SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Maybe it’s not paving over paradise to put up a parking lot, but it could cost property owners up to $500.

The City could start issuing citations to property owners who pave over their front yards or violate any other planning code.

The Board of Supervisors gave initial approval to a legislation introduced by District 11 Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, who proposed it as a way to address a problem in his district: residents getting rid of gardens and front lawns by paving them over with concrete.

The motivation is usually to gain an extra parking space, but Sandoval said the violation reduces the beauty of the neighborhood. Also, he said, when the rain has no place to go, it will flow into The City’s storm drains, putting the area at risk to flooding.

“This fine I hope will serve as a useful deterrent not only for cases of illegal front yard paving, but for the other many violations of the code that we see,” Sandoval said.

The law authorizes planning inspectors to hand out or mail citations if they discover a planning code violation.

A citation for a violation would carry a fine of $100 if it was not fixed after 30 days, and $500 if not fixed after 90 days.

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick said that “giving the department some tools to do some of this enforcement is extremely important and hopefully [the Planning Department] will use it.”

IN OTHER ACTION

RAMP RULE SUGGESTED: Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin submitted legislation that would create a board rule making the currently unused upper dais in the board’s chambers “off limits to this and all future presidents,” which would eliminate the need for the controversial $1 million wheelchair ramp project. Peskin said the lower platform on which he sits to conduct meetings can be made accessible “at minimal cost.”

LIGHTS OUT: Peskin also introduced legislation that would legally require commercial buildings in the downtown area to turn off their lights after business hours or face fines of up to $250 per violation.

jsabatini@examiner.com

Comments from Examiner Readers

4:56 PM MST on Tue., May. 6, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Supes approve fine for paving over front yard"

Examiner Reader said:
Paving over front yard. Mr.Sandoval, thank you for your concern but I think you should concentrate to figuring out how to stop drug dealing, related crime, homelessness, safety such as getting robbed while you dine out at restaurant or get mugged going home after work.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

11:12 AM MST on Wed., Apr. 30, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Board backs big settlement in lawsuit"

Examiner Reader said:
I worked at SF General. I caution all to stay away unless you are in need of trauma care. This hospital is really scary. It is not the UCSF medical staff that are the problem, it is the nursing care. It is some of the worst and most incompontent i have ever seen. The people running the place only hire cronies and family members to work in administrative positions, nothing is based on competence. Really, really scary place!! Very violent place for staff to work, nurses are frequently getting assaulted by patients.

1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:05 PM MST on Thu., Mar. 27, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Supes approve fine for paving over front yard"

Seven said:
Here in the Sunset, it's all too common for homeowners to stuff their garages with renters/extended family, then cement over the front yard to compensate for the lost garage space. Happens all the time. My block is practically all cement, and even the sidewalks are too narrow for Friends of the Urban Forest to plant any trees (ADA compliance). It's all concrete and asphalt out here, and it sucks.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:55 PM MST on Thu., Mar. 27, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Supes approve fine for paving over front yard"

Examiner Reader said:
To the reader who wrote: "For environmental-wise paving over lawns . . . Your comment would should have been one of Mr. Sandoval's arguments for his proposal. However, his proposal seems to focused at homeowners in the Supervisor's district instead of residents near Lake Merced and Stern Grove. Maybe the "studies" you referenced in your post may lead to the crafting of a more reasonable and comprehensive proposal.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:53 AM MST on Thu., Mar. 27, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Supes approve fine for paving over front yard"

Examiner Reader said:
For environmental-wise, paving over where lawns and trees, and flowers once was does not help the aquafiers and underground streams that help the rain run-offs. Many parts of the City and County of San Francisco, and parts of Daly City have wells, that are used for irrigation or even drinking use as well as to help in the water reservoirs,come from these areas as well as Lake Merced, Pine Lake in Stern Grove to name a few recreational areas that are connected by aquafiers, underground streams to sustain its life. So far, studies have shown that some aquifiers and underground streams around the city and even in San Mateo County have disappeared because of the covering of the cement over the lawns, flowers and trees.

0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:13 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Supes approve fine for paving over front yard"

Examiner Reader said:
I guess I understand that this proposal in fining homeowners in paving front yards takes away the "beauty" of a neighborhood but have there been proposals in cleaning up neighborhoods such as the tenderloin where walking through a person might observe people in the morning on the front steps of their apartment or in the park with a cup of coffee in one hand and a crack pipe in the other. Is there a blind eye to these activities in the SOMA, downtown/tenderloin areas? These areas are frequented by tourists which contribute to the economy of this city yet it seems that it receives the least attention. If beautifying this city is a priority of this bored of supervisors I suggest you start with the neighborhoods which are in "desperate" need of it. Perhaps, then it will justify the salaries you are being paid.

2 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:21 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Supes approve fine for paving over front yard"

Examiner Reader said:
I have sympathy for people who give up their front lawns/gardens in order to have some place to park. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a list of the supervisors and where they each park their car when at home? Maybe they don't know what it's like not to have a garage, just as they don't seem to know what it's like to ride the bus every day. (Plus, any supervisor who has neither a car nor car service deserves recognition.)

1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

5:51 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Supes approve fine for paving over front yard"

Rachel Hernandez said:
I wouldn't like to have everyone pave over their front lawn, even as small as they are in SF, but its private property and the local bureaucrats just don't understand that. We really need to dismantle the existing City Government structure, disband the Board in favor of a small Board, and initiate elections based upon district. The bureaucrats have ruined our City with their stupid ideas.

1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:42 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Supes approve fine for paving over front yard"

Examiner Reader said:
Unfortunately I reside in Mr. Sandoval's district and I disagreed with him when he first proposed this measure. I can't wait for him to be termed out of office. What a waste of paper and ink to print such unimportant nonsense. To the previous poster,I guess it is not in their "job description" as supervisor to address drug dealing and related crime, homelessness, and the city's infrastructure problems, or maybe these issues are not symbolic enough for their attention. Paving over front yards and issuing fines to businesses that leave their lights on are obviously more important.

1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:24 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Supes approve fine for paving over front yard"

Examiner Reader said:
Dear Board of Supervisors please devote some of your time to figuring out how to stop drug dealing and related crime, homelessness, dirty streets, and fixing our City's infrastructure problems too. Thank you.

4 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:08 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Alioto-Pier argues about a third term"

Examiner Reader said:
It would seem Ms. Alioto-Pier enjoys that sense of entitlement which so many politicians are quick to admonish the rest of us for contemplating as ours.

2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:14 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Alioto-Pier argues about a third term"

Examiner Reader said:
Oh for crying out loud! Doesn't MAP have another day job to do instead of taking up City space? Really wasting time to argue a moot point? How about solving the City's problems? What is she going to do next? Sue us in the courts since she's "entitled" to another term?!?!? She is getting to be pretty annoying.

2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:19 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Alioto-Pier argues about a third term"

Seven said:
Of course, we all know that if Ms. Alioto-Pier doesn't get what she is "entitled" to, she'll threaten to sue the City.

4 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:03 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Alioto-Pier argues about a third term"

Examiner Reader said:
I think Mrs. Pier is mistaken. She may be entitled to RUN for another term in office. She is certainly not entitled to SERVE another 4 years. She has to actually run first. She sure doesn't seem to accomplish much in the way of legislation or anything. She does however enjoy pulling stunts and saying "me me me" and all the while rarely shows up to work and has an Ed Jew problem with her residency. I guess by shoving the name "Alioto" like Joe Veronese did, she can avoid anyone challenging her too much.

