2021-07-22 · 23 comments · 5 / 18
Chris Roach · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
No clear definition, no data support
Public Comment: Letter to Planning Commission Hearing RE: 2021-001791PCA[BOS#210116] Dear Commissions Secretary, Please see attached for my letter for public comment to the Planning Commission Hearing for today. My comment is on Supervisor Mandelman<U+2019>s Large Residence Development Legislation SFBOS FILE #210116. I am also copy-pasting it below just in case there are any technical difficulties. Thank you, Andreas Montes [email removed] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ July 22, … [BOS#210116] Dear Commissions Secretary, Please see attached for my letter for public comment to the Planning Commission Hearing for today. My comment is on Supervisor Mandelman<U+2019>s Large Residence Development Legislation SFBOS FILE #210116. I am also copy-pasting it below just in case there are any technical difficulties. Thank you, Andreas Montes [email removed] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ July 22, 2021 I am a San Francisco resident and licensed civil engineer. I work at SEMCO Engineering, a local firm, where I provide engineering services for residential projects in the city, many of which are modest single family additions for large and multi-generational families that would be severely hurt by this legislation. I am against most of this new legislation. It is not fair to require homeowners to acquire Conditional Use Authorization (CUA) on proposed additions that already meet every planning code and building code. In this letter I will focus on the macro effects of adding more regulation and delays to housing production. I understand the stated goal of this legislation is to decrease cost of housing in San Francisco, but to me it<U+2019>s obvious that this legislation will actually increase the cost of housing. The increase will come from the additional backlog of projects that would need to go through CUA via the Planning Commission, which already has a large backlog to review applications for projects that would add housing to the city. If any new legislation adds to the long list of pending CUA<U+2019>s, such legislation would postpone other small-unit housing projects that would add supply. San Francisco has exhibited increasing housing costs partly due to its history of preventing and delaying projects through lengthy permit processes. The longer it takes to get a permit, the more expensive a project becomes. Due to financial hurdles associated with holding a property for the length of a permit process, the mere concept of some residential projects are dead on arrival. This legislation would result in an increased volume of projects that go through the Planning Commission, which would in turn raise the cost of new housing projects, slow the production of housing, and limit housing supply. We should wonder how much different today<U+2019>s housing supply would be if housing production in the previous decades was not constrained by strict zoning laws, slow permit process, and Discretionary Reviews. If our laws were more catered to housing production, we would have more housing supply, lower costs, and a healthier city. For decades, we have allowed the noisy complaints of a few neighbors in the vicinity of residential projects to deter us from adding to the housing stock. Over time, the effect has been brutal on affordability, and has punished recent and future generations of San Franciscans. Now, in light of that reflection, we should wonder what our city will look like 30 years from now if we continue with our current legislative style of adding more and more regulations. We have the opportunity to change our legislative style, and if we don<U+2019>t, our future generations will curse us for not leaving them with enough housing. Cities change, and we cannot be in denial of that. Existing property owners have benefited from increased property values thanks to lack of housing development, and this is at the cost of young adults who are struggling to pay the rent, let alone save up for a down payment. We need lots of new units, of many sizes; we cannot rely on new ADU<U+2019>s to meet the needs of a growing population. We must be bolder. Let us not focus on deterring additions that would push a unit over a mere 2500 square feet threshold. Let us focus on ramping up dense housing production by changing planning codes, changing zoning laws, and bold strategies to achieve shorter permit processes. With regards to the aforementioned proposed legislation, I recommend the following: The legislation should be revised to not affect ANY applications that would result in a unit with a gross floor area of less than 4,000 square feet. Eliminate RH-1 and RH-2 zoning. For a <U+201C>qualifying development<U+201D> (defined below), prohibit rejection of a design by the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and