From Left in SF (via a plugged-in reader): “The appeal of the 3400 Cesar Chavez project was denied, by a vote of 6-5, with Mirkarimi, Daly, Ammiano, Peskin and Maxwell voting for the appeal and the rest voting against.”
3400 Cesar Chavez appeal denied [Left in SF]
Will The Supervisors Martyr (3400) Cesar Chavez In The Mission? [SocketSite]

39 thoughts on “MAC (Narrowly) Loses Appeal Of 3400 Cesar Chavez Development”
  1. It’s interesting that Sup. Maxwell opposed the environmental impact of a Walgreens and 60 condos in the Mission, but supports a store ten times the size– a Home Depot– and much larger condo projects in her own district. What’s the logic in this?

  2. Because this way Maxwell can continue to burnish her “progressive” creds while doing the real work of a supervisor- bringing jobs and development to her district. It’s actually a good play for her, especially if she knows it’s going to pass anyway.
    I’m stunned- though I know I shouldn’t be- that the vote was so close. It’s as if the supes have never even been to this area and seen this corner. Thank goodness Ammiano is on his way out- that guy is right there with MAC all the way- he’s loonie tunes.
    This is a big sigh of relief for those of us who live in this area and want to see this blighted corner developed into something nice.

  3. Well maybe there is hope for this miserable corner of the city. Maybe MAC will figure out that anti-white racism and soviet-style anti-market agitation won’t help them be able to afford to build the slum that they so desperately want to be lords over.

  4. Dan- ugggh! I swear the nutso politics in this city are enough to drive someone republican, er..I mean….crazy. I would seriously write a big fat campaign check (though that’s probably illegal too) to any legitimate candidate in this district who is not a Chris Daly progressive wannabe clone- and I know others that would too: we’re called homeowners!

  5. I am genuinely surprised – I truly believed the MAC would prevail. It is truly a pleasure to savor one of those rare moments in SF politics when sanity prevails.

  6. I am surprised by Peskin. He seemed to be more pragmatic than to fall for this stuff and I though he had more respect (and understanding) of the legitimate planning process. Plus he seemed exasperated with speakers at the hearing

  7. zig,
    Peskin likely voted the way he did for the same reasons as some of the others – helps him burnish his progressive creds if he knows that his vote isn’t needed. I would have been shocked if he had been the deciding vote either way.

  8. The important thing is that a terrible, terrible precedent has been avoided. It would have created a terribly destructive policy precedent if the Board had had that market rate housing, by its very nature, has an adverse “environmental impact.” Hopefully this augurs well for the proposed development at a similarly blighted site at 18th and Valencia.

  9. “we’re called homeowners!”
    Shhhh! The basis of this appeal of the mitigated negative declaration (under CEQA) is that more homeowners will destroy the environment of the Mission, by displacing the poor from their paint stores and parking lots.
    I understand that it’s all politics, and progressive politicos wanted to line up behind the anti-gentrification forces, but this appeal was such an abuse of CEQA’s meaning of environmental impacts that it seems like there needs to be some clarification of CEQA by either the legislature or by the courts.

  10. so what does this mean? Does this insure the housing will be built or are there other steps that need to happen to insure this is approved and the building will start?

  11. sky- this removes the last Planning Dept./Board of Supervisors hurdle except that the Supes will need to approval the final condo map for publication after the building is completed. The developers still need to get building permits etc…but most developers start that process during the Planning process. So, hopefully, they could be breaking ground soon.

  12. This is a good step forward and if the development includes BMR units then the vision of an integrated and mixed income city lives on!
    I think Peskin was playing politics and while that is what it does, the rational perspective he claims to bring to the table is damaged by wasted votes like this.

  13. curious if any one has insight to the Eastern Neighborhood plan in process? I keep hearing activist mention this 2/3 inclusionary housing expectation which is ludicrous. Is this really something the planning department is considering or will MAC be sadly disappointed when the plan comes out?
    Also I wonder if 2/3 inclusionary is even legal? I know courts typically uphold the right of a city to do this but this seems so excessive

  14. anono..thanks for the explanation.
    Can MAC or anyone else protest the building permits or final condo map or was this the last real attempt at stopping the project?
    I am a neophyte to SF planning and would like to see them breaking ground on this project ASAP.

  15. When did we stop calling them Radicals and start calling them Progressives? Originally, Progressives were Republicans (Think Teddy Roosevelt).

