469 STEVENSON ST

2017-014833 · 469 STEVENSON STREET

83comments

55in person

28emails

8hearings

dashed lines mark hearings · supportopposenot recorded · dot size = comments that day · click a dot to jump to the comment

Hearings

approved continued denied / withdrawn · 8 hearings · hover a marker for the date and outcome

Campaign emails (2)

follow state law and approve 469 stevenson — 2 emails (2 / 0)

Paul Bickmore · email · 2023-04-20 · support · campaign email · source packet

Follow State Housing Law and Let Homes Be Built!
Hello, Today, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. Approve both of these badly needed housing projects<U+2014>and follow state law in the process. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below market rate. The site's close proximity to public trans… Hello, Today, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. Approve both of these badly needed housing projects<U+2014>and follow state law in the process. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below market rate. The site's close proximity to public transportation would facilitate easy access to Powell Street BART station, Muni, and several bus lines; and the parcel would give hundreds of people walking-distance access to jobs in SoMa, Civic Center, and Union Square. 3832 18th St seeks to replace one single-family house with 19 units of group housing close to the J Church Muni line and Dolores Park. The project takes advantage of the State Density Bonus to create greater affordability and more housing in a neighborhood with high access to jobs and education. Of course, you shouldn't just approve these projects because they what San Francisco truly needs. You must approve these projects (as-is) because you put San Francisco at unprecedented risk running afoul of state law if you fail to do so. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has warned San Francisco about both of these projects specifically. When the Board of Supervisors delayed the environmental impact report for 469 Stevenson, HCD told San Francisco, "[a]ny further delay or additional conditions on [469 Stevenson]'s approval may subject the City to the HAA<U+2019>s provisions regarding bad faith." (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and- community/HAU/san-francisco-LOS-112322.pdf) Similarly, after the Planning Commission modified 3832 18th St in late 2021, HCD issued a rare Notice of Violation to San Francisco. HCD's stern letter warned San Francisco that the City must approve the project, stating, "[f]ailure to do so may result in further actions." (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/san-francisco- NOV-122922.pdf) Both of these housing projects are just what we need, and I am thankful to have HCD on the side of housing abundance<U+2014>especially for affordable housing. Do the right thing! Approve both 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. We need more housing, not for San Francisco to violate state law. Thank you, Paul Bickmoreshow more

Sean Karlin · email · 2023-04-20 · support · campaign email · source packet

Support Approval for 469 Stevenson (item 11)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Thursday, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson. I urge you to approve this badly needed housing project. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below market rate. The site's close proximity to public transportation would… show more

Comments by hearing (81)

expand all · collapse all · comments with recorded text are listed first

2020-04-16 · 9 comments · 3 / 6

David Woo · spoken · 2020-04-16 · oppose

Gentrification, serious traffic and safety impacts

Angelica Cabande · spoken · 2020-04-16 · oppose

Negative impacts, density bonus

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2020-04-16 · oppose

Continuance

Corey Smith · spoken · 2020-04-16 · support

Support

Lou Basocco · spoken · 2020-04-16 · support

Support

Sara Ogilvie · spoken · 2020-04-16 · support

Support

Ozzie Rohm · spoken · 2020-04-16 · oppose

Lay offs

David Woo · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

Request for Continuance and Extension of DEIR Comment Period 469 Stevenson Amid COVID19
Dear Director Hillis, President Koppel and Commissioners, Thank you for your commitment to racial equity and community participation in planning. Towards these goals, we ask for a continuance of the hearing and an extension of the Draft EIR comment period for the project located at 469 Stevenson Street (Case No. 2017-014833ENV) currently scheduled to be heard at the Planning Commission Thursday April 16th, 2020 … Dear Director Hillis, President Koppel and Commissioners, Thank you for your commitment to racial equity and community participation in planning. Towards these goals, we ask for a continuance of the hearing and an extension of the Draft EIR comment period for the project located at 469 Stevenson Street (Case No. 2017-014833ENV) currently scheduled to be heard at the Planning Commission Thursday April 16th, 2020 due to the current Coronavirus health crisis and lack of equitable access to and format of public hearings. Additionally, there are many outstanding concerns regarding this project and gentrification, displacement, and environmental impacts. There must be adequate public input given on planning projects, especially ones of this scale which will have tremendous impacts on the neighborhood. The community of SOMA Pilipinas includes residents, workers, and community members that include people who do not have adequate access to the technology necessary to engage in the current online format of the Planning Commission hearings. The health crisis that we are currently under with the Coronavirus has put both community members and community organizations into a tailspin struggling to adapt and meet the urgent needs of residents and workers on the ground that are struggling day to day to survive. This has greatly limited the ability to engage in the public planning process. As you know, SOMA Pilipinas has been engaging in the Planning Department<U+2019>s racial and social equity planning efforts, meeting with Planning Staff and giving initial input and feedback. We feel that this process is very important in addressing historical racial and socio- economic disparities when it comes to city planning and development. The racial and social equity implications of holding public meetings in an online format is tremendous when it puts so many people at a disadvantage from participating. For a project with such wide-ranging impacts, it is crucial that those who will be impacted the most be able to engage in a public format that is accessible and equitable. That is currently not the case. We ask for a continuance of this project and an extension of the Draft EIR comment period. Thank you, SOMA Pilipinas Filipino Cultural Heritage District (copy of letter attached) -- David Woo CHHESS Land Use Analyst SOMA Pilipinas Cultural Heritage Districtshow more

Sue Hestor · email · 2020-04-16 · oppose · source packet

469 Stevenson DEIR comment deadline must be changed
469 Stevenson DEIR set for hearing as #13 Thursday was released 3/12/20 just as SF began cancelling hearings, and started lockdown mode. The notice date and 4/6 agenda has Monday 4/27 as deadline for written comments. This must be changed. Proposed project, by Build Inc is a 27-story (w/3 underground parking levels) 495 DU project using State Density Bonus. It is mostly a market rate housing project, unaffordabl… 469 Stevenson DEIR set for hearing as #13 Thursday was released 3/12/20 just as SF began cancelling hearings, and started lockdown mode. The notice date and 4/6 agenda has Monday 4/27 as deadline for written comments. This must be changed. Proposed project, by Build Inc is a 27-story (w/3 underground parking levels) 495 DU project using State Density Bonus. It is mostly a market rate housing project, unaffordable to most residents nearby in the Tenderloin and South of Market. Residents who will face gentrifying pressure from this project. 469 Stevenson is located between 5th & 6th Streets on the first street immediately south of Market Street. The location and this mostly market rate housing project will have substantial effects on both the Tenderloin and this area of SoMa which still has significant number of Filipino families. Residents and organizations in those areas deserve enough time to submit written comments. Even if they are able to do verbal comments on line Thursday. This area is in middle of dealing with unhoused residents facing outbreak of Covid-19 because of their lack of affordable housing. This must take precedence people and organizations in immediate future. The DEIR is 1129 pages. Because of projects height and location 27-story tower casts shadows on nearby parks/open spaces that are important to nearby residents lacking open space where they live. Notice of the DEIR states that implementation of proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to shadow. Even more important, informed written comment is impossible for many Tenderloin and South of Market residents who do not have a computer and printer at their home. Many residents depend on access to computers at public libraries or at community organizations. Access to public libraries and facilities, and to non-profit organizations,has been impossible for the past 3 weeks. Even those with access to a computer may face difficulty loading such large file as the EIR. The notice itself refers to using the PIM to access complicated documents relied on by 369 Stevenson DEIR. Over the past 2 weeks I have received repeated calls for help from citizens about the difficulty of making comments and receiving information - they really attempt to give informed comment on matters at Planning but are really having problems because city facilities and information is no longer available to people lacking internet connections and computers of their own. Cell phones cannot read a lengthy EIR. The comment period on Build Inc's proposal to build mostly market rate housing tower 495 DU at 469 Stevenson should be extended to a date at least 3 weeks after City offices and the city as a whole is gain open for business. Extending the comment period is also the right thing to do. Sue Hestor 870 Market St #1128 94102show more

