Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies jurisdiction challenge to SB 35-approved 4840 Mission Street affordable-housing project
Summary
A group of neighbors sought the Board of Appeals' jurisdiction over a 100%-affordable SB 35 project at 4840 Mission Street, arguing they were not informed and feared foundation impacts; the board denied the jurisdiction request, citing SB 35 limits on discretionary review.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 10 denied a jurisdiction request from neighbors seeking review of a site permit for 4840 Mission Street, a 100%-affordable housing project approved under California Senate Bill 35.
Appellant Vivian Padua told the board she and neighbors did not understand SB 35 notice rules and said they only learned of the ministerial approval after the appeal period had closed; she urged the board to take jurisdiction to protect foundations and neighborhood interests. Sarah White, project manager for Bridal Housing, and the project's attorney, Steve Vettel, said the project was granted ministerial approval in summer 2019 under SB 35, the site permit was issued June 10, 2020, and under state law the board lacks authority to deny or modify a ministerially approved SB 35 site permit.
Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department summarized SB 35's effect: it creates a streamlined, nondiscretionary approval process for qualifying housing projects, requires a 90-day review window and limits discretionary and environmental review and noticing requirements. Deputy City Attorney Brad Russsey reminded commissioners that while appeals of permits may be filed to the Board of Appeals under the charter, the board must decide within the constraints of SB 35.
Speakers from the Mayor's Office of Housing and many callers emphasized the urgent need for affordable housing; Cindy Evans (senior project manager, Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development) said the community had been notified and that further delay would threaten financing and construction timelines. Several neighbors countered that they had not received consistent notice and asked for protections such as survey monitoring of adjacent homes.
Commissioner discussion focused on the legal limits of the board's authority under SB 35, outreach and public education, and mitigation measures such as survey points. Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis the city neither intentionally nor inadvertently caused the requesters to be late in filing their appeal; the motion passed with recorded ayes from Vice President Santa Cana, President Honda, Commissioner Chang and Commissioner Swig (recorded 4-0 with one commissioner later noted absent). The board noted that monitoring proposals and concerns about construction impacts could be raised to appropriate permitting agencies (DBI) and that the demolition permit appeal would be heard at a later date.
The denial leaves the ministerial SB 35 approval in place; any change to the project would require action outside the board's ministerial-review authority or further proceedings tied to specific building-permit reviews.
