Housing

New Design Unveiled for Nine-Story Housing at 1296 Shotwell

/ Todd_Lappin / 33 Comments

Rendering of new design for 1296 Shotwell, with revised southern facade, facing Bernal Hill. Source: MEDA

As you may recall, there was a meeting on Tuesday night during which the Mission Economic Development Agency  (MEDA) did the Big Reveal of their updated design for 1296 Shotwell, the nine-story housing development proposed for a site on Shotwell just north of Cesar Chavez. There’s a focus group happening in North Bernal on Monday, Aug. 29 to collect feedback on the new design (but more about that in a moment).

As you no doubt also recall, 1296 Shotwell is slated to become 90+ units of subsidized-affordable housing for senior citizens. The building will stand 85′ tall, or 20′ taller than current zoning allows.  Given the visual prominence of the site, the proposal for 1296 Shotwell been the object of intense scrutiny, with some Bernal neighbors saying that the development just too tall, and others suggesting the height would be  less of an issue if the Bernal-facing side of the building had a less austere design.

Both concerns were front and center during Tuesday’s meeting. The crowd at Tuesday’s meeting was small, with only about a dozen people attending, including several activists and project affiliates who were there to perform their roles as activists and project affiliates.

Most of the presentation was delivered by Susie Coliver of Herman Coliver Locus, the architectural firm leading the design for 1296 Shotwell. In response to community feedback, Coliver said her firm considered several alternate designs for 1296 Shotwell, including some that eliminated one or two stories from the building to mollify concerns about its exceptional height. The result, she said, was that while yes, the building did get a bit shorter, reducing a few floors didn’t really to much to make it feel much smaller from street level or North Bernal. Meanwhile, the height reductions significantly reduced the total number of housing units the building could potentially contain.  In practical terms, here’s what those trade-offs would look like:

Height design exercise for 1296 Shotwell, showing number of residential units each design could accommodate. Source: MEDA

Height design exercise for 1296 Shotwell, showing number of residential units each design could accommodate. Source: MEDA

Thus, in the revised design,1296 Shotwell remains the same height: Nine stories, rising 85-feet from street level.

Instead, the new design focuses on rethinking the building’s southern, Bernal-facing facade, which is the side that may become a new landmark for the 9000 people who will gaze upon it daily from their homes on the north slope of Bernal Hill.

The new design reduces the number of units from 96 to 94 and attempts to add more color and texture to the south side of 1296 Shotwell, without relying upon superficial decoration such as murals, mosaics, or graphics. Highlights of the new design for the south side include:

  • A stepped roofline to provide locations for several new roof gardens. This is intended to avoid the monolithic, rectangular massing of the old design. A roof garden running along the south side of the building would reduce the apparent height of the building by one story, when viewed from street-level
  • There’s now a vertical column of windows in the center of the south facade, hidden behind laser-cut, enameled screen panels.
  • The concrete panels flanking the windows on the left and right may also include alternating coloration, to provide additional texture.

When we zoom and enhance the rendering of the new design to focus on how all these elements come together, the Bernal-facing side of1296 Shotwell maybe possibly perhaps would look something like this (if the roof gardens were well maintained):

1296sfacedetail3

 

Compare and contrast, old design vs. new design:

1296oldnew2
And here’s another view of the new design, showing how 1296 Shotwell might look if you were a pigeon flying over the intersection of Cesar Chavez and South Van Ness. The proposed terracing of the roof decks is more clear from this angle:

New rendering of proposed 1296 Shotwell design. Source: MEDA

New rendering of proposed 1296 Shotwell design. Source: MEDA

During Tuesday’s meeting, additional concerns were raised about parking, shadows, and wind-tunnel effects caused by the building’s nine-story height. Responses were more or less as follows:

Parking: 1296 Shotwell has no onsite parking, and is not required to include any. MEDA suggested that the 150 or so senior citizens who will qualify to live in the building can’t really afford cars anyway.

Wind and Shadows: Basic wind and shadow studies for this site were conducted during a preliminary environmental impact review (EIR) 10 years ago. MEDA says a revised EIR is not required.

UPDATE: After publication, MEDA shared this clarification: “We have implemented an initial wind study and the report indicated that there would not be an adverse impact of generating wind tunnels; therefore, a further wind tunnel report is not necessary. As for shadow studies, Auto Zone, which is next door to the building, plans on putting solar panels on their roof and had requested plans from the team, and deemed that there are no adverse impacts to their installation. The Planning Department would determine if a full EIR would be needed — not the development team.”

Height: The current proposal for 1296 Shotwell is 20 feet taller than the 65′ maximum height that current zoning specifies for this site. MEDA says they plan to use the new Affordable Housing Bonus Program (AHBP) to secure the necessary variance.

Project Timing: MEDA says they hope to complete the permitting for 1296 Shotwell in mid-2017 so construction can begin in late 2017. If that happens, occupancy would start in late 2019 or early 2020.

So that’s the latest plan.

Now that the new design has been revealed, MEDA will hold a “focus group” for Bernal residents to discuss the current proposal this Monday, and you are encouraged to attend:

1296 Shotwell Design Focus Group: Monday, August 29, 6pm to 7:30pm, Precita Eyes Mural Studio, 348 Precita Avenue

Tuesday: Community Meeting About 9-Story, 96-Unit Housing Development on Shotwell

/ Todd_Lappin / 16 Comments

Rendering of 1296 Shotwell, as seen from Cesar Chavez. Source: MEDA, April 2016

On Tuesday,  August 23 at 6 pm, the Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA) will hold a community meeting at the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center to reveal their latest designs for 96 units of subsidized-affordable senior citizen housing at 1296 Shotwell, just north of Cesar Chavez. There’s also a focus group scheduled for Monday, August 29.  Here are the two upcoming events:

  • Community Meeting: Tuesday, August 23, 6pm to 7:30 at BHNC, 515 Cortland
  • Focus Group: Monday, August 29, 6pm to 7:30pm, Precita Eyes Mural Center, 348 Precita Avenue

Right now, 1296 Shotwell is a one story warehouse-style space used for automotive repair. As proposed, the site would become a 9-story building to provide 100% subsidized-affordable housing for senior citizens.

