Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds planning department mitigated negative declaration for 248–252 Ninth Street appeal
Summary
After a public hearing, the Board of Supervisors upheld the Planning Department's mitigated negative declaration for a proposed 15‑unit, mixed‑use project at 248–252 Ninth Street and denied the appellant's request to reverse the planning commission approval.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors held a public hearing and voted to uphold the Planning Department's mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the proposed mixed‑use project at 248–252 Ninth Street in the South of Market neighborhood.
The project would combine two lots, demolish existing single‑story buildings and construct a five‑story, 55‑foot mixed‑use building with 15 residential units and ground‑floor commercial space, according to planning staff. The Planning Department concluded the project would not cause significant environmental effects after mitigation and that parking and transportation impacts are social effects that would not trigger an Environmental Impact Report under the cited CEQA rules for this project.
Appellant Jackie Bryson said she tallied on‑street parking on the block and found fewer spaces than the planning analysis assumed, and she argued the project would create a long‑term parking shortfall. "There were, on both sides of the street, a total of 23 parking spaces for cars and 6 parking spaces for motorcycles," Bryson told the board and said curb changes and sidewalk expansions would further reduce parking.
Planning Department staff and the department's environmental coordinator told the board the MND addressed potential parking shortfalls using the city’s transportation impact analysis guidelines and found the shortfall would not create hazardous conditions or significant traffic impacts. Kei Zushi, the planning environmental coordinator, said since publication of the MND changes in state law and in project circumstances meant aesthetics and parking were not criteria for requiring an EIR in this instance and that the appellant supplied no substantial evidence to the contrary.
The project sponsor, represented by the designer and developer, said providing parking on the site would have eliminated ground‑floor commercial space and their decision followed the city's Transit‑First policy.
Supervisor Jane Kim, whose district includes the project site, moved to affirm the Planning Commission's approval of the mitigated negative declaration (item 17) and to table related motions to reverse the approval. The motion was seconded and taken without objection.
Why it matters: The ruling means the project can proceed through the permitting and subdivision steps that follow environmental clearance; opponents continue to argue about parking adequacy and the adequacy of transit service to the block.
What’s next: With the MND upheld, the project sponsor and planning staff will continue permit and project approval steps; the board’s tabling of reversal motions leaves related appeals and any pending litigation unaffected.
