San Francisco’s Planning Department has finished its preliminary review of the proposed seven-story building to rise upon the shuttered Chevron service station site at the corner of Van Ness and Union.
As proposed by DM Development and in the process of being designed by Handel Architects, the 2465 Van Ness Avenue project includes 41 condos over 3,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space and a basement garage for 31 cars and 41 bikes.
But the City is encouraging the development team to explore building more units and stories on the site which is zoned for development up to 65-feet in height by exploring the proposed Affordable Housing Bonus Program, “as it would offer additional height along this transit corridor with the appropriate affordability increases.”
In addition, Planning is seeking more active use at the ground floor of the proposed building and a reduction in the width of the entrance to the garage. And with the preliminary review complete, the development team is now moving forward with the required environmental review.
This corner lot could easily handle greater density and height without tearing any urban fabric.
25 years too late but maybe the cobwebby dated planning department is changing. So, what about McDonald’s and KRON — are we really going to under-build in two of the few available sites left on one of our major corridors?
Hmmm…is SF Plann Comm setting aside city $ for developer to fight endless NYMBY lawsuits if that building raises even 1 foot above zoning allowable requirement of 65-feet tall…i suspect NOT!
If the affordable housing bonus becomes law, the zoning will be amended by virtue of the law to allow a taller building, provided the required affordable units are provided.
So, while NIMBYs may still file lawsuits on other grounds, they will have nothing to challenge with respect to the increased height bonus (unless they allege the developer is somehow failing to provide the required affordable housing units).
I own a one bedroom apartment located at the sixth floor in 2415 Van Ness Ave., my view and light will be substantially reduced by the intended building, as a consequence the value of the property will undergo a similar substantial reduction, is this fact to be taken into consideration or is it deemed irrelevant?
irrelevant
UPDATE: Formal Application for Van Ness Development Filed