Board rejects Trinity Plaza deal
In a surprising move yesterday, the Land Use Committee (headed by McGoldrick and Maxwell — both Daly allies) and the full board shot down the chance for Trinity Plaza to move forward and instead suggested it go back to the Planning Commission. Did Daly broker too many deals on this one for even his own allies to stomach? McGoldrick wants MORE affordable housing than Daly could get?
From today’s Examiner,
The Board of Supervisors rejected on Tuesday a general plan amendment that would have allowed the development to move forward, pending other approvals.“Some members of the board seem to be working to see if there’s other things that can be done,” Daly said after the vote. When asked if the board’s decision jeopardizes the development, Daly, who was up for re-election Tuesday, said, “I am going to get another four years on the Board of Supervisors and we will have this all worked out before you know it. But if I lose, then maybe.”
Supervisors Sophie Maxwell and Jake McGoldrick have spearheaded the push to hold up the development. The two sit on the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee, which is charged with holding hearings on the proposed development before the full board can take a vote on it.
“I ask that you vote [the general plan amendment] down so that it can go back to the planning committee,” Maxwell said to the board members. “There have been sufficient questions raised about this huge project that I think it warrants more time.”
McGoldrick wants to see more below-market-rate units added to the project — 15 percent not the proposed 10 percent — and he also has suggested the developer pay for new open space in the area. The no-vote puts the development in “a holding pattern,” McGoldrick said. [more...]
It’s a sad day when even the the most hardened progressives on the board are going to fight over housing (after one of their own brokered the deal in the first place) and keep it from getting built. I thought this had all been worked out? Just think what an impact 1,900 units of housing could have on mid-Market. Nobody can argue that it would shift the supply/demand equation in favor of those who are looking for housing… Yet the board is still going to hold it up?
I really thought this was going to be an example of how to get housing built in the city. Sangiacomo (the project’s owner/developer) made some sacrifices, but those were enough to satisfy Daly. If there’s a housing project that Daly will approve, shouldn’t we expect that is the last hurdle? Has the ‘downtown money’ softened Daly? Or is McGoldrick not seeing his name in print enough anymore? He will be up for re-election in a couple of years… Never too early to start campaigning, I guess…
Board rejects Trinity Plaza deal [Examiner]
Trinity Plaza gets OK [SFHomeBlog]
Wealthy Developer Tries to Stop Rebuilding of Trinity Plaza [SFHomeBlog]
I am so sick and tired of these board members. I hope the developer walks away – even though I am sure it will cost him money. Then these so-called progressives that seem to believe they can continue to get the people that actually BUILD housing to practically give away every larger sums of development dollars can deal with the anger of the current residents that were going to get a sweet deal into the new development. NEW OPEN SPACE???? The city doesn’t even keep the drug dealers out of what is already there.
CameronRex at November 8th, 2006 at 7:13 pm ( )It is such a joke. The people in power do not get it. SF needs a regime change. Oh, we reelected Daly. I wonder if the owners of new units being built will vote in better %s than the ones that are there. I was so proud of the US for the results last night and then you get this district 6 bs.
Anonymous at November 8th, 2006 at 7:47 pm ( )maybe it would pass if they promised to put a bronze plaque of each of the supes in the lobby.
Anonymous at November 8th, 2006 at 11:41 pm ( )As I understood the situation, the developer promised to provide housing for the tenants who are currently protected by rent control… in addition to building a significant number of new condos on the site of the current Trinity Plaza complex…
However in the final negotiation, it seems that the developer tried to back down on his promise, which seems to have prompted the committee’s most recent response.
However, In this re-telling of the story… that critical piece of information is lost.
It seems logical to me that developers who are building housing and making a significant financial gain from their work, should offset the cost of providing services to those new residents. ie. sewer, police, water, traffic, etc.
It actually strikes me as sound governance to require developers to match some of the added costs to the city for services that new residents will be using… Dontcha think?
BTW… I really appreciate this blog… for the most part there is quite a bit of good information here.
Keep up the good work… Let’s not forget to check our facts though…
Anonymous at November 9th, 2006 at 7:29 am ( )Interesting, I did not realize the developer is trying to back down from the units he promised to the planning dept to get this approved in the first place. I find that hard to believe. As far as them paying for added services, that seems like over kill. The property will be reassesed upon completion will pay much higher property taxes. That should more than cover the additional costs. And subsidise the long owned lots in the area. Lets not even talk about prop 13 and how unfair all the new purchases are carrying more than thier share. Anyway, interesting to see how this plays out.
Anonymous at November 9th, 2006 at 6:35 pm ( )“..the developer promised to provide housing for the tenants who are currently protected by rent control…it seems that the developer tried to back down on his promise, which seems to have prompted the committee’s most recent response…”
Where did you hear that? I don’t think the developer retracted the agreement to keep 360 units under rent control. The Examiner article states that the project was rejected because of additional demands– more subsidized units, and more fees to the city to pay for open space.
Dan at November 13th, 2006 at 2:50 am ( )I support more affordable housing, but when/if completed,the three-tower Trinity Plaza complex will be one ugly addition to the neighborhood. It is very difficult to make 24-stories of punched concrete facades very interesting in a neighborhood that includes the new library, Asian Art Museum and the beautifully restored City Hall. Yet despite the beauty of these and many other structures nearby, one will sadly be drawn to this gargantuan aesthetic blunder of a building, much like one is unfortunately drawn to a wart or other large deformity on an otherwise beautiful face.
In sum, the consequences of this project are profound for the neighborhood and for the city at large; unfortunately, we are going to have to live with it for many years to come much like we live with the consequences of the Fox Tower Plaza development of a generation ago.
Anonymous at December 18th, 2006 at 2:03 am ( )When will people in SF get a clue…one of the anonymous posters notes “I support more affordable housing, but when/if completed,the three-tower Trinity Plaza complex will be one ugly addition to the neighborhood.”
The current Trinity Complex is one of the biggest eyesores on Market Street and should have been razed long ago. Enough with all this bickering and lets make some actual progress in this city.
Anonymous at July 26th, 2007 at 5:53 pm ( )