Legislation

This ordinance allows for up to four dwelling units per lot, and up to six on corner lots, in residential zoning areas, with specific requirements like replacing protected units. It also ensures that new units built under this exception follow rent increase limits and allows for condominium conversion applications that include both existing and new units.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code to provide a density limit exception to permit up to four dwelling units per lot, and up to six dwelling units per lot in Corner Lots, in all RH (Residential, House) zoning districts, subject to certain requirements, including among others the replacement of protected units; amending the Administrative Code to require new dwelling units constructed pursuant to the density limit exception to be subject to the rent increase limitations of the Rent Ordinance; amending the Subdivision Code to authorize a subdivider that is constructing new dwelling units pursuant to the density exception to submit an application for condominium conversion or a condominium map that includes the existing dwelling units and the new dwelling units that constitute the project; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1, and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under Planning Code, Section 302.

This legislation involves a hearing for public input regarding a proposed project at 575 Vermont Street, which seeks to demolish a single-family home and build a new four-story residential building with multiple units and parking. The hearing allows interested parties to express their support or objections to the Conditional Use Authorization needed for the project.

Hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the approval of a Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 209.1, 303, and 307 of the Planning Code, for a proposed project at 575 Vermont Street, Assessor’s Parcel Block No. 4010, Lot No. 006, identified in Planning Case No. 2020-000886CUA, issued by the Planning Commission by Motion No. 20921, dated May 13, 2021, to allow demolition of an existing single family home and construction of a new, four-story, 40-foot tall residential building containing two dwelling units, one accessory dwelling unit, one off-street automobile parking space, and three class one bicycle parking spaces within the RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. (District 10) (Appellants: Marion Parr, Scott Carr, Ron Altoonian, Victoria Carradero, and Chris Stephens) (Filed June 11, 2021)

This ordinance modifies the Geary-Masonic Special Use District to require that inclusionary housing fees be used for projects within one and a half miles of the district or anywhere in San Francisco if not allocated within five years. It also affirms the Planning Department's environmental review and ensures consistency with the city's General Plan and priority policies.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code to modify the Geary-Masonic Special Use District to require use of the inclusionary housing fee for a project within one and one-half miles of the boundaries of the district, or anywhere in San Francisco if not allocated within five years of payment; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1; and adopting findings of public convenience, necessity, and welfare under Planning Code, Section 302.

The ordinance designates the San Francisco Eagle Bar at 396-398 12th Street as a Landmark, which provides it with special protections and recognition. It also affirms that the designation complies with environmental regulations and aligns with city planning priorities.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code to designate 396-398 12th Street (aka San Francisco Eagle Bar), Assessor’s Parcel Block No. 3522, Lot No. 014, as a Landmark consistent with the standards set forth in Article 10 of the Planning Code; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making public necessity, convenience, and welfare findings under Planning Code, Section 302, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

This resolution allows the Director of Property to sell up to 1.2 million square feet of transferable development rights from City Hall at fair market value. It also authorizes the necessary actions to complete these transfers in line with the Planning Code.

Resolution authorizing the Director of Property to sell up to 1,200,000 gross square feet of transferable development rights (“TDR”) from City Hall, located at 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, at or above fair market value; to execute and record Certificates of Transfer; and to take such additional actions as may be necessary to effectuate one or more TDR transfers in accordance with Planning Code, Section 128.

This resolution extends the time by 12 months for the Planning Commission to decide on an ordinance that would allow up to four dwelling units per lot in certain residential zoning areas. It also affirms the Planning Department's environmental review and ensures consistency with the city's General Plan and priority policies.

Resolution extending by 12-months the prescribed time within which the Planning Commission may render its decision on an Ordinance (File No. 210866) amending the Planning Code to provide a density limit exception to permit up to four dwelling units per lot in RH (Residential, House) zoning districts; affirming the Planning Department’s California Environmental Quality Act determination; and making Planning Code, Section 302, findings, and making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

This resolution urges the Secretary of the Interior to officially recognize the crash site of Roberto Clemente's airplane and the surrounding land as a historic site. It aims to preserve the location's significance in American history.

Resolution urging the Secretary of the Interior to recognize the crash site of Roberto Clemente’s airplane and adjacent land in the National Register of Historic Places.

This ordinance allows businesses to place signs on awnings or marquees in certain commercial and mixed-use districts, in addition to existing regulations for projecting signs. It also expands sign controls to more Neighborhood Commercial Districts and confirms compliance with environmental and planning regulations.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code to allow business signs on awnings or marquees in addition to projecting signs in various neighborhood commercial and residential-commercial districts, and in certain Chinatown mixed use districts; applying business sign controls to additional Neighborhood Commercial Districts; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1, and public necessity, convenience, and general welfare findings pursuant to Planning Code, Section 302.

The resolution authorizes the sale of a specific piece of land in Alameda County to the State of California for highway improvements for $152,952. It also includes provisions for a sale agreement, confirms the property as surplus land, and states that a competitive bidding process is not necessary.

Resolution 1) approving and authorizing the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”) and/or the Director of Property, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco (“City”), to sell certain real property located along State Route 84 and Interstate 680 in unincorporated Alameda County to the State of California (Parcel No. 65) for public highway improvements, acting through its California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (“Alameda CTC” and together with Caltrans, the “Buyers”) for the amount of $152,952; 2) approving and authorizing an Agreement for Sale of Real Estate (“Sale Agreement”) for the sale of the Property to the Buyers, which includes a liquidated damages clause in case of default by the City; 3) authorizing the SFPUC General Manager and/or City’s Director of Property to execute the Sale Agreement, make certain modifications, and take certain actions in furtherance of this Resolution and the Sale Agreement, as defined herein; 4) adopting findings declaring that the real property is “surplus land” and “exempt surplus land” pursuant to the California Surplus Lands Act; 5) determining that a competitive bidding process for the conveyance of the Property is impractical and not in the public interest, in accordance with Section 23.3 of the Administrative Code; 6) affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and adopting the findings required by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines previously adopted by Caltrans in conjunction with the Project; and 7) adopting the Planning Department’s findings that the Sale Agreement, and the transaction contemplated therein, is consistent with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

This resolution approves an agreement to exchange city-owned property at 530 Sansome Street for part of the property at 425-439 Washington Street, allowing for the development of a new fire station. It also includes necessary environmental and planning findings to ensure the project aligns with city regulations.

Resolution ratifying the Conditional Property Exchange Agreement and Related Transaction Documents with EQX Jackson SQ Holdco LLC for a transfer of City real property at 530 Sansome Street (Assessor’s Parcel Block No. 0206, Lot No. 017), under the jurisdiction of the Fire Department, in exchange for a portion of the real property at 425-439 Washington Street (Assessor’s Parcel Block No. 0206, Lot Nos. 013 and 014); authorizing the Director of Property and City staff to proceed with the proposed Fire Station development project, subject to several conditions, as defined herein; adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

This legislation involves a hearing for people who want to express their opinions about a project at 35 Ventura Avenue, which includes adding a second floor to a proposed single-family home. The hearing is to review whether the project is exempt from environmental review under California law.

Hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the determination of exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act issued as a Categorical Exemption by the Planning Department on November 18, 2018, for the proposed project at 35 Ventura Avenue, Assessor’s Parcel Block No. 2816, Lot No. 008, to include the second floor addition of 15 feet in height for the proposed property that would consist of an approximately 30 foot tall, 3,000 square foot, single family home. (District 7) (Appellant: Ryan Patterson of Zacks, Freedman & Patterson PC, on behalf of Tom and Kari Rocca) (Filed August 30, 2021)

The motion confirms that the Planning Department has determined the project at 35 Ventura Avenue does not require additional environmental review due to its categorically exempt status. This means the project can proceed without further environmental assessments.

Motion affirming the determination by the Planning Department that the proposed project at 35 Ventura Avenue is categorically exempt from further environmental review.

This motion aimed to overturn the Planning Department's decision that a project at 35 Ventura Avenue did not require additional environmental review. The motion was ultimately rejected.

Motion conditionally reversing the determination by the Planning Department that the proposed project at 35 Ventura Avenue is categorically exempt from further environmental review, subject to the adoption of written findings of the Board in support of this determination.

This motion aimed to have the Board of Supervisors prepare findings to overturn the Planning Department's decision that a project at 35 Ventura Avenue did not require additional environmental review. The motion has been killed, meaning it will not move forward.

Motion directing the Clerk of the Board to prepare findings reversing the determination by the Planning Department that the proposed project at 35 Ventura Avenue is categorically exempt from further environmental review.

