REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT STIRS CONTROVERSY

The draft Housing Element prepared by the City Planning Department is drawing fire because it proposes to increase the housing density along major transit corridors and reduce to nil the off-street parking requirements for this additional density.

There is no question that the City is short of housing. But getting the right housing, the right mix of uses, the additional infrastructure and the best transit implemented is another matter. Tossing out the City's Urban Design Plan and fast-tracking any and all projects that promise to build housing, any housing, is not a solution.

BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS

The Planning Department has been praised for its Better Neighborhoods studies. Why not build on success and do more of the same? Looking at an existing neighborhood and charting different scenarios for its future, hand-in-hand with its affected inhabitants, is the way to do it. Instead, the draft Housing Element portends a one-size-fits-all mandate for future zoning that could mean massive changes to some of our most attractive and functional neighborhoods, just because it has become imperative that "we must build housing." Better Neighborhoods planning for the Octavia corridor and Balboa Park was achieved after numerous meetings with the community.

Critical emphasis should be on whether the proposed Housing Element and Negative Declaration adequately direct government to provide affordable housing for the approximately ninety percent of the City's households who today cannot afford to buy or rent adequate housing in the City. Also, the Element fails to address the inadequate infrastructure which limits the City's
holding capacity. There is competition for the money and institutional attention is focused elsewhere. The need to replace or modernize our infrastructure (roads, schools, public services) has fallen off the page. Besides, these limited resources are also needed to make housing affordable which should be the primary goal of the Housing Element.

BLACK BOX

The negative declaration that has been published for this draft Housing Element glosses over parking and traffic issues. No analysis shows whether we would actually gain affordable housing when measured against the existing affordable housing that we would lose to demolition. Thorough environmental review is needed to give a better understanding of what these proposals prefigure.

Some planners believe that not providing off-street parking results in less traffic than if parking is provided. However, there is no updated City/County Transportation Plan that addresses today's needs for movement of goods, access to work or off-street parking.

Opponents of the Element's reduced off-street parking requirements say that automobile ownership is increasing and that most households own multiple automobiles, whether or not they take transit to work. They say need for off-street parking will remain no matter how good transit service is, and that residential parking requirements must be retained.

March 13: Wildflower Hike With Jake Sigg

Don't miss a great hike on Bayview Hill (see page three)! The not-so-distant roar of Highway 101 below is a reminder how lucky we are to have this priceless piece of original wildflower landscape left on Bayview Hill.

Natural Areas Program Citizens Advisory Committee (NAPCAC) Fails to Resolve Thorny, Contentious Issues

San Francisco Tomorrow has reviewed the "Management Plan" for the City's Natural Areas that was submitted to the Board of Supervisors by the Natural Areas Program Citizens Advisory Committee (NAPCAC). The Board mandated that NAPCAC create a Management Plan which, as the months passed, it proved itself incapable of doing. It became clear, meeting after meeting, that the dominating members of the committee were actually set on deleting the Natural Areas from existence. In our letter to the Board of Supervisors, SFT recommended that the plan not be adopted in its current form.

The final Management Plan document, approved by a bare majority of NAPCAC members, can only perpetuate what has been a painful and unpro-ductive process to date. We have been disap-pointed at the inability of this citizen committee to address any of the major issues that led to its formation, including: the presence of dogs in the Natural Areas, tree removal, feral cat removal and the closure of ecologically sensitive areas to humans and pets.

While the interests of a park¹s most frequent users should not be ignored, those who walk their dog three times a day in a park should not, by dint of that, be the major determiners of what happens with that park¹s Natural Area. We also believe that any scientific review panel should be comprised only of scientists or professionals with an in-depth knowledge of our local ecology and of its restoration and management.

DOGS

It is clear to some observers that the political maneuvering that led to the creation of NAPCAC was a smokescreen for the repeal of the City¹s leash law. The leash law needs to be applied to and enforced in the Natural Areas just as in the other areas of our parks. People picnic, meditate, stroll, sunbathe, read and enjoy themselves in many ways in our Natural Areas. They and the wildlife deserve the same protection provided by the leash law as in other areas of our parks.

RESOLUTION

Fortunately, we now have in place and operating smoothly an apparatus for dealing with and resolving most of these issues:

Sensitive Areas Left Unresolved

Still unresolved is the issue of the closure of Sensitive Areas to humans and pets. This remaining issue should be resolved on a City-wide basis by professionals who have in-depth knowledge of our local native landscape and ecology and of its restoration and management, using protocols well established by entities such as the Nature Conservancy and the National Park Service. For disputed issues, SFT recommends the use of professional facilitation, and, if necessary, mediation, in order to reach agreement.

We understand the deep concerns that led the Supervisors to establish this committee (NAPCAC), but the Board asked for solutions based on consensus. Instead of consensus, the committee refused to hear well founded opposition and well thought out alternative plans for the natural areas. They put aside criticism of their own anointed plan. Dispute was fostered, not resolved. We cannot recommend the committee's continued functioning; we hope for resolution of these contentious issues by other means.

Parks carry the Burden in Hard Times

In hard economic times such as these, our parks carry a heavy burden. When many citizens are unemployed or under employed, they have more 'free' time, but less money to spend on recreation. Many turn to our parks for free recreational activities, and many others turn to our parks for a place to live. While the use and abuse of our parks increases in these times, budget cuts force funding and staffing to be reduced, making maintenance and supervision difficult if not impossible.

Most afternoons, rain or shine, our park meadows fill with informal active recreation and every night scores curl up in the pedestrian tunnels and in the secluded undergrowth. At the same time, Recreation and Parks recently met with its staff to spell out the possibility of reducing the workforce by half to meet the City's budget shortfall.

Every time the voters are asked to approve funding for our parks they agree, but every time our city faces fiscal hard times, the parks are the first to suffer. As the Park Patrol has been cut back to a few part-time positions there is often no one aware of abuses until staff find the damage when they come work.

Since capital funds are often easier to obtain than operating funds, gates and fences are installed to replace supervisory personnel laid off. Two years ago three century-old pedestrian tunnels in Golden Gate Park had massive iron gates fitted with the understanding that the Park Patrol would close them on rainy nights and they would be opened in the morning by staff as they came to work. The reality has been that no staff exists to close them. Urban campers often close themselves in for security.

Informal games on playing fields such as Big Rec during the wet and muddy winter damage the turf. There is not enough staff to keep people off the wet field and repair the damage. The solution being suggested is to fence the entire area off from the general public and preserve it only for formal baseball uses by permit only. That was done at the Polo Field where only formally permitted soccer games may take place and the public is fenced off by chain-link all around the field. Public parks? Only for those who belong to a team and get a permit.

Bayview Hill Wildflower Field Trip (plus weed-pulling)

Saturday, March 13, 2004 from10 am - 2 pm

The wildflower meadows and slopes of Bayview Hill are some of the best viewing spots for native plants in the city. Our Spring Field Trip March 13 will be led by Jake Sigg who has high hopes that we will see coast iris (Iris longipetala), California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), checkerbloom (Sidalcea malvifolia), bladder parsley and lace parsnip (Lomatium caruifolium and Lomatium dasycarpum), coast sunflower (Wyethia angustifolia), and johnny jump-ups (Viola pedunculata). There is a good chance our timing will be right for mission bells (Fritillaria affinis) and shooting stars (Dodecatheon hendersonii). Just reading the Latin makes one feel more of a botanist!

The plan is to review Bayview Hill's traditional wildflower meadows with Jake for the first two hours, have lunch and then pull weeds for a couple of hours. Beside the wondrous native wildflower scene is the specter of invasive plants that threaten them from all sides. Jake will identify the invasives for us, too. There is no obligation to remain for the weed-pulling! But if you do, gloves and tools will be provided. A car shuttle can be arranged for anyone who might be discouraged by the somewhat long steep climb to the top. Don't forget to bring lunch and liquid. Call Jake (731-3028) to learn the meeting place or email jakesigg@earthlink.net.

Nationwide Alert: Vote Against The Energy Bill

Over the next few weeks, President Bush and his congressional allies will try once again to ram their disastrous energy bill through the U.S. Senate. They fell only two votes short in November and they've vowed to make passage of the bill their top priority now that Congress has returned from recess.

It's a bad bill, according to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) because "it would pick your pocket, despoil your natural heritage, endanger your family's health and smother your hope for a more secure energy future. " To protest this attack on our environment, vote on-line by going to the NRDC website http://www.savebiogems.org/takeaction.asp?src=RR0401 and then send your two senators an email or fax, telling them to vote against this pro-polluter energy bill.

San Francisco's March Ballot

To tell the truth, Proposition J, the so-called "Workforce Housing" Initiative coming our way on the March 2004 ballot, is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce and Mayor Gavin Newsom Prop J doesn't do what it says it will do. Currently San Francisco is building only a fraction of the needed housing for low- and moderate-income residents, defined as those earning up to $77,000. But Prop J only benefits people making $77,000-$110,000.

There are virtually no opportunities for moderate-income workers to buy a home in San Francisco. Prop J, which its supporters call the "Workforce Housing" Initiative, claims to address this important need and provide housing for public sector workers such as teachers, nurses, and firefighters. The initiative isn't really honest about helping the whole range of San Francisco's working people and is only targeted at those with an annual income from $77,000 (for an individual) to $110,000 (for a family of four).

Proposition J would change the guidelines set by the Mayor's Office of Housing for the percent of income that a person should expect to spend on housing, so that monthly housing costs could be as high as $3,350 for a three-bedroom condo. Furthermore, Proposition J would give incentives to developers in some neighborhoods by exempting projects from height limits, density controls and public review through the conditional use process; it would also reduce the amount of affordable housing developers are currently required to contribute. READ THE FINE PRINT, and think of "workforce housing" as the "nom du jour" for getting around zoning controls.

###

top of page

SFT Newsletter : January 2004