As Zachary Nathan stood at a lectern in the sanctuary of St. John’s Presbyterian church Thursday night, his fellow Richmond District neighbors understood he wasn’t there to preach the gospel.
In fact, by many neighbors’ reactions, the retired architect had delivered bad news. Nathan and two others spoke to a crowd of some 60 people about a proposed eight-story Safeway redevelopment project at 850 La Playa St. near Ocean Beach.
The takeaway: The project will be too large, too tall, and out of scale for the neighborhood. It would, as one speaker said, practically disenfranchise neighborhood residents — a sentiment attendees echoed.
“Is this really how democracy works?” asked that speaker, Bridget Maley, an architectural historian by trade and member of Neighborhoods United, who presented on the project’s legal basis. “Our objection to these housing laws is that they squash our voices,” she added, saying the laws are well-intentioned and the need for housing is urgent — but “they don’t allow the citizens … to have a voice.”
Rendering of the proposed Safeway redevelopment at 850 La Playa St. Screenshot via San Francisco Planning/Designs by Steinberg Hart. 
Rendering of the proposed Safeway redevelopment at 850 La Playa St. Screenshot via San Francisco Planning/Designs by Steinberg Hart. 
Rendering of the proposed Safeway redevelopment at 850 La Playa St. Screenshot via San Francisco Planning/Designs by Steinberg Hart. 
Rendering of the proposed Safeway redevelopment at 850 La Playa St. Screenshot via San Francisco Planning/Designs by Steinberg Hart.
Maley was correct: There is little Richmond residents can do to shape the project. Align Real Estate, which has partnered with Safeway’s parent company to develop the site and many other Safeways across the city, is taking advantage of state streamlining laws to do so without public hearing requirements or discretionary approval by government agencies. Thursday’s meeting was organized by the neighborhood group Planning Association for the Richmond, and did not involve the developers or public officials — two of Supervisor Connie Chan’s legislative aides were there, but did not speak.
“I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say this is probably the closest that we are going to get to having a public hearing on this, which is traditionally not held by nonprofit organizations like ourselves,” said Brian Kragh, an attorney who organized the event and is a member of the neighborhood group.
Nathan, chair of the Planning Association for the Richmond’s land use committee, broke down the project’s architectural plans. As his voice echoed in the century-old church, neighbors couldn’t seem to help but signal their disgust.
“The total gross floor area is 721,000 square feet,” he said.
“Jesus,” reacted one person in the audience.
“The residential entrance lobby will be at 48th Avenue.”
An attendee let out a chuff.
“The retail space will increase from 37,340 to 63,000 square feet, so almost double the size.”
An older woman shook her head. Sighs and scoffs continued at each turn.
Well over half of the attendees raised their hands when asked if they lived within five minutes of the Safeway, or frequently shopped there.
The most recent plans for the site would see an eight-story, 562-unit complex built where the 55-year-old Safeway building currently stands surrounded by a parking lot (“probably time for remodel, or a new store,” said Nathan). Twenty percent of those units would be dedicated affordable housing.
The developer must work to meet the planning department’s interpretation of the code, Nathan explained, describing a September letter from the city indicating that the developer may have to reduce the number of units by over 100, which could in turn reduce the height.
“That would be great,” somebody chimed from the pews.
Neighbors drew up a host of concerns: parking, transit, affordability, construction feasibility, shade, tsunami risk, earthquake risk. Kragh worried the loss of the Safeway would create a food desert during construction.
Maley said that streamlining has allowed developers to “avoid local zoning policies,” and “override local design standards,” without hearings.
“Let’s name some names,” said Phoenix Project president and investigative reporter Julie Pitta, a Richmond resident. “Who’s responsible for this?”
Maley stood up but declined to offer a name, and instead described a 10-year history of state housing laws that she said incentivized “tall towers that are so expensive they can’t get built.”
Pitta stood back up. “I’m going to name a name. State Senator Scott Wiener.” Wiener has been perhaps the most prolific state legislator on housing, and while his laws have removed local control over development in many cases, Align’s project hinges on Senate Bill 330, which was authored by Berkeley state Sen. Nancy Skinner.
