| |
Posted Oct 28, 2021, 2:40 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
|
|
Quote:
Why did S.F. supervisors vote against a project to turn a parking lot into 500 housing units?
J.K. Dineen
Oct. 27, 2021
Updated: Oct. 27, 2021 7:24 p.m.
Over the last two decades, San Francisco developer Build Inc. has been on a winning streak, adeptly navigating the city’s treacherous political landscape and winning planning approvals for housing projects in Hayes Valley, Dogpatch, Tenderloin, Civic Center, South of Market and Bayview-Hunters Point.
On Tuesday night that perfect record came to an end in dramatic fashion. In an 8-3 vote, the Board of Supervisors rejected a proposed 495-unit tower at 469 Stevenson St., a 28,000-square-foot lot on an alleyway just off the corner of Sixth and Market streets. The parking lot is owned by Nordstrom, which uses it for valet parking for its nearby department store.
The supervisors’ vote overturned a Planning Commission approval of the project, essentially ordering city planners to go back to the drawing board and prepare a new environmental study. That could take another one or two years with no guarantee that the board members would find the new environmental study acceptable.
Build Inc. partner Lou Vasquez said he was “blindsided” by the vote, but said he was determined to keep going.
“We are not giving up,” he said. “We are trying to figure out what our next step is.”
The vote was clearly a major victory for TODCO, the powerful South of Market affordable housing owner that appealed the project to the Board of Supervisors. TODCO spent four years lobbying against the development, enlisting former Supervisor Jane Kim to help organize opposition. Other SoMa groups backing the appeal include United Playaz, West Bay Pilipino Multi Service Agency and South of Market Community Action Network.
On Wednesday, TODCO Executive Director John Elberling said that in slaying the “Monster on Sixth Street,” the board had protected vulnerable residents — residential hotel occupants on Sixth Street and Filipino seniors on Mission — against gentrification and displacement . . . .
Mayor London Breed, who supported the development, blasted the vote, suggesting that the opposition was based on “vague concerns.” She called the decision a “perfect example” of “how San Francisco got into the housing crisis.”
“This project met all the criteria for approval, and it would have created 500 new homes on what is currently a parking lot surrounded by tall buildings, located near transit,” she said. “We can’t keep rejecting new housing and then wondering why rents keep rising.”
The vote was unusual because in voting no, eight members of the board went against Supervisor Matt Haney, who represents the Tenderloin and SoMa. Typically board members honor the wishes of the district supervisor, and in turn expect that they will get support for something in their district.
But the Haney support is complicated by the fact that he is running for Assembly District 17, a seat that was vacated when David Chiu was appointed city attorney. Haney is running against David Campos, a former supervisor who has been endorsed by seven of the board members who rejected the Stevenson Street deal. This includes Supervisors Hillary Ronen, Aaron Peskin, Rafael Mandelman, Dean Preston and Gordon Mar.
Jason McDaniel, political science professor at San Francisco State University, said he could think of only two land use votes where the board went against the wishes of a district supervisor. He said opposition to market rate housing and fears of development were only part of the motivation.
“This is at least partly about punishing Matt Haney for running against Campos,” he said. “They see it as a betrayal.”
Rudy Gonzalez, secretary-treasurer of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, said the city’s construction workers are being harmed in what is at least partly an intramural squabble between political factions. Currently, the trade unions have 1,400 out-of-work journeymen and apprentices, including 400 plumbers, and hundreds of electricians and sheet metal workers.
“I have people who desperately want to get back to work,” Gonzalez said. “They are fully skilled and trained and ready to be dispatched. We need to place every one of these people.”
Dozens of construction projects are on hold because of uncertainty about post-COVID recovery, and there are few new projects being approved to fill the pipeline. The 495 units on Stevenson Street would have meant hundreds of jobs for a two-year construction period . . . .
Among opponents were two supervisors who are generally pro-housing, Mandelman and Myrna Melgar. Melgar said she is “pro-housing, but that doesn’t mean I am ideological or indiscriminate in my support.” She said the environmental impact report was “lacking.” It didn’t address earthquake safety, she said, and didn’t include alternatives that might have lessened shadow impact on Mint Plaza.
“There were important things in the EIR that the planning department staff shortcut and didn’t address,” she said. “We need to increase housing but also acknowledge realities that come with development in places like Sixth Street.”
Chris Elmendorf, a law professor at UC Davis who specializes in housing law, said that the developer doesn’t have a lot of legal recourse because the board didn’t technically reject the project outright, but asked the developer and city planning staff to do an expanded environmental impact report, something that is required under state law. Therefore, the vote didn’t violate the state Housing Accountability Act, which requires cities to approve housing as long as it is consistent with zoning.
|
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/artic...t-16569809.php
So it's all political gamesmanship. Remember this when your supervisor next seeks election or re-election.
|
|
|
Prev
Linear Mode