2020-04-23 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Jill Helffenstein · email · 2020-04-23 · oppose · source packet

Letter of Opposition | 469 Stevenson Street Project, Remote 4/16/2020 Hearing, Item #13
Dear Commission Secretary, On behalf of Friends of Mint Plaza, I am submitting our Shadow Cast Opposition Letter for the 469 Stevenson Street Project with supporting Shadow Report pages for reference. Thank you, Jill __________ Jill Helffenstein President FRIENDS OF MINT PLAZA San Francisco, CA 94105 t: [phone removed]

2020-06-18 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Patrick Chang · email · 2020-06-18 · support · source packet

469 Stevenson Street.
Hi Commissioner Moore and Commissioner Fung My name is Patrick Chang and I live in District 6. I came across an article about 469 Stevenson Street, a project I've been following and support. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2020/04/16/proposed-27-story-mid-market- tower-underwhelms-at.html I saw the commentary and changes that were done and wanted to try to understand planning's thought pr… Hi Commissioner Moore and Commissioner Fung My name is Patrick Chang and I live in District 6. I came across an article about 469 Stevenson Street, a project I've been following and support. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2020/04/16/proposed-27-story-mid-market- tower-underwhelms-at.html I saw the commentary and changes that were done and wanted to try to understand planning's thought process. SF has a major housing issue which has caused rent and home prices to sky rocket, there has been some relief due to covid19 with significant amount of people moving out of the city. However, we are still under developed. There is almost no other region in SF proper that allows for density development. East Soma by the train station and the Hub are about to have a high density of great tall beautiful buildings where this middle area (parts are east and west soma) are going to be a waste land / no mans land. Planning department should be advocating for more development in this area. More development = more supply, more supply = lower rent to ease the demand. Higher density = more BMRs which significantly helps the community. This is all net positive. I love the federal study by HUD on moving to opportunity and the harvard study that followed up on it that showed BMRs mixed in significantly help children of those families. It has lasting long term effects, much more than 100% affordable housing. Planning should propose to upzone the entire east and west soma area to over 60 stories or more. Allow developers to choose to build as high as possible. There is no character in the neighborhood to disrupt There is very little displacement in the neighborhood as many are either old factories, warehouses, or etc. EAST and West Soma are PRIME locations to allow significantly high density. These are such undesirable locations given the freeway, and rundown buildings. You guys should also push for required commercial retail on ground levels to increase available ground level foot traffic, allow small businesses to feel ownership and increase available commercial retail footprint. PLanning also needs to address that there should be no back sides on alleyways of buildings since this is the main cause of alley ways to become blighted and filled with homeless. No foot traffic causes crime and encampments to form. The main problem with 469 stevenson is that it got cut down by 20%, this should be even higher than the original plans. We need MORE units in the area. I know this is still early in the phase of planning for 469 stevenson but I believe this project and many more in the area should be built. Planning needs to overhaul zoning and allow for investment in the area. The numbers done work without density. Please help. Best, Patrick Patrick Chang [email removed] [phone removed]show more

2020-11-12 · 11 comments · 7 / 3

David Woo · spoken · 2020-11-12 · oppose

Within SoMa Filipinas Cultural District, racial and social equity analysis needs to be done, gentrification impacts

Steve Marzo · spoken · 2020-11-12 · support

Excellent development

Heidi Petersen · spoken · 2020-11-12 · neutral

Reconsider amount of parking spaces

Alex Lansberg · spoken · 2020-11-12 · oppose

Racial and social equity impact

Sara Ogilvie · spoken · 2020-11-12 · support

Strong interest with this project, density

Paul Lachreft · spoken · 2020-11-12 · support

Would love to partner with the project regards to energy

John Elberling · spoken · 2020-11-12 · oppose

Inclusionary housing, EIR, racial and social equity impact

Corey Smith · spoken · 2020-11-12 · support

Excited to continue the process moving forward

Lou Vasquez · spoken · 2020-11-12 · support

Project sponsor

Sam Doich · spoken · 2020-11-12 · support

Win win project, housing delayed is housing denied

Scot Conner · email · 2020-11-12 · support · source packet

Approve 469 Stevenson St Project
Dear SF Planning Commission, I'm writing today to express my strong support for the 469 Stevenson Street project which will be heard during tomorrow's hearing. This project will create nearly 500 sorely needed homes in the midst of a housing supply crisis. This project is near BART and Muni lines and will therefore help SF significantly mitigate climate change by creating a built environment that allows … Dear SF Planning Commission, I'm writing today to express my strong support for the 469 Stevenson Street project which will be heard during tomorrow's hearing. This project will create nearly 500 sorely needed homes in the midst of a housing supply crisis. This project is near BART and Muni lines and will therefore help SF significantly mitigate climate change by creating a built environment that allows people to live and work without a car. This project will help meet the housing demand generated from the 5M office building (630,000 sqft) that's currently under construction a few blocks away. Building new homes near office buildings, like this project, reduces commute times and proactively prevents displacement. In fact, the land is currently used as a parking lot. This relic of the fossil fuel era does not deserve to be part of the built environment in such a transit and job-rich area as downtown San Francisco. The above concerns re mitigating SF's housing shortage and climate change should override any micromanagement of this project by the Planning Department & Commission re aesthetics, shadows, and building heights. These are arbitrary and abstract limits that hurt SF's ability to address the housing shortage and climate change because projects take years to get approved and are needlessly downsized, creating fewer homes. This project has been under review since at least 2017. The project's renderings reveal a beautiful building that fits with the neighborhood. Additionally, the building height is appropriate for the neighborhood. The project is near the under construction 5M project which will result in 500, 400 & 200 ft buildings. Also, it's almost as tall as the blue/green building at Market & 6th St. If anything, this building should be closer to 400 ft to better fit the character of the neighborhood and provide even more homes near transit and jobs. SF must change its mindset from onerous negotiation and review of every individual project. We need housing abundance in San Francisco. Please approve this project quickly. I am a renter in SF and the more housing units we have on the market, the more negotiating leverage every tenant has with future landlords. I hope the Planning Commission will approve this project as quickly as possible to prevent displacement and mitigate climate change. Thank you, Scotshow more

2021-05-27 · 2 comments · 2 / 0

Hannah Schwartz · email · 2021-05-27 · support · source packet

SPUR letter in support of 469 Stevenson
Dear Commissioners, Please see attached for SPUR's letter in support of 469 Stevenson. Best regards, -- Hannah Schwartz (she/her) Executive Operations & Special Projects | SPUR [email removed] SPUR Join | Get Newsletters | Twitter | LinkedIn

Corey Smith · email · 2021-05-27 · support · source packet

Petition Signers Supporting 469 Stevenson
Members of the San Francisco Planning Commission, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and SF YIMBY, please see the attached document with 90 petition signers in support of the 469 Stevenson Street proposal. Here is a link to the Housing Action Coalition Report Card. Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Corey Smith Deputy Director, HAC -- Corey Smith | Pronouns: He/Him Deputy D… show more

2021-06-03 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

John Elberling · email · 2021-06-03 · oppose · source packet

469 Stevenson Project - Hearing June 10th
Please forward copies of this letter to the Planning Commissioners. Thanks! je

2021-06-24 · 7 comments · 6 / 1

Susan Brandt Hawley · email · 2021-06-24 · oppose · source packet

Letter to Planning Commission re 469 Stevenson Street Project, June 24 agenda
Good morning. Please provide this letter from John Elberling on behalf of the Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium to the Planning Commission for this afternoon<U+2019>s public hearing on the 469 Stevenson Street Project. Thank you. Susan Brandt-Hawley Brandt-Hawley Law Group d. [phone removed] preservationlawyers.com

Angelica Cabande · spoken · 2021-06-24 · support

Support continuance

Michael Nulty · spoken · 2021-06-24 · support

Support continuance

Cynthia Gomez · spoken · 2021-06-24 · support

Support continuance

William Duncanson · email · 2021-06-24 · support · source packet

469 Stevenson - Support Letter
Dear Planning Department Staff and Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter to offer my full support for the action before you related to 469 Stevenson Street. As a resident of 2 Mint Plaza for the past 13 years, I can attest that the proposed project for 469 Stevenson will be a welcome addition to the area. It will bring new residents to support local businesses. It will activate two blighted street fronta… show more

Natalie Rico · email · 2021-06-24 · support · source packet

Letter of Support for 469 Stevenson
Dear Mr. Ionin and Commissions Secretary, I have attached the Mint Collection HOA Board<U+2019>s letter of support for the 469 Stevenson Project. I also emailed it to each Commissioner. I hope it can be included in the letters of support for the Project. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Natalie Rico HOA Board President Mint Collection HOA 2, 4, 6, & 8 Mint Plaza San Francisco, CA 94103

Corey Smith · email · 2021-06-24 · support · source packet

Re: Petition Signers Supporting 469 Stevenson
Good morning Commissioners, I've attached an updated petition for 469 Stevenson ahead of this Thursday's hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Corey Smith Deputy Director, HAC On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 3:08 PM Corey Smith [email removed]> wrote: Members of the San Francisco Planning Commission, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and SF YIMBY, please see the a… show more

2021-07-22 · 3 comments · 2 / 1

Rudy Gonzalez · email · 2021-07-22 · support · source packet

Re: Public Public Comment Record No.: 2017-014833PRJ
469 Stevenson update Dear Commissioners and Staff, I write to inform you of a recent development on the 469 Stevenson matter. Since my last email, rigorous and good-faith negotiations transpired resulting in mutually agreeable commitments to the local workforce. This is significant for the SFBCTC, especially those workers who are currently without employment and nearing a cliff with respect to their healthcare … 469 Stevenson update Dear Commissioners and Staff, I write to inform you of a recent development on the 469 Stevenson matter. Since my last email, rigorous and good-faith negotiations transpired resulting in mutually agreeable commitments to the local workforce. This is significant for the SFBCTC, especially those workers who are currently without employment and nearing a cliff with respect to their healthcare coverage. We fully appreciate and respect the process that is underway with community representatives and strongly encourage the parties to stay at the table and come to a resolution. I believe the affordability of the project remains an outstanding concern and we support the push for achieving as much affordability as is truly feasible. It is my hope you will note the significant commitment made to the local workforce to enter into a binding Project Labor Agreement, aka Community Workforce Agreement. This guarantees local apprentices, labor piece, efficiency, and high standards on the project, among other important commitments. Also, it should be noted we agreed to a new community benefit which includes partnering skilled and trained volunteers on the TI work that will be associated with the community space the developer is donating. The SFBCTC issues around conventional construction and workforce commitments have been cured and we look forward to hearing the outcome of the outstanding community concerns. Thanks for your time and consideration of this project. Respectfully, Rudy Gonzalez RUDY GONZALEZ Secretary Treasurer www.sfbuildingtradescouncil.org | [email removed] Cell: 415/794-0377 | Office: 415/345-9333 | Fax: 415/345-9449 1188 Franklin St., Suite 203, SF, CA 94109 Image Image Image Please update your contact information as my role has changed. I have now joined the SF Building & Construction Trades Council. Scheduling requests: Sandra Duarte. Also, join me in welcoming Kim Tavaglione as the SFLC Interim Executive Director. Scheduling requests for her office should be made through Emily Nelson.show more

Rudy Gonzalez · email · 2021-07-22 · oppose · source packet

Public Public Comment Record No.: 2017-014833PRJ
Honorable Planning Commissioners, We are writing to you on behalf of the affiliated unions of the San Francisco Building & Construction Trades Council & the San Francisco Labor Council. Our Councils OPPOSE the proposed project at 469 Stevenson Street. The Developer has made no commitments to the community workforce, including but not limited to the utilization of high road training partnerships, also known … Honorable Planning Commissioners, We are writing to you on behalf of the affiliated unions of the San Francisco Building & Construction Trades Council & the San Francisco Labor Council. Our Councils OPPOSE the proposed project at 469 Stevenson Street. The Developer has made no commitments to the community workforce, including but not limited to the utilization of high road training partnerships, also known as apprenticeship, that put our local residents to work. Our apprenticeship programs offer opportunity to disadvantaged communities, including but not limited to women, victims of domestic violence, foster youth, not to mention the critical work we do to help transition US Military servicewomen and servicemen to construction careers. These apprenticeship programs are state certified and provide real career paths to middle class, family sustaining, jobs with health care and retirement security. No commitments have been made to put apprentices to work on this project. The public benefit when developers utilize high-road employers. Those employers work with organized labor and put to work skilled and trained workers. Those workers have a voice on the job to address safety and working conditions through collective bargaining and often these arrangements are covered in binding community workforce agreements, also known as project labor agreements. These agreements promote labor peace and workplace safety, in addition to setting forth goals for minority and local business participation. No such agreement has been offered or made on this project. As an aside, the project sponsor planned to use a non-traditional means to construct the site. This <U+201C>factory<U+201D> built model erodes and undermines the objectives of our local workforce policy by outsourcing otherwise good local jobs. It also works against the efforts to lift up our communities through legitimate workforce and apprenticeship readiness training, such as the City Build Academy run by the Mayor<U+2019>s OEWD. This model is volatile from a business standpoint and the fact is the original supplier of this particular project has gone out of business. Worse yet is the lack of safety and ability to inspect the units once in our jurisdiction. Organized labor OPPOSSES this model of outsourcing local jobs and here you will see a recent resolution outlining our unified position: https://sflaborcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/06-07- 21ResReFBH.pdf Finally, it should be noted that unemployment among our union construction crafts is now hovering at around 1,500 workers. While some developers will see that as an opportunity to roll back standards and subject the construction industry to the unsafe and unfair conditions of the past, our Councils cannot allow it. We simply cannot afford to promote an unjust economic recovery and roll back decades of progress for workers in San Francisco by letting low-road projects see the light of day. We urge the Commission to OPPOSE this project and at a minimum, continue the matter until such time the community can address important workforce standards for the benefit of the public at large. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Rudy Gonzalez, Secretary-Treasurer, SF Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL- CIO Kimberly Tavaglione, Executive Director, SF Labor Council, AFL-CIO RUDY GONZALEZ Secretary Treasurer www.sfbuildingtradescouncil.org | [email removed] Cell: 415/794-0377 | Office: 415/345-9333 | Fax: 415/345-9449 1188 Franklin St., Suite 203, SF, CA 94109 Please update your contact information as my role has changed. I have now joined the SF Building & Construction Trades Council. Scheduling requests: Sandra Duarte. Also, join me in welcoming Kim Tavaglione as the SFLC Interim Executive Director. Scheduling requests for her office should be made through Emily Nelson.show more

Hunter Oatman-Stanford · email · 2021-07-22 · support · source packet

support for 469 Stevenson
Hi there, I'm just writing to affirm my full support for the new housing project in development for 469 Stevenson Street in SoMa. As a longtime D6 resident and neighbor, this project will provide excellent community benefits and funding for affordable housing, while replacing and unsightly and unpleasant surface parking lot. Please expedite any approvals so we can welcome more neighbors ASAP. thank you! Hunter Oatman-Stanford

2021-07-29 · 13 comments · 7 / 5

Peter Ziblatt · email · 2021-07-29 · support · source packet

469 Stevenson Street (Case No. 2017-014833) Letter in Support
Commissioners- Please see the attached letter in support of the 469 Stevenson project (Regular Item No. 8 and 9) to be heard later today at the Planning Commission hearing. Please let us know if you have any questions. Peter F. Ziblatt Of Counsel [phone removed] ex. 2 (o) [phone removed] (c) [email removed] www.pelosilawgroup.com **We have moved. Our new address is 244 Kearny Street, 9th Floor San Francis… show more

Katherine Petrin · spoken · 2021-07-29 · oppose

Direct and indirect impact to historic district

Bret Young · spoken · 2021-07-29 · support

Support

Lou Vasquez · spoken · 2021-07-29 · support

Project sponsor

John Elberling · email · 2021-07-29 · oppose · source packet

469 Stevenson Street Project on 7/28 Commission agenda
Please transmit the attached letter further objecting to CEQA certification of this ill-advised project to all Commissioners.

Corey Smith · spoken · 2021-07-29 · support

Support

Kristen Jensen · spoken · 2021-07-29 · neutral

City attorney

Scott Elderly · spoken · 2021-07-29 · oppose

Oppose

John Patton · spoken · 2021-07-29 · oppose

Oppose

Katie Ettman · spoken · 2021-07-29 · support

Support -=Eric –Inclusionary housing should be re-assessed but doesn't oppose

David Woo · spoken · 2021-07-29 · oppose

Low affordable housing

Amy Herman · spoken · 2021-07-29 · support

Response to questions

Daniel Greg · spoken · 2021-07-29 · support

Carpenters Local 22

2021-08-26 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Jill Helffenstein · email · 2021-08-26 · oppose · source packet

Letter of Opposition | 469 Stevenson Street Project, Remote 7/29/2021 Hearing, Item #8
Dear Commission Secretary, On behalf of Friends of Mint Plaza, I am submitting our Opposition Letter for the 469 Stevenson Street Project. Thank you, Jill __________ Jill Helffenstein President FRIENDS OF MINT PLAZA San Francisco, CA 94105 t: [phone removed]

