Congratulations to Steve Herm-anos for a great article on the joys of watching track and field (“Who is the fastest kid in San Francisco?,” June 2011).

There are track meets all over our area, most weekends between early January and mid-summer. For example, the San Francisco Track Club is holding its annual Pride Games – a full meet of running events, throws and jumps – on Aug. 13 at San Francisco State University’s Cox Stadium.
The regional organizing body for our sport, Pacific Association USA Track and Field (PA USATF), posts a variety of calendars on its website covering high school, youth and club; open; and collegiate and university meets throughout northern California and northern Nevada (www.pausatf.org, click on “Calendar/Meetings”).

The San Francisco Unified School District maintains an online calendar of all district sports as well (www.cifsf.org).

Most meets do not charge admission.
And if a reader wants to get “closer to the action” at a high school meet, coaches generally welcome assistance in terms of measuring field events, keeping score and other tasks that we call “officiating.” For more information, SFUSD sports commissioner Don Collins invites readers to contact him at [email protected].

Going further, a reader who wants to really get involved in track and field on the officiating side can become a USATF member and take our clinics to become certified. Typically clinics are held in January – the introductory clinic, required for certification, takes a single full day.

Once certified, an official will have access to advanced training and invitations to work meets (caution: it’s a volunteer gig) throughout the region, at almost every level. Clinic information is on the PA USATF website (see above). Click on “Officials” then “Become an Official.”

– Bruce Colman, Marina
Past chair, PA USATF Officials Committee

•••

I would like to point out several inaccuracies in Susan Dyer Reynolds’s June opinion piece [“Union Street is enjoying a restaurant renaissance – so why are two Grass Valley residents trying to spoil the fun?”], first and foremost being her attribution of the term “noisy” to the neighbors of the Brick Yard, whose lives have been disrupted by noise from that establishment. I assume it was an attempt at a little joke.

Tables and chairs on the sidewalk look like patios to Ms. Reynolds, and if the Brick Yard had sought such a permit, its customers would be sidewalk dining right now. But demolishing the front of a building on Union Street to create an elevated, open-air patio (technically labeled an “outdoor activity area”) requires approval from the Planning Department because it constitutes a change in use. San Francisco planning codes require that neighbors within a certain radius be given formal notice of a proposed change in use before construction or demolition commences. Unfortunately for everyone involved in this case, the Brick Yard demolished the old enclosed sun porch at 1787 Union Street and replaced it with a patio without giving neighborhood notice or getting approval from the Planning Department.

Formal notice gives neighbors time to examine plans and air their concerns. Ideally, a project sponsor and unhappy neighbors can settle any differences and present a design everyone can live with to the Planning Department. If no such design can be devised, the planning code allows neighbors to request (for a fee) that the Planning Commission take what is known as discretionary review (DR) of the project. The burden of proof is on the DR requestors. A project like the Brick Yard’s patio is allowed on Union Street, so the DR requestors must show that exceptional and extraordinary circumstances exist that require alterations in the design of an allowed project. This is a high bar for residents.
The odds of a DR being granted are low, but the Planning Department saw enough merit in the argument raised by the Brick Yard’s neighbors to recommend the Planning Commission take DR. As a result, the Planning Commission put conditions on the permit for the Brick Yard’s patio in an effort to mitigate the harm the patio’s operation was likely to inflict on its neighbors. This doesn’t represent a defeat for the neighbors, as Ms. Reynolds implied, but a limited victory. In land use cases, as in life, limited victories are certainly better than no victory at all.

An appeal to the Board of Supervisors had a similar result. It was unanimously rejected, yet District 2 Supervisor Mark Farrell ordered something that may benefit everyone in this case – anonymous noise level measurements taken over several months after the Brick Yard’s patio is up and running. At long last, we’ll have objective measurements of noise emanating from the Brick Yard instead of tests performed by an inspector from the Entertainment Commission who announced his presence prior to taking his readings. Anonymous monitoring should help settle some questions about the adequacy of the Brick Yard’s noise mitigation measures. If they are inadequate, they can be corrected. Limited victories add up.
We “noisy neighbors” are taxpayers too – Jerry Czember has paid property taxes on Union Street for 40 years. We’re not “infuriated” by city resources used to resolve land use issues – that’s what we want our government to do. Sometimes contending parties won’t compromise and won’t submit to arbitration. San Francisco codes provide rules and procedures for settling such cases. The Brick Yard’s neighbors got noise mitigation they wouldn’t have gotten if they hadn’t requested a discretionary review or appealed to the Board of Supervisors. City resources Ms. Reynolds decries as wasted help people maintain residential livability in neighborhood commercial districts like Union Street. That’s tax money well spent.

– Robert Bardell, Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association President