Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances HOME SF code change to avoid 'double entitlements' for projects
Summary
The Land Use & Transportation Committee voted to send an ordinance to the full Board clarifying that HOME SF projects generally proceed under Planning Code Section 3.28 so sponsors avoid duplicate entitlements and appeals; staff will add a Section 102 definition for 'development application' before the full Board.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use & Transportation Committee on Jan. 7 advanced an ordinance to clarify how HOME SF projects are entitled, aiming to prevent a single project from having to pursue both a Section 3.28 authorization and a separate conditional use authorization.
Chair Katie Chang said the change responds to a project that revealed a gap in the code, where a HOME SF project could be required to obtain two separate entitlements and be appealed to different bodies. "The idea behind this was originally ... to have all HOME SF projects go through Section 3.28," Chang said, describing the amendment as a way to create a "more streamlined process."
Planning staff said the amendment is intended to fold certain conditional-use findings—such as use-size and parking—into the Section 3.28 entitlement so the commission can make all required findings at a single hearing; appeals of the Section 3.28 entitlement would go to the Board of Appeals under the proposed language rather than automatically to the Board of Supervisors. Paolo Icosoi of the planning department summarized the intent: "A HOME SF project should only have one entitlement at the planning commission," he said.
Supervisor Aaron Peskin pressed for clarity on terminology. He requested that the phrase "development application" be explicitly defined so the point at which requirements are triggered is not ambiguous. Deputy City Attorney John Givner told the committee a definition could be added to Section 102 and, if the committee forwards the item, the change could be completed by the 15th without rereferral.
A representative of the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, Corey Smith, urged the committee to continue streamlining HOME SF to maximize inclusionary housing and reduce development costs. After committee discussion and a stated intention to add Section 102 language, Supervisor Jane Kim moved the ordinance to the full Board with the understanding that additional amendments would be introduced on the floor; the committee advanced the ordinance without objection.
Next steps: staff and the city attorney will supply Section 102 language defining "development application" before the full Board considers the ordinance. The full Board is expected to receive the ordinance with the committee's recommendation.
