Last Tuesday a super-majority of the Board voted to delay a market-rate development at 469 Stevenson. For context, San Francisco has far exceeded our ABAG-determined goal for new market rate housing from 2015-2022, with over 18,000 units built and over 56,000 in the pipeline. (1)
We have only built 6,000 new below market rate units, with 13,000 in the pipeline. When we’re hitting 148% of our market rate target and only 35% of our below market rate target, both of which will substantially increase in the next RHNA cycle, something is seriously wrong. (2)
469 Stevenson fell far short of the affordability percentages negotiated in similar projects such as the 5M and Mission Rock developments, the affordable target set by SF voters in Prop K, and the 33% goal that the BOS approved for the Central SOMA Plan. (3)
In addition, the Planning Department conducted an insufficient Environmental Impact Review, neglecting to address the land use impact of a project over two times the size allowed by existing zoning, which already allows taller & denser development than most of the City. (4)
The EIR neglected to address the impacts this project would have on the Mint-Mission Conservation District, the designating ordinance for which lays out specific design guidelines in terms of scale, materials, and fenestration that this project did not conform to. (5)
I was also concerned that the project plans as presented to the Board did not address the potential for sinking or settling of the building, located in a seismic hazard zone without being anchored to bedrock, similar to the Millennium tower. (6)
It’s also important to remember that, even had the EIR been approved last Tuesday, this project is far from being built for a host of reasons unrelated to the Board of Supervisors, chief among them the fact that the developer hasn’t even secured funding to start construction. (7)
I have voted to approve tens of thousands of units of new housing during my time on the Board, including every major development plan - India Basin, Balboa Reservoir, 3333 California, and Potrero Power Station, which total nearly 6,000 units of housing alone. (8)
With tens of thousands of units in the pipeline in SOMA alone, it is important that we hear the concerns of marginalized communities who fear displacement, particularly Filipino serving orgs like @UP4LIFE, @SOMAPilipinas, and @WestBayCenterSF. (9)
The idea that huge market-rate developments don’t cause upward price and cost pressure on surrounding buildings, triggering speculation and renovictions, is contradicted by leading researchers at UCLA & the London School of Economics. econ.geo.uu.nl/peeg/peeg1914.… (10)
I do agree that parking isn’t an ideal land use, and have co-sponsored legislation to remove parking minimums and allow increased height for 100% affordable projects on surface lots. This parking lot should become housing that meets the needs of the neighborhood. (11)
I also agree that our zoning is antiquated and in need of reform, especially to allow more development in high resource parts of the City, which is why I’m the only Supervisor to introduce legislation legalizing fourplexes across San Francisco. sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDet… (12)
In D8, I’ve prioritized projects like 1939 Market, which will provide affordable housing for LGBTQ seniors, 36 Amber Drive which will provide affordable home ownership opportunities for low & moderate income families, and I commissioned a District 8 Affordability Strategy. (13)
I understand there are many people who would like to have no new market rate development at all, and there are many who would like us to approve every project no matter how flawed it may be. I am committed to analyzing each project on its merits, as my record demonstrates. (14)
While I respect the opinions of those who disagree with my decision to delay 469 Stevenson, I am confident that this vote is in keeping with my long record of being a reasonable, pro-housing voice, and look forward to continuing to work together to address this crisis. (15)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Rafael Mandelman

Rafael Mandelman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RafaelMandelman

24 Jul 20
At yesterday's PSNS meeting, we got an update on local implementation of the SB 1045 Housing Conservatorship program and delved into the imperative of moving forward key elements of Mental Health SF even, or especially, in the time of COVID-19. I remain frustrated that the (1/6)
very modest expansion of conservatorships allowed by SB 1045 has been so molasses-like, but we do finally seem close to getting the first few potential candidates the care that they need. I have invited staff to report back to the Committee on Sept. 10, by which time they (2/5)
anticipate filing the first conservatorship petitions under the law. W/ respect to Mental Health SF, it's obvious we urgently need to pursue several of the core components of that legislation: coordination of behavioral health care for unhoused people, deployment of mental (3/6)
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(