2022-11-17 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

John Elberling · email · 2022-11-17 · oppose · source packet

TODCO Statement Re: 469 Stevenson Project For December 8 Hearing
Please forward our attached letter of this date to all Commissioners and to the record. john Elberling president, todco 230 Fourth Street San Francisco CA 94103 San Francisco Planning Commission City Hall San Francisco Ca 94102 November 16, 2022 THE 469 STEVENSON PROJECT IS NOT <U+201C>HOUSING FOR ALL<U+201D> For Some, Perhaps, But For The People Of The Sixth Street Community? Certai… Please forward our attached letter of this date to all Commissioners and to the record. john Elberling president, todco 230 Fourth Street San Francisco CA 94103 San Francisco Planning Commission City Hall San Francisco Ca 94102 November 16, 2022 THE 469 STEVENSON PROJECT IS NOT <U+201C>HOUSING FOR ALL<U+201D> For Some, Perhaps, But For The People Of The Sixth Street Community? Certainly Not First we note for the record the updated project EIR now includes full analysis of the project site<U+2019>s geotechnical/seismic issues that the original EIR completely omitted. Now, please bear foremost in mind that this longtime Sixth Street Neighborhood with its dozen or more SRO residential hotels is SOMA<U+2019>s last remaining supply of relatively low-rent market housing. The several thousand tenants of these old buildings are single/two person low-income households. Those who are employed essential workers<U+2019> generally earn near-minimum wage, which is now $17/hr, about $2900 per month, equal to 35+% of san Francisco average median income (AMI). Those who are not working often have only federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) of $1,040/month for a single person. But when you compare how much these Sixth Street residents of today can afford to pay to live in any new project like the proposed 469 Stevenson to the rents that new development will charge <U+2013> even for the 20% of its units (almost 100) required to be affordable Inclusionary Housing by the City, it is clear that none of them could ever afford to live there. This chart shows the full details: 469 STEVENSON PROJECT REQUIRED INCLUSIONARY HOUSING RENT LEVELS All Units 495 12% of Units @ 55% AMI Base Rent 4% of Units @ 80% AMI Base Rent 4% of Units @ 110% AMI Base Rent 80% of Units @ Market 2022 Market Rent (Trinity) Studios 192 24 $1,050 8 $1,77 7 8 $2,505 152 $2,100+ One BR 149 18 $1,154 6 $1,98 6 6 $2,817 109 $2,500 Two BR 96 13 $1,254 4 $2,18 9 4 $3,124 75 $2,650 Three BR 50 6 $1,361 2 $2,39 9 2 $3,438 40 Five BR 8 1 $1,503 1 $2,70 8 1 $3,913 5 Total 495 62 21 21 391 SIXTH STREET SRO TENANTS AFFORDABLE RENT LEVELS SSI Income now for single person is $1,040 per month = affordable rent of $312/month for Studio unit @ 30% of income SSI Income now for couple is $1,765 per month = affordable rent of $530/month for One Bedroom unit @ 30% of income SF Minimum Wage ($17/hr) income now is about $35,000 per year (35+%AMI) $2900 per month = affordable rent of $900/month @ 30% of income 230 Fourth Street San Francisco CA 94103 This is why more than three years ago TODCO first asked the 469 Stevenson developer, Build Inc. to dedicate 1/3 of the Nordstrom Parking Lot site closest to Sixth Street to the City for about 150 units of affordable housing development. The value of that land would apply toward the City<U+2019>s housing fee for a 350 unit market project on the other 2/3 of the lot, so would not cost Build anything more. While the market housing part would be much the same as Build now proposes, the affordable housing part instead would have been new SRO-type housing like the nearby Plaza Apartments affordable development <U+2013> good new housing Sixth Street<U+2019>s current SRO residents could actually afford to continue to live in their own neighborhood. We hear the catchy slogan <U+201C>Housing For All<U+201D> proffered by supporters of the Build project. But the facts above show plainly that is a false promise. With regard to 469 Stevenson it would simply not be true. The People of the Sixth Street neighborhood today where it will be built could never afford to live in it. For 30 years since the Loma Prieta Earthquake TODCO worked to stabalize and renew the Sixth Street community to ensure its survival as a last-resort low-income neighborhood and make it a decent place to live for all. These three decades of our community-building vision, as sponsors of the Sixth Street Redevelopment Project, resulted in a dozen new nonprofit affordable housing developments and community facilities including the Bayanihan Center, Bindlestiff Theater, SOMA Health Center Clinic, and the new Bessie Carmichael School/Victoria Manalo Draves Park complex. So TODCO<U+2019>s proposal that development of this very large site be shared as real <U+201C>Housing For All<U+201D> <U+2013> both market and low-income affordable housing side by side <U+2013> is a continuation of our 30-year Vision for the future of the Sixth Street Neighborhood. But let the record show that Build said <U+201C>No.<U+201D> The basic question for all our City is whether the market housing developed due to new requirements of State law in the San Francisco<U+2019>s longtime lower-income communities, now considered <U+201C>communities of concern<U+201D> for displacement of their residents, like our SOMA, like the Mission, Tenderloin, Chinatown, Bayview and more, will include the new housing their diverse residents actually could afford so they will be part of the own neighborhoods<U+2019> future <U+2013> or not. But catchy slogans are not enough to make that happen when politicians just posture - and developers refuse to share. John Elberling President Cc: San Francisco Board of Supervisorsshow more

