Posted on 01/23/2022 9:40:36 AM PST by grundle
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.
“The board heard and agreed with SoMa community organizations’ realization that a massive project like that … would be the beginning of the end for these current residents,” Elberling said.
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 six 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.
“If TODCO or anyone else wants to buy the parcel and build 100% affordable housing, good on them, but hurry, because I’ve got families with kids to feed,” Gonzalez said. “We don’t have time for this political bull.”
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.
The Eternal Mysteries of the Liberal Hive Mind.
No mystery.
“This is at least partly about punishing Matt Haney for running against Campos,” he said. “They see it as a betrayal.”
I’m not so sure...
Find out who owns the parking lot. Do they make money off of it?
If that lot is big enough for a 500 unit apartment building, I’ll say it’s a decent size lot.
Simple math....It has 250 spaces....$20 a day to park....$5000 a day...$25,000 a week....$100,000 a month....$1,300,000 a year....and that’s not including weekends or any special event parking that may happen.
And that is for what? Maybe paying for an attendant, who WILL be an immigrant of some kind, illegal or legal(maybe) who is getting paid peanuts, some paint for the parking spots every few years, maybe some repaving every 5-10 years. Those things are money makers.
Have a few of those throughout the city and you’re making some serious dough.
From the excerpt- The parking lot is owned by Nordstrom, which uses it for valet parking for its nearby department store.
“Why did S.F. supervisors vote against a project to turn a parking lot into 500 housing units?”
The last time I was in the Bay Area was probably 15 years ago and even then parking was at a premium.
“You can’t fight City Hall” BUT, what happens when City Hall has a civil war? I remember watching the 2013 Americas Cup racing in the San Francisco waters. The city looked so nice and inviting during that event. But that was the facade, not reality!
Is this the inevitable results of what happens when you have generations of the LEFT making the laws and regulations? City, region and State makes it their utopia, from where I see it, it is a dystopia instead! No wonder Nancy P. is looking to get a home in Florida!
The key to successful urban development is bribery of city officials.
If you pay them enough, they are whores and will always say “yes”.
First they paved paradise and put up a parking lot.
Now this.
There you go. There is a profit motive for it and Nordstrom isn’t giving that up without a very, very sizable check. And, being Nordstrom(surprised the store is still open) they pay a boatload in taxes and the last thing San Francisco needs is for them to pack up and slam some plywood on the doors and windows. No business owner, in their right mind, would set up shop in that city now.
San Francisco: Nordstrom we need that parking lot to put up a 500 unit, affordable housing(Section 8 but they won’t say that) complex.
Nordstrom: Nope. Unless you want to claim Imminent Domain and pay us fair market value. And once the check clears we’ll be shutting down the store, taking away those jobs and leaving you with a huge vacant store to try and fill, next to, a 500 unit Section 8 complex. Anything else you want to talk about.
San Francisco: Never mind.
I stopped reading anything, in detail, about SanFrancisco a while back. Everything about that place is corruption, chaos, greed and disgusting. Between Newsome, Pelosi, Zuckerberg, etc etc etc, I could care less if the city fell into the ocean. And Chesa Boudin has only made it worse.
Just let any of the few Conservatives or sane people that may live there a chance to get out.
In one of the Rush Hour movies, Chris Tucker’s character makes a comment about how to find out who is behind all the bad stuff.....Follow the rich white man.
Rush Hour 2 Carter’s Theory of Investigation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gp9QE3prHs
6th Street is/was the SF wine district. People coming in from SFO come in on buses saw nothing but derelicts. With gentrification the place has nowhere to go but up. South of Market(SOMA) became Manhattenized under Willie Brown. Last I looked 469 Stevenson is part of SOMA. This Manhattenization process took care of a lot of union workers at the price of SF’s uniqueness. Stopping this project will not put the genie back in the bottle.
Just look at the convention center. Modern but no one wants to hold them in SF anymore. Know why?
Because instead of 500 units they can have 3,000 tents?
stuffing another 500 apartments onto a small alley lot
in the middle of xxxxxx
sounds like just more of what the politicians have already done to destroy San Fransicko
“I remember watching the 2013 Americas Cup racing in the San Francisco waters. The city looked so nice and inviting during that event. But that was the facade, not reality!”
When I was driving long haul my wife took a month long trip with me once the boys were old enough to leave them home alone.
During that trip we hit LA, Chicago, Miami and Phoenix plus a bit more. Safe to say the wife was underwhelmed by the dirty, dangerous reality of the whole thing. Not the clean, safe inviting cities she had seen on TV. I told her she was seeing the dirty truth that wasn’t shown on TV.
This is Nordstrom parking lot. Sure would make it easier on the affordable housing tenets to hop over to Nordstrom and get their “free” $900 merchandise.
“Find out who owns the parking lot.”
This one is obvious. Here are four of the ten board members of Nordstrom which controls Nordstrom, Nordstrom Rack, Nordstrom restaurants, Nordstrom Spa, and other businesses along with international through their website servicing 30 countries, and where they live:
Kirsten A. Green – San Francisco
Shellye L. Archambeau, Palo Alto
Stacy Brown-Philpot, San Francisco
Brad D. Smith, Mountain View, California
The parking lot is theirs and they use it for their valet parking.
wy69
Well played!
Somewhere, Joni Mitchell is groaning. Too bad, so sad!
Once you drill down into the details, the "mysteries of the liberal hive mind" invariably turn out to be some cynical little power play on the part of a few powerful individuals, usually with money at its root.
Hence the expression "follow the money."
Why would anyone want to live in San Francisco in the first place?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.