Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission pauses Central SoMa EIR certification after broad public comment
Summary
The commission continued certification of the Central SoMa final EIR to May 10 after a noticing error and hours of public testimony on housing/jobs balance, tower‑separation rules, open‑space fees, TDM grandfathering and the Flower Mart relocation.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on April 12 declined to certify the Central SoMa final environmental impact report (EIR) and related code and map amendments, instead continuing the certification to May 10 because of a noticing error. Staff and the public used the hearing as an informational forum to debate major technical and policy issues in the Central SoMa package.
Planning staff said substitute ordinances introduced by the mayor and supervisor(s) increase the total units analyzed in the EIR to 8,300 and incorporate technical corrections requested by the commission. Staff briefed commissioners on a proposed land swap (1.5‑acre PUC parcel at 639 Brannan for an 8‑acre 2000 Marin site owned by Tishman Speyer) intended to create a Central SoMa park and to secure 2000 Marin as the preferred temporary site for the Flower Mart; staff also noted the piers (Piers 19/19.5/23) are being held as a backup site.
Public testimony was extensive and covered three recurring themes.
First, housing and job balance: community groups and housing advocates said the plan as revised would add roughly 35,000 jobs and 8,300 housing units — a jobs‑to‑housing ratio they said risks displacement unless the city pursues aggressive affordable‑housing acquisition, land banking and a housing sustainability district. Speakers urged policies to produce more citywide housing and to avoid concentrating new housing in lower‑income neighborhoods.
Second, technical code issues: developers and their counsel requested restoration or clarification of grandfathering for the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program so projects already in the pipeline do not face retroactive changes; they also flagged tower‑separation rules and an 80‑square‑foot per‑unit open‑space requirement plus a high in‑lieu fee that could make large towers infeasible. Planning staff said some of the concerns may be drafting issues or oversights and committed to memos, models and code clarifications in the May 10 packet.
Third, the Flower Mart relocation: Kilroy Realty reported an agreement in principle to designate 2000 Marin Street as the preferred temporary site for the Flower Mart, contingent on a city land swap and entitlements for Tishman Speyer’s Central SoMa project; Kilroy said the company will pursue the piers as a backup site if the land swap does not occur.
Speakers included business representatives, flower market vendors and industry groups worried about access and parking if the flower market moves to the piers, community and labor groups asking for stronger protections and benefits, and housing advocates urging more affordable units and displacement mitigation. Planning staff responded that the extra month will be used to vet late submissions, provide modeling on tower separation, and prepare an issues‑for‑consideration memo so the May 10 packet will show changes and rationales.
Commissioner Coppell moved to continue certification to May 10; the motion passed unanimously. Staff said they will return with a revised packet and memos addressing the technical questions raised.
