Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Fee Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission backs code cleanup to close SoMa stabilization fee loophole; debate over grandfathering 1 Rincon Hill project
Summary
Commission approved an amendment allowing phase‑2 SoMa stabilization fees to be due after a temporary certificate of occupancy or 12 months thereafter; developers sought a later grandfather date for 1 Rincon Hill phase 1, fueling debate about fee timing, nexus studies and transfers between Rincon Hill and SoMa funds.
The Planning Commission on July 9 voted 6–1 to recommend an ordinance amendment to Planning Code Section 3.18 that would close an unintended loophole in how phase‑2 SomA stabilization fees are collected. Staff explained the change would permit the Department of Building Inspection to require phase‑2 fees either after issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO), 12 months thereafter, or at final certificate of occupancy — preventing indefinite delays in collecting fees when final CFOs are postponed.
Staff said the amendment is largely a technical cleanup (including a name change to the Mayor’s Office of Community Investment) but addresses a practical problem where projects can obtain temporary occupancy and delay final CFOs for extended periods. The department supported the amendment as consistent with how other fees are triggered (site permit or first certificate of occupancy).
Developers and counsel for 1 Rincon Hill asked the commission to adjust the ordinance’s grandfather date so that that project’s phase‑2 obligation would not become payable sooner than the sponsor anticipated. They argued that project financing and sales delays tied to the downturn would make an immediate large payment infeasible. Community and advisory groups urged timely fee collection and use of funds for stabilization activities. Commissioners debated whether the commission should require a new nexus (impact) study and whether the Planning Commission should accept a developer‑specific grandfathering amendment; most commissioners favored the staff recommendation without the date change and approved the ordinance recommendation 6–1 (Commissioner Antonini opposed). Staff acknowledged it would work with the Board of Supervisors on details and that the Board will consider the final ordinance.
