June 2009
Calvin Welch, HANC Housing and Land Use Committee
The May, 2009 announcement (see chronology, below for full text Business Times coverage of the announcement) by the developers that the 205,000 square foot, seven story mixed use project for 690 Stanyan Street was abandoned because of financial reasons complicated by the long delay and fees imposed by the City was the final act of a three year neighborhood battle that like many other aspects of the dispute, is less than fully accurate.
The following narrative and chronology of the controversy is an attempt to offer a more comprehensive and accurate recounting of events which show that it was the developers insistence on a huge, out of scale project and their inability to address legitimate concerns about the impacts of that development that delayed and then doomed the project.
Size Matters
The primary neighborhood concern with the proposed project was its massive size. The proposed project had a 34,000 s/f food store on the ground floor, some 62 market rate condo totaling 81,000 s/f on the next three floors and 181 parking spaces on three below grade parking levels which totaled 90,000 s/f . This proposal was 13 times the size of the of existing 15,000 s/f food store and 42 surface grade parking spaces.
By far the most concern generated in the neighborhood centered on the 90,000 s/f of parking for 181 cars. City code required that the project have a total of 134 off street parking spaces for both the housing and the store. But the developer insisted on adding an additional 35% more parking than required and never gave any justification for this increase.
That concern over the auto impacts was shared by regional air quality regulators as well. The project was so massive that it triggered regional standard which required a full EIR on any project that produced more than 2,000 car trips a day (see "Notice of Preparation of an EIR", Department of City Planning, July 7, 2007, p.39). Had the developer not demanded such a huge amount of parking there would have been no EIR done at all as it is San Francisco policy not to require EIR's of residential projects in residentially zoned areas such as this site.
As the attached chronology shows it was the developers inability to assess and quantify in a timely manner the traffic impacts of the project that slowed down approval of the EIR which added full year to the approval process. This was a slowdown directly caused by the developer inability to provide data on traffic and car impacts the large size of projects off street parking garage created in the first place.
{mospagebreak}
Traffic Impacts
From the first public meeting held in the neighborhood on the project in April, 2006 residents raise questions and concerns about car traffic generated by the development, its impact on MUNI, neighborhood parking, pedestrians entering Golden Gate Park, especially children and the elderly and truck deliveries to the grocery store.
The developer never publically considered reducing the parking. Instead, in a rather curious non-reply, reply stressed that neighborhood residents would walk to the store, begging the question as to why he insisted on such a large off street garage.
When the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) were finally published the objective basis of these concerns were revealed. The project would:
- create some 7,073 new car trips to
and from the site each day (the project was proposed to be open 24
hours a day, DEIR , p.72);
- have some 27 truck deliveries each
day, requiring an additional surface truck dock on Stanyan street
taking up a full lane in front of the store (DEIR, p. 81);
- produce 717 pounds a day of air
pollutants, with the CO portion exceeding the "sufficient"
threshold ; these pollutants would be vented into the backyard of
existing residents on Page street (DEIR, p. 97);
- there would be a "shortfall"
of off street parking spaces in meeting the auto demand of some 30
spaces each day and 60 spaces on the weekend resulting in store
customers competing with residents for the existing street parking
spaces (DEIR, p. 79).
Indeed, both resident and Planning Commissioners so critics the study that the developer was required to do one in the summer months that more accurately addressed pediatrician uses in the area.
The developer took some seven months to reply to these comments, stopping consideration of the application until the response was made. Added to the seven months the developer took between the EIR notice and the publication of the draft EIR nearly an entire year was taken by the developer to prepare for and complete the EIR process, a delay solely his.
{mospagebreak}
Conclusion
As this narrative and chronology clearly shows it was at the developers choice that the project was required to go through the approval process outlined. Had the project been smaller, using the existing building as HANC and residents requested, it would have been approved in far less than a year. Had the developer reduced the size of the off street parking garage and thus its traffic and air quality impacts no EIR would have been required and the project would have been approved.
In both cases it was the developers choices that prolonged and delayed project approval. HANC and the projects neighbors simply followed the rules put in place by these decisions of the developer, raising questions stemming form the projects massive size and impacts.
Finally, Whole Foods were never approved for the site, just a general "grocery store" use was formally approved (see Planning Commission Motion No. 17733, October 23, 2008). If the decisions made by the developer caused a delay that Whole Foods simply no longer wished to accept the loss of Whole Foods is to be laid at the door of the developer.
{mospagebreak}
Chronology of the 690 Stanyan (CALA) Proposed Project
13 June 2005- first filing for a new project at 690 Stanyan of 57 units and 100 parking spaces received by Planning Department from Brennan . Filing this soon exempts project from new inclusionary requirement of 15% having it meet the old 12% requirement.
15 Feb 2006 - First Public Notice of demolition of CALA site mailed to occupants listing only one lot on Stanyan when Brennan plans call for a project on two lots.
27 Feb. 2006 - 15 Feb notice withdrawn and new notice for two lots on Page and Stanyan issued. Additional 30 day review period because of inaccurate first notice.
20 March 2006- Planning Department Notice that project application is on "Hold" pending information required for PUD and application for EE which of this date had not been submitted by Brennan's. Project description enlarged from 57 to 62 units and 184 parking spaces from 100. Size of commercial space for project doubled.
13 Apr. 2006- HANC monthly meeting devoted to a discussion of ‘Preferences" for CALA site. Some 21 are listed and sent developer (who was present at meeting) and Plan Depart. List was published in May, 2006 HANC Voice. The April HANC meeting was the first public meeting held on the project in the neighborhood.
May 2006- CALA is closed
13 July 2006- Mark Brennan attends HANC monthly meeting to respond to "Preferences" of HANC's Apr meeting. Says there will be no interim uses on site until project is approved
25 October 2006 - Official Notice of Project Receiving Environmental Review for 690 Stanyan, some 7 months after request for application for environmental evaluation.
14 June 2007- HANC membership meeting discusses approval and EIR process for CALA site with Planning Department lead project planner Jonas Ionin. Developer present.
7 July 2007-Notice of Preparation of EIR ("Initial Study") issues for 690 Stanyan
3 Aug. 2007- HANC submits "Comments on Scoping of EIR 206.046E 690 Stanyan".
13 September 2007- HANC Board votes to oppose project.
19 Jan. 2008- Draft EIR for 690 Stanyan published
2 Feb. 2008- HANC sponsored neighbors meeting on 690 Stanyan where it is learned that the immediate neighbors have never been approached or directly notified by the Brennan's of their pending project.
8 Feb. 2008 - Plan Com Approves Parking Lot for 690 Stanyan
28 Feb. 2008 - Public Hearing on Draft EIR, HANC, Sierra Club and some 20 or so residents submit written comments pointing out incompleteness of traffic impacts studies.
1 October 2008- Comments and Responses to EIR document published. It took the developers 8 months to respond to comments made at 28 Feb hearing.
18 October 2008 - HANC sponsored neighbors meeting on 690 Stanyan
23 October 2008 - Project approved and final EIR certified.
28 May 2009- Mark Brennan tells SF Business Times project is "scrapped" because of financing some 7 months after getting approval.
{mospagebreak}
Text of SF Business Times Story on Cancellation of 690 Stanyan Project
San Francisco Business Times
Developer scraps S.F. Whole Foods project because of city fees
7 July 2007-Notice of Preparation of EIR ("Initial Study") issues for 690 Stanyan
3 Aug. 2007- HANC submits "Comments on Scoping of EIR 206.046E 690 Stanyan".
13 September 2007- HANC Board votes to oppose project.
19 Jan. 2008- Draft EIR for 690 Stanyan published
2 Feb. 2008- HANC sponsored neighbors meeting on 690 Stanyan where it is learned that the immediate neighbors have never been approached or directly notified by the Brennan's of their pending project.
8 Feb. 2008 - Plan Com Approves Parking Lot for 690 Stanyan
28 Feb. 2008 - Public Hearing on Draft EIR, HANC, Sierra Club and some 20 or so residents submit written comments pointing out incompleteness of traffic impacts studies.
1 October 2008- Comments and Responses to EIR document published. It took the developers 8 months to respond to comments made at 28 Feb hearing.
18 October 2008 - HANC sponsored neighbors meeting on 690 Stanyan
23 October 2008 - Project approved and final EIR certified.
28 May 2009- Mark Brennan tells SF Business Times project is "scrapped" because of financing some 7 months after getting approval.
Text of SF Business Times Story on Cancellation of 690 Stanyan Project
San Francisco Business Times
Developer scraps S.F. Whole Foods project because of city fees
- by J.K. Dineen
The developer of a "Whole Foods" and housing development approved for a vacant lot at Haight and Stanyon streets has decided to shelve the project, citing high city fees and the economic downturn.
Project manager Mark Brennan said the family development business would
have had to pay between $5 million and $6 million in city fees just to
pull permits on the development, which was to include 62 apartments and
a 34,000 square foot Whole Foods. The development fees cover everything
from an affordable housing to San Francisco Unified School District to
the Public Utilities Commission.
"Its prohibitive," said Brennan. "We just took a look at the market and
our own budget and every time we came up with a number, the fees were
prohibitive.
Brennan blamed the city's rigorous 32-month entitlement process that
started in February of 2006, when the economy was roaring, and did not
end until October 2008, when the global financial crisis was in full swing.
"This project should have started a year ago. "Its ridiculous," he said
"If this had started when it was supposed to start we would have already
turned the shell over to Whole Foods. We would be fine. But the
financing will be difficult to get now."
Brennan said his family is in talks with Whole Foods about possibly
building out a smaller specialty grocery store in the existing 23,600
square foot building, but that no deal has been reached. The building
was home to Cala Foods until the store closed in May of 2006.
Thursday, May 28, 2009, 1:37pm PDT | Modified: Thursday, May 28, 2009,
1:46pm All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All
rights reserved.