Request Planning Commission to Deny Exceptions and Variances for 430 Main / 429 Beale and Request Full Environmental Impact Report

To:  San Francisco Planning Commission

We residents of San Francisco have signed this petition to discourage the San Francisco Planning Commission from approving the exceptions for dwelling unit exposure and variances for open space for Case Nos. 2007-1121XV, and we request a full environmental impact report because this specific site, block 3767 and lots 305 and 306, has been used for industrial purposes in the past and construction would occur against the property line of a Caltrans Bay Bridge maintenance and paint facility where hazardous materials are present as indicated by hazardous materials warning signage. We want to have an evaluation and plans for containing any hazardous materials contaminating the ground or air in the Rincon Hill neighborhood at this proposed site.

Furthermore, we believe the Planning Department is acting carelessly in regards to the intent of the Rincon Hill Plan by which any new developments at Block 3767 and Lots 305 and 306 must abide. The need for a livable neighborhood that provides for adequate light and air to reach residential units, streets, and open spaces is paramount, but the Planning Department personnel seem to be oblivious to the standards, objectives, intent, and policies of the Rincon Hill Plan by only considering the technical characteristics of the proposed project, Case Nos. 2007-1121XV, as they relate to SEC. 827. RINCON HILL DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT (RH DTR) in the City and County of San Francisco Planning Code. We ask the Planning Commission to request the Planning Department Personnel to provide a report that takes into account with equal consideration, as was the intent of the Rincon Hill Plan, the proposed project’s impact on aesthetics and livability for existing multi-family buildings in the community, especially impacts on BayCrest Towers, Portside, Watermark, and Bridgeview condominium complexes as they relate to Rincon Hill Plan Objectives 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 4.1, 4.4, and 4.6, and Rincon Hill Plan Policies 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, and 4.8 so that the Planning Commission has full disclosure of how this project meets the standards and intent of the Rincon Hill Plan as written via extensive public planning and community outreach.

As stated in the Rincon Hill Plan under section 2, Housing, “The desire to maximize housing must be balanced with the desire to create a livable neighborhood. Creation of the amenities of a pleasant housing environment should be the central feature of new development in the area. The open space and streetscape improvements and the various controls on building form and design proposed as a part of this plan are necessary to provide neighborhood scale and character appropriate for a residential district.”

Also stated in the Rincon Hill Plan under section 3, Urban Design, “The number, arrangement and form of towers in the district determine the amount of light and air that reach residential units, streets, and open spaces, and the sense of crowding at street level. Rincon Hill will be a primarily residential district, not an office district, and the presence of towers must be tailored to support a living environment.”

As noted in Final Planning Code Amendments for the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and related fees, “The Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan cites the National Park and Recreation Association open space standard of 10 acres per 1,000 residents. Although it acknowledges that this standard is unachievable in a built-out city with limited open space opportunities such as San Francisco… “ and “Map 2 of the Recreation and Open Space Element shows that the entirety of Rincon Hill is not served by open space, and Figure 3 identifies the Rincon Hill area as an “Area Not Served by Public Open Space.” Map 4 identifies the Rincon Hill area as an area in which to “Provide New Open Space in the General Vicinity.”” Also, the same document states that “In Rincon Hill, which will be deficient in open space when built out as a residential neighborhood, and where available land for new open space is scarce, excess street space that can be used for open space forms an important component of the open space system.”

While the Planning Department personnel were very focused on the City and County of San Francisco Planning Code Section 135, Usable Open Space for Dwelling Units and Group Housing, R, NC, Mixed Use, C, and M Districts in regards to Case Nos. 2007-1121XV and the requested variances thereto, they have thus far completely dismissed the aesthetic and recreational impact of the current design of the proposed project on the private common usable open spaces at neighboring BayCrest Towers, especially the 1st floor courtyard located in the middle of the building which would lose the 45 degree angle opening to the sky, air, and sun if the proposed structure is approved as currently designed. This is wrong and completely against the intent of the Rincon Hill Plan and Planning Code Section 135’s definition of common usable open space if the current design is allowed to create a bulky, blockwide wall running east to west and 84 feet high that encloses the southern facing opening of the BayCrest Towers inner recreational courtyard and two terraces that are the only common open spaces in Rincon Hill that the residents of the BayCrest Towers 288 units can easily access, regardless of the private ownership status of this particular open space. Senior citizens, children, and mobility-challenged residents at BayCrest, physically unable or feeling too unsafe to leave the neighborhood via the current, horrendous streetscape, especially need these common open spaces at BayCrest Towers to remain usable with Section 135-compliant openings to the sky for their recreational enjoyment. We ask the Planning Commission to request a new building design that minimizes the impact on the BayCrest Towers recreational common usable open spaces, leaving the 45 degree angle opening to the sky for the BayCrest Towers inner courtyard common usable open space at a minimum.

The following statements in quotations are from the Rincon Hill Plan.

Whereas the Rincon Hill neighborhood is currently “devoid of the intimate qualities of neighborhood life.”

Whereas “Rincon Hill’s streets are unsafe and unpleasant for pedestrians.”

Whereas “Rincon Hill is also lacking in open space, community facilities and neighborhood commercial uses that allow people to walk to take care of their daily recreation.”

Whereas “Recent development has done little to enhance the neighborhood environment … Rincon Hill has seen the construction of bulky, closely-spaced residential towers, which block public views, crowd streets, and contribute to a flat, unappealing skyline.”

Whereas the Rincon Hill Plan “sets clear development standards and design guidelines that will result in buildings that positively contribute to the neighborhood and cityscape.”

We call upon the San Francisco Planning Commission to give equal consideration to the intent and spirit the community had in mind when creating the following objectives and policies of the Rincon Hill Plan (in addition to the technical standards and requested dwelling unit exposure exemptions and open space variances for Case Nos. 2007-1121XV):

Objective 1.2: Maximize housing in Rincon Hill to capitalize on Rincon Hill’s central location adjacent to downtown employment and transit service, while still retaining the district’s livability.

Objective 1.5: Add life and activity to the district’s public spaces by providing active uses on street-facing ground floors.

Policy 1.5: Require street-facing residential units on the ground floor on Spear, Main, Beale, Fremont, First, Guy Place, and Lansing Streets, and encourage them on Harrison and Bryant Streets.

Objective 2.1: Provide quality housing in a pleasant environment that has adequate access to light, air, open space, and neighborhood amenities, and that is buffered from excessive noise.

Objective 3.1: Achieve an aesthetically pleasing residential community.

Objective 3.4: Preserve views of the Bay and the Bay Bridge from within the district and through the district from distant locations, which are among the most impressive in the region.

Objective 3.5: Maintain view corridors through the area by means of height and bulk controls that insure carefully spaced slender towers rather than bulky, massive buildings.

Objective 3.6: Ensure adequate light and air to the district and minimize wind and shadow on public streets and open spaces.

Objective 3.7: Reduce the present industrial scale of the streets by creating a circulation network through the interior blocks, creating a street scale comparable to those in existing residential areas elsewhere in the city.

Objective 3.8: Encourage a human scale streetscape with activities and design features at pedestrian eye level, and an engaging physical transition between private development and the public realm.

Objective 3.10: Relate the height and bulk of podium buildings to the width of the street, to define a consistent streetwall and ensure adequate sun and sky access to streets and alleys.

Policy3.2: Vary tower heights to avoid the visual benching created by a number of buildings whose tops are at the same elevation.

Policy 3.3: Minimize tower bulk to the dimensions shown in Figure 4 (of the Rincon Hill Plan), to ensure a feasible tower floorplate, to create elegant, slender towers and to preserve views and exposure to light and air.

Policy 3.4: Require towers to be spaced no less than 115 feet apart, the maximum plan dimension per Figure 4 (in the Rincon Hill Plan) for towers over 85 feet in height, to minimize shadowing of streets and open space, and to preserve at least as much sky plane as tower bulk.

Policy 3.5: Allow no more than three towers per block, to optimize exposure to light and air from residential units, streets and open spaces.

Policy 3.7: Maintain and reinforce views of the Bay Bridge and views of downtown as seen from the Bay Bridge.

Policy 3.9: Minimize shadows on streets, open spaces and residential units, and the creation of surface winds near the base of buildings.

Policy 3.11: Require building setbacks at upper-stories for podiums above 65 feet on Spear, Main, Beale, Fremont, and First Streets, and above 45 feet on Guy and Lansing Streets and mid-block pedestrian pathways, per Figure 5 (of the Rincon Hill Plan), to preserve an appropriate scale and sun access to streets.

Policy 3.14: Require street-facing ground floor residential units articulated at intervals of no more than 25 feet on Spear, Main, Beale, Fremont, First, and Lansing Streets, and Guy Place, except at tower lobbies or where parking access and utilities are necessary. Encourage them on Harrison and Bryant Streets.

Policy 3.15: Require front setbacks of at least five feet on average in new development to allow for front porches, stoops, terraces and landscaping for ground floor units, and to establish a transition from public to private space.

Objective 4.1: Create a variety of new open spaces and community facilities for active and passive recreation to meet the needs of a significant new residential population.

Objective 4.4: Ensure adequate sunlight and minimize wind and shadow on public streets and open spaces.

Objective 4.5: Use excess street space on Spear, Main, and Beale Streets for sidewalk widening that provide usable open spaces and recreational amenities.

Objective 4.6: Create an inviting and pleasant mid-block pedestrian corridor to the waterfront.

Policy 4.2: Significantly widen sidewalks by removing a lane of traffic on Spear, Main, and Beale Streets between Folsom and Bryant Streets per the Rincon Hill Streetscape Plan in order to create new “Living Streets,” with pocket park and plaza spaces for active and passive recreational use, decorative paving, lighting, seating, trees and other landscaping.

Policy 4.7: Require new development to implement portions of the streetscape plan adjacent to their development, and additional relevant in-kind contributions, as a condition of approval.

Policy 4.8: Require new development to provide private open space in relation to a development’s residential area at a ratio of 75 square feet of open space per unit.

Policy 5.1: Implement the Rincon Hill Streetscape Plan.

Policy 5.2: Significantly widen sidewalks by removing a lane of traffic on Spear, Main, and Beale Streets between Folsom and Bryant Streets per the Rincon Hill Streetscape Plan in order to create new “Living Streets,” with pocket park and plaza spaces for active and passive recreational use, decorative paving, lighting, seating, trees and other landscaping.

We request that Case Nos. 2007-1121XV be denied the requests for exceptions and variances, that a full environmental impact report be executed considering the past industrial uses of the property and abutting hazardous materials on the southern property line, and that the project be redesigned to take into consideration the intent, objectives, and policies listed above, specifically Rincon Hill Plan Objectives 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 4.1, 4.4, and 4.6, and Rincon Hill Plan Policies 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, and 4.8.

While there is the wonderful possibility to create more residential housing at block 3767, lot numbers 305 and 306, we should not do so in a hasty manner that ignores environmental concerns about this particular site without a full environmental impact report and without giving equal consideration to the intent, objectives, and policies of the Rincon Hill Plan. We do not approve of the proposed project plans because it violates the intent, many objectives, and many policies of the Rincon Hill Plan that this community and other stakeholders created via extensive public planning and helped to get passed in 2005.

We request that the San Francisco Planning Commission deny the requests for exceptions and variances, a full environmental impact report, and a redesign of the proposed project for Case Nos. 2007-1121XV, 430 Main / 429 Beale that fully takes into account the standards, intent, objectives, and policies of the Rincon Hill Plan as approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and Mayor in 2005.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

The Request Planning Commission to Deny Exceptions and Variances for 430 Main / 429 Beale and Request Full Environmental Impact Report Petition to San Francisco Planning Commission was created by Livable Rincon Hill and written by James A. Whitaker II (jamiewhitaker@gmail.com).  This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form.