Thread by @_fruchtose

Hello San Francisco. I'm attending a meeting of the SF Planning Commission, to hear about 3832 18th St. The project needs a conditional use permit to demolish an SFH and use the state density bonus to build 19 units of group housing near the Castro/Upper Market neighborhood.

This project has been in progress for a while. Here's the last meeting

https://twitter.com/_fruchtose/status/1405596244139864065

The sponsor is using the density bonus to request waivers from height limits, rear yard requirements, and dwelling unit exposure. There will be three on-site inclusionary units, out of 19 total. The planner says that despite its height, it will have substantial front setbacks.

Planning said that the 60-foot height of the project subjects it to shadow study requirements . It would add 0.001% more shadow to Dolores Park's shadow volume. It was determined to not have a substantial impact on the park.

The Planning Dept representative says the project has received a lot of correspondence. Owners adjacent to the property have concerns about massing, scale, and density.

The Planning Dept rep says that technically, the project would reduce the number of Dwelling Units on site (from an SFH and rear yard cottage), because the 19 group housing units proposed are not considered Dwelling Units.

The project sponsor rep is presenting for up to five minutes. He calls it "sensitively designed" in a residential area with "a wide range of density." Mission Terrace Senior Housing is close by.

Uhhhhh, is someone on Facebook?

Rendering of the project

Sponsor: "While we appreciate the input of the neighbors, we think it would lead to a worse project." Neighbors, among other requests, asked for "interior-only" units which would only get light from a lightwell [lol]

Neighbors also asked for bike parking to be moved to the basement.

Project sponsor going over minimal shadow impacts.

They conclude by saying this project will create mixed-income housing.

Public comment now.

The next door neighbor, Thanos, says "the sheer height of 68 feet" will impact yards, solar panels, and mid-block open space. "Balance the need for more housing with the existing neighbors." He wants the height brought back down to 40 feet.

Thanos, continuing, says, "A 14-unit build would be a superb addition to the neighborhood." Otherwise, it "would dwarf the Victorians in size." And group housing is intended for SROs, not market-rate housing. So it would not achieve the goals behind the group housing regulations.

Another owner on the street is speaking now. "The intention of state law was not to crush—literally crush— the lives and existences of the neighbors around these projects." As a landowner, he says he tries to do the right thing with a soft-story retrofit and solar panels.

Owner, continued: "It's the quality of those exemptions, not the quantity" that will ruin the neighborhood. All the yards between this building and the park will be shadowed.

Next-door owner continued: "We brought up the idea of having less units, and this would be quite a sound investment for the applicant."

Next speaker is an HOA president for a building three doors down. It has 4 stories and 3 condos. They say the 8 residents will all be adversely impacted by the large shadow. They have a yard used for exercise, BBQ, and a children's play area.

Next caller is a homeowner who lives around the corner from the project. "This is my favorite part of the City." They go to Dolores Park and the Mission. "I'm a really big fan of this project... I watched my neighborhood get less and less affordable over the years."

Caller, continued: "This type of housing would have been so fantastic [when I was younger]... This would be so perfect for [my mom] as she ages."

Caller: "My understanding is that the rules do allow this building to be built."

Next caller lives across the street and says many of their neighbors support high density housing in SF. The issue is just the design of *this* particular project. The units won't have full kitchens. Caller says the units won't be bought by SF residents, being market-rate.

Caller, continued, also predicts the units will be used for illegal short-term rentals. "They won't be long term renters. They'll be short term renters... That's what [they units] are designed for.... And the height does not need to be designed as tall as it is."

Caller: "We're looking for new neighbors who actually want to stay here."

Next caller is an SF resident calling in support as proposed. It replaces a blighted home and enhances the safety of the Castro neighborhood. It's transit-oriented development, near a transit stop. It will fund transit. "The project, as is, would be a total benefit."

Next caller lives across the street, resents the last caller saying it's blighted—it needs a paint job. "Many Victorians in the neighborhood... have been tastefully remodeled and bumped up to three stories." Caller was hoping for that. They think "at least 5 people" live there.

Next caller is an SF native and supports the project. "A project like this might afford me the opportunity to buy in the City." They say it's on a transit line, which appeals to a large number of people. There is no comparable housing stock on the market.

Caller, continued: "I think we're hearing from a lot of people who already own housing."

I just gave comment in support of the project.

Next caller is a real estate agent complaining that there isn't enough affordable housing in the project, and there isn't enough parking. "Do you think that all the people who live there are going to have bicycles?... It's not good for the neighborhood."

Real estate agent continues, "We are going to regret having this, I can tell you already."

Next caller is a recent homeowner in the neighborhood as of last fall. They oppose the project, although, like many people on this call, they're excited about the *concept*. "This project is at the expense of the community... These guys are going to make a bundle."

Continued: "This project takes advantage of the Planning Code to stuff as many units as possible into a small site." The developers are following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it.

