SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[homebucket]

Here it is. I highly doubt anything will happen though as it's not a realistic proposal. Not exactly the best place for such a tower. If anything it'll galvanize the NIMBY movement and make it stronger. More reasonably scaled projects like the one above would be much better as it's more appropriately scaled for the existing neighborhood and more realistically achievable.

Edit: Actually it looks like it is the one above. In the article it mentions the most recent proposal was for 12 stories and 400 units, at 2700 Sloat. I'm not sure what made them suddenly jump to 55 stories and 560 feet. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

A 55-story condo tower near Ocean Beach? S.F. officials give thumbs-down
J.K. Dineen
March 31, 2023

San Francisco’s campaign to meet state housing goals by opening up the west side to increased density is set to face its first big test: a 50-plus story tower in the Outer Sunset District.

But, so far, it’s off to a rough start, with both city planners and the neighborhood supervisor giving the proposal a thumbs-down.

CH Planning LLC, a Reno real estate company, was planning to submit a proposal to build a 55-story, 646-unit development two blocks from Ocean Beach on the site of the Sloat Garden Center, according to an interview the developer did with the San Francisco Business Times.

While the developer had yet to file an application, San Francisco Planning Director Rich Hillis confirmed that CH Planning had indicated that it intended to submit paperwork for the 560-foot development, perhaps as early as Friday afternoon.

Hillis said the location is perfect for density, but the height of the project contemplated would not be in compliance with zoning regulations. While the developer planned to take advantage of the “state density bonus” — which allows for 50% more density in exchange for a higher percentage of affordable units — the building proposed is several times taller than zoning allows, he said.

“A residential project on this west side site next to the street car is exactly what we envisioned in the housing element,” Hillis said, referring to San Francisco’s recently adopted state-mandated plan that requires the city to plan for 82,000 housing units over the next eight years. “Unfortunately the developer misrepresents what’s allowed by the planning code and state density bonus.”

Hillis said “high-density housing here makes complete sense, but it defies logic that a site with a 100-foot height limit and a 50% density bonus would yield a 560-foot building.”

Supervisor Joel Engardio said that he was set to meet with the development team in mid-March but that “they canceled it.”

“That was a few weeks ago, and now I read about it in the newspaper,” he said. “That is not a good start as far as community outreach.”

Engardio said he agreed with Hillis that the acre site at 2700 Sloat could “hold a lot of housing” and that the area — with wide avenues and proximity to transit, the zoo and the beach — would be perfect for family-oriented development.

But he said he would favor six-story buildings with courtyards and ground-floor retail.

“Change is coming to that area,” he said. “But 50 stories at the beach is not realistic. We need housing on the west side that is going to attract families.”

The new proposal is the fourth iteration of the project in three years. The development originally was proposed to be eight stories with 213 units. The proposal then increased to 12 stories and 283 units, and then to 400 condos, using San Francisco’s Home-SF legislation, which allows builders to tack on two extra floors in exchange for agreeing to make 30% of the housing affordable.

Sonja Trauss, executive director of YIMBY Law, said John and Raelynn Hickey’s interpretation of what the law allows is correct, based on the state “bulk code” law, which regulates massing. The developer is planning on building four towers on top of one podium, which they argue makes it in compliance. But the city says that the four towers would be considered a single building, and so would exceed density limits.

“We think the project is very exciting — more housing is more housing,” Trauss said. “And what better place to build it than by the beach?”

She said the city’s negative response to the project shows its not serious about meeting its housing element goals.

“The city has an opportunity to get 600 units built there and they seem to want no part of it,” she said.

The property is owned by 2700 Sloat Holdings LLC, which bought the 30,000-square-foot site in 2020 for $8.5 million. The developer, CH Planning LLC, is headed up by Raelynn Hickey, who is listed as the company’s manager, according to public records.

