Planning Commission initiates Freedom West project, recommends landmark changes

At its Sept. 3 meeting, the Planning Commission took the first formal step toward reshaping the Freedom West housing cooperative, voting 5-0 to begin General Plan amendments the project will need. As presented, the plan would replace and expand the co-op's existing homes and add market-rate units, affordable housing, open space and community facilities on the same site. The project would also leave room for hotel use, though commissioners asked for flexibility on where that use would go as the plan moves forward.

Two themes ran through public testimony: the history of displacement and the need to keep cooperative housing affordable while adding homes. Current residents and descendants of families displaced by urban renewal spoke in favor. The commission spent much of its discussion on financing, especially a plan to convert part of the co-op's housing to senior affordable housing on a temporary basis so the project could qualify for tax credits. The vote was procedural. It authorizes amendments to the General Plan and schedules a future hearing; it does not authorize construction.

The commission also acted on a proposed overhaul of the city's landmark designation process. On a 5-0 vote, the panel recommended approval of a Planning Code change that would allow the Historic Preservation Commission to initiate and recommend a designation in one step instead of two. The change would also shorten mandatory outreach periods. Planning staff and the measure's sponsor said the current process is slow and can discourage owners from seeking protection for their buildings. A different supervisor's office asked the commission to add a housing-capacity analysis and offsets to replace any homes affected by preservation; that amendment was not adopted. A motion to approve the ordinance exactly as written also failed. The commission instead attached its own conditions, asking staff to spell out a process for notifying property owners and weighing their consent or opposition, to state clearly that the planning department and any member of the public can request designation, and to study transferable development rights. The measure will go next to the Board of Supervisors.

A smaller contested housing matter involved a property at 1142 Broadway. The owner wants to build a 601-square-foot fourth-story addition with a primary suite. Neighbors asked the commission to review the permit, saying the extra floor would throw new shadows over shared open space in the block, reduce light, reduce privacy and add noise. After the owner lowered the building's height and reduced its footprint, planning staff called the project code-compliant. The commission sided with staff, voting unanimously to deny all requests for discretionary review and allow the modified design to go forward.

Another housing project, at 2051 Market Street, won approval for two major modifications, also by a unanimous vote. The developer plans to tear down a two-story commercial building and construct a seven-story, 29-unit mixed-use building. The project had already been approved under the state's density bonus law. To switch it to the city's Housing Choice San Francisco program, the developer needed permission to reduce the rear yard and waive a light well while keeping the design intact. Staff found the project consistent with the area plan, and the commission heard no public comments. Several commissioners spoke in favor, noting the building would include family-sized units and would bring activity to Market Street.

During general public comment, several speakers urged the commission to seek repeal of the state law that lets landlords evict tenants when they take buildings off the rental market. Those evictions and buyouts undercut the city's housing equity goals, the speakers said. One speaker said obligations from an earlier urban renewal program in the area remained unmet and raised concerns about a project planned there. Another speaker asked planners not to trade neighborhood character and design quality for density.

During their own comments, commissioners described an outreach session in which residents were receptive to building more housing but also asked for neighborhood services and gathering spaces. One commissioner asked staff to return with periodic updates on the department's reorganization.

Near the end of the meeting, the planning director said the Board of Supervisors' budget committee had advanced a contract for a new permitting system, described an internal reorganization of planning-management duties, and warned that fraudulent invoices had been sent to people doing business with the department. The commission also heard that the Board of Supervisors had passed landmark designations and a street-tree standards ordinance, and that the Historic Preservation Commission had recommended two additional landmarks while opposing proposed federal changes to preservation rules.