Dwelling Unit Density Exception For Corner Lots In Residential Districts [Board

2020-003971

33comments

30in person

3emails

3hearings

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

Hearings

approved continued denied / withdrawn · 3 hearings · hover a marker for the date and outcome

Comments by hearing (33)

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

2021-11-18 · 32 comments · 22 / 9

Ozzie Rohm · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Land value

Christopher Pederson · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

Support four-plexes citywide - Planning Comm agenda items 10 & 11 (2020-003971PCA, 2021- 010762PCA)
Dear President Koppel and Commissioners: I urge you to support the proposed legislation to legalize four-plexes in all residential neighborhoods with the Department-recommended modifications. This legislation, if modified, would allow high-resource lower-density neighborhoods of the City to start addressing the City<U+2019>s housing crisis, but without requiring dramatic changes to the physical character of tho… show more

Mike Chen · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Affordability, provide more opportunity

Bret Young · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Ministerial approval

Corey Smith · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Pursue ministerial approval process

Joanna Gutmann · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Support

Martin Munoz · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

4 story mansion vs 4 units

Danny Sauter · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Support

Robert Fruchtman · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Losing a lot of value with people leaving the city

Larisa Pedroncelli · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Creates more disparity

David Kim · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Support

Jan Hong · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Support

Kelly Hill · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Biggest benefit to real estate industry

Shanti Singh · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Inclusionary zoning

Julie Jackson · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Support

Dennis Hong · email · 2021-11-18 · support · source packet

SFPC meeting 11.18.2021 agenda support
Good morning Honorable Commissioners, Dennis here. This morning I just became aware of the two items below items on your agenda. I trust this email will make the meeting in time and I hope that you too will support these two items. As usual, I appreciate you letting me to add my comments here. I'm sorry I will not be able to attend this meeting but will do my best to remotely chime in. I'm a native of San … Good morning Honorable Commissioners, Dennis here. This morning I just became aware of the two items below items on your agenda. I trust this email will make the meeting in time and I hope that you too will support these two items. As usual, I appreciate you letting me to add my comments here. I'm sorry I will not be able to attend this meeting but will do my best to remotely chime in. I'm a native of San Francisco, retired now and live in District 7. So lets get started; In my opinion and my rambling email here, this is a complex issue and we have been kicking the can sort of speak down the road for too long. There has been a lot of work done behind the scenes by everyone and I see it its does a fairly good job with this issue. I do not believe there will ever be a one size fits all, but this is darn good start by SF Board of Supervisors. Agenda items; 10. 2020-003971PCA (A. MERLONE: [phone removed]) DWELLING UNIT DENSITY EXCEPTION FOR CORNER LOTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS [BOARD FILE NO. 210564] <U+2013> Planning Code Amendment <U+2013> Ordinance 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<U+2019>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. 11. 2021-010762PCA (A. MERLONE: [phone removed]) FOUR-UNIT DENSITY EXCEPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS [BOARD FILE NO. 210866] <U+2013> Planning Code Amendment<U+2013> Ordinance 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<U+2019>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.show more

Ronald Yu · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Oppose

Milo Trauss · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Support

Ira Kaplan · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Small step in the right direction

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

The October 21st Executive Summary from Staff analyzing SB-9 said the on page 10 the Department was working on a Financial Analysis of the financial viability of SB-9 development scenarios and it would be done in late October. Isn't this necessary information before proceeding with these Code Amendments? The Citywide Cultural Resources Survey is underway and ongoing and will not be completed until 2026? Isn'… show more

Peter Papadopoulos · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Affordability requirement

Laura Foote · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Cost

Yonathan Randolph · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Reduce setbacks, step in the right direction

Shaun Donovan · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Not everyone can afford a house

David Fruchtman · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Filtering

Steve Alexander · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Need more housing to bring down the cost

Karin Payson · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Upzoning is key to adding supply

Vivian Dwyer · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Will help people living on the streets off the streets

Lorraine Petty · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Not yet ready for prime time. Proposed tenant restrictions must be applied to both

