Lafayette Park, one of the two major green oases within the PHRA borders, is looking increasingly spiffy these days, thanks to an energetic band of neighbors who have formed Friends of Lafayette Park.

The group meets on the second Saturday of every month (unless the rain is torrential) from 9 a.m. to noon. In January, the third work session, participants helped prepare for the installation of a new irrigation system that will turn the underutilized upper meadow of the park green again and save much water in the process. The next session is scheduled  Feb. 5.

Starbucks has been contributing hot coffee to the clean-up crew.

In addition to the obvious sprucing up, the organization is concerned about improvements to the dog run, the children’s area, the tennis courts and lighting. Work on those aspects of the park will cost money, so fund-raising will also be an activity. A fund-raising event is being planned for February. The group welcomes tax-deductible donations. Those should be made out to Neighborhood Parks Council; Lafayette Park should be indicated in the memo section of the check. They should be sent to Friends of Lafayette Park, c/o Kim Barnes, 1950 Gough St., #305, San Francisco, CA 94109.

Barnes is serving as chair of the group. Planning sessions are held at Stuart Hall High School at Octavia and Pine streets on the first Tuesday of every month, starting at 6:30 p.m.

For more information, contact Kim Barnes at 928-3589 or kim@kimbarnes.net.

return to top

Alta Plaza's Friends Continue Fundraising

Friends of Alta Plaza Park described their fund-raising needs to about 40 neighbors at a town meeting-style presentation at the Town School last week and received kudos for their efforts so far – and at least one check from a member of the audience.

As Board Member Rebecca Greenberg outlined FAPP’s role, the city wasn’t scheduled to so much as evaluate the park until 2007. By that time the bumpy tennis courts and outdated playground would be in even sorrier condition and funds from a park improvement bond issue would be exhausted. Actual improvement would be even further in the future.

Friends was able to get the city to allocate $827,500 from the bond funds for improving the bathrooms and making some pathways compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. It undertook to raise $1,240,000 on its own for fixing the tennis courts and rebuilding the playground.  It is past the midpoint now, with about $590,000 still needed. Playground plans were approved in June 2003 but no work can be done until all the funds are raised.

Tennis courts were back in use last month.Wind screens around them and anti-bird wires on the fences should be completed in time for an opening celebration March 6.

The city’s ADA and bathroom work may be done later this year.

Meanwhile, FAPP  has secured agreement from the city to have a gardener available so that regular community cleanup days can be scheduled. (Volunteers can work in parks only with a gardener is present). The first one is scheduled March 19, 9:30-12:30.

Phase III of the park renovation, a horticultural makeover, is not included in FAPP’s current fund-raising effort. Most of the trees in the park are at the end of their normal life span. There never has been a landscaping plan for the park. When one neighbor said that when she walks in the park, “Nothing engages me,” Greenberg agreed that there is “nothing horticulturaly interesting.”

Donations can be made to San Francisco Parks Trust, with Friends of Alta Plaza Park designated on the memo line. They should be sent to Friends of Alta Plaza Park c/o SFPT, 501 Stanyan St., San Francisco CA 94117.

return to top

Have you paid your dues? If you haven’t, you will be dropped soon from the PHRA rolls.

PHRA strives to keep its expenses at a minimum, but some efforts require considerable financial support, such as our organization’s efforts to get an Environmental Impact Report on the city’s Housing Element.

To represent the entire neighborhood we need the entire neighborhood’s support. As noted elsewhere, our mission is to maintain the quality of life and the residential character within the boundaries of Union to Bush streets, Presidio to Van Ness Avenue.

Dues are only $35 per year for a household, Corporate/business dues are $100 per year.  Please mail your check today to PHRA at 2585 Pacific Ave., SF 94115.

return to top

PHRA and 15 other neighborhood groups, under the banner of San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods, have filed a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco to force the city to do an Environmental Impact Report on the Housing Element.

The umbrella organization and its members argue that the Housing Element will have a significant impact on all neighborhoods of the city because it loosens the restrictions on density, bulk and height of buildings. They are also concerned that ending a parking requirement for second units will exacerbate an already severe problem.