2022-12-08 · 5 comments · 2 / 3

Milo Trauss · spoken · 2022-12-08 · oppose

Waste of time

Rebecca Brown · spoken · 2022-12-08 · support

Supports the project

David Woo · spoken · 2022-12-08 · oppose

Collect study related to race, class and displacements

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2022-12-08 · oppose

There should be more study done

Rafa Sonnenfeld · email · 2022-12-08 · support · source packet

Agenda Item 11 - 469 Stevenson - PRDEIR Comment Letter
Good Morning, Please find attached our organization's comment letter pertaining to the Public Hearing on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 469 Stevenson project. Best regards, Rafa Sonnenfeld he/him Policy Director YIMBY Law 57 Post St, Suite 908 San Francisco, CA 94104 [email removed] 12/08/2022 San Francisco Planning Commission 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Franc… Good Morning, Please find attached our organization's comment letter pertaining to the Public Hearing on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 469 Stevenson project. Best regards, Rafa Sonnenfeld he/him Policy Director YIMBY Law 57 Post St, Suite 908 San Francisco, CA 94104 [email removed] 12/08/2022 San Francisco Planning Commission 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 [email removed]; [email removed] Via Email Re: Item 11, 2017-014833ENV - 469 Stevenson Street <U+2013> Public Hearing on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report. Dear San Francisco Planning Commission, YIMBY Law submits this letter to comment on the ridiculous farce of a shing expedition that was the partially recirculated draft environmental impact report for the Stevenson project; an unnecessary, illegal waste of time over the past twelve months. The Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (PRDEIR) was drafted to focus on three areas that the Board of Supervisors identied during hearings in October and December 2021: specically, a) vague concerns about the project<U+2019>s impacts on gentrication and displacement, b) the project<U+2019>s impacts on historical resources, and c) the project<U+2019>s impact on geology and soils. The PRDEIR analysis shows none of the board<U+2019>s concerns had any merit: A) The PRDEIR found that the project<U+2019>s impacts on gentrication and displacement would be less than signicant, and in-fact, some of the research cited in this analysis shows the no-project alternative, ie, disapproving the project, likely has a GREATER negative impact on gentrication and displacement than building the project. However, what is particularly problematic about the entire line of gentrication analysis here is that the only <U+201C>physical eect<U+201D> of the project is demolition of a surface parking lot and building of condos and/or apartments, yet this studied <U+201C>indirect gentrication and displacement<U+201D> only through increases in market values of nearby properties. This framing blurs the line between physical and socio-economic eects of a project, as now any economic change caused by a project is apparently a CEQA issue, per the logic of the City. The PRDEIR relies on research by the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project (UDP), however, this is just one study that shows that new market rate housing in a census block is correlated with a small increase in out-migration; there is no clear evidence of a causal eect by new construction; this statistical association could be due to various issues with a neighborhood unrelated to a local amenity eect caused by a project, but this PRDEIR assumes that the local amenity eect is the cause of out-migration. Further, the UDP study that is relied on to support the city<U+2019>s assertion that the project <U+201C>could potentially indirectly displace between 10 and 41 households<U+201D> found no association between new development and increased out-migration of low-income households in gentrifying areas, or in San Francisco. The other research cited by the City in the 2020 Socioeconomic Report also contradicts the UDP report; the <U+201C>Summary of Report conclusions states: Case study research in San Francisco as well as academic and related research suggests that market-rate housing production such as the 469 Stevenson Street Project is not likely to cause an increase in rents in nearby housing units. Some research even suggests interim reductions in rents among nearby units. These and other literature ndings suggest there is no evidence to support concern that new market-rate development will cause gentrication or displacement. Therefore, the 2020 Socioeconomic Report concludes that the evidence indicates that development of the Project is not likely to result in residential displacement and gentrication that will lead to socioeconomic impacts warranting further review under CEQA. In addition to the 2020 Socioeconomic Report, the analysis conducted by Seifel Consulting also notes ndings from another recent study published by Pennington in late 2020: Pennington<U+2019>s research suggests that increasing the supply of market rate housing has benecial spillover eects for existing residents, reducing rents and displacement pressures while improving neighborhood quality. However, the spillover eects from market rate housing may not reduce gentrication, and they may not continue to reduce displacement in the long term. While Pennington<U+2019>s research indicates that new market rate housing reduces displacement in San Francisco overall, a hyperlocal demand YIMBY Law, 57 Post St, Suite 908, San Francisco, CA 94104 eect exists within a narrow radius of 100m, i.e., within eyeshot of the new construction. Within this narrow band, building renovations and business turnover increase. The upgrade in neighborhood quality attracts higher-income newcomers, so that when incumbents move out, they are more likely to be replaced by wealthier newcomers. The study concludes that policymakers who want to slow displacement and gentrication should accelerate both market rate and aordable housing construction. Pennington summarizes her ndings <U+201C>as emphasizing that building more market-rate housing and building more aordable housing are complementary policy levers. Aordable housing, obviously, is much better targeted at the people who are actually at a high risk of displacement. We also note that the Project sponsor has <U+201C>voluntarily<U+201D> proposed to donate over $500,000 to community organizations as well as a small parcel of land for community use, despite the fact that both the original EIR certied by the planning commission, as well as the PRDEIR found that any gentrication impacts would be less than signicant, and the project already included required 73 on-site aordable units, and $8 million aordable housing fee which the PRDEIR notes, <U+201C>would largely address the potential for indirect residential displacement to occur,<U+201D> and <U+201C>could potentially support between 27 to 40 units of additional aordable housing units in the surrounding area.<U+201D> In summary, the city is correct to identify that any potential indirect physical eects of gentrication and displacement caused by the project are entirely speculative. This project may even cause reductions in local displacement pressures, not increases. And assuming there is any indirect displacement, which, again, is speculative, the location of any physical eects, such as increased trac or construction, are virtually impossible to determine, and are themselves entirely speculative. B) The PRDEIR found that the Project<U+2019>s impacts on historical resources would be less than signicant after mitigation, and would be less than signicant on overall historical resources. The appellants who requested additional study of impacts on historical resources were concerned about context and appearance, which are not valid impacts under CEQA; instead the study makes an attempt to justify additional analysis by now claiming there could be vibration impact to historical resources which can be mitigated. Strangely, this analysis cites the same source for thresholds of signicance as the previous environmental review, and does not explain any dierence in methodology from the Initial Study, yet now concludes that the threshold would be exceeded without a YIMBY Law, 57 Post St, Suite 908, San Francisco, CA 94104 mitigation plan. Regardless, with a mitigation plan, impacts are less than signicant. C) The PRDEIR found that the Project<U+2019>s impacts on geology and soils would have no cumulative impact. This is of course the only appropriate conclusion: the Board of Supervisors<U+2019> nding that more study was required in this area was legally awed, as they were concerned about the impact of the environment on the project, which isn<U+2019>t a CEQA issue, and there wasn<U+2019>t any evidence in the record that this project would damage others during an earthquake. There also was zero evidence that the city<U+2019>s building permit seismic safety peer review was inadequate. Conclusion The Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report is more than adequate to comply with CEQA. In-fact, it is not even necessary as the prior EIR was adequate. The PRDEIR addresses all of the concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors, and the Public, none of which have merit as they were either already studied or outside of the scope of CEQA, and this PRDEIR actually goes beyond the scope of CEQA to analyze speculative indirect impacts of gentrication and displacement, still concluding, conservatively, that this project<U+2019>s physical impact would be less than signicant, if there is one at all. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has also recently sent you a letter in support of this project. They note, <U+201C>HCD initiated a Housing Policy and Practice Review of San Francisco aimed at identifying and removing barriers to approval and construction of new housing. As noted in HCD<U+2019>s Letter of Technical Assistance dated February 1, 2022, the BOS<U+2019>s actions regarding the FEIR exemplify a pattern of lengthy processing and entitlement timeframes that exceed the norms for jurisdictions of similar size and complexity. These excessive timeframes act as a constraint on housing development.<U+201D> The delay of this project at Stevenson is emblematic of the city<U+2019>s pattern and practice of delay. Any continued delay, in the face of a mountain of evidence that shows this project<U+2019>s environmental impact has already been excessively, unnecessarily studied, only furthers our, and the state<U+2019>s concerns that the city is not serious about meeting its obligations to plan and approve an adequate supply of housing. The city should move quickly to approve this project. Yimby Law is a 501(c)3 non-prot corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and aordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law, 57 Post St, Suite 908, San Francisco, CA 94104 I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is aected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law YIMBY Law, 57 Post St, Suite 908, San Francisco, CA 94104show more