Next caller is a D5 resident, strongly supporting the project: It's affordable by design with smaller living spaces, and the tenants will have reduced transit costs. When you say you want this project to be smaller with fewer units, you don't want middle-class people to afford SF

Next caller is a native San Franciscan, calling in support. It's got good access to transit. This project will be built without displacing existing residents. "This is a project I could potentially afford."

Next caller is an architect. "I see this to be great with respect to affordability... This is what we've been asking for for many, many years." Density bonus makes sub-million dollar housing possible. They support the project's concept and placement on a transportation corridor.

Next caller lives two blocks away. They say the affordable-by-design projects are what we need in SF. The project supports both the district's and City's goals to build housing around transit. "I'm here to advocate for my future neighbors who are desperate for living spaces."

Next caller owns a house across the street from the project, has lived there for 33 years. They oppose the scale and bulk of the project, but not the project itself. It's 50% over the regulated height. "That's an excessive ask for any neighborhood."

Caller, continued, says the project will provide "lodging, not housing... We don't need a dormitory.... Go back to the drawing board and bring us 12 or 14 units of family housing for all people."

Next caller lives catty corner to the project. "I don't want this neighborhood to have taller and taller buildings." They say they haven't seen anyone deny the need for housing, but they want to see compromise.

Next caller says that the people who live in the neighborhood oppose this project. It will cast a shadow on the speaker's house and yard. The owner thinks the group housing project will be used for pied-à-terres. "Please do not beach this enormous whale in our nieghborhood."

I would love to meet the billionaire who desires a 350 square foot SRO for a pied-à-terre.

The next caller is a landlord and says their residents' light will be taken away by the shadow from this building. "The developer has made no meaningful concessions with the neighbors... Nothing has been given back to us."

Next caller lives in the Sunset District and is calling in support. It will keep local residents in SF, without them having to move out. There's a fear of shadows, but the shadows they're hearing are from affluent neighbors looking down on others.

Next caller is a neighbor who supports the project. "I think this is a really well designed project... There's been a tremendous amount of new construction [here]. I don't love it, but I realize this is what's going on in San Francisco... The City really needs new housing."

Next caller is a native San Franciscan in support: "I'm not able to afford much. This is something I'd actually be able to afford." They say they wouldn't need a car.

Next caller lives across the street and opposes the street with the height and rear yard projection. "It should fit within the existing size limits of the neighborhood." And there isn't enough parking. They want "a scaled down version that will satisfy everyone."

Next caller lives directly behind the project, opposes. It doesn't have enough parking. Shadows will block light and air. Many of the changes since 2008 have been in scale. "The project as proposed is out of scale and out of touch with the requirements for the immediate block."

Next caller supports the project. They've been trying to become an owner. It's impossible to make that jump in SF. They applaud the developer building high density housing and want the units to be available soon.

Next caller is a realtor for 42 years. "I've watched prices rise and rise and rise." People have been forced to move out of SF. "My younger clients cannot afford to pay $1000/sqft or more." They support the project.

Next caller supports the project. When they moved to the Bay Area, there wasn't housing near where they worked and they had to commute. Having this nearby would have been awesome as someone just moving to the area. A lot of units available are old and decrepit w/ bad landlords.

Next caller lives one street over and opposes it. Everyone on the caller agrees the City needs more housing, but it's *this* project in question. "The City needs to think about how to solve this problem not by throwing buildings into random locations."

Caller concludes, "This is just throwing inappropriately tall buildings into neighborhoods."

Sue Hestor says these units are not dwelling units. They're group housing beds. She says the Planning Dept should ask what they expect to charge for the condos. There will be HOA fees, too. "The homeowners will have to pay for the common services in the building."

Hestor: "I think the people who've spoken in support of the project will be shocked at how much they're supposed to be. These are group housing beds, not dwelling units.... This is the first time I'm seeing group housing condos... They're tiny units. They only have kitchenettes."

Next caller used to live by Dolores Park. They think this would be great housing, because the park is such a great place to live by. It's close to the J and other bus lines.

Next caller is an SF native and resident of the Mission. They support the project as a great option for young professionals. It would be easy to commute downtown on the J.

Next caller lives on Noe St to object to the project. It's not ready for a vote because it doesn't meet Planning Commission criteria for conditional use. It should be modified as the caller has requested to protect light and air.

Next caller lives in SF to support the project. It'll be close to public transit. It'll have high density w/o parking. "This is a classic example of wealthy neighbors trying to exclude neighbors from moving in. A single-family home is the ultimate luxury housing."

Anastasia Yovanopoulos is calling in to say this is a speculative project. "You've heard from the neighbors... It's not responsive to the needs of the people living in San Francisco... It's not truly affordable... I don't think it's a good project right now the way it is."

Next caller lives at 17th/Sanchez and supports the project. Opposition is rooted in NIMBYism. This project will be smaller and therefore have more affordable units, near transit.

@samdman95 is calling in strong support of this project. The status quo is that, "There is a single-family multimillion dollar house there. If this project isn't approved, that house will be sold for millions of dollars to a wealthy person, or it will be flipped by a speculator."

