Board of Appeals Upholds Planning Commission on Crescent Heights Project After Hours of Debate on Parking and Wind Studies

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Tuesday upheld the Planning Commission—s approval of exceptions and variances for the Crescent Heights mixed‑use project at Tenth and Market Street, rejecting appeals that argued the project would worsen parking shortages and produce hazardous winds at the pedestrian level.

The appeals, filed by neighborhood groups and preservation advocates, centered on two issues: the Planning Commission—s decision to allow discretionary parking above the as‑of‑right amount and whether the environmental review adequately addressed wind and habitability impacts for new units. Appellants urged the board to overturn the commission—s actions, saying the extra parking would encourage more vehicle trips and that the wind analyses were inconsistent.

Tom Radulovich, a BART board member and executive director of Livable City, argued the environmental review failed to distinguish impacts with the project—s full 578 parking spaces versus the 179 spaces allowed as‑of‑right. "The environmental review for this project did not distinguish between the project with 179 spaces and the project with 578 spaces," Radulovich said, adding that the difference could "really change travel behavior." (Radulovich, public testimony.)

Planning staff and the project sponsor defended the decisions. Craig Niketis, a senior planning staffer, said the exception and variance process is built into the downtown code to produce better urban results on sites that cannot meet standard rear‑yard configurations. He told the board the department examined multiple alternatives and found the proposed configuration the best urban design outcome. "We view the exception process as a means that is code‑complying once there's a public hearing and a discretionary decision is made to grant those exceptions," Niketis said. (Craig Niketis, Planning Department.)

Project counsel and the developer emphasized the project—s job creation and affordable housing components. Labor and housing groups, including Local 22 and the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, urged the board to let the development proceed, pointing to an inclusionary housing package of approximately 80 below‑market‑rate units and union construction jobs.

Board members debated whether the commission had carried its burden, particularly on parking. Several commissioners said they would have preferred a lower parking count; others said the planning record supported the findings. On the exceptions under Planning Code section 309 the board adopted the Planning Commission—s findings by a 3–2 vote and, separately, upheld the variances 3–2.

Because the Board of Appeals reviews the Planning Commission for error or abuse of discretion on certain findings, the majority concluded the commission—s record supported its conclusions. The board—s action means the Planning Commission—s findings and the variances remain in effect; opponents said they are weighing legal options.

The Board left open the normal review and permit conditions required by other departments. The Planning Department and project sponsor said they will continue to work on implementation details and required mitigation measures tied to the variances and the environmental document.

Outcome: The board upheld the Planning Commission—s findings and variances, denying the appeal. The Planning Commission—s findings were adopted and remain the governing approvals for the project as it proceeds through implementation and any remaining permit steps.