SAN FRANCISCO | 2700 Sloat Boulevard | 589 FT | 50 FLOORS

[theskysthelimit]

As someone who lives less than one mile from this site, I am a big no on this project. I truly believe it is just a ploy and no was intended to be built to scale. In the end, it will end up at around 10 stories. This kind of reminds me of the Geneva towers. Driving up 101, they stuck up out of no where and were out of place.

[deanstirrat]

I don't care how close you live to this, you don't get to hold the city back

[Charmy2]

Originally Posted by theskysthelimit

As someone who lives less than one mile from this site, I am a big no on this project. I truly believe it is just a ploy and no was intended to be built to scale. In the end, it will end up at around 10 stories. This kind of reminds me of the Geneva towers. Driving up 101, they stuck up out of no where and were out of place.

I'm realizing this project is also twice as tall as the Geneva Towers were. Imagining the view of the city from the Marin Headlands and seeing this project would indeed be a little awkward.

[craigs]

Nothing would solidify public sentiment against building new housing in existing neighborhoods more than building this would. It would be a colossal mistake that would prevent more housing from being built than this could ever provide. Every housing proposal in every neighborhood would be falsely portrayed as this lacking in proportionality--in fact, I'll bet you see this rendering in unrelated NIMBY materials for years to come, even if it's not built.

[theskysthelimit]

Originally Posted by deanstirrat

I don't care how close you live to this, you don't get to hold the city back

I beg to differ and obviously you have no idea about this area.. it is right next to the SF zoo and the nearest buildings that have half the height is in park Merced , approximately 2.5 miles away. Otherwise, the area, as far as the eye can see, are single family 2 story homes.

As stated multiple times, it may satisfy State bonus requirements but fails local building codes. Also, don’t think the State is going to step in like they did with the residential tower on Stevenson Street.

[deanstirrat]

Originally Posted by theskysthelimit

I beg to differ and obviously you have no idea about this area.

I Know exactly where this is. Single family homes in a city are a massive waste of space. Nobody cares if they are removed. Bulldoze them now. You should probably move to a suburb if you cannot fathom the idea of living within a mile of a larger building. You live in a CITY. Get a grip.

[theskysthelimit]

Originally Posted by deanstirrat

I Know exactly where this is. Single family homes in a city are a massive waste of space. Nobody cares if they are removed. Bulldoze them now. You should probably move to a suburb if you cannot fathom the idea of living within a mile of a larger building. You live in a CITY. Get a grip.

LOL, I am not a NIBY and pro development but here is no way in hell this building will be built in its form at this site, period! The City already stated it does not meet code.

[homebucket]

It'll be interesting to see what they say!

San Francisco Board Of Appeals Reviewing 2700 Sloat Boulevard Today

BY: ANDREW NELSON 5:30 AM ON JULY 26, 2023

The San Francisco Board of Appeals is scheduled to review an appeal filed by the developer behind 2700 Sloat Boulevard regarding the zoning code interpretation by the city’s Zoning Administrator. The department argues that calculations behind the 50-story skyscraper in the Sunset District were an inaccurate interpretation of city code. In their appeal, CH Planning has provided examples of over a dozen approved projects that they say used similar methods of calculator.

According to plans published earlier this month, the 589-foot tower aims to create 680 apartments, of which 110 will be designated as affordable, retail, community space, and a new fitness center. Solomon Cordwell Buenz is the project architect. See our previous report for more details about the proposal.

CH Planning’s company, 2700 Sloat Holdings LLC, is being represented by Reuben Law. The primary focus of the appeal centered on the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of the city’s Planning Code Sections 102 and 270 as published this March. The developer’s brief summarizes its three reasons for appealing the Zoning Administrator’s ruling as the following:

- It errs in creating a new bulk code limitation, unsupported by the language and intent of the Planning Code
- It abuses discretion by exceeding Zoning Administrator Authority under PC 307(a) and circumventing legislative process; and
- It violates the California Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

The brief also includes an illustrative list of previously-approved projects that could not be built based on the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of the city code. These include the Oceanwide Center, One Rincon Hill, Infinity Towers, the proposed mixed-use Flower Mart, and the under-construction American Buddhist Cultural Society temple.

https://sfyimby.com/2023/07/sf-board...ard-today.html

[BobbyMucho]

Originally Posted by homebucket

It'll be interesting to see what they say!

https://sfyimby.com/2023/07/sf-board...ard-today.html

If only developers spent half as much time following through on a project as they did trying to manifest legal arguments for building grossly-scaled towers on the far side of the city...

I'd wager there are as many if not twice as many planned—but unfinished—units in the central core than there are in this one tower.

[Charmy2]

Wait did they literally forget to read the zoning codes? Does that mean its cancelled?

[OneRinconHill]

Originally Posted by theskysthelimit

LOL, I am not a NIBY and pro development but here is no way in hell this building will be built in its form at this site, period! The City already stated it does not meet code.

Your initial post literally said I don't want this in my backyard.

Move then.

[SLO]

Yeah, I love towers as much as anyone, but this has no relation to this neighborhood. I could see a rezoning around the park to allow for mid rises (which may already be the case) but this is a sore thumb.

[theskysthelimit]

Originally Posted by OneRinconHill

Your initial post literally said I don't want this in my backyard.

Move then.

Really dude. This tower would fit in on Ricon Hill, LMAO. I was born , raised and own a home in the Parkside and not going anywhere. But I digress. To give you the news, this project was officially denied by the planning commission.

[Charmy2]

So its been cancelled?

[theskysthelimit]

Originally Posted by Charmy2

So its been cancelled?

In the proposal submitted, yes. The developer still owns the property and if he wants to build anything, has to come back with a proposal that satisfies the planning department. My bet is he will sell.

[deanstirrat]

I hate the panning commission and the old farts that waterboard this city into irrelevance by standing in the way of actual change. Move to the suburbs. This is a city.

[BobbyMucho]

Originally Posted by deanstirrat

I hate the panning commission and the old farts that waterboard this city into irrelevance by standing in the way of actual change. Move to the suburbs. This is a city.

I take it you're mad that the proposal is being thrown out? I imagine we'll see something more akin to the previous version pop back up in the coming year or so... plenty of height, bulk, density and amenity for the area.

Personally, I'm far more concerned with the number of approved-but-abandoned plans over the last year. It's way worse to see numerous projects 'no longer pencil out' and get scrapped or sold.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by BobbyMucho

I take it you're mad that the proposal is being thrown out? I imagine we'll see something more akin to the previous version pop back up in the coming year or so... plenty of height, bulk, density and amenity for the area.

Personally, I'm far more concerned with the number of approved-but-abandoned plans over the last year. It's way worse to see numerous projects 'no longer pencil out' and get scrapped or sold.

Its officially a down cycle in SF now.

[twinpeaks]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...f-18317967.php

The developers behind a controversial project to build a 50-story condo building in San Francisco’s Sunset District have sued the city, claiming officials misinterpreted and violated a state law meant to incentivize affordable housing.