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2021-11-18 · oppose

Housing inventory

Paul Maldonado · spoken · 2021-11-18 · support

Support

Sarah Willmer · spoken · 2021-11-18 · neutral

Separate SB 9 from Sup. Mandelman's proposal

2022-09-29 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2022-09-29 · oppose · source packet

November 18, 2021 Hearing on 4 Plex #2020-003971 PCA and #2021-010762PCA
Dear Audrey, Good morning to you and hope all is well. I have attached links to two articles, as well as a pdf scan of the first link to the SFChronicle article from February 28, 2021 as comment and information for the upcoming hearing on these two Planning Code amendments. Not to be a <U+201C>downer<U+201D> but both articles raise questions about these Planning Code Amendments to change the Zoning. Direc… Dear Audrey, Good morning to you and hope all is well. I have attached links to two articles, as well as a pdf scan of the first link to the SFChronicle article from February 28, 2021 as comment and information for the upcoming hearing on these two Planning Code amendments. Not to be a <U+201C>downer<U+201D> but both articles raise questions about these Planning Code Amendments to change the Zoning. Director Hillis is quoted in the second link, but it is the quotes of Mr. Kieghran in the first link that are really interesting, given he is the head of the RBA, particularly relating to four-plex generally. That is why I made the attached scan of a portion of the article with his quote. (I assume he was accurately quoted). Mr. Solomon<U+2019>s quotes in this link are interesting too. Here it is: <U+201C>That zoning is a tool to create housing production is a widely held and completely fallacious idea. Just because something is permitted doesn<U+2019>t mean it will happen. It<U+2019>s very hard to find a vacant lot or tear down at a price that would work.<U+201D> This lot for the project at 247 27th Avenue was a thru-lot to an alley and it measured 30.5<U+2019> x 120<U+2019> for a total lot size of 3,660 sq. ft. Almost a Pacific Heights-sized lot and certainly larger than most lots in the City, in most San Francisco RH neighborhoods. And even larger than most corner lots I would guess in most San Francisco neighborhoods? I know this is an issue that has come up and was covered by Kate Conner and Sheila Nickolopoulous in their very fine report on SB-9. But I also wanted to mention it in the context of the Demo Calcs and the corner lot issue. As long as the Demo Calcs are not adjusted per Planning Code Section 317 (b) (2) (D), the Commission and Staff are hamstrung. EXHIBIT ( Here are two examples: There are two projects on corner lots that come to mind and that I have mentioned during General Public Comment over the past few years. One is 1647 Sanchez/290 Day Streets. This project should have been a CUA. It was a truly, truly decrepit old structure that was turned into a mega mansion that sold for $9.1 million last year using the Demo Calcs to its advantage. The Calcs were astounding close and I think manipulated. I have the project plans that illustrate this argument. Although the lot was only 57.5' x 80<U+2019> it probably could have accommodated three "real units" which the Commission discussed at the DR hearing, but could not impose because it was an Alteration due to the project sponsors carefully using the current Demo Calcs, and not a Demolition requiring a CUA as it should have been. The second is 3790-92 21st Street. This project has no published Demo Calcs. It was two units in a really nice Mediterranean style building that was turned into another mega mansion with a very, very small second unit that appears to be internally accessible to the main unit. And it is now sitting empty as it has for months. Whether it is the price that hasn<U+2019>t been lowered enough or the design is not desirable, I don<U+2019>t know, but it is unoccupied. This lot measures 30' x 58<U+2019> according to the PIM. It should have been reviewed as a Demolition, but it wasn<U+2019>t. And the Commission could have decided whether to preserve the two existing rent controlled units (which had been occupied) or actually tear it down and perhaps densify. But they couldn<U+2019>t because the project was an <U+201C>Alterations" due to the current Demo Calcs. (Only the Sanchez/Day project had a DR hearing, the 21st Street DR was withdrawn prior to the hearing). So what is my point? With these corner lot examples, I see the Demo Calcs as a double-edged sword. They should be adjusted as intended. Because they have never been adjusted they can be used to thwart Commission policy by allowing the "de-facto demolition" of sound housing to create ultra expensive homeswhich is what happens most of the time.or they can be used to thwart Commission policy to densify sensibly if that is the policy. I think this is the issue for both these examples but most particularly for the Sanchez/Day project. And it is true for the projects on mid block lots as well. By the way, will these PCAs be heard next week or will they be continued to 2022? Thanks very much and take very good care. Sincerely, Georgia https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-cities-want-to-end-single- family-home-15983648.