CFAH

In the works since 2017 and having qualified for a streamlined environmental review, the refined plans for two buildings which could up to 85 feet in height across the four-parcel Action Rentals site at 1530 Folsom Street, which extends to Kissling and 11th Streets in Western SoMa, are slated to be approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission this week.

The refined project would now yield a total of 244 rental units (a mix of 61 studios, 76 one-bedrooms, 92 twos 10 threes and 5 three-bedroom townhouses) over 3,500 square feet of ground floor retail space and off-street parking for 83 cars and 172 236 bikes, with an 8-story building across the majority of the site and an integrated 7-story building on the spur fronting Kissling, employing the State Density Bonus Law to build over the site’s 55-foot height limit and with 34 of the 244 units to be rented at below market rates (BMR).

From the Planning Department which is recommending the project be approved as proposed:

“Although the Project results in a loss of [Production Distribution and Repair (PDR)] space, the Project does provide a substantial amount of new rental housing, including new on-site below-market rate units for rent, which is a goal for the City. The Department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity.”

We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Greg26

    I’m very pro-development, but I hope this building comes with a covenant that the owners and residents have to acknowledge that they live in a pre-existing club district and have no right to complain. It literally wraps around Oasis and is across the street from several other clubs. Enjoy your new homes, but don’t bitch when it’s mayhem at 2am when all the clubs empty out!

    • Posted by SocketSite

      While imperfect, legislation designed to protect existing Places of Entertainment (POEs) from being deemed “a public or private nuisance on the basis of noise for nearby residents of residential structures constructed or converted on or after January 1, 2005,” as well as to “require lessors and sellers of residential property to disclose to lessees and purchasers potential noise and other inconveniences associated with nearby POEs,” was adopted back in 2015.

    • Posted by Kenm

      Well put, Greg.

    • Posted by Hayes Valley Denizen

      It will, but it won’t really have any power over future actions. Developer would be sued by the residents for not putting what you’re talking about in the CC&Rs/Leases for not disclosing the noise.

    • Posted by Alicia

      Thank you to Greg. We already don’t have enough entertainment venues and that industry is decimated so what is SF with just only a bunch of people but nothing to do? Boring and people won’t want to stay in SF anyways like that.

  2. Posted by tall/awkward

    I second that.

  3. Posted by jimbo

    great project and much needed in this area!!

  4. Posted by hmmm

    I certainly hope Action Rentals finds a new home in SF. That’s an important business. I have personally rented multiple pieces of equipment there over the years for home improvement projects.

  5. Posted by Cody

    If the development is built with sound proof windows the noise from the clubs should not be too bad. Central air conditioning would be a plus as well.

  6. Posted by Mary Morris

    When I bought a south of market condo in 2010, I had to sign various documents acknowledging the presence of the baseball stadium–and the Bay Bridge(!)–and that there might be noise or traffic generated by them. Oracle Park is more than 3/4 of a mile away…

    • Posted by Hayes Valley Denizen

      Those are all CYA stuff for the buyer. They’re a universal thing on any first sale and common in subsequent. Otherwise you get buyers who turn around and sue the developer/seller for not disclosing various potential nuisances.

      It shows up in leases too for the same reason (though the remedy there is usually more ‘cancel the least’ than money damages), but few people actually read leases. And such acknowledgements and statements unfortunately don’t bar residents from claims against the source of the nuisance, only against the seller.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles