CFAH


With objections and accusations including that the elimination of language requiring “a neighborhood-support community planning process” for planning code changes to further accommodate housing near transit will “make it likely that the efforts of the residents to maintain neighborhood character will be subordinated to the City’s growth objectives,” it’s a long list of appellants behind the appeal of San Francisco’s plan for housing growth.
The signed appellants include the Pacific Heights Residents Association, the Cow Hollow Association, the Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors, the Jordan Park Improvement Association, the Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association and eight others, all members of San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods (SFLN).
Other objections include “changing the definition of “major transit lines,” where infill housing would be encouraged, to include major bus lines running through the city,” and the elimination of “the policy basis which maintained density limits designed to protect neighborhood character.”
Approved by the Planning Commission in March, the Board of Supervisors will hear the appeal of the plan this afternoon.
It’s Two Years Later And Time To Adopt San Francisco’s Housing Plan [SocketSite]
Appeal: 2004-2009 Housing Element Report EIR [sfbos.org]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by hutzpart

    I like their designation of that whole southern area as “South Central” – aspirational.

  2. Posted by sfrenegade

    Maybe they’ll rename it from South Central to Southern SF (South City already owns South SF) as a re-branding campaign after riots and violence.
    This will be an interesting fight. You know, the one positive of Prop 13 is that NIMBYs can’t hold you hostage over property taxes. They don’t pay any! And anyone moving in would probably pay much more.

  3. Posted by kathleen

    Still time to send an emeil to your bored soup.

  4. Posted by Michael

    “…objections include “changing the definition of “major transit lines,” where infill housing would be encouraged, to include major bus lines running through the city,”
    That’s pathetic. Buses are the primary form of public transportation in SF. Along major bus lines is exactly where infill housing and up-zoning should be encourgaged.

  5. Posted by sfrenegade

    “Along major bus lines is exactly where infill housing and up-zoning should be encourgaged.”
    Agreed — these corridors are exactly where densification should start. Watch for the false comparisons to Manhattan or Hong Kong whenever someone proposes a 4-story building.

  6. Posted by sf

    This is ridiculous. How do the SANE people of San Francisco get together to defeat these grumps?? Where is our neighborhood association?? We will lose this battle if we don’t put up a fight.

  7. Posted by rabbits

    Further irony in the fact that the vast majority of units are planned on the far eastern edge of town, which is already characterized by high rises, industrial uses, and dense neighborhoods like North Beach. What in the heck to Cow Hollow, West Portal, and Presidio Heights have to do with this plan? The low density neighborhoods appear to be remaining so.

  8. Posted by Stucco-sux

    Good for them. The housing plan is a nightmare.

  9. Posted by BobN

    What in the heck to Cow Hollow, West Portal, and Presidio Heights have to do with this plan?
    Do you have any idea of the utter devastation a multi-unit building could have? Goodness knows how many children are in danger… And kittens!

  10. Posted by Joe

    How the eff do you sue to stop the certification of a NONBINDING document? God help our NIMBY souls

  11. Posted by sf

    Wrote to my supervisor Mr. Farrell who has jurisdiction over what appears to be a majority of the opposing neighborhoods showing my full support for the housing plan.

  12. Posted by GoBlueInSF

    San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods = homeowner lobby from the City’s more affluent nabes.
    It makes sense for them to oppose increased density. Anything that makes it harder to build any new housing in their hoods means the existing housing stock is made more valuable. Opposing density is a way for existing homeowners to line their own pockets.
    Perfectly sensible from their perspective. Selfish, narrow minded and bad for the rest of us – definitely. Prickish, NIMBY behavior – sho nuff. But still rational.

  13. Posted by Tweety

    Don’t complain about all these groups that oppose progress in San Francisco, they are actually protecting you and our fair city from apocalyptic destruction. You see, back in 1880, before his death, Emperor Norton made a secret pact with the Aztec Goddess Toomanyfingnimbysinthistown that to forever protect us, nothing could ever change in San Francisco. You have seen her wrath before, 1906, 1989, when our fearless leaders dared to challenge Goddess Toomanyfingnimbysinthistown with change and development. So, to protect us from falling into the Pacific Ocean, we must be eternally trapped in amber, never supporting any changes. No straights puking in the Castro, no new libraries in North Beach and Quetzalcoatl help us if there ever is a Trader Joe’s Market Street! You’ve been warned! All bow down and pray to the Telegraph Hill Dwellers!

  14. Posted by justme

    All bow down and pray to the Telegraph Hill Dwellers!

    I get confused. Are those the Morlocks or the Eloi?

  15. Posted by Reboot SF

    Whatever the self-important neighborhood groups are against, I am for. It’s time to put the rule of law and code back into the development process and de-empower these thuggish self serving groups and their agendas.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles