The proposed development at 1515 South Van Nes Ave. Design by BDE Architecture.

In a surprise reversal of its previous decisions, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday to delay a major, 157-unit Mission District housing project on South Van Ness Avenue near 26th Street.

Supervisor David Campos said he changed his mind at the last-minute and moved to support the appeal and delay the project after hearing “hateful and divisive” comments during the public hearing.

“I came into this hearing thinking that I would vote against the appeal,” he said. “But for those of you who always wondered does public comment make a difference, I think this area is a perfect illustration that it does.”

The decision concerned a housing development at 1515 South Van Ness Ave., which activists were appealing on environmental grounds — an argument that they have lost in delaying other projects.

They argued Tuesday – as they have unsuccessfully in the past – that the project’s impact on gentrification should be studied before it went forward.

Campos said those arguments won on Tuesday in part because of what he described as hateful comments made by Sonja Trauss, founder of the San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation.

Trauss, speaking in support of the project, compared activist opposition to new market-rate housing in the Mission to the racist rhetoric of Donald Trump. By preventing new housing, activists were being as unwelcoming of newcomers as Trump, Trauss said.

“When you come here to the Board of Supervisors and say that you don’t want new, different people in your neighborhood, you’re exactly the same as Americans all over the country that don’t want immigrants,” she said. “It’s the same attitude, it’s the exact same attitude.”

Supervisor Aaron Peskin shook his head as Trauss spoke and sprang out of his seat, walking over to Supervisor David Campos across the chamber room. After another speaker lambasted activists for doing nothing about Mission gangs in the 1990s and called them hypocritical for only caring about the neighborhood now, it became clear that Campos was furious.

He conferred with Supervisor Peskin and walked over to Supervisor John Avalos before returning to his seat. He then moved to delay the project until further study could be done by the city.

“If there’s ever a time to stand by doing what is right, that is today,” he said.

The board voted 9-0 to uphold the appeal — Scott Wiener and Norman Yee were absent. The vote means the 157-unit project put forward by Lennar Multifamily Communities will be delayed until the city conducts further study.

At issue in the appeal was what activists called an outdated Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, which governs development in the Mission District, Potrero Hill, Dogpatch, and Central SoMa. The plan, adopted in 2008, exempts projects that meet its guidelines from specific environmental review, a major sticking point for activists who say they are being waved through without regards to their full impact.

The board’s decision comes after supervisors in the last five months have twice voted overwhelmingly against appeals launched on similar grounds.

In July, a 395-unit development at 901 16th St. in Potrero Hill was cleared by the board 9-1.

In September, the same appellants who testified on Tuesday gave similar arguments about gentrification and displacement in appealing a 330-unit project at 2000 Bryant St. in the Mission — but the project was unanimously approved after city staff said concerns about affordability should not be addressed under the state’s environmental law, known as the California Environmental Quality Act.

Though city staff made the same argument on Tuesday, supervisors went against their analysis and recommended that the city study the “cumulative impacts” of market-rate projects coming to the eastern half of the city.

“We are not paying attention to the entire environment, to the entire landscape,” said Supervisor Malia Cohen. “We are becoming out of balance, and it’s important for us to be in sync.”

Reporting like this takes people, feet on the ground. Keep us there. Join Mission local today. Make the Mission a place that values reported content.

Supervisor Campos, for his part, said the appellants “have to do a better job” connecting the issue of displacement with the specific legal issue based on the state’s environmental law.

“I’m not happy [with] what was presented by the appellants,” he said. “I don’t think they did a good enough job in many respects.”

Nevertheless, he later voted in favor of the appeal.

The Lennar development had reached an affordability milestone in August by making 25 percent of its units available to low and middle income tenants. It was the first project in San Francisco to accomplish the feat without public subsidy or upzoning.

The discussion on Tuesday steered away from affordability questions per se, though activists said they wanted a third or more of the units to be below-market-rate.

It’s unclear whether Tuesday’s decision holds legal muster, since the appeal was based strictly on the state environmental law. Campos himself said he could be open to lawsuits, but was largely unperturbed.

“Bring it on,” he said.

Trauss said no single public comment from the audience should change the board’s mind “since it’s a legal question” whether the project should be approved.

Trauss’s comment was not the only Trump-related one made during the three-hour public hearing.

Spike Kahn, a landlord who owns several buildings throughout the city and is the founder of the Pacific Felt Factory arts space, said that in the wake of Trump’s election city supervisors had a particular obligation to “take a stand to protect our neighbors” by blocking projects in minority neighborhoods like the Mission.

“How can we do better to walk the walk than to protect the Mission and our Latino community members?”

Rick Hall, a neighborhood activist, drew a parallel between San Francisco’s sanctuary city status and the recent increased development. He said instead of being a sanctuary city for immigrants and others, the city welcomed only wealthy newcomers.

“We will be a sanctuary city, but only to the undocumented rich,” he said.

It was the comments made by those supporting the project, however, that upset supervisors. Many said those experiencing gentrification should be addressed more respectfully.

Outside the chamber halls, it was a rare moment of happiness for Mission District activists. Typically a quiet crowd after housing decisions at City Hall, they were elated with what they called a “shocking” victory.

“We think it’s the right decision,” said Peter Papadopoulos, a lead activist against market-rate development. “The impacts are clear.”

Scott Weaver, a tenants rights attorney who took the lead in opposing the project and argued the appeal, said Campos sided with them because the project is in the Latino Cultural District and that he has an “affinity” for the designation.

The Latino Cultural District is a symbolic designation by the city of the area around 24th Street. It has no housing guidelines, though Campos previously urged that all market-rate development be stopped in the area. Several speakers argued that the culture of the neighborhood would be eroded if more market-rate projects were allowed in.

It’s unclear what’s next for the Lennar development. It must wait for the city to conduct further study, though it’s unclear whether the project would go forward as envisioned or not.

Regardless, the Board of Supervisors is set to see more such appeals. A 117-unit development at 2675 Folsom St. in the Mission will be appealed on the same environmental grounds as the South Van Ness development by the same activists. If today’s decision is any indication, it too may be delayed.

Follow Us

Join the Conversation


Please keep your comments short and civil. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and very easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. wow.. campos really is the worst. How is striking down more housing helping the community. His vengeful obstructionist politics as usual is the tinder that brought Trump supporters out in the first place. Hope he rots in his next career move so that no one can hear from him again.

  2. Ultimately, the reason that people are finding it increasingly difficult to find reasonably-priced housing is that for the past 40 years we have made it increasingly difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to create housing. This lack of housing production is also the underlying cause of “gentrification.”

    Because of poor/anti-housing policy, we are now at the point of crisis where large portions of the population are having to spend a disproportionate amount of their income on housing and are experiencing displacement and real housing anxiety. This excessive burden is being placed unfairly on the backs of the young, newly-arrived and those of modest means.

    The attitudes of backward-looking politicians such as Campos, Avalos, Peskin, Kim, Mar & Yee have been — and continue to be — instrumental in continuing and even doubling-down on this failed approach.

    The irony and hypocrisy of their ideology — its craven/self-righteous/pandering bluster in full evidence at this hearing — is staggering.

    We should be encouraging and incentivizing the creation of housing — all types of housing — not discouraging and penalizing it. This is the only way out of this morass.

    1. The poor deluded suckers who depend on demented politicians to run their lives are getting just what they deserve. I depended on myself and now after more than 30 years, my place is paid for and I can get a reverse mortgage and enjoy tax free income to live on. My property taxes are real low too. THINK FOR YOURSELVES sheep….

  3. Ms. Trauss’ comments were spot on and obviously struck a sore spot with the ideologically-driven Supervisors Campos, Avalos and Peskin.

    You can’t be “pro-immigration” and “anti-migration”.

    The collective hypocrisy of these 3 Supervisors — and the pettiness of Campos, in particular — knows no bounds.

    Thankfully, Campos and Avalos — along with Mar — are termed out and the backward-looking, reactionary mind-set represented by Peskin will be in the minority when the new, post-election Board convenes.

  4. So Campos is going to hurt 157 poor families because he doesn’t like Sonya Trauss? This is SF politics in a nutshell. To spite an individual, the politicos are willing to shit on their constituents.

    SF supervisors, please start doing what is right and quit worrying about the people proposing the ideas. Bad people can have good ideas and visa versa.

    If Hitler or Donal Trumo said 2+2 =4, David Campos would say, “this can’t be correct because look who is saying it!”

  5. So, basically, developer’s proxy made the grave error of comparing the Mission’s Luddites to Trump — which is, in effect, like comparing them to Hitler — and Campos voted in favor of the appellants, even though he believes they made a poor appeal?

  6. Cannot wait for Campos to term out so we never have to hear from this clown again. The hallmarks of reign of horror include less housing, increased crime, increased drug use, increased encampments. We will all be much better served when he takes his hideous bow ties, terms out and stops negatively impacting this district.

  7. Thank you! great coverage! Only thing is a number of us invoked Trump from the start of the testimony—how his rise came out of corporations decimating community. Would be great if you updated that part of the piece to say something to the effect of—after opening comments in favor of the appeal invoked how Trump’s rise came from this… then the opposition tried to turn it… and such—right?
    OUR CITY!!

  8. Ms. Trauss was condescending, racist and disgusting. She claimed she lives on Natoma in san Francisvco, but folks have told me she actually lives in Oakland. her FB page clearly states current city Oakland, and a recent Chronicle article from May 2016 states “…Sonja Trauss, a full-time activist with a master’s degree in economics who lives in West Oakland.”

    1. The comments made by people opposing the appeal were appalling and proved what many of us have felt for some time. Our first allegiance must be to protect what we have because it is precious, and that includes our neighbors and friends. We cannot throw people out of the sanctuary city they helped create.

  9. You can only fit so many people into the neighborhood. 157 units would have really helped 157 impoverished families not have to compete with 157 rich people dead set on living in this neighborhood.

      1. Bob Evans shame. Can can only assume you are not “impoverished” so actually you are the one who could be any where. Don’t blame the poor for their lack of money, it only makes you look like an arrogant a-hole – and we have too many of those already.

    1. Those 157 units wouldn’t have been available to the “impoverished families”. Don’t be fooled by Lennar’s rhetoric. They build where they see an opportunity for monetary gain and have no investment in any local community or its well-fair.

  10. Utter insanity. 25% subsidized housing gets struck down in a project that displaces no one.

    Nice to see Campos’s true colors. He waved building through when he was trying to get his lackey Rosen elected. But now it’s back to his typical obstructionist behavior.

  11. I’m sorry, but bringing Trump into long-standing local politics is absurd. It’s good political theater, but disingenuous at best. Campos and Avalos can’t leave the Sup Board soon enough – good riddance.