Yesterday I again spent an afternoon with the Land Use & Economic Development Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. While I would love to report that the goal of Discretionary Review Reform has been achieved, it once again has been tabled for further discussion. What follows is a quick summary of what has changed in the past few months since I last wrote.
In the slow process that is our city government, each successive meeting is a series of the Supervisors asking the Planning Department for more information, then asking for more at the next meeting. Planning has done it’s best to present their case for reforming DR. Director John Rahaim reiterated the 5 benefits he sees coming out of this reform: Better Design, Consistent Design, Clarity and Transparency in the Planning Process, Improved Design Standards, and a Planning Commission focused on policy instead of individual projects. They’re simply trying to do what we always ask of Bureaucracies - become more efficient by getting rid of waste and excess. Planners saddled by frivolous DRs are not able to actually do their job, and instead have to referee spats between neighbors.
The big new was proposed amendments by Supervisor Mar. Some were no big deal, such as codifying the 2 year sunset of the trial reform, and improving the design standards (nee guidelines). He also wanted to have a written policy for the Planning Commission to call a project up by the vote of 2 commissioners. The biggest waves had to deal with Neighborhood Associations. Mr. Mar’s first proposed amendment was to always allow Neighborhood Groups the right to DR a project. Typically this is not a problem, because associations have a history of working with architects and planners. Many issues arose when Supervisor Mar asked for an additional 60 day period for Neighborhood Groups to finalize a DR, after the 30 initial period. Everyone was so confused at first that it required the Deputy City Attorney to step in and clarify – Neighborhood Groups were to be given 90 days, instead of the 30 they’ve dealt with for the past dozens of years.
Much discussion was had on both sides, with the typical talking points raised by everyone. Architects, consultants, neighborhood groups and owners all spoke their piece. Some were wildly off topic, and others mentioned by everyone at the podium. You can hardly blame the Supervisors for working on their anti-smoking legislation instead. After public comment was done, the commission (surprise!) asked for more information from the Planning Department, but I do feel like we’re getting closer. Supervisor Maxwell made several comments which to me signal that she understands many of the more issues at play. Hopefully once Mar’s amendments get addressed, we can get some actual work done, and help the Planning Department approve some projects!
As many of you know by now, last Thursday February 11th, the Planning Commission and Rec and Parks held a joint hearing on the proposal for 555 Washington St. Instead of a simple proposal for a residential tower, it has become a proxy war between the forces of growth and the preservationists. Both sides were out in force at the meeting, and have been encouraging all of their constituents to share their opinions. That’s the problem – the process is no longer in the hands of trained professionals, and has become a shouting match instead.
Almost all of the discussion at the meeting centered around a few key points, and few of them related solely to this address. Construction workers want jobs. Urban Designers like the density and location. Architects admire the form. Opponents worry about zoning exemptions, shading and views. These are all city-wide and regional concerns. NIMBYs fear that if this is allowed through, it will make precedent for more and larger towers. Of course the developers know that it will never be easy, and the fights continue to be elongated with each attempt. In case you were wondering why it’s expensive to live here, this would be a good place to investigate.
The real issue is the identity of San Francisco. I can’t say that I know more than others, living here only 5 years myself, but even in that short period we’ve made huge changes. Eastern Neighborhoods have been rezoned, Muni LRT extended to Bayview, and Rincon Hill has been dotted with ever taller towers. Faced with this uphill battle against progress, it seems that the forces of NIMBY-ism have decided to become ever more loud and obnoxious. A single voice has stalled the Bike Plan. Typical renovations and additions are stuck in Discretionary Review. Supervisors propose rewriting Prop-K to make shading on parks even more forbidden.
This all makes us trained professionals feel like our jobs are on every ballot. I understand that members of the government are responsible to the people, but I don’t believe that every policy should be fought over. There comes a time when expedience and necessity dictate otherwise. Recently, many of my office’s projects have been sent through many rounds of Planning Department reviews, ultimately changing the building beyond all recognition. Happily this seems to be changing, as everyone has begun to notice that nothing is being built any more. Before the developers go John Galt on us, we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Discretionary Review reform is working through the Board of Supervisors, the BOS has dropped the ballot initiative, and the Bike Plan’s EIR is certified.
But again, where does this leave us? I have to admire the tenacity and determination of the NIMBYs, but I can only wish that their efforts were put to better use. Architects, Engineers, Planners, et cetera, all work very hard to make the absolute best of any given project. We are all licensed by the State of California to do our jobs to the utmost. If someone misrepresents one of their projects, we can lose our licenses. The public opinion has its place, but it doesn’t need to be inserted into each and every building. Instead they should focus on city-wide policies to truly shape the philosophy of growth.
What if there were something would create or save thousands of jobs in San Francisco and California, yet save money, energy, and people’s lives? Inevitably every proposal along these lines has some crazy caveat, but not here. The only catch would be finding a politician with enough gusto to actually get it done. I’m sure any proposal here would inevitably be torn to shreds, but I’m an optimist.
Here’s the plan: Required retrofitting of all older buildings for energy use and seismic safety. But wait, you say, what about the money? Why would anyone waste time and energy on this? What’s to save? What benefit would this be?
The money part is actually the easiest to answer, at least for energy audits. Many simple measures can be done to cheaply save heat and electricity from flying out the window. Some legislation is beginning to require energy audits at sale of a house, but this needs to be done now. Just look to Berkeley, where solar installations are paid for by the city, and the cost (far less than the money saved) is added to property tax. Money for seismic retrofits would be harder to control, but I’m sure some insurance savings would go a long ways to motivating people.
Beyond the fiscal motivation, there are also more noble concerns: Saving the planet. Less money going to OPEC. Cleaner Air. Fresher water. Saving historic buildings. Saving lives. Each of these should be enough to consider your options as a building owner, but the combination is almost irresistible.
Lastly, there is the job factor. While the ARRA (Stimulus Bill) went to great lengths to provide funding for new jobs in large infrastructure projects, the little guys were ignored. Of course I’m biased in this, being an architect, but small scale construction is one of the last things to come back online after an economic rebound. Even though there are plenty of new houses in the ex-urbs, the 100 year old houses in San Francisco simply aren’t safe or efficient. A stimulus plan on this note would help employ design professionals (architects, engineers, surveyors, and interior designers), manufacturers, and construction workers. Huge segments of the economy could be rehabbed from the top-down.
I’m sure everyone who feels under-employed is asking for government help right now, but that’s not the whole story. This project would create jobs while aiding safety and energy savings. We would actually make things, instead of simply moving money around, and you can easily see the results in lower monthly payments. Of course these would all be local jobs too, with local benefits. And one can hope that we would end up with a better looking and functioning city at the end of it.
New Hybrid Doors, via sf.streetsblog.com
As a regular rider on SF Muni, all too often I see people confounded by the multitude of door opening mechanisms. Several times a week I see people unfamiliar with the various systems, and either have to watch them struggle, or yell out at the driver to open the door. The familiar chime of “Back door!” should never be this prevalent.
The busses have three different methods of egress, plus the simple use of the front door. The oldest system is the ’step down’, another chorus you may hear when unfamiliar with that trigger. Seeing as this is rather difficult for elderly or disabled people to do quickly, or if the driver is in a hurry, newer busses feature the press bar. This mechanism works well enough, unless your hands are full. The newest method is the ‘touch here to open’ strip, which is really just an optical sensor. The sensor doesn’t open the door unless you correctly hover your hand in the right place for about a second, which was nothing to do with touching. Clearly tiny signs aren’t very helpful in instructing people how to operate doors.
Muni trains, on the other hand, are at least standardized. The problem here is that the press bar is located well too low to actually be reachable. Half of the people I see simply kick the bar, which can’t be good for maintenance. It’s either that or bend over, and hope that you’ve pressed it in time to activate. If you’re in the rear train, there’s no option of yelling at the driver that you wanted to get out. My personal favorite is when the door is out of order, and they simply apply a barely visible sticker, about 6′-0″ above the floor. How hard is it to put some red tape across a door to show it’s broken? And I would be remiss if I didn’t harp on the piercing squeal the doors make if held ajar. I’m sure everyone recognizes when a door has been held open, so why subject the entire train to that awful sound?
Any one of these mechanisms would be totally fine if they were uniform across the system. Of course this would cost too much to happen in my lifetime. Naturally the best option would to simply open the doors automatically at each stop. With the increasing usage of Translink and monthly passes, we should encourage people to enter through the rear door anyways (of course with more fare enforcement). And if that doesn’t work, try considering a system like Seattle, where you pay while boarding for inbound, and pay upon exiting for outbound stops. Overall it would decrease the dwell time, and help get people smoothly home. Certainly our ears would be all the healthier for it.
Lyon St Stairs, via crossfitsweatshop.com
It’s time to discus the combination of two of my loves, exercise and city design. San Francisco is often considered one of the most fit cities in the US, and we have an amazing climate for running. Many bike commuters make great use of these traits, but don’t have to worry about one key issue: where to go?
Sure, we have Golden Gate Park with its miles of roads and trails. The Presidio is rebuilding their extensive off road network. Ocean Beach, the Embarcadero and Crissy Field all have great linear paths. The problem is that so few of these peripheral trails are located near people, and are not interconnected. For me, the thought of driving to exercise is one of the most hypocritical things in our culture. It’s time to design streets that would actually make people want to get out and move.
The easiest way to see this at work is the Sunday Streets series, reintroducing many San Franciscans to the wonders our city has to offer. This easily overcomes two of the three largest problems – hills and sidewalks. Traffic is still abundant in the people dodging sense. If you were starting from scratch, there are many things you might want to think about, but how can we take our existing grid and make it work for us – and make people want to get outside?
-
Safe sidewalks? via Streetsblog
Stairs: often necessary to overcome our hills, stairways can either be the public right of way, or merely accompany the steep streets. As much as cyclists try to avoid steep hills, runners often flock to them for speed training. If you’ve ever been to the Lyon St steps adjacent to the Presidio, you have seen the teams of runners endlessly going up and down. This type of civic construction not only increases our circulation possibilities, but it makes it fun and desirable.
- Sidewalks: As many of us can attest, all of out infrastructure is failing. Seldom it’s less obvious than a crumbling sidewalk, which poses a great threat to pedestrian safety. Naturally when running, uprooted pavement comes at you much faster. But for me, the bigger problem is the width of the sidewalk. With the combination of new street trees, warped sidewalks for driveways, and other pedestrians I often find it safer to run in the street.
- Traffic: Contrary to my experience on a bike, occupying the road seems the surest bet. Traffic on the sidewalk from other pedestrians is often more indignant than from cars on the street. I stay out of traffic by hugging the cars, but don’t fear a bicyclist’s fate of being doored. Surely this could all be alleviated by wider sidewalks, but that’s a future project.
Our streets, sidewalks, and other right of ways are resources that should be a large part of our civic pride. Everyone knows about Lombard St, but it isn’t even the steepest (Filbert St and 22nd St at 31.5%) or curviest (Vermont) street in San Francisco. But what about these other famous streets or stairs? The truth is, unless you are an amateur detective or a bibliophile, you’ll probably never find some of the more interesting areas of our city. These make for great running/hiking, and also great sightseeing for tourists and our economy. I love going for a run and discovering a new stair or path, but I would love all running to be so accessible and exciting.
