Hill Neighbors Clash with Developer over Kansas Street Fire Hydrant

It’s been 11 years since Dawson & Clinton first proposed constructing residences on five contiguous lots along 923 Kansas Street. Neighbors opposed the medium-density development and, after it was approved, continue to advocate that entitlement conditions be honored. The latest conflict is over placement of a fire hydrant.

It took Dawson & Clinton five years to secure a site permit, which included a binding agreement with Friends of Kansas Street (FOKS). The contract, which is tied to the permit, stipulates that the developer won’t seek non-minor revisions without FOKS’ explicit consent; fire hydrant placement is identified in the pact as “non-minor.” 

In 2019, the developers sold the land and associated permit to Lucas Eastwood and Eastwood Development. According to neighbors Scott Simons and Josh Klipp, Eastwood never attempted to communicate or consult with FOKS before seeking to change the placement of the fire hydrant from in front of the property to the middle of the block.

“They don’t reach out to us at all,” Simons said. “We reach out to them, and it’s been like this for over a decade.” 

The development, consisting of eight condominiums and a single-family home, is nearly finished; all that’s missing is the fire hydrant. FOKS wants the new hydrant to be placed in front of the property. 

“And so do we!” said one of the developers, Natasha Sadeghi. “But during construction, we discovered that the existing fire hydrant at the corner of 20th and Kansas – which would be the one we tie into for the new hydrant – is out of compliance and lacks the requisite water flow required by the California Fire Code. Instead, the only solution will be for us to dig up an additional 1,000 linear feet of public roadway and upgrade the water line to a 12-inch main, going all the way from our new hydrant down to a different hydrant at the intersection of 20th and De Haro. Because of this very costly and unexpected infrastructure project that we are now facing – which we firmly believe should be the City’s responsibility, not ours – the City’s ‘compromise’ is to have us place the new hydrant higher up the block towards the 20th/Kansas intersection – instead of directly in front of our property – so as to decrease the cost and difficulty of the water main upgrade.”

Garreth Miller, San Francisco Fire Department assistant deputy chief, finds it “troubling” that Eastwood claims not to have known that groundwork was an issue. 

“The infrastructure upgrade for the development on the 900 block of Kansas Street is necessary for the project to comply with the Fire Code that was in effect at the time that the permit application occurred,” he said. “The infrastructure improvement requirements were documented on the approved construction plans.”

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission rules state that permit applicants are responsible for all utility installation costs. Ratepayer dollars cannot be used to fund improvements that don’t benefit the entire system.

 “That means a water agency can’t pass the cost of a new development’s water main or fire flow upgrade onto existing customers,” Miller said. 

Klipp and Simons said FOKS wasn’t informed about the hydrant’s mid-block placement until after the Fire Department approved the location. 

“When FOKS found out about all of this – again, well after the fact – we attempted to work with the developer…and the SFFD to reach a solution that, ideally, complied with the spirit of our contract and/or would not result in all the knock-on effects of a mid-block placement, such as less fire safety, reduced parking, lower property values, and the like. We attempted to negotiate a solution in good faith but received what felt like a lot of dismissiveness from the developer,” said Klipp.

FOKS contacted the Mayor’s Office under London Breed, which didn’t facilitate a resolution. 

“We’ve acted in good faith here every step of the way, but it feels like these efforts continue to be met with disinterest for our community, our contract, and now our safety,” said Simons. 

Mid-block hydrant placement would result in insufficient water coverage for a wide area between Vermont Street to the west and the wooded hillside directly in front of the newly constructed residences. This strip of land, alongside Highway 101, has been subject to periodic fires, often allegedly caused by homeless encampments. FOKS wants the hydrant to be in front of the property and barring that, to be included in conversations to determine alternative locations.

“Litigation is the only other avenue if we can’t get the City to get on board with the agreement,” Simons said. “We sent out 50 postcards to City officials, petitions to the mayor’s office, and no one has responded at all. It’s very disenfranchising that even our supervisor doesn’t reach out.”

“It’s really disappointing to find out this hard-fought agreement is being seemingly willfully ignored by the developer and that the City doesn’t seem to have our back,” Klipp said. “In the greater scheme of everything happening, it’s not the biggest deal, but it’s what’s happening in front of our homes.”