Archive for the ‘Eastern Neighborhoods’ Category
Eight Years, Four Neighborhoods
 |
| Courtesy of SF Planning Dept. |
I have mentioned the ongoing rezoning plan of San Francisco’s Eastern Neighborhoods a number of times here before, although somewhat tangentially. Eastern Neighborhoods amends the General Plan to include four new neighborhood plans that refresh outdated zoning in the Mission District, East South of Market, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill, and the Central Waterfront. The Eastern Neighborhoods Plan is chock-full of discussion over exactions, affordable housing, transit-oriented development, and industrial land use. Some heights are increased while others are decreased, but at the end of the day, the plan strikes a precarious balance between increasing housing supply and creating dense, urban mixed use neighborhoods, while minimizing displacement and preserving space to support production, distribution, and repair (PDR) jobs. My intention, for literally months now, was to do more indepth posting on Eastern Neighborhoods, but the upshot is that I delayed posting too long, for at yesterday’s December 9 meeting, the Board of Supervisors — after a last-ditch squabble, and with a couple issues pending further discussion — gave the Eastern Neighborhoods its final 10-0 blessing. So how is it that the Supes managed to finally pass this thing before we got around to giving it the air time it deserves? I can only say, somewhat sheepishly, that while time available for blogging is in short supply, the topics to blog about are not; I do hope to get into more details about the implications of the plan later, post-hiatus, probably in smaller chunks or in the context of specific projects. The Eastern Neighborhoods Plan has formally been the subject of planning and community discussion for eight years, culminating in months worth of hearings at the Planning Commission and at the Board of Supervisors. While it may not be perfect — and no plan will ever satisfy everyone, no matter how thorough a review process it gets – we can, at least, finally say that it is done. With four neighborhood plans in place, previously stalled projects may finally come to fruition; and we can redirect our attention towards the transformation of the Plan area over the next couple of decades, to ensure that the zoning controls translate into neighborhoods that are at once dense and livable.
Excessive Parking Creeps Up Folsom Street
900 Folsom and 260 Fifth, two mixed-use projects that are currently up for consideration, would occupy adjacent parcels South of Market, at the corner of 5th and Folsom Streets, with the northern edge of the project just one-half block south of the new Intercontinental Hotel. Together, they promise 466 homes and 10,396 square feet of ground level retail, with spacious 19-foot ceilings for the retail storefronts. (I did not bother to add the renderings to this post, but if you are interested, you can check out this PDF, which has design details.) The two projects combined intend to pursue a LEED Gold rating, and the project website is eager to point out the many green benefits of the buildings. The graphics on the project website emphasize the plethora of nearby transit options, including pictures of a Breda LRV, a BART train, and an F-Market historic streetcar. There are also pictures of people looking quite happy while walking and biking. But let’s just cut to the chase. If this project is really so green and transit-friendly, why must the proposal include slightly more than 1:1 parking, with 470 parking spots for 466 units — encouraging future residents to drive and thus ignore all of the pictured transit options?
Better Streets for the Mission District
 |
| Courtesy SF Planning Dept. |
San Francisco is arguably one of America’s most walkable cities, with its dense, lively downtown complemented by a multitude of compact, bustling commercial districts that provide pleasant strolling experiences. But it also has its fair share of boulevards, like outer Geary and 19th Avenue, whose designs are rigged to maximize automotive throughput — at the direct expense of the pedestrian experience, which ranges from drab and noisy, at best, to downright dangerous, at worst. These boulevards may be wide, but they fall considerably short of grand. Solutions range from reducing speed limits on 19th Avenue to landscaping and dedicated bus lanes and stations on Geary that provide a sense of place and a pedestrian oasis in the median. In contrast to 19th Avenue, the Mission District boasts thorough transit access and a collection of comfortably walkable commercial strips, but there is room for improvement, as the bland landscape of Cesar Chavez (pictured above) demonstrates — with its long, multi-lane, infrequent pedestrian crossings; ample space for cars but narrow sidewalks; inadequate transit and bicycle amenities; and no greenery in sight.
Pushing the TEP Envelope
 |
| Courtesy SFMTA. |
A couple weeks ago, Fran Taylor, who writes for the Mission Dispatch, posted commentary about the SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project. The article focused on the proposed service changes for the Mission and Bernal Heights, comparing the reach of current service to the reach of the TEP’s proposed routes (see map at right; streets marked in dark gray currently receive service but would not be served under the TEP proposal). The article noted that many neighborhood destinations, like schools and grocery stores, are now conveniently located on transit lines, but would no longer be if the TEP draft proposals as they now stand were to be adopted. Although realigning the 27-Bryant off of Bryant and onto Harrison south of 17th Street may fulfill the purpose of filling in the large gap between Mission Street and Potrero Avenue at a central point, the article notes that this adjustment moves buses into heavier traffic and provides direct service to industrial blocks with lower transit demand. Of course, it is necessarily the case that any service realignment will adjust which destinations receive direct service and which do not. But the important question to ask is whether, on balance — despite increasing limited stop service on the Mission Street transit spine — the net change to service in this dense, largely transit-dependent neighborhood is positive or negative.
Good News for Mission Street
Good news for Mission Street. At long last, Muni’s Transit Effectiveness Project may bear some fruit on Mission Street, one of San Francisco’s most popular and crowded transit corridors. With over 65,000 daily riders, the 49 and the different versions of the 14 fight through congested city streets, dodging traffic and double-parked vehicles with nothing to aid their passage. Local buses stop on just about every block, making the ride frustratingly slow. The TEP is Muni’s first attempt in a couple decades to collect hard data on the way its riders are using the system. While the data is sure to come with some unpopular recommendations, particularly when it comes to moving and removing bus stops, I would wholeheartedly urge the MTA to stand strong by its data and remove lightly used stops, for the health of the greater system. The proposed changes — including rear-boarding, ticket machines at the busiest stops, more bus-only lanes, signal preemption, and more frequent limited service — represent at least a partial implementation of bus rapid transit; they are overdue and could not come a moment too soon. Without any specific details, all there is to say now is that the MTA is on the right track, and we’ll be following this story as it develops.
[San Francisco Chronicle]
