Sketchnotes from the Planning Commission
I attended the December 16 meeting of the San Francisco Planning Commission and drew sketchnotes of the proceedings.
I was most interested in the issue of 628 Shotwell Street which had been a “board and care” facility housing 6 clients plus staff until it was damaged by a fire in 2015. Developers were going before the planning commission to get approval to turn this into a private residence with one five bedroom unit and one two bedroom unit (as reported on in Mission Local).
It was interesting to observe the commission’s process as they evaluated several developments in the city.
Notes from a Planning Commission Meeting
Mixed media on paper drawing by Todd Berman, 14” x 17’, 2021
First though, the commission heard a report from staff about the city’s climate action plan which is being coordinated by the Department of Environment who is working to involve all departments to create a city plan. This includes mapping areas of high impact from climate change and environmental justice needs. An important consideration for the planning department is that new developments are made ready for all types of disasters and sea level rise.
detail: Sketches of planning commission staff reporting on their particiption in the city’s climate readiness process lead by the Department of Environment. Sketch of AnMarie Rodgers with hand-written words including: “to be ready for all types of disasters” “making new developments ready for sea level rise” “mapping environmental justice needs and impacts.”
As they discussed the items on their agenda, I noticed an underlying discussion about the purpose of the Planning Commission. Can the city be intentional about how land is used, or is their role to just respond to whether any project satisfies minimal requirements?
detail: Sketches of 5 faces including Sue Diamond with words, “Input for nested bedroom?” “helpful if we had some guidance around this.” Sketch of Director Rich Hillis,” Sketch of Commissioner Theresa Imperial with words, “We don’t want an extension of the financial district” “in terms of racial social justice, to be more intentional” “we need land for affordable family housing” “land use.” Sketch of Deland Chan with, “Fire escapes into alley?” “Provide Chinese speaking project liaison?” Sketch of Nicholas Foster with “850 Bush St. - height request, -lacks 3 BR” “maximize density” “plans adjusted with staff to add light wells.”
So while considering a project at 425 Broadway which would create 42 condominium units (including 6 below market rate), commissioner Kathrin Moore commented that this would be an ideal site for fully affordable housing. She said, “Does this building recognize context? No it does not.” But the project was approved. The planning department staff had been able to get the developers to add a laundromat that tenants in neighboring buildings could use and the commissioners requested that that promise be put into writing.
detail: Sketch of Claudine Asbagh presenting 425 Broadway development proposal. “Put laundromat promise into language.” “Ownership project.”
During this meeting, approval was also given to a development at 850 Bush Street that would add floors on top of a single-story bar. The planning commission staff had advised the architects to make the light wells line up with the neighboring buildings. This project spurred Commissioner Sue Diamond to propose that the department should have some policy that all bedrooms should have some natural light. The “nested bedrooms” (bedrooms that do not have windows facing outside) at 850 Bush Street will have frosted glass walls so that they can benefit from light coming through the windows in the living room.
detail: Sketch of Gabriela Pantoja presenting about 724 Head St. conditional use permit application to expand a home to 6 bedrooms + bathrooms. “Room for visiting parents and work from home.” “comment - ‘Any garauntee this won’t turn into in-law rental unit?”
Another project that got approval was to add bedrooms and bathrooms to a family home at 724 Head Street for potential future children and their visiting grandparents. A neighbor called in with public comment asking if there was any guarantee that this won’t turn into a rental unit.
Finally the topic of 628 Shotwell came up. Many public commenters called to oppose this project. Commissioners Theresa Imperial, Moore, and Deland Chan were clearly opposed and the other commissioners were more silent during the discussion. A motion to deny the application to change the building use from “Residential Care Facility” to “Residential'' was defeated in a 3-3 vote.
The Planning Commission Discusses 628 Shotwell
Mixed media on paper drawing by Todd Berman, 14” x 17’, 2021
A drawing of a red building is surrounded by sketches of people with hand-written text of comments from commissioners and from the public.
Quite a few people gave public comments against this project, including representatives from organizations such as Coalition on Homelessness with great expertise about the housing and health care needs of the city. Sara Shortt, of HomeRise, called to argue with this property, “We could create a group-living situation in a community setting.”
detail: Sketch for Claire Feeney with words, “628 Shotwell St. Change of use from Residential Care Facility to Residential. Board and Care units into private residence. Sketch of Jonas Ionin who administered meeting. Sketch of Kathrin Moore with words, “proportion, proportion, proportion, a matter of skill” “livability vs. numbers.” Next to a drawing of 628 Shotwell are words including “comments: ‘The Mission does not need more mansions.’”
Claire Feeney, the staff planner who presented the project to the board, noted that residential care facilities are “primarily permitted” in most zones in the city - that it would be easy to get such a permit for another property. But, as this case demonstrates, it’s not financially feasible for non-profits that would like to provide a public benefit to compete with for-profit real estate developers on property prices.
detail: Drawing of Theresa Imperial with words, “there’s been a loss of residential care facilities” “Will you work with Richard Deleon to make this project a care unit?” “Motion to deny” “aye” “Fails 3-3.”
The Planning Commission has the power to insist that certain properties be reserved for uses that are in high need by the city - such as affordable housing or board and care - but did not use that power at this meeting. Instead, how land in San Francisco is developed continues to be driven by what has financing. If a non-profit wants to use a property to provide care for disabled people, they will need to outbid developers who can do a quick renovation and sell it for millions as a private residence.
detail: Hand-written words bordered by abstract drawing read, “How does any public-benefit property get developed? It always has to compete with for-profit uses and schemes.”