3832 18TH ST

2020-001610 · 3832 18 STREET

74comments

8in person

66emails

1hearings

dashed lines mark hearings · supportopposenot recorded · dot size = comments that day · click a dot to jump to the comment

Hearings

approved continued denied / withdrawn · 1 hearings · hover a marker for the date and outcome

Campaign emails (46)

follow state law and approve 469 stevenson — 46 emails (46 / 0)

Cristina Cordova · email · 2023-04-20 · support · campaign email · source packet

Follow state law and approve 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St (items 11 and 13)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Thursday, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. I urge you to approve both of these badly needed housing projects<U+2014>and follow state law in the process. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Thursday, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. I urge you to approve both of these badly needed housing projects<U+2014>and follow state law in the process. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below market rate. The site's close proximity to public transportation would facilitate easy access to Powell Street BART station, Muni, and several bus lines; and the parcel would give hundreds of people walking-distance access to jobs in SoMa, Civic Center, and Union Square. 3832 18th St seeks to replace one single-family house with 19 units of group housing close to the J Church Muni line and Dolores Park. The project takes advantage of the State Density Bonus to create greater affordability and more housing in a neighborhood with high access to jobs and education. Of course, you shouldn't just approve these projects because they what San Francisco truly needs. You must approve these projects (as-is) because you put San Francisco at unprecedented risk running afoul of state law if you fail to do so. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has warned San Francisco about both of these projects specifically. When the Board of Supervisors delayed the environmental impact report for 469 Stevenson, HCD told San Francisco, "[a]ny further delay or additional conditions on [469 Stevenson]'s approval may subject the City to the HAA<U+2019>s provisions regarding bad faith." (https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and- community/HAU/san-francisco-LOS- 112322.pdf___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo2ZWY4Nzk2ODlhNGUwMTU1Y2JhN2NhYzk3YjJhNjNiMzo2OjIzMzU6ZWMyYzZmOTQzN2NjMTYwOGZmYjdkMmY5MDAzZjdiNWQ5MDllODM1ZDBiNGYyNTgzYjBhOTc0ZDZmMDg1NjUwNTp0OlQ) Similarly, after the Planning Commission modified 3832 18th St in late 2021, HCD issued a rare Notice of Violation to San Francisco. HCD's stern letter warned San Francisco that the City must approve the project, stating, "[f]ailure to do so may result in further actions." (https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/san-francisco-NOV- 122922.pdf___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo2ZWY4Nzk2ODlhNGUwMTU1Y2JhN2NhYzk3YjJhNjNiMzo2OmEwN2M6YjEzOGQ0ZjhhYjc0NDMzNDNhNWMyYWMzOGFiYWUzODY5YjE0OGZiZmIxNDk2YTE1ZjE0YzkwZDQzOTAxOTU3ODp0OlQ) Both of these housing projects are just what San Francisco needs, and I am thankful to have HCD on the side of housing abundance<U+2014>especially for affordable housing. I urge you to do the right thing and approve both 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. We need more housing, not for San Francisco to violate state law. Cristina Cordova [email removed] 19th Street San Francisco, California 94114show more

Will Wenham · email · 2023-04-20 · support · campaign email · source packet

Follow state law and approve 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St (items 11 and 13)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Thursday, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. I urge you to approve both of these badly needed housing projects<U+2014>and follow state law in the process. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Thursday, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. I urge you to approve both of these badly needed housing projects<U+2014>and follow state law in the process. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below market rate. The site's close proximity to public transportation would facilitate easy access to Powell Street BART station, Muni, and several bus lines; and the parcel would give hundreds of people walking-distance access to jobs in SoMa, Civic Center, and Union Square. 3832 18th St seeks to replace one single-family house with 19 units of group housing close to the J Church Muni line and Dolores Park. The project takes advantage of the State Density Bonus to create greater affordability and more housing in a neighborhood with high access to jobs and education. Of course, you shouldn't just approve these projects because they what San Francisco truly needs. You must approve these projects (as-is) because you put San Francisco at unprecedented risk running afoul of state law if you fail to do so. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has warned San Francisco about both of these projects specifically. When the Board of Supervisors delayed the environmental impact report for 469 Stevenson, HCD told San Francisco, "[a]ny further delay or additional conditions on [469 Stevenson]'s approval may subject the City to the HAA<U+2019>s provisions regarding bad faith." (https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and- community/HAU/san-francisco-LOS- 112322.pdf___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzphNDEwNDhhNzFiYzhiNGYyNDE5ZGYzNWVmMDc5MzFiODo2OjkzOGM6NzZlNzQ5ZTU1NGU1OGRjMGFjODczZDdmMzkwYjVhMGZjOWUwNjIzZTJlMzM4YzlkNmI4MWIxN2I1N2YwMDlkNDp0OlQ) Similarly, after the Planning Commission modified 3832 18th St in late 2021, HCD issued a rare Notice of Violation to San Francisco. HCD's stern letter warned San Francisco that the City must approve the project, stating, "[f]ailure to do so may result in further actions." (https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/san-francisco-NOV- 122922.pdf___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzphNDEwNDhhNzFiYzhiNGYyNDE5ZGYzNWVmMDc5MzFiODo2OjQzZjI6N2MwY2M0YTQyMmM3MmVlYzQzMGQwYzEyYzI0NWE5Nzk1NWIzMzA5YTliZDU1OGU3MjIzYjRjYWVkOGY1NDYyMDp0OlQ) Both of these housing projects are just what San Francisco needs, and I am thankful to have HCD on the side of housing abundance<U+2014>especially for affordable housing. I urge you to do the right thing and approve both 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. We need more housing, not for San Francisco to violate state law. will wenham [email removed] 101 Williams Ave San Francisco, California 94110show more

