Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission continues contentious Mission Street housing proposal to Nov. 30 amid community push for 100% affordable alternative
Summary
The Planning Commission continued a disputed 75-unit, mixed-income project at 2918 Mission Street to Nov. 30 after hours of testimony from residents, affordable-housing advocates and the project sponsor. Neighbors urged the sponsor to sell to a nonprofit or redesign for deeper affordability; supporters called the car-free project transit-oriented infill.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on Sept. 14 deferred action on a proposed 75-unit, mixed-income housing project at 2918 Mission Street, voting to continue the item to Nov. 30 to allow more study and outreach.
The project sponsor, represented by Mark Loper of Rubin, Junius & Rose and architect Bob Baum, said the development would deliver 75 rental units near a major transit corridor and provide eight on-site affordable units under the city’s inclusionary rules and a 35% state density bonus. Loper said the sponsor had met repeatedly with community groups and “we have no reason to suspect that anybody’s acting in bad faith” as negotiations about a possible sale to an affordable housing developer proceed.
Opponents — including neighborhood groups, the Latino Cultural District and advocates for Mission residents — said the project’s 11% on-site affordability (as proposed) and its massing would accelerate displacement and fail to serve low-income Mission families. Eric Gargoyle of the Latino Cultural District said the proposal “will continue that trend in this sensitive area” and urged commissioners to require a redesign or a sale to a nonprofit.
Supporters, including housing advocates and members of the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, countered that the project is transit-oriented, car-free and would add much-needed rental supply near BART. Tim Cohen of the Housing Action Coalition called the plan “a great urban infill project” and urged the commission not to delay housing that meets code and transit-first goals.
Commissioners pressed staff and the sponsor on a range of points: the effects of the state density-bonus rules on local inclusionary outcomes; whether lot aggregation and the resulting bulk were appropriate; and whether an entitlement could or should be delayed while negotiations with potential nonprofit buyers continued. Several commissioners said a 100% affordable version of the proposal would likely follow different entitlement pathways and might not return to this commission.
After extensive public comment from dozens of speakers for and against the project, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the matter to Nov. 30 to give staff and the sponsor time to explore design alternatives, affordability pathways and the legal implications of lot consolidation and state density rules. The continued hearing is intended to allow the commission to consider whether the project as configured is “necessary and desirable” at that scale and with the requested waivers.
Next steps: the sponsor may use the continuance to revise the project or to present additional agreements with potential affordable-housing purchasers; the commission will revisit the item on or after Nov. 30, 2017.
