Prop M is foundational. But what’s it worth today?
San Francisco’s development and planning cornerstone, Prop M, has been effectively guiding development in San Francisco since its passage by the electorate in 1986. But recently, Prop M has been sidelined and ignored by the Court of Appeals’ decision on Parkmerced. The judges’ interpretation of two little words “must” and “shall” and the apparent lack of clarity about their use in the language of Prop M could set a precedent for other large-scale growth throughout San Francisco. The lack of these specific words could allow the interpretation of Proposition M, the core of San Francisco’s Planning Code, to be controlled by the rich, powerful and influential backers of the Parkmerced project.
Proposition M was a ballot initiative created by an upset citizenry in 1986 to curb pro-development interpretation of vague city laws. Prop M was incorporated into the City Planning Code as Section 101, containing eight immutable planning rules that needed to be followed to enable approval of a project.
“Must” and “Shall” the citizens of San Francisco accept a project that is in clear violation of Proposition M? On Thursday, August 14, 2014, the California Court of Appeals issued a decision in favor of a massive development plan which would demolish the low-rise affordable units at Parkmerced and replace them with new high-rise apartments served by a rerouted Muni line which is not yet fully funded.
Proposition M is an overarching planning principle. Yet, the Parkmerced decision contradicts and flies in the face of actual practice and implementation of Section 101 by the City Planning department. Proposition M has been the overarching planning principle cited in every City Planning evaluation and recommendation for decades. Because Proposition M has been adhered to for the most part, growth in San Francisco has followed a reasonably slower pattern. Proposition M’s language has been sufficiently clear to function as voters intended until this Court’s statement.
Traffic congestion is acceptable for this Court. This case has profound ramifications for unbridled growth in San Francisco. The Court stated at the beginning of the trial that they were for development, and they would not limit growth because of a lack of sufficient transit, citing a Los Angeles court case which has created a traffic ‘nightmare’ in Los Angeles. Too bad they did not to cite an example of a case that provided a sound transportation plan. MUNI has cut service in every neighborhood since 2006. With piecemeal transit planning, new developments, like Parkmerced and the Transbay Terminal, will throw thousands of new residents and workers into a stagnant transit system and an already strained street system. Any new MUNI project related to Parkmerced could mean taking MUNI projects funds from other transit-starved neighborhoods.
Neighborhood Character should be based on affordable housing, not aesthetics. The Court has determined Parkmerced is not an “Historical Landmark” and concludes that Neighborhood Character, is based on the composition of the residents that live there. Unlike the Victorian housing stock near Alamo Square, the Court believes it is not the aesthetics of the existing Parkmerced community that is noteworthy but whether or not it has rent control. Presently, the Court recognizes that 3,221 units in Parkmerced are under rent control and maintaining that number of rent controlled units is all-important.
While Prop M seeks to respect neighborhood character, the massive new density of more than fifty new high-rises would drastically change it. The existing population of Parkmerced today is around 8,500 residents, living in 3,221 rent-controlled units (i.e., 100% rent-controlled). With the new composition of Parkmerced, at full build-out of 28,000 units, the percent of residents living in rent controlled units would be only 30%. Reducing the percentage of residents living in rent controlled units will dramatically change the Neighborhood Character, using the Court’s own logic.
When Stuart Flashman, the lawyer representing San Francisco Tomorrow and Parkmerced Action Coalition, was asked how he felt about the decision, he replied, “Evidently the Court doesn’t care what the voters say.” Flashman is referring to Proposition M which was designed to curb and qualify development in San Francisco and is now in conflict with the building boom being promoted by the City’s administration. (Glenn Rogers and George Wooding contributed to this article.)
