District 6 Open Space Task Force

Transcription

1 District 6 Open Space Task Force Recommendations for Acquisition of New Parks and Open Space in District 6 July 2013

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background... 1 Summary of Task Force Recommendations... 2 District 6 Open Space Task Force Members... 3 Summary of Task Force Meetings... 4 Existing and Planned Open Space in District Funding Sources for New Open Space Acquisition... 6 District 6 Demographics... 8 What Areas Are Most in Need of New Open Space?... 9 What Types of New Open Space and Recreational Amenities Are Most Needed and Desired? What is the Preferred Size for New Parks? Identification of Potential New Park Sites Streets, Alleys, and Other Underutilized Public Rights of Way as Open Space Privately Owned Public Open Spaces Other Recommendations and Comments Next Steps... 17

3 Background San Francisco s District 6, represented by Supervisor Jane Kim, includes the neighborhoods of South of Market, the Tenderloin, Rincon Hill, South Beach, and Mission Bay. These neighborhoods are densely populated, but currently have significantly less open space per capital as compared to most other neighborhoods in San Francisco. In addition, substantial new development and population growth is expected over the next years, so planning for current and future open space needs is essential. Through recent planning efforts in various neighborhoods within District 6, including the Mission Bay redevelopment plan and the Transbay Terminal project / Transit Center District Plan, among others, a significant amount of new park land will be created in the district over the next years. However, there are still areas that are lacking in open space and recreational amenities, and there is substantial desire and need for additional open space in many parts of District 6. In response to these needs, staff from the Recreation and Park Department (RPD) Planning Unit and Supervisor Jane Kim s office collaborated with community leaders from District 6 on an open space planning process for the area. The District 6 Open Space Task Force is comprised of residents and other stakeholders representing various neighborhoods and constituencies. The Task Force met six times between October 2012 and June The primary goal of the Task Force is to identify one or more potential sites for future acquisition and development of new public open space in District 6. Another key objective is to identify which areas within D6 are most in need of new open space, and what types of facilities and/or recreational activities residents and other stakeholders would like to see. There are several sources of City funding available for the creation of new parks in District 6, including the Open Space Acquisition Fund, the Downtown Park Fund, and development impact fees for the various Area Plan areas that are partially or entirely located in District 6. These sources could potentially fund the purchase of one or more new park sites in District 6 over the next several years. The Task Force s work was undertaken within the context of existing City policies that guide the process for creating new parks and open space. The Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE) of the San Francisco General Plan and the Recreation and Park Department s Acquisition Policy set forth guidelines and procedures related to the identification and acquisition of new park land. The Task Force s work has been informed by and complements these policies and processes. Materials from the Task Force s meetings, as well as detailed responses from the online survey of Task Force members that formed the basis for many of the recommendations in this report, are available for review by contacting Holly Pearson in the Recreation and Park Department Planning Unit: or holly.pearson@sfgov.org. 1

4 Summary of Task Force Recommendations A. PRIORITY LOCATIONS FOR NEW PARKS. The Task Force identified the following neighborhoods in District 6 as the highest priorities for acquisition of new open space: Western South of Market Civic Center/Tenderloin Eastern South of Market B. AMENITIES/FACILITIES FOR NEW PARKS. The Task Force identified the following as top priorities for new park amenities in District 6: Trees, Landscaping, Lawns, and Greenery Children s Playgrounds Outdoor Seating & Picnicking Areas Public Restrooms Community Gardens Walking & Running Paths C. SIZE OF NEW PARKS. The Task Force members recommended acquisition of two or three smaller parks ( acres) in different neighborhoods within District 6 (as opposed to one larger park, if a choice had to be made) that can accommodate seating and landscaping, as well as smaller amenities such as a children s playground or dog play area. 2

5 District 6 Open Space Task Force Members The following is a list of District 6 Open Space Task Force members and their affiliations: Dallas Bradley Lisa Dunmeyer David Helinda Jen Isacoff Catherine Mercedes Judge Clint Ladine Marie France Ladine Toby Levy Alice Light Lorenzo Listana Nella Manuel Brendan Moriarty Kris Ongoco Alice Rogers Rick Smith Meredith Thomas Ryan Thayer Betty Traynor Jamie Whitaker Corinne Woods Western South of Market McCoppin Mission / SRO Residents Trust for Public Land South of Market Community Action Network Tenderloin Tenderloin South Park TODCO Group Tenderloin Tenderloin / Seniors Trust for Public Land South of Market South Beach / Rincon / Mission Bay Neighborhood Assoc. Yerba Buena / Friends of Annie Alley San Francisco Parks Alliance Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation Tenderloin / Friends of Boeddeker Park Rincon Hill Mission Bay City Staff The following City staff participated in the Task Force: Sunny Angulo Karen Mauney Brodek Holly Pearson April Veneracion Legislative Aide to Supervisor Jane Kim Recreation & Park Department, Planning Unit Recreation & Park Department, Planning Unit Legislative Aide to Supervisor Jane Kim 3

6 Summary of Task Force Meetings Meeting / Date Meeting 1 October 17, 2012 Meeting 2 December 5, 2012 Meeting 3 February 13, 2013 Meeting 4 April 11, 2013 Meeting 5 May 9, 2013 Meeting 6 June 27, 2013 Topics Purpose of Task Force Review Existing and Planned Open Space in District 6 Review RPD Acquisition Policy and Available Funding Resources Evaluate Where New Open Space is Needed in D6, Distribution Deficiency Gaps Port of San Francisco s Parks in District 6 Discussion and Task Force feedback received to date; Begin to Prioritize Goals Potential for Utilizing Streets/Rights of Ways as Open Space Strategy for finalizing Task Force recommendations and identifying potential park sites Review, Discuss and Refine Draft Recommendations from Task Force on Goals and Principles for New Open Space 4

7 5 MAP 1: District 6 Existing and Planned Open Space

8 Existing and Planned Open Space in District 6 The Task Force s work on identifying needs for additional open space was informed by a review of existing parks in District 6, as well as future parks that have been planned and approved, but not yet constructed. The map on page 6 shows existing and planned parks and open spaces that are owned by RPD and other City agencies, as well as those that are privately owned but publicly accessible. Funding Sources for New Open Space Acquisition The Task Force reviewed and discussed potential funding sources for the acquisition of new open space in District 6. The primary sources that are available for this purpose are: The City s Open Space Acquisition Fund (an annual set aside for new park land acquisition from the property tax levy, which amounts to approximately $1.8 million per year) Development impact fees that are imposed on new residential or commercial development under various Area Plans that have been adopted by the San Francisco Planning Department The Downtown Park Fund (created as part of the Downtown Plan in 1985 to provide funds for the creation of park and open space areas for the growing downtown daytime population). Grants various federal, state, and local grant programs These potential funding sources are described in more detail in the following table: Source Recreation & Parks Department Open Space Acquisition Fund Amount $7.36 million (balance as of July 2013) Accrues approximately $1.8 $2.0 million annually Development Impact Fees (Related to new development in areas with an adopted Area Plan) Transit Center District Eastern Neighborhoods East SoMa, West SoMa, Showplace Square Market/Octavia $3.5 million projected $13.8 million (FY ) projected $4.4 million (FY ) Downtown Park Fund (Transbay related) Downtown Park Fund (other) $6.6 million (over 20 years) $881,000 (current balance) Grants (local, state, federal) Varies TABLE 1: Potential Funding Sources for Open Space Acquisition in District 6 6

9 The Open Space Acquisition Fund, as mentioned above, comes from property taxes and is administered by RPD (under the direction of the Recreation and Park Commission, and subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors). The Downtown Park Fund and Area Plan development impact fees both consist of fees that are imposed on new development (in dollars per square foot). These fees are collected by the City when a building permit is issued for a development project. The funds are then appropriated to new public improvement projects (such as parks and open space) in order to meet the additional demand created by new development. In addition to these City funding sources, some grant programs administered by state or federal agencies that support the creation of parks and recreational facilities allow for funds to be used for property acquisition. The Recreation and Park Department can access funds from these various sources to purchase land for new open space. Funds from more than one of these sources could be combined, if needed, in order to finance a particular property acquisition. It is important to note that Area Plan development impact fees and Downtown Park Fund monies can only be used in specific designated areas, as shown on the following map: MAP 2: Downtown Park Fund and Areas with Adopted Area Plans in District 6 7