Greg Scott, PHRA president, has pointed out that the San Francisco infrastructure simply cannot handle additional housing on the scale of the Housing Element. Even now, he said, heavy rain brings raw sewage flooding into the lobby of his office building on Fremont Street because the sewer system is inadequate. Housing Elements written in 1983 and 1990 both were accompanied by EIRs.

Barbara Austin, one of the four or five neighborhood activists who formed Save Our Neighborhoods, said the Housing Element as written will change the whole city. She described SON as an educational coalition which raised awareness of the city and raised funds. She noted that no neighborhoods had been involved in the creation of the Housing Element and most people didn’t know about it until a year after it was drafted.

The group took its request for an EIR to the Planning Commission and ultimately appealed to the Board of Supervisors. SON was succeeded by San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods, the plaintiff in the suit. Austin said the group was prepared to go to the California Supreme Court if necessary.

return to top

A steady stream of applications to combine housing units is being received by the San Francisco Planning Department.

The general policy of the Planning Department and the Planning Commission is to oppose the reduction of units, although the result of the combination is generally a unit more suitable to families, filling a need cited in the city’s Housing Element.

PHRA’s position is to support the Planning Code, but makes an exception if the remodeling restores a house to its original configuration.

Recently the Commission allowed a young family to combine several units. The Commission noted that the creation of the units had been somewhat quirky, such as leaving stairs that led to nothing. Commissioners also recognized that it was unlikely that any of the units would come back on the market.

A different sort of case is occurring at 2615 Pacific Avenue, where the number of units is maintained, but at the expense of family housing. The building was erected in 1900 with five two- and three-bedroom units – one at about 6,000 square feet and the others at about 2,000 square feet each.

PHRA had been aware of construction work on the interior, but didn’t know what was planned until public notice for exterior work led to neighborhood meetings last fall.

At those meetings the developer’s representative, Gabriel Ng, outlined for one unit of 10,000 to 16,000 square feet and four other units measuring from approximately 242 square feet to 400 square feet.

Ng first stated that the four smaller units would be studios, then suggested they probably would not be rented and could be used by the prospective owner.

PHRA circulated a petition on the surrounding streets – Divisadero, Steiner, Broadway and Jackson – stating that elimination of family size housing is “contrary to City Planning Commission policy and the best long-term interests of our neighborhood. City policy states that any new configuration of units in a development should be comparable to or equal in size to the existing units.” The petition asked the Planning Department to see that the developer respects the character of the neighborhood and conforms with the city policy that any new configuration of units should be comparable to or equal in size to existing units.

The developer submitted a new proposal Jan. 19 that calls for one 7,000 sq. ft. unit, two at 1,800 sq. ft. and two small units. Acting Planning Director Dean Macris has interceded in the case. His decisions cannot be taken to the Board of Appeals.

PHRA directors would like to have input from other members on this continuing trend.

return to top

Retiring Director Decries Presidio Over-Development

Macy McCallister, a PHRA Director for five years, has resigned to resume her career as a research cognitive psychologist.

During her tenure she devoted most of her efforts toward issues involving the Presidio. And while Macy and others on the board, notably Margot Parke, have made some progress, she expresses frustration that battles with the Presido Trust continue.

The issue has been the same since Day One, Macy said. Everybody wants a park. The evidence is that the level of development proposed is not necessary. Even the Trust’s own documents show that the Lucas facility was not financially necessary, she said.

 “My big mistake,” Macy said, "was anticipating that if we got together and presented a case, our elected representatives represent us – and they didn’t, except for Leland Yee.”

Because of the numerous hearings and presentations, plus some events staged for publicity, working on Presidio issues was virtually a full-time job for several years, she said.   In addition to Board member Parke, others devoting long days to the cause have been Bill Henslin and Macy’s husband, Mark Zier. Mark set up a web site and typed in the whole National Park Service plan.

Part of the effort involved traveling to Washington with Mark, to call on all House and Senate members of committees that had some oversight on the Presidio.

It’s the NPS vision that PHRA and other neighborhood groups have supported. That plan, Macy said, envisioned a park for urban people, with space for organizations supporting the environment and world peace. Revenue to meet the Congressional requirement that the Presidio be self-supporting was to come from renovating existing buildings and renting them out.

