[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.

...

While the symbolism of elected officials siding with a luxury department store parking lot over nearly 500 apartments — 73 of which would be affordable — became a rallying call for the city’s political moderates, it was the other two votes that proved to be more contentious on Thursday.

At 1181 Washington St., the commission approved 10 units — nine townhomes and a single family home to replace the one currently on the property. Those townhomes will cast shadows upon about 17% of the outside space of the Betty Ong Recreation Center’s playground, which neighbors testified is a crucial source of open space for residents in North Chinatown, many of them seniors who live in residential hotels.

Several Chinatown residents said the development would cut off sunshine and fresh air from elderly residents who have no other recreation spaces nearby.

“A lot of SRO families who live in Chinatown and Nob Hill depend on having access to this park,” said Maggie Dong, a planner with Chinatown CDC, adding that having a four-story building on the edge of the park would be “very detrimental to the community.”

While multiple commissioners said they were displeased with the proposed building, they stressed that there was only so much they could do with state law. The proposal is a state density bonus project, which makes it an “as right” code-compliant project. By rejecting the proposal, the commission would have run afoul of state laws.

...

The third project given the green light was 3832 18th St., a 19-unit group home development near Dolores Park which was approved last year after city planners cut a floor from the proposal in order to appease neighboring residents. But, in January, state housing officials sent a letter to the city saying reducing the project from six stories to five stories was a violation of state law.

On Thursday, Brian O’Neill, an attorney for the developer, asked the commissioners to “correct this mistake and restore the sixth floor.”

Under recent legislation proposed by Mayor London Breed, developments like the one on Washington Street and the one on 18th would not have to go before the planning commission — which pro-housing advocates argue will make it easier and faster to build in the city.

“These projects shouldn’t have been at Planning Commission in the first place,” said Jeff Cretan, spokesman for Breed. “We should be setting the rules and moving projects forward quickly that meet those rules to get housing built now. We should not be adding months and years onto the process.”

Still, in a city where local activists and their elected representative are used to controlling what gets built and where, Attorney Scott Emblidge, who represented opponents of the Washington Street project, said the city should be upfront with residents if the commission has become powerless.

“I understand the constraints of state law and I understand the need for more housing,” Emblidge said. “But not every housing project is a good housing project.”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/artic...t-17908727.php