Community Vision Plan

8/7/2019 Community Vision Plan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/community-vision-plan 1/54

A Community Vision for San Franc isco’s Northeast Waterfront

Prep ared b y

AsianNeighborhoodDesign

February 2011

Compliments of

Recreation & Open Space for The Waterfront

Frederick Allardyce & Bob Colemane: [email protected] t: 415-901-1788



2 | As ianNeighborhoodDesign

acknowledgements

Northea st Waterfront Com munity Steering Committee

Lee Rad ner, Chair, Friend s of Golde n Ga tew ayVed ica Puri, President, Teleg rap h Hill Dwe llers

Phil Ryan, President, Go lde n Ga tewa y Tena nts Assoc iation

William Sauro, Preside nt, Barba ry Co ast Neighborhood Assoc iation

Brad Paul, consultant

Sue Hestor, atto rney

Asian Neighb orhood Design

Fernando Ma rtí, Com munity Planning program direc tor

Juan Ca laf, Architectural Coordinator

Ma x Kwok, Architectural CoordinatorAnn Panopio, Architec tural Co ordinator

Claud ia Sun, Planning Intern

Fund ing fo r this plan, for Asian Neighbo rhood

Design staff, planning consultant Brad Paul,

workshop ma terials and the final doc ument,

wa s ma de po ssible b y the ge nerous

c ontributions of o ver 100 individua ls andseve ral nonp rofit neighb orhood orga nizations.




"I don't know of any other city where you can walk

through so many culturally diverse neighborhoods, and you're never out of sight of the wild hills. Nature is

very close here." ~ Gary Snyder



A Comm unity Vision for San Franc isc o’ s Northea st Wate rfront | 5

Recreation, Economics, and Equityissues. It is not a “study” that will gather duston a shelf, but a Plan to be implemented instep with new development.

3. Looks at Land Use and feasibility for the Waterfront as a Whole, not just priorities fordevelopers.

4. Reaches Consensus from a wide range of stakeholders representing the interests of residents, visitors and downtown workers.

Study Area

The Northeast Waterfront study area is located inthe northeast quadrant of San Francisco. Theresidential neighborhoods adjacent to TheEmbarcadero form an integral part to the area’soverall identity and character. The study scopeincludes publicly-owned parcels along theEmbarcadero, including the Port-managed seawalllots, which are held in “ public trust” for all the

people of California and lots owned by the Stateof California, as well the street rights-of-way. Thisreport describes the state’s Public TrustDoctrine and the uses allowed on public trustland (page 38), which includes all seawall lots,piers and bulkhead buildings. In general, uses thatdirectly promote or are related to maritimecommerce or fishing are permissible public trustuses. Hotels, restaurants, and waterfront-

related recreation and cultural uses areconsidered to be trust uses, because they draw large numbers of people to the waterfront.Neither housing nor general office use areconsidered trust uses, because they are viewedas "privatizing" trust lands with no corresponding trust benefit (e.g. promotion of maritimecommerce or public use and enjoyment of the waterfront).




Workshop 1: May 13, 2010 Workshop 2: June 9, 2010

Workshop 3: Sep tem be r 13, 2010




related programmed recreation activities andfacilities.

Chapter Six: Transportation and Parking,

addresses two critical issues for community members, the lack of transit access between theneighborhoods and the Waterfront, and the over-emphasis on new parking facilities on the part of the Port and developers.

Chapter Seven: Economic Development,acknowledges that the challenges of preserving and enhancing vibrant neighborhoods aren’t justquestions of public infrastructure and privatedevelopment, but involve intentional efforts tomaintain and enhance the area’s small businessesand commercial corridors.

Chapter Eight: Land Uses, Built Form, andthe Waterfront’s Character, gets at thecontroversial issues of what should be encouraged

to be built and where, and at what scale. Whileacknowledging the importance of economicfeasibility, the emphasis of this report is onensuring that development on the waterfront willrespect the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhoods and the iconic topography of thecity.

Chapter Nine: Implementation, outlines the

“next steps” to move the project forward. It is thecommunity’s hope that public agencies, inparticular the Planning Department and the Portof San Francisco, will begin taking the lead inexecuting the implementation actions. Community members desire projects that design and plan forfuture long-term sustainability. There should becontinued dialogue between the community,developers and the Planning Department as well

as other City agencies to provide continuedaccountability for the Plan’s implementation.

Chapter Ten offers a few concluding thoughts

from the community steering committee of Northeast Waterfront activists and organizations.

"Once I knew the City very well, spent my attic days

there, while others were being a lost generation in Paris, I fledged in San Francisco, climbed its hills,slept in its parks, worked on

its docks, marched and shouted in its revolts…It had been kind to me in the days of my poverty and it did not resent my temporary solvency."

~ John Steinbeck



A Co mm unity Vision for San Franc isc o’ s Northea st Waterfront | 11

Historic al Contex t

San Francisco’s history is rooted in its waterfront, where one can read the story of the city’s growth

and change. It was not only a place where freight was transferred to and from ships and rail, butalso where people first arrived or disembarkedfrom points around the globe. As a port city,many of San Francisco’s most important historicalhighlights occurred in and were defined by its waterfront: waves of migration to California andthe West, San Francisco’s emergence as a majorcommercial center, the development of

international trade routes, including the opening of the Panama-Pacific Canal, its role in expanding American influence in the Pacific and Latin America, and World Wars I and II.

The 1849 Gold Rush attracted hundreds of shipsfrom around the world to the city, leading SanFrancisco to become an “Instant City.” Between1852 and 1908, an explosion of shipping andtrading activity led to the development of a majorharbor and supporting warehouse district, and thebuilding of an initial seawall in the Northern Waterfront. A state commission was created in1863 to improve and manage the harbor. By 1908,twenty-eight piers were in operation. The areaadjacent to the waterfront along Jackson Streetbecame known as the Barbary Coast, an area of

brothels, dance halls, and saloons, until a series of regulations and campaigns starting in 1911 closedit down.

Between 1908 and 1931, the Port undertook major harbor improvement and “beautification”projects. A second, longer seawall was completed,and new “finger” piers and bulkhead buildings were constructed.

Broadway Piers, 1863

Emb arca de ro, 1912 Foo t o f Ma rket, 1900s




After the huge surge of growth in the 1920s, SanFrancisco was deeply affected by the worldwideGreat Depression at the beginning of the 1930s.Shanty-towns and soup kitchens for unemployed

seamen and warehouse workers sprang up along the waterfront. The “White Angel Jungle” was ahuge soup kitchen located on The Embarcaderonear Filbert Street. Lois Jordan served as many as2,000 men a day and depended solely onunsolicited donations of food and money. The waterfront was also the site of the San FranciscoGeneral Strikes of 1934, which defined SanFrancisco as a labor town for generations to come.

With the unemployment rate of the GreatDepression, thousands of unemployed workers were not only willing to work at any wage, but were also willing to work in any condition. Thehorrendous working conditions led to the SanFrancisco and Oakland General Strike of 1934.

On May 9, the strike of the Bay Area

Longshoremen along the west coast and Hawaiibegan. Since the shipping companies refused tonegotiate, tensions rose dramatically. Theindustrial association had tried to open the portfurther which led to major violence and hostility between strikers and the police. On July 5, 1934,known as “Bloody Thursday”, police fired into acrowd of protesters and killed two strikers.

The Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge werecompleted in 1936 and 1937, respectively. During WWII, the waterfront became a military logisticscenter. Almost every pier and wharf was involvedin military activities, with troop ships and naval vessels anchored all along The Embarcadero. Butthe bridges led to the start of a decline in activity at the waterfront as the Bay Area’s shipping centerbegan moving to Oakland, with goods carried

across the bridge by truck.

Dorothea Lange ’s fam ous po rtrait of an out-of-work

longshorema n, taken at the White Ang el Jungle.

The fune ral for the tw o d ea d strikers ma rche s do wn

Ma rket Street during the1934 General Strike.




The Emb arca de ro Freewa y, with Golden Ga tew ay

construction in foreground, 1960s

The Emb arca de ro Freewa y on- and off-ram ps at

Washington and Clay Streets

The Embarcadero Freeway, built in 1959, notonly provided access into the city, but it alsoconnected San Francisco neighborhoods such asChinatown to developing residential areas where

younger generations began moving. Asconstructed, the Embarcadero Freeway, with exitsat Broadway Street, and later, Main and Washington Streets, further cut off the waterfrontand Ferry Building from the rest of the city.

By 1969, the number of piers was reduced to 45,as some “finger” piers were combined into largerpiers to meet modern warehousing and shipping

needs. The ferry slips at the foot of Market Street were removed as commuters abandoned ferriesfor the car, crossing on the Bay Bridge and theEmbarcadero Freeway. Waterfront activity declined still further with the advent of containerized shipping, as the center of Bay Areashipping moved to Oakland.

The San Francisco Bay Conservation andDevelopment Commission was created in 1965as a permitting authority along the San FranciscoBay shoreline responsible for granting or denying permits for all bay filling, dredging or substantialchange in use of land, water or structures in theBay or on the shoreline. Today, it also enforcesand amends the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (SAP) and develops climate change

adaptation policies to mitigate the rise in sea level.




The wave of postwar “redevelopment” thatdestroyed many inner cities in the U.S. affectedthis area as well. The Golden GatewayRedevelopment Project was established and

adopted on October 14, 1958. The plan included“slum clearance” and redevelopment activities“for the elimination and for the prevention of thedevelopment or spread of slums and blight.” Theentire produce market was cleared, and itsoperations moved to the Bayview and San Mateo. The plan led to the construction of 1,400 new housing units at Golden Gateway, 3.5 millionsquare feet of office space at the Embarcadero

Center and Maritime Plaza, an 840-room hotel,and open space and recreation facilities, including Justin Herman Plaza, Sue BiermanPark/Ferry Park , Sydney Walton Square, andthe Golden Gateway Tennis & Swim Club.Golden Gateway is the second largest rent-controlled apartment complex in the city.

Like Sydney Walton Square, the Tennis & SwimClub, constructed in 1968 and used as a healthand recreation club both by immediate residentsand the general public, was the result of arequirement by the Redevelopment Agency forcommunity space. Now that the Redevelopment Area has expired, the Planning Department claims“any and all covenants and land use restrictions…no longer apply.” However, letters from

Mayor/Senator Feinstein (1984/2003) and RobertRumsey (1990), Deputy Director of Redevelopment at the time the Golden Gateway Redevelopment Project was approved and built,clearly state that Sidney Walton Square and the Tennis & Swim Club were supposed to remain intheir current uses in perpetuity as part of theoriginal entitlement agreement.

Original Red evelop me nt plan, showing the G olden

Gate way’ s co mmunity recreation center




Before and afte r pho tos of the Emb arca de ro Freewa y,

looking north to t he Ferry Build ing

Later waterfront projects include Levi’s Plaza, with a park designed by Lawrence Halprin, whichcreated a peaceful oasis away from the congestionof the freeway and railroad.

On October 17, 1989, the Loma PrietaEarthquake struck San Francisco. The effects of the earthquake were devastating, from severedamage to injuries and deaths. The EmbarcaderoFreeway was greatly damaged, and after muchdispute, the freeway was finally demolished in1991 under the leadership of Mayor Art Agnos. The demolition of the Embarcadero Freeway

helped reconnect the city to its waterfront,bringing the Ferry Building and bulkhead piers tonew prominence.

Over the past thirty years, the number of historic“finger” piers was further reduced as some weredemolished or redeveloped to make way for arecreational retail center at Pier 39, the Pier 7

public access pier, and a marina in South Beach. The northern waterfront today contains a mix of maritime support, passenger cruise, fishing, ferry and excursion, office, and retail uses. Most cargooperations that remain moved south to moderncargo terminals at Piers 80 and 90-96. Pier usestoday include the City’s cruise ship terminal at Pier35 and industrial cargo warehouse and cargosupport operations on Piers 15-23. A mix of

commercial and maritime uses, offices,restaurants, and public access exists on other piersand within the bulkhead buildings. Across TheEmbarcadero, the Port’s seawall lots are usedprimarily for commercial uses and parking.

In 1990 the Waterfront Land Use plan wascreated by citizen initiative, and was adopted by the Port Commission in 1997. It reserves the

Public Trust lands to maritime related operations

and encourages the creation of new public access,recreation and open space along the Bay.




The Neighb orhood s

The Northeast Waterfront is characterized by a

passionate and active community composed of many neighborhood and community groups. Theneighborhoods closest to the Northeast waterfront include the area around the GoldenGateway Apartments, Jackson Square, TelegraphHill, the Barbary Coast, and on into North Beachand Chinatown, then Russian Hill and Nob Hill.Each neighborhood enjoys a distinct identity.

However, we recognize that the Waterfront is a lotof different things to different people. While thiscommunity vision emphasizes its role inconnecting San Francisco’s neighborhoods to theBay, it is also a regional destination which drawsresidents from all over the City and brings a rangeof visitors and locals. This plan is partly aboutfinding a balance between these roles.




Broadway

Jac kson Stree t

Washingt on Street

Clay Street

The Emb arca de ro




Existing Conditions

Land use in the Northeast Waterfront area is a

patchwork quilt marking its various evolutions.Most areas closest to the waterfront are low-rise commercial buildings, under 40’. TheSeawall Lots are generally surface parking lots.




Enco urage sidewa lk sea ting a nd

ac tivities at co rner loc at ions.

Extend Broa dw ay street imp rovement s

and public art to the Emba rca dero.

Reduce Washington to two lanes between Drummand Embarcadero. Washington Street could bereduced from four lanes to two between Drummand Embacadero, which would calm traffic,

shorten crossing distances, allow for widersidewalks and bicycle lanes, and enlarge the openspace to the south and/or the developable parcelsto the north.

Establish bicycle lanes along Washington in bothdirections. Washington Street, if made two-way, would be an excellent bicycle connection betweenthe Embarcadero, Columbus Avenue, North

Beach and Chinatown for residents, commuters,and visitors.

1.3: Along the Gateway recreation center,extend pedestrian corridor on Drumm Street.

Reduce Drumm Street from four lanes to one lanein each direction with a left turn lane, and addbicycle lanes. Drumm Street is much wider than it

needs to be, and a road diet could provide roomfor bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks, sections of wider planted median, or all three. The PUC isplanning to replace the sewer on this street, whichprovides an excellent opportunity to reduce theoversized roadway.

1.4: Extend Broadway Streetscape Plan to

Embarcadero. Broadway is currently neitherpedestrian nor resident friendly. Narrowing thestreet at intersections, adding more landscaping,art work and murals, and improving transitconnections to the waterfront would all help.Creating regular Muni service should be a toppriority. One idea that was mentioned that couldsupplement Muni service, particularly during major events on the waterfront, involved a




chapter five

SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE: OPEN SPACE AND ACTIVE RECREATION

Network of Ope n Spa ces

The Bay side of the Embarcadero Promenadeserves as an important public open space for visitors. While local residents use the Bay walk as aplace to walk and exercise, it is clearly a civic spaceintended for visitors from near and far.

Drawing from the existing pattern of developmentpunctuated with green spaces, from Sue BiermanPark to Levi’s Plaza, a top priority for thecommunity is to have more public openspaces that are safe, lively and accessible forall. The community envisions a stronger network of public spaces, including new parks along theEmbarcadero’s undevelopable small triangularSeawall Lots that provide much needed play

spaces for children and opportunities forgathering.

