CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
Multimedia News
Planning commissioners delay decision on UC Extension development proposal
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
)
Planning commissioners have voted to defer a decision on whether to rezone land formerly used as a UC Extension campus.
The University of California owns the 6-acre site between Hermann and Haight streets and Laguna and Buchanan streets. The developers for the project have included 68 units for low-income earners among 450 apartments planned at the site, which meets The City’s “inclusionary” requirement that 15 percent of on-site units in new buildings be affordable.
Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, whose district includes part of the proposed project, described the number of low-income units planned as “woefully inadequate.” He said he supported the commissioners’ unanimous choice to defer a decision on zoning changes until Jan. 17.
“We can utilize that time period to address these unresolved issues,” Mirkarimi said.
“This involves state-owned property that’s being leased back to The City over 75 years, where The City’s being asked to consent to the rezoning from public to private … If we’re going to make that sacrifice, then at least the benefit should go to all, and not just those who can afford to live there at a market rate.”
Developers for the university have also proposed adding 5,000 square feet of shops to the project — which will include three rehabilitated buildings and seven new buildings — and increasing car parking, documents show.
Six of the new buildings would be four-stories tall. A new eight-story building would include 85 units specifically targeted at lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender seniors.
The City and University of California had initially set a deadline of Oct. 15 for approval of the proposed project, according to developer Ruthy Bennett, a vice president at AF Evans Development.
“The City asked the university for an extension to work on the affordability levels,” Bennett said. “We’re fine with the extension — we’re interested in working with The City on how we can create more affordability.”
Bennett said the plans have already been “four years in the making.”
The project would also include a 25,000-square-foot public park, according to Bennett.
A two-story UC San Francisco dental school will continue to operate at the redeveloped site, plans show.
Comments from Examiner Readers
11:09 AM MST on Wed., Dec. 19, 2007 re: "Planning commissioners delay decision on UC Extension development proposal"
Report as inappropriate
2:58 PM MST on Mon., Dec. 17, 2007
re: "Planning commissioners delay decision on UC Extension development proposal"
Report as inappropriate
7:05 PM MST on Sun., Dec. 16, 2007
re: "Planning commissioners delay decision on UC Extension development proposal"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Ahh seems that greedy and developer are used in the same sentence, at least I did not see a period. Sure I guess greed is a human weakness but the other side of the equation not mentioned is project risk and how to manage it. If there is zero project risk then yes greed is the right term to use in that sentence. So tell us all is there zero risk to the developer of this project working with a client who happens to be quasi-State body who then has to attempt to get the project approved by the SF City Planning Commission and then we would suppose the supes?
64 agree | 59 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
No weirdness here. Just an attempt to challenge the tsunami of over-priced condos/apts. flooding SF, thus contributing to the increasing gap between rich & poor in SF. Yet, the 450 apts. are way too much for a site that should be kept publicly-zoned--not privatized by a state body (UC Regents). Destroying a dance floor/gym and other historically-significant and beautiful buildings is not the way to go. With 25,000 condos under construction or scheduled over the next 10 years in the area, more open space and recreational/meeting/exhibiting facilities are needed . With seismic upgrade, these buildings are ready to go. Turn the parking lots into playing fields (not dog runs!) and we can start to work towards a fit City. How about a little housing for SF public school teachers who can't afford to live here. (perfect spot with great transit access to nearly every school). Let's be reasonable here, not greedy! Developer has been misrepresenting proj. from the beginning.
53 agree | 74 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"The developers for the project have included 68 units for low-income earners among 450 apartments planned at the site, which meets The City’s “inclusionary” requirement that 15 percent of on-site units in new buildings be....Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, whose district includes part of the proposed project, described the number of low-income units planned as “woefully inadequate.” Dear Mr. Supervisor, please explain to me, the rules were met... you are moving the goal posts? Gee wheeze even my Jewish mother (may she rest in peace) could see continued wierdness that our legislative body exhibits on a daily (er Daly?) basis.
72 agree | 69 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree