BCNA working to satisfy community with proposed affordable housing project

Posted on by

OFFICIAL BCNA NEWS

Although almost everyone in San Francisco thinks The City needs more affordable housing, when it comes to getting agreement on where to place those units, the devil is in the details.

The Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association (BCNA) has taken a leadership position in fleshing out the various scenarios that an affordable housing project on Seawall Lot 322 might look like.

The Port of San Francisco is proposing to develop just such a project project on a Port owned lot at Broadway and Front streets.  And like most development proposals, there is little consensus.

In November, the BCNA co-sponsored a community meeting to ensure the neighborhood was informed about the proposal. 

“Since then we have been working with other neighborhood organizations to better understand the proposal and explore options,” said BCNA President Bob Harrer.  “As a result, we recently signed a joint letter with two other neighborhood organizations presenting our views and concerns with the project ,” he added.

In a letter to BCNA members, Harrer stated, “Many people don’t realize that the term affordable housing includes people/households with incomes up to 20% above the median income for the area.

“The BCNA has not said we support the project.  We have given a list of significant concerns that need to be met first and that we believe will benefit the quality of life in the neighborhood,” he wrote.

In the letter sent to the Port and the Mayor’s housing office, the BCNA, the Telegraph Hills Dwellers and the SoTel Neighbors outlined the many concerns they have with the proposed project.  They included:

  1. Review the type of residents with the goal of housing people with moderate income.The greatest shortfall in new housing in the City is for households with moderate income.  The percentage of middle-income households is also steadily declining.  A simple reading of the enabling state legislation appears to say moderate-income families (up to 120% of AMI) could be accommodated.Thus, the proposal needs to be seriously examined to see if there is any way to provide housing for moderate income households.  This could be in combination with some senior housing.
  2. Require the design of new construction on this site to be compatible in scale, texture and materials with the Northeast Waterfront Historic District in which it is located.Port staff previously acknowledged the need for this item at the November 20 Community Meeting[i].  SWL 322-1 is located within the City’s Northeast Waterfront Historic District governed by Appendix D of Article 10 of the San Francisco Planning Code.The ordinance establishing the historic district is intended to maintain the scale and character of the district by insuring that new development of vacant properties is compatible with the architectural features of the district including overall form, scale and proportion, fenestration, materials, color and texture. Break up the bulk, massing and materials of new construction to reflect that of the historic buildings within the district ensuring that that the height and mass will not overwhelm the adjacent and nearby historic buildings.

    To ensure design compatibility, the developer must be required to engage a qualified preservation architect and work neighborhood preservationists, and to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to Article 10 of the Planning Code.

  3. Require that any development on this site be strictly within the existing height limit, as it exists today, and that any roof structures be minimized.The existing 65-foot height limit must be maintained, without overwhelming the adjacent and nearby historic buildings.In addition, roof structures, including elevator, stair and mechanical penthouses, should be minimized and, where possible, incorporated into the structure.  Again, this height limit was also acknowledged at the November 20 Community Meeting.
  4. Activate the street level with ground-floor commercial by maintaining wide sidewalks.  Require active ground floor retail.  Design elements must include inviting socially engaging ground floor commercial storefronts.Consistent with historic district guidelines, the creation of a pedestrian, open space “corridor” off of Front Street might be considered as a way to break up the building bulk.  Or a portion of the site could be developed as a public park.  The goal should be to avoid creating a “wall-like” effect on any façade facing a public street.
  5. Include community-serving uses in the project.A portion of the project should be devoted to community-serving uses, such as a community meeting space and services this emerging neighborhood needs, such as those provided by the Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Center.
  6. Eliminate parking or locate parking underground.Ground floor parking is entirely inconsistent with activating the street level and is universally recognized as bad urban planning, particularly on major urban corridors such as Broadway.As noted below, the proposed development of this parcel for housing raises the related issue of the lack of transit service to the area.  If parking is a critical component of this project, it must be located underground.  Precedence for underground parking exists nearby at the GG Commons Building (170 Pacific has a parking garage entrance on Front St.)
  7. Increase transit service serving the Northeast Waterfront.The serious lack of transit service, caused in part by the recent elimination of a number of MUNI lines serving the Waterfront in this area, will be further intensified by the addition of another housing development on Broadway, considered cumulatively with the Broadway Family Housing (Broadway at Sansome) Street and the housing development currently under construction at Broadway and Battery.Whether underground parking is a part of the development of SWL 322-1 or not, it is critical to current and future residents, as well as visitors to the Waterfront, that transit service be increased as a prerequisite to the development of this site.  As a transit-first City, the environmental review for housing on this site would have to address this lack of transit.
  8. Provide a meaningful role for the community in preparation of the RFP and selection of the developer.This should be specified in the MOU. Community members want to be involved in scoping the RFP before it is issued and a developer is selected.  The RFP will likely establish a number of key project parameters.  As mentioned at the recent public meeting, there should be continued opportunities for community involvement after the RFP is issued.
  9. Consider a broader agenda involving development of Seawall lots on the Waterfront.Parcel by parcel planning in response to developer interests and needs is inconsistent with the Waterfront Land Use Plan, the Port’s Public Trust responsibilities, and local zoning.The Asian Neighborhood Design study reflected the community’s desire for a comprehensive plan incorporating transit, affordable housing, community infrastructure and a funding plan to guide the use, character and design of future developments on the Northeast Waterfront.

    In particular, given its proximity to SWL 322-1, future uses of SWL 324 (Broadway and Embarcadero) must be seriously assessed, including its use for an arts/performance center as proposed in the Asian Neighborhood Design study.

We recognize this project – like any development proposal in the City, especially one on precious waterfront public land – faces challenges.  But it also holds the promise of accomplishing something positive that will really benefit the City, our neighborhood, and the waterfront.  We are encouraged by our discussions with your staff.  We believe the process elements outlined above are positive steps that one day will enable us to say the project has our wholehearted support.

At the same time, there are some residents of the Barbary Coast who object the use of a Seawall lot for housing.

One response sent via email read, “In response to the inquiry, I am opposed to it, which I think is a view shared by many area residents.  As you know, we have such a project at Broadway and Sansome, with another under construction across the street at the same intersection.  I would appreciate your passing on to the BCNA that there is significant opposition to the project.”

Read five documents related to the affordable housing on SWL 322-1, including the full letter from the BCNA, SoTel Neighbors and Telegraph Hill Dwellers to the Port and the Mayor’s Office of Housing, at the BCNA website here.