Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20240714

Know, without the bart system being built, this wouldnt be there especially if they consider this to be the jewel of the bart system, then you have to actually have some information on the bart system. I think we should include under criteria a, as well. Thing here. Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree. When i first moved to the bay area, more than 30 years ago, i got on bart and was told to get off at the glen park bart station. It is the pleasure of fabulous architecture. You suddenly have experienced a building and you really experience that one. It is a stunning building. It is so worthy. I agree with what the prior two commissioners have said and i do wonder, at this jewel, this stunning piece of architecture is going 47 years without significant alteration and 47 years without any cleaning. [laughter] i would like to make a motion to approve adopt the resolution to adopt the approval. I seconded. Thank you. If theres nothing further, theres a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval. On that motion. [roll call] so moved. That passes unanimously 50. This is an informational presentation. Good afternoon, commissioners i am from planning staff. With me today are lily and alison, also with the Planning Department. The purpose of todays presentation is to provide you with information regarding the market octavia plan amendment or the hub plan with a special focus on Historic Resources. Lilly will begin with a presentation describing the plan and i will followup with the description of Historic Resources within the plant area, including those that were newly identified in preparation for the plan. Please note that they have been prepared for the plan. Good afternoon, commissioners i am with the longrange Planning Division of the department and i have been working on this effort for the last three years or so. With the draft e. I. R. Coming out next week, we have been doing updates to various Community Groups and we are at the Planning Commission last week and wanted to come to you as well. I will provide a brief overview of the project and our key recommendations, and it is a pretty broad overview so im happy to answer any questions or follow up with you after this. The market octavia plan was adopted in 2008 and that plan really set the framework for the hub. The hub was envisioned as this area for High Density Residential development. The area was rezoned to allow towers at market and van ness and mission and south venice in a special use district was created to support the development, but while the plans set the framework for development, the department did not receive applications until and so in 2016, we took a step back and took another look at the area holistically to see if there were opportunities to include the amount of housing and particularly Affordable Housing. It is not showing up. Sorry, hold on. San francisco government t. V. , can you go to the computer, please . Sorry, that is not what is on the computer screen. Talking to a ghost. [laughter] its okay, we need a little break. Okay. Ready . We are ready. Can you see the presentation on your screen . We see what the tvc his we see what the t. V. Sees. All right, we will switch to the overhead projector. Good oldfashioned paper does the job. You can see it. I will try and stay organized as i said, the market octavia plan was adopted in 2008. We received of element applications in 2012. We initiated a planning process to look at the area holistically over the course of the last three years, we had four public workshops, each focusing on different themes, doing outreach to various neighborhood organizations and we started the Environmental Review process in october of 2017. Were expecting the draft e. I. R. To come out next week with looking towards plan adoption in winter of 2020. So this work is really informed by three main goals. The first is to increase the amount of housing and Affordable Housing near transit. The second is to coordinate public realm improvements. Theres a lot of projects that are active in this area so were really looking at how the streets fit together and how those projects interface with the streets. And then the last is to update the market in octavia Implementation Plan with additional Infrastructure Projects that could be found with impact fees. So this effort will result in amending the existing plan, updating the height map, the zoning map, some of the policies , making planning code in general plan amendments and as i mentioned, updating Implementation Plan there are a number of projects in this area at different stages in the Development Process and i think sometimes that can be confusing. There is a number projects that have been entitled and are currently built. Many of these projects are on a Market Street or on van ness, including 150 venice, 100 van ness, 1600 market. Then there is other projects that are currently under construction. If you walk to our office from here, you will see screens in this guy, 30 otis with a former carpet store that is currently under construction right now. Theres a lot of activity happening. There is also a project that has been entitled and have not yet started construction. This includes 1601 mission, the carwash across the street from our office, one oh, there is a handful of these projects. And then there are three projects that we are currently reviewing right now. That includes ten south van ness , 30 venice and 98 franklin. These projects are seeking additional height. The next item i just wanted to walk through some related efforts that have been informing our work. The first is around Affordable Housing. I mentioned that a primary goal of this was to increase the amount of housing in the amount of Affordable Housing, and when we started this work, we were looking at increasing the Affordable Housing requirement. In june of 2016, voters passed prop see which increased the requirement citywide. This table shows the column on the left and shows what the requirements where when we started this project, so if you were doing a project on site, the requirement was 12 , and now , with the changes in effect, if you are doing a project on site, it is 20 . The requirements have increased by about two thirds since we started this. The second work that we have been doing with this to strategic Economic Consulting Company Based in berkeley. We have been testing Feasibility Analysis to really see if there is an opportunity to increase fees or raise the Affordable Housing requirements for these projects. They have been doing a number of rounds of testing for us and what they have found so far is that there really is limited capacity to raise fees or increase the requirements. This is both for the Small Projects as well as the towers. This is really a trend we are seeing citywide. We are seeing Construction Cost of almost doubled since 2013 and have been increased 5 for next last year. And the Affordable Housing requirements have increased. We are trying to balance to making sure that the development happens, but also making sure we maximize Public Benefits. We will do another round of analysis with them prior to plan adoption. The other project i wanted to mention is the study of the venice station, looking at capacity, particularly vertical circulation, from the sidewalk all the way down to the platform they are working with peers and have doing counts within the station over a peak and nonpeak times. And so far there pull many results have shown that there is capacity for vertical circulation from the sidewalk to the mezzanine. It gets more crowded from the mezzanine to the platform, and the platforms, as we have all experienced, are quite crowded, they found that this is broadly due to the location of where the trains are stopping in the location of the stairways and the escalators. They are going to be developing further recommendations and cost estimates, and they will be publishing report in the fall. On the last study that i wanted to mention is the Community Stabilization strategy. So recognizing that the city is in an Affordable Housing crisis, in 2017 we initiated this strategy to really understand what the city is doing with respect to the preservation, protection and both housing and commercial tenants. We are anticipating a draft strategy to be released in the fall, and this would include recommendations to enhance or modify existing city programs. Many of these strategies could be applied to neighborhood such as the hub. So now i will quickly walk through our recommendations. The first is for land use. Currently there are two Zoning Districts in this area. N. C. T. , and c3 tee. And for the most part, the uses that are allowed in these districts are pretty similar. The biggest difference is the c3 district is also within the special use district that has a Fee Associated with it that generates money for both infrastructure and Affordable Housing. We are proposing to rezone the whole area and make some amendments to really meet some of the goals that we have been talking about. A little bit more flexibility for nonresidential uses, lower parking requirements not allowing a conditional use for additional parking, and then requirements or micro retail consistent with what we did in central soma. The next topic is height. Part of this proposal is looking at locations where we think adding a little bit more height makes sense from both an urban form standpoint and a feasibility standpoint. We are proposing to raise heights on 18 different sites. Today, towers are between 250 feet and 400 feet and are allowed at market and venice. Most of the remaining heights are around 85 or 120. We are proposing to raise heights on 18 sights. These are shown in orange. I know it is very hard to see but i can point you to where it is on the website. Towers are between 250 feet and 690 feet would be allowed at market and then ness and mission and south bend. I will just highlight for you that the biggest transformation and change that we are going to see here is the buildout under the existing zoning. The increase of height on these 18 parcels as an additional 1600 units, which is quite significant, but really the greatest transformation is the changeover what is allowed under the current controls. Given all the changes inland use that we anticipate and the increase in the number of people that will be living and working here, we wanted to look at how the streets all work, and we developed street designs for the major streets and alleys, and released a public wrong plan that has Detailed Design and all the streets are being covered in the e. I. R. So the last piece of is around Public Development with development and Developers Pay impact fees to the city to fund Infrastructure Projects. So there are five main categories in the planning code of where impact fee money gets spent or allocated. This is Affordable Housing, transit, streets, child care and schools, and open space. We are anticipating, with the rezoning of these 18 sites, about a 30 increase in Public Benefits. We have detailed recommendations for projects in each of these categories, which i can talk to if you have questions, but this is just a summary in terms of what we are projecting. I will just conclude for our next steps, the draft e. I. R. Will be coming out next week. We are going to be refining the Public Benefits package based on the feedback that we here. Will be drafting the planning code amendments and the general plan amendments, we are continuing to work with the active Development Projects that we are reviewing right now to make sure that there street improvements are consistent with this plan, and we are expecting adoption in winter of 2020. I will now turn it over. Thank you. Now to go over the Historic Resources briefly, the planner contains numerous Historic Resources as depicted on this map. If you can see the boundaries of the area, they are shown in red. Sequel Historic Resources are shown in yellow, and the historic districts are shown in a variety of shades as described in the legend. Several of the individual resources and historic districts within the plant area were designated under articles ten and 11 of the planning code. The area also contains Historic Resources that were identified in past adopted surveys that covered all or part of the area including the here today survey, the market and octavia area plan Historic Resource survey, the automotive support structure survey, the central freeway replacement project and the south of market Historic Resources survey. Several Additional Resources were identified through the sequel project review process. A new survey was prepared in conjunction with the hub area plan e. I. R. This survey, the Historical Resource survey or the hub survey was conducted between 2018 and 2019 to develop a comprehensive inventory of all Properties Within the hub plan area, along with the california register of Historical Resources and eligibility findings. A plenary analysis of the hub plan area determine 27 buildings within the area require new evaluations. This was either because the buildings had not been preselected for intensive level evaluation and past surveys, or not age eligible at the time of the surveys, meaning they were not yet 45 years old. New information has come to light indicating potential new areas of significance and this usually had to do with either lgbt queue history or modern architectural history, or they had designations or evaluations that were not determined to be submission sufficient. Of the 27 buildings evaluated, five are identified as individually eligible Historic Resources and this includes the San Francisco womens center, brady street and this building hows the San Francisco Womens Centre and San Franciscos women s switchboard in the 1970 s, was determined eligible under criterion one as an embodiment of the San Francisco Womens Movement during a period of which the physical imprints on the building environment were exceedingly rare. The peer to significance as 1973 to 1979. The San Francisco cannabis buyer s club at 1438 to 1434 Market Street. This building was determined eligible for listing in the california register under criterion one as a site of the country his first medical marijuana dispensary, which occupied the building during a significant time in the medical Marijuana Legalization movement. It is also significant under criterion two for some association with prominent Marijuana Legalization activists 1618 to 24 Howard Street is significant under criterion three. It is an intact example of the relatively rare flat type of residential building executed in the edwardian area of classical revival style. The period of significance is 1910, the year of the buildings construction. And then finally, the San Francisco Human Services Agency Building at 170 otis street was determined eligible under criterion three as a high style example of the brutalist style, which is comparatively rare in San Francisco. The period of significance is 1978, which is the year of the buildings construction. It should be noted that three of these new Historic Resources assume their significance less than 50 years ago under california register criteria. Property less than 50 years old maybe identified as a Historic Resource if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed for scholarly perspective to inform to have formed on the buildings significance. The Planning Department is found this to be the case for these three buildings. This concludes this presentation please note that the draft e. I. R. For the area plan will be presented to this commission for review and comment at its his august 7th hearing. Thank you. What any member of the public wish to comment on this item . Close Public Comment and bring it back to the commissi