A place where urban people could enjoy nature – a national park next to an urban area – would be a nice model for the country, she said. Instead, the trust wants “unnecessary over-development.”

Still, the battle continues. Representatives of many organizations with which PHRA has worked have formed the Presidio Sustainability Project as an ongoing watchdog. PHRA and Neighborhood Associations for Presidio Planning (NAPP) remain active.

In addition to the Presidio, Macy put in effort in opposition to the city’s new Housing Element and she served on the steering committee of the PHRA affiliate, Friends of the Webster Street Historic District.

return to top

Does the future of the Presidio concern you? Margot Parke, serving as PHRA’s point person on Presidio matters is looking for “three devoted delegates” to attend meetings of the Neighborhood Association for Presidio Planning (NAPP).

NAPP meets the third Tuesday of every month from 5:30 p.m. to 7.

The need for people reflects the many projects underway at the Presidio now: transformation of the Main Parade Ground, West Crissy Field, the Public Health Service Hospital, Tennessee Hollow and more to come.

“Commitment is the key word,”  Parke said.

Anybody interested in knowing in advance what’s going on at the Presidio and interested in making an input to the powers that be should contact Parke through PHRA’s general number (922-3572) or the PHRA web site, www.phra-sf.org.

return to top

Legislation banning street banners in most residential districts was finally passed January by the Board of Supervisors after two and a half years of discussion and much rewriting.

The final document “generally” bans banners in residential areas. The exception, added by the Supervisors, means that areas zoned RM-4 – Residential Mixed, dense – are exempt. One such area is bounded by Gough and Laguna from Bush to Geary, plus the Cathedral of San Francisco.

As a result, banners such as the ones for the Museum of Modern Art on California Street between Octavia and Laguna – actually double banners in that case – will not be permitted.

However, the Department of Public Works, which collects fees for banners, has already approved applications for most of 2005. So while the ordinance goes into effect Feb. 20, the results may not be very evident until next year.

The ordinance defines a “city neighborhood banner” as a “banner demarking a neighborhood in San Francisco, placed in that neighborhood and identifying the neighborhood’s name, such as, for example: the Tenderloin, or Pacific Heights.” That is the rule which will allow the banners on the commercial portion of Fillmore Street, which say just “Fillmore,” to remain.

The other classes of banner than can be affixed to the upper part of city utility poles are “city sponsored banner,” announcing an event or series of events conducted by the city; a “city-funded event banner,  announcing an event or series of events that have received $5,000 or more from the city; a “city-wide special event banner,” announcing events “of interest to a significant portion of the residents and/or tourists, which is not purely commercial;” and a “city convention facility banner,” which can be put up only around the convention facility.

To qualify for a “city-wide special event banner,” an event has to reasonably expect an in-person attendance of 500 or more people for a single event or 1000 or more for a series.

The ordinance also permits banners in areas zoned “P.” Lafayette Park and Alta Plaza Park fall into that category.

In Neighborhood Commercial Districts, banners may be installed only within 50 feet of an intersection.

 Courtney Clarkson, who has worked on this issue as a director of the Pacific Heights Residents Association, credited San Francisco Beautiful for doing most of the original work on a ban. Clarkson said PHRA supported the original legislation, which more tightly controlled banners. 
 
return to top

A gentleman who lives along the route of the #3 Jackson bus wants service on that line to end at 9 p.m., at least on Jackson Street beyond Fillmore.

There’s lots of noise in the evening but little or no ridership at that time, he said.

Muni’s traffic survey shows an average of two passengers per trip on that portion of the route in the evening. The figure is for the 7 p.m. – 1 a.m. period, which includes the tail end of the evening commute. The resident contends that the figure would be even lower for the period after 9 p.m.

PHRA supports maintenance of important bus routes through the area, but it also recognizes that this may be an opportunity for cash-strapped Muni to make a service reduction that will do minimum harm. The #1 California bus also reaches the #3 terminus at Presidio and California streets; the #24 Divisadero also runs along Jackson between Fillmore and Divisadero.

Before taking a stance on the issue, the Board of Directors would like to hear what other residents think.

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