Public Gets Glimpse of Sava Pool Plan

New Swimming Pool Will be Shorter and Have Wider Lanes

By Dmitry Kiper

Sava Pool, the busiest public swimming pool in San Francisco, has stood at Wawona Street and 19th Avenue for 46 years. It is not going anywhere, but if everything goes according to plan, the pool will be demolished next February and a new one will be built.

Construction of an improved replacement will begin after demolition and take about a year and eight months to complete. The SF Recreation and Park Department is overseeing the project.

According to architect Paulett Taggart, the project is currently near the end of the “schematic phase,” in which general design ideas and measurements are agreed upon by the major stakeholders. The new pool will be 75 feet long and have eight lanes, each seven-and-a-half feet wide.

The “design development” phase is expected to be completed in March. That is when the recreation and park department and the architects working on the project will disclose what materials are necessary for construction and provide a general outline of the electrical, structural and mechanical systems of the building. The calculations, according to architect Mark Cavagnero, will be made with “typical conditions” in mind.

During the construction planning phase, which is expected to last from April to September, the “particulars of the building” will be factored into the design. Taggart says everything will be transferred into hard numbers and committed to paper.

After the particulars of the project are known, contractors will bid for the right to build the structure.

Project director Tony Leung, of the Recreation and Park Department, says the project should cost about $11.6 million. There is still a funding shortfall of $2.6 million, which Leung says will have to be raised to complete the project. His office is currently working with Supervisor Fiona Ma to find sources of funding.

“We won’t start the project until all the funding is available,” Leung said.

“The construction cost is $7.7 million,” he said. “But that is without factoring in a ‘construction contingency.’ It is a reserve you want to set aside for unpredictable conditions.”

Problems with the weather, soil or minor architectural changes or blunders can cost millions.

The idea to build a new pool goes back to the summer of 1999. Norm Kong and Dick Allen, the founding members of Friends of Sava Pool, were frustrated because, like many other parents, they had to go to swim meets out of town. Official swimming competitions were not held at the pool because of its non-standard length (100 feet) and poor condition.

“We love to swim at Sava Pool,” said Allen, “and we wanted the facilities to be upgraded.”

“The building is structurally unsound,” Taggart said. “It’s in bad shape due to exposure to moisture all these years.”

“The heating ventilation and air conditioning system hasn’t worked well for 15 years,” Cavagnero said. “The wood is rotted and the steel is rusted. It’s not up to code for an earthquake.”

Furthermore, the current building’s locker rooms, bathrooms and showers are difficult for handicapped users to access.

Although there is little objection to fixing the decrepit condition of the pool, there is some discourse over its length.

At a community meeting in February, 2004, some neighbors were outraged to learn that the length of the new pool would be cut from 100 feet to 75 feet. The architects also announced that the pool would have only six lanes due to budget limitations.

“You’re going to spend all this money on a pool that isn’t even as long as the one we have now,” one audience member said. “This is a joke.”

One major outcome of last year’s meeting, Leung said, was an increase in the number of lanes: The new pool will have eight lanes as opposed to six, and they will be wider than the current lanes.

At the Feb. 28, 2005 meeting, neighbors were curious as to the plan for the pool. The architects and the project director answered questions on a wide range of topics, including the location of the main entrance (on Wawona Street because 19th Avenue has too much traffic), the cutting down of trees on the construction site (some trees will be cut, but replacement trees will be planted) and teenagers who like to drink and hang out near the entrance on Friday nights (the area will be well lighted with a fence in front of the entrance).

After architects presented a model of what the new pool will look like, a Sava Pool swimming instructor suggested the showers have a second entrance because it is not uncommon for sexual abuse to occur in showers and changing rooms. He said the second entrance would make the shower area more visible and easier to evacuate.

The neighbors’ recommendations were noted and their concerns – primarily the fact that the new pool will be 25 feet shorter – were addressed.

“It’s a question of balancing the need of all the users of the pool,” Taggart said. “There are high schools that use the facilities. The (current) pool is 25 feet longer, but it is an odd length. It needs to be competition length.”

Swim teams at Lowell and Lincoln high schools use the pool regularly.

While last year’s efforts to have an Olympic-size swimming pool (50 meters) were curtailed because of a lack of funding, a standard short-course competition pool (75 feet) was agreed upon as the best option.

After the meeting, some neighbors said they had a better understanding of the project.

