Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Fire Station 13 topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee backs nonbinding terms for new Fire Station 13 and mixed‑use tower at Jackson Square

Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors · December 9, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee endorsed key terms for a revised property exchange and development agreement to build a new Fire Station 13 and a mixed‑use tower that would fund 100% affordable housing in District 3; sponsor Related California presented a redesigned concept and staff recommended forwarding the nonbinding resolution to the Board.

The Land Use and Transportation Committee on Dec. 9 endorsed in concept key terms for a revised property exchange agreement and development agreement to rebuild Fire Station 13 and develop a mixed‑use project on adjacent parcels in Jackson Square.

President Aaron Peskin framed the item as a long‑running effort to replace an aging fire station while generating funding for 100% affordable housing in District 3. Jonathan Cherry of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development told the committee the three primary objectives are to replace Fire Station 13 with a modern facility, provide funding for 100% affordable housing in District 3 and activate the downtown corner.

Related California principal Matthew Witty presented design concepts that include a 200‑key hotel, smaller floor‑plate offices and a new standalone fire station parcel to be owned by the city; he said the revised footprint and acquisition of nearby properties improved project feasibility. Witty described ground‑floor activation along Sansom and Merchant and public benefits such as retail space and pedestrian improvements.

There were no public speakers on this item. Member Peskin moved to send the nonbinding resolution with recommendation to the full Board; the committee voted 3–0 in favor (Preston, Peskin, Melgar). Staff said the final development agreement, design and detailed terms will return to the Board for review and the matter is expected to be advanced in the new year.

What’s next: The nonbinding resolution and subsequent development and property‑exchange agreements will be considered by the full Board; design review and planning approvals remain pending.