Newcomer High School  

Thursday, November 2, 2006

INITIAL VICTORY - NEWCOMER HIGH SCHOOL FIGHT!!!

First Step Success – Good news!  The Planning Commission adopted the Planning Code ordinance proposed by Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, which would require the Commission to factor in the following criteria when considering a conditional use application for a permanent or temporary change in the use of an elementary, middle or high school: 

Ø        Market Demand and Displacement

Ø        Traffic and public transit pattern shifts

Ø        Employee impact on housing, transit, childcare, social services

Ø        Project Sponsor must provide a report, prepared by a professional expert), of environmental findings consistent with the General Plan and Planning Code.

The critical point of this ordinance is that it ensures the community’s input when a change in use is proposed, the pivotal factor that was lacking in the recent attempted takeover of Newcomer by City College.

Next steps:  This legislation is NOT a “done deal” and we’ll keep you posted when the measure will be heard by the Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee.  If this issue is important to you, we encourage your attendance in support of the measure.  If you cannot  make the meeting, please be prepared to submit letters urging its adoption that can be read into the public record.  We will provide detailed instructions when the meeting date is scheduled.

If adopted by the Committee, the measure will be considered by the full Board of Supervisors.  Again, PHRA will monitor the process and keep you informed.

Future steps:  PHRA is concerned about the use of the now-empty Newcomer building and the impact of this vacant structure on the neighborhood.  If you have any ideas about appropriate uses for this building, or wish to be involved in the search process, please contact Lynne Newhouse-Segal (LYNNENEW@aol.com), who is heading the search for long-term uses and serves as PHRA liaison with the San Francisco Unified School District.

Thank you.

Great News! Tuesday, June 20, 2006 -  Supervisor Alioto-Pier's Office has informed PHRA that Chancellor Day has informed her that CCSF has abandoned the potential use of Newcomer School.

Newcomer High School Status (6/16/06) 

 August 2006

Ms. Gwen Chan
San Francisco Unified School District
555 Franklin Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Ms. Chan:

NEWCOMER SCHOOL SITE

The Pacific Heights Residents Association (PHRA) is a neighborhood organization representing the area bounded by Van Ness, Presido, Union and Bush Streets.  PHRA's mission is to protect and preserve the residential character, quality of life, and historic character of our neighborhood.  For many years Newcomer High School (Newcomer) has been a welcome and integral part of our neighborhood.  Sitting at Jackson and Webster, in the very heart of our neighborhood, our merchants, residents and visitors enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship with the Newcomer students:  each getting to know and learn from the other. 

As you are probably aware, our organization was totally opposed to the prospective use of Newcomer by City College of San Francisco because of the additional parking and traffic congestion it would bring to that critical site.  Conversely, we support SFUSD's traditional use of Newcomer, and urge you to reconsider letting the high school students continue to use it. 

Please let us know if there is anything that we might do to assist you in that decision.  We have lived in harmony with SFUSD and the Newcomer students in the past, and would like to welcome them back to our neighborhood.  

Your long term plans for the Newcomer site are critical to Pacific Heights.  We would appreciate the opportunity to establish a dialogue with you or your representatives to discuss the future of the building.  We will phone your office to request a meeting at your convenience.  For now, please let us know what your immediate plans for Newcomer are, and please let us know how we may be of assistance in your deliberations.

Should you have any questions please call (415 489 6270)

Sincerely,

L. Gregory Scott
President


Return to Top of Page

CPMC -- 07/16/08

CPMC --  10/06

A massive expansion of California Pacific Medical Center’s operations in Pacific Heights – construction of a monolithic hospital on Van Ness Avenue followed by reconstruction and enlargement of its Pacific complex – has become the major issue facing PHRA and all residents of the area.

PHRA board members and other neighbors have been outspoken at two public gatherings, but participation of all residents of Pacific Heights, members and non-members alike, will be necessary to scale back CPMC’s ambitious proposals.

Because it isn’t feasible to bring CPMC’s hospital at 2333 Buchanan Street up to the state’s new seismic standards, CPMC plans to build a new hospital on Van Ness, between Geary and Post, consolidating acute care from the Pacific, California and Davies complexes.

The Pacific complex would be converted to an ambulatory care center after renovation of the 2333 building and replacement of the Stanford Building in the middle of the block behind it.

Aside from the parking and traffic implications of a facility in which multiple doctors see multiple patients every weekday, CPMC plans an 89-foot tall research building at Clay and Buchanan streets, replacing a vacant lot and the building behind it. The rest of CPMC’s buildings facing the closed portion of Clay Street would be replaced by an 11-story tall parking garage, which CPMC says is necessary to comply with the city’s code requirements for parking for an ambulatory care facility.

Finally, CPMC’s plan envisions another medical office building over parking on Clay Street, where a parking garage now stands. It would stand 72 feet fall at Webster Street, about 90 feet tall at its western end. Currently CPMC estimates the cost of the whole project at more than $1 billion.

The result at both the Pacific and Cathedral Hill sites will be further deterioration of the parking and traffic situations, far worse than might have occurred with City College’s failed effort to take over Newcomer High School. If built as now proposed, the Pacific complex would have parking for 1,640 cars. There was no word on how the cars could get there through the narrow residential streets surrounding it.

In addition, the neighborhoods face years of construction noise and aggravation, including serious health problems from dust and debris. And when finished, the massive new buildings will put several residential blocks into deep shadow. In the case of the Pacific complex, the buildings will dominate the Webster Street Historic District.

CPMC’s first public showing of its plans took place before Planning Department staff at the Cathedral Hill hotel in July, seeking public input on what the required Environmental Impact Report should cover. The proposals are a sort of wish list; CPMC said it included everything it thought it could want, not necessarily expecting all of it to be approved.

A second public meeting was held in September, presenting plans to neighbors of the Pacific complex.

Ralph Marchese, president of CPMC’s consulting firm, listed the many issues on which the hospital hoped to reach a consensus with the resident, including traffic congestion, parking, shadows, air quality, property values and even the risk of disturbing homes’ foundations. Neighbors were outspoken that they would not agree with CPMC on the underlying issue, the scale of the proposals, even if they represent a “worst case scenario” which won’t be enacted in its present form.

Neighbors pressed CPMC to explain why any expansion was necessary after acute care was moved way; on the contrary, they strongly expressed the view that the activities on Webster and Buchanan should be diminished. They came away with the opinion that CPMC never justified the expansion. Despite all the construction, the number of licensed beds will not increase, which may reflect expectations of how health care will be delivered in the future.

Because CPMC is a hospital complex, not a research institute, several neighbors questioned why the research facility would be expanded and said that if there is to be research it should be at Mission Bay. Mary-Margaret Ward, a PHRA director, suggested that CPMC wants to become a magnet hospital for the western United States. Marchese replied the hospital wanted to be a magnet for the best doctors and researchers, but didn’t dispute the implication that it wanted to attract patients from the same area as well.

CPMC plans another public meeting toward the end of the year at which time it will have more specificity. For example, at the September meeting, it did not spell out who might occupy the proposed additional medical office building on Clay Street, leaving some to wonder if it is necessary.

The July meeting was contentious from the start, with angry residents interrupting Marchese’s presentation with penetrating questions. Marchese said he knew some people attended just to vent their anger, and they did. One man, who sold his house partly to move away from the hospital, said that the hospital had no credibility in the neighborhood. He based his comments on five years of trying to work with the hospital on traffic and parking problems as a member of a PHRA-affiliated committee.

CPMC executives have said that they don’t expect a friendly reception when their plans eventually reach the Board of Supervisors, but that is mostly because Supervisors did not cave in quickly to CPMC’s union members’ strike earlier this year. CPMC has deep pockets for lawyers and lobbying, so the neighbors’ best tool in scaling back the proposals is a heavy turnout at every opportunity – CPMC’s presentations and hearings before city boards – and vocal opposition.

(as 09/17/06)        Summary Link -- 11 Story Building Link -- Site Mark Link

California Pacific Medical Center invites us to attend the upcoming Pacific Campus Neighborhood Forum. Attend and provide input to help create a plan that will improve the campus and our community.

When:             Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Time:               7:00 p.m.
Where:            CPMC, Pacific Campus, 2333 Buchanan Street
Room:             Conference Room, Level A

Contact cpmcneighbors@att.net to be added to the CPMC neighborhood update.

Double Parking is the Culprit on Congestion at CPMC

It’s the double parking, not the traffic, that causes congestion around the Pacific Campus of the California Pacific Medical Center, according to CPMC’s latest traffic survey.

Chi-Hsin Shao, the consultant, called traffic on Webster and Buchanan streets moderate when he shared his survey with CPMC Neighbors Coalition, a PHRA affiliated group, and other neighbors. The neighbors disagreed.

Chao’s staff counted vehicles on Webster Street at Clay during four one-hour periods beginning at 8:30 and 11 a.m. and 2 and 5 p.m. on February 22. Vehicle totals for the four periods were 473, 511, 513 and 400, respectively.

At the white (passenger loading) zone in front of the Center’s medical office building at 2100 Webster Street,  between 33% and 37% of the cars, depending on the hour, double parked. Double parking and illegal parking, such as at the fire hydrant, was consistently above 50% and at one hour reached 72%.

North of Clay Street, 10 trucks double parked between 8:35 a.m. and noon, mostly for long periods – up to 38 minutes.

To ease the problem, Shao had several recommendations:

• Add a sign beside the existing white zone that cars are limited to five minutes, the driver must stay in the vehicle and violators will be towed. One neighbor said offenders would recognize the threat of towing as hollow.

• CPMC security guards must make an effort to enforce the rules.

• Replace parking meters on the west side of Webster Street in that block with additional white zones.

• Create metered truck loading zones on Webster, north of Clay, 8 a.m.-1 p.m.

• Create “bulb-outs,” extensions of the sidewalk into the street to shorten pedestrian’s route across traffic, on all the corners of the Webster/Clay intersection.

Enforcement was a sore point with the neighbors, who said that security guards have never been any help with managing use of the white zone.

The same was true on the Buchanan side of the hospital, where the biggest problem is double and triple parking by vans – the hospital’s own shuttle vans and numerous para-transit vehicles.

Despite hospital assurances that effort have been made to improve the situation, residents of Clay Street between Buchanan and Laguna say that double parking, including passenger cars at shift-change time, has simply moved onto their street.

Shao’s recommendation for change was to add white zone space on the Buchanan side of the hospital, but apparently residents immediately across the street have already foiled that plan.

One long-standing neighborhood complaint has been that trucks making delivery to the hospital must come on Webster Street, turn west on Clay Street, then back up across Webster Street onto the hospital campus. Jeff Gibson, VP-Support Services, said CPMC is easing that problem by creating the West Bay Distribution Center, which will dispatch smaller trucks to the site.


Return to Top of Page

Neighborhoods Hope to Win on Appeal Against Housing Element (10/06)

The effort by PHRA and a number of other neighborhood organizations to overturn the city’s Housing Element is continuing, but at a slower pace than anticipated.

The neighborhoods lost the first round in its suit against the city. The case is now in the appeal phase, in which some earlier battles against city housing policies have been won.

The city agreed to longer briefing extensions than originally proposed.  The City served its responsive brief on September 13, and Appellant's Reply Brief – that is, the neighborhoods’ -- is due November 22.  No date for oral argument in the Court of Appeal has been set.

Return to Top of Page

Return to Top of Page

Proposed State Housing Law -  PHRA Opposes (6-03)

The bill is intended to sustain low-income housing in such areas as the Tenderloin but has a potentially major effect on Pacific Heights. Unable to afford new requirements for safety improvements such as fire sprinklers in every room, and unable to go out of business, owners would have few options except to sell to non-profit groups, such as the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. Under San Francisco’s current code, such an organization could quadruple the number of residents.

Return to Top of Page

Illegal Demos (as of 2/03)

• Providing detailed plans of the complete project, large enough to read, along with 8" by 10" color photographs of all exposed sides of the project and the front, rear and exposed adjacent sides of adjacent buildings.

• Notification of neighbors within a 300 foot radius, instead of the 150 radius.

• Inspector verification of existing conditions.

• Prohibition of the start of work until 15 days after permit issuance.

The proposed ordinance was the work of a group representing home owners, preservationists, builders and city offices and some of the "Expediters," people who are hired to shepherd projects through the city bureaucracy. Builders are on board because of the prospect of reduced red tape.

The Working Group on Unlawful Demolitions was formed in April of 2002  to find a possible solution. They created a draft proposal by gathering representatives from all sides: architects, neighbors, structural engineers, historic preservationists, expediters, and representatives from the Building Inspection Department and Planning Department.

The complete text of the draft proposal on Unlawful Demolitions is available by sending an e-mail to the address below.

For more information, or to find out how our city government is responding, contact: frisco@2viewsf.org and visit the 2ViewSF website at www.2viewsf.org.

Return to Top of Page