10 District 6 Demographics In order to understand the context for providing new park land in District 6 and what user groups it would serve, the Task Force looked at an overview of the current demographics of the area. This information was based on the 2011 American Community Survey, which is the most recent data available from the US Census Bureau. Highlights of the current demographics of District 6: Total population is approximately 74,000 Relatively high percentage of non family and single person households, especially in Civic Center/Tenderloin and SoMa Relatively small population of children and youth (ranging from 7% of total population in Civic Center/Tenderloin to 10% in Rincon Hill) Significant senior (60+) population, especially in Civic Center/Tenderloin (23%) and SoMa (21%) Racially diverse population majority Asian and Caucasian, but significant Black, Latino and mixed race populations. Many areas within the district are expected to grow significantly in terms of both residential population and jobs over the next 25 to 30 years. The expected population and employment growth for various neighborhoods in District 6, according to the Area Plans that have been adopted by the San Francisco Planning Department, is summarized in the table below (see page 8 for a map of these areas): East SoMa West SoMa Transit Center District Rincon Hill Residential Growth 4,000 5,000 additional residents between 2000 and 2025 (an increase of 45 61%) 6,300 additional residents between 2008 and 2030 (an increase of 91%) 9,500 additional residents between 2005 and 2030 (an increase of 647%) 3,000 additional residents between 2000 and 2030 (an increase of 70%) Employment Growth 13,000 15,000 additional jobs between 2000 and 2025 (an increase of more than 200%) 6,300 additional jobs between 2008 and 2030 (an increase of 36%) 29,000 additional jobs between 2005 and 2030 (an increase of 38%) TABLE 2: Projected Growth in Sub Areas of District 6 (Per Adopted Area Plans) These high growth projections illustrate the extensive need for additional open space that will be created by future housing and commercial development in District 6. 8

11 What Areas Are Most in Need of New Open Space? The Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE) of the San Francisco General Plan provides a methodology for determining those areas of the city that are most in need of new open space. The methodology includes two factors: 1. High Needs Areas High Needs Areas are defined as: Places of high population density Places with a high percentage of children and/or seniors Areas where households are categorized as low income Areas within an Area Plan (generally, those parts of the city that are anticipated to have significant growth and new development over the next years) 2. Distribution Deficiency Gaps Analysis of Distribution Deficiency Gaps identifies areas of the city that are deficient in certain types of open spaces. Sufficient open space is commonly agreed upon as the walking distance required to access both active and passive recreation. For adults that distance is one half (½) mile (a 10 minute walk). For activities involving playgrounds or small children, this distance is reduced to one quarter (¼) mile (a five minute). The areas within District 6 that are identified as High Needs or as falling within a Distribution Deficiency Gap for open space are shown in the following map: MAP 3: High Needs Areas and Distribution Deficiency Gaps in District 6 9

12 Note: The analysis of Distribution Deficiency Gaps in the map above takes into consideration the location of parks and open spaces that are planned and approved, but not yet constructed (for example, the Transbay open space and the children s playgrounds at Mission Creek Park and Emerald Park). An analysis based only on today s existing parks would yield a greater area that is deficient in open space, but since planning for future parks is intended to serve long term needs, open spaces that will be provided in coming years were also taken into account. The Task Force further refined the analysis of where new open space is most needed by considering the existing open space, current population, and future expected growth in the various neighborhoods or sub areas within District 6, as shown in the map below: MAP 4: Sub Areas in District 6 Need for new open space by sub area was prioritized as follows: Western South of Market (SoMa West) (Area 2 on map) Civic Center/Tenderloin (Area 1 on map) Eastern South of Market (SoMa East) (Area 3 on map) 10

13 Within these three sub areas, the portions of District 6 that are identified as High Needs and/or within a Distribution Deficiency Gap are shown in the following map. These may be considered the most desirable areas for the acquisition of new open space. MAP 5: High Needs Areas and Distribution Deficiency Gaps in Priority Areas for Park Acquisition While this map serves as a helpful guide in searching for potential new park sites, RPD and the Task Force support the provision of additional open space in any location within District 6. For example, there may be available properties that are not located within the boundaries of a High Needs Area or a Distribution Deficiency Gap, but are in close proximity to such areas and would serve the needs of those areas. Therefore, while the map can provide useful information about the specific areas of highest need, efforts to identify potential properties should not be limited to the areas delineated here. 11

