By Thomas K. Pendergast

The controversial proposal to build a skyscraper across the street from the San Francisco Zoo has become the latest example of much bigger housing issues and how best to confront them.

The bulk of the project, located at 2700 Sloat Blvd., has been growing the last few years and whereas an earlier proposal to put a 12-story building where the Sloat Garden Center now sits inspired an online petition against it by local residents, the latest plan for a 50-story-tall building with 712 housing units has made national headlines.

At a July 26 meeting of the SF Board of Appeals, the immediate issue was about a 2018 decision and the resulting “letter of determination” by a SF Planning Department zoning administrator – a document issued by the zoning administrator that offers guidance regarding zoning regulations, the planning code or development proposals – and whether the zoning administrator erred or abused his discretion in his interpretation of Planning Code sections addressing the measurement of bulk and plan dimensions.

“It errs by creating a new bulk limit that simply does not exist under the existing code,” attorney Melinda Sarjapur, who represents the developers, CH-Planning, told the Board. “It’s inconsistent with how the City has applied the code for decades. It’s contrary to the intent of the bulk code and the General Plan policies, and finally, it will violate state law,”

“The interpretation rises to abuse of discretion because it goes beyond providing guidance to creating a new bulk limit, that is effectively rezoning, and will have a number of undesirable consequences that conflict with code intent. This could reduce residential density at 2700 Sloat, as well as many other pending and future projects citywide.”

But Zoning Administrator Corey Teague, who made the decision, said it conforms just fine with the bulk limits of the Planning Code.

“The plain language of the code says that where the bulk applies, that there are maximum dimensions for that building above that height. And that maximum dimension includes every part of that building above that height. It’s very clear that the bulk controls apply to a building and a building that has a podium and a tower,” Teague told the Board.

“The Planning Code does not prohibit projects from exceeding their bulk. The Planning Code provides an outlet for any project that wants to do a larger bulk, more mass” Teague said. “It just requires additional approval, typically from the Planning Commission.

“So, this isn’t a prohibition from maybe doing multiple towers that exceed your plan dimension. It just means that the base requirement is going to be that one dimension and you can’t fit multiple towers in that.”

In the end, the Board upheld Teague’s interpretation and voted unanimously to deny the appeal. However, in the conversation leading up to that vote, some deeper insights into the City’s housing problems were discussed.

“There’s lots of inventory available to house people, it’s just too expensive, is the bottom line,” said Board President Rick Swig. “We could house everybody in the City if the prices of those things weren’t so expensive. And that’s up to the developer who built them at $1,000 a square foot, that forced their profitability to force rents at an absurdly high level.

“But in reality, the metric is, there’s plenty of housing. It’s just too bloody expensive and that’s what we’re stuck with.”

But how much do planning codes need to change, or if they do at all, to meet the present housing crisis?

“We’re in the midst of a housing emergency in 2023. Should we adjust the core values and the careful planning of this city because we’re in a short-term housing emergency that really isn’t an emergency, just because housing is too expensive?” Swig said. “Why should we, in the short term, modify the integrity of the City’s look and planning situation and its bulk standard just because we’re in a short-term housing emergency?”

“I don’t think that’s what we’re doing here,” Sarjapur responded. “What we’re doing here is maintaining the zoning bulk code as it’s been applied the last few decades and not adjusting it, out of concerns of how it may apply to a single project or development moving forward.

“We’re applying the zoning code as it has been applied for decades in the past,” she said. “The question of availability of housing is above my ability to address at the moment. I think there have been studies showing that underproduction of housing over the past few decades has led to the issue that we’re in today. Certainly, the City is pursuing policies directly to produce more housing. There has been significant underproduction of housing in that area of the City.”

Commissioner John Trasvina also weighed in on the conversation.

“This is a critically important issue and topic for everyone, every corner of San Francisco,” he said. “To me, this is not so much an issue of housing as it is about bulk. The interpretation that the zoning administrator has done, and which I intend to uphold, is about bulk.

“If we are going to solve our housing crisis, and it is a crisis, if we’re going to solve it through bulk housing, through towers – whether it’s at 19th and Noriega or whether it’s at Sloat or any part of San Francisco – then that is a discussion that we have to have, not just in this room but through every room in this City Hall and elsewhere.”

Because CH Planning will use the California State Density Bonus program, the new building would include 115 “affordable” units of housing. These units will be offered at 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) as calculated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

In San Francisco, 100% AMI works out to $97,000 annually for a single person, $110,850 for two people, $124,700 for three and $138,550 for a four-person household.