San Francisco Planning Commission Meeting on Expanding Housing Choice, June 6, 2024

The San Francisco Planning Commission held a regular hearing on Thursday, June 6, 2024, at 20:15 UTC. The meeting covered continuances, consent calendar items, commission matters, and a major informational presentation on the Expanding Housing Choice (Housing Element Zoning Program). The commission heard extensive public comment and held a lengthy discussion on rezoning, objective design standards, historic preservation, and community outreach.

Consent Calendar

• The commission approved items 4A, 4B, and 4C (555 Howard Street – Downtown Project Authorization, Conditional Use Authorization, and Variance) on consent by a unanimous 6-0 vote. Commissioner So disclosed a prior professional relationship with the project architect but stated it would not affect impartiality.
• The Zoning Administrator granted the variance for item 4C with standard conditions.

Public Comments & Testimony

• General Public Comment:
  • Ahmad Mohazab (architect, project at 1131-1133 Anza Street) apologized for the project sponsor’s error in renting units during the permit process and announced withdrawal of the permit.
  • Sue Hester (remote) requested the commission schedule a hearing and notify tenants regarding the Sam Bruno project.
• Item 10 – Expanding Housing Choice:
  • Corey Smith (Housing Action Coalition) expressed full support for building housing at all income levels as an anti-displacement strategy, noting historic low housing production and urging faster action.
  • Justin Dulzell (Small Business Forward) opposed the rezoning, arguing it would devastate small businesses without commercial rent control or tenant protections; he called for right-to-return and relocation payments.
  • Jim Warshell (Victorian Alliance) advocated for both new development and preservation, urging completion of the citywide historic survey and simpler landmarking.
  • Christopher Roach (Studio VARA, AIA) spoke in favor, supporting the rezoning and the mayor’s direction to remove density controls, and praised the objective design standards for allowing creativity.
  • Jan Diamond (resident) questioned the need for broad upzoning given 74,000 units already in the pipeline.
  • George Seary (resident) argued that increased population would not improve the city and that existing pipeline projects should be prioritized.
  • Eric Munsing (Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association) supported increased density, especially in well-resourced west side neighborhoods, but requested clarity on how state density bonus would interact with height limits.
  • Jonathan Meade (resident) opposed unregulated upzoning, warning it would displace small businesses and rent-controlled tenants, and called for a real plan instead of reliance on the free market.
  • Isaac Santiago (Housing Rights Committee) opposed rezoning, citing negative impacts on public housing residents, specifically the Plaza East redevelopment.
  • Kath Sakalakis (Lakeside Village) spoke in favor of upzoning, hoping her children could afford to live in San Francisco, and criticized fear-based outreach.
  • Gail Baugh (Hayes Valley) urged inclusion of wind shear baffling in tall buildings, micro-retail spaces, and living alleys in design standards.
  • Ozzy Room (San Francisco Landies Coalition) opposed the plan, questioning the feasibility of mid-rise construction costs and the methodology of community engagement.
  • Bob Hare (Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association) expressed concern about the state density bonus overriding local standards and cited the proposed 24-story tower at 955 Sansome as an example of unintended consequences.
  • Tim Rifield (Carpenters Union Local 22) urged inclusion of labor standards in the rezoning program to ensure a skilled workforce.
  • Carolyn Kennedy (Dolores Heights Improvement Club) opposed blanket upzoning, arguing it would not produce affordable housing without subsidies and would harm neighborhood character.
  • Sharon (Chinatown Community Development Corporation) requested community-specific objective design standards for cultural districts and priority equity geographies.
  • Marlene Morgan (Cathedral Neighbors Association) suggested focusing on large opportunity sites rather than damaging small commercial corridors.
  • Jane Natoli (YIMBY Action) supported the rezoning and objective design standards, emphasizing the need for more homes in neighborhoods like the Richmond.
  • Annie Freiman (SPUR) commended the work on design standards and historic preservation, and urged a strong rezoning map that addresses state density bonus issues.
  • Courtney Dam Kroger (former HPC member) warned that upzoning would destroy cultural resources, rent-controlled housing, and small businesses, and requested better outreach and a session with the Historic Preservation Commission on design standards.
  • Aurora Robinson (resident) cautioned that development often displaces long-term residents and called for inclusive planning.
  • Kevin McCarthy (Forest Hill) requested more community outreach, noting that residents only recently learned of the rezoning and had legitimate concerns about schools, traffic, and subsidence.
  • Bridget Malee (resident) opposed upzoning, arguing it would not solve the affordability crisis and that better outreach to property owners is needed.
  • Lori Brook (Cow Hollow Association) highlighted that many residents are unaware of the plans and called for a pause.
  • Robert Fruckman (San Francisco YIMBY) supported density and state density bonus, emphasizing the fair housing mandate and the need for affordable housing.
  • Siddhar Kadali (first-time attendee) shared a personal story of struggling to afford to stay in San Francisco and supported the upzoning proposal.

Discussion Items

• Consideration of Items Proposed for Continuance: All items (45 Bronte Street, 320-322 Frederick Street, 3901 Noriega Street, 305 Liberty Street) were continued to future dates by a unanimous 6-0 vote. The Zoning Administrator also continued associated variance items.
• Commission Matters:
  • Land acknowledgement read by Commissioner So.
  • Draft minutes from May 2 and May 23 hearings were adopted unanimously.
  • Commissioner comments: Discussion centered on the six-month report for the 45 Bronte Street project. Commissioners requested detailed tenant status updates and debated whether to hold a public hearing. Staff agreed to require a baseline and delta of tenant occupancy changes.
• Department Matters:
  • Director’s announcements: None.
  • Review of past events: Staff reported on recent Board of Supervisors land use committee actions (Divisadero Street NCT liquor store ordinance, Irish Cultural Center local coastal program amendment) and Board of Appeals decisions (45 Bernard Street roof deck appeal). The Historic Preservation Commission approved legacy business applications and other permits.
• Item 10 – Expanding Housing Choice (Informational Presentation):
  • Staff (Lisa Chen, Rich Sucre, Trent Greenan) presented an update on the zoning program, community engagement findings, historic preservation approach, and draft objective design standards.
  • Community engagement summary: Over 2,000 survey respondents; outreach included open houses, focus groups, and partnerships with community organizations. Key themes: broad recognition of housing crisis, polarization on height/density, concerns about tenant and small business displacement.
  • Historic preservation: Accelerating landmark designations, developing objective design standards for historic resources, and completing the SF Survey (120,000 parcels; field survey of neighborhood commercial districts nearly complete).
  • Objective design standards: Draft aims to replace subjective design guidelines with objective rules covering site design (block size, stepbacks, modulation) and architecture (fenestration, articulation). Standards are intended to be flexible and enforceable, but may be waivable under state density bonus law.
  • Commission discussion: President Diamond raised concerns about waivability of key standards (stepbacks, modulation) under state density bonus; staff and city attorney noted potential to explore subdivision code or local density bonus as alternatives. Commissioners debated mailed notice timing, small business impacts, tenant protections, affordable housing feasibility, and the need for better enforcement against misrepresentation by project sponsors. Commissioner So provided detailed technical feedback on the design standards (stepbacks on narrow sites, wind studies, transformer vault coordination, fenestration materials). Commissioner Moore criticized the abstract approach and urged incorporating lessons from existing density bonus projects and comprehensive planning. Commissioner Williams questioned how the rezoning would achieve the 57% affordable housing mandate and called for stronger consequences for applicant dishonesty. Commissioner Imperiale emphasized tenant tracking, small business protections, and community-specific design standards. The commission agreed to schedule future informational hearings on state density bonus, enforcement, and infrastructure.

Key Outcomes

• No action taken on Item 10; it was informational only.
• Direction to staff:
  • Proceed with mailed notice to property owners affected by rezoning as soon as feasible.
  • Explore legal options to prevent key objective design standards (stepbacks, modulation, large block break-up) from being waived under state density bonus law.
  • Schedule future informational hearings on state density bonus, enforcement tools, and infrastructure.
  • Continue community engagement, particularly with priority equity geographies and cultural districts.
  • Refine objective design standards to address affordability, construction feasibility, and community-specific needs; anticipate adoption in August 2024.
  • Prepare analysis of worst-case and best-case scenarios for density bonus along proposed corridors.
  • Develop a report on small business displacement impacts from past upzonings (e.g., Ocean Avenue).
  • Coordinate with MOHCD on affordable housing site identification.
• Consent and continuance motions passed unanimously (6-0).