Jeff Mishler · email · 2023-04-20 · support · campaign email · source packet

Follow state law and approve 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St (items 11 and 13)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Thursday, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. I urge you to approve both of these badly needed housing projects<U+2014>and follow state law in the process. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Thursday, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. I urge you to approve both of these badly needed housing projects<U+2014>and follow state law in the process. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below market rate. The site's close proximity to public transportation would facilitate easy access to Powell Street BART station, Muni, and several bus lines; and the parcel would give hundreds of people walking-distance access to jobs in SoMa, Civic Center, and Union Square. 3832 18th St seeks to replace one single-family house with 19 units of group housing close to the J Church Muni line and Dolores Park. The project takes advantage of the State Density Bonus to create greater affordability and more housing in a neighborhood with high access to jobs and education. Of course, you shouldn't just approve these projects because they what San Francisco truly needs. You must approve these projects (as-is) because you put San Francisco at unprecedented risk running afoul of state law if you fail to do so. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has warned San Francisco about both of these projects specifically. When the Board of Supervisors delayed the environmental impact report for 469 Stevenson, HCD told San Francisco, "[a]ny further delay or additional conditions on [469 Stevenson]'s approval may subject the City to the HAA<U+2019>s provisions regarding bad faith." (https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning- and-community/HAU/san-francisco-LOS- 112322.pdf___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzoxYzU2ZTM1ZDAyODMyZGE1ZGRmOGVmNTEwM2JiOWNkZjo2OjA2ZTE6NDYyYWQxMjdlMWY4MGQ0YzIzMDA3MzBkNzliNTQxYjQ0YjJhOTViYTA0ZGI2ZTc2NDMyNjEwZTcyYjEzNzI1ODp0OlQ) Similarly, after the Planning Commission modified 3832 18th St in late 2021, HCD issued a rare Notice of Violation to San Francisco. HCD's stern letter warned San Francisco that the City must approve the project, stating, "[f]ailure to do so may result in further actions." (https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/san-francisco-NOV- 122922.pdf___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzoxYzU2ZTM1ZDAyODMyZGE1ZGRmOGVmNTEwM2JiOWNkZjo2OjE1ZDI6MzZmZDFkMzRjY2ZjMDA1NmMxMTIzNGRjNDBlM2ExMDdlN2IwNGNkZGYzYjYxNTNjZjIzMDdlYzViYTcwMWVlYjp0OlQ) Both of these housing projects are just what San Francisco needs, and I am thankful to have HCD on the side of housing abundance<U+2014>especially for affordable housing. I urge you to do the right thing and approve both 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. We need more housing, not for San Francisco to violate state law. Jeff Mishler [email removed] 3418 26th St Apt 2 San Francisco, California 94110show more

David Lovato · email · 2023-04-20 · support · campaign email · source packet

Follow state law and approve 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St (items 11 and 13)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to urge you to approve both 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. These badly needed housing projects would provide much-needed housing for San Franciscans, and they are in compliance with state law. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below market ra… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to urge you to approve both 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. These badly needed housing projects would provide much-needed housing for San Franciscans, and they are in compliance with state law. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below market rate. The site's close proximity to public transportation would facilitate easy access to Powell Street BART station, Muni, and several bus lines; and the parcel would give hundreds of people walking-distance access to jobs in SoMa, Civic Center, and Union Square. 3832 18th St seeks to replace one single-family house with 19 units of group housing close to the J Church Muni line and Dolores Park. The project takes advantage of the State Density Bonus to create greater affordability and more housing in a neighborhood with high access to jobs and education. Both of these projects are in compliance with state law. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has warned San Francisco about both of these projects specifically. When the Board of Supervisors delayed the environmental impact report for 469 Stevenson, HCD told San Francisco, "[a]ny further delay or additional conditions on [469 Stevenson]'s approval may subject the City to the HAA<U+2019>s provisions regarding bad faith." (https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/san-francisco-LOS- 112322.pdf___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzowNzFmNWMwNjE2ZmI5MjJlNmVlNTM1N2Q2ZmUyNjBmMzo2OjRlNzM6OGI0MTYzNWMxM2U2MmRjZDkyMjAwNDJkZTZkNjAyMjQ1MzhkNTVlNDcyZDhkMjA2Y2ZiMDNhNDc4OWRjNTQ3NTp0OlQ) Similarly, after the Planning Commission modified 3832 18th St in late 2021, HCD issued a rare Notice of Violation to San Francisco. HCD's stern letter warned San Francisco that the City must approve the project, stating, "[f]ailure to do so may result in further actions." (https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/san-francisco-NOV- 122922.pdf___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzowNzFmNWMwNjE2ZmI5MjJlNmVlNTM1N2Q2ZmUyNjBmMzo2OjAzZGU6MjI1MWU5ZDMxZDdjMTRmOGQ3NTNhNWZkNDg1MzgwNmMwOWZiNTY0YWMyMTQ2NmFlOGVlNGM1MzQ1NDVhOWQwNjp0OlQ) I urge you to do the right thing and approve both 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. We need more housing, not for San Francisco to violate state law. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, David Lovato, Hayes Valley resident. David Lovato [email removed] 55 Page St, Apt 725 San Francisco, California 94102show more

Jason Williams · email · 2023-04-20 · support · campaign email · source packet

Follow state law and approve 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St (items 11 and 13)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Thursday, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. I urge you to approve both of these badly needed housing projects<U+2014>and follow state law in the process. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Thursday, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. I urge you to approve both of these badly needed housing projects<U+2014>and follow state law in the process. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below market rate. The site's close proximity to public transportation would facilitate easy access to Powell Street BART station, Muni, and several bus lines; and the parcel would give hundreds of people walking-distance access to jobs in SoMa, Civic Center, and Union Square. 3832 18th St seeks to replace one single-family house with 19 units of group housing close to the J Church Muni line and Dolores Park. The project takes advantage of the State Density Bonus to create greater affordability and more housing in a neighborhood with high access to jobs and education. Of course, you shouldn't just approve these projects because they what San Francisco truly needs. You must approve these projects (as-is) because you put San Francisco at unprecedented risk running afoul of state law if you fail to do so. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has warned San Francisco about both of these projects specifically. When the Board of Supervisors delayed the environmental impact report for 469 Stevenson, HCD told San Francisco, "[a]ny further delay or additional conditions on [469 Stevenson]'s approval may subject the City to the HAA<U+2019>s provisions regarding bad faith." (https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and- community/HAU/san-francisco-LOS- 112322.pdf___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo4ZmUzY2EwM2Y3ZGYxNmM3Y2I3YWJjZDg2ZDBmZGEzOTo2OmE4ZTY6M2YzYmIwZGEzODczYmNhNTdmZDY5YzQ5ODc1MDI1MWVkMDlhZTBiYTM0Y2E5ZDFlMWQzN2I3YTFiMDcxZDNiMTp0OlQ) Similarly, after the Planning Commission modified 3832 18th St in late 2021, HCD issued a rare Notice of Violation to San Francisco. HCD's stern letter warned San Francisco that the City must approve the project, stating, "[f]ailure to do so may result in further actions." (https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/san-francisco-NOV- 122922.pdf___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo4ZmUzY2EwM2Y3ZGYxNmM3Y2I3YWJjZDg2ZDBmZGEzOTo2OjE0ZmE6N2UxNjBjNjIxMGM4ZTAwNDM3YzMzOTg1ZmVhMzIxNWE2ZGFhYzI1YTc1MmRhOTQ5NzY3MzdhYzc0YWNkMDg2Nzp0OlQ) Both of these housing projects are just what San Francisco needs, and I am thankful to have HCD on the side of housing abundance<U+2014>especially for affordable housing. I urge you to do the right thing and approve both 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. We need more housing, not for San Francisco to violate state law. Jason Williams [email removed] 1312 PAGE ST SAN FRANCISCO, California 94117show more

Zara Louis · email · 2023-04-20 · support · campaign email · source packet

Follow state law and approve 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St (items 11 and 13)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Thursday, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. I urge you to approve both of these badly needed housing projects<U+2014>and follow state law in the process. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Thursday, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. I urge you to approve both of these badly needed housing projects<U+2014>and follow state law in the process. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below market rate. The site's close proximity to public transportation would facilitate easy access to Powell Street BART station, Muni, and several bus lines; and the parcel would give hundreds of people walking-distance access to jobs in SoMa, Civic Center, and Union Square. 3832 18th St seeks to replace one single-family house with 19 units of group housing close to the J Church Muni line and Dolores Park. The project takes advantage of the State Density Bonus to create greater affordability and more housing in a neighborhood with high access to jobs and education. Of course, you shouldn't just approve these projects because they what San Francisco truly needs. You must approve these projects (as-is) because you put San Francisco at unprecedented risk running afoul of state law if you fail to do so. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has warned San Francisco about both of these projects specifically. When the Board of Supervisors delayed the environmental impact report for 469 Stevenson, HCD told San Francisco, "[a]ny further delay or additional conditions on [469 Stevenson]'s approval may subject the City to the HAA<U+2019>s provisions regarding bad faith." (https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and- community/HAU/san-francisco-LOS- 112322.pdf___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo2MzUxYzM4MWI3ZmY4NDY5M2JiMWEzZTMwMjYxYzFlYTo2OjI1OGU6MDVhNjYwZDQwMWQ3MDEwOWY4OWNmMDhjNGJkYzEwYmVlMTg3YjRjOTMxYTkxZjUwN2VmMWUzYmQ1YzdjMjcyODp0OlQ) Similarly, after the Planning Commission modified 3832 18th St in late 2021, HCD issued a rare Notice of Violation to San Francisco. HCD's stern letter warned San Francisco that the City must approve the project, stating, "[f]ailure to do so may result in further actions." (https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/san-francisco-NOV- 122922.pdf___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo2MzUxYzM4MWI3ZmY4NDY5M2JiMWEzZTMwMjYxYzFlYTo2OmYzNmE6NGJlNGZhZTI0Mjg3MzFiNmI4MDdmZmMyODQxOWI0ZTUxMmVhMTM5YTg1MTQzMjVkOGJmYTdhNjI0Y2Y4NzlkZDp0OlQ) Both of these housing projects are just what San Francisco needs, and I am thankful to have HCD on the side of housing abundance<U+2014>especially for affordable housing. I urge you to do the right thing and approve both 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. We need more housing, not for San Francisco to violate state law. Zara Louis [email removed] 333 1st St, N1701 San Francisco, CA, California 94105show more

… and 40 more

Comments by hearing (28)

expand all · collapse all · comments with recorded text are listed first

2021-07-08 · 3 comments · 0 / 3

Jeffrey Whitaker · email · 2021-07-08 · oppose · source packet

3832 18th Street
What exactly is Group Housing? How does that differ from SRO? Our immediate neighborhood already has a large low income housing apartment building and 3 public schools within 2 blocks. These take up a substantial part of our neighborhood space. It seems unfair that you then approve a six story building that will increase density issues. Building a 6 story structure is totally inappropriate for our neighborhoo… show more

Jeffrey Guempel · email · 2021-07-08 · oppose · source packet

3832 18th Street - Public Comments
> I am commenting with respect to the proposed development at 3832 18th Street that is scheduled for a hearing on 15 July 2021. > I own a condo on Dorland St. behind the proposed development, and object to the scale of the proposal. I request that the city deny any waiver or modification to the zoning applicable to the block. > > 1. From a height perspective, it is out of place among the adjacent building… > I am commenting with respect to the proposed development at 3832 18th Street that is scheduled for a hearing on 15 July 2021. > I own a condo on Dorland St. behind the proposed development, and object to the scale of the proposal. I request that the city deny any waiver or modification to the zoning applicable to the block. > > 1. From a height perspective, it is out of place among the adjacent buildings, but even more importantly, seemingly taller than any individual housing development on our block (which I am defining as our courtyard/ internal block adjacent units), further decreasing privacy for us whose units do face the interior of the block bounded by Dorland/18th/Church/Sanchez. > 2. This is combined with the addition of significant bulk in the courtyard area within the block. I do not support the waiver of the rear yard requirement. I believe it is important to maintain the open feel and privacy for the adjacent homeowners. > 3. The building is designed seemingly as infill as if there were tall buildings on either side, meaning we have to stare at a giant concrete wall jutting above the treetops as I sit to the west of the site. This is terrible for our view as well as the views and shadow for the immediate neighbors. > 4. The height and bulk will directly impact our view of the park and treetops (and will eliminate trees?), as I am guessing it will stick out significantly from the existing skyline we see out our windows facing east/southeast from across the courtyard. The increased footprint, I assume, will also require some of the courtyard's trees to be removed, which saddens me. > > In sum, I support the ability of anyone to build within the zoning rules, but I kindly ask that you not waive the height or rear yard requirements here and create an exception. The existing zoning of this site would keep the development roughly aligned with the taller/larger properties existing on the block. > If there is a desire to re-evaluate the zoning for this area, it should be done for the whole area, not individual parcels on an ad hoc basis. Doing so makes the bestowing of the permanent value associated with this upzoning arbitrary and arguably discriminatory against those of us nearby property owners not afforded similar zoning. > > Thanks for taking the time, > Jeff Guempel 259 Dorlandshow more

