A proposed addendum to the recently adopted Eastern Neighborhoods Plan would create an “Art & Design Educational Special Use District” (SUD) specific to five lots at the base of Potrero Hill in the Showplace Square Design District, allowing for the development of up to 750 beds of housing within the area bounded by 7th, 8th, Irwin, Channel, De Haro, and 15th Streets, across which the California College of the Arts (“CCA”) campus resides.
Housing is currently not permitted upon the parcels which are located in the Production, Distribution and Repair-1, Design Use District which was established to “retain and encourage less-intensive production, distribution, and repair businesses, especially the existing clusters of design-related businesses.”
In addition, the proposed legislation would also eliminate a 20,000-square-foot use limitation for secondary arts schools within the district, providing “a regulatory scheme” for a potential future expansion of the CCA campus.
∙ Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, It’s Not Just For Policy Wonks Anymore [SocketSite]
∙ Art & Design Educational Special Use District [sfplanning.org]
Not enough beds proposed. Try for ~3000 or so instead of the piddly 750. The school’s going to want to expand at some point, might as well anticipate that now (doesn’t mean that all beds need to be built now, but geez, get more than you need into the approval process).
As a student at said school, this is all news to me, not that I expect the administration to fill us in on city ordinances and so forth. The 750 number seems ok though- I would say that since the school only has around 2000 or so students that at least for the moment that would provide ample room for freshmen and sophomores who are most likely to want to be on campus, not to mention the fact that there is already student housing in Oakland.
There is room for someone to build large dorms that students of any local university could use– students are being priced out of SF. Maybe another building of mini-studios, just for students?
A huge problem for everyone who works at or goes to CCA is parking. Here’s hoping CCA will utilize some portion of their new (3820-002) lot for a parking garage, perhaps under the dorms. One big concern about this lot is it’s toxic past – I believe one of the reasons it hasn’t been built on yet is due to environmental revue.
They should build parking garages, but only if people are willing to pay more for parking than they are for housing.
If people are willing to pay more for housing, they should build housing instead.
If you live next to campus do you really need a car in SF? How can students afford cars whe you have sf rents and cca tuition. Build places for people not horseless carriages.
Wrong. The problem is that no one can afford to live in SF who works at or goes to school at CCA. Most all of the faculty members and students live in the east or north bay. CCA is no where near public transpo (nearest is 16th st Bart, which is over a mile away). There are shuttle buses from the east bay campus for the students, but faculty and administration must arrive hours early and circle the neighborhood looking for places to park, often having to park way up on Potrero Hill. Some folks take public transpo and then bike or walk, but it’s a big problem when they must bring big piles of books, supplies, learning materials etc. The area needs to deal with it’s parking issues.
^Or the school needs to build more housing, so that folks can afford to live next to it. Seems too obvious, no?
Obvious, no. Simpleminded, yes.
What you seem to be saying is that we should all expect our employers to build inexpensive housing right next to our place of work so that we won’t ever need to drive. It’s a nice utopian fantasy, but the reality is that a campus such as CCA has many constantly changing employees who come from all over the Bay Area. Since CCA created this SF campus in 1996, this area has gone gangbusters with new housing units, new businesses, another new campus (the other CCA, California Culinary Academy), etc. Anyone who spends any time in this area know how impossible it can be to find parking.
That isn’t what I said at all. Perhaps read it again.
It’s simply hard for me to believe that the school’s best use of money would be parking and/or the best use of space to the greater general public would be to build parking in an area with strong demand for folks to live. If the school depends on folks that must live other places and commute to the school by car (and there are no other options), perhaps it would be better to locate the school in an area with cheap parking where that is easy to do.
The answer isn’t to simply build parking everywhere to make it so everyone can live anywhere and drive everywhere. That’s ridiculous.