Planning Code, Zoning Map - Establishment of Geary-Masonic Special Use District

Ord. No. 0045-18

in effect

FILE NO. 161109 AMENDED IN COMMITTEE 215118 ORDINANCE NO. 45-18 [Planning Code, Zoning Map - Establishment of Geary-Masonic Special Use District] Ordinance amending the Planning Code to establish the Geary-Masonic Special Use District in the area generally bounded by Geary Boulevard to the south, Masonic Avenue to the east, and Assessor's Parcel Block No. 1071, Lots 001 and 004 to the north and west, respectively, and amending Sheet SU03 of the Zoning Map; affirming the Planning Department's determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1; and adopting findings of public convenience, necessity, and welfare under Planning Code, Section 302. NOTE: Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain Arial font. Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics Times New Roman font. Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics Times I'kw Roman font. Board amendment additions are in double-underlined Arial font. Board amendment deletions are in strikethrough Arial font. Asterisks(* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Code subsections or parts of tables. Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco: Section 1. Findings. (a) The Planning Department has determined that the actions contemplated in this ordinance comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). Said determination is on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 161109 and is incorporated herein by reference. The Board affirms this determination. Ill Supervisors Stefani; Safai BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 (b) On November 30, 2017, the Planning Commission, in Resolution No. 20063, adopted findings that the actions contemplated in this ordinance are consistent, on balance, with the City's General Plan and eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1. The Board adopts these findings as its own. A copy of said Resolution is on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No.161109, and is incorporated herein by reference. (c) Pursuant to Planning Code Section 302, this Board finds that this ordinance will serve the public necessity, convenience, and welfare for the reasons set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 20063 and the Board incorporates such reasons herein by reference. A copy of Planning Commission Resolution No. 20063 is on file with the Clerk of 1 O the Board of Supervisors in File No. 161109. Section 2. Car-Share Parking Findings. (a) One of the challenges posed by new development is the increased number of privately-owned vehicles it brings to San Francisco's congested neighborhoods. (b) Growth in the number of privately-owned vehicles increases demands on the City's limited parking supply and often contributes to increased traffic congestion, transit delays. traffic accidents, pollution and noise, while also increasing the costs of housing and reducing the amount of housing that may be provided on a parcel. (c) Car-sharing can address the negative impacts of new development by reducing the rate of individual car-ownership per household, reducing the average number of vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") per household and reducing the total amount of automobile- generated pollution per household. while satisfying the need for certain trips that may be made easier by automobile. (d) The City of San Francisco both encourages car-sharing and "unbundles" off- street parking from residential housing, which means off-street residential parking is not Supervisor Stefani, Safai BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page required to be tied to a particular dwelling unit lease or contract. (Planning Code Section 167.) (e) The benefits of both car-sharing and unbundling in reducing parking demand and car use are well documented in national and local studies and reports, including those referenced in this section. While these findings below relate primarily to car-sharing, it should be noted that basic economic theory also predicts that making costs explicit will reduce spending on those costs. because a user is less likely to pay costs when immediately confronted by a quantifiable and explicit cost when making purchases of this nature, as opposed to an intrinsic cost that has no hard quantifiable value up front. 1 O (Q This basic economic theory has been demonstrated to be true for parking in that leasing of parking separate from the housing will reduce the demand for parking altogether. Specifically. according to the January 2009 Report by NelsonlNygaard Consulting and CityCarShare. titled "Managing Residential Parking, Carsharing. and Unbundling in Urban Development, Best Practices" unbundling parking and housing can reduce parking demand by as much as 30%. (g) In the same way, car-sharing has been demonstrated to be effective based upon the same basic economic theorv that explicit costs of paying for a shared-vehicle per use will reduce the decision to drive. thereby reducing VMT. Specifically, according to a 2013 report produced by Kristen Lovejoy and Susan Handy with the University of California, Davis. car-share members have shown an average VMT reduction of up to 32.9% annually due in large part to the fact that users pay per use. Drivers tend to think more consciously about driving. in contrast to private vehicle owners who have paid a substantial cost at the outset and would not consider as carefully the costs per use. Supervisor Stefani, Safai BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3 (h) The Lovejoy & Handy report also showed that car-sharing enables the efficient utilization of parking spaces in space-restricted areas due to the car-share's higher utilization of a parking spot versus a privately owned vehicle. (i) Increased vehicle utilization also leads to faster turnover of vehicles, meaning the car-share vehicles are replaced more often than privately owned vehicles. leading to newer and more environmentally friendly cars being on the road. (j) Car-sharing also reduces vehicle ownership; and. importantly. reduced car ownership has been demonstrated to reduce VMT. (k) The Nelson/Nygaard 2009 Report reported that recent U.C. Berkeley studies 1 O had found between 24% -29% of CityCarShare members sold their private car. (I) Car-sharing not only reduces the number of personal vehicles owned across the sample: it can also deter carless households from acquiring a vehicle. according to "The Impact of Carsharing on Household Vehicle Ownership" by Elliot Martin and Susan Shaheen in Access Number 38, published in spring 2011. This report made three important conclusions: (1) car-sharing can substantially reduce the number of vehicles owned by member households. even accounting for the fact that 60% of all car-share member households are carless at the time of becoming a car-share member: (2) car-share member households owned an average of 0.47 vehicles per household before joining car- sharing, but that average dropped to 0.24 after membership: and (3) car-share households exhibited a dramatic shift towards a carless lifestyle. The vehicles shed are often older. and a car-share fleet is an average of 10 mpg more efficient than the vehicles shed. (m) Similarly. a look at a different model of car-sharing. known as one-way car- sharing. demonstrated similar results and made the following key findings: (1) access to ubiquitous shared automobiles allows some residents to get rid of a car or avoid acquiring one altogether: (2) the actions of either shedding a car or otherwise not acquiring one taken Supervisor Stefani, Safai BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 4 by a minority of members have VMT-reducing effects that are estimated to exceed the additional driving that may take place within a car-sharing vehicle: (3) the results of this analysis suggest that one-way car-sharing reduces the net vehicles that would be owned by households and reduces driving. thus lowering GHG emissions; and (4) overall. the results of this study suggest that one-way car-sharing substantively affects travel behavior, miles driven. GHG emissions. and the number of vehicles on urban roads within operating regions. (n) Putting specific numbers to the GHG reduction. Martin & Shaheen estimated that the savings added up to 5.300 to 10.000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions 1 O across the five cities-about 10 to 14 metric tons per year, per each one-way car-sharing vehicle, as summarized in The Atlantic's Citylab article by Laura Bliss as published on July 20, 2016. (o) When looking at car ownership. according to the 2010-2013 American Community Survey. the average number of vehicles owned in San Francisco is 1. 1 vehicles per household. (p) Car ownership rates can and do change. For example. the average number of vehicles per household drops by approximately 50% after becoming a car-share member, according to the study by E. Martin. S. Shaheen. and J. Lidicker entitled "Impact of Carsharing on Household Vehicle Holdings." (q) By this metric. car-sharing has the potential to reduce the number of vehicles per household in San Francisco from 1. 1 vehicles per household. to 0.55 cars per household. (r) According to the San Francisco Planning Department's Transportation Demand Management Program (adopted on Februarv 7. 2017, Planning Commission Resolution No. 19838). each car-share automobile can serve up to twenty households. Supervisor Stefani, Safai BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 5 (s) Using the metrics set forth in the Transportation Demand Management Program, as justified by the Technical Justification Document. approximately half of any residential development will utilize a car-share service. which means adding a proportional amount of car-share automobile parking spaces to a development can offset the negative impacts of approximately half of the dwelling units of a new or converted building by reducing the rate of individual car-ownership per household. the average number of VMT per household and the total amount of automobile-generated pollution per household. (t) Prior research on the car-sharing business has revealed that one of the critical factors impacting car-share performance is the location of car-share parking stations. or 1 O spaces. Most car-share members tend to walk to the nearest station or car-share parking space in order to access a car-share vehicle. therefore it is important to locate the facility as close to the user as possible, according to the 2012 study by V. Kumar and M. Bierlaire entitled "Optimizing Locations for a Vehicle Sharing System." (u) It is important to ensure car-share spaces are visible to current and potential car- share users in order for the user to have the knowledge of a car-share vehicle's location in their neighborhood. The SFMTA concluded that increased visibility of car-share spaces will increase car-sharing overall in the July 2013 study of their on-street car-sharing policy and pilot project. (vl The required car-share parking spaces for new developments. found in Section 166 of the Planning Code, are designed to ensure maximum visibility of the car-share parking spaces through required signage at the car-share parking space location and on the exterior of the building; creating the best conditions for increased utilization by current and potential car-share members who both reside in the building and the surrounding area. (w) Whether new development is located within a zoning district that caps the amount of parking allowed or if the development is located within a zoning district that still Supervisor Stefani, Safai BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page requires some private-ownership parking spaces: spaces dedicated to car-sharing will assist the City in pursuit of its environmental and transportation goals. (x) The required car-share parking spaces for large-scale residential and commercial developments, along with voluntary programs like the Transportation Demand Management Program. and the requirement to unbundle parking in Section 167, assist in offsetting a proportion of the aforementioned negative impacts of development, while also striking a balance in space allowance for some amount of private vehicles. (y) The car share requirements set forth in the Planning Code and this ordinance are lower than the studies would justify. The amount of required car-share spaces would help to 1 O offset the impacts of development. while not placing an overly burdensome requirement on residential development. The amount of required car-share spaces in this ordinance would help to offset the impacts of development with the special use district. while not placing an overly burdensome requirement on residential development in the district. particularly due to its location on two major transit streets. and near neighborhood commercial uses. that together will allow fewer residents to own private vehicles if there is greater access to car- share. Section 2: 3. The Planning Code is hereby amended by adding Section 249.20, to read as follows: SEC. 249.20. GEARY-MASONIC SPECIAL USE DISTRICT. (a) General. A Special Use District entitled the Geary-Masonic Special Use District ("District"), the boundaries of which are shown on Sectional Map SU03 ofthe Zoning Maps of the City and County o[San Francisco, is hereby established for the purpose set out below. (b) Purpose. In order to provide for a mixed use development project with ground floor retail, and a combination of very low income. low--income, moderate:-income, middle-income. and market Supervisor Stefani, Safai BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page rate residential units, at densities higher than what otherwise would be permitted in the NC-3 zoning district and 80 foot height district, in an area well-served by transit, there shall be a Geary-Masonic Special Use District consisting o[Assessor 's Block 1071, Lot 003 as designated on Sectional Map SU03 o[the Zoning Maps o[the City and County o[San Francisco. (c) Development Controls. Applicable provisions ofthe Planning Code for NCT-3 Districts as set forth in Section 752 shall apply within this Special Use District, except for the folio-wing: (]) Use Size. Non-residential uses 3000 square feet and above shall require a conditional use under Section 121. 2. Uses more than 6000 square feet in size are not permitted. (2) Accessory Vehicle Parking. No parking shall be permitted above .5 cars for each Dwelling Unit. (3) Car-sharing. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 166. no less than 25% of parking spaces provided shall be an off-street car-share parking space and shall be provided on the building site. Except as expressly provided herein. all other provisions of section 166 shall apply. {6j!i}, Parking and Loading Access. Parking and Loading access tram Masonic Avenue is not permitted. ~fill Dwelling Unit Mix. The project shall provide a minimum dwelling unit mix of (A) at least 40% two and three bedroom units, including at least 10% three bedroom units,· or (B) any unit mix which includes some three bedroom or larger units such that 50% of all bedrooms within the project are provided in units with more than one bedroom. (d) Inclusionary Housing. In order to allow for the increased residential densities provided bv this Special Use District, on-site inclusionary units pursuant to Planning Code Section 415. 6 shall be required and required in the following amounts and income levels. (1) In a rental project. at least 10% of units must be affordable to very low-income households. at least 4% must be affordable to low-income households. at least Supervisor Stefani, Safai BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 8 4% must be affordable to moderate-income households and at least 5% must be affordable to middle-income households. For purposes of this section. rental units for very low-income households shall have an affordable rent set at 55% of Area Median Income or less. with households earning up to 65% of Area Median Income eligible to apply for very low-income units. For purposes of this section. rental units for low-income households shall have an affordable rent set at 80% of Area Median Income or less. with households earning up from 65% to 90% of Area Median Income eligible to apply for low-income units. For purposes of this section, rental units for moderate-income households shall have an