2022-12-15 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

David Woo · email · 2022-12-15 · oppose · source packet

Joint Statement on 469 Stevenson
Hello Commissioners, Please see attached a joint statement from SOMA Pilipinas and SOMCAN regarding the 469 Stevenson Project. We strongly encourage the Commission to consider and request a more thorough analysis of race and class issues for this project; for instance, studying how this will impact families at Bessie Carmichael and whether or not families will be able to afford the units. What is the projected unit c… Hello Commissioners, Please see attached a joint statement from SOMA Pilipinas and SOMCAN regarding the 469 Stevenson Project. We strongly encourage the Commission to consider and request a more thorough analysis of race and class issues for this project; for instance, studying how this will impact families at Bessie Carmichael and whether or not families will be able to afford the units. What is the projected unit cost and what is the income of Bessie families? Thank you, David -- David Woo Community Development and Policy Coordinator SOMA Pilipinas Cultural Heritage District Statement on 469 Stevenson December 8, 2022 Projects like 469 Stevenson will not get us out of our affordable housing crisis. The majority of units will be out of reach to our communities in the South of Market and most low-income and working class children, youth, families, and seniors who are housing insecure in the City. The South of Market and San Francisco do not need more luxury units that increase speculation, evictions, displacement, and gentrification. The Planning Department has until now failed to incorporate racial and social equity into the planning process. If the City is serious about addressing the lack of equity in planning, there must be a concerted effort to collect, study, and analyze data related to race, class, and displacement. The conclusions of the updated Environmental Impact Report for 469 Stevenson, that the project will not have significant gentrification, displacement, or cultural displacement impacts, are simplistic, contradictory, and shallow. The report itself admits that 10-41 households could be displaced as a result of the project. The report and the Planning Department still operate under the false narrative that building new market-rate housing will trickle down and lower prices for everyone. The reality is that market-rate units increase rents for working people that already live there, something low-income and communities of color have known for a very long time, with new data coming out that concretely shows this.1 Real estate and housing speculation is never studied by these report consultants or by the Planning Department. The truth is that housing is used in the private market as a way to make money - through evicting people, raising rents, flipping buildings, buying land and buildings to speculate - something that never fits into the equation for the City in how to solve the affordability and displacement crisis. The 469 Stevenson Project shows us what not to do. This project should never have gotten this far if Planning is truly centering racial and social equity. These are expensive luxury units, nearly 70% are studios and 1-bedrooms. This project will increase eviction and displacement pressures in the South of Market. San Francisco has overbuilt luxury housing, and underbuilt affordable housing. That<U+2019>s why there are 60,000 vacant market-rate units, 52,000 market-rate units that have been approved but not yet built, and long waiting lists for affordable housing. The City and Planning Department need an affordable housing plan. As the Housing Element tries to achieve the state mandated 82,000 units of new housing, we cannot forget that 46,000 of those units (more than half) must be affordable. It<U+2019>s time to stop prioritizing market-rate housing and start building affordable housing, acquiring at-risk units, land-banking sites for 100% affordable housing, and expanding local funding sources. SOMA Pilipinas Filipino Cultural Heritage District South of Market Community Action Network 1 Damiano, Anthony, and Chris Frenier. (2020) <U+201C>Build Baby Build? Housing Submarkets and the Effects of New Construction on Existing Rents.<U+201D> Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Working Paper, University of Minnesota.show more

2023-04-20 · 23 comments · 22 / 1

Lorenz Listana · email · 2023-04-20 · support · source packet

Re: Letter of Support for 469 Stevenson
Dear Commissioners, I write this letter as a resident of SOMA to express my support for the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed 469 Stevenson development project. Build Inc did substantial community outreach with community organizations in SOMA and the Tenderloin since 2018. The residents actively engaged with the project developers through dialogue and negotiations, which resulted in a robust communit… show more

Basil Ayoub · email · 2023-04-20 · support · source packet

469 Stevenson - Letter of Support
Dear Planning Commission, Please accept this email as my letter of support for the proposed project at 469 Stevenson. My family owns 972 Mission Street / 475 Jessie Street, which is directly across the street from the proposed site. Given the massive need for housing in San Francisco, I cannot think of a better use for this space. 469 Stevenson is perfectly situated near many public transportation means (BART, … show more

Sarah Karlinsky · email · 2023-04-20 · support · source packet

SPUR Supports Housing at 469 Stevenson
Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing to express our support for the 469 Stevenson project. SPUR had the opportunity to review this project in 2020 and found it to be a strong project that provides badly needed housing on a site that is currently being used as a parking lot (see attached letter). Given the need for housing in San Francisco, we strongly encourage you to move this project forward at your hearing to… show more

Jerry Dratler · spoken · 2023-04-20 · oppose

Is it a viable project?

Annette Billingsley · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Will add vitality to the area

Lou Vasquez · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Project sponsor presentation

Strachan Forgan · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Project sponsor presentation

Donna Horwitz · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Advantages and benefits of having more housing

Brett Young · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Allows the neighborhood to develop

Eric Kaplan · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Housing crisis, we don't need a parking lot

Pat Steeler · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Looking forward to construction

Corey Smith · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

San Francisco can take a step forward

Nathan Williams · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Embarrassing it is taking this long

James Steichen · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Supports the project

Ryan Patterson · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Code compliant project

Jane Natoli · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Continue to do the right thing

Joanna Gubman · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Project doesn't harm the environment

Fujima Dasani · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Help with the housing crisis in the city

Kent Rikani · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

People are hyper local

Dave Alexander · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Transit oriented

Christopher Roach · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

In a transit oriented location

Jim Chappell · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

Pass entitlements today

Richard Perino · spoken · 2023-04-20 · support

It will provide a lot of affordable housing including to seniors

2023-04-27 · 2 comments · 2 / 0

Lorenzo Listana · email · 2023-04-27 · support · source packet

Re: Letter of Support for the proposed 469 Stevenson Street Project Hi Ms. Delumo, Attached is a Letter of Support from the Mid-Market Coalition (MMC) for the proposed 469 Stevenson Street Project. We ask for your support for the project. In community, Mid-Market Coalition Mid-Market Coalition 953 Mission, Suite 20 San Francisco, CA 94103 April 19, 2023 To: San Francisco Planning Commissioners 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall Room 400 San Francisco, CA 94102
Lou Vasquez Project Sponsor, 469 Stevenson Street Re: Letter of Support for the proposed 469 Stevenson Street Project Dear Planning Commissioners: The Mid-Market Coalition and its constituent groups are writing to support the Final Environmental Impact Report certification for the proposed 469 Stevenson Street Project, identified in Planning Case No. 2017- 014833ENV. The Mid-Market Coalition is a group of r… Lou Vasquez Project Sponsor, 469 Stevenson Street Re: Letter of Support for the proposed 469 Stevenson Street Project Dear Planning Commissioners: The Mid-Market Coalition and its constituent groups are writing to support the Final Environmental Impact Report certification for the proposed 469 Stevenson Street Project, identified in Planning Case No. 2017- 014833ENV. The Mid-Market Coalition is a group of resident-led and resident-serving groups and organizations in SOMA and Tenderloin advocating against the displacement of our communities and the preservation of the cultural heritage of our neighborhoods. Since 2018 we have engaged with the project sponsor, BUILD Inc., and collaborated on a Community Benefits Agreement that we believe responds to our communities' current and emerging needs. The Community Benefits Agreement touches on six primary areas of community needs. 1) Community Spaces. The community will gain much-needed accessible community spaces on the project's ground floor at 469 Stevenson Street. The project sponsor dedicates two ground floor spaces at below-market rent for community-serving retail and community spaces. We intend to use the spaces for community programs and promote community-serving local businesses that would otherwise not have access to retail spaces in SOMA. We believe that these space allocations would make the proposed building more accessible to current community members and help promote an inclusive local community. 2) Community Programming Fund. The project sponsor donates $578,700 to a Community Programming Fund to benefit resident-led projects and organizations in SOMA and Tenderloin. The Community Programming Fund would help ensure the sustainability of resident-led projects and organizations and fund programs that promote community, public safety, sanitation, and resident wellness. 3) Local Employment. The project sponsor agrees to work in conjunction with OEWD 6th Street Employment Program to develop employment programs for the local residents of SOMA and Tenderloin residing in 94103 and 94102 zip codes. 4) Impact assessment. The project sponsor agrees to fund an independent impact assessment/study to evaluate the extent of the construction impact, including impact to social equity, livelihoods, health, and the general SOMA population. This impact study will help inform current and future community programming. 5) Architecture and Public Art. The project sponsor agrees to continue its partnership with the community as the project design moves forward and to fund $250,000 to support public art and public realm projects at 469 Stevenson that recognize the Filipino community's history, culture, and contributions. 6) Affordable Housing. The project sponsor agrees to make commercially reasonable best efforts to negotiate a lease and purchase options for the Helen Hotel, backstop 12 months of rent, and fund the rehabilitation of the ground floor of the Helen Hotel for the Urban Rest and Sleep Center. The project sponsor also agrees to work with our coalition and MOHCD to redirect relevant impact fees to 967 Mission Street. Finally, the project sponsor agrees to donate the land located at 59 6th Street to be developed into an affordable housing project. We believe that these efforts will benefit the most vulnerable of our communities, including seniors, people with disabilities, and people in the lower tiers of the area median income. We believe that this Community Benefits Agreement resulted from a community-centered process involving residents and community members excluded from these processes in the past. As such, they reflect the benefits that the community wants and needs. We hope that project sponsors in the future follow Build Inc.'s example of community engagement and collaboration. The Community Benefits Agreement is attached for your reference. Lastly, we are enthused by the project<U+2019>s commitment to the environment via designation as an Environmental Leadership Development Project. As an ELDP project, 469 Stevenson will exceed today<U+2019>s environmental standards by being GHG neutral and capitalizing on San Francisco<U+2019>s robust public transportation network, giving this environmentally friendly project the ability to thrive where it is most needed. Sincerely, Mid-Market Coalition SoMA Neighborhood Residents Council Filipino Community Development Corporation Tenderloin People<U+2019>s Congress 6th Street and Alleyway Improvement Project Jessie Alley Street Fair Committee Tenderloin Filipino American Community Association San Francisco People<U+2019>s Organization Working for Equity and Reform Demonstration Gardens SoMA Filipino Association Asians United Senior and Disability Action The Ark San Franciscoshow more

Rebecca Browning · email · 2023-04-27 · support · source packet

Letter of support from Mid Market Coalition in Support of 469 Stevenson Please see letter attached Mid-Market Coalition 953 Mission, Suite 20 San Francisco, CA 94103 April 19, 2023 To: San Francisco Planning Commissioners 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall Room 400 San Francisco, CA 94102
Lou Vasquez Project Sponsor, 469 Stevenson Street Re: Letter of Support for the proposed 469 Stevenson Street Project Dear Planning Commissioners: The Mid-Market Coalition and its constituent groups are writing to support the Final Environmental Impact Report certification for the proposed 469 Stevenson Street Project, identified in Planning Case No. 2017- 014833ENV. The Mid-Market Coalition is a g… Lou Vasquez Project Sponsor, 469 Stevenson Street Re: Letter of Support for the proposed 469 Stevenson Street Project Dear Planning Commissioners: The Mid-Market Coalition and its constituent groups are writing to support the Final Environmental Impact Report certification for the proposed 469 Stevenson Street Project, identified in Planning Case No. 2017- 014833ENV. The Mid-Market Coalition is a group of resident-led and resident- serving groups and organizations in SOMA and Tenderloin advocating against the displacement of our communities and the preservation of the cultural heritage of our neighborhoods. Since 2018 we have engaged with the project sponsor, BUILD Inc., and collaborated on a Community Benefits Agreement that we believe responds to our communities' current and emerging needs. The Community Benefits Agreement touches on six primary areas of community needs. 1) Community Spaces. The community will gain much-needed accessible community spaces on the project's ground floor at 469 Stevenson Street. The project sponsor dedicates two ground floor spaces at below-market rent for community-serving retail and community spaces. We intend to use the spaces for community programs and promote community-serving local businesses that would otherwise not have access to retail spaces in SOMA. We believe that these space allocations would make the proposed building more accessible to current community members and help promote an inclusive local community. 2) Community Programming Fund. The project sponsor donates $578,700 to a Community Programming Fund to benefit resident-led projects and organizations in SOMA and Tenderloin. The Community Programming Fund would help ensure the sustainability of resident-led projects and organizations and fund programs that promote community, public safety, sanitation, and resident wellness. 3) Local Employment. The project sponsor agrees to work in conjunction with OEWD 6th Street Employment Program to develop employment programs for the local residents of SOMA and Tenderloin residing in 94103 and 94102 zip codes. 4) Impact assessment. The project sponsor agrees to fund an independent impact assessment/study to evaluate the extent of the construction impact, including impact to social equity, livelihoods, health, and the general SOMA population. This impact study will help inform current and future community programming. 5) Architecture and Public Art. The project sponsor agrees to continue its partnership with the community as the project design moves forward and to fund $250,000 to support public art and public realm projects at 469 Stevenson that recognize the Filipino community's history, culture, and contributions. 6) Affordable Housing. The project sponsor agrees to make commercially reasonable best efforts to negotiate a lease and purchase options for the Helen Hotel, backstop 12 months of rent, and fund the rehabilitation of the ground floor of the Helen Hotel for the Urban Rest and Sleep Center. The project sponsor also agrees to work with our coalition and MOHCD to redirect relevant impact fees to 967 Mission Street. Finally, the project sponsor agrees to donate the land located at 59 6th Street to be developed into an affordable housing project. We believe that these efforts will benefit the most vulnerable of our communities, including seniors, people with disabilities, and people in the lower tiers of the area median income. We believe that this Community Benefits Agreement resulted from a community-centered process involving residents and community members excluded from these processes in the past. As such, they reflect the benefits that the community wants and needs. We hope that project sponsors in the future follow Build Inc.'s example of community engagement and collaboration. The Community Benefits Agreement is attached for your reference. Lastly, we are enthused by the project<U+2019>s commitment to the environment via designation as an Environmental Leadership Development Project. As an ELDP project, 469 Stevenson will exceed today<U+2019>s environmental standards by being GHG neutral and capitalizing on San Francisco<U+2019>s robust public transportation network, giving this environmentally friendly project the ability to thrive where it is most needed. Sincerely, Mid-Market Coalition <U+2022> SoMA Neighborhood Residents Council <U+2022> Filipino Community Development Corporation <U+2022> Tenderloin People<U+2019>s Congress <U+2022> 6th Street and Alleyway Improvement Project <U+2022> Jessie Alley Street Fair Committee <U+2022> Tenderloin Filipino American Community Association <U+2022> San Francisco People<U+2019>s Organization Working for Equity and Reform <U+2022> Demonstration Gardens <U+2022> SoMA Filipino Association <U+2022> Asians United <U+2022> Senior and Disability Action <U+2022> The Ark San Franciscoshow more