Hello San Francisco. I'm watching the appeal of 1846 Grove St at the SF Board of Supervisors. Homeowners in the North of Panhandle neighborhood are appealing the CEQA exemption and conditional use authorization to build four homes.

Supervisor Preston starts by saying he'll reserve judgment until after the appellant and sponsor presentations. He's thanking both sides for a thoughtful discussion, although it's not one which ended in agreement.

The CEQA appellant now has 8 minutes to argue their case.

Henry Tang, co-president of NOPA West Neighborhoods (NOPAWN), is presenting: I'm going to tell you why the CEQA exemption should be overturned.

Tang: Only the alley is zoned RH-3. The rest is RH-2, which only allows two units.

Tang: the project would require a large number of Uber and Lyft cars. [For four units?] And one tree would need mitigation measures. Additionally, the removal of 50 cubic feet of soil could cause increased risk in a liquefaction zone.

Tang: Worst, this project does not meet CEQA Class 3 exemption requirements—which only allow one building. This project includes more.

A 1997 memo in support of this project conflicts with a year 2000 Planning Commission resolution which says the exemption only applies when a project is one building.

Tang: The Planning Department's response excludes key language highlighted in yellow. We believe the project does not meet the bar for a Class 3 exemption.

Tang: Project sponsor's picture purports to show two people standing able to pass, but one is standing in front of the other. In an emergency, people would not be able to pass. If an adjacent building is damaged, this would not be safe.

Tang: Supervisor Peskin hit the nail on the head in a Juky meeting when he said that a CEQA exemption should only be granted when a project does not impact the environment. Other developers say this project does not make sense.

Tang: Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council also agrees that the Class 3 exemption should not have been granted.

That concludes their time.

Elliot Gittleman, a fire protection engineer, is now presenting for NOPAWN on the fire safety of the project.

Gittleman: If I was doing this for Sunnyvale or Mountain View, we would classify this as R-2. The egress should be 44 inches wide. Here it's only 32 inches wide. If a fire occurs on either side of the alleyway, residents in this project would be trapped.

Gittleman: Code which would allow this project has not been in effect since 2013. "That alleyway is not legally means of egress to public way."

A neighbor, Brandon Keefe, is now presenting for NOPAWN.

Keefe: This project would require a variance to move forward. I ask you to consider the life safety aspects of the proposal.

Keefe: The developer has performed minimal community engagement. Most of the record is between them and I. The meetings were frequently noticed incorrectly. Often the developer asked me to tell other people about them. At meetings, the developer was dismissive.

Keefe: At the first Planning Commission meeting, which was the first since COVID-19, there were technical difficulties. Many commenters were cut off and not able to voice their concerns.

Keefe: Developer wants to move 50 cubic feet by hand. They have no experience doing this. They may leave the project unfinished.

Keefe: Also my neighbors "don't want development at the back of this lot." We don't want "a bunch of luxury condos against everyone's zero lot line."

We're now going to public comment in support of the appeal.

1st caller has not spoken yet, but we can hear their television. The Clerk of the Board does her best to encourage the caller to speak—no response.

2nd caller: The exemption granted is a grave injustice which you can correct. Lot is zoned for 2 units, investors want to use up all of the land for 4, with no setbacks. This won't create new housing. There are plenty of vacant homes being bought by investment and staying vacant.

Contd: We need to make sure people are not subject to being neighbors with homes which are built on lots which should be built for public enjoyment.

3rd caller: That was one of the best presentations I've ever heard. I support the appeal.

4th caller: I'm a homeowner on Masonic. My unit is directly adjacent to project. I'm concerned about fire. Winds can sometimes reach 20 mph, and my building is ~100 years old. Also the project is much too dense.

4th caller contd: Project should be R-2. Fire Marshall said the project would be unsafe if zoned R-2. We want the investors to obey the rules and play fair.

5th caller: Tes Welborn, president of Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council. We submitted a letter saying the CEQA exemption should be denied. The project is too dense—lot only authorized for 2 units. Many flag lots like this were left unused after 1906 fire.

6th caller: I'm a neighbor. This project is unsafe. In event of a fire, we can't expect residents will shelter-in-place. Walls of the egress may be 1-hour walls, but those of surrounding buildings are not.

6th contd: And because there are more empty homes in SF than homeless, this won't help the housing crisis—it will only add to the glut of luxury homes. All of the YIMBYs sending letters in support don't live here. They should be called YISEBYs: yes in someone else's backyard.

7th caller: I represent two properties on Grove St which abut this lot. Since 1906 quake, many blocks have a vacant lot in the center to prevent fire from spreading quickly. This project goes against 100 years of developer and architect wisdom.

7th caller contd: My father had two opportunities to buy this lot in the past 30 years. He didn't because of the restrictions on it. Meetings were not well noticed. One time I went to attend a meeting, the meeting was moved according to a flyer posted at the location w/ no email.

7th caller contd: One time I complained to the sponsor that the building's design was ugly. He smirked and turned away.

8th caller: I live next to walkway. Neighborhood concerned about fire risk. There could be 20 people in this lot. People can't walk by each other. People can't walk by each other getting Amazon packages or taking out trash. There's a tree on the other side of the fence, too.

9th caller is the wife of a co-president of NOPAWN: For some reason, this project was deemed essential. The Planning Commission meeting left neighbors unable to voice concerns. People were cut off and meeting had to be restarted.

9th caller contd: Worse, developers were allowed to present before public comment. We were not given that courtesy. And "YIMBYs employed by the developer" flooded comment.

10th caller: I live nearby and have a family. Please consider that. I received only 1 invitation to a neighborhood meeting from the developer. Sponsor came across as dismissive or even threatening, saying he could do some other horrible thing [read: bigger project].

10th caller contd: He did reduce number of units from 5 to 4—which he'll say over and over—but the number of bedrooms are the same. So it's disingenuous communication. It's been really discouraging to watch how he tries to play by different rules.

11th caller: The fire code developer is trying to use hasn't existed since 2013. I also have a public health background. I can't believe in the age of COVID that the narrow hallway can encourage social distancing.

12th caller: I live 1 block from project. It's ridiculous to build units in what is essentially people's backyards. I wouldn't feel comfortable in the alley. It's ridiculous to expect people to shelter-in-place in case of fire. It's been dragged out for a very long time.

12th caller contd: I know 10 other people in support of the appeal but they couldn't attend. I'm a renter. If I had to leave my unit I'd have to leave the city.

This completes public comment in favor of the appeal.

Aaron Starr from the Planning Dept is now introducing colleague Matt Dito, who will present.

Matt: We respectfully ask that you deny the appeal.

Now describing the plans: 2 2BD units, 2 3BD units. No parking. Flag lot.

Dito: Project was granted a Class 3 exemption last year with 5 units, also with 4 units. It gets a common sense exemption. It doesn't meet reqs of a categorical exemption, but it meets standard for different rules even though we checked Class 3 exemption box.

Dito: Project would have same impact if it were one building or six. The 1997 rules do not affect this project. But we've determined that this project would not have any impact.

Dito: Dept reviewed the project for significant impacts on the environment. There is no possibility of that. We request that you deny the CEQA appeal.

Now addressing the conditional use authorization appeal.

Dito: R-2 zoning allows 2 units, more based on lot size. Appellant contends that the project is not desirable, is not safe, and will have impacts on parking. Dept contends that due to low profile of design it is good for the neighborhood.

Dito: This project proposes a project with less density than the surrounding properties. The project also includes significant setbacks. Appellant contends that the project needs full review of life and safety codes—but these are not under purview of Planning.

Dito: Fire Department will review project in full during their planning process. The conditional use authorization also requires that the project meets life and safety codes. If the project cannot be safely developed, no permits will be issued.

Dito: On parking, Department says that this project is consistent with Transit First policy. Lack of parking is a positive attribute, not a detrimental one. For reasons stated here and in appeal response, we believe conditional use authorization should be upheld.

President Yee asks for questions from supervisors. None yet. We'll next hear from project sponsor for up to 10 minutes. Architect is trying to speak on the phone, but he sounds like a chipmunk. We're having technical difficulties.

Architect Troy Kashanipour was able to make it online.

Troy: We're here defending this project that started in 2016. I'm one of three owners. We held 5 public meetings seeking community input. Appellants were given unlimited opportunities to meet with us—they declined.

Troy: Residential Design Advisory Team at SF Planning approved the project. Planning Commission approved it unanimously. "The process worked."

Narrator: It didn't.

Troy is now showing photos the lot and its scale, including the contested alleyway size.

Troy: Appellants say project is too dense. We were allowed 6 units. We proposed 5, then reduced it to 4. This project could have 6 or 9 units plus 3 ADUs, for a total of 12. Planning encouraged us to maximize unit count.

Troy: We believe homes will more more naturally affordable because they won't have garages or luxury amenities. They'll be smaller. And I can show video if people easily passing in the egress corridor.

Troy: The appellant's fire safety consultant's letter is inaccurate. Our letter rebuts it. Fire Department also provided a pre-approval letter saying it's safe with a few conditions. There will be fire sprinklers, and project will be non-combustible.

Troy: Fire Marshall has said that if it meets code, it's considered safe. This project meets code. DBI also agrees with us. Project is configured in a way to minimize impact to neighbors. Commissioner Moore called it a wonderful solution.

Troy: Appellants have argued market-rate homes are not needed in SF. These are not luxury homes. There is no car parking. Project will be free of fossil fuels with no gas line. And there are hundreds of similar homes on flag lots.

Troy: I hope this project sets a precedent. It's minimally impactful. Multiple departments have approved this design. I know the Board will defer to Supervisor Preston. I request that you will decide this project based on merits, not on popularity contest.

Troy: We have public support not because we hired a lobbyist, but because people care. We submitted a petition with over 300 signatures. In regards to CEQA, Planning did a good job of defending decision. Project is not in liquefaction zone. Thank you.

President Yee is asking for questions. Seeing none, he is opening public comment in support of the project, against the appeal.

1st caller: [I missed first half, only caught tail end] This project would give people an extra hour back in commute. It's selfish to put complaints of current residents above future residents.

2nd caller: This project will be modestly sized. I support it.

3rd caller: The neighbors really want this project to not happen. It's safe. Developer has tried to be reasonable with the neighbors.

4th caller: I'm a millenial. If I had to move from my apartment, I'd only be able to afford a place in a greenfield home or area that's currently on fire. I want to live in a place like this.

5th caller: I'm a renter in Hayes Valley. I'm a middle-class renter. It's an unconventional lot. We need to make most of every opportunity to build housing. It's environmentally friendly and really thoughtfully done. It's not cookie-cutter. The appeal is a waste of time.

6th caller: I live 5 minutes from project, been here for 25 years. We need more neighbors to raise their families, walk to work, and shop. It's a perfect location for new homes, close to mass transit. I live in apartment with carriage house behind it—no problem.

6th caller contd: Stop accepting appeals like this in the future.

7th caller: Fire season is showing us that the status quo isn't working. Fire Marshall says this project meets the requirements. Proposal will minimize impacts on neighborhood. As a gay person, I want everyone to have opportunity to live here.

7th caller contd: It's crazy that the whole Board of Supervisors needs to hear this appeal.

8th caller: I feel like many of the other callers that it's a modest development in an unusual lot. It needs careful design. It is the kind of place I'd like to live. I support it. Most comments against it tend to reveal things like "I don't want somebody in my backyard."

8th caller contd: Opponents just want hold of a resource they don't own. I urge you to reject the appeal.

9th caller: I live in District 6. Fire Marshall says project meets code requirements, went through extensive review. Neighbors just don't want anything to be built there. Safety concerns are pretext to stop it.

10th caller: I'm calling on behalf of friend close to development, can't call due to work. When people ask why SF can't build anything, I point to examples like this. I wish I didn't have to call in to support developments. I'm a property owner speaking against self-interest.

10th caller contd: CEQA has been used to uphold exclusionary zoning more than it has ever protected the environment.

11th caller: I live in D6. People here would kill for a place like this, with privacy from neighbors. It's only in front of the Board of Supervisors because Supervisor Preston sponsored it. It did not meet signature reqs to go in front of the Board. This is a frivolous appeal.

11th caller contd: Opponents complain there's no parking. That's a positive. Only reason to deny this would be to preserve an empty lot or preserve high value of neighbors' homes. We should prioritize environmentally friendly housing. I have no yard. I would love a home like this

12th caller: Live on Divisadero as a renter. These homes are modest, more affordable than multi-million $ mansions in the neighborhood. I trust SFFD to mitigate concerns. These homes will be more safe than [wood-framed] Victorians.

12th caller contd: Areas in urban-wildland interface are burning. Let's build housing where there are no wildfires, like here. Also, if neighbors wanted no homes to be built here, they could have purchased the lot. Neighbors also didn't meet appeal signature threshold.

12th caller contd: I'm also satisfied with the outreach from Troy's team.

13th caller: I'm an SF resident. I attended the first pre-application meeting in 2016. I'm surprised it's sitll under review.

Me:

13th caller contd: This project will be safer than the surrounding homes. We need these homes. Please reject the appeal.

I was the 14th caller. I spoke about a meeting I attended with only three other people and Troy waited for more to show up. https://twitter.com/_fruchtose/status/1196987784851910656

That meeting lasted 45 minutes even with just the four of us.

15th caller: The project has been thoroughly analyzed by multiple City departments.

16th caller: This project has gone through a painstaking review process. Fire Marshall stands behind his letter saying the project is safe. And we desperately need infill housing in SF, not in wildfire areas. Please approve this project.

17th caller: We need more infill housing in SF. Projects like this one should be encouraged, not discouraged. It's been thoroughly reviewed. Please reject the appeal.

18th caller: As an architect an SF resident, deny the appeal. It's gone through numerous reviews. This project will increase availability of housing for middle-income people. This is small development, and SF is difficult/expensive to build in.