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 Eastern Neighborhoods amends the General Plan to include four new neighborhood plans that refresh outdated zoning in the Mission District, East South of Market, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill, and the Central Waterfront.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.

The proposed buildings are both located in an area currently zoned RSD (South of Market mixed-use district), and it carries a minimum of one parking spot for every four dwelling units. That there is such a large disconnect between the minimum requirement and the proposed parking is in itself a strong argument for eliminating parking minimums citywide and replacing them with maximums. This much-needed change would be partially implemented under the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, which would rezone the 900 Folsom and 260 Fifth parcels from RSD to MUR (Mixed-Use Residential), since both parcels lie within the East SoMa portion of the plan area. Off-street residential parking provisions for land zoned MUR would be similar to the more recently adopted downtown controls — no minimum, up to a 0.25 ratio permitted by right, and up to 0.75 with a conditional use. (A draft table of the new Eastern Neighborhoods controls can be found here.) The Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, which is currently being presented at both the Land Use Committee and at the Planning Commission, has not yet been adopted and is still subject to changes from the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. So it does not yet govern at the time of this posting, but, looking ahead to the near future, provision of 1:1 parking clearly flies in the face of the City’s increasing desire to eliminate parking minimums and replace them with maximums that are less than 1:1. And for the interim period until the new controls are approved, the proposed off-street parking at 900 Folsom and 260 Fifth would still require a conditional use authorization. Since the goal is to create a lively, walkable neighborhood out of section of South of Market that is dominated by automobiles and is rather unfriendly to pedestrians, the prudent course of action would be to limit parking at 900 Folsom and 260 Fifth to a ratio more consistent with the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan.

I might not have bothered to write a post only about this yet because there is still quite a ways to go in the process (notice for preparation of the EIR was issued last month). But this gravitation toward slightly more than 1:1 parking at 5th and Folsom resonates with another parking snafu from a Planning Commission meeting about a month ago that I never got to write about at the time. At that meeting, the Commissioners discussed the 631 Folsom (a.k.a. BLŪ) condominium project (pictured at right), a narrow 21-story tower that is currently being constructed on the western edge of Rincon Hill, just a few blocks from these other two proposed projects at 5th and Folsom. The Commissioners approved increasing the building’s parking allotment from 64 to 116 (still within the same physical constraints), 108 of which would be accessed by mechanical stackers. The parking is not to be bundled with the units, but that is still 116 parking spaces for a building with 114 units — once again, slightly higher than a 1:1 ratio.

Policy 30.1 from the General Plan’s Transportation Element stipulates that the following criteria (among others) be met before approving a new or enlarged parking facility:

• Generation of traffic from additional parking will not create a substantial adverse effect on the surrounding city streets;
• Additional parking will not discourage the possible diversion of current automobile users to transit;
• “Demonstrated demand” for additional parking in the surrounding area in relation to supply provided in the development; and
• The need for the additional parking must be “clearly established and not presumed.” (emphasis mine)

The Planning Department actually recommended disapproval of the additional parking, because the 631 Folsom site (along with Rincon Hill, in general) is transit-rich and already has many amenities within walking distance, with even more coming in the future as the new neighborhood takes form. This recommendation to disapprove is wholly consistent with Policy 34.1 of the Transportation Element, which states, in part:

Regulate off-street parking in new housing so as to guarantee needed spaces without requiring excesses and to encourage low auto ownership in neighborhoods that are well served by transit and are convenient to neighborhood shopping.

Despite the recommendation to disapprove, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the additional parking at 631 Folsom. The justification for the approval was the need to provide 1:1 parking so that families would not be discouraged from moving into this building, which consists of two- and three-bedroom units larger than 1000 square feet in area. Commissioner Antonini supplied a statistic that suggested that the number of children under the age of 14 decreased by about 1000 citywide between 2000 and 2007, but actually increased by about 400 in zip codes 94105 and 94107. This figure is potentially very misleading, because most of the buildings located in those zip codes are not newly constructed condominiums, which is the relevant subset of housing stock. The City has not formally tracked how many families are actually moving into the new South of Market condos, and we cannot assume that every multi-bedroom condo being constructed will house a family with children — so an assertion one way or the other is necessarily speculative. Therefore, a mere desire to encourage families to live in the new buildings falls short of “clearly establishing” a need for the additional parking. Upon realizing that it had no hard data to indicate whether the new larger units were actually attracting families, the Commission also required the compilation of a database that would track this information, with the recommendation that the database eventually be made available to other City departments. Project sponsors will be required to submit a report two years after the initial occupancy date, and every two years thereafter, indicating the number of children living in each household, any vehicles owned, and other information. This data will be valuable in studying the demographic trends of the new neighborhoods emerging South of Market — neighborhoods that have been planned on the premise that residents will walk and use transit rather than drive.

If such data were available prior to the approval of the additional parking for 631 Folsom, then it would obviously be crucial in evaluating the strength of any argument that alleges a “clearly established” need for more parking. But without the data, this need has been only nebulously established, at best — and therefore is inconsistent with the Transportation Element. We need not fault the Commission for its desire to make more informed decisions, but given that we cannot force a new influx of families into South of Market high-rises who may not even want to live there, how about we deny requests for additional parking until data exists showing that there is a clearly established need for more? Or, what if we try this one on for size: the families who decide to live in these mid- and high-rise buildings actually manage to adapt their lifestyle to the city, instead of simply transplanting a suburban auto-oriented lifestyle into a dense urban setting? Although there are already some residential towers in the Bay Area, the whole notion of “high-rise living” and of a true high-rise neighborhood is a recent development, and it may just trigger unforeseen lifestyle changes. In fact, that is exactly what we have to hope will happen.

Commissioner Antonini, et al may be worried that parking limitations will discourage families from occupying the new units, but it would also behoove the Commission to be worried about the cumulative environmental impacts (and associated CEQA implications) of providing generous parking for new units constructed in a neighborhood that when all is said, done, and built, will have a population density akin to parts of Manhattan — and this in a neighborhood that is already disproportionately burdened by high traffic volumes and street gridlock associated with the nearby freeway. The large industrial blocks and wide one-way streets in South of Market, combined with the intrusive presence of a freeway slicing through the middle of neighborhoods, make this a difficult section of the city to plan well. But given South of Market’s proximity to downtown, dense development is not a question of “if,” but “when” — so any planning in this area of the City deserves all the effort and careful thought we can give. Being lenient with parking restrictions makes an already monumental task even more difficult. A strong commitment to limited parking is necessary if we want to encourage transit use and create truly successful, livable neighborhoods.

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.

Help is on the way, in the form of a State HCD grant to the tune of $745,000 dedicated to Mission District streetscape improvements, to be applied in the large area bounded by Division/14th Street on the north, Highway 101 to the east, Cesar Chavez/Mission to the south, and Dolores to the west. The streetscape in much of this area is actually already pretty good — many streets are of comfortable width and feature largely continuous streetwalls with attractive architecture and active storefronts in commercial strips. Dolores itself is one of the City’s most beautiful streets. But the area’s auto-dominated streets are in desperate need of improvement — streets like Cesar Chavez, which will have its own redesign scheme under the larger plan, though of course without the dedicated BRT lanes I would eventually like to see built here. The plan draws on a well-documented array of features to improve Mission District streets, including: curb bulbs to narrow the width of pedestrian crossings and to slow auto traffic at intersections; improved transit and bicycle amenities; ample and accessible sidewalks; and more street lighting and greenery.

The development of the Mission Streetscape plan will continue into 2009, and the Planning Department is looking for public input. Folks who are interested are encouraged to attend tonight’s meeting, which will be the first workshop of many:

Wednesday, May 28 (6:30 pm to 9:00 pm)
Cesar Chavez Elementary School
825 Shotwell Street (at 22nd Street)

Finally, on a related note, you may also want to check out one of the community meetings that are being held through mid-June to obtain public comments on the draft Better Streets plan. Better Streets is a more abstract plan that seeks to sensitively customize street design according to the street’s primary uses. The goal is to create a blueprint of pedestrian- and transit-oriented street design that could be implemented in neighborhoods across the City, largely drawing on the same sorts of techniques that would apply in the Mission Streetscape plan area.

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.

It is hardly surprising that routes like the 26-Valencia do not see the high ridership that the 14 and 49 do — if you are willing to put up with a crowded bus, walking one block from Valencia over to Mission could easily be the difference between waiting twenty minutes for a bus or waiting only two minutes. But the only reason why this comparison even makes sense is that north of Army Street, the 26 — an anachronism from the olden days of private, competing streetcar operations — serves essentially the same transportation purpose as the 14, i.e. shuffling to and from downtown. The whole length of the route is generally duplicative of nearby routes with higher ridership that are part of the long-term “rapid” network. The 27-Bryant, on the other hand, serves deeper South of Market in a way that neither the 14 nor the 26 does, but this line also serves riders shuffling between downtown and the Mission who would rather not hike to and from BART. Less frequent service and lower intensity uses on Valencia and Bryant, as compared to Mission Street, are two clear factors that explain the lower ridership. But there is a difference between saying, on the one hand, that destinations on or near Valencia and Bryant will likely never generate the ridership to justify direct service, and, on the other hand, observing that the type of service that those streets have enjoyed to date is not the right fit, doomed to lower popularity because of being redundant to the powerhouse Muni/BART Mission corridor. Despite whatever we might say about the lack of riders on Valencia, there is a connectivity benefit to having direct service to grocery stores and commercial strips, even if the strip happens to lie just off of a major corridor (see: 2-Clement, 19-Polk).

Routes which pass through a neighborhood do not always provide the best way to move around that neighborhood, even if they run frequently. The TEP has formally recognized this problem by introducing a new version of the 19-Polk which would reinstate a modified version of the old 42 downtown loop. Longtime riders are perhaps understandably skeptical of this idea, given that splitting up the 42 paved the way for more service cuts. Yet, it would be nice if the loop would stick around this time; the City’s densest inner ring neighborhoods are not as connected to each other as they could be under the current service plan.

The Mission is a fairly large neighborhood, itself composed of a collection of diverse districts. This area’s current loop service, the 67-Bernal Heights, is transformed under TEP proposals into a feeder to the 24th Street BART station, and it avoids Mission Street altogether. Especially in light of the fact that service between the Mission and Potrero Hill is proposed to be reduced, a crosstown circulator that focuses on just this section of the city (but north of the area currently covered by the 67) could be a nice way to serve neighborhood-oriented destinations along or near the current 12, 26, and 27 routes, but while still concentrating resources on Mission Street to provide better radial service to and from downtown. Of course, such a service would be more lightly used than Mission Street service, making it “inefficient.” But it would also increase connectivity between neighborhoods, without insisting that each of those neighborhoods be connected to downtown/Balboa Park rather than to each other. For choice riders, it is the neighborhood crosstown route that could be the difference between a transit trip and a car trip. Quick, frequent downtown service is great in terms of moving more people most efficiently; but most people do more than simply go to work and back, and we should strive to capture more recreational transit trips. There is no doubt that the TEP’s approach of creating a network of rapid routes slated for long-term improvement is sorely needed, and the completion of dedicated transitways on those corridors will be an important step forward. But a top-notch transit system makes it easy to move not just to and from downtown, but also between neighborhoods.

Finally, one last note: although this post focuses on the Mission District, please feel to use the comments as an open forum on TEP in general. I will probably forward the comments here onto Julie Kirschbaum and the other TEP folks to add to their pool of commentary. And if you haven’t done so already, don’t forget to attend one of the remaining community meetings to comment on the draft proposals; the meetings run through May 17.