14 What Types of New Open Space and Recreational Amenities Are Most Needed and Desired? The Task Force considered various types of open space and recreational amenities and which ones would best serve various key park user groups in District 6, such as daytime workforce, seniors, youth, pre school children, and hotel guests/tourists. The following examples of recreational amenity types were presented for discussion: Children s playgrounds Sports courts (basketball courts, tennis courts) Athletic fields (baseball and softball diamonds, soccer fields, multi use sports fields) Plaza Outdoor seating/picnicking areas Trees, landscaping, lawns, and greenery Community gardens Dog play areas Walking/running paths Outdoor gym equipment Amphitheater/performance space Water access (small boat launch, fishing pier, urban beach, etc) Skate park Restrooms Recreational facilities for youth/teens (please specify): Night time recreational uses (please specify): Other (please specify): The Task Force identified the top priorities for new park amenities in District 6 as follows: Trees, Landscaping, Lawns, and Greenery Children s Playgrounds Outdoor Seating & Picnicking Areas Public Restrooms Community Gardens Walking & Running Paths In addition, Task Force members expressed support for the following special types of recreational activities and facilities in District 6: 12

15 Recreational Opportunities for Youth/Teens: Facilities to promote active, healthy recreation and skill building, such as sports fields and gymnasium/workout space A diverse range of recreational programming, such as dance and art classes, team sports, gaming, etc. Night time Recreational Uses: Spaces and activities that can accommodate night time recreation, such as outdoor movies or concerts, festivals, and night markets. These uses should be designed to complement the active nightlife that exists in certain areas of District 6, particularly the South of Market. What is the Preferred Size for New Parks? Task Force members felt that, if a choice were required due to limited funding and resources, it would be more desirable to have two or three smaller parks ( acres) in different neighborhoods within District 6 that include seating and landscaping for passive recreation, plus smaller amenities such as a children s playground or dog play area; as opposed to one large park (0.5 acre or greater) that can accommodate active recreational uses such as sports fields and athletic courts. Along these lines, Task Force members commented that neighborhoods in District 6 need to have easily accessible, central public open spaces that can function as the heart of the neighborhood multiple open green spaces with places for adults to sit, kids to play, and dogs to run. 13

16 Identification of Potential New Park Sites Previously Suggested Sites The Task Force began the process of identifying potential new park sites by reviewing properties that have previously been suggested for new open space, either through community members contacting RPD staff, or through the various Area Plans that have been completed (or are currently underway) by the San Francisco Planning Department. Task Force members were also invited to suggest potential new sites for consideration. These sources resulted in the four sites illustrated below: 639 Bryant Street Harrison Street Brady Block Park Site Steuart Street Triangle 14

17 Note: It is anticipated that development impact fees (see page 6) will be used for the City to purchase the 639 Bryant Street site (located in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan area) and the Brady Block park site (located in the Market & Octavia Plan area) within the next 5 15 years, and/or to develop these sites into public parks. It is not known at this time whether RPD would own these sites, they would be owned by another City agency (such as the Department of Real Estate), or they would be privately owned and managed but accessible to the public as open space. Regardless of eventual ownership, it is very likely that these two sites will become public parks in the future as private development occurs in the surrounding areas. Search for New Potential Sites RPD staff and the Task Force wished to identify other potential park sites for consideration in addition to these four, particularly in the areas that have the highest need for new open space. In order to generate a list of sites for discussion with the Task Force, RPD staff used GIS spatial analysis and field survey work to generate a map of parcels that are (a) vacant or surface parking lots, or (b) underdeveloped, i.e. a one story building, and (c) do not currently have an active development permit under review. This process yielded a very large number of parcels for example, at least 60 sites in the Western SOMA area alone. RPD staff and the Task Force determined that in order to narrow down the number of prospective parcels to a smaller group of top sites that would be manageable for discussion and further consideration, it would be helpful to engage the services of a real estate broker to assist with a property search. The Task Force agreed to proceed by providing the selected broker with recommendations on preferred locations, size, and other desirable characteristics for new park properties. Streets, Alleys, and Other Underutilized Public Rights of Way as Open Space Staff from the San Francisco Planning Department made presentations to the Task Force on current initiatives related to the use of underutilized streets, alleys, and other public rights of way as open space. This concept has a great deal of potential to provide additional green space in dense urban neighborhoods where vacant land is scarce and the cost of land is high. This model is very relevant in District 6, and particularly in the South of Market neighborhood, where there are many small alleys that are relatively lightly used for vehicular traffic. Planning Department staff also presented to the Task Force on the Green Connections project, which aims to increase access to parks, open space and the waterfront by re envisioning City streets and paths as green connectors. The project builds on current efforts to green neighborhood streets and improve pedestrian and bicycle access to community amenities and recreational opportunities. Within District 6, corridors that have been designated as part of the citywide network of green streets include Jones Street and Ellis Street in the Tenderloin; and 2 nd Street, 7 th Street, and Folsom Street in SoMa. Task Force members expressed interest in pursuing the possible conversion of underutilized rights ofway to new public open space, as well as supporting the implementation of the Green Connections street network in District 6. Since these types of initiatives would be outside of the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department and would involve collaboration with other City departments such as Planning and the Department of Public Works, Supervisor Kim s office may convene a separate working group to continue working on these and other open space issues in the district that are not related to public, RPD owned parks. 15

18 Privately Owned Public Open Spaces Much of the potential for new open space in dense urban areas is through the provision of privately owned public open spaces (POPOS). These are green spaces that are usually built as part of a private development project (for example, in lieu of paying development impact fees), but are open to the public. Task Force members commented that there is a need to better regulate POPOS mechanisms are needed to ensure that these spaces are designed to be easily accessible to the public, and that public access is maintained over the long term. Other Recommendations and Comments Land Use, Demographic, and Location Considerations Identify potential acquisition sites along Folsom Street corridor (consistently cited in area plans as the major corridor in the South of Market). Tie in new open space planning in Western SoMa to ideas for LGBT Heritage District and Filipino Cultural District (from Western SoMa Community Plan). Focus now on acquisition of space in needed areas where it will be harder to get in the future, given current efforts underway such as the Central Subway project and Central Corridor Plan and rezoning. When looking at potential new park sites, it is important to consider how they are located relative to streets and blocks (i.e. whether they are corner sites or mid block sites) and how that affects the potential park s exposure and openness. Mid block open spaces are less exposed to the street and surrounding area and therefore can have a quality of privacy or discovery, while corner lots are more open and exposed to their surroundings. Both types of sites have their advantages, but the differences should be considered when looking at a specific potential park location. Additional Information and Resources The list of City owned surplus property is a good source of info on potential sites for acquisition. Review the Planning Department s study on potential open space in Showplace Square (partially overlapping with / mostly adjacent to District 6). Review the 2011 SPUR Piero N. Patri fellowship project by Sarah Moos on unaccepted streets the potential to convert underutilized rights of way into an accessible open space network connecting the city and its communities to the Blue Greenway, to existing open space, and to each other. Maintenance of New Park Properties There is a shortage of funding for sufficient maintenance of existing parks in San Francisco, including those in District 6, and some residents feel that certain neighborhood parks are not inviting or safe due to physical deterioration. It is important to secure adequate funding for the ongoing maintenance of new park properties. 16

19 Areas in Need of Children s Playgrounds The Task Force drew special attention to the need for new children s playgrounds in certain areas of District 6, not only for children living in those neighborhoods but also to serve children in day care centers located in the district. Task Force members noted that pre school aged children (5 years and under) need access to parks and playgrounds to develop physical strength and health, balance, and social skills. The Rincon Hill neighborhood in particular has a substantial and growing population of families with children, and Western SoMa near Market Street in the vicinity of 7 th and 8 th Streets has a large concentration of young children. In addition, there are several day care centers in and near Rincon Hill that serve parents who work in the nearby Downtown and Financial District employment centers. Underutilized Rights of Way as Open Space Safety Considerations Task Force members noted that safety is a key consideration for this type of open space, since underutilized alleys that are repurposed as open space can sometimes attract crime and homelessness. Measures such as careful design, good lighting, and regular maintenance can minimize problems and ensure the success of these spaces as public gathering Next Steps During the summer and fall of 2013, RPD staff will work with the City s Department of Real Estate to engage the services of a real estate broker to assist with search for potential new park sites in District 6. The selected broker will receive the Task Force s recommendations on priorities for location, size, and desired uses for new open space, to inform the property search. In closing, it is important to note that RPD s effort to acquire new park land is a dynamic and often unpredictable process that plays out in a highly competitive real estate market and is influenced by many external forces. Factors such as the availability of a desirable property at a certain point in time, the owner s willingness to sell, the level of community support and involvement, and the availability of funding for both land acquisition and park development, can all affect RPD s success in the acquisition process. This report will inform the search for potential new park sites in District 6, but due to the large number of variables that influence the acquisition landscape, it may not be possible to precisely fulfill all the goals and recommendations stated in the report. RPD s objective is to identify and secure the highest quality new park property (or properties) possible, in locations that best serve the future needs of residents, workers and visitors of District 6. 17