A Pair Of Big Appeals For San Francisco’s Board Of Supervisors TodayJuly 13, 2010
Previously approved by the Planning Commission by a 4-3 vote (unanimously by the Redevelopment Agency), an appeal of the Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment EIR will be heard by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors today.
The appeal is sponsored by the Sierra Club, SF Tomorrow, POWER, Yerba Buena Chapter, and the Golden Gate Audubon Society.
Also previously approved by the Planning Commission but with appeals being heard by the Board today, the 900 Folsom/260 Fifth Street Project.
The appeals of 900 Folsom and 260 Fifth Street are being led by the South of Market Community Action Network (SOMCAN) and Manilatown Heritage Foundation.
UPDATE (7/14): Board Of Supervisors Affirms Both Hunters Point And 900 Folsom EIRs
∙ Candlestick/Hunters Point Environmental Impact Report Approved [SocketSite]
∙ The Grand Plan And Aesthetics For Candlestick/Hunters Point [SocketSite]
∙ Candlestick Point – Hunters Point Shipyard EIR Appeal [sfbos.org]
∙ New And Approved: 900 Folsom/260 Fifth Street Project [SocketSite]
∙ 900 Folsom/260 Fifth Street Project: The New New Design [SocketSite]
∙ 900 Folsom Street EIR Appeal [sfbos.org]
∙ 260 – 5th Street EIR Appeal [sfbos.org]
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
Let’s hope reason prevails and the NIMBYs are shut down for good after their appeal is heard.
The objections are too much parking, no play spaces for kids, and not enough ground floor retail. All of this seems to favor vision and social issues over markets and value. There is also a larger question of process here since these proposals have already been extensively reviewed in a series of community meetings. Do developers have any kind of property rights or freedom to design, or will the loudest and most persistent voices be allowed to constrain all development? Is it possible that the people who spend their time working in order to have the money to buy such places may be ignored in favor of those who spend their time working politics and won’t have the money or inclination to buy here anyway?
Parking is a real issue that influences the form and function of urban spaces, but it also adds value, and is a requirement for many lifestyles, not just Valley commuters. The difference in desirability between units with and without parking is well known and documented.
Spaces for kids may sound innocent enough, but to many potential buyers features like large units and play spaces means having to live next to obnoxious children and even more obnoxious parents which in our conflict prone and segregated society means largely excluding one demographic in favor of another. If families had not already largely conquered the suburbs then this would not be so much of an issue, but the hostility of surrounding communities make the City a refuge for singles and adult lifestyles.
Ground floor retail might eventually be in short supply, but currently the market is flooded with more retail than can be rented. Worse, unoccupied ground floor retail is a prime target for vandals which adds to the expense. An awkward lesson from South Beach is that a dense and dynamic community does not necessarily generate great demand for retail even if residents say that is what they want.
My comments are regarding the Folsom and Fifth projects. The Hunters Point development conflicts highlight environmental issues.
Daly is the master maestro behind both. Just watch the way he will play this out…not a chance that 5th street moves forward. Hunter’s point 50-50.
Moleman, you had me until “If families had not already largely conquered the suburbs then this would not be so much of an issue, but the hostility of surrounding communities make the City a refuge for singles and adult lifestyles.”
Really? Hostile? I know a number of singletons and childfree folks living in the suburbs, and not one of them have told me about the burning crosses on their front yards.
The theory being presented is that parking makes housing more expensive and therefore less affordable. It’s very convenient for all these policy groups because they band together. So the affordable housing, anti-parking, pro-bike groups are all lobbying for the same outcome in every single development that comes before planning.
Seems to me that the biggest losers here are families (mostly middle class) who move to places like Fairfield due to convenience of being able to have a car, bigger space and places for their kids to play.
From an urban wanderer, parent, supporter of kid-friendly city growth. Seriously, creepy. No shame.
“Spaces for kids may sound innocent enough, but to many potential buyers features like large units and play spaces means having to live next to obnoxious children and even more obnoxious parents which in our conflict prone and segregated society means largely excluding one demographic in favor of another. If families had not already largely conquered the suburbs then this would not be so much of an issue, but the hostility of surrounding communities make the City a refuge for singles and adult lifestyles.”
A family needs no more than 1 car, many could get by just fine in SF with no cars. My coworker is just having his 3rd child and they have 1 car and use city car share when needed. My boss has 3 kids and he and his wife share a car and scooter, my neighbor has 2 kids, he and his wife share a car, I have a friend with 2 kids and no car.
Having more than 1 car may be chosen, but that’s what it is a choice. Since most households in this city do not have any children, and the wide availability of car share services, having even 1 parking space per unit is unnecessary in SF, and it does not drive families away, just people who want to have multiple cars.
“A family needs no more than 1 car, many could get by just fine in SF with no cars”
That presumes that there’s enough employment in The City to afford to live there. The employment center of gravity has been shifting south for quite some time. And given the lack of coordination among transit agencies here, it’s not viable to not have a car.
For play space, Yerba Buena Gardens, the carousel, the bowling alley, and Zeum are very close.
“That presumes that there’s enough employment in The City to afford to live there.”
two working adults households with kids, both driving to the South Bay?
Why would people do this to themselves?
There are more jobs than people in SF
as zig pointed out, there are far more jobs than people in SF.