Public open spaces and green spaces in theNortheast Waterfront area should be programmed and well-maintained. A network of open spaces offers important gathering areasfor large or special events that bolster community identity. The City should design and construct a

series of small parks and playgrounds on theminor Seawall Lots to complement the existing necklace of open spaces (Sue Bierman Park,Gateway recreation center, Levi’s Plaza)

Explore the improvement of public spaces tocreate sufficient visual surveillance necessaryto maintain a safe environment. Public spaceimprovements should incorporate structures foractive uses, such as cafés, newsstands, ortemporary vendors, and provide “eyes on thestreet” to help ensure the vibrancy andmaintenance of public space. Encourage multiple

public programs such as farmers’ markets, publicgatherings, festivals and performances in the area’splazas and open spaces (see also EconomicDevelopment Chapter, page 36).

Sue Bierman Park and the Pump Station building were also areas of particular concern.

This ma p from t he City’s Open Spa ce and Rec reation

Element clea rly shows the lac k of playg rounds in the

Northeast Waterfront a rea. Note that the m ap doe s not differentiate b y ag e-group playground needs.




Parking Studies

AND reviewed existing parking studies from 2005& 2006, both done by Wilbur Smith (the formerstudy also with Nelson-Nygard). Both confirmthat there is more than enough space on weekday evenings and weekends at the four Embarcaderosand the Alcoa garage, though the reports vary about weekday daytime capacity. While currentconditions may have changed due to the economicdownturn the 2005/2006 studies may be a goodconservative source to gauge the demand that canbe expected if/when the economy picks up again.

The Embarcadero 4 Parking Garage, for example,is closer to the Ferry Building than any of theSeawall Lots. While the data showed that there was excess parking in the garages, the locations arenot very visible from the waterfront (seeillustration below).

Visibility of the closest parking garage from the Ferry

Building is bloc ked b y b erm.




Numbered parking lots at left refer to corresponding

bar graph charts on the previous page that show

how much remaining parking capacity there is at

each parking lot on Weekdays, Weeknights and

Weekends. Data compiled from 2005 and 2006

pa rking studies by Wibu r Smith.




Conc ep tua l design for the a rea from Wa shington Street to Vallejo Street, showing Sea wa ll Lot de velopm ents and street imp rovem ent loc ations.




Above: examples of new construction at 40’ heights

along the South Beac h Wate rfront. As Planning Dept .

show ed on their Sep temb er 30, 2009 presenta tion,

heights significantly above 40’ will disrupt legibility of

c ity’s hills and la ndma rks. If deve lopme nt is to p reserve

a sense of City’s topography, it cannot go above

these heights at the Emb arca de ro.

The massing study for “8 Washington” projec t at right

shows (top to bottom): 1) an ‘a s is’ view of Telegrap h

Hill from the Ferry Building, 2) the same view, but with

a 40’ structure on the prop osed site, 3) the view from

the Ferry Building with a 65’ struct ure on the site and ,

4) the d evelop er’s current propo sal for ‘8 Washington’

with heights up to 136’tha t wo uld require a n upzoning.

.

Built Form & Neighb orhood Charac ter Urban design recommendations, building character, and height and massing, should begin

by responding to the surrounding context andhuman scale. A cardinal rule of planning shouldbe to plan for a the long-term needs of the largercommunity, and, while remaining cognizant of development feasibility, not letting developerneeds rule. In this case, because the developmentopportunities are all on publicly-owned land, theCity and Port have a wider leeway in promoting appropriate development.

The Northeast Waterfront has a range of landuses and architectural styles that reflect theneighborhood’s history. Public improvementsand new development should be compatible withhistoric buildings and respect the scale andmixed-use design character of traditional SanFrancisco neighborhoods, conveying a sense of

original yet contextual design. Careful attentionto building design, including design that enhancesthe ground-level experience, and mid-block pedestrian connections within larger blocks, areessential in creating a livable neighborhood.

Respecting the City’s topography is a key issue.From the City’s General Plan Urban DesignElement: Objective 3, Major New Development:

“OBJECTIVE 3 (1.D): Low buildings along the waterfront contribute to the gradual tapering of height from hilltops to water that is characteristicof San Francisco and allows views of the Oceanand the Bay. Larger buildings with civicimportance, as evidenced by a vote of the people,providing places of public assembly andrecreation, may be appropriate along the waterfront at important locations”

1.

2.

3.

4.




Ma ssing stud y for Sea wa ll Lot 351, at 35’ with a ground floor Bike and Transit Center, rec reat ion related reta il

and a ca fé (done b y AND staff).

Ma ssing stud y for the Broa dw ay Emba rc ad ero (Sea wa ll Lot 324) at 40’ height, with m idbloc k

ped estrian pathwa y

Ma ssing study fo r North Point (Sea wa ll Lot 314) site,with 40’ high ho tel a nd two -story co rner resta urant.



Next Step s – Ong oing

5 C Pl i P rt R & P rk




The community’s continued support will becritical to implementing the plan. Many of therecommendations of the plan require large scale

and long term projects that will involve the City of San Francisco and its implementing agencies, orprivate developers with large-scale projects.

There are many critical steps that neighborhoodorganizations and individuals can take to supportthese recommendations. We will begin by presenting this plan to an array of community groups, stakeholders and individuals in theaffected study area as well as interested citywideorganizations and asking them to endorse itsrecommendations. With this broader base of support we will then ask the Mayor and the Boardof Supervisors to:

1. Convene Planning, Port, DPT, Rec & Park,shuttle operators, garage operators, Ferry

Building, Exploratorium, to develop scope forParking Access Plan; develop schematicdesign for pedestrian connections to parking garages.

2. Convene Planning, Port, Muni, Shuttleoperators, Water taxi operators,Exploratorium, to develop Transit AccessPlan.

3. Convene Planning, Port, DPW to develop aCommunity Infrastructure Timeline andFunding Strategy for public realmimprovements.

4. Convene Planning, OEWD, Gateway management, to develop NeighborhoodEconomic Development Plan.

5. Convene Planning, Port, Rec & Park,Chinatown and other neighborhood youthorganizations, to develop scope forRecreation Plan.

6. Convene Planning, Port, MOH, affordablehousing developers, to develop an economicfeasibility analysis for possible housing development on the Broadway Seawall Lot.

7. Develop Land Residual Analysis for variousrevenue uses on Seawall Lots to calculatepotential lease revenue to Port.

chapter ten




chapter ten

CONCLUSIONS

Will the North East Waterfront Plan…

1. Strengthen neighborhood fabric andpedestrian/transit connections?

2. Promote a socio-economic and ethnically diverse waterfront?

3. Enhance and preserve recreation

opportunities and public open space?4. Create a politically and economically feasible

plan that balances public uses and revenue-generating development?

This is our vision for the North East Waterfront. We welcome the Planning Department’s efforts tocreate urban design guidelines for developmentalong the Embarcadero, but without an overallplan, including in-depth discussion of interdepartmental challenges, building of community infrastructure, recognition of the

adjacent low-income neighborhoods and theirneeds, and a comprehensive land use andeconomic plan, we don’t think it can garner thenecessary community support to be a realisticplan. This effort is the first step in identifying a setof comprehensive needs and steps that need to betaken to develop the Northeast Waterfront in its

neighborhood context, as a whole, living place,not just a destination for visitors.