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/New-housing-laws-may-change-the-Bay-Area-s- 16477512.php? utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Premium)&utm_source=share-by- email&utm_medium=email<BR><BR>Data ' SFCHRoNicLE.coM \ Sunday' unlikely 1 Eff orl housing c to zonlngfrompageAi quai boUSttldg that 1se 2,700 square feet - which roof-1 p._.a ' doesn't allow much room to Golde J. d shoehorn four units. And ym \ sco ... ne vacant lots are rare, as are ' J. ''tear downs," small and out- typical dated homes that don't have trict - much value. i I .. .__Sean Kieghran, president of San Francisco's Residential Builders Association, said he supports getting rid of single- g changes zon1n d unlikely to ersis BaY Area er ects, but tl . n big dent in BY J.l. Dillee SFCHRONICLE.C<U+2022> family only zoning but doesn't think it will result in many new units. Kieghran said that building fourple)es requires either two staircases or a staircase and an elevator, which takes up too much of Solomon Sl:> <U+2022> al movement a tool to en The nation vclusionarY d cti . u on 1s a to __ :1 zoning 1s completely f single-faUJ.UYtealll in the because som picking up s ities e-xplore f of 247 27th A.ve. in San Franclsco. The Most single-family lots in the city are t the site. And, unless the city stream- Jled the process of building a fourplex on a single-family lot, builders would run into too many bureaucratic obsta- cles, Kieghran said. ''With how long it takes to get through planning and fire and DPW and all the other red tape ifs not likely we are go- ing to see anybody building fourplexes anytime soon," he said. Before the late 1960s, San Francisco developers regularly built two-, three, and four- unit buildings. Stacked flats were the bread and butter of San Francisco's housing stock. But in the late 1960s and 1970s _.. a series of laws changed that, and the majority of the city, especially the west side, was rezoned to prohibit anything but single-family homes. One of the few architects to design foutplexes on single- f amily sized lots in the last few decades is Daniel Solo- mon, who has worked on three such projects. One of those is at 247 27th Ave., a 1 ted doesn't n: BaY \r.ea as getting ri<l of I It's very hard the benefits olicY designedd I lot or tear dm a \and use P le of color an would work." to keep families out He said the work.in!? c ghborhoods. I designed and certam nel the city coun itable, but bare Last wet-iey and south I took as much t cils in Ber. eco took steps to and execute as san zocl?g, complexes his f, end leY proroismg to known for. with .Ber within a ''You would m get nd ofl C'tY ifl.itiatlllg a developer willing and south of its general risk on a minusct studY as After an architect who e plan upda ote coundl damage," he said. Berkeley v edY Taplin, one _ complicated little p Member of the the absolute opposi of the d it a ''histoncl ,, omy of scale." ti on, c for us in Berk! eyt While lots are big moment bile the East Bay, there are s But w ultifaroilY b of obstacles, accordir to all?"" Anthony, a veteran C single-fan:ulY d builder. Land is expe. lin:ute . 0 being embrace. _ neighbors unreceptiv1 homes lS ection of past d15 and curre as. a policies - d qurrements - i2-foot crillUlla to oregon an ways, open space reqt have ments, parking minim Min!lea!s _ the quesuon would make four units such la twill actuallY sible unless it's a large of And the projects wo lot more ders expensive - four 1250- ti.on lS a rding to buil ' . cated, d arch1tects. __ :,ding an . lar b'1ll 1n _: the four- a type that bas unit bci\dint> d as a more been and Ulion, s, loan 1g it es, ce of pro- to I> 1a One of bedroo the thil floor o: 27th Ai movel'.ll end zo. for sin family is gain steam the Ba much to qualify for sul housing. To hit the middle in San Francis< units would have to be able to households ma between 80% to 120% <U+2022> median income, which family of four is betwE $102,500 and $153,700 Opponents to the UJ fear that it could lead placement. South San co Mayor Mark Addit developers could targ<U+2022> single-family rentals I vide some of the city': affordable housing. '1 am fearful that t houses to be gobbled developers might beshow more