Elizabeth Beatty · email · 2021-07-08 · oppose · source packet

3832 18th St. - Record No. 2020-001610CUA/SHD Letter to Planning Commission
Dear Planning Commission - As residents of San Francisco and as a neighbor of 3832 18th Street, we support higher density housing in San Francisco and in our neighborhood. With regard to the development of 3832 18 th Street, we support a higher density development of the property but we have specific concerns regarding the type of units and the proposed height of the building as it impacts our neighborhood. Summa… Dear Planning Commission - As residents of San Francisco and as a neighbor of 3832 18th Street, we support higher density housing in San Francisco and in our neighborhood. With regard to the development of 3832 18 th Street, we support a higher density development of the property but we have specific concerns regarding the type of units and the proposed height of the building as it impacts our neighborhood. Summary of Concerns This development perverts the intentions of the State Density Bonus and will not improve San Francisco's affordable housing supply in its current configuration. 16 of the 19 proposed units are to be sold at market price, which makes them out of reach for most San Francisco residents. These units do not have full kitchens. Lower income or average income renters cannot afford to eat out every day and need a kitchen. These units will be bought and then rented out as short-term rentals because no one is going to live long-term in a unit with no kitchen. We already have many illegal and legal short-term rentals in the neighborhood and in the city. We have also seen other places, such as 2100 Market being bought out by companies and used for corporate rentals The developer also reduced the number of affordable units from 5 to 3 The proposed project is so tall and so deep that it would cast shadows on the surrounding buildings and is out of character with the neighborhood The proposed building would be the tallest in the neighborhood and would tower above the adjacent buildings. The developer is proposing a 6-story (plus 8-foot rooftop penthouse) It would block solar panels, and mid-block open space and yards, throughout the day Residents of the numerous surrounding apartments would cease to get direct sunlight as result of the project Desired Changes We would like the height of the building reduced to 4 stories and increase the size of the units slightly to accommodate full kitchens. 4 stories would accommodate 14 units to replace a single - family dwelling so housing density still increases dramatically Including full kitchens will reduce the likelihood of these units becoming short-term rentals Reducing the height will address neighbors concerns on reduced light and air Restore the number of BMR/affordable units to 5 to increase affordable housing in SF Unresponsiveness of the Developer The neighbors have made several proposals in an effort to compromise with the developer including some proposals that retained all 19 units. All of these proposals have been rejected The developer has not offered any proposals to address neighbor impacts The developer has not done adequate neighbor outreach The only changes the developer has made since the Pre-application meeting have been to reduce the number of BMR units from 5 to 3, and to change the tenure of the rest of the units from rental to ownership. Both changes reduce the benefits to the community and the city significantly. Request of the Board We respectfully request that you deny the petition as is, and require the developer to modify the project to address the above concerns. Squeezing in 16 market-rate (unaffordable) units that will likely end up being rented out by their owners to short-term renters due to the lack of a full kitchen and only allotting 3 BMR units does not meet the intentions of the State Density Bonus. Allowing a 6-story building that towers over the neighborhood to squeeze in those 16 market price units (19 units) while dramatically reducing light and air to current neighbors puts the profits of the developer above all other concerns. We would all like to see additional density in San Francisco. A 4-story 14-unit building would still be a fantastic addition to what is now a 1 - unit building. Please require the developer to come back to you with a revised design at a future date that meets the objectives of increasing affordable long-term housing in SF and preserves the light and air of the neighbors so that we will be able to enthusiastically support the project. Sincerely, Elizabeth Beatty Anthony Richardson (Neighbors: 3811 18th Street)show more

2021-07-15 · 9 comments · 1 / 8

Kent Nesbitt · email · 2021-07-15 · oppose · source packet

3832 18th street
I am the owner of 3855 18th street Unit B. I am definitely against the 3832 18th group housing residential project. First of all, that towering building is not fair to the houses next door and all the neighbors. It will block views and not look right in the residential neighborhood. Already people like to gather outside on 18th and Church and play loud music and talk loud. This will only create more noise and mo… show more

Helen M. Benninger · email · 2021-07-15 · oppose · source packet

3832 18th Street
To the Members of the Planning Commission: Dear Members: I am a part owner of the Property at 231/233 Dorland Street which backs up to the Proposed New Project. I am very much opposed to the requested variances to increase the height allowed to 60 feet and especially to eliminate the requirement for a BACK YARD. By proposing this you are taking away a lot of joy from children and animals. I do not really… show more

Benjamin Griffin · email · 2021-07-15 · support · source packet

2020-001610CUA and 2020-001610SHD
Hello, I'm writing concerning the item 11A and 11B agenda items on the July 15th hearing, 2020-001610CUA and 2020- 001610SHD. I will not be able attend as I will be travelling that day. There is a neighbor of this project who has plastered the area with flyers asking for people to submit feedback on these items. I would like to express my support in favor building the 19-unit general residential building on 18th… show more

(name not recorded) · email · 2021-07-15 · oppose · source packet

Project Address 3832 18th Street, San Francisco, CA
Dear Jeffrey Horn and the SF Planning Commission, RE: Project Address 3832 18th Street, San Francisco, CA (Record No. 2020- 001610CUA/SHD) We're writing to strongly oppose the project planned for 3832 18th Street where a Group Housing Residential Project would replace a one-story house with a six-story 19-unit Group Housing residential project. We live on the block where this is proposed. All of our neighb… show more

L Bahr · email · 2021-07-15 · oppose · source packet

URGENT: 3832 18th St, Hearing
July 11, 2021 Reference: Proposed development at 3832 18th St. To: San Francisco Planning Commission Members of the Commission: My name is Leslie Bahr and I am writing on behalf of myself, property owner of 3810-3812 18th St and occupant of 3810A 18th St., and tenants Michelle Spicher and Christal Henderson (3810 18th St.), and tenants Jonathan and Lindsay Bruyn (3812 18th St.) Less than a year ago,… July 11, 2021 Reference: Proposed development at 3832 18th St. To: San Francisco Planning Commission Members of the Commission: My name is Leslie Bahr and I am writing on behalf of myself, property owner of 3810-3812 18th St and occupant of 3810A 18th St., and tenants Michelle Spicher and Christal Henderson (3810 18th St.), and tenants Jonathan and Lindsay Bruyn (3812 18th St.) Less than a year ago, we collectively discovered, quite by accident, (as none of us received any notice) that the property at 3832 18th St., a small, two story home, had been purchased by a developer who intends to construct a 6 story edifice comprised of 19 units. All of us were<U+2014>in a word: aghast. Shocked that such a development project in a low density residential neighborhood, one that would tower nearly 30 feet above any other residential building not only on this block, but every block in all directions, might even be considered. The one edifice of even slightly similar height is a low income senior housing structure with a single section of 50<U+2019> in height (behind the main property facing 18th St.). This was the property used as a comparison to the 3832 18th St. proposal, one that ironically intends to create tiny, market rate units with outstanding views, at the expense of every inhabitant in this neighborhood. We object to the approval of this project in its current configuration for the following reasons: 1-LACK OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS The planning and presentation of this project to the community transpired during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in San Francisco. Those neighbors who did manage to become aware of the developer<U+2019>s intentions were unable to reach out to any of the neighbors or property owners in the vicinity due to the impossibility of any personal contact because of the virus. When some of us tried to deliver flyers alerting neighbors, the information was disposed of by the YIMBY faction who are interested in development no matter what the cost is to existing property owners and tenants. They removed our flyers from property entries and ripped them from telephone poles. Local property owners were threatened and harassed Now, ithas been less than one month since restrictions were lifted under the Shelter In Place Order, and barely one week since the Public Hearing Notices were sent out, nowhere near enough the time required to bring awareness to the residents and property owners this proposed edifice would impact so dramatically. 2-DEVELOPER ACTING IN BAD FAITH At the one public meeting the developer held, there were so many YIMBY <U+201C>plants<U+201D> put in place by the project co- ordinator, all of which were given an inordinate amount of time to speak in glowing terms of his proposal, so that the actual residents of the neighborhood had little opportunity to voice their concerns, and when they did, were shouted down by the YIMBYS<U+2014><U+201C>Who needs light?!!<U+201D> said one of them. (A direct quote.) Article 34 of the California Constitution states that development projects must be approved by the community<U+2014>and that means the actual population who do reside here, not more YIMBY plants the developer placed in his building, soon meant to undergo demolition, just so they can <U+201C>say<U+201D> they are residents. They are not. The actual neighbors, the real community residing here, while greatly in favor of reasonable, contextually scaled new housing, overwhelmingly disapprove of a project that ultimately aims to provide exceptional light and views to the buyers of the developer<U+2019>s units, while stealing the light from hundreds living down below in their homes. 3-MIS-USE OF GROUP HOUSING CATEGORIZATION The developer obtained the high unit density by categorizing these units as <U+201C>group housing,<U+201D> a definition of which is ambiguous at best under the current code. Group housing was originally intended under the code to serve like-minded members of a group or organization to co-inhabit a building in units that eliminated individual facilities (such as standard kitchens) by providing common-use kitchens and living areas. Currently, there ARE projects in San Francisco creating such group housing typologies, with shared functions and rooms, but this proposal is not one of them. To call these units group housing, merely because they have restricted-use kitchens without stoves does not in any way serve the INTENTION of the code such as it was derived. For the developer to refer to a 390 foot shared outdoor space as the fulfillment of group housing intentions does not meet those standards. 3-PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM This proposal constitutes a public health or safety problem. With its<U+2019> unfortunate mid-block location, It will dramatically impact light and air quality to many hundreds of people who occupy the buildings on the long blocks of 18th St. and Dorland St, and shorter blocks on either end, respectively, all of whom spend the majority of their waking hours in the back of their units, facing the unique, park- like green zone behind them. This development proposal calls for a diminished rear yard setback and an overweening height that will dramatically alter the light in this area, including the outdoor setting for low income senior inhabitants of 3850 18th St., a project comprised of over 100 units in total. There is a reason for setback requirements in an urban environment: to provide residents the light and air deemed necessary for human habitation. The particulars of the zoning allowances this proposal demands combine in such a way as to negatively impact all residents of the area and will, indeed, create a public health problem for everyone residing here. 4-DOES NOT SERVE INTENTION OF DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM First, we wish to state that we understand California is in a housing crisis. We believe people need housing, people at all income levels, the homeless, perhaps them most of all. And we are aware that the Density Bonus Program is directly intended to make development of affordable and senior housing economically feasible. At the same time, we know that currently San Francisco is meeting its<U+2019> current goals of market rate housing at 110%, while sadly (and unreasonably), only 30% of affordable housing is being achieved. The developer has proposed three preposterously inadequate units of affordable housing. What is to determine how these properties will be marketed, and at what price? And how will the prospective buyers, should any of them even be able to purchase one of the units, actually occupy a room not even defined as a dwelling unit, with no stove, and scarcely a refrigerator? Or is the developer intending to just swap those out as soon as he gets his final C of O<U+2019>s? Who will be there to stop him from doing just that? There is a local group of neighbors who have forged an alliance and has been trying to work with the developer. They have offered all sorts of reasonable solutions to reduce the height of his proposal, but all were met with complete and utter resistance. One of the suggestions included creating a story at basement level but of course the developer would not even consider doing so. For what reason? It really would not be of very great cost to them, overall, not in terms of money spent, so what, then? Ahhhh, but that would mean money lost by the reduction of one of those commanding views! The property value that represents! Let<U+2019>s be clear: the developer Is determined to preserve the absurdly disproportionate height of the project in order to create units on the top floors that soar over every other building in the area so he can maximize his profits through selling those views. Is this the price the entire neighborhood has to pay, all of us losing the light in our rear yards, so he can achieve that? There are, and always will be, extremists on opposite ends of the spectrum<U+2014>the NIMBYs and the YIMBYs, and those people will never be satisfied no matter what is decided. But we are here to say: there is a solid middle ground to be considered here, and you have the discretion to accomplish that ground, despite the new Density Bonus allowances. We support reasonable development in our beautiful city, but ask to be shown some appropriate measure of consideration, regardless of the developer<U+2019>s position<U+2014>as tenants, as homeowners, and property tax payers. <U+201C>Conditional Uses require a Planning Commission hearing in order to determine if the proposed use is necessary or desirable to the neighborhood, whether it may potentially have a negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood, and whether the use complies with the San Francisco General Plan. During this public hearing the Planning Commission will <U+201C>Condition<U+201D> the use by applying operational conditions that may minimize neighborhood concerns as well as other conditions that may be required by the Department and the Planning Code. We propose that the decision on this proposal be delayed in order to have a reasonable amount of time to reach out to others in the area, which we were unable to do because of the Shelter in Place ordinance. We understand that the Density Bonus Program creates a premise of otherwise unauthorized uses relative to regular planning considerations, but the Planning Commission is nonetheless still required to consider the negative impact this project will have on the surrounding neighborhood. There are reasonable alternatives to what this developer has proposed that will minimize our concerns. Perhaps the proposal could eliminate those two units that aim to maximize spectacular views at the expense of hundreds of local residents. We beseech you to hear our concerns and act accordingly. You are not without discretionary power. Sincerely, Leslie C. Bahr Michelle Spicher Cristal Henderson Jonathan and Lindsay Bruynshow more