affordable rent set at 110% of Area Median Income or less. with households earning from 90% to 120% of Area 1 O Median Income eligible to apply for moderate-income units. For purposes of this section. rental units for middle-income households shall have an affordable rent set at 120% of Area Median Income or less, with households earning from 120% to 140% of Area Median Income eligible to apply for middle-income units. For any affordable units with rental rates set at 110% of Area Median Income or above. the units shall have a minimum occupancy of two persons. , and at the income levels, set forth in Section 415.6(a). The grandfathering provisions in Section 415.3(b) shall not apply. (2) In an ownership project. at least 11 % of units must be affordable to very low-income households. at least 5% must be affordable to low-income households. at least 5% must be affordable to moderate income households and at least 5% must be affordable to middle-income households. For purposes of this section. ownership units for very low-income households shall have an affordable sales price set at 80% of Area Median Income or less. with households earning up to 100% of Area Median Income eligible to apply for very low-income units. For purposes of this section, ownership units for low-income households shall have an affordable sales price set at 105% of Area Median Income or less. with households earning up from 95% to 120% of Area Median Income eligible to apply for Supervisor Stefani, Safai BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page low-income units. For purposes of this section, ownership units for moderate-income households shall have an affordable sales price set at 130% of Area Median Income or less, with households earning from 120% to 140% of Area Median Income eligible to apply for moderate-income units. For purposes of this section, ownership units for middle-income households shall have an affordable sales price set at 150% of Area Median Income or less, with households earning from 140% to 160% of Area Median Income eligible to apply for middle-income units. For any affordable units with sales prices set at 130% of Area Median Income or above, the units shall have a minimum occupancy of two persons. Q'LThe grandfathering provisions in Section 415. 3 {Q) shall not apply. Except as expressly provided in this subsection (d), all other provisions o[Section 415 shall apply. Section ~ 4. The Planning Code is hereby amended by revising Sheet SU03 of the Zoning Map as follows: Description of Property Assessor's Block 1071, Lot 3 Use District to be Use District Hereby Approved Superseded NC-3 Geary-Masonic SUD Section 4~. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after enactment. Enactment occurs when the Mayor signs the ordinance, the Mayor returns the ordinance unsigned or does not sign the ordinance within ten days of receiving it, or the Board of Supervisors overrides the Mayor's veto of the ordinance. Section a§. Scope of Ordinance. In enacting this ordinance, the Board of Supervisors intends to amend only those words, phrases, paragraphs, subsections, sections, articles, Supervisor Stefani, Safai BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1C numbers, punctuation marks, charts, diagrams, or any other constituent parts of the Municipal Code that are explicitly shown in this ordinance as additions, deletions, Board amendment additions, and Board amendment deletions in accordance with the "Note" that appears under the official title of the ordinance. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DENNIS J. HERRERA, City Attorney By: n:\legana\as2016\1600753\01249586.docx Supervisor Stefani, Safai BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 11 City and County of San Francisco Tails Ordinance City Hall I Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 FileNumber: 161109 Date Passed: March 06, 2018 Ordinance amending the Planning Code to establish the Geary-Masonic Special Use District in the area generally bounded by Geary Boulevard to the south, Masonic Avenue to the east, and Assessor's Parcel Block No. 1071, Lot Nos. 001 and 004, to the north and west, respectively, amending Sheet SU03 of the Zoning Map; affirming the Planning Department's determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1; and adopting findings of public convenience, necessity, and welfare under Planning Code, Section 302. January 29, 2018 Land Use and Transportation Committee - CONTINUED February 05, 2018 Land Use and Transportation Committee - AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE February 05, 2018 Land Use and Transportation Committee - CONTINUED AS AMENDED February 12, 2018 Land Use and Transportation Committee - RECOMMENDED February 27, 2018 Board of Supervisors - PASSED ON FIRST READING Ayes: 10 - Breed, Cohen, Fewer, Kim, Peskin, Ronen, Safai, Sheehy, Stefani and Yee Excused: 1 - Tang March 06, 2018 Board of Supervisors - Fl NALLY PASSED City and County of San Francisco Ayes: 11 - Breed, Cohen, Fewer, Kim, Peskin, Ronen, Safai, Sheehy, Stefani, Tang and Yee Pagel Printed at 2:22 pm on 317118 File No. 161109 Mayor City and County of San Francisco Page2 I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was FINALLY PASSED on 3/6/2018 by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco. Date Approved Printed at 2:22 pm on 317118

References

amendsSec. 249.20

amendsSec. 249.21

Source: sf_ordinance_pdfURL: http://sfbos.archive.sf.gov/sites/default/files/o0045-18.pdfFetched: 7/4/2026