In a text, Hickey said, “I have been involved with affordable housing most of my life and it gives me great pleasure to have an opportunity to take part in developing more of this badly needed housing stock.”

Hickey said, in texts, she has “surrounded” herself with “some of the best quality consultants in the business, including architects, civil engineers, (mechanical) engineers, affordable housing consultants, land use attorneys, litigation attorneys, marketing consultants, land use attorneys, and many more.”

Hickey’s husband, John Hickey, is referenced in the Business Times article as a consultant on the project. John and Raelynn Hickey are also both listed as treasurer, secretary and director of a separate company, an affordable housing group called Lifetime Affordable.

While there is no record that CH Planning has developed housing in San Francisco, John Hickey made news in 2004 when he proposed three 500-foot towers on India Basin in San Francisco’s Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood. That project was shot down by city planners.

In addition, John Hickey’s business practices have drawn the attention of federal law enforcement agencies. In November 2005, he was convicted by a federal jury on two counts of securities fraud and eight counts of mail fraud after a three-week trial in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

In March 2006, U.S. District Judge William Alsup sentenced him to 97 months in prison and ordered him to pay a $15,000 fine and $17.4 million in restitution, after he was found guilty of defrauding more than 700 investors, according to a news release at the time.

Trauss said the city would not be faced with a 560-foot tower had it approved the earlier version of the project, which could have been scheduled for a hearing at the planning commission last June.

“They had an opportunity to have 200 units and then 400 units and they didn’t get to the point of scheduling a planning commission hearing,” Trauss said.

But she called the delays “a blessing in disguise.”

“We ended up with a bigger project,” she said.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/artic...h-17869660.php

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by pequenosparkee

At REI yesterday, thought to snap these

828 Brannan - shame it's going to be office instead of residential as originally proposed


600 7th


Oh and House of Brakes to remain a garage, not convert to housing as Socketsite readers had expected
https://missionlocal.org/2023/04/wha...use-of-brakes/

Thanks for the update, pequenosparkee!

[homebucket]

Controversial Valencia bike lane plan up for vote on Tuesday
By Adam Shanks | Examiner staff writer Apr 3, 2023

Valencia Street could soon be split down the middle by a two-way, center-running bicycle track that would be the first of its kind in the city.

Like the street design itself, transit advocates are divided over a plan for Valencia Street, which sees more than 2,000 cyclists every day.

Some argue that the existing design is inherently unsafe, and that anything is better than continuing to navigate around double-parked cars stopped in a bike lane. After years of talk, they just want to see tangible change — even if the design proposed by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency isn’t the Valencia of their dreams.

Others argue that the center-running bike lanes will be so disastrous that it’s best to hold out for a better design.

On Tuesday, the SFMTA Board of Directors will vote on the design proposed by agency officials.

If approved, the agency will install a two-way bike highway from 15th Street to 23rd Street at least until the pilot expires on Oct. 31, 2024

The bike lanes are protected by temporary plastic posts. Each bike lane is six feet wide, buttressed by a two-foot buffer lane between it and the lanes for car traffic.

Other changes would include left turn restrictions intended to protect the cyclists that would be streaming down the middle of the street. The design would decrease general parking spots for cars by 22%, but increase loading space for commercial and non commercial vehicles, according to SFMTA.

The SFMTA believes the design will reduce collisions, including those between cars and cyclists. The stretch is a notoriously dangerous one. Two people have died in the last five years under the existing set up, according to SFMTA.

To address safety concerns further north, the SFMTA installed parking-protected bike lanes along the curbsides of Valencia Street in 2019 between Market and 15th Street.

As it was assessing how to address the next stretch of Valencia, The City and world were struck by the COVID-19 pandemic. That introduced a new wrinkle — the construction of parklets outside a number of businesses along Valencia. The plan introduced by SFMTA attempts to address this post-pandemic reality.