Among the few in attendance who spoke favorably of the project was Bobak Esfandiari, a YIMBY organizer who, by day, serves as executive director of the San Francisco Democratic Party (Esfandiari attended as a neighbor and in his personal capacity, he said).
Esfandiari, sitting in the back corner of the pews, turned heads and elicited wide eyes with the words: “Frankly, I think it’s not tall enough.” Earlier, someone sitting nearby had asked the audience if they would support the development if it offered 100 percent affordable housing.
“I would,” said Maley.
“Four stories,” demanded others — not eight.
“I’m not anti-development,” said one neighbor, who said she lived across the street from the Safeway, “but I would say I think this project is way out of scale for our neighborhood.” The room filled with brief but loud applause.
Neighbors repeatedly asked about subsequent hearings.
“Do we have any hope that the Coastal Commission will weigh in on this?” asked one neighbor, an hour and a half into the town hall. “Do we know what point this is at, at the planning department?”
The neighbor listed her concerns: sewage and stormwater drainage, liquefaction, “and what about compensation for all the noise? How long is this going to take? Do they have a projected start date?”
Maley eventually cut her off. No such hearings would be required, Maley said, and state streamlining laws made it difficult to establish a timeline. Minutes later, the town hall was over.
Earlier in the night, Kragh had offered a consolation to some of those concerned:
“Sure, they’re not technically required to hear us because of the streamlining laws,” he said. “But since we have reporters covering this, and since you all are speaking — they’re sure going to hear about us now.”
“If my saying no isn’t decisive, democracy has failed!”
Nah, the rest of us said “yes,” through state law. Your “no” got outvoted.
I do not remember voting on this via state law and I certainly never voted for Scott Wiener.
For that matter, one of the basic norms of a democratic society like ours is that even a democratic majority shouldn’t necessarily have the right to tell a nonconforming minority what to do, unless they have a clear and compelling reason why.
The folks at this meeting seem to take it for granted that “a marginally taller building might be built in the general vicinity of my house” is a compelling enough threat to entitle them to override other people’s right to do what they want with their own property. It’s not at all self-evident why the rest of society should have to indulge this entitled busybody mentality.
As it stands, state housing law is the product of a corrupt, un-democratic system dominated by the same oligarchical mob that enables Donald Trump. There is no such thing as a fair election in San Francisco,
tiny violin
It’s out of scale? Cool, heighten the surrounding buildings – problem solved.
Sure. Developers are going to live buying out all those buildings at market rate to knock them all down.
Well, they definitely demonstrated why the streamlining laws are needed, and why so little housing has been built for decades!
As a 30-year resident of the Richmond, I’m sick and tired of these anti-housing NIMBYs.
As a 35 year resident of the Richmond District, I am not against building housing. I am against building that is unsustainable, too high, and unaffordable . This plan only serves the rich and Align real estate.
Sounds great, propose a different solution to get a few thousand housing units in the Richmond over the next 10 years so my kids don’t have to gentrify Richmond (the city) when they grow up.
“ It would practically disenfranchise neighborhood residents” well, yes, because letting housing policy be driven by neighborhood meetings like this one is how we ended up in this utterly destructive housing crisis in the first place.
Besides their awful practical effects, they also disenfranchise working people who don’t have time to attend this sort of thing; they disenfranchise kids who would like to live near their parents after they graduate; they disenfranchise people who would like to move here from oppressive states but can’t do that yet; etc etc etc.
These people want all the benefits of living in a city and state but then they want to opt out of that whenever it would change anything. That’s not a democratic franchise, that’s a heckler’s veto.
You think building these high rise apartments with a minimal amount of affordable housing and the maximal amount of market rate housing is going to allow kids to live in the same neighborhood they group up in? The single family housing in the Richmond and Sunset allow infill housing such as inlaw apartments or multi-generational housing where extended families CAN live in the same neighborhood. This “family” zoning is anything but “family” oriented. High rise apartments that are studios to maybe 2 bedrooms don’t attract families, they attract singles and couples. Once you start to have children (ie create “families”) you want more space, a yard, a garage so you move out of SF to the suburbs or to the western side of SF where such housing still exists.
yes
You’re technically correct that this tiny little 8-story Safeway development contains nowhere near enough housing to singlehandedly make the San Francisco housing market genuinely affordable.