Wastewater map, via SFWater.org
While most people know the source of our delicious drinking water, few know what happens when we’re done with it. Now is also the time of year to think about rainfall, and the effect that water has on our design decisions. In San Francisco, we have a combined sewer system, which is to say we don’t discriminate between sewage and stormwater. Of course most of this infrastructure is also quite old. San Francisco’s first sewers were built over 100 years ago, but the brick construction holds up quite well.
Originally a cost-cutting measure, San Francisco is unique in having one pipe for all water. Now it’s actually quite beneficial to the environment when we treat everything before dumping it in the bay. The only problem is during extended periods of rainfall, the system gets backed up. The current infrastructure is quite amazing – several large storage tanks under our largest streets, simply to store water prior to treatment. Rainfall gets treated over the course of several days, before heading out to the bay or ocean. Even though the 3 treatment plants can process about 500 million gallons a day, we end up dumping water about 10 times a year. Investments into stormwater absorption could greatly help alleviate the sewer issue, but it also raises other problems.
The other aspect is water that is absorbed into the ground. This is always preferable to treating wastewater, but we have to acknowledge our limitations. San Francisco was once populated by many creeks and tributaries, beginning on hilltops and carving our many valleys. While the surface ones are almost all diverted, many still run underground. But of course they’re not gone, simply forgotten, ignored, or rerouted. We only have a rainfall of about 20″ a year, but we have a large collection of springs and other unexplained sources of water to power these streams. The Hayes River is powerful enough that BART has to pump 2.5 million gallons of water from the Powell Station each day. Many other buildings have to continuously worry about inundation while planning their basements or foundations. One project I’m working on is undergoing Discretionary Review partially because people are worried about the change in water flowing through the underground river. Changes in hydrology can cause landslides and flooding if not properly accounted for, just one more unique design challenge in San Francisco.
Subsurface water storage, via SFWater.org
Every day we live with the decisions of the past, and our water infrastructure is no exception. Sewers and stormwater are the same system, and now we have to pay extra fees for each toilet or sink that we build. Culverted streams carry a large source of potable water directly to the bay, instead of being used for irrigation or drinking. We don’t live in a desert, but we’ve designed our city to be completely independent of the weather. Each rainy season we should think what our priorities are when rain drains pollution to the bay, but we’re worried about Sierra snowmelt for drinking. We need to design all of our buildings and infrastructure to be ready for changing climate and rain patterns. Relying on old systems will no longer be enough – it’s time to make sure each addition can stand on it’s own.
Balboa Park Station Area Plan, via SF Planning
Recently the Balboa Park Station Area Plan has come back into the news as the plan slowly comes to fruition. As with all things political, the frustrating pace is necessary to make sure that it’s done correctly. Especially in this case, when so much of the work is meant to correct for the horrendous design visited upon this area in the past 50 years.
This formerly residential neighborhood is blessed with some of the best transit connectivity in San Francisco. It’s BART’s busiest station outside of Downtown SF, and it is a transfer station for many Muni lightrail and bus lines. It also was cut in half by I-280, which made a gouge through the namesake park and the affordable housing nearby. With the main campus of City College in it’s midst, this neighborhood, for good or ill, is based on transit.
The new plan makes several admirably ambitious steps forward. I’ll try to summarize as best as I can (organized roughly West to East), but there’s no substitute for reading it yourself.
- The newsmaker recently has been the relocation of the “Phelan Bus Loop”. This would take what is effectively a parking lot and convert it to multi-family affordable housing, combined with the nearby vacant Kragen store. Then a new Bus Loop would be constructed around the existing Firehouse, complete with bathrooms and a rest area for the drivers. This new configuration would provide great connectivity to the CCSF campus, and create a more interesting street face along Ocean Ave, while providing much needed housing.
- Adjacent to the Bus Loop sits two enormous vacant properties owned by the City of San Francisco. Two unbuilt reservoirs hold only cars and dirt. The Plan would use the eastern half of each parcel to construct additional housing, and create open space on the western half. This would effectively reserve area if the reservoirs are needed in the future, while allowing for construction of homes in a very desirable location. The Campus could have a much better entrance, and Phelan has much more capacity than is used right now.
- Along with rebuilding Phelan, Ocean and Geneva are in dire need of a face lift. The basic idea is to construct them in terms with SF’s Better Streets Plan, doing their best to create a more pedestrian and family friendly streetscape. There is also a plan to encourage more mixed use zoning to get more people on the street. This would also help re-link the two sides of the freeway.
-
Section through SPUI and Freeway Deck, via SF Planning
The gem of the plan is the SPUI and freeway deck above 280. Single Point Urban Interchanges funnel traffic entering and exiting the highway through one chokepoint, helping to control car’s speed, while also creating an easier to navigate crosswalk. The interstate area between Ocean and Geneva would have a deck above it, creating a pedestrian and transit plaza. MUNI’s existing turnarounds would be transferred to the deck, putting it closer to both sides of the neighborhood, and also the CCSF campus. Of course BART would get a facelift also, trying to lighten up the trench-like station. The deck might also host additional housing and stores, as part of the overall plan to announce the Station as a destination rather than a view from a culvert.
- Lastly, San Jose would also receive the same treatment as Ocean and Geneva. There would be an effort to reclaim some land from MUNI to create more housing and shops, again all trying to create walkable neighborhoods.
Naturally this is a plan that will take decades to enact. And many millions of dollars. But this is an area that is absolutely ripe for more development. Where else can you find schools and houses so close to BART for such affordable prices? As I’ve written before, why not take advantage of what we have? The question is, how can we best work to enact the needed changes? We needed this project 25 years ago.
Proposed Freeway Deck and SPUI, via SF Planning
Ever since the installation of the new detour in the Bay Bridge, I’ve heard many anecdotal stories about the terrors of the S curve. When I was racing back to San Francisco to return a rental car (the one time I’ve driven the detour) I could see the point. Most of the bridge is straight and flat, and people tend to speed up. The whole reason that many newer longer bridges (think of the San Mateo Bridge) have slight curves is to avoid this false sense of security.
With the big-rig crash earlier this week, I thought of something else though. It’s that many drivers have a sense of complacency, if not invincibility behind the wheel. There is plenty of signage to warn of the impending curve and lowered speed limit, so what else can it be? Maybe it’s just that we base our driving on habit rather than thinking. This is the fundamental difference between cars and bikes/pedestrians.
I bike to work, and I have to make hundreds of life or death decisions on the roads each day. This constant fear is what keeps me on my toes, and always aware of what’s around me. Luckily my route follows the panhandle bike path, and a portion of golden gate park, so I’m segregated from many cars. But it also means I have to bike on Fell or Oak for a few blocks. If an engineer wants to call the new S curve ‘negligent’, then what would you call a bike path that ends into a 4 lane high-speed free-for-all?
Pedestrians and bikers have to always be thinking. If there’s something in your way, you adapt. Each day presents new challenges and puzzles. Yet I don’t blame the designers for it. The design is safe only if people are aware of it. There are many ways of making people pay attention: curves, bumps, signs, paint, etc. But if a driver chooses to go well over the posted speed limit, it’s not negligent design.
Yesterday the Land Use and Economic Development Committee of the Board of Supervisors had a hearing about reforming the Discretionary Review process. The Planning Department has proposed several different revisions to the protocol in an effort to make everything more efficient. Mainly, the revisions would require a more thorough early notification, but would give the department power to reject frivolous challenges. This was not the first hearing in this process, nor will it be the last, but I wanted to provide some first person perspective on the proposal.