1296floorplans

1296 Shotwell, typical floorplans. Source: MEDA, April 2016

The proposed building would not include any parking, and it would rise 85′ from street level, or 20 feet higher than permitted under current zoning.

Source: San Francisco Planning Department

Source: San Francisco Planning Department

1296 Shotwell sits right next door to 1515 South Van Ness, the proposed six-story development approved in a unanimous 6-0 vote by the San Francisco Planning Commission earlier this month. As approved, 1515 South Van Ness will provide 157 units of mixed-income housing, with 25% set aside as subsidized-affordable.

During a contentious community meeting about 1296 Shotwell held last April, some Bernal neighbors objected to the proposed height of the building, which would rise five or six stories above most other nearby buildings. Others objected to the proposed design, which included an 85′ perforated concrete slab on the building’s south side, facing Bernal Hill.

Rendering of 1296 Shotwell, as seen from Coso/Stoneman in North Bernal. Source: MEDA

Rendering of 1296 Shotwell, seen from Coso/Stoneman in North Bernal. Source: MEDA, April 2016

MEDA has suggested the Bernal-facing slab could be covered by a mural, but in the bilingual workshop sessions held during March’s community meeting, neighbors were unenthusiastic about the mural concept, pointing out that south-facing murals tend to disintegrate  quickly because of the harsh sun. One neighbor said the mural proposal was “basically the definition of putting lipstick on a pig.”

MEDA tells Bernalwood a revised design for the project will be on display at the meeting on Tuesday. However, despite repeated requests, MEDA declined to provide renderings of the updated proposal in advance of Tuesday’s meeting.

Personally, I would like to see 1296 Shotwell built at the proposed height, with the proposed number of housing units. I live a block from 1296 Shotwell, about 400 feet away, and the building will be in the direct line of sight from my house.  The new building will definitely obscure part of my glamorous skyline view, but I don’t care that much about losing some of my glamorous skyline view, because San Francisco desperately needs more, higher-density housing of all kinds to make housing more affordable to more San Franciscans. But that’s just me, and I’m on record as a YIMFY — Yes In My Front Yard.

That said, 1296 Shotwell would likely benefit from an improved design for the south facade, so that the 9000+ neighbors who live on Bernal’s north slope will feel better about gazing upon it for decades to come. We’ll find out what MEDA has in mind at the Big Reveal, 6 pm on Tuesday night at BHNC.

Planning Commission Unanimously Approves New Housing Proposal

/ Todd_Lappin / 5 Comments

1515svness.aug16

Late last week, the San Francisco Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposal by Lennar Corp. to build 157 units of mixed-income housing at 1515 South Van Ness (at 26th Street), at the foot of Bernal’s north slope.

The Lennar proposal, which was first proposed two years ago, was approved in the Planning Commission after a 6-0 vote. It will replace the former McMillan Electric warehouse  at the corner of South Van Ness and 26th, which was originally built as a dealership for Lesher-Muirhead Oldsmobile:

The approved plan for 1515 South Van Ness features  a new, 65-foot tall building that includes 157 residential units and 81 basement parking spaces. At street-level on 26th Street, the new building will provide 5,241 square feet of commercial space intended for small-scale “maker” workshop or artist use.

1515SVnsitemap

1515svnsiteplan2

Negotiations with housing opponents resulted in two late changes to the project. First, it was agreed that the project would be constructed with union labor. Second, the quantity of subsidized-affordable housing in the complex was expanded from 12% to 25%.

Despite the unanimous vote in the Planning Commission, it’s still possible housing opponents will leverage their close ties to outgoing D9 Supervisor David Campos to appeal the project at the Board of Supervisors. MissionLocal reports:

The below-market-rate units at 1515 South Van Ness Ave. would be reserved for both low and moderate-income tenants. Fifteen percent of the total units would be available to those making up to 55 percent of area median income, or $53,300 for a family of three, while the remaining 10 percent would go to those making up to 100 percent of area median income, or $96,950 for a family of three.

Speakers [at the Planning Commission Meeting[ were divided roughly half in support and half against, some saying the project was just one of many needed in San Francisco to curb soaring rental costs and put a dent in the city’s — and neighborhood’s — housing crunch.

“As much as some folks might want, it is not possible to address the Mission District’s housing problem by putting a wall around [the neighborhood],” said Tim Colen, the departing director of the Housing Action Coalition, a pro-development advocacy group.

Planning commissioners heeded those calls on Thursday, saying the project had reached a good affordability level and approving it unanimously. Negotiations will continue between opponents and the developer, and opponents said they were not sure whether they would appeal the project but hoped to avoid the step and reach a deal instead.

Supervisor Campos Seeks to Revive Mission Moratorium on New Housing

/ Todd_Lappin / 36 Comments
Site of proposed housing at 1515 South Van Ness, photographed on August 9, 2016

Site of proposed housing at 1515 South Van Ness, photographed on August 9, 2016

Less than a year ago, in November 2015, San Francisco voters were asked to vote on Proposition I, the Mission Moratorium, which sought to suspend construction of new market-rate housing in the Mission District. On election day, however, voters overwhelmingly rejected Prop I, by a 57% margin.

Yesterday, however, MissionLocal broke the story that District 9 Supervisor David Campos now seeks to ignore the results of the Prop I vote and implement the Mission Moratorium through the Planning Department and the Board of Supervisors. MissionLocal writes:

In a letter sent to the Planning Commission on Wednesday, Campos urged commissioners to delay all projects in the [Calle24] Latino Cultural District, which is bounded by Potrero Avenue and Mission Street between 22nd and Cesar Chavez streets.

Campos singled out for delay three housing developments planned for the Mission District that would would bring in 293 units of mostly market-rate housing in the next few years. All three are being opposed by neighborhood activists, who say they would worsen gentrification in the district.

“These and several market-rate projects in and next to the cultural district could transform the district and threaten to displace long-time residents, businesses, and non-profits,” Campos wrote. “The Planning Department should consider the impacts of these projects on the Latino Cultural District and develop measures that will mitigate those impacts.”

That area was designated a “Latino cultural and commercial district” by San Francisco in 2014, a largely symbolic proclamation. Calle 24, the neighborhood and merchants association, hoped that designation would lead to construction guidelines down the road with more legal standing.

