With a total of sixty-four (64) amendments having been proposed by Supervisor Kim, including incentives for the construction of on-site affordable housing units, requiring developments to secure a building permit within 30 months of being approved rather than being banked, and increasing the potential for additional housing to be built, the public hearing and potentially vote on the passage of the City’s ambitious Central SoMa Plan has been pushed back to September at the earliest.

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors is now slated to hear a CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) based appeal of the potential environmental impacts of the Central SoMa plan, and the City’s plan to mitigate said impacts, on September 4.

Assuming the validity of the plan’s impact report is upheld, and San Francisco’s Planning Commission adopts the aforementioned amendments, the Board is could vote on the adoption of the Plan by the end of September. If adopted by the Board, the Plan would then head to the Mayor for a signature. And if signed, the plan would go into effect 30 days later, assuming no legal challenges are filed.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by folderpete

    30 mths btw approval and permit doesn’t take into acct the coming recession. Leave it to JKim to not think thru her proposals.

    I hope they add an amendment to exclude any future rent control proposals toward these parcels. Otherwise …

    • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

      If The City allows an applicant to sit on a project and land bank through a recession, then of course the price of parcels won’t efficiently adjust to meet decreased demand and/or reduced borrowing and building costs during said hypothetical recession and the selling price of completed properties won’t reflect the fair value.

      Kim’s proposal sounds thought through to me, but of course I’m not a developer arguing in favor of my narrow pecuniary interest.

      • Posted by folderpete

        Really? To me, 30 months plants us right in the middle of a hypothetical recession. Given that this expansion has gone on for the longest time in 60 years, and the last recession went from 2008 to approx 2012, you and she have me scratching my head. “But, this boat was *built* not to sink”.

    • Posted by Dave

      That is a given should 10 pass as otherwise this is DOA. That said, even with an exemption developers would not be out of the woods. Tenants and rent control advocates could mount an initiative to override such an exemption – especially as there would be thousands of new units in the area. I doubt developers will take the risk to build here if 10 passes even with an exemption from the BOS.

  2. Posted by Matt M

    64 amendments is crazy. Talk about micro managing. Jane Kim can’t be done soon enough as supervisor.

  3. Posted by Amewsed

    Developers: ignore. Wait until the next business cycle, look for opportunities elsewhere in the meantime.

  4. Posted by Neigh bor

    After ten years of replanning an area that was stuck in the prior 10 year eastern neighborhoods plan, I don’t see why people are upset about this several month d lay in approvals. And I certainly don’t see why developers shouldn’t have to stick with a 30 month timeline!

    • Posted by folderpete

      Well, sounds like a great experiment then, eh? Maybe they’ll be overblown with bids. Or not.

  5. Posted by Exlandlord

    Ditto…..ditto….Central SoMa DOA if 10 passes.
    Which is why I’ve decided to vote for 10.

  6. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: The potential adoption of San Francisco’s Central SoMA Plan has slipped a week, with the Board of Supervisors now slated to hear the CEQA-based appeal of the plan on September 11 and Planning’s hearing on the amended plan is now slated for September 13.

Add a Comment

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