I don’t think it makes a lot of sense for us to base our planning decisions on the infinitesimal number of people that have kids and both parents choose to work outside of SF at jobs that are inaccessible by Caltrain or BART or public transit.
Could I car-share, say, a new M3?
Some of us like our toys. Its a free country ya know … no need for socialist econo-box car sharing in my backyard.
If you can afford to pay money for a new M3 then you can afford to pay money to park it. If you can’t pay to park it, you shouldn’t be buying it.
The way autos are subsidized is really one of the highest levels of socialism in this country.
If you want to talk about socialism, lets talk about drivers paying the full costs, then by all means pay the full cost of curb cuts, parking, tolls on roads, emergency service to clean up after collisions, cleaning up after the pollution of cars, etc. And I mostly drive, I just don’t think it should be the only option for most people.
who move to places like Fairfield due to convenience of being able to have a car, bigger space and places for their kids to play.
This all costs money. You can have this in San Francisco easily enough if you can afford St. Francis Wood. Do you think that it should be city policy to subsidize automobile usage and larger homes for families? Is that really the best use of our limited tax dollars. I would personally way rather see the money go to improving the schools. I agree with you on playgrounds though.
No, the best use of my tax dollars is to support the immense population of homeless people in this city. And all those super high muni salaries. And maybe if there’s a teeny tiny bit leftover, we can give that to the teachers.
Yo, Daly at Work, unsure where your loyalties lie, but the Board unanimously denied the EIR appeal and confirmed the Planning Commission’s 7-0 vote supporting the 5th and Folsom 450 Unit Project….reconfirming that the smart money bets on local developers.
If you are talking about ending the insane amount of money spent on not solving the homeless problem I agree. I also helped get the Elsbernd initiative on the ballot. I’m not sure what any of that has to do with parking or auto subsidies.
As much as I can’t stand the NIMYBY attitudes here, design-wise these are some of the most pathetic recent high-profile projects. Why must developers and their architects go for such lowest-common-denominator generic design in this town? Why are projects like this so much worse than the better recent housing designs in Denmark, Spain, Holland, Switzerland, Germany, France, Austria, Australia, Japan, China, Korea, LA, NY, Chicago, even Boston for chrisakes (e.g. Office dA’s Macallen Building)?
What did the Board decide about Candlestick Point though, that is the much bigger project?
UPDATE: Board Of Supervisors Affirms Both Hunters Point And 900 Folsom EIRs
Our Editor as usual, comes through. Thanks!
the best use of my tax dollars is to support the immense population of homeless people in this city
I wonder how public money is actually spent on the homeless population, does anyone have any real figures? I am guessing it is not really that much money, probably on the order of a few percent of The City budget, but I wonder what the real numbers look like.
Those are just massing drawings for Candlestick citicritter, you can’t really determine what the actual buildings will look like from those very preliminary plans. The final result will probably be boring though, you are right there. Since there are no NIMBY neighbors though, there is hope we will end up with something a it more interesting than your standard stucco and bay windows design.
San Francisco spends about $200 million a year on the homeless, and the city budget is about $6.5 Billion, which works out to be about 3%.
While I think that’s more than we should be spending, my real issue is the complete failure in enacting any real improvements, if it was really resulting in getting people off the streets, then I would be OK with spending the money. But I’ve been seeing the same homeless people for years.
“if it was really resulting in getting people off the streets, then I would be OK with spending the money. But I’ve been seeing the same homeless people for years.”
I wonder how much of that money is actually being spent on the homeless people you see and how much gets spent on the ones you are not seeing. Someone using very little services and pushing a full shopping cart is going to stick out and be noticed by you much more then someone that spends their nights in supportive housing and spends their day using city services to try to improve their chances at getting out of homelessness.
Personally I do not have strong feelings either way on the issue, just pointing out that just because you observe the same group of chronic homeless people does not mean the services are not helping other people get off the streets (you can’t as readily see the ones that got help during a short period of homelessness).
The developer is going through the motions to get approvals. Once approved they sell the entitlements or land bank. What bank is going to loan on a project this size in this climate…especially with the cities bond rating going into the tank.
Has anyone noticed the guys in DC have there collective heads shoved up their A– because they all have jobs and haven’t notices unemployment is going up and not down.
No jobs equates to NO INCOME no income….no demand . I see no worries this project goes into the dustbin.
Check out at the latest stats on the overhang in the market and the units coming to market.
BTW this looks like just one more of those DB designs…..kinda outdated and…well……..
I’ve done a fairly significant amount of research on the subject, and from what I’ve read the chronic homeless are the ones getting the lions share of the money spent. Most of the people that are homeless are only homeless for a few weeks to a few months, and are able to get themselves off the streets, perhaps with a little care and support. The ones you see regularly, pushing carts, and begging are the chronic homeless, often addicted, and the money we are spending on them is not effective, as they remain on the streets. I’m not opposed to spending the money, just to spending the money without results.
Many of the organizations that are receiving money from the city to help the homeless have no metrics, so they cannot even gauge if they are of any benefit whatsoever, and they get outraged when suggestions are made to require metrics.
Look at it this way, we spent about $2 Billion over the last decade, and we have just as many homeless today as we did then.
Comments are closed.