Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff briefs Board of Appeals on Prop M office-allocation rules and capacity
Summary
Zoning Administrator Corey Teague told the Board of Appeals how San Francisco's Prop M office-allocation program works, current available capacity, and why recent rezonings could increase appeals to this body. Teague urged the board to expect more allocations to come before the Planning Commission and, potentially, more appeals.
Zoning Administrator Corey Teague told the San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 17 that the city's office-allocation program (commonly called Prop M) limits approvals for large office projects and is administered through Planning Code sections 320'325. He said the allocation applies to office development of 25,000 square feet or more and that any such project must receive an allocation from the Planning Commission, which is appealable to the Board of Appeals.
"It does apply to any office development of 25,000 square feet or more," Teague said, describing the cap and the two buckets that make up the program. He summarized current availability as roughly 900,000 square feet in the small cap and about 2.9 million square feet in the large cap, while noting nearly 9 million square feet are shown in pending projects.
Teague traced the program's origins to a downtown plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1985 and the voter-approved Proposition M in 1986, which created a permanent annual limit with a small-cap (projects 25,000'50,000 sq ft) and a large-cap (projects over 50,000 sq ft). He explained that unused square footage rolls forward from year to year and that certain classes of buildings are treated differently for accounting: federal, state, port/redevelopment, and city office buildings are exempt from local approval but must still be counted against the cap when permits are issued.
Board members pressed staff on mixed-use projects and how the Planning Commission treats allocations tied to broader entitlements. Teague answered that only the office portion requires an allocation and that the Planning Commission can consider broader benefits such as housing or hotel uses as part of its discretion, though those factors are not specifically enumerated criteria under Prop M. He also flagged that recent rezonings and large redevelopment-area projects may put immediate pressure on the allocation numbers and could increase the likelihood of Planning Commission approvals that are appealed to this board.
Why it matters: The Planning Department's numbers suggest a substantial pipeline of large office projects that could outstrip available allocations in some years; because allocations are appealable, the board may see more Prop M appeals as those projects move toward entitlement.
What's next: Teague said he was available to answer questions and recommended the board become familiar with the program's history and mechanics to prepare for potential appeals.
