3400 Cesar Chavez Elevation
It didn’t really stir so much as a debate as perhaps frustration when we last highlighted the proposed (and MAC opposed) 60-unit development at 3400 Cesar Chavez in the Mission.
And as a tipster notes, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will entertain public comment this afternoon and then either affirm or reverse the Planning Department’s preliminary approval for the project (at City Hall for those who are interested).
UPDATE (7/18): “After listening to over five hours of public comment on the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition’s (MAC) appeal of the environmental impact document at 3400 Cesar Chavez, the Board of Supervisors voted to wait two weeks to make a decision.” (Supes Postpone Decision on 3400 Cesar Chavez)
3400 Cesar Chavez: Approved But Opposed (By MAC) In The Mission [SocketSite]
San Francisco Board of Supervisors Agenda: July 17, 2007
Supes Postpone Decision on 3400 Cesar Chavez [BeyondChron]

41 thoughts on “Will The Supervisors Martyr (3400) Cesar Chavez In The Mission?”
  1. this will be a sad day indeed if the bos reverse the approved plan for the space acquired by and at one point offered up for sale to the non-profits now claiming they want the property for their own agenda.

  2. I predict the Supes will sign off. Though this will be one of the larger projects, the Supes have signed off on a fair amount of condos in the Mission in the last few years.

  3. This would set a horrendous precedent if the Supes reverse the approval and decide that only low-income housing can ever be built in the Mission. Since when has it ever made sense to concentrate poverty in a single neighborhood, or to repel private investment in a neighborhood that’s starved for it? I like to think that even for this Board, that would be going too far. But you never know….

  4. Oh, and a point of information here – doesn’t reversing the Planning Commission require a supermajority vote of the Supervisors?

  5. if they do reverse it, the developer should sue the ass off our fair city. of course the supes never consider things like consequences to their actions. that would be too adult like for them.

  6. This is so retarded. U would think that the MAC would have learned its lesson with the Kink Armory. I hope the BoS stands it ground and keeps the development going.

  7. “Oh, and a point of information here – doesn’t reversing the Planning Commission require a supermajority vote of the Supervisors?”
    The appeal to the Board is of the Planning Commission’s environment review. I think from reading the municipal code, that this may only take a majority Board vote to reverse.
    “The Board may affirm or reverse the action of the Planning Commission only by a vote of a majority of all members of the Board.”

  8. Thanks for the info – a simple majority of this board may not be much of a problem for MAC.
    Funny thing, though. MAC may think it’s helping to stem gentrification, but it’s a little late for that. Every single rent survey I’ve seen over the past few years indicates that Mission rents *exceed* those in middle class neighborhoods like the Richmond. The MAC may succeed brilliantly at preserving pockets of blight and constricting the housing supply, but when it comes to the big picture they’re just spinning their wheels.

  9. What, no one at Socketsite liked my sarcastic comment about keeping all the porn studios in the Mission? 🙁
    [Editor’s Note: Sorry about that (likely a knee-jerk reaction to your nom de plume). And regardless, thanks for plugging in.]

  10. If anyone happens to be around City Hall this evening, and wants to speak for a minute or two at the Board of Supervisors chambers, the MAC folks have public comment around 4pm, and the pro-development folks get public comment maybe starting around 5 or 5:30pm, whenever the MAC folks finish.
    Should be entertaining in an only-in-San-Francisco way.
    I have a meeting to go to this evening and will miss it, but if anyone goes (or watches on cable) please fill us in.

  11. correct me if I am wrong but this is clearly a misuse of what the intent of an EIR is for though I know this tactic is employed often. Maybe action to close this loophole would be wise?
    “The appeal to the Board is of the Planning Commission’s environment review”

  12. How is MAC getting funding? Is there an “anti-Mac” type Mission Neighborhood group that is pro change and growth?

  13. I think MAC may actually get some taxpayer funding like a lot of “non profits” in this city. Daly loves the MAC- Ammiano too (term limits to the rescue!)- so they may even be beneficiaries of one of his slush funds of developer in lieu fees.
    And yes, there is an anti-MAC group in the Mission: the rest of us!

  14. You vultures and illiterate paranoid pro-developer chumps are quite an in-bred lot aren’t you? With all your overeducated “analysis” of housing issues in SF and racist assumptions about the local working population you cannot hide your desperate awareness of the precarious nature of your economic situation. Well, don’t blame poor people or working people or immigrants for the fact that a privatist, individualist, speculative urban environment is just a house of cards waiting to fall with the fickle winds of fictitious capital – right onto your boorish and well-coiffed heads.
    You all have known that a class war has been in effect since the day you became conscious (tho’ this may not be that long ago for some of you), and you hold onto the idea of being on the winning side with all the tenacity of spoiled brats.
    But you’ll never feel safe, secure or happy and you’ll never be able to totally sheild the poor from your view. Sleep tight.

  15. I had to go back into the office to do some work before public comment ended, so I have no idea if it passed or not. It does seem as though there were a lot of folks who supported the development and asked the Board to reject the appeal (I’m not clear what the appeal was based upon – environmental concerns maybe?).
    I just want to add that the edited piece of my comment reflected known birth rate statistics and wasn’t some sorta hateful anything (at least that wasn’t the intent). Anyhoo… you gotta love San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, especially when one says “That’s Big Daddy Daly to you, mam.” Ha!

  16. I got home just before 10pm, and turned on cable government access Channel 26– just in time to watch Sups. Ammiano and Peskin, after 6 hours of public comment, continue the matter until July 31.

  17. Wow… if MAC gets their way, something tells me existing real estate in this town might get even MORE expensive. Could there possibly be a slower process to allow private owners of property to do what they want to do with their property in a City? Holy cow….

  18. I wonder if when the local goverment starts to provide free cable television to the whole city as they do in Monte Carlo, if that will include the homeless!

  19. You know, when I was in Monaco (Monte Carlo) a long time ago, I was told there are cameras everywhere — to reduce crime, probably and keep their citizens safe. London got the same idea in the “city” area, cameras everywhere snapping, watching you. (I’m not saying its good or bad).
    Anyway, wouldn’t that ruffle a few fine feathers in this fair city if that were true here!
    (so that part of the analogy stops when it comes to Monte Carlo.. we will never have cameras here like that, despite the few posted in and around the project areas!)

  20. You know, Gerrard, the only racism i’m hearing is coming from the MACinistas. *They’re* the ones standing up in open session saying that “outsiders” might get the low income units if they’re given away by lottery. It’s the MACinistas that are fomenting racism and classism by whining about the need to protect the Mission from white people. I could care less who lives near me, all I care about is that they care about their neighborhood, it’s safety and quality of life. You don’t have to be white to be “trash,” and you don’t have to be rich to be proud enough of your home and neighborhood to care when it’s blighted, squalid, and crime-ridden. So save your pathetic race-baiting for somebody who won’t call you on what it really is.

  21. I have to agree with Dan. When I first came to the Mission, I agreed to some extent with MAC. Went to a meeting to see what they were about, talked with a few people. Then I went to a couple of public meetings with the Mayor and other city officials on my own to ask questions. MAC was there with their own agenda. Because I wanted to ask questions or just hear what was being said in these meetings, I was shouted at, tolerated aggression and nasty comments, and then was called a racist. In short, MAC lost my support and I am now their mortal political enemy. This kind of Brown-Shirt organization has no place in our country, much less San Francisco.

  22. MAC or not, why does this development house a Walgreens and Walgreens-only parking?
    This is a dangerous intersection very close to a freeway entrance, in a very transit-friendly area. They’re constructing more than one parking space per unit.
    I think the APPELLANTS have a case here.

  23. 3400 Cesar Chavez is about a mile from the freeway.
    The appellant’s alternative, a larger day laborer center, will likely generate more traffic than the Walgreens, with contractors’ trucks picking up day laborers.

  24. Why is it that everywhere else in the city, you see new buildings and nice suroundings because of people wanting to see a fresh city. Yet some want to keep the mission a dumping ground for all affordable housing. Its time for a change! We have waited long enough. Lets see 3400 cesar chavez shine some new vibe into the area.

  25. I keep reading the terms “blighted” and “dumping ground” associated with the affordable housing which the community groups’ are proposing (note the plural: MAC is one of many groups I believe which are suggested different uses for this site).
    Housing for poor people need not be either. And it makes sense to have more housing for poor people in transit-rich and social-service rich neighborhoods where wheelchair users can get to shops, the elderly can get to health care, and you don’t need a car to get to work.
    I think it’s awesome that the community is organizing and asserting an agenda for their neighborhood: exactly the kind of neighbors I want.

  26. “I think it’s awesome that the community is organizing and asserting an agenda for their neighborhood: exactly the kind of neighbors I want.”
    Yes, but the actual neighbors of the proposed project overwhelmingly support the Seven Hills proposal.

  27. I did watch much of the video. MAC may have had more of its supporters speaking, but most of the people who actually are the immediate neighbors of the project supported the Seven Hills proposal.

  28. Stefan,
    If you watch the video or attended the hearing, you see that some of the MAC / BHNC / Poder (the *only* groups that support the appeal) folks are not neighbors.
    A lot were students from State.
    Also, a lot do not give their names; some give Public Comment more than once.
    Hauling people down to City Hall who know nothing about the item in question is an old trick that 474 Valencia plays. *Yawn.*
    In contrast, those opposed to the appeal and in support of the project as proposed by the developer are the actual neighbors.
    Kudos to the neighbors! It’s time to fight back against those greedy creeps at 474 Valencia!

  29. CRS,
    Tsk, tsk, first, you cannot give testimony more than once at these hearings and you have to identify yourself for the record. Second, the list of groups supporting (and testifying) in support of MAC was long, it included the San Francisco Labor Council, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth, Senior Action Network, Chinatown Progressive Association, and representative from various businesses located around the site. We collected close to 70 letters from businesses around the site that are opposed to the project and presented them at the hearing. I live a block and a half from the site and know of at least 10 other people within 2 blocks of the site that care enough about their neighborhood to come to the hearing to testify in support of MAC’s appeal. Your post is at best misinformed and at worst blatantly dishonest. To characterize people in organizations intersted in developing low-income housing as “greedy” is, frankly, bizarre. Don’t you think that if anybody is greedy in this case its the for profit developer who stands to make a killing from this condo project? Do you have to rely on distortions to try to win over public sentiment? It seems like even you don’t have enough faith in Seven Hills’ project to let the facts speak for themselves. You should be ashamed.

Leave a Reply

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