the public based on their critique of the proposed structure<U+2019>s <U+201C>scale<U+201D> in proportion to the size of neighboring structures. Also prohibit the rejection of a design based on perceived lack of parking, and prohibit rejection of a design based on shade cast on neighboring residential properties. o A <U+201C>qualifying development<U+201D> is one that is located in a public transit corridor, and increases housing density, and does not reduce the average front yard setback of neighboring properties. o A <U+201C>qualifying development<U+201D> shall be exempt from the Discretionary Review (DR) process if it meets all planning code requirements. The breaking of a Planning Department <U+201C>policy<U+201D> is not grounds for DR. To ensure the basis of a complaint is worthy of DR, the DR shall be requested to the Planning Department who can informatively decide which complaints are granted DR and subsequently sent to the Planning Commission. o All parties have a right to free speech in hearings, however such critiques outlined above cannot be used as a basis for deciding to reject such a design. If and when a party voices such a critique, the leader of the hearing shall kindly remind them and the audience of this rule and its intent. o The intent for this rule is to make up for the lack of housing production in recent decades. We need bold new housing policies to increase the health of future generations, and this policy would do so by increasing density, in turn reducing cost of housing in the long-term, and reducing carbon footprint by increasing housing in public transit corridors. We already have a precedent in San Francisco that a proposed project cannot be rejected on the basis that it blocks a neighbor<U+2019>s view. We need to expand on that precedent. Sincerely, Andreas Montes, P.E. San Francisco Resident Civil Engineershow more Leo Cassidy · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Longer process, anti-family
SUPPORT: Large Residences Ordinance Case Number 2021-001791PCA [Board File No.210116]) President Koppel Vice President Moore Members of the San Francisco Planning Commission I am writing to ask that you act to approve Supervisor Mandelman's proposed Ordinance requiring Conditional Use Authorization for certain large residences (Case Number 2021-001791PCA [Board File No. 210116]). In recent years, Dolores Heights has been ground zero for uncontrolled development of ever-larger, i… 210116]) President Koppel Vice President Moore Members of the San Francisco Planning Commission I am writing to ask that you act to approve Supervisor Mandelman's proposed Ordinance requiring Conditional Use Authorization for certain large residences (Case Number 2021-001791PCA [Board File No. 210116]). In recent years, Dolores Heights has been ground zero for uncontrolled development of ever-larger, increasingly unaffordable giant houses that are inaccessible to all but the wealthiest. We've seen demolitions and remodels to create new houses of 8,000 square feet and more, both with and without additional sham second units. Current rules, including the limits in our Special Use District, are not enough to prevent the continuing transformation of the neighborhood and loss of relatively affordable existing homes. Something needs to be done. This Ordinance provides tools for greater oversight which can help protect current homes and also provide for more reasonably sized family homes for the future. In order to determine what the impact of this ordinance might have been had it been in place during the past 5 years, we analyzed recent projects in Dolores Heights. The analysis shows that if the Ordinance had been in place for the more than 30 projects that we've tracked during this time, including 9 demolitions, then 14 additional units might have been produced if the project sponsor had chosen to add a unit in order to avoid a CUA. For the 6 projects that did add units, all 6 failed the "equity" (in size) test (i.e., the second unit is too small compared to the primary unit). Though not definitive, we believe this analysis makes it clear that Ordinance would have had a material positive impact and is likely to help produce more reasonably-sized family units in the future, in our neighborhood and throughout San Francisco. We recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be an ideal solution for all of San Francisco and are not opposed to future, more granular metrics that reflect the diversity of the built environment across the City. In addition, though we agree that amendments may be desirable in order to address equity concerns raised by the Planning Department in its review of the Ordinance, we ask that you not recommend any amendment that would soften the Ordinance's strong focus on overly large single family homes. We hope to be invited to continuing work on these measures, should more work be necessary. But we want to bring your attention back to the wrecking balls active in some neighborhoods now, and also ask for action and approval of this Ordinance now. I'd like to take this opportunity also to thank Supervisor Mandelman for listening to us in Dolores Heights and introducing this needed reform. Please vote to approve Supervisor Mandelman's ordinance to curb excessively large homes, in the interest of providing more relatively affordable, sensibly-sized homes. Bruce Bowen Planning and Land Use Committee Dolores Heights Improvement Clubshow more Corey Smith · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Concerns