3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:12 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Alioto-Pier argues about a third term"

Examiner Reader said:
Sean Elsbernd replaced Tony Hall when Hall went to Treasure Island, and Elsbernd won that Fall November Election to become District 7 Supervisor to keep the position; and likewise for Carmen Chiu, who was appointed to replace Ed Jew, the disgraced supervisor, and has to run in this November 2008 Election to keep the position for the Sunset/Parkside. So will this be the same argument for both Elsbernd and Chiu, which I know neither one will make this argument, but if the City Attorney is in favor for Alioto-Pier then those two should have the same treatment as Alioto-Pier. What does the City Charter say? If the City Charter is clear than Alioto-Pier should leave it be, and allow the appointments (if needed) and the election process to continue as is. This city is silly.

4 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:04 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Alioto-Pier argues about a third term"

Examiner Reader said:
Doesn't this woman have a set of ears. No one likes you Mrs. Pier - remove your self and slink back to Napa where you live. You can't even be bothered to show up to meetings. You have done nothing for your district

3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:16 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008 re: "Supervisor Daly�s conduct measure suffers solid defeat"

Examiner Reader said:
great comments here about what a waste of time and money this is and focus. we need to clean up the tenderloin long before we spend any money trying to house the poor. close all 8 liquor stores and check cashing places. start checking id's for actual residents vs east bay drug dealers loitering around. get drug sniffing dogs at bart and muni stations to stop the inflow of drugs into the tenderloin. all that housing is full of addicts. you wonder why?

70 agree | 72 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:55 PM MST on Wed., Jan. 9, 2008 re: "Affordable-housing measure headed to November ballot"

Attack on the Middle Class said:
Although I'm a big supporter diversity and affordable housing, I just feel that this measure is another hit on the middle class - and what we get is a city of the rich and the poor. That's not my definition of DIVERSITY. This measure is also EXPENSIVE, running 15 years long. Frankly, it seems foolish to spend and commit to this much at this time, mainly on the backs of the middle class taxpayers, which on the whole, it seeks ignore. As I see it, this is a measure that aims to attack the struggling middle class (cops, teachers, nurses). How it got on the ballot, frankly, seems rushed and pressured. I will be REJECTING this measure, in hopes that someone can research and propose a better solution, that honors cultural diversity, includes the middle class (for a change), and is more fiscally responsible. I feel SF deserves better!

77 agree | 73 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:39 PM MST on Wed., Jan. 9, 2008 re: "Affordable-housing measure headed to November ballot"

Examiner Reader said:
Lets see, huge budget shortfall for the city, I know, lets spend more and more money. Good plan, its great that the city supes are so free and easy with other people's money.

72 agree | 69 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:38 PM MST on Thu., Nov. 22, 2007 re: "Supervisor Daly�s conduct measure suffers solid defeat"

bees said:
he may be the only supe to write his own laws, but he does have a good point. when you're in high places, some people think they can get away with a tryst, however sloppy the outcome should the public finds out. look at how many women willish brown has scored the coop and is paying bigger than bucks for the illegit kids he's bringing into the world, and, of course, he's a black man with a loud and uncontrolable wanker. because gavin is a pretty white boy, it doesn't mean there's much of a difference in scoring and putting points on the board.

79 agree | 93 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:37 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 21, 2007 re: "Supervisor Daly�s conduct measure suffers solid defeat"

Examiner Reader said:
Supervisor Daly, Please spend your time to try to fix the out of control Club scene on the 11th Street corridor. These clubs are the "big box retail" equivalent of the City entertainment scene. They are regional serving land use that the "gates and tunnel" kiddies use. These clubs do not serve people that live in the city, do not let the Late Night Coalition fool you!! The kiddies come to the city to do things they know they cannot get away with in their hamlets. Last week another shooting at 11th and Mission. Over the last 3 years 2 dead and many wounded...this is worse than Iraq on a per capita basis. Do not just sit there and cater to the money grubbing Big Block regional serving clubs. Heck, lets encourage more leather bars at least they are local serving and peaceful. We like to party as much as anyone but party mean having fun not shooting people.

100 agree | 106 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate