SAN FRANCISCO | 469 Stevenson St | 284 FT | 27 FL

[homebucket]

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/sanfranc...g-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.

[homebucket]

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-w...francisco.html

[homebucket]

And some renderings:





https://sfyimby.com/2023/04/second-w...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.

[homebucket]

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/artic...t-17908727.php