Now, Campos and others are acting on those wishes, crafting legislation that will be introduced to the Board of Supervisors later this year to specify the kinds of development that should be allowed in the neighborhood.

Campos wants the Planning Department to study the effects of market-rate housing on the district, specifying the potential effects on neighborhood businesses, residential displacement, rental affordability, and “the Latino community.”

This is a strange request, not least because it would exceed the legal mandate of the the Calle24 Cultural District, which does not include any development guidelines, ethnic quotas, or demographic requirements. Regardless, MissionLocal reports that Erick Arguello, a Mission District landlord and power-broker who leads the Calle24 group, opposes the creation of new market-rate housing projects, even when they meet city-mandated requirements for subsidized-affordable units.

The three housing proposals that would be impacted by Supervisor Campos’s revived Mission moratorium are 157 units at 1515 South Van Ness (at 26th St.), 117 units at 2675 Folsom St. (at 23rd St.), and 19 units at 2600 Harrison (at 22nd St.). All three sites are currently occupied by empty warehouse-style buildings, and construction of new housing on these sites would not displace any existing residents.

In a 2015 study on the potential impact of the Proposition I Mission moratorium, San Francisco’s chief economist concluded there is “no reason to believe that either a temporary moratorium, or an indefinite prohibition, of market rate housing will reduce the number of upper- income residents in the Mission, or slow the process of gentrification.”

Cortland Apartment Building Purchased to Ensure Current Residents Can Remain

/ Todd_Lappin / 8 Comments

1500cortland

And now, that most precious of things: A happy story about housing.

At a time when new subsidized-affordable housing in San Francisco costs almost $600,000 per unit to build, stabilizing our existing housing supply is often a more cost-effective way to prevent the displacement of current San Francisco residents. That’s why it’s great news that the Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA) used the Mayor’s Small Sites Program to purchase 1500 Cortland Avenue, a four-unit building built in 1960 on the corner of Bradford.

MEDA writes:

There are four units at 1500 Cortland that are called home by families — the types of families MEDA is looking to help stay in their neighborhood of choice.

Unit 1 is a one-bedroom apartment that is the 23-year home to Lisa and her husband, Winefredo, who is disabled and receives in-home care. Lisa, who is a hotel worker and the sole income provider, was in a car accident last winter, with head and back injuries meaning she cannot currently work. Daughter Jennifer lives with her parents, but is ready to start college.

In Unit 2 reside Gabriela and Ramon, devoted parents of Javier, an eighth-grader at nearby Paul Revere K-8 School. The family makes this one-bedroom apartment work for their living situation, and they feel part of their Bernal Heights community.

Unit 3 is the two-bedroom residence of Tomas and Greisy, plus their two young children, Jennifer and Kevin. Tomas works in construction, while Greisy is a full-time mother. This Latino immigrant family has felt welcomed in the neighborhood and were excited to find a way to stay. If not for the Small Sites program, they knew they would be displaced from San Francisco.

In two-bedroom Unit 4 reside 77-year-old Jane and her spouse, Claudio, who is one year older; their sole income is from monthly Social Security checks. The couple has lived over half their lives in this apartment at 1500 Cortland. Claudio’s sister, Bernadette, also lives with them for now. This is the third generation to call this apartment home.

To showcase how 1500 Cortland has become its own community over time, Jane serves as caregiver for Winefredo in Unit 1.

“These four units’ residents seized the opportunity to make this Small Sites program deal possible,” explains Housing Opportunities Coach Johnny Oliver, who helped structure the sale. “Tenants agreed to increase their rent a bit to maximize the amount of the first mortgage, but they will still be in affordable housing that is around 50 percent of the median for this neighborhood. This is a win for the community.”

Indeed it is.

MEDA didn’t say now much it cost to acquire 1500 Cortland, but the property had been listed for $1.6 million. (UPDATE: A plugged-in reader tells Bernalwood the property ultimately sold for $1,150,000.) The acquisition will also include a rehabilitation of the aging building, during which the current tenants will be temporarily relocated.

Bravo, MEDA, and big congrats to all our Bernal neighbors who can now remain Bernal neighbors for many years to come.

PHOTO: via Google Street View

D9 Candidate Josh Arce Proposes 30th Street BART Station and Housing Plan

/ Todd_Lappin / 33 Comments

arce30thst

For 80 years, the citizens of Bernal Heights and La Lengua have fantasized about creating a train station on Mission Street around 30th Street. Indeed, the fantasy is even older than BART itself. Yesterday, the idea of a BART 30th Street Station was revived again.

Standing in the half-empty parking lot of our historically joyless Safeway, D9 Supervisor candidate Joshua Arce unveiled his “Mission Street South of Cesar Chavez Plan,” a proposal to build 2000 of units of new housing in La Lengua and add a new BART station at 30th Street.

MissionLocal was there for the announcement:

The development, part of a proposed “Mission Street South of Cesar Chavez” plan, would “not touch any existing housing,” Arce said. The housing built would be a mix of market-rate projects and affordable housing.

“There’s never really been a plan for this neighborhood,” he added, standing with some 20 supporters in the Safeway parking lot at 3350 Mission St. where the new station would go. The Safeway itself could be incorporated into the new station, Arce said, or a new store could be built elsewhere.

The triangular slice of the Mission District between Mission and Valencia streets below Cesar Chavez Street — known by some as “La Lengua,” the “tongue” of the Mission — has no integrated transit plan, Arce said, and is ripe for housing needed to address the “displacement crisis” in the gentrifying neighborhood.

“This is a neighborhood that can play a part in the solution,” he said, saying the BART station could be the cornerstone of a new corridor. “What if that solution is just right here below our feet? And that solution, I propose, is the potential for a brand new BART station right here at Mission and 30th streets.”

The plans for the new transit station and housing are preliminary. Arce said the development “might take a long time” and estimated that the BART station alone could cost $200-$300 million. He said a mixture of developer’s fees from new market-rate housing in the corridor and state or federal funds could finance the project.

Innnnnnteresting! Bernalwood contacted Arce to find out more about his proposal. “I sat down with neighbors, local business owners, workers, and transit riders to talk about this unique part of the District,” he said. “What became clear in each and every single conversation is that people feel there is no clear plan for the housing, local business, and transportation needs of the neighborhood.”

Arce says the 2000 units of housing would be built on under-utilized sites in the area that have already been identified by the San Francisco Planning Department.  Today, these sites are parking lots, empty buildings, and locations that could be repurposed  for alternative or mixed uses. Here’s the Planning Department’s site map:

20131105_Mission_OpportunityMap

The basic idea, Arce says, is that the new housing and the new station would be mutually inter-dependent. BART is pretty tapped out financially, so investment in housing and local businesses would generate impact fees that would be used to pay for affordable housing and funding for a new BART station.

Of course, Bernalese have been dreaming about convenient access to a rail link for decades. Here’s a futuristic image from 1948. That’s Cortland Avenue heading up the hill to the right:

bernalstation1948

Let’s zoom and enhance, to take a closer look at our retrofuture:

bernalstationplan2

San Francisco abandoned the whole Mission Freeway idea, thank goodness, but It sure would be nice to be one of those whispy people in the rendering, fashionably boarding and disembarking from a train that stops right at Bernal’s front doorstep.

The idea of adding a 30th Street Station to the existing BART line that runs under Mission Street has been studied from time to time, most recently in 2003:

30th.feasibilityThe 2003 study estimated that a 30th Street Station would cost around $500 million to build, in part because of the challenging grade on the site. The 2003 study also assumed that 30th Street station would include a secondary “pocket track” that could be used for parking or reversing trains as needed.

Arce says that based on conversations he’s had with BART officials, things may be different today. The requirement to level the grade of the track would not be as extreme, the pocket track could be eliminated, and tunnel-boring technology (like the machines used to create the new Central Subway downtown) could simplify construction. The result could be a 40% to 60% reduction in the cost of building a 30th Street Station.

Well, maybe. Hopefully. There’s a lot to like about all this, because we desperately need more housing, and a new BART stop would dramatically improve transit for thousands of current Bernal residents. But is this for real, or is it just a campaign stunt?

“This is a beginning,” Arce says. “Doing all this will take time, maybe a long time. But every plan starts with a first step, and we think this a great place to start.”

IMAGE: 1948 station proposal image courtesy of Eric Fischer.

Planning Commission Unanimously Approves Housing at Powhattan Triangle

/ Todd_Lappin / 19 Comments

powhattanelevation

Last Thursday, July 21, the San Francisco Planning Commission unanimously approved a proposal by a Bernal-based developer to build four new homes on an undeveloped lot between Powhattan Ave. and Bernal Heights Blvd.  by rejecting a request for discretionary review filed by neighbors opposed the development.

965powaerial

The proposal calls for the construction of three new family-sized homes at 965, 985,  and 1025 Powhattan, and one new home behind them, at 40 Bernal Heights Boulevard. The project will also include a new public stairway that will follow the path of the undeveloped Carver Street, which runs just east of the site.

powhattansiteplan

The official summary of the project, and the request for discretionary review, was as follows:

40 BERNAL HEIGHTS BOULEVARD/965, 985, 1025 POWHATTAN AVENUE- the triangular-shaped project site is bounded to the south by Powhattan Avenue, to the north by Bernal Heights Boulevard, to the west by an undeveloped portion of Rosenkranz Street, and to the east by an undeveloped portion of Carver Street; Lot 010 in Assessor’s Block 5640 (District 11)- Request for Discretionary Review (DR) of building permit application Nos 2014.0521.6382; 2014.0521.6394-6396, proposing subdivision of Block 5640 Lot 010 to create four new separate lots and construction of one three-level single-family dwelling on each new lot within a RH-1 (Residential House, One-Family) Zoning District, Bernal Heights Special Use District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.04(h).

The Bernal neighbors who opposed the new housing framed their concerns mostly in terms of preserving “neighborhood character”:

A group of more than 150 neighbors has filed for a Discretionary Review with the SF Planning Commission on the 4 large luxury homes to be developed along Bernal Heights Boulevard and Powhattan Avenue. The hearing before the SF Planning Commission on this development is scheduled for Thursday, July 21, 2016 at approximately 1 pm in Room 400 at City Hall. Join us at the hearing to let your voice be heard.

We are greatly concerned about this development in part because:

  • The proposed development, in its totality, is out of context and scale with the established character of the Bernal Heights Neighborhood and sets a precedent for denser development.
  • The proposed homes are not consistent with Planning Code, Residential Design Guidelines, Bernal Heights East Slope Building Guidelines, and General Plans (e.g. there are no Front Yard Setbacks).
  • Safety Issues: Because there are no front yard Setbacks, a driver pulling out will be unable to check for pedestrians and traffic before crossing the sidewalk and entering the street.

Prior to the meeting, an analysis by Planning Commision staff determined that the proposed housing “meets all aspects of the Planning Code,” and that it’s “consistent with the scale and character of the immediate neighborhood,” and that it “meets the [Bernal Heights East Slope Building Guidelines].”

After much discussion and debate, all six of the the Planning Commissioners agreed, and the request for discretionary review was denied. A few minor revisions to the project were requested. That means construction on four new homes in Bernal Heights may begin soon. But this is San Francisco, of course, so who really knows?

SITE PLANS: Planning Department analysis for 965 Powhattan

Citing Pipleline Fears, Neighbors Seek to Delay New Homes on Folsom

/ Todd_Lappin / 31 Comments
Rendering of proposed homes and new Folsom Street extension; view northwest from Chapman

Rendering of proposed homes and new Folsom Street extension; view northwest from Chapman

Rendering of proposed homes, view southwest from public garden below Bernal Heights Blvd.

Rendering of proposed homes, view southwest from public garden below Bernal Heights Blvd.

A group of Bernal neighbors are still concerned that if two homes are built on a Folsom Street lot, the site could explode in a gigantic fireball. As a result, the neighbors will appear before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, July 19 in hopes of delaying the project to conduct an environmental analysis. The Bernal Heights Neighborhood center has been providing organizational assistance to the nervous neighbors.

The neighbors hope the Board of Supervisors will intervene to delay construction of two proposed homes at 3516 and 3526 Folsom, on an undeveloped lot near the intersection of Folsom and Chapman, just below Bernal Heights Boulevard.

folsomhomesites 2

The project, which will require the construction of a new stub roadway extending Folsom Street to the north, has already secured approval from the San Francisco Planning Commission.

“We’re not against development. This is not a development issue,” says Neighbor Herb Felsenfeld, who lives near the proposed homesites and has been spearheading the effort to collect signatures for a letter to the Board of Supervisors. “it’s a public safety issue and a traffic issue.”

Bernalwood obtained an undated  draft of the letter to the Board of Supervisors that Neighbor Herb has circulated:

Dear Board Members,

Request for Environment Review – Our safety and even our lives are at stake.

Construction on two lots at 3516 and 3526 Folsom Street have been given categorical exemption from environmental review, however this particular plot of land, encompassing 6 lots and a street right of way, poses significant, potentially life-threatening, safety and problems.

These include:

  • Construction by a private developer over a 26” PG&E gas pipeline without industry recommended safety protocol in place and made public, resulting in the potential loss of life and property. All safety guidelines and oversight must be transparent and shared with residents. The San Bruno tragedy is fresh in our minds.
  •  Difficult-to-manage traffic conditions at the corner of Folsom and Chapman Streets. The projects have no on-street parking, and on-street parking will be eliminated from 2 more houses. (And, there is the potential for 4 additional new homes) Delivery trucks, construction vehicles, and visitors will be forced to park at the base of the street, blocking access to many homes.
  •  The project’s lack of planning for garbage, recycling, and compost pickup will impace both public health and safety.
  • The project site’s proposed steep street presents a significant threat to drivers and residents, and a liability issue for homeowners and the City.
  •  The structures would create a north-facing solid wall blocking significant public vistas from Bernal Heights Boulevard along the open-space park.

There are specific NTSB and Pipeline Information and Protection Act protocols that should be followed for all land use near pipelines, and we expect assurances from you that these will be met.

This is your opportunity to keep your promise to the keep the citizens of San Francisco safe by requiring that a complete environmental review is undertaken and all appropriate safety measures are in place before any construction is approved for this undeveloped section of Folsom Street and the adjacent properties. We also request that the safety measures and oversight is transparent to the impacted neighbors.

In May 2014, when the fear of a Folsom Fireball first emerged among neighbors in the theoretical “blast zone” of the surrounding homesites, Bernalwood contacted PG&E to learn more about Pipeline 109, the existing gas line buried below Folsom Street. We also asked about the safety procedures used when construction occurs at a pipeline site. Bernalwood’s 2014 questions, and PG&E’s responses, are again provided here in their entirety:

1. When was the section of pipeline under the the proposed home site installed? When was it last upgraded?

The line was installed in 1981. PG&E has a comprehensive inspection and monitoring program to ensure the safe operation of this line.

2. How often is this section of 109 inspected? What does the inspection entail? When did the last inspection take place? What were the results of that inspection?

This section of L-109 was successfully strength tested (via a hydrostatic pressure test) at the time of installation. PG&E records show no history of leaks for L-109 in this area.

PG&E has a comprehensive inspection and monitoring program to ensure the safety of its natural gas transmission pipeline system.  PG&E regularly conducts patrols, leak surveys, and cathodic protection (corrosion protection) system inspections for its natural gas pipelines.  Any issues identified as a threat to public safety are addressed immediately.  PG&E also performs integrity assessments of certain gas transmission pipelines in urban and suburban areas.

Patrols:  PG&E patrols its gas transmission pipelines at least quarterly to look for indications of missing pipeline markers, construction activity and other factors that may threaten the pipeline.  L-109 through the [Bernal Heights] neighborhood was last aerially patrolled in May 2014 and no issues were found.

Leak Surveys:  PG&E conducts leak surveys at least annually of its natural gas transmission pipelines.  Leak surveys are generally conducted by a leak surveyor walking above the pipeline with leak detection instruments.  L-109 in San Francisco was last leak surveyed in April 2014 and no leaks were found.

Cathodic Protection System Inspections:  PG&E utilizes an active cathodic protection (CP) system on its gas transmission and steel distribution pipelines to protect them against corrosion.  PG&E inspects its CP systems every two months to ensure they are operating correctly.  The CP systems on L-109 in this area were last inspected in May 2014 and were found to be operating correctly.

Integrity Assessments:  There are three federally-approved methods to complete a transmission pipeline integrity management baseline assessment:  In-Line Inspections (ILI), External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) and Pressure Testing.  An In-Line Inspection involves a tool (commonly known as a “pig”) being inserted into the pipeline to identify any areas of concern such as potential metal loss (corrosion) or geometric abnormalities (dents) in the pipeline.  An ECDA involves an indirect, above-ground electrical survey to detect coating defects and the level of cathodic protection.  Excavations are performed to do a direct examination of the pipe in areas of concern as required by federal regulations.  Pressure testing is a strength test normally conducted using water, which is also referred to as a hydrostatic test.

PG&E performed an ECDA on L-109 in this area in 2009 and no issues were found.  PG&E plans to perform another ECDA on L-109 in this area in 2015.  This section of L-109 also had an ICDA (Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment) performed in 2012, and no issues were found.

Automated Shut-off Valves: There are two types of automated shut-off valves recognized within the natural gas industry: Remote Controlled Valves (RCV’s), which can be operated remotely from PG&E’s Gas Control Center, and Automatic Shutoff Valves (ASV’s) that will close automatically as a result of rapidly falling pipeline pressures and/or increased flows at the valve location. There is an RCV on L-109 in Daly City that can be used to isolate the section of L-109 that runs through this neighborhood.

3. Is this section of pipeline 109  “the same type that blew up in San Bruno?”

No. Line 109 operates at a much lower pressure and is smaller in diameter, and is of a much more recent vintage.

4. What safety procedures does PG&E put in place when home or street contruction occurs on the site of a major gas pipeline like 109?

Anytime a contractor or resident makes an excavation on franchise or private property, they must call 811 (State Law for Underground Service Alerts [USA]) in advance so we can identify and properly locate our UG facilities.  When our Damage Prevention group gets the USA request and identifies a critical facility like a gas transmission line in the scope of work, they notify the caller that they must contact PG&E for a standby employee.  PG&E must observe a safe excavation around our lines if any digging is within 10’ of it.  We must be present when they dig around this line.  Our standby inspector will instruct and guide the excavating party to avoid damage.  Excavators who violate this Law are subject to fines.

5. Does the steep grade of the Folsom site have any impact on Pipeline 109? Given the grade at the proposed site, are any special provisions or procedures required to ensure the safety of the pipeline during construction?

The grade of the street have no impacts on the operation of the line.  If the cover is not removed or disturbed within 10’ of the line, there are no special precautions needed.

6. Are there any specific technical or safety challenges posed by the proposed home site, and if so, how does PG&E plan to address them?

As long as the structures are built within the property lines similar to the existing [homes on Folsom Street], they will not pose any issues for us patrolling and maintaining that line.  The proposed home sites are not on top of line 109, and are no closer to the line than existing homes in the neighborhood.

Additional Background: In the area outlined in the map [Bernalwood sent PG&E, shown above], PG&E’s natural gas transmission pipeline L-109 runs down Folsom Street and turns east to follow Bernal Heights Blvd.  Line 109 in this area is a 26-inch diameter steel pipeline installed in 1981 and has a maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 150 pounds per square inch gage (psig), which is 19.8% of the pipe’s specified minimum yield strength (SMYS).  This provides a considerable margin of safety, since it would take a pressure over 750 psig to cause the steel in the pipe to begin to deform.

When we cited PG&E’s previous Bernalwood comments about the project, Neighbor Herb said, “We want NTSB standards to be followed.” However, Neighbor Herb was unable to point Bernalwood toward the specific NTSB standards he wants PG&E to follow.

To be sure, independent of the pipeline on Folsom Street, recent events have not inspired much confidence in PG&E’s ability to manage its pipelines safely. In the wake of the 2010 San Bruno Pipeline explosion,  documents presented earlier this month in a criminal trial related to the San Bruno blast revealed that, in 2008, PG&E had prioritized profitability over safety management.

But the pipeline is just one of several concerns shared by neighbors near the proposed homesite. “Once the road gets put in, it’s likely more houses will go in,” Neighbor Herb says. “Once the road goes in we can have six pretty big houses there, with six times as many garbage cans, and six times as much construction, and six times the concern about emergency vehicles.”

Parking is also a concern. “Adding three more cars fighting for parking space will make parking even more difficult,” Neighbor Herb said.

3516 Folsom, ground floor plan

3516 Folsom, ground floor plan, showing two-car garage

A review of the plans for both of the proposed homes shows that each will include a two-car garage.

“The issue more with the City than with the developers, given that the City did not require a CEQA [environmental] review and gave the project a waiver,” said Neighbor Marilyn Waterman, another neighbor who has also been active in the effort to gather signatures for a letter to the Board of Supervisors.  Neighbor Marilyn, who divides her time between her home on Gates and a home in Menlo Park, adds,” The City needs to take responsibility for the neighborhood’s public safety  issues.”

Ailed Paningbatan-Swan, director of community engagement for the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center, confirms that BHNC has gotten involved in the issue. “I’ve been helping to connect [those seeking environmental review] with other neighborhood leaders,” she tells Bernalwood.

“I’m not going to say anything about the parking issues; my concern is the public safety,” Ailed adds. “We are not opposed to having the houses built, we are concerned about the public safety issues around the PG&E pipeline.”

“It’s difficult to get much information from PG&E, but there will be safety process established to protect the gas line,” says Fabian Lannoye, who owns one of the lots at the proposed site. “PG&E is not willing to do any work on this project until it is approved.” Fabian tells Bernalwood he owns one of the proposed homesite lots, and that be plans  to live in the house he hopes one day to construct.

The Bernal Heights Democratic Club and the San Francisco Chapter of the Sierra Club are also said to be planning to submit letters to the Board of  Supervisors about the 3516 and 3526 Folsom project.

D9 Supervisor David Campos is expected to recuse himself from tomorrows Board of Supervisor’s vote on 3516 and 3526 Folsom, because he lives a block away, within 500′ of the proposed homesite.

IMAGES: Renderings via Fabian Lannoye

City Dismantles Cesar Chavez Street Homeless Encampment

/ Todd_Lappin / 32 Comments

101encampmentA

Yesterday, workers from the San Francisco Department of Public Works removed the homeless encampment along Cesar Chavez Street under the US101 freeway. The camp had reportedly become the largest in the city.

The San Francisco Chronicle was there:

Street cleaners, police and outreach counselors descended upon the camp about 6 a.m. and spent the morning methodically bagging up trash and flopping tents onto flatbed trucks. The counselors’ goal was to get the campers into homeless shelters or other poverty services, but the cleaners’ goal was purely to clear out what has become a smelly, messy eyesore to passersby and neighbors in recent weeks.

Camps have dotted the maze of trails, bushes, freeway-ramp ledges and dirt lots at that part of Cesar Chavez for decades. But ever since a giant encampment along Division Street was finally swept out in March the Cesar Chavez population has mushroomed into the largest street settlement in the city.  […]

“Thirty years ago you saw older people and vets with bad luck,” David Johnwell, foreman of the hotspot cleanup crew for the Department of Public Works, said as he directed the dismantlement operation under Highway 101. “Now you see a lot more younger people, women and dogs and needles.

“It’s not for us to say where they should sleep… They’ll move back in, but we did our job. Nobody has the answer. But at least when we leave here it’ll smell good.”

He said officials have been contemplating erecting fencing to keep campers out, but nothing was imminent. Fencing successfully reduced camps at a similarly longtime homeless haunt near the Caltrain station at Interstate 280 after tents were swept away from there in 2013. At that time, it was the biggest camp in the city.

That was yesterday. As of this morning, some of the tents have already been re-established.

PHOTO: Encampment under US101, February 24, 2016 by Telstar Logistics

Saturday: Community Meeting About “Great Wall on Shotwell”

/ Todd_Lappin / 39 Comments
shotwell.simulation

Rendering of 1296 Shotwell, as seen from Precita Avenue

There’s a community meeting scheduled for this Saturday, April 30 to discuss the proposal to build a 9-story tower at 1296 Shotwell Street (near Cesar Chavez). The meeting will take place from 10 am to noon in Room 100 of Leonard Flynn School (2125 Chavez) adjacent to Precita Park.