Similarly, a person shouting “that tiny little bucket is nowhere near enough to bail out all the floodwater from the bottom of the boat!” is also technically correct… until it becomes clear that their stance is that nobody should be trying to bail any water out of the boat at all.
Truly pathetic people. Find something better to do with your time, maybe help someone. 8 stories is not crazy large at all. The VA hospital is out there too. So the noise and traffic complaints ring hollow..
You obviously don’t live in the neighborhood. I DO live near the VA and it’s buffered by the surrounding GG Recreation area. It does impact parking and traffic but they attempt to mitigate it with more parking garages and community meetings. It is in NO way comparable to a totally infilled plat with much more limited parking provided like this Safeway project which is surrounded by residences that are at the most 3-4 stories tall.
Looks like the same bunch of old people that attended the Marina Safeway opposition meeting.
I see plenty of non old people in the photo.
So you’re ageist. This is not a good town for you.
Sounds like they are advocating for mob rule over representative democracy.
The best way we can solve homelessness in SF is to throw all these people out of their homes and give them to people who need them.
I hate every single one of these people.
Bring fascism back! That’s the answer!
…it’s a massive empty parking lot. These same people complaining that they have “no voice” have also actively campaigned and used their voices to prevent new housing from being built for decades. The city is now out of state compliance for building new housing. These residents created a political gridlock so bad that it prevented the board of supervisors from being able to form a consensus and create a sensible housing policy that matched what people in the city wanted and what the state told us was legally required. Idea after idea, location after location… these are the residents who shot them all down. These people had all the privilege in the world and they abused it, so now it has been taken away from ALL OF US so that our local and state government can start to solve the overgrown problem we created. If people keep stubbornly enforcing a political impasse with no regard for compromise, democracy has no choice but to move forward without them. What could be more selfish than to have a meeting about a solution to a problem, and the main issue they bring up is: “We just don’t like it, and we think that should be enough for us to make you not do it…” ?
If high density high rise developments are so needed in the outer Sunset then please explain why the Westerly complex opposite the zoo at 2800 Sloat has remained unoccupied on the commercial lower floors and the occupancy rate has been estimated to be around 75%. This 56 unit development has not been successfully fully occupied for years since completion. It’s because it’s too expensive, the units are too small, and it’s out of character for the neighborhood where single family homes continue to sell well.
this view is myopic, you mistake anecdotes for data.
Not a single objection was mentioned besides “it’s too big” (for an eight story building). It’s also behind an existing development so it doesn’t even block anyone’s ocean views.
This is exactly why the state law was needed.
NIMBY tears taste so good.
You sound like a certain President currently in office, who is dismantling our history as fast as he can.
https://culturalheritagepartners.com/open-letter-to-congress-from-national-coalition/
Don’t choke on Weinerspew.
Build Baby, Build!!!!
they should get over it and realize that we elected officials via democracy who recently passed laws to hold municipalities accountable for their lack of housing development.
Thanks to Planning Association for the Richmond and Richmond Democratic Club for sponsoring this townhall. Lots of important information a
What I appreciate about this article is that it reminds us why it was useful and important to end discretionary review for projects like this.
These proposed residential housing units won’t be available for purchase.
They all are going to be rental units owned by Aligned.
Only 20% of the rental units will be available as affordable housing.
It was unclear how the rent for these affordable housing units will be regulated over the life of a tenancy (?) . San Francisco’s Rental Control Ordinance
provides an exemption for rental units constructed after June 13, 1979 which appears to be in conflict with the developers statement regarding the 20% of the rental units be affordable. How long will these rental units remain affordable. Perhaps the developer envisions an eventual opt out of “affordable” through litigation
The contractual mechanism for keeping the rent affordable requires explanation.
I was at the meeting and I heard some really good questions regarding the La Playa Safeway closure and some pretty comprehensive and helpful answers from the speakers and members of the audience. I have one bit of good news for some people who are dealing with a loss of local grocery stores. There is a bill sitting on Newsom’s desk that passed the state legislature that will become law unless Newsom vetos it. The bill is AB 1857: Unlawfully restrictive covenants: grocery stores and supermarkets. You may look it up here: https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab1857
It is supported by a wide range of politicians so there is no reason to suspect it will be vetoed.
I’m not for yimbys or nimbys, but I’d definitely be upset if this was coming to my SF neighborhood/street.
Ideally the plans would be more in-line with the existing neighborhood I.e. if houses are 1-1.2M then condos that have some amenities & are brand new and open space at 1-1.2M seem fine and compatible (maybe a bit less since HOA’s are crazy high), but nothing over 4 stories. That should pencil out & be in keeping with the neighborhood, 8-story towers are not compatible. A 4-5 story building should be the max. The city should be aiming for this and speeding up permits to complete with the state laws…
Developers are looking for max profits, and I don’t care about how many units the ‘city is mandated to build under state law’ the REALITY IS those # are bogus and WE HAVD A POPULATION DECLINE AHEAD not an increase.
As a side note, no one says you get to live where your parents live, you get to live where you can afford and some of that is based on you not anyone or anything else. It’s called reality, you usually find it in your late 20’s when you start doing the math of life, though San Franciscan’s are such late bloomers seem to discover it in their mid-30-60’s/never. I feel for these residents, but equally all San Franciscan’s has this coming. Sucks for both sides, and all San Franciscans alike.
Today in ‘you just don’t get it,’ housing needs to be built because supply is low. And population growth is slowing in Coastal California (it is NOT declining—try learning math sometime) because of useless NIMBYs like you. So the solution is to get on with building and ignore the NIMBYs.
The population decline is happening precisely because of NIMBYs like you, you dolt.
Wow.
People really think the developers are building this for the “working people” or “kids who would like to live near their parents” or “people who would like to move here from oppressive states”?
These will be 1.5 +++ million-dollar condos for cash rich arrivistes moving to town with their Teslas, Lucids and Rivians able to afford not only the unit but ridiculous HOA fees.
Welcome to San Francisco and thanks for coming – we’re way short on cars and rich people here in The Sunset.
Ok but consider what will happen if the development is not built — those same hypothetical millionaires will buy up homes across the Richmond and over time displace existing neighbors. Limiting supply does not magically make the demand disappear…
The YIMBYs are out in force here, I see. Powered by developers, and against the community. You can try to educate them, but they don’t want to hear it: https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/131070/1/III_Working_Paper_159.pdf
Great article, by the way, with a very apt description of the situation.
You’re right, we don’t want to hear it. A single paper by a leftist economist that doesn’t actually disprove anything about the situation (rather, it’s a mere corollary to the central argument) is hardly an invalidation of this project being win-win: more people get to call the Outer Richmond home while being next to a rapid bus line and it pencils out for the developers.
That’s because Paris—almost exactly the same size as SF and three times the number of people —is one of the world’s most appealing and lively cities *because* it is dense. Naples (also same physical size) is getting nicer because it’s growing, modernizing its housing stock, and focusing on urbanity even as the overall population of the country shrinks. Neither of these cities are particularly affordable overall, but people who work there can live there. This is how we know it’s really ok to have a few 8+ story apartment blocks here and there, and transforming this expanse of asphalt is the way to do it.
This is another oversized, largely market-rate development that most people cannot afford that does not belong in this neighborhood. What is needed instead is thoughtfully planned, 100% affordable housing that is compatible with the surroundings. But, sadly, State law no longer allows those impacted by a project like this to have a say. There are already enough units in the City’s pipeline to meet the demand for housing. What we’re seeing is wealthy developers and their enablers ride roughshod over the rest of us. This is not how San Francisco should work. Thank you, Planning Association for the Richmond, for speaking out.