Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Market Octavia topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals declines late‑jurisdiction request in Market/Octavia zoning dispute
Summary
The Board of Appeals voted 4–1 to deny a coalition’s request to take late jurisdiction over a zoning administrator determination tied to the Market/Octavia plan, after planners said citywide notice was not required for creating a new zoning classification.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Tuesday refused to take late jurisdiction over an appeal of a zoning administrator’s letter of determination tied to the Market/Octavia plan, voting 4–1 to deny the petition. Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods representatives argued the public had not received adequate notice and that the city’s Sunshine Ordinance required a more specific description.
“What was published did not provide a meaningful, sufficiently clear description to alert members of the public who may be interested,” said Judith Berkowitz, representing the coalition. She said the letter of determination failed to alert Mission District residents that three new zoning classifications were being introduced.
Tina Tam of the Planning Department told the board the creation of a new zoning classification — as opposed to rezoning specific parcels — does not trigger citywide notification or environmental review by default. “Just because the Market/Octavia plan introduces a new NCT zoning district doesn’t mean there’s an automatic rezoning of other parcels,” Tam said, adding the planning department had conducted extensive neighborhood outreach for parcels within the plan.
After hearing public comment from neighbors who argued they had been blindsided by the plan, commissioners debated the legal test for taking jurisdiction. President Knox said the board must find a “manifest injustice” or a procedural mistake before overriding appeal deadlines. Commissioner Albright moved to deny jurisdiction, and the motion carried 4–1.
The ruling leaves in place the zoning administrator’s letter of determination; petitioners were advised of administrative and legal avenues short of Board action if they wished to continue their challenge.
