By Thomas K. Pendergast

Due to state law and the efforts of California State Sen. Scott Wiener, the proposed housing development to replace the Safeway on La Playa Street with a new store and 562 units of housing has been “streamlined,” restricting the input to city officials from the residents of that neighborhood.

The Planning Association for the Richmond (PAR), however, gave some local residents the opportunity to voice either their opposition or support for the proposal by hosting a meeting at St. John’s Presbyterian Church on Lake Street at the end of September.

Zachary Nathan of PAR said that as it stands now, the two new buildings proposed would stand about 85 feet tall at 721,000 square feet floor area, containing 562 dwelling units and 280 residential parking spaces. There would be 124 studios, 188 one-bedroom apartments, 192 two-bedroom apartments and 58 three-or-more bedrooms.

The retail space will increase from the current 37,340 to 63,000 square feet, with 161 parking spaces dedicated to the retail store.

Nathan said all of the units will be rental housing. About 20% of the units will be offered at below market rate (BMR), for a total of 113 BMR units. Of those “affordable” units, 30 will be offered at 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). And the rest will be at 80% of AMI.

In San Francisco, 100% AMI works out to $97,000 annually for a single person, $110,850 for two people, $124,700 for three and $138,550 for a four-person household.

The project is using the state density bonus law SB330 to increase density.

Because it is being “streamlined” for approval, there is no requirement for a Planning Commission hearing where the public can give their input on this project. It is also exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

That said, the project may have to reduce the number of available units by as much as 114 to comply with the Planning Department’s interpretation of the Planning Code, so it is not yet a done deal.

“Yes, we need housing. Yes, we can repurpose underutilized sites like these grocery stores for housing,” said Bridget Maley of Neighborhoods United San Francisco. “But, we should be doing it with community input and implementing thoughtful urban planning, not laying out a red carpet for developers who don’t care about affordability but want maximum profits.”

Align Development is partnering with Albertson’s, the parent company which owns Safeway, and this is one of three markets up for demolition and redevelopment, the others being in the Marina and Bernal Heights districts.

“All of these sites that are on that list are eligible for ‘ministerial approval,’ which means no environmental review, limited public outreach and public hearings, limited notification of the project, and no requirements for Conditional Use Authorization,” Maley said. “Our objection to these housing laws is that they squash our voices. It’s not about this project or any of these Safeway projects. It’s about all of these projects and they’re happening across the state. And these laws, while they have good intentions, we do need housing, they don’t allow the citizens of the town, or the community or the neighborhood that you live in to have a voice in how we develop and how we regulate our housing.”

“We have a pipeline of over 70,000 housing units that have been designed, entitled and essentially are shovel-ready,” she said. “Why aren’t these projects moving forward? They are not getting built because the general cost of construction is through the roof. The reality is that developers can’t get financing to build these bigger projects. And they are very difficult to secure the funding and the financing.”

Some residents supported the project.

Caroline Bas said her child goes to a local preschool and her profession involves being an affordable housing developer.

“So, I understand very deeply how the money comes in and how important it is for a building to get built and fund what’s called ‘impact fees’ that fund our affordable housing in San Francisco,” Bas said. “As somebody with a young family, I’m excited about this. I think we did spend a generation not building housing and I worry about my children. I worry about being able to stay in the City as a single mother here.”

Bobak Esfandiari is a well-known local advocate for more housing, but he also has a personal interest in this because he lives on the same street as the La Playa Safeway.

“We have a long, chronic and unaddressed housing shortage,” Esfandiari told the group. “And the reason that the state has been passing these laws … is because we have failed. We have abrogated our duty to build homes for the next generation.

“This one project will build more below-market-rate housing, subsidize affordable housing for people who need it, than has been built in this neighborhood in the past 10 years, excluding the one project at Sixth and Geary, which was built with a state law that streamlined and removed some of these hearing requirements that you’re talking about.

“Frankly, I think it’s not tall enough,” he said. “I think about people who are coming up behind me, who are a bit younger than me, who their choices are either find another place that they can be very lucky about, or move further out than the nine-county Bay Area. … If we had this reaction when they were proposing to build the building where I live now, I would not be able to live here. I think that’s a shame and I think we should create opportunity for the next generation.”

Kasie Lee said she grew up on 22nd Avenue and as a native San Franciscan she understands the housing issues facing this City.

“We know that there are pros and cons to both sides but there’s definitely an issue with the process, meaning no public input, no input from the community,” Lee said. “There’s no incentive for a company like this to listen. …Who gets to decide? Who is the approving agency? Do they have an incentive to listen to the community? How can we reach the people who have an incentive to listen?”

“The planning director is the decision maker,” Maley answered. “She is the sole decision maker, with input from her staff. So, that’s a lot of power for a non-elected official if you ask me.”

Maley recommended concerned citizens go to the San Francisco Planning Department’s website and click on the Project Information Map to get the name of the planner for each project, including this one.

“And you can write the planner,” she said. “And the planner has been very responsive to the concerns of the community. He’s met with the community several times, and the Planning Department has issued this plan check-letter to the developer saying that they do not meet certain criteria for them to take some of the laws that they are trying to use.

“They’ve sent (the developers) back to the drawing board,” Maley said. “And they have 90 days to respond.”