By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt
Nonprofit housers are good neighbors. Speculators are not. But Wiener’s law treats both the same way.
To the surprise of nobody, the Board of Supes Tuesday rejected an attempt to delay or undermine an affordable housing project for seniors at the foot of Bernal Hill. The vote was unanimous.
A few neighbors on Coleridge street complained that the project would reduce the size of an existing park that has been closed for years and was hardly ever used when it was open. It’s a private park, not a city park, and it sits on top of a pedestal with a garage underneath, which makes it unstable anyway.
The project would include a new park that would be much more accessible…
Sup. Jackie Fielder, who supported the affordable senior housing, asked Planning Department staffer Audrey Maloney a pretty basic question. Under current state law, where are people supposed to go to raise questions about a new development in their neighborhood?
Maloney: Under SB 35 (a bill by state Sen. Scott Wiener), the city has no role in this project. The public has no right to a hearing. If it’s compliant with the local zoning, there’s nowhere to raise any questions. It’s approved by right…(more)
I’m going to add one other issue that comes to mind where handing out entitlements to developers is concerned. Not all of the projects are being built as planned. Quite a few change hands and the plans may be altered without any notice. That is of great concern to the neighbors, and everyone concerned. Thousands of units are on hold. We have no idea what the developers will finally do once they decide to build, if they ever do.
As we all know, and Tim Redmond points out, “But SB 35, and its unholy progeny SB 423, doesn’t just apply to affordable housing projects. It also applies to a huge number of potential market-rate projects in much of San Francisco.”
We don’t need for the state to declare we are under builder’s remedy because we failed to meet the RHNA goals. We already are.