This ordinance removes the Life Science and Medical Special Use District from the Planning Code and Zoning Map. It also confirms that the changes align with environmental regulations and the city's General Plan priorities.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code and Zoning Map to eliminate the Life Science and Medical Special Use District; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1; and adopting findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under Planning Code, Section 302.

This ordinance clarifies the rules for building Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and ensures that landlords cannot remove certain tenant services without a valid reason, stating that simply getting a building permit is not enough. It also includes necessary findings related to tenant protection and environmental regulations.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code to clarify the requirements for applications to construct Accessory Dwelling Units under the City’s local Accessory Dwelling Unit approval process; amending the Administrative Code to clarify that landlords may not remove certain tenant housing services without just cause and that issuance of a building permit does not constitute just cause; making findings as required by the Tenant Protection Act of 2019; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

This ordinance extends the deadline by about two years for existing buildings with public access to meet accessibility requirements for people with disabilities. It also allows for longer periods to grant extensions and for the Department of Building Inspection to report to the Board of Supervisors.

Ordinance amending the Building Code to extend the time by approximately two years for existing buildings with a place of public accommodation to comply with the requirement to have all primary entries and paths of travel into the building accessible to persons with disabilities or to receive a City determination of equivalent facilitation, technical infeasibility, or unreasonable hardship; to extend the period for granting extensions from those deadlines; and to extend the time for the Department of Building Inspection’s report to the Board of Supervisors.

This ordinance reallocates $400,000 from the Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund to create a new grant program for Legacy Businesses in the 2021-2022 fiscal year. It aims to support these businesses through financial assistance.

Ordinance de-appropriating $400,000 previously appropriated to the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (ECN) for the Office of Small Business’ Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund and re-appropriating $400,000 to ECN to provide a new grant program for Legacy Businesses in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-2022.

The ordinance authorizes a payment of $580,000 to settle the City’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs related to a lawsuit filed by Contest Promotions, LLC regarding compliance with a previous settlement and the constitutionality of certain Planning Code sections. This lawsuit was consolidated from two cases filed in 2015 and 2016.

Ordinance authorizing settlement by payment of $580,000 to the City and County of San Francisco, of the City’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs arising from the lawsuit that Contest Promotions, LLC filed against the City; the lawsuit was filed on August 26, 2015, in San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-15-547630; entitled Contest Promotions, LLC vs. City and County of San Francisco; San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CPF-16-514771 was filed on February 9, 2016, and the actions were consolidated; the lawsuit involves a dispute about the City’s compliance with a prior settlement agreement between the parties, and the constitutionality of sections of the Planning Code regulating on-site and off-site commercial signs.

The ordinance allows certain social service and philanthropic facilities in Chinatown with specific conditions, modifies use size limits and regulations for various districts, and permits lot mergers in the Polk Street area. It also exempts certain community uses from size limits and makes adjustments to zoning regulations to support local businesses and services.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code to 1) allow neighborhood-serving Social Service and Philanthropic Facility uses in Chinatown Mixed Use Districts with conditional use authorization; 2) change the provision for abandonment of a use that exceeds a use size maximum in Chinatown Mixed Use Districts; 3) allow re-establishment of a nonconforming use size in Chinatown Mixed Use Districts under certain circumstances; 4) change the use size limit and use size maximum in the Chinatown Community Business District; 5) exempt Institutional Community uses and Legacy Business Restaurants in Chinatown Mixed Use Districts from use size limits; 6) allow lot mergers under certain conditions in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District; and 7) exclude the portion of Powell Street south of Union Street from the North Beach Financial Service, Limited Financial Service, and Business or Professional Service Subdistrict; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1, and public necessity, convenience, and general welfare findings pursuant to Planning Code, Section 302.

This ordinance extends various deadlines related to Medical Cannabis Dispensaries and Cannabis Retail Use in San Francisco, pushing them from 2021 to 2022 and 2023. It also allows for the extension of Temporary Cannabis Business Permits and the Cannabis Event Permit pilot program.

Ordinance amending the Health Code, Planning Code, and Police Code to extend the sunset date for provisions governing Medical Cannabis Dispensaries from December 31, 2021, to December 31, 2022; to extend the sunset date for allowing the conversion of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries with Planning Commission approval to a Cannabis Retail Use from January 1, 2022, to January 1, 2023; to allow the extension of Temporary Cannabis Business Permits for additional 120-day terms through December 31, 2022, rather than December 31, 2021; and to allow the extension of the Cannabis Event Permit pilot program through December 31, 2023, rather than December 31, 2021; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

This ordinance removes regulations related to oil and gas activities from the Planning Code and updates definitions to exclude oil and gas production as an allowable industrial use. It also confirms the Planning Department's compliance with environmental regulations and aligns with the city's General Plan and public welfare policies.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code to repeal Article 12, which contains regulations governing land use activities associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and processing; amending the definitions of Heavy Manufacturing 2 and Heavy Manufacturing 3 to exclude oil and gas production or processing for fuel purposes as allowable Industrial Uses; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1, and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under Planning Code, Section 302.

This ordinance defines laundromats in the Planning Code and requires special permission for any new use that replaces a laundromat. It also prohibits the creation of Accessory Dwelling Units that would reduce laundry services unless they are replaced.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code to add Laundromat as a defined term, to require conditional use authorization for uses replacing Laundromats, and to prohibit Accessory Dwelling Units that reduce on-site laundry services unless replaced; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1, and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under Planning Code, Section 302.

This ordinance updates the requirements for the inclusionary housing program in San Francisco, which mandates that new developments include affordable housing units. It also confirms that the changes comply with environmental regulations and align with the city's overall planning goals.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code to update inclusionary housing program requirements; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1, and findings of necessity, convenience, and welfare under Planning Code, Section 302.

This ordinance removes the need for a Conditional Use permit when changing the use of an automobile service station to another type of business. It also updates zoning regulations and confirms that the changes align with environmental and planning policies.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code to remove the Conditional Use requirement to change the use of an Automobile Service Station or Automotive Use to another use, and amend zoning control tables to reflect this change; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the General Plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1; and making findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare as required by Planning Code, Section 302.

This ordinance allows bars to operate in the Castro Street Neighborhood Commercial District under certain conditions. It also confirms that this decision aligns with environmental regulations and city planning policies.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code to conditionally permit Bars in the Castro Street Neighborhood Commercial District; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.; and making findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under Planning Code, Section 302.

This resolution allows Public Works to use nearly $2 million from a state program to improve the Alemany Interchange, with the project scheduled to run from October 2021 to June 2026. It has already been approved and is now in effect.

Resolution retroactively authorizing Public Works to accept and expend $1,971,000 from the 2019 Active Transportation Program to fund the construction of the Public Works' Alemany Interchange Improvements Phase 2 project, for the project period of October 2021, through June 2026.

This resolution approves a $750,000 settlement for a claim against Shimmick Construction Company and F.D. Thomas, Inc. related to construction defects. The settlement resolves issues without going to court.

Resolution approving settlement of the unlitigated claim filed by the City and County of San Francisco against Shimmick Construction Company, Inc. (“Shimmick”) and F.D. Thomas, Inc. (“F.D. Thomas”) for $750,000; the claim involves compensation for construction defects allegedly caused by Shimmick Construction Company and F.D. Thomas, Inc.

This motion approves a Conditional Use Authorization for a project at 575 Vermont Street, following the Planning Commission's decision. It also includes environmental findings and confirms consistency with the city's General Plan and priority policies.

Motion approving the decision of the Planning Commission by its Motion No. 20921, approving a Conditional Use Authorization, identified as Planning Case No. 2020-000886CUA, for a proposed project located at 575 Vermont Street; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

This ordinance removes the Trial Courts Courthouse Construction Fund and decreases the additional amounts the City had previously added to court-related penalties and fines for courtroom projects. It aims to streamline funding related to courthouse construction in San Francisco.

Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to delete the Trial Courts Courthouse Construction Fund; and to reduce amounts that the City previously added to court-imposed penalties, fines, or forfeitures in San Francisco to support the acquisition, rehabilitation, construction, and financing of courtrooms or courtroom buildings.

This legislation involves a hearing for public input regarding a proposed project at 249 Texas Street, which seeks to demolish an existing single-family home and build a new two-unit residential building. The hearing is part of the process to determine whether to approve the Conditional Use Authorization for this development.

Hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the approval of a Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 303 and 317 of the Planning Code, for a proposed project at 249 Texas Street, Assessor’s Parcel Block No. 4001, Lot No. 017A, identified in Planning Case No. 2020-003223CUA, issued by the Planning Commission by Motion No. 20930, dated June 3, 2021, to demolish the existing 3,908 square-foot three-story single-family dwelling with an unauthorized dwelling unit and construct a new three-story 4,864 square-foot residential building containing two dwelling units above a garage with two off-street parking spaces, within the RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. (District 10) (Appellants: Kathleen Roberts-Block and Sasha Gala) (Filed July 6, 2021)

This motion aimed to approve a Conditional Use Authorization for a project at 249 Texas Street, along with necessary environmental and planning consistency findings. However, it was ultimately rejected or "killed" by the city.