Sam continues: We need to build more housing for the people being priced out of San Francisco. While many people might not want to personally live in group housing, we need housing for people who live alone and seniors who are being priced out of the City.

Sam concludes: "We're the second-most dense city in the country. This is a six-story building." This is a good place to build dense housing—next to transit.

Next caller attended the pre-application meeting and supports the project. It's the kind of project that should be built in the center of the City. It highlights the problems of SF's zoning code. Planning Code Section 207 is why the units won't have stoves.

The caller continues that his mother lives in a 100 sqft Chinatown SRO with no private space, no bathroom, and no kitchen, and says these units would not be SROs.

The next caller says this project is perfect for SF. "All transit corridors are designed for this purpose. Yes, the project is high. We're in a housing crisis."

Next caller is a doctor who deals with homelessness, and says housing is the best medicine.

They were the last person in the queue. Public comment is now closed.

Commissioner Rachel Tanner thanks everyone for their comments, and has some comments for the developer: "Are there any projects like this... group housing projects sold as ownership units?" Has the developer done that?

The developer rep says they did a 49-unit rental project downtown w/ 380 sqft units and 1-bedrooms.

Commissioner Tanner asks if a person can get financing for a unit w/o a kitchen. The developer rep says the sponsor is confident in that. They've communicated w/ banks about this.

Tanner says they're glad to see there's no parking except for bicycle parking, but they're concerned they will become short-term rentals that won't add to the long-term financing. That's why she's concerned about finance-ability. Will the owners be real people?

Commissioner Tanner asks about the prospective purcahses prices. The developer rep doesn't have that info. She asks about the purchase price of the existing SFH. Developer rep says they aren't sure; they think it was around $1.9M.

Tanner is asking why the developer asked for an open space waiver and then put in a roof deck. Developer rep says no open space waiver was requested. Tanner asks why they couldn't reshape the building to lower the building height, but they put in a roof deck.

Developer says the roof decks don't contribute to gross floor area, and the two units on the top floor are the same size as the others. Tanner says the decks are relatively large for the size of the building.

Tanner says she does have concerns about this project at this time, and that she's not sure it will improve the relative affordability of the neighborhood. She wants to know how much they'll cost and whether they can be financed.

Commissioner Fung asks, if the density bonus law was not used, the project could have 14 units? Planning Dept rep confirms that.

Fung: There's an increase of five units, but the BMR increase is 2?
Planning Dept: The state density bonus increased BMR units required by 1 (3 total)

Fung: The staff think they can find an objective health finding that reduction of sunlight creates, based on the increase in shadow on Dolores Park.

Planning staff says Rec & Park Commission found shadow cast would not be substantial [0.001%]

Fung asks, "If no shadow were cast by this project, how many units would be lost?"
Developer rep says if the top floor were taken off, it would remove two units, and the project would not cast any shadow on Dolores Park

Commissioner Imperial is concerned is concerned about the financials of the development and curious about the HOA, because it contributes a lot to the pricing of units. In SoMa, HOA dues can be $1000/month. She's concerned about who will really live in these units.

Imperial: Group housing units are described as beds, not units. We need to think if this will meet RHNA goals.

She is confirming with City staff, who says that institutional use projects would not count, but residential uses like this would count.

Imperial says she'd like to see a dialogue w/ the community involving the Planning Department and Supervisor Mandelman's office to redesign the project.

Commissioner Sue Diamond says she says all of her fellow commissioners' comments are worth pursuing. The project is out of scale w/ adjacent units. She is struggling with being able to make findings that the project is compatible w/ the neighborhood.

Diamond says she believes it's possible to modify the massing to achieve most of the developer's goals. She wants to continue the matter for at least a month. She wonders if removing the upper floor would work, or shifting units around.

Commissioner Diamond says she'd like to approve a denser project on this street in good faith.

Commissioner Diamond is making a motion to continue the item after the break. Secretary Ionin suggests September 23 at the earliest, due to the commission's schedule.

Commissioner Moore says this project needs more active engagement with the community. It has to become more necessary and desirable in terms of massing and more appropriate height—preferably no shadows on Dolores Park [I guess that 0.001% shadow increase is really killer?]

Secretary Ionin says staff is suggesting a mid-October date for continuance. Commissioner Moore says that's fine, since it will be easier for the community to discuss in that time.

Commissioner Tanner says she sees 1 shared kitchen for 19 households. She wonders if that's sufficient, and how it will function as group housing—these are bedrooms, not housing units. She supports a continuance.

The Planning staffer on hand says that the community room has a kitchenette in the community room, not a full kitchen. Commissioner Diamond says the project must have at least one full kitchen.

On the motion to continue the item, roll is being called.

It passes unanimously 5-0.

TLDR: 3832 18th St has been continued until October after neighbors around the project objected to the size of the project.

Thanks for reading!

Correction: she was talking about long term neighborhood, not long-term financing (that's my fast typing for you)