With the environmental review for the 157-unit development at 1515 South Van Ness Avenue having been successfully appealed in November, it would have been nearly impossible for San Francisco’s sitting Board of Supervisors to have argued any differently with respect to the appeal of the nearby 117-unit development at 2675 Folsom Street rendered in the gallery above.

But with four new supervisors slated to take their oaths this morning, including Hillary Ronen, who will be replacing Supervisor Campos, and Supervisor Campos having moved to continue the public hearing and supervisorial vote for the 2675 Folsom Street project until Tuesday, January 10, when the new Board will be in place, the supervisors will have cover to contradict the previous Board’s vote to uphold the appeal for the 1515 South Van Ness vote and set the tone with respect to development in the city.

The proposed 117-unit apartment building to rise up to 40 feet in height at 2675 Folsom Street, behind Parque Ninos Unidos at 23rd and Treat in the Mission, was approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission in September. And both the project’s approval and exemption from having to complete a detailed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) have been appealed.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by NoeEnvy

    Having never attended a SF BoS or Planning Department session/meeting/hearing/whatever they are called, I have a few questions:

    -Will this upcoming hearing on the 10th be open to any public commentary, either in person or via writing?
    -While I won’t be able to attend in person is there anything that can be done to voice support for this project?
    -Anyone who knows more about the whims of the new BoS have any projections around how the vote on this is expected to go?

    • Posted by Gorkem

      Moderates have a 6-5 majority right now. But things are a little more complicated, supes don’t always vote in blocks.

      • Posted by Noodle

        Additionally, many suspect the progressives will find a way to trigger an election in 2017, thereby forcing a special election for Sheehy’s seat. So that majority could be fleeting.

    • Posted by scott f

      Call your Supervisor’s office and ask them (or more likely, the aide who answers) to vote in favor. Make it clear you’re a constituent. If you’re not in District 9 where this project is, emphasize how obstruction of good housing developments anywhere in the city has a harmful impact on your neighborhood too.

      • Posted by scott f

        Rereading this, “vote in favor” is an ambiguous way to put it – you want them to vote *against* the appeal, thus allowing the project to proceed.

  2. Posted by seriously

    No more Campos! Maybe things will move a little more quickly now.

    • Posted by donjuan

      Ronen is just Campos II. Don’t expect anything different out of the Mission supervisor. While crime, homelessness, and high rents are the highest complaints, she’ll just continue the agenda of vilifying tech workers.

      • Posted by Amewsed

        That’s too bad. I agree that the Mission bore the biggest burden of the tech wave so it is a matter of convincing techies to try another more affordable neighborhood. Plenty of wealth, feel free to spread it around to the outer burbs of SF. I welcome them wholeheartedly.

      • Posted by Tony

        At least we can expect Hillary to be a little more responsive to reason. Beyond extreme political views, much of Campos’ dysfunction stemmed from his inability to control his emotions.

  3. Posted by ThunderKnuckle

    I live right down the block from this site. The junkyard was pretty gross, so it’s good to see that area being put to better use. Not too crazy about 117 units in one spot like that, though. Feels just a bit out of scale for the neighborhood, and would seem to fit in better on a main drag like Mission Street. Just my opinion

    • Posted by cfb

      I don’t think it’s out of scale. There’s a four story apartment building on the same block, and just one block east there are three more four story apartment buildings. Combined, they probably have a similar number of housing units within roughly the same footprint as this proposal. And the mission is a densely populated neighborhood anyways, even when we’re talking about smaller buildings…the census tract that this project is in already has a population density of 42,000 people per square mile. I don’t think this project make things feel that much more crowded, honestly.

      Plus, things can’t stay the same forever. Five to six stories is a reasonable, non-overwhelming step up from the more typical two to four stories you see around there.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        it should be larger. considering the amount of public transit in this area, its a shame to build anything less than 7 stories

      • Posted by ThunderKnuckle

        I mean out of scale in terms of amount of units. The height is fine.

    • Posted by scott f

      Keep in mind concentrating density on a “main drag” maximizes the percentage of the population that breathes in high levels of pollutants from exhaust. For a healthier city we should increase density on side streets with lower motor vehicle traffic. I’d like this to be twice as tall with twice the apartments – the neighborhood would still feel just fine. We already have a random eight story building at 21st and Capp and you barely notice it walking around the neighborhood.

  4. Posted by Orland

    So what happened?

    • Posted by ghostwriter

      The item was continued to the March 21st BoS meeting. This gives the Planning Departments time to complete their analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of 1515 S. Van Ness Ave project and this one.

      • Posted by Orland

        So, the appeal was essentially upheld.

        • Posted by ghostwriter

          Technically, no action was taken on the appeal.

Add a Comment

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