SAN FRANCISCO | 469 Stevenson Street | 284 FT | 27 FLOORS

[38 Geary]

So vote for Haney, basically.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by homebucket

So vote for Haney, basically.

I never thought I'd say that, but I never thought the other option would be Campos, so yeah.

[Pedestrian]

YIMBY . . . announced Thursday it has filed suit in state court over the Board of Supervisors' decision to uphold the appeal of another project at 469 Stevenson St., a 495-unit residential high-rise proposed by Build Inc.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco...er-tenderloin-group-housing-project.html

PS, with regard to the election, I voted for Bilal Mahmoud. I don't know much about him except he isn't Haney or Campos.

[38 Geary]

Good news. Hopefully it goes through this time.

A refresher on the specs:
- 290 ft, 27 floors
- 495 units (73 of which are affordable) with 192 studios, 149 1BR, 96 2BR, 50 3 BR, and 8 5BR
- 3,990 sq ft for retail
- Parking for 178 cars and 227 bicycles

Second Wind For 469 Stevenson Street In SoMa, San Francisco



BY: ANDREW NELSON 5:30 AM ON APRIL 3, 2023

The planning process has started again for 469 Stevenson Street, a 27-story infill planned in SoMa, San Francisco. The 495-unit project had been appealed in a high-profile decision by the Board of Supervisors in 2021. Its second push through the planning process has come with a new streamlined appeals process designated by Governor Gavin Newsom. BUILD is the project developer.

The city’s Planning Department published a new public notice at the end of last month explaining that the project sponsor will be proceeding under new legislation that states “any judicial action challenging the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or the approval of the project described in the EIR” will be sent to the court of appeals or the Supreme Court, with a 270-day deadline for resolution.

The application is submitting an application to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research as an Environmental Leadership Development Project. The protection came because of an approval letter published by Governor Gavin Newsom. According to reporting by the SF Chronicle, this precedent may apply state-wide, meaning any housing development costing over $15 million could apply for a similar streamlined appeals process.

The project was appealed by YBNC with some concerns, among other issues raised, about the geotechnical review process for the tower. While the Planning Commission believed the review was sound, the Board of Supervisors voted to deny approval in an 8-3 vote. Assemblymember Matt Haney, then the District 6 Supervisor where the property sits, immediately took to Twitter to denounce his colleague’s decision to reject nearly five hundred homes to replace surface parking.

Ahead of the vote, City Staff published the following rebuke of the claimed issue, writing that “the Appellant fails to demonstrate that the FEIR’s conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence. Contrary to the Appellant’s claim, the FEIR includes a thorough analysis of the proposed project’s geotechnical impacts. Therefore, the EIR’s analysis is correct in its conclusions and no further response is warranted.”

The 290-foot tall structure will yield around 535,000 square feet with 425,640 square feet for housing, 3,990 square feet for retail, and 30,000 square feet of open space. Unit sizes will vary, with 192 studios, 149 one-bedrooms, 96 two-bedrooms, 50 three-bedrooms, and eight five-bedroom units. Of the 495 units, 73 will be designated as affordable housing, with 45 for households earning around 50% of the Area Median Income, 14 units for 80% AMI, and 14 units for 110% AMI households. Parking will be included for 178 cars and 227 bicycles. The bicycle parking will be included on the basement level, accessible from the garage or lobby.

...

The project is scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 20th. Construction is expected to cost over $200 million and last around 36 months from groundbreaking, though an estimated date for that has not yet been established. Once complete, the building is expected to achieve LEED Gold certification or higher.

https://sfyimby.com/2023/04/second-wind-for-469-stevenson-street-in-soma-san-francisco.html

[38 Geary]

And some renderings:





https://sfyimby.com/2023/04/second-wind-for-469-stevenson-street-in-soma-san-francisco.html

[obemearg]

Originally Posted by homebucket

A refresher on the specs:
- 290 ft, 27 floors
- 495 units (73 of which are affordable) with 192 studios, 149 1BR, 96 2BR, 50 3 BR, and 8 5BR
- 3,990 sq ft for retail
- Parking for 178 cars and 227 bicycles

Wow, I can't think of many other new projects that have that many 2 & 3BR units. Great! I wonder if the 5BR units will be PH units with more expensive finishes (like 33 Tehama) or priced more proportionally to the rest of the building.

[38 Geary]

S.F. approves housing plan on infamous Nordstrom parking lot, and two more contentious sites
J.K. Dineen
April 20, 2023

Under heavy pressure from state housing officials, the San Francisco Planning Commission on Thursday approved a trio of contentious developments, including the infamous proposed 495-unit tower on a Nordstrom valet parking lot in the Mid-Market neighborhood.

With a commission hearing room as full as its been since the pandemic, commissioners OK’d not only 469 Stevenson St., which became the poster child for San Francisco obstructionism when the Board of Supervisors killed it 18 months ago, but also smaller and far more controversial developments on the northern edge of Chinatown and near Dolores Park.

Taken together, the trio of votes demonstrated in stark terms how control over what kind of housing is built in San Francisco has shifted from city hall to Sacramento, where a slew of new laws passed over the last few years have made it nearly impossible for neighbors and politicians to delay or torpedo most residential developments.

Ironically, the tower at 469 Stevenson St., which was the case that prompted the California Department of Housing and Community Development to investigate, was perhaps the least controversial of the three.

In that case, the Planning Commission had actually approved the project the first time, but it was appealed to the Board of Supervisors by TODCO, a SoMa nonprofit affordable housing owner. TODCO leader John Elberling, who led the charge on the first appeal, said he would not appeal Thursday’s vote because he feels that the tower will never be built given the severe economic downturn the city’s central neighborhoods are grappling with.

...

The project was approved 4-2 with commissioners Theresa Imperial and Kathrin Moore voting “no.”

North Beach resident Ira Kaplan called the saga “an embarrassment for our city” and a “clown show.”

The votes come as the city is faced with the daunting — many would say impossible — state-mandated task of building 82,000 units over the next eight years, about 55% of which are supposed to be affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Under the city’s “housing element” plan, that housing would be mostly clustered on the west side of town, an area that has had little new development in the last 40 years.

...

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-approves-housing-nordstrom-parking-lot-17908727.php

[38 Geary]

S.F.’s strange saga of turning a Nordstrom parking lot into housing is over, for now
By J.K. Dineen, Reporter
May 9, 2024

The infamous former Nordstrom valet parking lot at 469 Stevenson St. — which became a symbol of San Francisco dysfunction in 2021 when the Board of Supervisors temporarily rejected 494 units of housing there — will remain a parking lot.

At least for the foreseeable future.

On Thursday, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use authorization that allows the property owner, Build Inc., to continue to operate a parking lot there for the next five years.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-nordstrom-lot-housing-19449062.php

[38 Geary]

An update on the specs:
- 27 floors, 290 ft
- 495 units (192 studios, 149 1BR, 96 2BR, 50 3BR, and 8 5BR)
- 15% of the units will be affordable
- 3,990 sq ft for retail
- Parking for 178 cars and 227 bicycles

The site:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/UGtxtiqmBTRTFKCJ9

Entitlement Extension Requested for 469 Stevenson Street in SoMa, San Francisco



By: Andrew Nelson 5:30 am on March 4, 2026

Entitlement extension has been requested for the 27-story residential proposal at 469 Stevenson Street in SoMa, San Francisco. The project was given a three-year entitlement approval in April of 2023, but construction never started, and the lot remains a surface parking lot. Build Inc is the project sponsor.

The planning process for the 27-story proposal began with the filing of initial applications nearly a decade ago in 2017. The project was approved in 2021, but an appeal filed by TODCO was upheld, and the process stalled. The Board of Supervisors granted approval again in 2023 with expectations of imminent construction, but the project stalled, with the developer publicly citing rising construction costs. In 2024, the city extended the conditional use authorization for public parking for another five years.

Managing Partner at Build Inc., Scott Eschelman, writes in the extension request that, “the need for an extension is due to the challenging San Francisco housing market compounded by restrictive financing conditions…” The entitlement extension seeks to reduce the on-site inclusionary affordable housing from 19% down to 15%. The reduced quantity would still exceed the city’s requirement of just 12%. That is the only modification to the 2023 entitlement requested by Build Inc.

https://sfyimby.com/2026/03/entitlement-...venson-street-in-soma-san-francisco.html

[tall/awkward]

Does anyone remember when proposals used to occasionally become actual buildings around here?

[BobbyMucho]

Originally Posted by tall/awkward

Does anyone remember when proposals used to occasionally become actual buildings around here?

It's definitely not rare for larger projects like this to take their sweet time, request extensions, and even change hands and redraw. Pre-pandemic wasn't quite as bad, though.


No expert here, but it seems like most of the delays we're seeing are because of financing. Math from 7+ years ago no longer works, and every needs to "right" before committing.

Fingers crossed it doesn't result in a dumbed-down, value-engineered version.