Envisioning a Better Neighborhood

This month I wanted to challenge myself to pick the most controversial topic on the west side: pickleball.

But then I realized I don’t want readers coming after me with racquets, so I decided it was best to write about the next most controversial topic at the moment: 2700 Sloat Blvd., near the SF Zoo.

A lot of ink has already been spilled on this project over the past few years, but with the latest proposal for the location being a 50-story tower, I will delve a little deeper into the how and the why we’ve reached this point.

Over the past few years, the project proposal has grown in size and scope, but was reasonably code compliant – 12 to 13 stories within what zoning allowed. Since at least the ’70s, the City has set the zoning for the lot at 100 feet (as well as some of the adjacent lots), likely assuming nothing of this size would be proposed while there were existing successful commercial businesses occupying the land.

With the California State Density Bonus Law, if the developer provides at least 15% means-tested affordable housing units, the developer is entitled a density bonus of up to 50%. (San Francisco’s inclusionary housing program for projects greater than 25 units requires a fee to produce off-site units or on-site units already at a rate above 15%.) This would have merely pushed up the proposal height to around 18 stories. But the SF Planning Department requested more amenities and frontage than the developer is proposing, so they are allowed to meet those requirements by keeping their originally allowed units all massed within one tall tower.

While the “how” of the current proposal is likely to go through additional changes, I think it’s worth examining the reasons we have such a contentious process around developing large housing projects like this and where we can hopefully find some common ground on improving the process to enhance our neighborhoods. Lost in the controversy around the design elements is that the project includes upwards of 100 affordable units. As the prices of most of the existing single-family homes on the west side continue to become increasingly out of reach, what other levers do we have as a community to bring that many affordable units for teachers, service workers, city employees, bus drivers, police and firefighters? It can be easy to lament that developers are only in it for the profit and that they won’t build affordable units, but when we force a community process that can stretch into years, aren’t we just delaying the affordable housing we want to see in the neighborhood?

The last time most of the west side’s housing stock was considered deeply affordable was during the ’70s, just before the widespread downzoning of the City when small developers were able to use FHA loans to convert wide swaths of the previously existing small cottages and Victorians into “Richmond Specials.”

While the seemingly existential dread in the City right now is a downtown doom loop, perhaps the west side has been caught in its own decades-long slower version of a doom loop that has only become acutely painful as the affordability of housing has pushed out families and trapped seniors in aging buildings with rising maintenance costs. Our current $1 million-plus single-family homes, duplexes and condos did not start out at these prices but grew slowly over time. Like the tale of the frog in slowly heated water, we did not realize action was needed before conditions became boiling and it was too late to escape.

By fostering a permitting process for people to oppose and delay projects from as small as converting single-family homes to fourplexes, we’ve squeezed out the small developers that would have helped build the gentle density that wouldn’t create drastic change, like a 50-story residential tower.

Developers are now caught between massive multi-unit projects and “flipping” dilapidated single-family homes since renovations are less onerous than a teardown and rebuild. The City tried to address this gap with its HOME-SF Program, but perhaps it’s time to also revisit Supervisor Joel Engardio’s previous housing proposal of Dom-i-city (https://dom-i-city.org/) if residents are opposed to residential towers as a means for bringing affordable housing units to the west side.

Additionally, instead of our City’s need for having neighbors constantly weigh in and add months or more to the timelines for projects, now’s the time to consider alternative means of community engagement. Citizen Assemblies (citizensassemblies.org) could be a model for which consensus can be reached much quicker on the goal of bringing back affordable housing to the west side of the City. By moving the starting point of decision making to a place where we agree first and decide between possible solutions, we can ideally shift away from our current oppositional mindset.

Brian Quan is a Richmond District native, co-leader of Grow the Richmond, president of the Chinese American Democratic Club, member of the Park Presidio-Sunset Lions Club and leads a monthly Refuse Refuse S.F. street clean-up.