As Bernalwood has previously reported, 1296 Shotwell may become an 85′ building that will provide 96 units of subsidized-affordable housing for senior citizens. Sounds great in theory, but there’s a big problem: Under existing zoning regulations, 1296 Shotwell is 20 feet too tall.

As the urbanist website SocketSite explains:

As noted in the City’s preliminary review of the project plans, which were drafted by Herman Coliver Locus Architecture, [1296 Shotwell] is currently only zoned for development up to 65 feet in height.

As such, the 1296 Shotwell Street parcel will either have to be legislatively upzoned or the City’s proposed Affordable Housing Bonus Program (AHBP) will need to be passed in order for the development to proceed. Once approved and permitted, it will take another two years to build.

So the current design for 1296 Shotwell is illegal under existing codes.

Yesterday, Bernalwood was contacted  by the Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA), one of the developers leading the effort to build 1296 Shotwell.  MEDA invited Bernal neighbors to attend Saturday’s community meeting. But when Bernalwood asked MEDA for updated renderings of the proposed tower, our request was declined. “The renderings can be requested the day of the meeting,” we were told.

Oh well. Since MEDA didn’t want to provide advance guidance on the proposal they want our community to discuss, let’s review what we know about 1296 Shotwell, based on previous disclosures.

Here is a rendering of 1296 Shotwell released earlier this year. The building sits near the corner of Shotwell and Cesar Chavez. Labels have been added to clarify the building’s orientation:

1296-shotwell-rear.labels2x-1

Aerial rendering of 1296 Shotwell. Source: MEDA

A few observations:

• To date, all the renderings of 1296 Shotwell released to the media have shown views of the building from the air, as you might see it from a drone. However, that’s not how it will look to neighbors, because people don’t have wings. Aerial views of this nine-story tower camouflage the building’s bulk. To look down on 1296 Shotwell is to see it against a matching backdrop of surrounding streets and structures. In the real world, however, neighbors will look up at 1296 Shotwell, and it will be dramatically taller than any nearby buildings, with no peers or urban backdrop whatsoever. From the street, or from Bernal Heights, 1296 Shotwell will tower alone, above high above its surroundings, with only the sky as a backdrop (More on that below).

• As shown in the aerial rendering, 1296 Shotwell’s southern, Bernal-facing facade will not include any windows. Windows and balconies for residents will be on the eastern and western facades, but the north and south sides of the building will be 85′ concrete slabs.  In its basic design, 1296 Shotwell will be very similar to 2601 Mission Street, the US Bank building  on the corner of 22nd Street, built in 1963. The similarity is that 2601 Mission is also 9 stories, and it also has no windows on its short sides, with all the windows arrayed on the long ones.  Which is to say, from street-level, as a pedestrian or Bernal neighbor, the massing of 1296 Shotwell will feel like this:

Bay View Federal/US Bank Building Built: 1963 2601 Mission Street (at 22nd), San Francisco

Nine-story, slab-sided building at 2601 Mission Street

• MEDA’s illustrations of 1296 Shotwell have attempted to soften the bulk of the building’s slab-sides by including a mural on the windowless, Bernal-facing wall. A mural will add color, to be sure, but a mural isn’t architecture; It doesn’t change the basic form of the building,  or mask its height. This is easy to understand for most Bernalese, because when we look east from atop Bernal Hill today,  we see another tall slab decorated with a mural: The abandoned 197-foot grain silo on the waterfront that’s now decorated with painted balloons. The silo looks more colorful now than it did before the mural was painted, but it hasn’t gotten any less imposing, either.

Anyway, all that leads us to the rendering shown at the top of this post. Since MEDA declined to share any new renderings with the Bernal Heights community, we collaborated with a local architect to create our own, to provide Bernal neighbors with a photo-realistic representation of what 1296 Shotwell will look like in the context of the existing urban fabric. Bernalwood’s rendering shows 1296 Shotwell as seen from Precita Avenue. The building is shown to scale, as a 85-foot tower, as it would look if constructed according to MEDA’s last publicly released set of drawings, absent only a mural. Barring a dramatic change to the proposal, this is pretty much what the form of the nine-story building at 1296 Shotwell will look like if you live in northwest Bernal Heights. Hello, “Great Wall on Shotwell.”

MEDA says the community meeting this weekend is to “review and provide community input on design and streetscape” for 1296 Shotwell. If you’d like to do that, you can share your thoughts with them this Saturday, April 30, from 10 am to noon in Room 100 of Leonard Flynn School.

IMAGES: Top, street-level rendering of 1296 Shotwell via Bernalwood. Aerial rendering of rendering of 1296 Shotwell via MEDA. 2601 Mission Street by Telstar Logistics. 

Bernal Hill Is Backdrop for NY Times Article on New Housing Politics

/ Todd_Lappin / 8 Comments

nytbuild

In case you missed it over the weekend, Sunday’s New York Times described the shifting dynamics of housing politics in San Francisco, as a new generation of activists seeks to fight displacement and sky-rocketing rents by building more housing for everyone in San Francisco, more quickly.

The article is an interesting read for anyone who cares about affordability in San Francisco, but the online version of the story opens with a drop-dead gorgeous view of Twin Peaks and Noe Valley as seen from Bernal Hill during a perfect golden sunset.

From our hill, the City’s multitudes are revealed.

When you’re done bathing in the fullscreen warmth of that image, the article goes on to frame the housing debate as a struggle between old-guard San Francisco ideologues and a younger generation of activists who are priced out of the housing market:

Across the country, a reversal in urban flight has ignited debates over gentrification, wealth, generational change and the definition of the modern city. It’s a familiar battle in suburbs, where not-in-my-backyard homeowners are an American archetype.

In San Francisco, though, things get weird. Here the tech boom is clashing with tough development laws and resentment from established residents who want to choke off growth to prevent further change.

[Sonja Trauss from the Bay Area Renters Federation]] is the result: a new generation of activist whose pro-market bent is the opposite of the San Francisco stereotypes — the lefties, the aging hippies and tolerance all around.

Ms. Trauss’s cause, more or less, is to make life easier for real estate developers by rolling back zoning regulations and environmental rules. Her opponents are a generally older group of progressives who worry that an influx of corporate techies is turning a city that nurtured the Beat Generation into a gilded resort for the rich.

