With over 100 proposed amendments having been made to the City’s ambitious Central SoMa Plan, including an allocation of up to $160 million to enhance and expand local transit, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors could vote to formally adopt said plan by the end of this month with a first vote now tentatively scheduled for next week.

If adopted by the Board, the Central SoMa Plan, which has been in the works since 2010 and could 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.

That being said, San Francisco’s Land Use and Transportation Committee has recently met behind closed doors with the City Attorney “regarding anticipated litigation in which the City would be a defendant,” litigation which is specifically related to the adoption of the Central SoMa Plan, as we first reported last week.

We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

9 thoughts on “Amended Central SoMa Plan Could be Adopted This Month”
  1. I would like to see bike lanes and/or bus lanes on Harrison and Bryant – streets that have 5 lanes for cars and parking on both sides. We’ve been able to put them in on smaller streets.

    1. Strong second. No reason such a wide street shouldn’t allocate space to both bikes and transit, which move people more efficiently than cars.

    2. Harrison and Bryant only have 4 or 5 lanes by the freeway on/off ramps near 4th and near the design district.

      This trend of reducing lanes all over downtown doesn’t make a whole lot of sense when you look at the number of cars that enter/exit the city every day. Mix that with lane closures and the new Chase center and SoMa will be traffic 24/7 in no time.

      Stick to Folsom, Brannan, and Townsend if you wanna bike in SoMa

      1. This is not necessarily true. For entry onto highway 80 the bottleneck is the highway. Getting onto 280 the bottleneck is the city street capacity. So it would make sense to me that in some places the street width can be reduced without adversely affecting capacity.

  2. Urban project and management plans should be exempt from CEQA. That was never the original intent of the law. It’s ridiculous that something with so much input and scoping and public input will go to court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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