Their website, bayareaburden.org, has a Housing + Transportation Calculator that’s fun to play with.

A personal memory I have of that hotel is the 1990 and 1991 Out/Write conferences, which brought together the whole LGBT literary world for the first time. Searching for some mention of these conferences on the web, I found a lovely piece by Edmund White, in which he gives a glowing description of the 1991 conference.

Also read: Curbed SF on the Jack Tar Hotel

The new codes are to be phased in by 2012. Projects will be evaluated on a point system with credit given for materials used in the building, the location of the building site and water and energy efficiencies…..

Despite those predictions, the city’s Office of Economic Analysis estimated that the new codes would cost the city between $30 million and $700 million a year in economic output, as it could lead to higher rents and businesses choosing to locate elsewhere.

Newsom called that report inaccurate and predicted the new regulations would actually attract businesses to the city. That opinion was echoed by Phil Williams, an executive at San Mateo-based Webcor Builders, who sat on the city task force on green building that developed the new regulations.

The LEED certifications for green building will apply to larger projects, both residential and commercial and the Greenpoint system will apply to smaller projects.

The opposition are crying that the added expense will further drive up the cost of owning a home or a business in SF, and I cry bullshit on that. For far too long people have not paid the true cost of housing, energy and other resources. And this is where government certainly has a role, protecting the commons.

There will be cost savings aplenty as people fall in line with the added up front expense of building to codes that make sense in today’s world.

Elsewhere:

• Greener than thou:San Francisco Seals the deal on Green Building [SF Curbed]
• San Francisco Takes The LEED (And GreenPoint) On Building Codes [SocketSite]

Photograph CC by Chance Gardener.

The Haight Ashbury Improvement Association is taking a much more progressive stance and is in favor of the project. Long story short, if you live anywhere close and have a point of view, the time to speak up is now, and the person to talk to is Ross Mirkarimi. Email him at ross.mirkarimi@sfgov.org .

Statement to HAIA from property owner and developer of 690 Stanyan St. :

On July 17, 2008, at a meeting of the Haight Ashbury Improvement Association, we informed those members in attendance that the chances of moving forward with the 690 Stanyan St. Project (proposed are 62 residential units above a full-service grocery store – Whole Foods Market, currently undergoing environmental review by the City and the public) were at best “50 – 50″ and that it is quite likely that this project is on its deathbed. The unreasonable delays in environmental review by the City are causing both the project sponsor and the proposed tenant, Whole Foods Market, to think seriously about whether it is all worth it. We would like to elaborate on our earlier remarks.

A weak economy is coming around to affect San Francisco and there have been huge increases in construction costs over the last 12 months. National grocery chains, like almost all public companies, are re-evaluating the risks of expanding into new markets. The Project’s planning application has been under environmental review by the City for nearly 2 ½ years now, without any sort of schedule for an approval hearing with the Planning Commission and certainly no end to the City planning process in sight.

We have spent nearly $1 Million to date on planning for the project, largely on City fees and consultants chosen by the City to analyze the environmental effects of the project: we have to little to show for it except a stack of heavy draft documents. Thanks mostly to a vocal minority of opponents of the project, we have encountered long delays in publication of a Final EIR and the City has called for new environmental studies to be undertaken involving new data collection, analysis and writing-up (the new studies confirm the conclusions of the original draft EIR). For example, an 18-page letter from the Sierra Club has cost weeks of schedule and thousands of dollars in re-analysis by the City’s highly-paid consultants. This and delays sought by HANC have pushed back any hope of obtaining an approval hearing before the Fall of this year, perhaps even conveniently beyond the November elections. Given this, the earliest that the supermarket could now open for business would be 2011 or 2012. This leads to a likely conclusion that, unless there is a hearing before the Planning Commission soon, there will be no market tenant, no housing and no development of that site in the foreseeable future. The parking lot, of course, would stay open for business.

All the while, our District 5 Supervisor, Ross Mirkarimi, has expressed little or no interest in pushing this project forward. He denies being in opposition to the project although the warmth of his feelings depend greatly on the audience for his remarks. Instead he queries other grocery vendors regarding their interest in occupying the old Cala Foods building; while his allies more actively work in opposition to the project. If the Supervisor is opposed to the project, that is his prerogative, but he should clearly articulate his reasons why, particularly in an election season, in order to convince his constituents that his position is the right one. If he is supportive of having a full-service grocery store for the area then he needs to take a leadership role in carrying the project forward, lobbying city staff and prominent people, pushing them along a little in order to get the project ready for its approval hearing as quickly as possible: this is the essence of the role of a District Supervisor. The Supervisor’s inaction and lack of leadership on this issue serves the same result as actively opposing it. Unfortunately it appears that he has cast his lot with HANC and the handful of opponents to the project but does not have the integrity to admit this to his constituents.

We ask only that you make your feelings known to our District Supervisor and ask that he provide leadership for our community, that trying to hide in the shadows is not an acceptable way for him to represent our opinions.

Thank you.
Mark J. Brennan for 690 Stanyan St. LLC

[poll=19]

Subsequently the San Francisco Planning Department issued an environmental impact report finding that AT&T could move forward with its plans. AT&T immediately requested a permit from Public Works to begin installation. However, the permit was appealed by a neighborhood organization forcing a hearing before the Board of Supervisors. The Board will hear the appeal at its meeting on Tuesday, July 29th. The Board has the authority to deny the appeal or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for review.

Jamie Court, president of the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights wrote about this issue over two years ago on SFGate.

The League of California Cities, which opposes most of the bill, has even identified threats to real estate values if AT&T can bypass cities and lay down its new “light speed” Internet/video lines without asking permission. The League warns against the coming “crate on every corner”: a 5-foot-tall and 3-foot-wide metal cabinet installed above ground for every 362 potential customers for AT&T’s service.

This utility box is actually more like a refrigerator on every corner. Not only is it an eyesore, it’s an irresistible graffiti magnet, as demonstrated on existing boxes filmed by the league. AT&T boasts of technical expertise, but says it can’t make the boxes smaller or bury them. Without local control, tens of thousands of boxes are bound to wind up in all the wrong places.

Also in 2006, AT&T sued a group in Chicago who objected to the size and placement of these boxes as reported by SaveAccess.org:

When a handful of Illinois cities balked at letting AT&T install similar boxes, the phone company sued.

“They are very intrusive,” said Steve Vinezeano, assistant village manager in Niles, Ill., a Chicago suburb that last month imposed a 180-day moratorium on box installations. “From the looks of it, they don’t really make any effort to cover them up. I’ve seen more substantial wireless equipment stored in vaults underground. We’re trying to protect ourselves from the eyesores.”

They’re not just eyesores, according to Stuart Chapman, an Illinois telecommunications consultant whose firm has clients in 10 states, including California. Because they’re installed near streets, the boxes — which he calls “an aesthetics nightmare” — could block motorists’ view of potential hazards.

Key points To Consider

• This will have significant City-wide impact because AT&T has requested 850 boxes to be installed throughout the City
• AT&T has noticed only 2 neighborhoods so far, the Inner Sunset and probably Ingleside
• All boxes will be above ground and are large – bigger than the current utility boxes. (approx. the size of a pick-up truck bed)
• There is no map showing all proposed locations making it difficult to understand the City-wide impact of the new installations
• Other City residents and neighborhood organizations are unaware of this proposal because AT&T has not posted flyers in their neighborhood
• Currently AT&T does little to keep its installations well maintained and graffiti free so additional, larger boxes, will only aggravate the situation. (please note graffiti on current box at 5th & Irving)
• Other communication organizations, such as Verizon, have been willing to pay the additional costs to have their equipment installed underground

There is an appeal being made, at a board of supervisors meeting at City Hall on Tuesday, July 29th. Board meetings start at 2 pm. When the agenda is published you can get some idea of when the AT&T item will be heard. This is for the entire City – if the appeal is lost, other residents will not be able to protest the boxes because it will be past the deadline.

[poll=18]

Updated Post: ATT is requesting to install 850 boxes, not 85.

An ambitious west Texas farm boy with grandiose plans tires of living at the mercy of nature and sets out to find a life with more control. He heads to Austin where he becomes a real estate developer and skillfully capitalizes on the growth of this 1970s boomtown. At the peak of his powers, he transforms 4,000 acres of pristine Hill Country into one of the state’s largest and fastest selling subdivisions. When the development threatens a local treasure, a fragile limestone aquifer and a naturally spring-fed swimming hole, the community fights back. In the conflict that ensues, we see in miniature a struggle that today plays out in communities across the country.

Screening at the Red Vic Movie House, 5/18/08 – 5/19/08.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kv4Smb7oPFE[/youtube]

The Unforeseen.

You can send an email to: sarah.b.jones@sfgov.org, use the subject re: case number 2006.0460E.

Postal letters should be sent to:
Bill Wycko
San Francisco Planning Department
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400,
San Francisco, CA 94103 re: case number 2006.0460E