Those groups oppose almost every new development except those reserved for subsidized affordable housing. But for many young professionals who are too rich to qualify for affordable housing, but not rich enough to afford $5,000-a-month rents, this is the problem.

Adding to the strangeness is that the typical San Francisco progressive and the typical mid-20s-to-early-30s member of Ms. Trauss’s group are likely to have identical positions on every liberal touchstone, like same-sex marriage and climate change, and yet they have become bitter enemies on one very big issue: housing.

The Times article also includes some nifty multimedia audio and a cameo from our D9 Supervisor David Campos, so check out the whole thing.

Mission Demonstrators Oppose New Housing on South Van Ness

/ Todd_Lappin / 38 Comments

1515-South-Van-Ness-Rendering-2016b

We knew this was coming, right?

Despite San Francisco’s ongoing housing shortage, a group of Mission District demonstrators, landlords, and homeowners kicked off a campaign to oppose the construction of new homes at 1515 South Van Ness.  Bernalwood recently told you about 1515 South Van Ness; it’s a privately funded project by Lennar Corporation that would create 157 units of mixed-income housing on the site of the former McMillan Electric building, which was in turn the site of the former Lesher-Muirhead Oldsmobile.

MissionLocal was on hand to document the theatrics:

“Today we’re calling on Lennar to gift this site to the city for 100 percent affordable housing,” said Erick Arguello, a member of the merchants association Calle 24 and a principal opponent of the project.

Arguello said the market-rate building would fuel gentrification and displacement in the neighborhood. He pointed specifically to higher rents for commercial Mission businesses, saying a new clientele would bring upscale shops to a historically lower-income, culturally Latino district.

“When you get more luxury housing, you get people with a lot more money moving into the neighborhood, which creates a different demand for products,” he said.

The project at 1515 South Van Ness Ave. would bring 138 market-rate units and 19 below-market-rate units — fulfilling the city requirement that 12 percent of units on the site be affordable — to the Mission District, as well as six ground-floor retail shops.

The complex would raze and replace the McMillan Electrical building and abut a planned 96-unit fully affordable senior complex to be built by the Mission Economic Development Agency — a point of contention at a February community meeting where audience members wanted a merger of the two sites.

On Thursday, some 25 people gathered at the project site and vowed to fight the project to its death. Roberto Hernandez, founder of Our Mission No Eviction, said the project was out of place in the Mission District.

MissionLocal adds that D9 Supervisor David Campos helped postpone the hearing for 1515 South Van Ness in the Planning Commission; an indication he supports the strategy Roberto Hernandez calls “delay, delay, delay until we kill it.”

If you’d like to voice support for 1515 South Van Ness, you are strongly encouraged to send an email to Doug.vu@sfgov.org at the San Francisco Planning Department.

UPDATED: What Are the City’s Plans for the 101/Cesar Chavez Encampment?

/ Todd_Lappin / 45 Comments

101encampment

As you might have heard, the tent city encampment on Division Street in the Mission under the freeway was removed yesterday. Mayor Ed Lee belatedly approved the action in response to neighborhood complaints, and over the objections of D9 Supervisor David Campos.

Meanwhile, in northeast Bernal Heights, a neighbor from Holladay Street at Brewster writes to ask if there’s a plan for the encampment along Cesar Chavez under US101:

I’m wondering why the encampment under the freeways over here wasn’t a part of [the encampment removal], and whether/how it will be affected. Do you have any scoop?

I’m sick to death of repeated vehicle break-ins and scared for my kids. I most recently ducked under our living room couch at 4 am with my two-month-old and called 911 after two guys breaking into cars spotted me looking out the window … and that’s not the only recent incident.

I don’t know what has to do with the homeless encampment and what doesn’t, and I’m certainly sympathetic. But I’m at a point where I feel like everything’s got to be addressed, and that seems like a huge piece of the puzzle to me.

UPDATE: Hoodline reports that advocates are meeting with Supervisor Campos on Friday to discuss the possibility of turning the area under the Cesar Chavez/101 overpass into San Francisco’s first city-sanctioned homeless camp:

These camps, or “St. Francis Villages,” would provide the homeless with space to camp as well as essential services, including the ability to sleep in a monitored location, 24/7 access to restrooms, and transitional services, [Amy Farah Weiss] says.

The idea of providing monitored and serviced campgrounds for the homeless is nothing new, Weiss says. The Right To Dream Too nonprofit offers a refuge for unhoused residents in Portland; the city of Eugene, Ore. offers rest-stops for homeless individuals and couples to sleep safely at night; and Seattle opened its first sanctioned homeless camps last fall.

Weiss and her partners in the St. Francis Homelessness Challenge have identified Cesar Chavez below the 101 overpass — where roughly 50 to 100 homeless residents are camping — as a potential first site for a city-sanctioned camp and are meeting with District 9 Supervisor David Campos about the possibility this Friday.

However, that land is owned by Caltrans and under the jurisdiction of the California Highway Patrol, which has been directed to “crack down” on camping on state lands, Weiss said. At this point, it’s unclear whether a collaboration to use those lands will be feasible.

UPDATE: Friday, Feb 26: Neighbor Margo attended the “walk around” in the encampment under the Chavez/101 overpass today, and reports:

My neighbor Keith and I went to the walk-around today with Supervisor Campos, folks from DPW and Caltrans, Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) from the city, Coalition for the Homeless people, and a guy who seemed to be one of the “St Francis Village” folks. Making the under-the-freeway camping area into permanent, sanctioned homeless encampment DID NOT appear to even be in the discussion. The discussion was around ways to improve services, figure out how (long-term) to get these folks inside and (short-term) how to make the situation under the freeway less dangerous, unsanitary, divisive, inhumane, etc.

To repeat: Making this area a permanent, sanctioned homeless encampment WAS NOT discussed as a serious solution.

That said, there was talk of trying to establish one of perhaps 5 (citywide) “navigation centers” for the homeless somewhere near here, perhaps in the parking lot near the storage area on the east side of the freeway.

PHOTO: Portion of encampment under US101 at Cesar Chavez, February 24, 2016. Photo by Telstar Logistics