Timothy Morano · email · 2021-07-15 · oppose · source packet

3832 18th Street
Dear Planning Department - I am a neighbor who lives very close to the proposed project at 3832 18th Street. I am opposed to the proposed structure because of it<U+2019>s excessive height, excessive rear yard projection and lack of off-street parking. A sixty foot tall building on such a small lot would look out of place and visually dominate the block. The imposing height combined with the extra rear pr… show more

David Sage · email · 2021-07-15 · oppose · source packet

3832 18th Street, 2020-00161CUA/SHD
To the members of the San Francisco Planning Commission: I would respectively like to register my strong opposition to the proposed project at 3832 18th Street (2020-00161CUA/SHD). I am a part owner of a property on Dorland Street, behind the proposed project. The variances requested, to increase the allowable height to 60 feet, and to allow the building to come right up to the rear property line are exactly th… show more

Tiffany Walsh · email · 2021-07-15 · oppose · source packet

3832 18th Street
To the Members of the Planning Commission: I am a resident of the property at 231/233 Dorland Street which backs up to the proposed new project. I am highly opposed to the requested variances to increase the height allowed to 60 feet and to eliminate the requirement for a backyard. Neither of these variances make sense in a residential neighborhood such as this one and would dramatically alter the character of the … show more

Thanos Diacakis · email · 2021-07-15 · oppose · source packet

Updated Letter of Opposition CU 3832 18th St
Dear Commission, President Koppel, Vice President Moore, and Commissioners, The neighborhood concern regarding the 68-foot, 19-unit group housing project continues to grow. Attached is an updated map and list with additional neighbors opposed. The developer has not conducted sufficient community outreach, has been unwilling to address the neighbors' concerns in any way, has not made any changes to the design to… show more

2021-09-30 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Ryan Patterson · email · 2021-09-30 · support · source packet

3832 18th Street - Project Sponsor Letter
Dear Commissioners: Please find a letter attached on behalf of the Project Sponsor. Thank you, Ryan J. Patterson Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: [phone removed] Facsimile: [phone removed] Email: [email removed] www.zfplaw.com This communication and its contents may contain confidential and/or privileged material for the sole use of the … Dear Commissioners: Please find a letter attached on behalf of the Project Sponsor. Thank you, Ryan J. Patterson Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: [phone removed] Facsimile: [phone removed] Email: [email removed] www.zfplaw.com This communication and its contents may contain confidential and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Unless expressly stated, nothing in this communication should be regarded as tax advice. September 28, 2021 VIA E-MAIL President Joel Koppel and Commissioners San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness Ave, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: 3832 18th Street (2020-001610PRJ) Dear President Koppel and Commissioners: Our office represents MJ Mission Dolores, LLC, owner of the property at 3832 18th Street. Our client applied for a housing development project that consists of a new six-story residential building with 19 group housing units (Case No. 2020-001610PRJ). We submit this letter to inform the City that the project has already been deemed approved as a matter of law due to its failure to act on the project within the time limits required by the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). Additionally, although City approval is no longer required, the project has been deemed code- compliant as a matter of law, and the City is therefore required to approve the project at the proposed density. The Project is Deemed Approved as a Matter of Law The PSA sets strict timelines for local agencies to act on proposed development projects. Gov<U+2019>t. Code 65950(a)(5) requires a lead agency to approve or disapprove a project within sixty days from a determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (<U+201C>CEQA<U+201D>). Gov<U+2019>t. Code 65956 further states that an agency<U+2019>s failure to act within the PSA<U+2019>s required time limits <U+201C>shall be deemed approval of the permit application . . . if the public notice required by law has occurred.<U+201D> Thus, if an agency fails to act on a project within sixty days after the project is determined to be exempt from CEQA, the project is deemed approved as a matter of law so long as public notice occurred, even when such notice does not explicitly state that the project will be deemed approved if not acted upon within the required timeframe. (See Linovitz Capo Shores LLC v. Cal. Coastal Comm<U+2019>n, (Jun. 25, 2021, G058331) __ Cal.App.4th __, cert. denied; see also Am. Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego, (9th Cir. 2014) 763 F.3d 1035, 1048.) Here, the City determined that the project was exempt from CEQA on May 24, 2021. Thus Gov<U+2019>t. Code 65950(a)(5) required the City to approve or disapprove the project within 60 days (i.e. by July 23, 2021). Although the project was originally scheduled for approval at the July 15, 2021 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission failed to approve or disapprove the project, and instead continued the item until October 14, 2021. Thus, because the City did not approve or President Joel Koppel and Commissioners September 28, 2021 Page 2 disapprove the project by July 23, the City has already failed to act within the PSA<U+2019>s required time limits. Prior to the July 15 hearing, the City provided public notice regarding the project as required by the City<U+2019>s Planning Code. The City held the duly-noticed public hearing, which gave affected parties the opportunity to be heard. However, the City failed to act on the application at the July 15 hearing and before the PSA deadline expired on July 23. Thus, both the <U+201C>failure to act<U+201D> and <U+201C>public notice<U+201D> prerequisites for the project to be deemed approved pursuant to the PSA have been satisfied, even though the public notice did not explicitly state that the project would be deemed approved due to the City<U+2019>s failure to act. As such, the 3832 18th Street project has already been deemed approved as a matter of law. Although our clients will participate in the October 14 hearing under protest, if the City still holds a hearing, we do not concede that City approval is still required and do not waive the right to assert that the project has already been deemed approved as a matter of law. The Project Qualifies as a Housing Development Project The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) limits the ability of local governments to deny housing development projects that comply with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria. The HAA defines <U+201C>housing development project<U+201D> as a use consisting of any of the following: residential units only; mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or transitional housing or supportive housing. Planning Code Section 102 defines <U+201C>group housing<U+201D> as a <U+201C>Residential Use that provides lodging or both meals and lodging, without individual cooking facilities.<U+201D> Thus, group housing projects are subject to the protections of the HAA because the HAA defines a <U+201C>housing development project<U+201D> to include any residential use, and <U+201C>group housing<U+201D> is a residential use. This project consists of a new six-story residential building with 19 group housing units and therefore qualifies as a housing development project subject to the HAA. The City already confirmed that this project qualifies as a housing development project in its Preliminary Project Assessment Letter, dated April 9, 2020, also while acknowledging that <U+201C>all public agencies are subject to additional project review constraints and timelines with regard to applications for housing developments.<U+201D> The Project is Code-Compliant as a Matter of Law The HAA also sets strict timelines for local agencies to determine whether a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with any applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, or other requirement. Gov<U+2019>t. Code 65589.5(j)(2)(A)(i) states that a local agency must provide written documentation identifying and explaining any code noncompliance <U+201C>[w]ithin 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.<U+201D> Gov<U+2019>t. Code 65589.5(j)(2)(B) further states that if an President Joel Koppel and Commissioners September 28, 2021 Page 3 agency fails to provide the required written code noncompliance documentation within the specified timeframe, <U+201C>the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.<U+201D> Here, the application was submitted on July 15, 2020 and the application was determined to be complete by the City on August 9, 2020. The project contains fewer than 150 units, and thus Gov<U+2019>t. Code 65589.5(j)(2) required the City to provide written documentation identifying and explaining any noncompliance with applicable ordinances, policies, or standards within 30 days of the date the application was determined to be complete (i.e. by September 8, 2020). The City failed to provide any written noncompliance documentation within that timeframe, and thus as a matter of law, the project was deemed code-compliant on September 9, 2020. Because the project has been deemed code-compliant as a matter of law, if City approval were still required, the City would be obligated by Gov<U+2019>t. Code 65589.5(j)(1) to approve the project at the proposed density unless the City provides substantial evidence to establish that the proposed project will have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety. (See Cal. Renters Legal Advocacy and Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo (Sept. 10, 2021, A159320) __ Cal.App. __.) In this case, the City has not identified any specific, adverse impacts to public health and safety that would be caused by the project, and thus the project must be approved at the density proposed. Density Bonus Does Not Impact the Project<U+2019>s Code-Compliance Gov<U+2019>t. Code 65589.5(j)(3) makes clear that receipt of a density bonus <U+201C>shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.<U+201D> This is reiterated in Planning Director Bulletin No. 5, explaining that <U+201C>[a]ny waivers, concessions, or incentives, conferred through the State Density Bonus Law are considered code-complying, and therefore are consistent with the objective standards of the Planning Code.<U+201D> Thus, even though the project has already been deemed approved and code-compliant as a matter of law, we want to be clear that the density bonus and waivers/concessions have no impact on the proposed project<U+2019>s code-compliance. Conclusion In sum, the 3832 18th Street project has already been deemed approved pursuant to the PSA and deemed code-compliant pursuant to the HAA. Although additional City approval is no longer legally required, our clients request that the City confirm the approval without further delay. President Joel Koppel and Commissioners September 28, 2021 Page 4 Very truly yours, ZACKS, FREEDMAN & PATTERSON, PC ____________________________________ Ryan J. Pattersonshow more

2021-10-14 · 9 comments · 3 / 4

Mark Loper · spoken · 2021-10-14 · support

Project sponsor

Rafa Sonnenfeld · email · 2021-10-14 · support · source packet

2020-001610PRJ - 3832 18th Street
Please find attached our organization's correspondence regarding the project application for 3832 18th Street. As noted in our letter, YIMBY Law believes the law requires the City to approve the requested permits for this project. Regards, -- Rafa Sonnenfeld Paralegal he/him YIMBY Law 57 Post St, Suite 908 San Francisco, CA 94104 [email removed] 10/7/2021 San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Nes… Please find attached our organization's correspondence regarding the project application for 3832 18th Street. As noted in our letter, YIMBY Law believes the law requires the City to approve the requested permits for this project. Regards, -- Rafa Sonnenfeld Paralegal he/him YIMBY Law 57 Post St, Suite 908 San Francisco, CA 94104 [email removed] 10/7/2021 San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness Ave, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 [email removed] Via Email Re: 3832 18th Street 2020-001610PRJ Dear San Francisco Planning Commission, YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-prot corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and aordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). As you know, the Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the HAA. Should the City fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to le suit to ensure that the law is enforced. The proposed Project includes demolition of the single-family home on the project site, and new construction of a six-story, 60-foot tall, residential building with 19 group housing units, a 390 square foot communal space, 19 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces, and two Class 2 bicycle parking spaces. The Project includes 890 square feet of common open space via a ground oor courtyard and two separate private roof decks at the sixth oor, including a 149 square foot front deck and a 165 square foot rear deck. The Project will provide three group housing units subject to the inclusionary aordable housing program. Project approval will not require any action abrogating or overriding the general plan designation and standards for the site. The Conditional Use Authorization permit currently being considered certainly falls well within the bounds of the General Plan, and as properly noted by Planning sta, <U+201C>the Commission must make ndings related to requested waivers from development standards for Building Height pursuant to Planning Code Section 260, Rear Yard pursuant to Planning Code Section 134, and for Dwelling Unit Exposure pursuant to Planning Code Section 140, pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law.<U+201D> California Government Code 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality<U+2019>s zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make ndings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety. 1 Conditional Use Authorization and the Housing Accountability Act It is a common misconception that any additional approvals for a project besides a simple site permit automatically renders the Housing Accountability Act void. This is not the case. The Housing Accountability Act applies so long as the residential development complies with the objective general plan standards in place at the time of application submission. Though a conditional use permit requires additional authorization, it does not push the project beyond the bounds of the general plan. By its very nature, a conditional use is one that is permitted by the general plan provided certain prerequisites are met. The extra level of scrutiny does not mean that the project is no longer general plan compliant. In this case, a conditional use permit is being sought in order for the Project proponent to be granted waivers to which they are entitled under California state Density Bonus law, California Government Code 65915(e), so long as there are no specic, adverse impacts, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and there are no feasible methods to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specic adverse impacts. The HAA, 65589.5 (j)(3) species that the receipt of a density bonus does not constitute a valid basis on which to nd a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. Conclusion The Project proposal is zoning compliant with the entitled Density Bonus waivers, and general plan compliant, therefore, you must approve the application, or else make ndings to the eect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. Should the City fail to comply with the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to take legal action to ensure that the law is enforced. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is aected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law YIMBY Law, 57 Post Street, Suite 908, San Francisco, CA 94103 2show more

Jeff Horner · spoken · 2021-10-14 · —

Continuance

Austin Yang · spoken · 2021-10-14 · neutral

City Attorney

Chris Rudy · spoken · 2021-10-14 · oppose

No outreach, no changes to plans

Yonathan Randolph · spoken · 2021-10-14 · support

Prioritize creation of housing

Cindy Wong · spoken · 2021-10-14 · oppose

Housing shortage for families with children

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2021-10-14 · oppose

Corporate leases

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2021-10-14 · oppose

4th hearing

2022-03-03 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

David Sage · email · 2022-03-03 · oppose · source packet

2020-00161CUA/SHD
Subject: 3832 18th St - Misrepresentations by developer Dear Supervisor Mandelman and members of the San Francisco Planning Commission, We are writing to you once again in opposition of the project on 3832 18th St whose appeal is currently before the Commission on March 15th. We would like to clarify that we in fact DO NOT support the appeal of the developer. We inadvertently signed the appeal because we did n… show more

2023-04-20 · 4 comments · 0 / 4

Kay Koehneke · email · 2023-04-20 · oppose · source packet

3832 - 18th St. 2020-001610CUA-02/SHD-02
My name is Kay Koehneke. I live at, and am the owner of 3827 18th Street. I have lived here for 35 years. I am opposed to modifications of the previously approved Conditional Use Authorization. A five story, 19 unit, group housing project increases density on this lot 5-fold, and meets state housing goals. A 6th story is not required or mandated. Only three of the units are to be offered at "below market ra… show more

Thanos Diacakis · email · 2023-04-20 · oppose · source packet

Re: Apr 20th, 3832 18th St Organized Opposition
Just confirming you you received this? Want to make sure you don<U+2019>t need anything else ahead of the 72 hour deadline? Thanks! Thanos Diacakis > On Apr 17, 2023, at 7:38 AM, Thanos Diacakis [email removed]> wrote: > > Dear Secretary Ionin, > > We would like to request a time-slot to present as the organized opposition to the 3832 18th St Project on the SF Planning Commission meeting (Thur… show more

Louis Gwerder · email · 2023-04-20 · oppose · source packet

3832 18th Street. 2020-001610CUA-02/SHD-02
My name is Louis Gwerder. I have lived across the street from 3832 18th Street for 23 years and in the City for 69 years. I thank you for mediating a fair compromise solution allowing the same amount of units (19) in five floors instead of six. The decision gives some solace to the neighborhood residents' feelings about the character of the neighborhood and their own inalienable property rights. Not just the … show more

Thanos Diacakis · email · 2023-04-20 · oppose · source packet

2020-001610CUA-02 3832 18th St - Public Comment
Dear Commissioners, Please find attached the public comment from the organized opposition to the above referenced project (3832 18th St). Looking forward to the meeting tomorrow. Sincerely, Athanassios Diacakis 3830 18th St [phone removed] [email removed]

2023-04-27 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Katherine Roberts · email · 2023-04-27 · oppose · source packet

Follow state law and approve 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St (items 11 and 13)
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Thursday, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. I urge you to approve 469 Stevenson and reject 3832 18th Street. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below market rate. The site's close proximity to pu… Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, This Thursday, the Planning Commission will re-hear Conditional Use Authorization requests for 469 Stevenson and 3832 18th St. I urge you to approve 469 Stevenson and reject 3832 18th Street. 469 Stevenson would transform a current parking lot into 495 well-designed, transit-oriented new homes. Of these, 94 would be below market rate. The site's close proximity to public transportation would facilitate easy access to Powell Street BART station, Muni, and several bus lines; and the parcel would give hundreds of people walking-distance access to jobs in SoMa, Civic Center, and Union Square. 3832 18th St., on the other hand, seeks to replace one single-family house with 19 units of group housing. This single-family home is one of the vanishingly few pre-earthquake Victorians that are still left in the city after decades of ruthless culling to replace with far less culturally-significant, often hideous modern structures. In fact, one great example of these ugly buildings just happens to be right next to 3832 18th Street, the culture treasure you are contemplating destroying to create more density. There are so many other sites in this city where you can create more density without destroying yet another irreplaceable part of our history. Brutalist modern architecture like the eyesore next door, legions of surface parking lots, and architecturally unremarkable buildings <U+2014> it<U+2019>s not like San Francisco doesn<U+2019>t have these in spades. Please consider anything that has cultural and historic value and adds to the unique character of the city off limits and tear down the things that do nothing to make the city more attractive, more interesting, more appealing to tourists <U+2014> you have so many options that don<U+2019>t involve chipping away at the little bit of history we still have left. It is tragic that we don<U+2019>t value this history more. It is San Francisco<U+2019>s golden egg, and when it<U+2019>s gone, it<U+2019>s gone. We don<U+2019>t have to choose between providing more housing and preserving our precious cultural heritage. We just need to understand the importance of protecting the buildings that make our city so unique, and to realize that we have lots of other options for building housing. Destroying Victorians should not even be on the table, and it is tragic that we haven<U+2019>t figured this out yet. I<U+2019>m as pro-housing as the next guy, but destroying Victorians should not even be part of this discussion. Please reject this proposal as well as any other proposal that comes before you that involves tearing down any more of our unique cultural heritage. So much of it has already been destroyed because of white supremacy and other terrible reasons. There are much better ways to accomplish your objectives, and I hope you will commit yourself to smarter and more culturally sensitive planning than this. When the Board of Supervisors delayed the environmental impact report for 469 Stevenson, HCD told San Francisco, "[a]ny further delay or additional conditions on [469 Stevenson]'s approval may subject the City to the HAA<U+2019>s provisions regarding bad faith." (https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/san-francisco-LOS- 112322.pdf___.YXAzOnNmZHQyOmE6bzo2ZjQ3NjAxY2U4NTMwYzY3YWZiMTBhMGRkOTQ4ZTAwZTo2OmNjMzM6MGI1NTg3NmExYzdlNTY4NzUxYWNkYWJjNjZkZjIyY2ZmMzMzZjVlZTY4MjhmNGEyZDMwZmMwZDg1NTI4NGZkZDp0OlQ) This type of housing project, infill development in under-utilized spaces such as surface parking lots, is just what San Francisco needs. Tearing down beautiful old wood-frame buildings is not. I urge you to do the right thing and approve 469 Stevenson and reject 3832 18th St. We need to build smarter, and finding ways to add housing while still preserving our cultural heritage is the way to do this. Katherine Roberts [email removed] 132 BEULAH ST SAN FRANCISCO, California 94117show more