Anyone who works in the design field in San Francisco is all too familiar with the headaches caused by the DR process. After negotiations with the department, the plans get sent to the neighbors, and the struggle starts anew. In a worst case scenario, someone believes that the plans are illegitimate, and demands a review by the Planning Commission. Well, demand is a little strong – for $300 you can cause any project to be delayed by months, costing the project sponsor thousands. It is this power that forces negotiation, even when the Design Standards are met. Supervisor Maxwell several times cited this as the power to ‘kill’ a project. The idea that an uninformed public should be able to override professional planners, architects and designers stings the brain, but there it is. I think this was the main sticking point in not immediately passing the legislation.
The new version of the rules will still allow the public to bring the decision in front of a public board, however. Any DR that is negated by planning may still be brought before the Board of Appeals. The power to kill a project still remains valid, but yes, slightly lessened. Because nobody should be able to kill a valid project that meets all the criteria.
The most important part of the reform has already been accomplished through administrative changes. Pre-application notices are now required for all projects, and the information has been standardized. Any applicable party will have the initial contact, and be able influence the design in it’s early stages. This will prevent the type of blackmail we’ve seen when the project hangs on one ornery neighbor. These pre-app changes are long past due, but welcomed nevertheless. The problem is that now we’re doing too much. A Residential Design Team has also been added to look at all projects for uniform application of the Design Standards, thereby increasing the consistency of the review. The extended pre-application, along with the unlimited DR privileges will put too much strain on the planning staff. That is why we must pass these reforms to the DR process as well – they’re complimentary in placing the review earlier in the process.
At the meeting many of the speakers were of this mind. Design professionals and homeowners spoke about the intense pressure they’ve felt from one unhappy neighbor. Neighborhood groups often spoke that the earlier they knew about a project, the less likely they were to DR a project. Only one person spoke passionately about keeping the DRs ‘as-is’, and that was a lawyer who profits from DR clients. Most everyone knows the process is broken and overburdened. The effort to push forward the neighborhood notification is an effort to please everyone from the beginning. We all like to work with happy neighbors. And who knows, maybe we’ll end up with better buildings as a result.
A few weeks ago I wrote a quick analysis of my thoughts about California’s Architecture Exam requirements. I’m happy to report that I passed the exam, and in a few short weeks will be a licensed architect. Notice the extra delay in the process – another 6-8 weeks is required to get everything else in order. In case you’re counting, these are the steps I’ve taken:
- 4 years at UC Berkeley, majoring in Architecture (The non-professional degree).
- Completion of the Intern Development Program, where I documented about 3 years of work experience at various firms.
- California IDP, nearly the same thing as above.
- Completion of 9 ARE exams, in theory covering the entire scope of architecture.
- Waiting until the years of experience were finally logged correctly at NCARB, and then forwarded to the California Architects Board.
- After acknowledging my experience, waiting until an open exam date. Passing the California Supplemental Exam, waiting for the results, paying another $200, then waiting 6-8 weeks for confirmation.
There has to be some time in there that we can shave a little time off. Granted, I’m about as young as you can be to actually qualify, and I have California’s rules to thank for that. CA doesn’t require the professional degree, as most other states do. Instead of spending another 2 years in graduate school, I was able to work in many different facets. In my view, this experience was much more helpful than any amount of schooling would ever be.
California is unique in this sense. We require less schooling, but have a much more difficult exam process (and the CIDP, which is at least well-intentioned). I am now eligible for reciprocity with other states, and I got to skip some of their more burdensome requirements. Each state has exceptions for designers with many years of experience, but is this “no-school” loophole a good thing or not?
As I mentioned before, I’ve learned much more through working that through school. Of course my education opened doors for me, but in terms of real live architecture and workplace skills, there is no comparison. Maybe I’ve just been lucky in my circuitous employment. I have worked for contractors as a framer, for purely development driven clients, and for engineering firms. But I still think I passed the last exam only because of a summer internship during college, where I learned all about the bidding process in public buildings. It’s the things you pick up along the way, with your first-hand knowledge that really shine when you need it.
California’s method of skipping an extra year or two of schooling may result in less design-y buildings, we will be guaranteed to have smarter architects.
