With San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors having upheld the certification of the City’s plan to mitigate the projected environmental impacts of its ambitious Central SoMa Plan, rejecting a handful of appeals in a majority vote, the Board is now on track to adopt the plan next month.

If adopted by the Board, the plan, which has been in the works since 2010 and could now clear the way for the development of nearly 9,000 more homes and office space for over 30,000 employees, would then head to the Mayor for her signature.  And if signed by the Mayor, the City’s Central SoMa Plan would go into effect 30 days later, assuming no additional legal challenges are filed. We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Sigh

    Finally this thing is getting passed. It makes sense for this traffic rich area to be built up, and it forces the developers to pay up front costs for housing, so we get more housing much sooner.

    • Posted by RobBob

      It’s still tied up in the land use and transportation committee, continuously deferred as Jane Kim works on “amendments” to increase affordable housing requirements. Even though she has publically said she does not want to delay the process.

      Maybe she just wants to defer it meeting to meeting until her successor gets voted in.

  2. Posted by donjulio16

    I still really hate the massing and table topping at 4th and townsend. Why is SF so allergic to tall buildings that they’d rather build two 300+ ft tall buildings RIGHT next to eachother rather than just building one attractive 600-800 ft tower.

    • Posted by somalandlord

      Liquefaction. Soil type E.

      • Posted by Pablito

        Yep. Science. Once in a blue moon the City does take it into account and does rational decision making. Evacuating a 800′ building by stairs after an earth quake is completely stupid.

        • Posted by RobBob

          Tower height zoning has nothing to do with the planning department. They purposefully wanted the towers to be shorter than in rincon hill or the financial district. This is actually an upzoning compared to the original proposal which if I remember correctly was 250 ft, and people at the community meetings complained about this height limit being too artificially short.

          Actually the plan for this site if it were built as office space was one monolithic 400 ft office tower block.

          I guess it’s nice to make some stuff up that sounds true but simply isn’t accurate.

  3. Posted by who

    There’s nothing scientific about housing in SF. NIMBYism and fear Manhattanization are what’s driving table topping. Instead of building a tall tower and saving some space for greenery/parks, SF fills every lot with 300 ft tall buildings, then cry about shortage of housing and high rents.

Add a Comment

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