"Serial" Housing Plan at Mt. Sutro Halted

By Dmitry Kiper

The SF Planning Department has put a developer’s plans to build four homes on the eastern slope of Mt. Sutro on hold due to environmental concerns.

Neighbors and many experts claim the developer’s plans carry significant environmental implications not only for the property in question, but for homes surrounding the development site: The trees and wildlife will have to be eliminated; and water-flow will overwhelm the neighboring houses, surrounding trees and fragile sewer system.

Whether these claims are valid “remains to be shown,” says Planner Geoffrey Nelson of the SF Planning Department.

In February 2003, Tom Hunt and Tom Egan of T&T Investments purchased a 20,000-square-foot plot of land between Stanyan Street and Woodland Avenue for $2.5 million.

There are five lots on the property. Two lots are on Stanyan Street, two are on Woodland Avenue and the biggest one, which can be divided into three lots, is in the middle. The property is shaped like a boomerang with one side (the Woodland Avenue side) longer than the other.

In May 2004, the planning department approved a building permit application for the two lots on 1187 and 1189 Stanyan Street and declared the properties “categorically exempt” from an Environmental Impact Review (EIR).

“We had no knowledge of any other developmental proposals,” said Nelson, explaining the issuance of a categorical exemption.

In June, T&T Investments submitted a second building permit application for the construction of two single-family homes on 106 and 108 Woodland Avenue.

“As soon as the new permits came in, it became obvious (that there could be some environmental concerns),” Nelson said.

Egan, of T&T Investments, declined a number of opportunities to comment on the plan.

The SF Board of Supervisors and the planning department received many letters from concerned neighbors and local environmental experts.

“(The site) is a unique habitat for wildlife offering a spectacular display of acacia, cypress and redwood trees,” wrote Carolyn Blain, executive director of The San Francisco Tree Council. “The development plan currently calls for removal of these trees. Without a tree protection plan and an environmental impact study, all the (surrounding) trees could be endangered.”

“It is feared,” Blain added, “that the construction in this area will negatively impact the delicate aquifer and geology of this site. Water drains down and through the proposed development. Any construction in this area that takes out trees or ignores the drainage problems in this aquifer endangers homes on Woodland Avenue and the homes below on Stanyan Street. This area should be designated as a historic landmark with appropriate protection.”

“As biologists, biology instructors and birders,” wrote concerned neighbors Helen McKenna and Allan Ridley, “we are certain that such a project in a sensitive natural area would have substantial impact on the environment. We urge you to support the neighborhood’s appeal and require the developer to at least comply with the CEQA requirements for environmental assessment.”

Neighbors met with T&T Investments in September 2004 and architect Gabriel Ng indicated the development may include building three units on the large middle lot – although permits were not yet submitted – bringing the total development plan to seven single-family homes.

“When the architect told us this, we were quite stunned,” said Ron Jones, who lives two houses down from the Stanyan Street properties.

Jones and his wife Diana wrote a petition to the board of supervisors, claiming that the “project is proceeding as a serial development,” and in accordance with many experts, they argued “the project may have significant environmental impact on the area.” These concerns, they concluded, “need to be assessed on a comprehensive basis.”

Five hundred people in the neighborhood signed the petition.

“It’s not just the neighborhood that benefits from this,” said Jones, referring to the trees and the lush greenery. “People can see this from across the City.”

Like many of his neighbors, Jones has no objection to the development of the two lots on Stanyan Street, but he opposes the development of the other lots. He would rather see an apartment building on Stanyan Street than two “multi-million dollar homes because the City needs more housing.”

“We’re trying to find a compromise,” said neighbor Peter Pelavin. “We’ll let them build a bit more densely on the Stanyan property (if they do not develop the other three lots).”

The issue, whether the property should undergo an environmental review, was tabled without objection at the Feb. 15 board of supervisors meeting.

“The point of the meeting was to decide whether the planning department acted properly in issuing a categorical exemption,” said Nelson. “The consequence would have been to take away the categorical exemption, but that has already been done (by the planning department) because of the possibility that this is a larger project.

“If they want to say, ‘To hell with it,’ and sell their lots off, then this all goes away,” added Nelson. “It’s in the hands of the developer.”

T&T Investments now has three options; develop only the Stanyan Street property without having to undergo an environmental review, proceed with the serial development and be subject to an environmental review or sell all three properties.

Pelavin and his family tried to purchase the three lots on Woodland Avenue, but negotiations broke down in December of last year.

“We’re attempting to restart the negotiations,” Pelavin said.