Conclusions:1. The Planning Department’s “Urban Design

Study” is constrained by narrowness of focus,does not reach consensus, and has notundergone environmental review of itsrecommendations

2. The Planning Department, in partnership withPort, should lead a comprehensive plan toknit the neighborhoods with the waterfront,

to meet real needs and address the feasibility of development across all Seawall lots, eitheras a single process or in incremental steps

3. We have already started doing it…

We want to reiterate that we, the undersignedorganizations, support development on these sites,

within an overall community plan.

Lee Radner – Chair, Friends of Golden Gateway (FOGG)

Vedica Puri –President, Telegraph Hill DwellersPhil Ryan – President, Golden Gateway Tenants

AssociationWilliam Sauro , President, Barbary Coast

Neighborhood Association




C. What would developers pay the Port tolease each of these Seawall Lots:

We asked several developers to create pro formasfor each Seawall Lot identified by the community as appropriate for hotel use and come up with arange of lease payments they would be willing tomake for each site. So far, we’ve heard back fromone developer, and are awaiting results fromseveral others. Some may question the validity of these numbers, but they are easy to verify if the

Port were to issue an RFP for one of the largesthotel sites (e.g. Seawall Lot 322-1). This wouldquickly establish how accurate these numbers are,as well as the level of developer interest andcommunity support. Following are the numbers we’ve received to date. We will continue to refinethe numbers as we hear from other developersand begin implementing this plan.

Sites (north to south) Annual Lease Payment (as a range) for 66 years 66 year total Net Present ValueSeawall Lot 314: $ 95,000 to $ 115,000 per year $ 6,930,000 $ 1,470,000 (North Point)

Seawall Lot 322-1 $ 182,000 to $ 245,000 per year $ 14,190,000 $ 3,000,000(Upper Broadway)

State-owned Lot: $ 80,000 to $ 100,000 per year $ 5,940,000 $ 1,260,000 (At Broadway and Davis St.)

Seawall Lot 324: $ 60,000 to $ 80,000 per year $ 4,620,000 $ 988,000 (Broadway Embarcadero)

Seawall Lot 351: $ 40,000 to $ 60,000 per year5 $ 3,300,000 $ 400,000 (Washington/Embarcadero)

Total: $ 460,000 to $ 600,000 per year $ 34,980,000 $ 7,118,000

5 8 Washington proposes paying $0 to $120,000/yr. depending on how big a rent credit it asks for and receives. The Community Vision for this site calls for aWaterfront Transit & Recreation Center that includes a large bicycle center with bike storage, repair, rentals and showers, a café and restaurant, a car share station,taxi and bike rickshaw stands, recreation related retail, youth activities, etc. Groups supporting this plan endorse these uses (and oppose the 8 Washington uses).

app endix B

MUNI F LINECONNECTIONS




MUNI F-LINE CONNECTIONS

SF Municipa l Transpo rtation Ag enc y m ap showing the

“F” trolley line and abundance of connections along

Ma rket Street, and the lac k of cross-town c onnec tions

along the Emb arcad ero.

app endix C

HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN THE NORTHEASTWATERFRONTAREA




HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN THE NORTHEAST WATERFRONT AREA

app endix D

DOCUMENTSREFERENCED




DOCUMENTS REFERENCED

Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan, San Francisco Planning Department, http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/NE_Waterfront.htm Waterfront Land Use Plan, Port of San Francisco, http://www.sf-port.org/index.aspx?page=294

Waterfront Design & Access Element, Port of San Francisco,

http://www.sf-port.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/about_us/divisions/planning_development/WDesAcc.pdf

Northeast Waterfront Historic District, San Francisco Planning Code Section 10, Appendix D,

http://library.municode.com/HTML/14139/level3/ART10PRHIARAELA_APAR10_APXD_ARTICLE_10NOWAHIDI.html

San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan, Bay Conservation and Development Commission,

http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/pdf/planning/plans/sfwsap/SFWSAP_Final.pdf

Public Trust Doctrine, California State Lands Commission, http://www.slc.ca.gov/policy_statements/public_trust/public_trust_doctrine.pdf

Community Vision Plan

Documents

Transcript of Community Vision Plan