Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Planning Commission’s approval of 700 Valencia project amid displacement and mural‑view objections
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a neighborhood group’s appeal and upheld Planning Commission approvals for a five‑story, nine‑unit project at 700 Valencia; opponents cited displacement and loss of visibility for the Women’s Building mural, but the board split 3–2 and declined to impose conditions such as an inclusionary unit or community mitigation fee.
Get email alerts on the Urban Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Board of Appeals reviewed an appeal from the Mission Anti‑Displacement Coalition and neighbors challenging the Planning Commission’s approval of a five‑story, nine‑unit project at 700 Valencia. Opponents said the project would accelerate displacement in the Mission, offered no on‑site affordable units (the developer said the project was exempt from the inclusionary requirement by filing date), and would materially reduce the visibility of the Women’s Building’s Maestro Peace mural from key pedestrian approaches.
Project counsel and sponsor representatives said the project complied with zoning and environmental review (a mitigated negative declaration) and that the Planning Commission had reviewed design and potential impacts in public hearings. Planning staff noted earlier review by the Planning Commission and a 7–3 vote at the Board of Supervisors to uphold the environmental conclusions; the sponsor said the design included upper‑floor setbacks to soften massing and provide pedestrian frontage.
Commissioners debated whether to extract a mitigation fee or require a condition (one suggested motion sought a $100,000 voluntary payment to the affordable‑housing fund). Multiple motions failed to gain the required four votes to impose conditions or reduce the building’s fifth floor. Ultimately, the board voted 3–2 to uphold the planning approvals without imposing additional conditions. Commissioners who voted to deny the appeal cited plan compliance and prior public review; dissenting commissioners cited neighborhood scale, cultural impacts, and the project’s failure to provide mitigation for displacement or to preserve public views of the mural.