The agency tracked loading activity along the street, and found the vast majority of it does not occur at the curb, but either in a bike or in the vehicle travel lane. By sticking bike lanes in the center and increasing zones for commercial loading, SFMTA hopes to alleviate this problem.

The agency notes that protected bike lanes along the curbside, such as those that exist between Market and 15th Street, are an alternative. But doing so would require weaving bike lanes around parklets, thus reducing available space for loading, it argues.

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/tran...98b3c6c2a.html

[homebucket]

And the images:





https://sf.streetsblog.org/2022/09/1...ia-bike-lanes/

[BobbyMucho]

Originally Posted by homebucket

And the images:





https://sf.streetsblog.org/2022/09/1...ia-bike-lanes/

Terrible plan. No one likes it and it's being promoted by people who essentially argue that moving parklets is too tough a decision to make or plan for.

Also, note that this will be, what, the 4th incarnation/implimentation of bike lanes along Valencia—none of which coalesce or work together.

[Charmy2]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Here it is. I highly doubt anything will happen though as it's not a realistic proposal. Not exactly the best place for such a tower. If anything it'll galvanize the NIMBY movement and make it stronger. More reasonably scaled projects like the one above would be much better as it's more appropriately scaled for the existing neighborhood and more realistically achievable.

Edit: Actually it looks like it is the one above. In the article it mentions the most recent proposal was for 12 stories and 400 units, at 2700 Sloat. I'm not sure what made them suddenly jump to 55 stories and 560 feet. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.



https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/artic...h-17869660.php

Yeah this was the one I was talking about. It will def be interesting to see a skyscraper rise in the Outer Richmond.

[OneRinconHill]

Originally Posted by Charmy2

Yeah this was the one I was talking about. It will def be interesting to see a skyscraper rise in the Outer Richmond.

I'm all for more buildings, but this just isn't a good idea at all. It'll stand out like the Geneva Towers did and just not look right at all.

[deanstirrat]

Who cares about standing out. That entire side of the city will need to start building up soon anyways. If its built, it will be just the beginning.

[BobbyMucho]

Originally Posted by deanstirrat

Who cares about standing out. That entire side of the city will need to start building up soon anyways. If its built, it will be just the beginning.

Agreed that the western part of the city—specifically along Geary—needs to be built up, but this is pretty out of context for the area. Not only is the height pretty wild, but the density it would bring couldn't be serviced by existing transit or other neighborhood-serving amenities.

For context, 500ft is taller than the vast majority of skyscrapers in the center of the city.

[deanstirrat]

Originally Posted by BobbyMucho

Agreed that the western part of the city—specifically along Geary—needs to be built up, but this is pretty out of context for the area. Not only is the height pretty wild, but the density it would bring couldn't be serviced by existing transit or other neighborhood-serving amenities.

For context, 500ft is taller than the vast majority of skyscrapers in the center of the city.

None of that matters. And waiting for public transit before building homes is like the chicken and the egg. We can’t wait for the gov to spend billions and decades building a western Bart extension before we start building up those neighborhoods. Why does it matter if a building is taller than other buildings at all. Who really cares about that? Is it scary or offensive? Sf desperately need more housing.

[BobbyMucho]

Originally Posted by deanstirrat

None of that matters. And waiting for public transit before building homes is like the chicken and the egg. We can’t wait for the gov to spend billions and decades building a western Bart extension before we start building up those neighborhoods. Why does it matter if a building is taller than other buildings at all. Who really cares about that? Is it scary or offensive? Sf desperately need more housing.

I totally agree that waiting for transit to show up or billions to be spent on BART (and decades to pass) is not viable. However, I don't think that every part of the city is a great location/candidate for 1000% increase in localized density.

Aesthetics, scale relative to adjacent structures and what kind of transit are entirely separate conversations IMO.

SF does desperately need more housing, but we also need to be thoughtful if not critical of the kinds and the locations we choose to put it.

[Busy Bee]

Maybe they need to rework the Parkmerced redevelopment to become a big Hong Kong New Territories style highrise cluster? I'm sorta half kidding.

[homebucket]

Futuristic Foster + Partners Design For 3 Transamerica In Financial District, San Francisco



BY: ANDREW NELSON 5:30 AM ON APRIL 10, 2023

New renderings have been published for the renovations of 3 Transamerica for the Transamerica Complex redevelopment by SHVO in San Francisco’s Financial District. The project will double the structure’s height and floor capacity, partially reskin the building with a futuristic design by Foster + Partners, and expand the famous Redwood Park. The $400 million master plan includes renovations of the lobby and interiors of the city’s landmark Transamerica Pyramid.

The 220-foot tall expansion will yield around 127,600 square feet with 105,220 square feet of office space, 6,410 square feet for retail, and 460 square feet for parking 22 bicycles. The development will expand on the existing office building with 49,999 square feet of new office space.

Foster + Partners is the project architect. The planned design incorporates a portion of the existing historic facade along the south and east facades. The north and west facades will be removed for the new futuristic curtainwall skin. While the property is considered an individually eligible historic resource designed in 1930 by Willis Polk & Company, the intervention will not influence this consideration.

The historic design review by city staff writes that: “although construction of the horizontal addition will require the removal of the subject building’s visible north and west facades, these facades lack the architectural detail of the street-facing south and east facades; the demolition of the north and west facades will not result in the removal of character-defining features. Furthermore, the addition will read as distinctly new construction that is clearly differentiated from the historic building and recognizable as a modern intervention consistent with other newer buildings in the area.”

The facade will include two shops, one facing Sansome Street and another towards the proposed new Mark Twain Place pedestrian paseo connecting to Transamerica Redwood Park. The new pedestrian passage along Mark Twain will help create a new retail destination and attractive hub for the neighborhood. The alley will see eight new trees, new paving, in-ground lighting, overhead catenary lighting, and outdoor furniture. A folding gate will be moved to allow shops to close off the space.

...

The overall masterplan is expected to cost $400 million, with a quarter billion dollars for the Pyramid renovations and, according to the project application, $60 million for 545 Sansome. Within the Pyramid, Foster will restore the lobby and create a new fitness center, updated lounge, a restaurant, meeting rooms, and a skybar.

https://sfyimby.com/2023/04/futurist...francisco.html

[homebucket]

And the renderings:















https://sfyimby.com/2023/04/futurist...francisco.html

[homebucket]

The specs:
- 112 ft, 8 floors
- 153 units (27 of which are affordable)
- 3,650 sq ft for retail
- Parking for 0 cars and 48 bicycles

The site:
https://goo.gl/maps/z3ZZZgy5DoyQHr3RA

New Rendering For 401 South Van Ness Avenue, Mission District, San Francisco



BY: ANDREW NELSON 5:00 AM ON APRIL 10, 2023

New renderings have been revealed for the eight-story mixed-use corner development at 401 South Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco’s Mission District. The project is expected to create around 153-bedroom suites as part of a group housing complex buoyed by the adjacent 1500 15th Street. Elsey Partners is responsible for both applications.

The plans use the State Density Bonus program, increasing residential capacity 50% above base zoning with certain waivers to exceed local zoning. Elsey Partners has applied for waivers regarding rear yard requirements, building height, ceiling heights, and open space requirements. The project will include 27 affordable housing units, with 15 units available for low-income households earning around 55% of the Area Median Income, eight moderate-income households earning around 80% AMI, and six units for 110% AMI households.

The 112-foot tall structure will yield around 64,990 square feet with 46,800 square feet for retail, 3,650 square feet for retail, and 710 square feet for bicycle parking. The basement room will have a capacity for 48 bicycles. Across the 153-bedroom suites, 401 South Van Ness will have a capacity for 202 beds.

For residents, amenities will include various shared living spaces across the structure. The second basement level consists of an underground pool deck and spa connected to a spa. On the first basement level, two shared living rooms will connect to the outdoor courtyard, laundry rooms, and bicycle storage. The first floor is primarily occupied by commercial space and the resident’s lobby. Each floor above includes a corner room for shared living spaces, with equipped kitchens and seating. The rooftop floor includes a large deck with seating and outdoor kitchen space.

Prime Design, the in-house studio for Kansas-based developer The Prime Company, is the project architect. Facade materials will include glass fiber-reinforced concrete panels and porcelain tiles. The ground-level retail will be wrapped with aluminum-framed glass. Compared with the previous iteration, this new design appears more sculptural, with deep framing fins and a vertical gradient paint job. Two murals may be included created, facing east and south.

The 0.16-acre property is located at the intersection of South Van Ness Avenue and 15th Street, down the street from the San Francisco Armory and two blocks from the 16th Street Mission BART Station. Both properties to be developed by Elsey Partners are currently occupied by surface parking.

https://sfyimby.com/2023/04/new-rend...francisco.html

[tech12]

Looks like 9 or 10 floors, not 8.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Maybe they need to rework the Parkmerced redevelopment to become a big Hong Kong New Territories style highrise cluster? I'm sorta half kidding.

That would be pretty cool actually although I think we’ll also want to get the 19th Ave Subway and M Ocean View online at the same time to maximize the transit orientation. Right now the current development plan is fairly low rise. If there’s an opportunity to build them even taller I’m all for it.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by tech12

Looks like 9 or 10 floors, not 8.

I counted 10 as well if you include the top floor which looks to be partial rooftop deck and partial interior structure, but the article states 8 so we’ll just go with that for now I suppose.

[homebucket]

Looks like 4200 Geary has broken ground.

Construction kicks off on Richmond district mortuary turned senior housing project
By Carmela Guaglianone | Examiner staff writer Apr 6, 2023

Ground has broken on 4200 Geary Boulevard, a planned seven story affordable senior housing project in the Inner Richmond District. Their first step: demolish the old two story mortuary that currently holds that address.

In the mortuary’s place will be 98 homes, 41 studios and 57 one bedrooms as well as a ground floor of commercial spaces to be rented out and 16 parking spots. The homes will be marketed to low income seniors, including veterans and seniors who were formerly unhoused, at between 10-15% of the Area Median Income.

Beyond just housing, the space will “center tenant needs,” said the project page on the website of the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, the developer.

Proposed amenities include social workers, front desk and property management onsite, outdoor spaces, a rooftop urban farm with fresh produce for tenants. The building intends to seek a Platinum GreenPoint rating, which denotes sustainability and efficiency (like all green appliances) and is a member of the International Living Future Institute Living Building Challenge, which aims to design buildings that embrace a synergy between humans and nature.

The design throughline will continue with “wayfinding signage with large text and symbols,” for the aging residents.

The building, which sits between 6th and 7th Avenue along Geary, is located at the centerpoint between Golden Gate Park and the Presidio.

The project’s funding has come from the San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund, the San Francisco Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development, California Department of Housing and the Community Development Multifamily Housing Program.

Additional funding is anticipated from the 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit and California Debt Limit Allocation Committee Tax Exempt Bonds, according to the TNDC project page.

The construction kicked off on April 3. The project is expected to take just under two years to complete, which would put the move in date at the start of 2025.

The project comes squarely after the passage of San Francisco’s Housing Element, which sets forth the path for the construction of 82,000 new units across The City, 46,000 of them mandated affordable housing.

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/hous...ee652b2af.html

[BobbyMucho]

I took a quick spin through Mission Bay and noticed that Mission Rock Parcel F is getting its green, terracotta facade as it nears top-out. Happy to see some color in this area.



Speaking of green, I also noticed a TON of trees staged on the north side of the project where the waterfront park is going in. Hoping that it means it'll be near complete by the end of summer?