Right, but a bit more subtle. The Cafe was invited to apply for conditional use. It appears (from my limited research) that within the Financial District (and whatever overlays might apply) ground floor office use is not allowed by right. Conditional use means that office use on the ground floor requires approval based on what is actually proposed. The Cafe might readily be approved as a conditional use or might be approved after a few adjustments. It's just not approved by right.
For what it's worth, reading the appeal reminds me why its worth paying a high dollar real-estate lawyer who deals with the planning department all the time. The Cafe's appeal didn't address the basis of the complaint: supplemental versus primary use in terms of floor area. Basically, there was no basis for overturning the zoning official's determination because the appeal did not address the basis for the zoning official's determination.
Does by right even exist in San Francisco? My understanding is all land use is subject to review and approval at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors.
What he's saying is that you can use land according to existing zoning code requirements without explicit zoning approval... Or you can convince the local Planning Commission to approve another use.
You would imagine so, but every permit that does not have a state-level override (for example, SB-35 of 2017) is subject to discretion of the Planning Commission. Which is an unelected commission with members appointed by the mayor or the Board of Supervisors.
From my experience as a planner and subsequent experience as an architect, I infer that the discretionary review process tends to prevent injunctive delays via the courts. Conclusion of the quasi judicial discretionary review process exhausts due process while direct decision by the board makes overturn by a court highly unlikely because the board has statutory authority to make the decision to issue the permit. From a project development standpoint, the timeline is predictable so long as it accounts for the discretionary review process. If discretionary review doesn’t happen then the project will be ahead of schedule.
To put it another way, discretionary review tends to benefit professionals but will tend to upset those attending their first rodeo. As I mentioned elsewhere it’s often worth hiring a local real estate attorney experienced at working with the planning department.
Comments
Right, but a bit more subtle. The Cafe was invited to apply for conditional use. It appears (from my limited research) that within the Financial District (and whatever overlays might apply) ground floor office use is not allowed by right. Conditional use means that office use on the ground floor requires approval based on what is actually proposed. The Cafe might readily be approved as a conditional use or might be approved after a few adjustments. It's just not approved by right.
For what it's worth, reading the appeal reminds me why its worth paying a high dollar real-estate lawyer who deals with the planning department all the time. The Cafe's appeal didn't address the basis of the complaint: supplemental versus primary use in terms of floor area. Basically, there was no basis for overturning the zoning official's determination because the appeal did not address the basis for the zoning official's determination.
Yah, I agree that a conditional use permit might be granted. The person just asked the rationale behind disallowing office use (by default).
Does by right even exist in San Francisco? My understanding is all land use is subject to review and approval at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors.
What he's saying is that you can use land according to existing zoning code requirements without explicit zoning approval... Or you can convince the local Planning Commission to approve another use.
From reading the appeal, it appears a restaurant use is by right in that location.
You would imagine so, but every permit that does not have a state-level override (for example, SB-35 of 2017) is subject to discretion of the Planning Commission. Which is an unelected commission with members appointed by the mayor or the Board of Supervisors.
Most permits go through anyway, because the Commission chooses not to involve itself in everything, but every permit can be appealed with an application for Discretionary Review. https://sf.curbed.com/2013/4/17/10252934/what-the-heck-is-di...
The Commission website is https://sfplanning.org/resource/discretionary-review
From my experience as a planner and subsequent experience as an architect, I infer that the discretionary review process tends to prevent injunctive delays via the courts. Conclusion of the quasi judicial discretionary review process exhausts due process while direct decision by the board makes overturn by a court highly unlikely because the board has statutory authority to make the decision to issue the permit. From a project development standpoint, the timeline is predictable so long as it accounts for the discretionary review process. If discretionary review doesn’t happen then the project will be ahead of schedule.
To put it another way, discretionary review tends to benefit professionals but will tend to upset those attending their first rodeo. As I mentioned elsewhere it’s often worth hiring a local real estate attorney experienced at working with the planning department.