Motion approving the decision of the Planning Commission by its Motion No. 20930, approving a Conditional Use Authorization, identified as Planning Case No. 2020-003223CUA, for a proposed project located at 249 Texas Street; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

The ordinance authorizes a $40,000 settlement payment from Walsh Construction Company to the City of San Francisco to resolve a lawsuit filed by Stephanie Brunton regarding personal injuries from a dangerous condition on public property. Additionally, the City will dismiss its Cross-Complaint against Walsh Construction Company as part of the settlement.

Ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by Stephanie Brunton against the City and County of San Francisco by payment of $40,000 to the City by Walsh Construction Company; the lawsuit was filed on April 29, 2019, in San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-19-575558; entitled Stephanie Brunton v. City and County of San Francisco, et al; the underlying lawsuit involves alleged personal injury suffered as a result of an alleged dangerous condition on public property; other material terms of the settlement are that the City and County of San Francisco will dismiss its Cross-Complaint for indemnity and contribution against Walsh Construction Company.

The ordinance designates the fresco titled “The Making of a Fresco Showing the Building of a City” as a Landmark, ensuring its protection and recognition under the Planning Code. It also affirms compliance with environmental regulations and aligns with city planning policies.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code to designate the fresco titled “The Making of a Fresco Showing the Building of a City” in the Diego Rivera Gallery of the San Francisco Art Institute, located at 800 Chestnut Street, Assessor’s Parcel Block No. 0049, Lot No. 001, as a Landmark consistent with the standards set forth in Article 10 of the Planning Code; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making public necessity, convenience, and welfare findings under Planning Code, Section 302, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

This resolution approves a 20-year lease for a telecommunications tower and equipment at San Francisco State University, with an initial yearly rent of $91,800 and annual increases of three percent. It also confirms that the lease complies with environmental regulations and city planning priorities.

Resolution authorizing and approving a renewal of a telecommunication lease of space for existing emergency radio telecommunications tower and associated equipment with the California State University, acting by and through the San Francisco State University, a State of California political subdivision, as landlord, for the Department of Emergency Management and the Department of Technology, at 1600 Holloway Avenue, Thornton Hall, at a yearly initial base rent of $91,800, with annual adjustments of three percent for a term of 20 years to commence on October 1, 2021, or upon approval by the Board of Supervisors and Mayor; adopting findings under the California Environmental Quality Act; and finding the proposed Lease is in conformance with the General Plan, and the eight priorities of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

This resolution extends the time by 90 days for the Planning Commission to decide on an ordinance that would allow up to four dwelling units on corner lots in certain residential zoning areas. It also affirms the Planning Department's environmental review and ensures consistency with the city's General Plan and priority policies.

Resolution extending by 90 days the prescribed time within which the Planning Commission may render its decision on an Ordinance (File No. 210564) amending the Planning Code to provide a density limit exception for Corner Lots in RH (Residential, House) zoning districts, to permit up to four dwelling units per lot; affirming the Planning Department’s California Environmental Quality Act determination; and making Planning Code, Section 302, findings, and making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

This motion supports the Board of Supervisors' approval of a Conditional Use Authorization for a retail cannabis store at 5 Leland Avenue and 2400 Bayshore Boulevard. It has passed and is now officially adopted.

Motion adopting findings in support of the Board of Supervisors' decision to approve the proposed Conditional Use Authorization, identified as Planning Case No. 2021-000603CUA, for a proposed retail cannabis use located at 5 Leland Avenue and 2400 Bayshore Boulevard.

This ordinance designates the Ingleside Terraces Sundial and Sundial Park as a Landmark, providing it with special recognition and protection under the Planning Code. It also affirms that the designation complies with environmental regulations and aligns with the city's General Plan and priority policies.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code to designate Ingleside Terraces Sundial and Sundial Park, Assessor’s Parcel Block No. 6917B, Lot No. 001, situated within Entrada Court, as a Landmark under Article 10 of the Planning Code; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making public necessity, convenience, and welfare findings under Planning Code, Section 302, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

This resolution allows the California Enterprise Development Authority to issue up to $9 million in revenue obligations to fund various projects for Presidio Hill School, including construction and renovation of educational facilities. It is a formal approval necessary for tax purposes under federal law.

Resolution approving for purposes of Internal Revenue Code, Section 147(f), the Issuance and Sale of Revenue Obligations by the California Enterprise Development Authority in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $9,000,000 to finance and refinance the acquisition, construction, renovation, rehabilitation, improvement and/or equipping of educational and related facilities to be owned and operated by Presidio Hill School, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, or its wholly-owned limited liability company.

This ordinance designates the Jones-Thierbach Coffee Company Building at 447 Battery Street as a historic landmark, ensuring its preservation. It also confirms that the designation aligns with environmental regulations and city planning policies.

Ordinance amending the Planning Code to designate 447 Battery Street (aka Jones-Thierbach Coffee Company Building), Assessor’s Parcel Block No. 0206, Lot No. 002, as a Landmark consistent with the standards set forth in Article 10 of the Planning Code; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making public necessity, convenience, and welfare findings under Planning Code, Section 302, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

This motion aimed to approve a Conditional Use Authorization for a proposed project at 450-474 O’Farrell Street and 532 Jones Street. However, it was ultimately rejected and is no longer moving forward.

Motion approving the decision of the Planning Commission by its Motion No. 20935, approving a Conditional Use Authorization, identified as Planning Case No. 2013.1535CUA-02, for a proposed project located at 450-474 O’Farrell Street and 532 Jones Street; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.

This legislation involves a hearing for public input on a proposed project at 450-474 O’Farrell Street and 532 Jones Street, which seeks to amend previous approvals for a mixed-use building that includes demolishing three existing buildings and constructing a new 13-story structure with commercial space and group housing. The hearing allows interested parties to express support or objections to the changes in the project scope.

Hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the approval of a Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 303, 304, 415, 166, and 155 of the Planning Code, for a proposed project at 450-474 O’Farrell Street and 532 Jones Street, Assessor's Parcel Block No. 0317, Lot Nos. 007, 009, and 011, identified in Planning Case No. 2013.1535CUA-02, issued by the Planning Commission by Motion No. 20935, dated June 24, 2021, to amend the Conditions of Approval Nos. 24, 25, 26, and 32 of Planning Commission Motion No. 20281, adopted on September 13, 2018, for a revised project scope to include demolition of three buildings, construction of a 13-story mixed-use building with similar massing, ground floor commercial and a new church, and up to 316 group housing rooms instead of 176 residential units located in a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial, High Density) Zoning District, North of Market Residential Special Use District and 80-130-T Height and Bulk District. (District 6) (Appellants: Pratibha Tekkey, on behalf of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, and Michael Shonafelt and Gregory Tross of Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, on behalf of the Pacific Bay Inn, Inc.) (Filed July 21, 2021)

This ordinance accepts a 12-kilovolt power line and related facilities for public use at the Seawall Lot 337 and Pier 48 Mixed-Use Project. It also ensures the line will be maintained by the city and complies with environmental and planning regulations.

Ordinance accepting the irrevocable offer of a 12-kilovolt power line and associated facilities (“12-kV Line”) servicing the Seawall Lot 337 and Pier 48 Mixed-Use Project, bounded by 3rd Street and Mission Rock Street, subject to conditions and limitations; dedicating the 12-kV Line to public use; designating the 12-kV Line for public power purposes; accepting the 12-kV Line for maintenance and liability purposes; affirming the Planning Department’s determinations under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1; accepting a Public Works Order recommending various actions regarding the 12-kV Line; and authorizing official acts in connection with this Ordinance, as defined herein.

This hearing is to provide a six-month update on the implementation of new consumer protection measures in the Building Code, which include creating and publishing a list of compliance issues and notifying relevant parties about these issues. The Department of Building Inspection and the City Attorney's Office will report on the progress of these provisions.

Hearing regarding a six-month status update on the implementation of Expanded Compliance Control and Consumer Protection provisions per Building Code amendments enacted March 26, 2021, including but not limited to creating the Expanded Compliance Control list, reporting on the list to the Building Inspection Commission, referring listees to state licensing boards, publication of the list on the Department of Building Inspection website, and notifying all parties listed on a permit application associated that includes a listee; and requesting the Department of Building Inspection and Office of the City Attorney to report.