Kieran Buckley · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Process
Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Recommendations
Yonathan Randolph · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Oppose
Mike Davis · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Deny and remove 2,500 sq ft threshold
Mike Sher · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Oppose
Andre Montes · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Slows down permit process
Jim Keith · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Produce housing that is more equitable for everybody
Paul Adamson · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Out of sync, discriminatory to some homeowners
Ozzie Rohm · spoken · 2021-07-22 · support
Homes affordable by design
Jerry Dratler · spoken · 2021-07-22 · support
Consistent in increasing housing density
Julie Jackson · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Concerns
Karin Payson · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Equity
July 22 Meeting Item 10: Please Approve Large Residence Ordinance 2021-001791PCADear Planning Commission, As a Dolores Heights resident who has lived in the neighborhood for almost 40 years I strongly support Supervisor Mandelman's Large Residence ordinance. This is because: 1) Dolores Heights has been the epicentre for the uncontrolled development of giant houses that are completely unaffordable except to the wealthiest. 2) There have been a large number of projects recently that inc… Dear Planning Commission, As a Dolores Heights resident who has lived in the neighborhood for almost 40 years I strongly support Supervisor Mandelman's Large Residence ordinance. This is because: 1) Dolores Heights has been the epicentre for the uncontrolled development of giant houses that are completely unaffordable except to the wealthiest. 2) There have been a large number of projects recently that include demolition of existing residences, that were sometimes multi-occupancy and their replacement by one enormous house. Despite our Special Use District, the current rules are self- evidently failing to protect Dolores Heights from these monster homes. 3) The proposed Ordinance provides a reasonable framework for more oversight, allowing protection of existing houses as well as providing more sensible sized homes for the average family, not just the richest. 4) I thank Supervisor Mandelman for listening to our concerns in Dolores Heights and proposing this rational reform. Yours Michael John Morsershow more Earl Wise · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Maximize volume of buildings by increasing density not eliminating square footage
Megan Caulkins · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Eliminate 2,500 sq ft threshold
Melanie Stein · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Will make meetings extremely long
Ross Levy · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose
Will not achieve its goals, delay housing projects
Sam Fleischmann · spoken · 2021-07-22 · support
Support
2021-09-23 · 13 comments · 1 / 11
Robert Huffman · spoken · 2021-09-23 · oppose
Zoning and home size, allow more apartments
Yonathan Randolph · spoken · 2021-09-23 · oppose
Limiting amount of building space
David Gast · spoken · 2021-09-23 · oppose
Grandfathering should be the effective date of the leg
Sarah Willmer · spoken · 2021-09-23 · oppose
Leg is anti-family
Matt Weiss · spoken · 2021-09-23 · oppose
Only benefiting Noe Valley, outreach
Corey Smith · spoken · 2021-09-23 · oppose
Support to incentivize small family housing
Ross Levy · spoken · 2021-09-23 · oppose
Support intent, legislation is now muddled
Carolyn Kennedy · spoken · 2021-09-23 · neutral
Support but not misguided version of legislation
David Kellogg · spoken · 2021-09-23 · oppose
Accountability Act, add process and slow things down
Ozzie Rohm · spoken · 2021-09-23 · oppose
Will encourage developers to demolish, demo eviction Mara Abernathy – Will increase CU hearings, won't deter large homes
Christopher Roach · spoken · 2021-09-23 · oppose
Will not achieve the intent of affordable housing
Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2021-09-23 · support
Noe Valley epicenter of de facto demolitions
Karen Hasting · spoken · 2021-09-23 · oppose
Support intent, leg doesn't benefit goal