DTNA Land Use Blog

Rezoning Updates and June General Meeting with SF Planning Commissioner Rich Hillis!

Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:17:02 GMT

Note: This article appeared in the June/July 2025 DTNA News

On April 3rd, the Planning Commission was presented with a proposal for a new “Family Zoning” plan for San Francisco, focused on the removal of density controls, increases in heights along all transit corridors, and taller height limits along Market Street, Van Ness, and Geary Avenue. As the Board of Supervisors must adopt a new map by January 2026, we need your input to ensure that the final map is the best it can be- get involved to shape the future of the city and the neighborhood!

This is the most recent step in a long journey: In 2023 San Francisco adopted its updated Housing Element, committing to meet the State’s mandate for an expected 82,000 new housing units by 2031 under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. Of those, about 50,000 units are in the Planning Pipeline and the remaining 32,000 units are expected to come from relaxations of current zoning restrictions. Because much of the Eastern part of the city was rezoned in the early 2000s and the Western half of the city hasn’t seen similar increases in zoning (or in some cases was downzoned), the rezoning focuses on areas with high economic and transit resources- including Duboce Triangle!

Since 2023 when the first draft rezoning map was published, the DTNA Land Use Committee has hosted more than a dozen public meetings to discuss how to keep the neighborhood vibrant and livable as we grow. Our community advocacy has made a difference: feedback from our January 2024 letter was reflected in this most recent update, with development focused on the outer edges of the Triangle and Market Street, full utilization of the Safeway lot, and a Local Density Program which should help preserve interior-block open spaces and provide us with better certainty about what actually can be built.

The new Local Density Program helps the city preserve local control over zoning outcomes by adjusting the base height allowance and maximum height limit while offering many of the benefits of the State Density Program (removal of density limits, relaxation of requirements on amenities and sizing). This new program should help preclude the appearance of unexpectedly tall buildings, help build trust in SF Planning and the rezoning process, and help ensure that our local needs are met.

However, there are still opportunities for improving the Local Density program and the Rezoning Map, and we want to make sure that the version which gets adopted reflects our neighborhood’s feedback! In the April and May Land Use Committee meetings we’ve discussed concerns about specific neighborhood changes (particularly around Duboce Park and Market Street corner lots), and opportunities to improve the zoning plan by better protecting historic sites and mid-block open space. We’ve also flagged concern that we still need to harmonize the regulations of Building, Planning, and State departments. We’ve also flagged concern that an over-reliance on development of Market Street and an under-reliance on transit-oriented development in the West could put the city at risk of falling short of its development goals.

The coming months will be busy for the Land Use Committee, and we want your involvement! We’re excited to host SF Planning Director Rich Hillis and Board of Supervisors President Raphael Mandelman at the June 10th General Meeting, where we will be soliciting feedback from all neighbors. The DTNA Land Usce Committee will draft that feedback into a formal letter to be sent to SF Planning and Supervisor Mandelman the following month, in the expectation of a final update to the zoning map to be released in the Autumn. The zoning map will then move the Board of Supervisors, which has a state-mandated deadline of adopting a final resolution before January 31, 2026. Stay tuned for updates along the way!

Duboce Triangle has long been a place that welcomes newcomers—whether queer folks, artists, recent graduates, or growing families. We are a neighborhood that believes in community, inclusion, and a city where people from all walks of life can live and thrive. This rezoning process gives us a chance to honor that legacy while guiding future development in a way that reflects our values. Let’s stay engaged—and make sure Duboce Triangle continues to be a place for everyone!

Join us at our monthly Land Use Committee meetings (June 9th and every Second Monday of the month, 7–8pm at the Chase Bank), or reach us at landuse@dtna.org.

SF Planning map is online at https://sfplanning.org/project/expanding-housing-choice

	Current	Proposed
Triangle Interior Blocks	40ft	40 or 50ft
Market Street Corner Lots	65ft	160ft
Market Street non-Corner	55ft	120ft
CPMC Davies Site	65ft & 130ft	85ft
Duboce Ave east of CPMC	40ft	85ft
Market & Church	85ft	85ft on Church, 160+ elsewhere
Safeway Site	85ft	up to 250ft

Land Use Committee Update - Beyond the Housing Element

Thu, 13 Jun 2024 05:19:16 GMT

As San Francisco moves towards meeting the goals of the Housing Element, the city is re-assessing its zoning plan to ensure that it can meet the state’s requirements.

Zoning maps proposed in 2023 focused on high-density corridors along major arteries such as Geary, Van Ness, and Market. Our neighborhood’s excellent Muni connections made Duboce Triangle stand out as an area of particular focus with rezoning to 6-to-8-story buildings, leading us to work closely with SF Planning to ensure that the neighborhood’s voice was heard in the development of updated zoning maps.

In April, Mayor Breed requested that the Planning Department rezone much of the city to allow for 6-to-8-story buildings, as those are more likely to be constructed in the current economic environment than the skyscrapers emphasized by the earlier plans. We are currently waiting for a new set of zoning maps which reflect this new directive. Once new maps are published, we will work to engage neighbors and provide feedback to SF Planning to chart an equitable path to increased density throughout the city.

While waiting for the next stage of the rezoning process, the Land Use Committee has turned its attention to other ways of improving the neighborhood’s vibrancy. To fight blight from empty storefronts, we are launching an initiative to report to the SF Treasurer any storefronts which are not paying the Commercial Vacancy Tax, while we also work with the Castro Merchants and Castro CBD to fill vacancies through their “I’m Available!” program.

We are also looking for more ways to activate the neighborhood’s public spaces- particularly underutilized bulbout plazas, empty storefronts, and the Noe & Market Commons. We want to hear from you what we can do to help community-building initiatives and new small businesses take advantage of these resources!

If you’re interested in sharing your ideas or questions, the Land Use Committee meets at 7-8PM every 3^rd Wednesday of the month at the CPMC Davies Gazebo Room (above the Emergency Department entrance).

DTNA Crafting Input Addressing SF Housing Element Rezoning the Triangle

Robert Bush — Sun, 17 Sep 2023 06:17:40 GMT

By Dennis Richards, Chair DTNA Land Use Committee

This summer the DTNA Land Use committee has been busy crafting input for the San Francisco Planning Department and Supervisor Mandelman’s office in anticipation of the upcoming rezoning of not only Duboce Triangle, but of most of the city west of Twin Peaks. We will vet that input with the wider membership at a special General Meeting on Tuesday September 26. We hope to see everyone who cares about these issues show up for this last chance to provide input that will shape the Triangle for years to come.

As mentioned in our previous newsletter, committee members have completed a walk-around of part of the Triangle from Church Street to 15^th and Noe, to get a sense of what makes our neighborhood so livable and where we hope to steer development in the coming decade.

We followed up with meetings in June and July and had thoughtful discussions and an exchange of ideas on what we envisioned the rezoning should consider, focusing on what aspects of livability were most important to preserve while encouraging growth. Meeting participants were eloquent and engaged in active listening, appreciating other’s points of view, even when they disagreed. Several of us actually changed some of our opinions as the result of these thoughtful and very cordial discussions.

The issues we will focus on at the September 26 meeting are imagining how large-scale development can fit in an historic neighborhood, and what that could actually look like, as well as how to upzone with equity in mind, to allow disenfranchised groups access to the high resource areas of the city, including ours. We will also discuss objective design standards for both historic resources as well as for newer buildings that are not historic resources, and what building design should look like in the case of lots that are merged in order to accommodate larger buildings.

One key issue that we all felt was important was our desire to preserve most aspects of the current mid-block open spaces which comprise all the backyards in a block in which trees and wildlife thrive. While we felt that rear yards could be reduced on some corners in order to welcome more new residents, we also felt strongly that rear yards were incredibly important to us all for livability, for recreating, and to maintain the city’s tree canopy to help meet our carbon goals.

The Committee agrees that the biggest opportunity site in the neighborhood is the Safeway building and parking lot. Urban Design lecturer at Stanford University Dehan Glanz recently led his undergraduate class in a series of imagined redesigns of the Safeway site. All the ideas were well received not only by members of the Land Use Committee, but also by members of the Safeway’s corporate development division, which suggests they may come to fruition at some point.

We look forward to hearing your feedback on the work that we have done at the September 26 meeting at Harvey Milk Rec Center. See you there!

SF Housing Element 02/14/2023 General Meeting Presentation

Robert Bush — Tue, 14 Feb 2023 07:35:38 GMT

Joshua Switzky from SF Planning discussed the newest SF Housing Element and how the new housing density program will focus on equity and inclusion. You can review his presentation here.

Please feel free to contact Frank Tizedes, DTNA President, or Dennis Richards, Land Use Chair, if you have any questions.

Housing Element Update

Kevin Riley — Wed, 25 Jan 2023 17:03:33 GMT

Yesterday, the San Francisco board of supervisors unanimously (and without comment) voted to approve the Housing Element plan.

Some of you may remember that we had Shelley Caltagirone from the SF Planning Department present the Housing Element at the August 2021 Land Use meeting. At that time, the plan was in its conception, more of a collection of goals than an actual plan. The plan has grown a lot since then, see the link below to the 2873-page document. There is a lot of stuff in here, new requirements from the State have required this Housing Element to be more specific and aggressive than any previous plan.

There has been a lot of dysfunction on the City's part in producing this plan. They dragged their feet, found out late last year that the deadline was 90 days sooner than they expected, rushed, and did not have the full outreach to neighborhood groups like ours that we were expecting.

I've heard from two neighbors who have been following the developments and are concerned about the zoning impact on the Triangle. If you go to page 595 you can read about the Rezoning Program. The maps on pages 601, 603, and 604 show some pretty substantial upzoning in our neighborhood. These heat maps are very unspecific/diagrammatical in nature but indicate what could be coming.

Some hopeful news is that once approved by the State, the SF Planning Department has a three-year period to evaluate specific areas/neighborhoods in the city and how they can appropriately adopt the goals of the housing element. It should be a top priority for DTNA to engage with Planning soon and create opportunities for neighbors to learn about the plan and weigh in on how they think it should be implemented in their community.

The not-so-hopeful news is that this review period is kind of uncharted waters. Speaking with Supervisor Mandleman about this, it's unclear the extent of outreach the Planning Department is required to do, how much feedback they need to incorporate, and how much (or little) they are allowed to deviate from the State-approved plan. Nevertheless, DTNA should be at the forefront and make sure voices from our neighborhood are heard.

There is a second vote next Tuesday, which is also the deadline for SF's Housing Element to be approved by the state. "Missing the deadline would risk San Francisco losing control over housing approvals within its borders and would also jeopardize funding for transportation projects and affordable housing."

I imagine this will be an active talking point for the Land Use committee and DTNA Board for the next few years.

Housing Element PDF:

https://citypln-m-extnl.sfgov.org/Commissions/CPC/12_15_2022/Commission%20Packet/2019-016230GPA.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2Vo40GZUbNJ4W2AbXtf_swIkHkUO-IPrhO3QnPjv1hZfAjRF062rgsFvo

Insightful Chronicle Article:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-plan-to-build-82-000-new-homes-over-8-years-17739543.php

November Land Use Meeting Summary

Kevin Riley — Wed, 16 Nov 2022 21:09:32 GMT

Thanks again to those who made it to yesterday's meeting.

For those who couldn't make it - we had two excellent presentations from the 1939 Market affordable-housing developer and 2201 Market market-rate developer. While neighbors had some questions and minor concerns, the general sentiment for each project was for support. I think the main concern is that these projects actually get built and do not continue to sit vacant/empty.

We also briefly discussed the election results and ballot measures. Prop L (endorsed by DTNA) looks likely to pass, with ~87% of our neighborhood voting in favor. The other proposition DNTA endorsed, Prop D, does not look like it will pass, but a majority of our neighbors (~54%) voted YES. The third ballot measure we discussed but did not take a position on, Prop M, looks to pass with ~65% of our neighborhood in favor. Another notable takeaway is the success of Prop J over Prop I, indicating that most of the city supports pedestrian-prioritized spaces.

Finally, as I mentioned at the end of the meeting, I will likely not be continuing next year as the Land Use Chair or on the DTNA Board because I am taking on other responsibilities (getting more involved with AIASF and might be teaching an architecture studio class). It would be great to pass the baton to someone in the Land Use Committee who can lead next year. Please let me know if you are interested or have questions. Without a Chair, the committee may go dormant.

The December General Public Meeting will be more social to celebrate our accomplishments this year. I hope to see you all there (check the website and newsletter for more details)!

2022 Prop D&E Ballot Measures

Kevin Riley — Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:07:10 GMT

Prop D&E Comparison Chart

Prop D

Affordable Homes Now (Initiative Petition)

Prop E

Affordable Housing Production Act (BOS)

Approval Times

0-150 units: 3 months

150+ units: 6 months

No BOS approval
No CEQA (environmental) or discretionary (neighborhoods)

6 months

BOS approval required for projects using City property or financing
BOS can request additional time for any reason
No CEQA (environmental) or discretionary (neighborhoods)

Path 1:

100% Affordable Building

140% AMI max for individual units

$135,800

120% AMI max for building average

$116,400

Approval Streamlining:

Review and approval with objective standards and ministerial actions only

120% AMI max for individual units

$116,400

80% AMI max for building average

$77,600

Approval Streamlining:

Review and approval with objective standards and ministerial actions only

Path 2:

Mixed-income building (10+ units)

Number of Affordable Units:

City Inclusionary Rate (currently 22%) + 15% of the inclusionary units.

Example: 22% of 100 unit building = 22 affordable units, + 15% of 22 units = 25 affordable units total

+15% Affordable Units Requirements:

Planning Approval Expiration:

Yes, after 36-months

Number of Affordable Units:

City Inclusionary Rate (currently 22%) + 8% of the Building's total units.

Example: 22% of 100 unit building = 22 affordable units, + 8% of total units = 30 affordable units total

+8% Affordable Units Requirements:

Yes, 30% 2BR and 30% 3BR min

Planning Approval Expiration:

Yes, after 24-months

Path 3:

Teacher Housing

San Francisco Unified School District or City College employee

Approval Streamlining:

Review and approval with objective standards and ministerial actions only

San Francisco Unified School District or City College employee

Approval Streamlining:

Review and approval with objective standards and ministerial actions only

Affordable Housing Reports

Requires the Mayor to provide annual affordable housing reports in the budget

Streamlining Expansion

BOS can amend City law to apply streamlining to additional housing types.

Labor

10+ units, prevailing wage required

40+ units, provide health care benefits and offer apprenticeship opportunities

10+ units, prevailing wage require

25+ units, use a % of workers who graduated from apprenticeship (unions)

Prop D (Affordable Homes Now)

Pros
- Will likely result in a significant amount of new housing
- Expands who can access inclusionary housing, creates a path for “missing middle” housing (housing as a human right)
- De-politicizes affordable housing approval (objective compliance, not discretionary)
- Requirements for healthcare and apprenticeship benefits
Cons
- Less leverage to demand community amenities
- Does not require union labor

Prop E (Affordable Housing Production Act)

Pros
- Rewards projects with a significant number of affordable units with streamlining
- Maintains inclusionary housing access for only low income residents
- Demands family-sized units in inclusionary housing
- Maintains a percentage union labor
- Provides a path for Supervisors to leverage community benefits
Cons
- More regulations to comply with, less projects will quality for streamlining
- Maintains the option for discretionary reviews, extended approval times
- Cannot be expanded to other housing typologies

Summary

Neither ballot measure seems to have a specific or unique impact on Duboce Triangle.
Vote for Prop D if: you want it to be easier to develop housing with at least some affordable units and are okay with less BOS oversight & leverage.
Vote for Prop E if: you are only interested in streamlining housing with a high number of affordable units, and are okay with maintaining BOS oversight & leverage.

Links

Land Use Committee Discussion of November Ballot Measures

Kevin Riley — Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:06:26 GMT

In August, the Land Use Committee met to discuss the upcoming November ballot measures we felt would have a direct impact on Duboce Triangle, consistent with land use topics discussed in the past – public transportation funding and affordable housing production. The committee tends to ‘nerd out’ on these types of policies and used this meeting to get into the weeds on these initiatives. The discussion centered on reviewing the pros and cons of each measure and giving everyone an opportunity to share their perspective. The ballot measures the committee discussed were: Props D & E - the competing affordable housing streamlining measures, Prop L - a renewal of an existing sales tax for transportation funding, and Prop M - the proposed residential vacancy tax.

Prop L - Sales Tax for Transportation Projects

The committee started the discussion with Prop L, as it seemed the least contested measure on our docket to discuss. A YES vote on this proposition would maintain an existing sales tax used to fund a wide variety of transportation projects - such as public transportation and pedestrian improvements. The committee has long been in support of investments in our roads, sidewalks, and transit lines. As an extension of a tax already in place and generating important revenue, everyone in the meeting expressed support for Prop L.

Prop M - Tax on Keeping Residential Units Vacant

This residential vacancy tax is similar in spirit to the retail vacancy tax (Prop D, approved by voters in 2020), but in this case would apply to vacant residential units. If passed, Prop M would introduce a new tax on landlords/homeowners who have a unit vacant for more than half the year. The tax would only apply to buildings with three or more units (including condos). There are several exemptions from the new tax, including units being renovated. The tax varies depending on the size of the unit, would increase over time, and the revenue would help fund affordable housing.

Overall, neighbors agreed with the concept of incentivizing landlords to fill vacant units but felt this new tax would not have a significant impact. While supporters liked that revenue would go towards affordable housing, they acknowledged it would likely not be a large amount. Some neighbors who opposed the new tax felt it would be another bureaucratic hoop for landlords to jump through but acknowledged that most small-scale landlords would not be affected (single-family and duplexes being exempt). Other opponents felt the tax did not go far enough and were concerned with the money and personnel that would be needed to enforce the tax. Sentiments in the meeting were split, with about half expressing support and the other half not in favor of the residential vacancy tax - no side particularly passionate either way.

Props D & E - Affordable Housing Streamlining

The majority of the meeting was spent comparing and discussing Prop D (Affordable Housing – Initiative Petition) and Prop M (Affordable Housing – Board of Supervisors). The discussion was guided by a comparison chart of the two measures. Essentially, Prop D was created by a coalition of housing advocates & developers to allow projects with 25% or more affordable units to skip discretionary reviews (Board of Supervisors and CEQA) and would only have to undergo objective reviews (Planning, Building, and Fire departments). Prop E was created by the Board of Supervisors in reaction to Prop D and would allow projects with 30% or more affordable units to skip discretionary reviews while maintaining the option for the Board of Supervisors to review & approve.

There was a general skepticism over the intent of both propositions. Several neighbors felt that the Board of Supervisors has voted down housing for political reasons (not based on the merits of the projects), and CEQA has been used to kill housing. Those folks felt that Prop E was performative in nature - laudable goals but wouldn't really produce more housing while maintaining the Supervisor’s ability to kill housing. Those in favor of Prop E felt that some oversight by the Board of Supervisors should be maintained (allowing neighborhood associations like DTNA to play a role in housing approvals) and that additional streamlining could happen in other areas of the planning process. On the flip side, even the neighbors who expressed skepticism of a developer-funded initiative expressed support for Prop D. Those felt that it was a financially sensible simplification of the planning process that would actually generate desperately needed new housing. Some supporters of Prop D went as far as to say that they would support any measure that limits the Board of Supervisors power to veto housing (in reference to 469 Stevenson St). By the end of the discussion, most neighbors were in support of Prop D (Affordable Homes Now).

For more details on measures discussed, visit the Land Use page on dtna.org. To partake in future meetings like the one described, email landuse@dtna.org to join the Land Use email list!

By Kevin Riley, Land Use Committee Chair

DTNA Board - Ballot Measure Endorsements

Kevin Riley — Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:05:46 GMT

Prop D - SUPPORT

DTNA wants to do whatever we can to support the development and maintenance of affordable housing. While seeing merits in both propositions D & E, the DTNA Board voted to endorse Prop D (Affordable Homes Now).

Prop L - SUPPORT

DTNA has long been in support of public transportation and pedestrian improvements. The DTNA Board voted unanimously to endorse Prop L (Sales Tax for Transportation Projects).

See the “Land Use Committee Discussion of November Ballot Measures” for additional information on the ballot measures discussed.

Upper Market Safety Project: Construction update (Late summer edition)

Kevin Riley — Fri, 02 Sep 2022 14:17:52 GMT

From SFMTA:

New traffic signal changes for Laguna/Hermann/Guerrero, with final paving in early fall

On August 22^nd the project team turned on the new signals and signal phasing for the Hermann/Laguna/Guerrero intersection. Changes include a new traffic signal for Hermann Street and dedicated left-turn phases off of Market Street. Additional No Right on Red signage, signal timing adjustments, and final markings will be installed in the early fall (September/October) along with the decorative paving for the Hermann/Laguna intersection just north of Market Street.

Traffic changes for 16th/Noe intersection planned for September 8

The newly-installed traffic signal layout for the 16th/Noe/Market intersection will 'go live' on September 8, 2022. As part of these changes, westbound 16^th Street will gain a new dedicated left-turn phase onto Market Street; and left-turns onto Market and Noe Street will be restricted from southbound 16^th Street. As requested by nearby residents, the southernmost traffic barrier for the Noe Slow Street also will be removed to improve overall access to the 200 block of Noe Street.

Uplighting wiring and cobblestone repair to begin in mid-September

After extensive supply chain delays, the wiring for the uplighting is finally set to arrive this week (for real we've been told). The contractor will be seeking a Muni permit to start the wiring along with center median cobblestone and targeted roadway base repair near the Muni track lanes. Work is expected to begin at the 16^th- Castro block and work eastward toward Buchanan Street. Temporary travel and turn lane restrictions should be expected during construction hours (generally 9am to 3:30pm).

We will certainly keep everyone aware when the uplighting wiring is complete and we are close to turning on this much-anticipated feature.

Construction activities to pick up in the Market/Octavia/Central Freeway area

Supply chain issues that have been holding up work at Octavia are also expected to be resolved soon. The contractor will begin reconstruction of the McCoppin/Market crosswalk in the coming days before moving to the Central Freeway and Octavia intersection to modify medians, curb ramps, and the location of the existing red light camera. Construction-related impacts to Market Street and Central Freeway travel lanes should be expected starting in October, with construction lasting approximately two months.

Decorative Muni railings to be fully installed by the end of September

The contractor will be installing railings at the final few locations in the coming weeks, with the Jane Warner Plaza location to be completed in time for the Castro Street Fair. Clear Channel has been requested to begin re-installing bus shelters as quickly as they can where the new railings are in place.

Sanchez/15^th traffic signal, decorative crosswalk coming in early fall

Sidewalk work at this location is substantially complete but no firm date yet has been scheduled for a traffic signal switchover or completion of the decorative crosswalk and final striping.

San Francisco’s November election: Housing Measures

Kevin Riley — Tue, 02 Aug 2022 02:21:19 GMT

As usual, there will be several measures on the ballot this November election. A couple measures focus on on housing and relate to the conversations we have at the DTNA Land Use committee. The committee has been specifically focused on the two competing housing streamlining measures and the residential vacancy tax. Below are some links we have found to articles and research about these measures.

Qualified Local and District Measures: https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures
"San Francisco’s November election: Here’s what’s made the ballot so far" https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/S-F-voters-will-decide-whether-to-change-mayoral-17316197.php
"What’s the Real Difference Between San Francisco’s Two Affordable Housing Ballot Measures?" https://www.spur.org/news/2022-07-28/whats-real-difference-between-san-franciscos-two-affordable-housing-ballot-measures
"S.F. progressives’ affordable housing measure will compete on ballot with Mayor Breed’s plan" https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-progressives-affordable-housing-measure-17312308.php
"San Francisco vacant homes tax headed to ballot, campaign says" https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/San-Francisco-vacant-homes-tax-headed-to-ballot-17277668.php#:~:text=The%20proposed%20tax%20would%20range,for%20more%20than%20182%20days.
"S.F. has 40,000 empty homes. Would taxing them help solve the city’s housing crisis?" https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/S-F-has-40-000-empty-homes-Would-taxing-them-16819901.php
"There Are Not 40,000 Vacant Homes in San Francisco" https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/02/there-are-not-40000-vacant-homes-in-san-francisco.html

UCB Slow Triangle Report - Fall 2021

Kevin Riley — Sun, 06 Mar 2022 17:24:04 GMT

See attached research report from UC Berkeley students on the Duboce Triangle traffic calming. There were there project teams, each with their own hypothesis, who studies different areas of our neighborhood. The report presents their data and proposes ways to make Duboce Triangle more pedestrian friendly.

FINAL REPORT COMBINED.pdf

[DTNA] December Land Use Meeting

Kevin Riley — Mon, 06 Dec 2021 02:07:20 GMT

Our last Land Use meeting of the year, we will have two presentation topics:

The development team for 67-69 Belcher St will be presenting their scheme
Three teams of the UC Berkeley students will present their "Slow Triangle" research.

The presentations will take up most of the meeting but there will be some time at the end for discussion topics. See you tomorrow at 7pm (zoom link below)!

____________________________________________________________________________211206 - December Land Use Agenda.pdf

Topic: [DTNA] Monthly Land Use Meeting

Time: Dec 6, 2021 07:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting:

https://us06web.zoom.us/j/93699834155?pwd=VTYrcEd0SUYxZzAzdGNqUCtQUGNFZz09

Meeting ID: 936 9983 4155

Passcode: dtna

One tap mobile

+16699006833,,93699834155# US (San Jose)

+13462487799,,93699834155# US (Houston)

Despite Construction Slows, DTNA Efforts Grow

Kevin Riley — Mon, 06 Dec 2021 00:11:54 GMT

2021 was, as we all know, an unconventional year. The Land Use committee continues to adapt to these unique times - hosting monthly committee meetings, reviewing developments that impact the Triangle, and empowering neighbors to advocate for the positive changes they would like to see.

It has been a slow year for new construction and housing development in the neighborhood. We are still in the midst of a housing affordability crisis, but it has become even harder to build. COVID-19 has slowed things down, there are labor shortages, market volatility, and increased construction costs. Several multi-family housing projects in Duboce Triangle have had little to no progress over the past year. Proposed projects such as 2135 & 2140 Market Street have not been submitted for Entitlements because developers struggle to make them financially feasible. Previously Entitled projects, such as 1965 Market, sit dormant - supposedly awaiting additional funding or a new developer. Housing slated to start construction, such as 55 Belcher St, remains unbuilt. It is sad to see such stagnation in a neighborhood like Duboce Triangle that is within walking/transit distance to so many jobs and businesses.

There is some hope that 2022 will be a more active year for new housing. Increased Federal and State funding for affordable housing makes it a little easier for non-profit developers to pencil-out projects. New State laws, SB09 and SB10, will make it easier to add units to properties with only one unit and build small-scale apartment buildings. The Planning Department is currently reviewing both these provisions to determine precisely how they will impact San Francisco. The Land Use committee hopes these new laws and additional funding will result in more affordable homes in Duboce Triangle.

While building development has been slow, the Land Use Committee has focused on public space and transportation. There has been discussion about how our streets are used and the balance between pedestrian and vehicular priorities. DTNA has issued letters of support for the Noe Slow Street and 14th Street Traffic Calming - both will strengthen pedestrian safety in our neighborhood.

The Land Use Committee has also issued letters of support for two murals - one at MaiTri (facing Duboce Ave) and the other at Flore Store (facing the Noe-Beaver Mini Park). Both will bring color to our streets, making a walk through our neighborhood even more enjoyable.

Following DTNA’s efforts to improve our built environment, advocate for investment in public transportation, and increase accessibility, the Board issued a letter of support for the new and improved Harvey Milk Plaza at Castro MUNI station. We will continue to work with the Friends of Harvey Milk Plaza as their design is finalized to ensure the new Plaza will be an accessible and enjoyable space for our community.

Overall, 2021 has been filled with great discussion, debate, and action for the Land Use Committee. We have learned a lot and have tried to make our neighborhood a more enjoyable, accessible, and sustainable place to live and work. To do this, the committee needs neighbors to participate and share their opinion! If you would like to attend a meeting or share your thoughts on land use & transportation, please email landuse@dtna.org

240-250 Church Street Project Approved by Planning Commisssion

Robert Bush — Fri, 03 Dec 2021 23:25:54 GMT

December 2, 2021, the Planning approved the 240-250 Church Street Porject with 24 units, including three affordable units and space for Thorough Bread and Pastry at 248 Church Street.

See BAR article.

How Street Design Affects Our Sense of Community: An Interview with Neighbor & Urban Designer Hugo Errazuriz

Robert Bush — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 22:33:49 GMT

By Hans Galland

DTNA has the privilege of working with UC Berkeley’s College of Environmental Design on exploring the nuances of our vision for a Slow Triangle. Part of this work was inspired by a conversation with Hugo Errazuriz, who researched the Duboce Triangle himself in 2002 while a student at Cal. We had a conversation with Hugo about this work then, and here’s what we learned.

DTNA: Hello Hugo. Tell us a bit about yourself.

Hugo: Well, I came to San Francisco in 2000 and after working for a couple of years as an architect, I went to UC Berkeley to get my masters degree in urban design. I went on to work in Asia for more than a decade in the development of complex urban projects, regions and even new cities, mostly in China. In 2019, I moved back to San Francisco and now live on Beaver Street. I work as an urban design principal at the San Francisco office of AECOM, a global engineering and design firm.

DTNA: What was your first impression of the Duboce Triangle?

Hugo: I had walked through the Duboce Triangle many times and found it a beautiful place, but I don’t remember knowing it as its own neighborhood. It was not until I was studying the urban grid of San Francisco at Berkeley that I started to pay attention to it, mostly because of its very unique location where multiple urban grids and communities intersect.

DTNA: We heard you did a project on the Duboce Triangle when you were at Berkeley in 2002. What was it about?

Hugo: As part of our Urban Design Research Methods class, we studied the relationship between street design and resident satisfaction. We had selected the Duboce Triangle for the research. During that time, we literally went door-to-door to conduct questionnaire surveys and resident interviews. We wanted to see whether a street that was designed to accommodate more pedestrian activity contributed to a higher resident satisfaction and created a deeper sense of community.

DTNA: What were the key things you learnt at that time?

Hugo: We found evidence that streets planned for people rather than cars (wider sidewalks, seating areas, green bulbouts) contributed to a greater sense of satisfaction.

We learned, however, that other factors were also important. For instance, the cul-de-sac conditions, as you find them on Pierce Street or Carmelita Street, were critical for satisfaction and community. These streets did not have bulbouts or seating areas like Noe or Sanchez, yet they scored really high with residents: the fact they did not have vehicular through-traffic created much bigger resident satisfaction and a deeper sense of community. These streets benefitted from pedestrians through traffic. So, unlike traditional dead-end streets that tend to be empty and may feel unsafe, the cul-de-sacs north of Duboce Park had pedestrians, who activated them and made them feel safe. We also witnessed a stronger sense of community in that neighbors on those cul-de-sacs knew their neighbors by name much more commonly than in other streets in the Duboce Triangle. Put differently, even though people on Noe Street were very happy, they didn't necessarily know the names of their neighbors. In sum, the absence of vehicular through-traffic combined with the presence of pedestrian through traffic created a stronger sense of community

DTNA: Any parting thoughts you would like to pass on to neighbors in the Duboce Triangle and DTNA while working on the Vision for a Slow Triangle?

Hugo: The Duboce Triangle is so interesting because it has a small scale and thus potential for a strong sense of community. Yet, one should not forget that it plays an important role in the larger city because of its central location, connecting many different neighborhoods. Therefore, any decisions you make within the Triangle affect a much larger area outside the Triangle.

It will therefore be important to balance the interests of Triangle residents with those of the larger community that may benefit from assets you find within or near the Duboce Triangle. You would want to be inclusive and not exclusive. Concretely, you can think of providing some areas that just cater primarily to the neighbors and others to visitors from neighboring areas.

DTNA: Thank you Hugo. These are very valuable insights.

Hugo: Thank you for having me.

The Slow Triangle Vision - UC Berkeley Students Conduct Research

Robert Bush — Wed, 01 Dec 2021 22:28:06 GMT

By Hans Galland

As the pandemic paused commuter traffic, San Francisco rolled out a massive experiment: Slow Streets. Noe Street was selected as one such street, running right through the Triangle. In our Jun/Jul Newsletter, DTNA Land Use Chair Kevin Riley wrote about DTNA’s exploration of a Slow Triangle A Slow Triangle is a vision...not a policy, ballot measure, or SFMTA plan. It's an idea.”

To research aspects of the Vision: Slow Triangle, DTNA has been working with the College of Environmental Design at UC Berkeley. This was originally inspired by a conversation DTNA Board Member Hans Galland had with Hugo Errazuriz, resident on Beaver Street, who had conducted research on the Triangle in 2002 when he was a student at Cal (see page X). With Hugo’s help, Hans secured the support of Dr. Zachary Lamb, Assistant Professor of City and Regional Planning, who teaches Urban Design Research Methods” and helped turn Vision: Slow Triangle into a research project for graduate students.

The goal of this research project was threefold. Firstly, for DTNA to use a participatory approach for residents to explore the complex nuances of a Slow Triangle. Secondly, to create an objective scientific basis for future design and implementation of a Slow Triangle from one of the world’s most respected research institutions on this subject matter. Finally, it was our hope that this process could become the first chapter in a playbook that other neighborhoods in San Francisco and the world can use for community-driven assessments of Slow Neighborhoods.

DTNA Land Use Committee members kicked off the project on Sunday September 12, 2021 at Duboce Park touring 3 groups of 3 graduate students through the Triangle. DTNA emphasized the importance of exploring the relationship between a Slow Triangle and mobility, environmental sustainability, activation, and equity. Ultimately, the student groups decided to research the following three areas.

Walkability & Mobility. Researching the impact of parking configurations on traffic calming and the public realm. Field work focuses on Sanchez Street and three intersections considered high traffic zones (14th/Noe, Sanchez/Duboce, 14th/Sanchez). The findings can guide the design of future parking configurations.

Sustainability. Researching how characteristics of streetside gathering spaces (vegetation, amenity, size and dimension, location) encourage resident use and contribute to resident satisfaction. The findings can help the neighborhood activate underutilized spaces, promote resident satisfaction, and build more pleasant new community gathering spaces.

Activation. Researching how physical characteristics and vehicular traffic influence the desire of pedestrians to use streets. Field work focuses on 14th Street. Findings can guide design of streets for a more pleasant pedestrian experience, as desired.

Since September 12, 2021, the student groups have conducted multiple visits to the Triangle, attended DTNA Land Use and DTNA General Meetings, conducted observations, resident interviews, and archival research. You may have also met them as they participated at the Phoenix Day Street Fair to gather more comprehensive resident input.

We are very excited to learn about the findings the research has generated during our next General Meeting at 7 pm on Dec 13, 2021. We welcome your participation at the meeting and always appreciate your input and feedback. Please contact us at landuse@dtna.org

Formula Retail Updates?

Kevin Riley — Mon, 01 Nov 2021 22:58:16 GMT

There has been some chatter about updates to the City's Forumla Retail restrictions. This SF Chronicle article outlines the latest example of a local business unable to open a new location because of the "11 locations" rule. Given how DTNA was instrumental in crafting Formula Retail rules, it may be time to discuss their impact at a future Land Use meeting. How can we better support local businesses?

Some ideas that have been mentioned include amending the "11 locations" rule to exempt Bay Area or California-only businesses. Another idea is to provide a path for Planning Commission review of Formula Retail in all areas of the city (no district can have a ban on Formula Retail).

Below are some links you can use to familiarize yourself with the Formula Retail rules. Is this something we want to discuss at our November or December meeting?