to the event, at the sponsor’s expense, with authority to enforce compliance with permit conditions.

Alioto-Pier agreed to introduce legislation including some form of payment guarantee and the appeal; her aide said it could be expected “in the next couple of weeks.”

The drainage problem has also been considered, although that is not part of the street closure issue. At the behest of Rob Black, an aide to the Supervisor, a city crew last month cleaned the current crop of green slime off the sidewalks – an ooze that tests have shown to be toxic, according to Connie McCole.

return to top

Planning Staff, Commission Struggle for Policy
on Merging Units

Merging dwelling units – combining two or more apartments or flats into a single living unit – is one of the most troublesome issues to come before the Planning Commission. It is a crucial issue in Pacific Heights, where people often want to restore a remodeled Victorian into its original, family-size configuration.

For months the Planning Department has been attempting to write new guidelines for evaluating merger applications. One of the purposes is to pave the way for decisions on many cases to be made at the staff level, instead of having every one of them go to the Commission. If, for example, an application met a specified number of guidelines it would be referred to the Commission’s Consent Calendar.

The staff at the Planning Department is divided on whether mergers should be allowed and so is the Commission. Nonetheless, the Commission spends a great deal of time hearing individual cases and approves 82% of them. Many of those disapproved at the Planning Commission go to the Board of Appeals, which regularly approves them. Ultimately, between the two city bodies, 92% of all applications get the green light.

Actually there have been only about 100 applications in the past five years. Despite the high approval rate, there is a public perception that the process is difficult and that pushing an application through requires an expensive lawyer. There is also the fact that the application costs $2,400 and triggers a Mandatory Discretionary Review.

The Planning Department’s attempt to write a new policy runs into conflicting city goals. On the one hand, the city wants to maintain its housing stock, particularly rental units. On the other hand, it wants to increase the inventory of family housing. As the recent spate of school closures demonstrates, San Francisco is losing its family housing and thus its families. Creating a family-size living unit is often the purpose of a merger. Now, 76% of the housing units in San Francisco have two bedrooms or fewer. Just 17% have three bedrooms and only 7% have four or more.

There is always concern as well about maintaining affordable rent-controlled units. However, as Planner Joans Ionin pointed out, any time a rent-controlled unit is vacated it is filled at current market price and is therefore not necessarily “affordable.” Part of the planning staff’s proposed new policy is that when the unit or units lost exceed the 80th percentile of at least three comparable sales or rents in the immediate area they would go to the Commission’s Consent Calendar, like those that meet some guidelines.

PHRA’s position has been to support mergers that tend to restore a building to its original configuration. Commissioner Christina Olague finds that argument “not compelling” if the property was divided long ago.

Commissioner Kevin Hughes said there is “no shortage” of opportunities to purchase family housing (in other parts of the city) for people moving here. He has no sympathy for those who want to merge units to create family-size housing in great neighborhoods like Pacific Heights but of course this area is one of the targets of the would-be mergers.

At the January 26 meeting of the Commission Ionin presented a draft resolution with six guidelines for decision-making. He emphasized that they are guidelines, not firm criteria, although the public sees them as hard and fast rules. Here they are:

1.      Removal of the unit(s) would not eliminate rent-controlled housing.

2.      Removal of the unit(s) would not eliminate affordable rental units, as defined by 30% of the median household income for San Francisco.

3.      Removal of the unit(s) and the merger with another is intended for owner occupancy.

4.      Removal of the unit(s) will bring the building closer into conformance with the prevailing density in its immediate area and the same zoning.

5.      Removal of the unit(s) will bring the building closer into conformance with prescribed zoning.

6.      Removal of the unit(s) is necessary to correct design or functional deficiency that cannot be solved through re-design of the current configuration or is otherwise prohibitive

At the end of the lengthy hearing there was unanimity on only one point: The Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals need to come to a meeting of the minds. It was agreed that a video tape of the Jan. 26 meeting will be provided to the Board of Appeals and after the members view it, a joint meeting will be set up. 

The Planning Department’s proposed resolution with the guidelines was not put to a vote, the issue is to be continued indefinitely and the public hearing remains open.

return to top

Neighborhoods Hope to Win on Appeal Against Housing Element

The lawsuit by PHRA and other neighborhood groups against adoption of the 2004 Housing Element (HE) was denied by Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay in December, but the battle is not lost.

As noted by Kathryn Devincenzi, attorney for the group, a similar legal battle in Laurel Heights was won – by her – on appeal. The appellate court will review the matter de novo, which means that it starts all over and that the findings of the trial court have no weight. The petitioner, San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods, (SFLN) has already raised the money for attorneys’ fees and court costs.

There was no testimony taken in the trial court. The judge had asked each side to prepare a proposed judgment; he signed the City’s proposal.

SFLN’s case is that the city failed to prepare, consider and certify an Environmental Impact Report before approving the 2004 HE and thus didn’t comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.

The HE seeks to achieve a far greater rate of housing production than in previous years — tens of thousands of units – resulting in changes in population distribution and density.

A key component of the HE strategy  is to encourage taller, denser buildings in transit-rich and commercial areas, including neighborhood commercial districts. It would also increase density by encouraging construction of secondary units.

 Studies have shown that such construction would disrupt and divide the existing, predominantly one- to two-story, neighborhood commercial areas and the generally low-rise areas along transit corridors. These new buildings would be incompatible with prevailing neighborhood scale and character.

In short, implementing the proposed HE would transform San Francisco’s unique, diverse, low-density neighborhoods into high-density, high-walled canyons.

The proposals for secondary units and high-density residents would also encourage demolition of existing one-family homes and their replacement with more intensive uses, forever changing the visual and architectural character of the city’s neighborhoods.

While encouraging more housing density, the HE would eliminate the general requirement of one parking space per residential unit. That  reduces construction costs and thus draws developers into the market, further spurring housing construction.

The Planning Commission’s Negative Declaration – the original statement that the HE did not require an EIR – admits that the revised HE could potentially increase demand on utilities and public services., including a need for added police and other public safety services.

PHRA President Greg Scott has been vocal on this topic. The existing city infrastructure simply cannot handle increased density. Scott has pointed out that in heavy rainstorms, storm water and sewage back up into the lobby of his downtown office building.

return to top

“Snout” Garages

A “snout” garage is just as ugly as its name.

It is a garage that is added in front of a home, usually sticking out to the sidewalk, in the space that is supposed to be open set-back.

While everybody appreciates the importance of a garage, “snout” garages often spoil the esthetics of an entire block. At the least they destroy the appearance of the house behind them. In Pacific Heights, that’s most often an appearance worth preserving.

Most “snout” garages are built for economic reasons. It is simply a lot cheaper than burrowing under a house or raising a house. In the long run the extra cost of burrowing is regained. A house with a garage under it is worth more than a house with a garage in front.

A single “snout” garage on a block can be used as a precedent by neighbors, with the potential result being a string of such garages, destroying the character of our neighborhood.

PHRA is preparing to take a stand on “snout” garages, writing a policy statement to be forwarded to the Planning Department and Planning Commission. Members’ opinions are welcome. If you have thoughts about “snout” garages and especially about how they can be curbed, please call the PHRA hotline, 922-3572, or drop a note to PHRA, 2585 Pacific Ave., San Francisco 94115.

return to top

Disaster Planning

The public is invited to a meeting March 16 to begin the process of developing a Community Emergency Preparedness Plan for Pacific Heights.

The meeting is scheduled from 7 p.m. to 8:30 at the Calvary Presbyterian Church, on Fillmore Street at Jackson. Robert Stengel of the Office of Emergency Services will participate in the discussion. The gathering is being organized by the Pacific Heights Residents Association.

Stengel will open with an explanation of why we need Community Disaster Plans. He will also present San Francisco’s Community Disaster Plan and discuss the levels of engagement. He’ll invite the audience into a discussion of local concerns and considerations.

The public and governmental response to Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the importance of local community planning to mitigate the impact of disasters.  Dealing with the smaller problems will leave the city’s emergency services free to deal with the severe problems.

After identifying the initial tasks for the Emergency Preparedness Committee, based on the evening’s discussion, the next task will be to identify volunteers to sit on the committee. The final order of business will be to set a meeting date for the committee.

return to top

The San Francisco Unified School District has decided to move Newcomer High School to a site deep in the Western Addition. City College is a potential new tenant of the Webster Street site.

Making the building a City College campus, even for just a couple of years, would bring a major parking problem to Pacific Heights. City College has evening as well as daytime classes.

Dean Macris, Director of Planning, has asked City College staff to meet with him to discuss noise, traffic, air quality, public transit and retail services, all of which could be impacted by City College.

return to top

| Board | Mission Statement | Hot Issues | Membership | Events | Newsletter | Contact Us | Home |