  16. zzzz, re: your comment above — “It is truly a pleasure to savor one of those rare moments in SF politics when sanity prevails.”
    Actually you’ll be happy to know that almost every time (if not every time) we have gone mano-a-mano against the Mac/Daly Machine, we have actually prevailed.
    That is why they push to not even let developments get initiated, because once they do, we always prevail.
    Their tactics are so base, criminally conspiratorial and whacked that we always prevail.
    The only times we haven’t is when the developers themselves have turned tail and run, or been too disorganized to actually effectively collaborate with the actual people who live in the Mission. Usually outside developers or inexperienced ones. But those that have the cajones and patience to work with us, generally prevail.

  17. Jamie wrote:
    Looks like the MUNI charter amendment with the parking kicker is going to be on the November ballot.
    To which anon replied:
    Thank god on the charter amendment.
    Anon, do you realize that this charter amendment limits parking and takes away any chance to put in more?
    For instance, let’s say you have a single-family home with a driveway cut and garage already. You want to excavate a second space. No can do. You need a vote of the BOS to do it.
    Also under this charter amendment the BOS can REDUCE parking with a single vote.

  18. anono wrote:
    “Thank goodness Ammiano is on his way out- that guy is right there with MAC all the way”
    To which Dan replied:
    “I don’t know if that will change– David Campos, who may be Ammiano’s heir apparent as District 9 supervisor– participated in MAC’s protests at the site, as did other District 9 candidates, including Eric Quesada.”
    This is way too early to speculate. The election isn’t until November 2008. I know of at least two moderates eyeing the possibility of running in D9.
    The D9 field will probably look like the D5 field did in 2004 when there were 22(!) qualified candidates on the ballot.

  19. CRS – I am fully aware.
    Are you aware that the Fisher Initiative (which the charter initiative will trump if both pass) would allow 600% increases of cars going to parking garages downtown? I’d rather build housing for people in SF (who are much less likely to need cars in the first place). Who knows? Housing without parking could be cheaper…

  20. anon:
    We weren’t talking about the ordinance. We were talking about the charter amendment. If you want to talk about the ordinance, that is completely different, but best to keep the concepts separate.
    There has never been one study or experience which has shown that if you do not build parking, people without cars will occupy the associated housing.
    In fact, it has been shown by experience and in studies that housing without parking still is occupied by people bringing or acquiring cars.
    They may or may not use those cars much, but they have them.
    One of the studies is by the SF Planning Dept.

  21. CRS – since the charter amendment trumps the ordinance, I will support the charter amendment, if for no other reason than to defeat the Fisher Initiative.
    My biggest problem (if you read my post above) with the Fisher Initiative was the 600% increase in office parking – and there are PLENTY of studies to show that if you build more parking in office buildings, people will drive to those office buildings. Also, it is a fact known by many on this site that housing without parking is worth less money per unit – whether or not those people bring cars to their new house is irrelevant – that house costs less.

  22. anon:
    Can you please point me to the Article/Section/Subsection of the ordinance where it talks about 600% increase in office parking… I’m looking for it but can’t find it.

  23. I don’t seem to find the Article/Section/Subsection of the ordinance where it talks about 600% increase in office parking in the link you give…
    If you could just paste it in, I would appreciate it.
    The Planning Dept study does indeed exist. It is from before the Dept put their material on the web, and isn’t online.
    But really, who cares about the ordinance when the charter amendment is going to trump it?
    anon writes:
    CRS – this site does a great job of exposing all of the fine print:

  24. CRS – how old is this phantom study you speak of? I can access plans and studies from the early 90’s online from SF planning. Are we talking about something 20 years old? And if we are, you don’t think that half a generation of time passing might alter some results, perhaps just a tad?

  25. It’s from 1993.
    Now can you PLEASE just jot down the the Article/Section/Subsection of the ordinance where it talks about 600% increase in office parking? Or just give me the page number, and I’ll find it myself.

  26. CRS – it’s on page 5. Also note the LEV greenwashing on that page (and remember that nearly every car sold in California qualifies as an LEV)
    A fifteen year-old phantom study is not going to convince me of anything when everything produced by planning in the last ten years is counter to that. That’s like finding a tobacco study from the 80’s to claim that nicotine isn’t addictive.

  27. CRS, in response to your question to Anon – the changes regarding the increase (556% increase in office parking and 1454% increase in retail parking downtown) is in sections 151.1 and 204.5

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *