October 1, 2013

270 Brannan's Refined Design And Neighborhood Parking Concerns

270%20Brannan%20Rendering%202013.jpg

The refined design for the proposed office building to rise up to seven stories high on the parking lot between the historic Hawley and Gallo buildings at 270 Brannan Street is slated to be approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission this week.

270%20Brannan%20Rendering%20Terrace.jpg

The project will yield nearly 190,000 square feet of office space with a 5,000 square foot atrium and a private roof deck on the sixth floor:

270%20Brannan%20Rendering%20Roof%20Deck.jpg

The proposed garage beneath the building includes space for 54 bikes but only 12 cars, 72 fewer parking spaces than the parcel currently provides which has the residents of 200 Brannan a bit concerned and requesting that the Planning Commission require a greater number of parking spaces "so that the availability of street parking is not further reduced by this project."

The Planning Department recommends the project be approved with the tweleve parking spaces as proposed.

Designs For Building Up On Brannan And Parking Going Down [SocketSite]

First Published: October 1, 2013 6:00 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Yes, let's force the developer to build more parking than the market desires! That sounds like a great idea.

Posted by: anon at October 1, 2013 7:13 AM

I thought "the market" showed that buyers are willing to pay high prices for deeded parking, as has been shown on this site in the past when parking spaces have been sold seperately from units for more than $70,000. There should be a hefty profit in that!

Developers want to sell units and so they provide a housing product that buyers are asking for, and most buyers want parking, period. When did Socketsite become of suburb of the SFBike coalition, or SFStreetsblog?

Posted by: anon2 at October 1, 2013 8:49 AM

Now wait just a minute anon2. Biking and those that sit on the seats know what is best for you. Haven't you heard, if everyone rides a bike most every problem will be solved, except for death and taxes...

Posted by: SFBC rocks at October 1, 2013 9:11 AM

Looks like the developer has decided that occupied space is more profitable than parking. If they thought they could make more from parking then the neighbors wouldn't be petitioning planning to require more parking at this project.

What is the concern about the reduction of street parking availability? Isn't SFPark deployed in this area? Parking fees can simply be adjusted to ensure that there's good availability on every block nearby.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at October 1, 2013 9:12 AM

@Anon, its a rich tech dude named Mark Gorton (anyone read the piece about rich tech dudes ruining SF in the Independent yesterday?) who made his money off the illegal filesharing site Limewire during the 1st bubble and is now trying to force everyone to give up walking and driving for cycling. He backs streetsblog and focuses entirely on the radical end of cycling. AKA not just getting on your bike (which we have all done since we were 3), but "my bike is all I have because I'm a vacant hipster with no future and no other life but posing with my bike." And of course evil parking does not fit in with that notion...

Posted by: $AN FRANCI$CO at October 1, 2013 9:19 AM

@anon2 - um, the developer doesn't want to build parking, meaning the market has decided that parking is not wanted here (a developer is a willing participant in the market). You seem to want the state to step in and mandate that the market provide more parking than is desired by willing participants.

Posted by: anon at October 1, 2013 9:39 AM

@$AN FRANCI$CO - not sure what your point is. The developer is a participant in the market like any other, and should be able to build how he wants. Or are you now saying that the government should not only force people to build more parking than they want, but also screen each potential developer to ensure that their political beliefs line up with what the government considers correct? Wow, just wow.

Posted by: anon at October 1, 2013 9:45 AM

"so that the availability of street parking is not further reduced by this project."

This seems specious to me. Can anyone live in this area and rely on off-street parking for a car? Much of the area doesn't allow parking over-night correct? You would have to be a moron to live that way

Posted by: zig at October 1, 2013 9:45 AM

@$AN FRANCI$CO - Isn't the entire US political system controlled by rich guys throwing their money behind whatever politician or activist group supports their personal agenda? How is this Gorton guy any different? You may not agree with his green lifestyle agenda but I think it would be easy to argue that he's hardly as damaging as many other rich guys sticking their finger in the system. Might want to spend your time hating on other players in the game. He certainly doesn't seem to be a boogey man. http://goo.gl/yN3kh3

Posted by: Boo at October 1, 2013 10:21 AM

@zig, whenever I catch a planning meeting being shown on cable, the discussion from board members towards builders seems to be that they demand a reduction in parking. Builders and neighbors usually are asking for more off street parking, and SFGov wants a reduction in off street built deeded parking.

Posted by: 94123 at October 1, 2013 10:25 AM

Apologies to Zig, my comment was meant for "anon" at 9:45 am

Posted by: 94123 at October 1, 2013 10:27 AM

Once again the car fetishists turn any posting about parking into a ranting paranoid diatribe against cyclists.

Here's the reality of this situation:

The developer believes 12 car parking spaces and 54 bike spaces are the right number for this development. If the developer felt more parking was beneficial to the ability to rent out office space, they would have proposed a project with more parking.

Probably because building underground parking is very expensive and above ground parking would eat up space available for offices. Given the close proximity to Caltrain and reasonable proximity to BART, the developer likely believes a high amount of parking is not necessary, or worth the expense.

The developer chose to build an office building rather than a parking garage. The purpose of an office building is to provide space for people to work, not storing cars. Given that many people do commute by cycle to this part of the city, the developer likely felt they will get much more bang for their buck by providing cycle parking (since it takes so little space compared to cars), thus maximizing the number of people that can be accommodated to work in the office.

Now back to your regularly scheduled ranting...

Posted by: lyqwyd at October 1, 2013 10:40 AM

@94123 - how is that relevant to this EXACT OPPOSITE situation?

Posted by: anon at October 1, 2013 11:25 AM

Horrific. So devastated at what is happening to the city that I love.

Posted by: Hawkins at October 1, 2013 12:50 PM

Yeah, a 7 story office building where businesses will actually employ people instead of a surface parking lot.

When will the madness end?

Posted by: Fishchum at October 1, 2013 12:54 PM

@Fishchum: While it may be replacing a parking lot, there are much better uses for this site than another trendy office building that caters exclusively to the tech elite and 1%ers. We have precious little space left in this city that is not being targeted toward the rich, whether outrageously extravagant housing or offices that cannot meet the needs and budgets of blue collar workers.

What about a park here? Or a space for marginalized youth? Literally anything is better than offices...except, of course, more overpriced luxury condominiums to address the supposed "housing crisis". LOLOLOLOL.

Posted by: Hawkins at October 1, 2013 1:01 PM

Psssst.....the 1% won't be working in any of these offices. Park space? Yeah, wedged in between a couple of buildings. Lovely. South Park is less than 5 minutes away by foot.

Posted by: Fishchum at October 1, 2013 1:13 PM

A parking space takes up the area of 2 workers. Each of these workers potentially bring in $100,000s a year in revenue and only the creme de la creme can expect free parking.

Posted by: lol at October 1, 2013 1:14 PM

What about the zipcar spots in the current lot? Bike parking doesn't replace those.

Wish it were a little higher to block the blightboard.

Posted by: zipnot at October 1, 2013 1:29 PM

So when the developer opts for a small number of parking spaces, the bike nazis are suddenly in favor of letting the market decide. When a developer wants a 1:1 parking ratio, then government must step in a dictate a lower ration.

Yawn!

Posted by: formidable doer of the nasty at October 1, 2013 1:48 PM

Developer says current parcel has space for about 100 cars. During the work week and on game days approximately 150 cars are parked in this lot. 200 Brannan has good reason to worry.

Posted by: Grace at October 1, 2013 1:51 PM

@formidable - as I've stated many (many!) times, I'd fine if all parking was deregulated across the city, which means taking the 85+% of the city where 1:1 parking is REQUIRED and removing that, along with removing the maximums that are in place in about 15% of the city. Would you be ok with that?

Posted by: anon at October 1, 2013 2:14 PM

@Fishchum - Of course the 1% will be working there. It is widely known that tech is mostly young trust fund babies using their parents money and connections to finance solutions to their 1% lifestyle. I would love to see San Francisco stand up to this mess. If this building has to be built, designate that it be for certain industries that are underrepresented. You don't see social workers, liberal think tanks, the arts, etc having any access to these privileged "spaces", that are built in areas that used to service the middle class. San Francisco needs to take a clear, decisive, and strong stand to protect what this city is about.

Posted by: Hawkins at October 1, 2013 2:36 PM

^^^
and please humor us and let us know what SF is about?

Before the 1700s it was an Indian village.
-> SF was about native american lifetyle.

In the early 1800s it was a sleepy mission community.
-> SF was about the christening and salvation of heathens

In 1849 it was a boomtown for men looking for easy fortune
-> SF was about "getting rich quick"

I could go on until the dot-com and the current boom. Yeah, the 60s and 70s happened. And most of the hippies went on to work for the Man and make a living.

SF is not anyone's reserved playground, or designated for the fulfillment of anyone's personal dream for that matter. It's a living entity and anything living evolves and changes with its environment or fades into history.

Yes, there are obviously people you prefer over others, which in itself should make you take a good look at your ideals (hint: somewhat sectarian).

So sorry that rich and successful hard working people are spoiling your fun ;)

Posted by: lol at October 1, 2013 3:06 PM

@lol: So funny that you are choosing to harp on "demographics". You are missing the TRUE point of San Francisco, which is a human scale community. I just posted this in another thread, but it seems like you all miss the point completely...no wonder everybody seems to be calling for every block to look like Manhattan!

You should be able to walk leisurely to your local baker, your local wine merchant, your local grocery, and truly know your neighbors and community. A city where you can stumble on quaint bookstores and simple, classic restaurants that pride themselves on the love of cooking rather than micro-foams and $18 cocktails. This is why we are widely known as the European city of America, a place where things move slow and you can enjoy your life away from the ratrace. Now, all these new residents come in and want to turn it into Manhattan. This is NOT and will NEVER BE a city for high rise living and designer jeans. Stop trying to force the city to be what it's not, and move to Manhattan since you seem so dead set on turning us into your "skyscraper jungle".

Posted by: Hawkins at October 1, 2013 3:15 PM

I am European and part-time Parisian. No need to lecture me about walking to my local baker, thanks.
You're describing me a Hollywood version of Paris ca. 1950, not SF 2013.

How many floors on that "skyscraper"?

SIX

How many floors on Amelie's building?

SEVEN

'nuf said.

Posted by: lol at October 1, 2013 3:25 PM

lol,
you or I may not mind a San Francisco that has no middle or lower class but I'm betting the majority of residents living in Sunset/Richmond/Glen Park etc. are strongly against that kind of change. They like the City they grew up in and think it is fine as it is - or maybe has gone too far in the wrong direction. It's all about quality, not quantity.

The problem is all of these little projects get green lighted but no one has any vision of what the future looks like. One day I suspect a lot of people will wake up and demand that the brakes are applied. There needs to be a Master Plan.

Posted by: anon at October 1, 2013 3:35 PM

The true point of San Francisco is that I moved here a decade ago and now it's my city. It's always been an immigrant city, domestic and foreign.

Posted by: Frog at October 1, 2013 3:47 PM

@Hawkins: You are seriously deluded on who constitutes the 1%. IF they're in tech, they're most likely a VC working down on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park.

Want a quiet walk to your neighborhood butcher/grocer/florist/etc.? Fantastic, there are plenty of neighborhoods throughout San Francisco where that's possible. No one is proposing putting hi-rises in those neighborhoods. But South Beach, a former industrial area bordering downtown San Francisco and within a few minutes walk from Caltrain? That's EXACTLY where hi-rises need to be.

Posted by: Fishchum at October 1, 2013 3:48 PM

As I said, rent control (and prop 13) are doing a good job at keeping the lower and middle class.

Income needed to pay for a 2/2: 160K
Median income in SF: 80K

Obviously, the middle class has nothing to fear.

Now, rent control and prop 13 are entitlements, and I believe they are creating a generation rift, with the old (protected, entitled, subsidized) eating the young (squeezed, priced out, overworked).

That's an issue very seldom debated. For every "let's protect our way of life" complaint, there are hordes of 20-somethings who would love a shot at a decent life. But the ones who made it artificially at the top of the ladder are kicking them away.

Posted by: lol at October 1, 2013 3:48 PM

The true point of San Francisco is that I moved here a decade ago and now it's my city. It's always been an immigrant city, domestic and foreign.

Posted by: Frog at October 1, 2013 3:49 PM

^ exactly, Frog. Sometimes I am bothered by these white corporate buses that "change my city" but I landed in SF 7 years ago and also helped "change" this city somehow for the people before me.

Posted by: lol at October 1, 2013 3:57 PM

You know why cocktails in this city cost 18 dollars? It's because bicycles cost far less than cars and what do you want techies to spend their money on?

Posted by: Frog at October 1, 2013 4:09 PM

"We have precious little space left in this city that is not being targeted toward the rich, whether outrageously extravagant housing or offices that cannot meet the needs and budgets of blue collar workers. You are missing the TRUE point of San Francisco, which is a human scale community."

Hey comrade. At the most basic level cities exist for commerce. Blue collar people will build the new buildings, provide services to them and in many cases less skilled white collar people will work in them.

Posted by: zig at October 1, 2013 4:26 PM

@Hawkins - hilarious that you mention that SF needs to be "European", then go on to complain about $18 cocktails. I was in Geneva and London last month and actually had a cocktail that was close to $20 in each. Not something I can easily do in SF.

Posted by: anon at October 1, 2013 4:29 PM

@formidable Where did you go? I too would be glad to exchange the current parking minimum over the vast majority of The City in return for removing the parking maximum in the transit corridors. Are you really willing to let the free market determine how much parking to provide? I am pretty sure developers can make much more money per square foot providing office space, retail and housing than providing parking. Witness the new trend in Noe of rebuilding small homes into large homes and leaving only one small parking spot.

Posted by: NoeValleyJim at October 1, 2013 4:38 PM

I hope this gets build and I'd be willing to see this built 'as is' or with the additional parking.

Any parking should be used to service the build and not after hours neighbourhood events.

Posted by: Observer at October 1, 2013 7:51 PM

come on lets move to the next subject.

Ed. please do something to maintain the site at the level you intended.

Posted by: contrarian at October 1, 2013 8:37 PM

these renderings look nice

Posted by: drew at October 2, 2013 5:52 PM

For the clueless posting here, the government tells developers what to do all the time. Try building housing complexes in the suburbs without accounting for low income families. More people and less parking means an increased strains on the streets and the transportation system. Not everyone is enamored with the biking lifestyle of lowlife hippies. The rest of us wash and are gainfully employed.

Posted by: Cato the Elder at November 6, 2013 9:48 AM

The development of 270 Brannan Street between Delancey and Bryant has been granted an exemption from formal environmental review under CEQA as "the project would not result in new significant environmental effects, or effects of greater severity than were already analyzed and disclosed in the Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans Final EIR."

Posted by: SocketSite at November 7, 2013 11:22 AM

Posted by: SocketSite at January 7, 2014 9:45 AM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Plans To Honor Rincon Hill's Past For Its Future To Rise | HOME | New Designs For Dwellings And Retail At Market And Sanchez »