Thread by @NeverSassyLaura

I'm at the Board of Appeals tonight for a little one unit house on a vacant lot.

The primary objection is that "no one could have expected that this lot be a home."

Well, why was it zoned for housing? Someone clearly expected it to be a home...

Concern for "scale" with neighborhood got a bedroom lopped off, in order to cater to the housing secure who live on his block.

What are the rules? What are the hight limits? Why are they arbitrary?

Troy worked for years with his planner at the Planning Department, only to have the Planning Commission make a completely arbitrary finding to scale the house back.

This is where we lose units. This is that death by a thousand cuts.

A project opponent said they have a "sense of dread" by walking by a 3 story building.

He asked for no varriences, for no exceptions. This is a code compliant unit. And we are watching it die.

The neighbors had an opportunity to purchase the lot and keep it as their personal park. But the wealthy citizens of Glen Park opted not to, because they believed they could block housing.

They DRed the project, winning a scaling back so that the precious kitchen windows of the nextdoor neighbor.

It was "totally inappropriate."

"It will be very visible from our lot."

"In the 1940's developers we're reasonable."

The builder of the nextdoor house had a reasonable expectation of "light and air" and are entitled to not look out their window at housing.

This was started back in 2016 without a single variance needed. And the planning department thought that it should be approved as is.

Because FOUR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WERE ABSENT the DR was approved.

Planning Department stands by it's recommendation.

@darrylhonda is surprised that the Department and the Commission differed so wildly.

Huge number of Glen Park residents here to oppose.

Tune in to SFGOVTV 2 to watch... Or just imagine a lot of housing secure people being outraged that someone would dare to change their neighborhood in any way...

"This project is just too large for it's lot size. ... It will have privacy impacts. And the effect on a kitchen window..."

"Despite the trees our neighbors will still see his house.

And these people will see the rear of the house."

"We consulted with 2 or 3 arborists."

Wtf. If this much energy was spent on SF's other problems we might not have a housing shortage.

Opponent: The project proponent has consistently pointed to the "quantitative" aspects of the planning code, but ignores the "qualitative" aspects of the code.

DIRECT SIGHT LINES!

We need housing in wealthy communities, we need housing in these neighborhoods that want to see nothing change.

"Building on this lot could cause much destruction," says man who owns a million+ home in Glen Park.

Woman who is about to have a baby is worried that her backyard will be in shadow.

Strangely unconcerned with her child's ability to afford housing in this city.

"We all love Glen Park... Sanctuary from the urban environment."

You live near a BART Station.

"This must be in scale with the existing neighborhood."

Or -how about this- the entire neighborhood needs to be upzoned.

"I lost my view of the Bay Bridge, but we got 3 units.

... There are many substandard lots in San Francisco, and we need to be thinking creatively about using them."

Older woman from the Glen Park Garden club (who, no joke, hissed at me after I spoke) specifies that she's not against change, just wants to be able to breathe! Argues for the tree.

Seems to not realize that infill development near a BART Station will be Good Actually.

"It is only a kitchen window. It is not protected."

"We get along fine, as we have for 30 years. ...and I'm really concerned about the heritage trees."

Older man recommends we be like the Japanese and embrace a "small is beautiful" perspective.

Ignores the hilarious irony that this is the literally the opposite of how the Japanese do literally everything.

"This man has tried to take a small lot and use it creatively to build a HOME. We need to make room for newcomers and be fair and share."

"The terrace is not a dance club. It's a place to have a cup of coffee. ...I'm happy to put up a privacy screen, if anyone would like me to."

Summary of outreach is a testament to the absolute BROKEN nature of our decision-making process. It's an insane number of emails over the course of 2 years, all for a code-compliant single family home in a low density district.

"Is this a spec project? Or are you planning on owner-occupied?" "I plan to owner occupy." "Will you sign a document saying you'll live there for 36 months?" "Yes."

Are you WORTHY of housing?

What about people with unconventional lifestyles?

I fear that one day I will have to come before such a body and explain why I might need/deserve an extra bedroom.

Planning speaking in support. Thank @sfplanning for encouraging us to follow the rules.

Discussion of what the exact rules of the open space are. And the point is, it follows the rules.

The project could go to 4 floors, and is only doing 3. Neither plans maxed out the height/area.

"The only thing that would happen if we didn't approve the appeal. It's still going to be a house, right?"

"A zoning permit has been issued for a house, ...but removing the floor creates issues for the sponsor."

Such as losing a bedroom where his family could live.

When we add unpredictability to the system WE LOSE UNITS.

People NEVER EVEN propose them, because there is no security you'll be able to get your permits.

Rick Swig says he likes what the Planning Commission did by making an arbitrary decision to scale this home back. And that's the end of it for him.

Frank Fung says he's looking at something inconsistent, and that concerns him.

I don't want to say "it's hella typical for the Planning Commission to be completely fucking arbitrary."

Wants to lose the top floor, because it feels too tallish. Due to the unwritten too tall feeling rule.

.@darrylhonda agrees that the unwritten rule that 4 stories is too tall, despite being code compliant, should hold.

The Board of Appeals is just cherry-picking which rules they think should apply and which they think shouldn't.

"The basis for this motion?"
"It makes everyone unhappy...?"

Board of Appeals members proceed to laugh.

Board of Appeals rules to cut off a floor/bedroom because of the "unusual" lot shape.

This is why we need #SB827 and BY RIGHT approvals so that the rules are the rules, not just what someone feels like that day.

NIMBYs are out in the hall congratulating themselves.

Garden Club woman is excited that he'll have to start over with the plans for this house.

This is where we lose units every damn day.

Please join @yimbyaction & support the work we're doing to change this process. The people who are able to mobilize against housing are here every day. Prove that just because you can't always get to these hearings, doesn't mean your voice doesn't matter.
yimbyaction.org/join