[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6627343,"mediaKeyId","2728642-83f159902b36f96dc7464d97669ae59b","parentId",2728642,"title","Planning Commission denies Mosser Hotel conversion; proposed swap with Minna Hotel rejected 5–2","audioSeconds",5266,"startMs",7352000,"endMs",12618000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2728642-83f159902b36f96dc7464d97669ae59b&start=7352&end=12618","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2728642-83f159902b36f96dc7464d97669ae59b/thumbnail_7352000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6627343/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Planning-Commission-denies-Mosser-Hotel-conversion-proposed-swap-with-Minna-Hotel-rejected-52","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6627343-b8f80b963ddd2ba2480290d8adf840bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198788&Signature=V0eqp6rz0r5oT1jeCzU7i1Iqdh41zw~hLyhVtYG9fdAscry5Yubq7-j8aBKNpZiI7nWKKdqTncJCDQtbKhjjG-3AYmFiL7lCpuoACI2bI2J~BpkVcydH4NqQvu8nTDDY3aeaF0oLXaJT1cP80--~Y0PKZDrS48NPbkqxI7sU~-C8jWZuVdLOgxULBj-2Y9H3OwihtwKPBYlpjuOFvCgFQCWdxhaL3KiX3BYmxe02blvdWfQ4yExHYwS6Ga70UpG7oJ2PsubGZ-lw9rOaVXHlw~2bLK5CjkMVu8nHUf1IzcEXYrvHSVsTZhnjlHrHHjWi7EcR3LlwyPvlyJNXiiwAmA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-03-20T00:00:00Z","article","The Planning Commission on March 20 denied a conditional use authorization (CU) for the Mosser Hotel at 54 Fourth Street that would have converted 72 of the hotel’s residential rooms into tourist rooms and proposed to satisfy the city’s residential‑hotel one‑for‑one replacement requirement by designating 72 rooms at 509 Minna Street as residential hotel rooms.

Why it matters: Chapter 41 of the San Francisco Administrative Code protects residential hotel units (often SROs) and requires one‑for‑one replacement when owners seek to convert rooms to tourist use. The project sponsor proposed swapping the Mosser’s residential rooms to the Minna property so the Mosser could operate more fully as a tourist hotel and the Minna could operate as nonprofit‑run group housing.

Staff summary and public input: Planning staff recommended approval after evaluating the swap and the project’s consistency with the general plan and administrative code, noting the Minna property had been operating as residential supportive housing under a city‑funded program. Opponents including tenant‑advocacy groups, tenant counselors and local community organizations urged denial, arguing (1) the Minna rooms are not being brought back to the open housing market and are operated under a program model that lacks rent‑ordinance tenant protections; (2) the Mosser had withheld residential rooms from the public market for years; and (3) approving the swap would set a precedent enabling conversions that reduce the city’s rent‑controlled housing stock.

Commission deliberation and central issues: Commissioners focused on whether the Minna rooms meet the administrative code’s comparability requirements — specifically, whether rooms at 509 Minna are of the same category of housing as the rent‑controlled rooms at the Mosser and whether the Minna rooms would be “brought back into the housing market” in a manner equivalent to the Mosser’s units. Public commenters and legal advisers stressed that transitional or program‑based residences may lack the same tenant protections (rental agreements, rent registration and just‑cause eviction rights) that define rent‑controlled units. Commissioners also examined operational compatibility, neighborhood context, and whether the Mosser’s long period of vacancy and limited market outreach undermined any claim of insufficient demand for residential use.

Vote and immediate outcome: The commission denied the conditional use authorization for the Mosser Hotel conversion by a 5–2 vote (Commissioners Campbell and McGarry voted no). The zoning‑administrator portion of the record related to variances and the Minna site was taken under advisement for further consideration; staff said the zoning administrator would finalize findings or next steps after considering the record.

Next steps: The denial terminates the Mosser’s requested tourist conversion as proposed. The variance and related land‑use questions for 509 Minna were left without final action and are to be taken under advisement; the zoning administrator and planning staff indicated they will review outstanding questions about tenant protections, contracts and the lease/operation model at Minna and return with recommended next steps.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player - Mar 20, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission voted 5–2 to deny a conditional use authorization that would have converted 72 residential rooms at the Mosser Hotel (54 Fourth Street) into tourist rooms on the basis that the proposed one‑for‑one replacement at 509 Minna Street did not meet comparability and market‑return tests required by city law.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6627347,"Planning Commission adopts preservation design standards to guide additions to historic buildings",2446,5691000,8137000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2728642-83f159902b36f96dc7464d97669ae59b&start=5691&end=8137","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2728642-83f159902b36f96dc7464d97669ae59b/thumbnail_5691000.jpg","/articles/6627347/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Planning-Commission-adopts-preservation-design-standards-to-guide-additions-to-historic-buildings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6627347-590fe986db0272818bef4e8c073816d0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198787&Signature=AEOhHdw7PDLgKxUL2-Gy8RTHT8UxvOZ0ogVr8SwSryhPBAHYkQfoY4Q9cIHlFWlKrN0VZ5LEEPEpcwXQIi03Is7enXzj-DVIcqTdDx~CACgxqh8nqxCtliHlp1sQuxJ6N74HOTBe~J9umVJN-VCkeaWtiMwa7TC6ipUZh6dDw4~bAWKOq68fMNo0t587Hd7Nqd~OCX33430nXC1zF2n1qJgx8sBw1gYEK8Oa7PwJ2jRCe0HT-1tHsFGxFxBJ2jeiTYf~uRkrdElSjNwDpgtr02YR~~POHsFtH8vimiwL0j9umYeFjTBB55cU0kNDLr749U1Df4MVwpC1wLn937EC~Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission unanimously adopted preservation design standards on March 20 that supplement the citywide objective design standards and set rules for additions and alterations to the city’s most significant historic properties (category A) when projects are reviewed under objective standards.

Why it matters: State housing programs and the Housing Accountability Act limit discretionary review for certain housing projects; the city developed objective design standards so projects could be reviewed consistently when subject to state ministerial pathways. The newly adopted Preservation Design Standards establish objective rules for treating character‑defining features, windows, storefronts, massing, articulation and other topics for additions to category A properties, while leaving discretionary review for many other scenarios.

What staff told commissioners: Planning staff framed the standards as limited to category A properties and to additions or modifications to existing buildings, not to new construction. Rebecca Salgado (planning staff) summarized an extensive outreach and revision process that included the Historic Preservation Commission, AIA San Francisco’s Policy and Practice Committee, neighborhood groups and the Office of Economic and Workforce Development. Staff said the standards are meant to be a living document and that the department will return to report on implementation and propose refinements.

Public comment: The American Institute of Architects’ policy committee said it worked closely with staff and supported adoption while noting several items that could need future refinement (corner setbacks, glass‑rail treatment, and differences across building types). Neighborhood groups urged extending some protections to historic districts and category B contributors; staff said a citywide survey and targeted district guidance are planned as follow‑ups.

Vote and result: The commission voted 7–0 to adopt the preservation design standards, and staff said smaller editorial changes can be made administratively while larger changes would come back to the commission for approval.","The commission unanimously adopted new Preservation Design Standards as an objective chapter of the citywide design standards, intended to guide additions and modifications to category A historic properties when objective review is required by state housing programs.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6627351,"Planning Commission backs supervisor’s notice-of-rezoning ordinance with staff modifications, 5–2",3444,2055000,5499000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2728642-83f159902b36f96dc7464d97669ae59b&start=2055&end=5499","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2728642-83f159902b36f96dc7464d97669ae59b/thumbnail_2055000.jpg","/articles/6627351/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Planning-Commission-backs-supervisors-notice-of-rezoning-ordinance-with-staff-modifications-52","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6627351-d0f0f8b4faa835df5249c30ea69bd750/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198787&Signature=kKpWjaBd3N1zvvNgVJGFimqW2vv9a4aQqiY82Yv34saBtcSPIgoQocCIr962rjKQdsYFFVhWYMp2P8qRJHG4krG3NjsZ3y4hUSUKQeEmCqewm3Lj~0YMuGVATJHEJjPiEaphGgprfYzWd8cuHU95C9dsinKFvfxQYlpEDxr2hSpaVloyu60N1YDmJ0z7psOhBQYUTvQLqQEsLmK8wqEm8wKI1ix-LI7sg9glO5j6ci7X2idZzpb6IpskL8eqoepXhU7~ZaR-lpg9SUnRHGPMeL2nAquSrU1h8GrgkdsHTo9nxQZqDKvhPTIvenJCOa-vq9E2cOrMPeSuEAlwe~z0jQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Planning Commission on March 20 recommended approval, by a 5–2 vote, of legislation introduced by Supervisor Connie Chan that would require mailed notice and a dedicated web page to inform property owners, lessees and occupants about proposed housing‑element rezoning. The commission’s recommendation included staff modifications intended to narrow recipients and clarify content and renderings.

Why it matters: City staff said state law requires the city to adopt a compliant rezoning plan by January 2026. Supervisor Chan’s substitute ordinance would require mailed notice 30 days before final adoption to owners, residents and commercial lessees within affected parcels and nearby (the ordinance proposes a 300‑foot radius), plus a department web page with maps, renderings and an interactive comparison of existing and proposed zoning.

Staff concerns and recommended modifications: Planning staff supported the ordinance’s goals but warned that the proposed mailing area (the draft rezoning map included more than 13,000 acres) and required minimum font size, hard‑coded mailer language and renderings could be impractical and expensive. Staff proposed clarifications to limit mailings to parcels that would actually receive potential height or density increases (and to include adjacent properties within a 300‑foot radius), remove overly prescriptive typographic requirements, and narrow the rendering obligation to existing illustrative views rather than a requirement to produce new renderings for every corridor.

What commissioners heard: Supporters from neighborhood groups and housing advocates urged broad notice and before‑and‑after renderings, calling the outreach a “right to know” for hundreds of thousands of residents. Several architects and AIA San Francisco representatives urged care about renderings (they cautioned about misleading images) and offered low‑cost visualization options. Planning staff repeated that the department lacks current budgeted funding for large‑scale mailing and renderings and offered an estimate (quoting a ReproMail cost) that mailing the high‑opportunity area recipients could run into tens of thousands of dollars, with broader scenarios possibly adding more.

Vote and outcome: The commission approved a recommendation of approval with staff modifications, 5–2 (Commissioners Campbell and McGarry opposed). Vice President Moore made the motion to adopt with staff modifications; the commission asked staff and the supervisor’s office to continue refining language (including a clarified recipient list that retains a 300‑foot adjacency radius for affected parcels) before the item goes to the Board of Supervisors.

Next steps: The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded as a committee report to the Board of Supervisors; staff and the sponsor agreed to continue working together to refine language on mailer recipients, text and renderings and to identify potential funding sources for an expanded outreach program.","The commission recommended approval — with changes — of legislation requiring mailed postcards and a public web page notifying property owners and residents about proposed housing-element rezoning, while flagging the ordinance’s cost and scope for further refinement.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6627356,"Planning Commission approves faux-tree cell site at Palace of Fine Arts over one dissent",950,1104000,2054000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2728642-83f159902b36f96dc7464d97669ae59b&start=1104&end=2054","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2728642-83f159902b36f96dc7464d97669ae59b/thumbnail_1104000.jpg","/articles/6627356/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Planning-Commission-approves-faux-tree-cell-site-at-Palace-of-Fine-Arts-over-one-dissent","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6627356-753264a55308c88bad832c5d9d4e7af6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198787&Signature=W6Mgtx4tUh9Jr7nnJIMUE0qtwROvyUXJdCgihSP0GNFhBFE3Ipd~6AiJdcqNd-4RrGleqaYJ2mdmXOAj6P5wb7h-qLrexRfq4UD9YuHXRCgH5ZIml3nskvOuRxJzGNgPu6hUXGKCsvKhjBgRpAS4uJcdjlh0ATzSwxGyUPoS6uiPcdjKsilSV7pX8HVj7GgFBTZ0Dl9aGBFfc4agElhwF4rcaWaKGvvnS0tKHC2UyUSqYQl2P-JNPMrR3hQYqOXRQNjUc9DWcctASzqUks-ldqEuLO0pOlrB9aFkG1z03osYPrKvgHCEQku6OufgzgyE0dkyIBL~ob8BaFUAT85d9Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Planning Commission on March 20 approved a conditional use authorization for new wireless facilities at the Palace of Fine Arts (3301 Lyon Street), allowing AT&T to install antennas disguised as a faux eucalyptus tree in the parking lot.

Planning staff described the location as the city and county-owned Palace of Fine Arts site, with Recreation and Parks as the landowner. Mary Woods, planning department staff, said Rec and Park and other city agencies reviewed numerous options and that staff worked with AT&T to identify a “creative solution” in a fake tree to meet coverage and landmark preservation concerns. \"The Palace of Fine Arts building is a designated city landmark,\" Woods said.

Why it matters: Staff and the sponsor argued the facility is intended to improve public and first-responder coverage in an area with known dead zones and high rates of vehicle break-ins. Commissioners weighing visual and community-notification concerns ultimately approved the project with conditions intended to address design, monitoring and outreach.

What commissioners heard: AT&T representatives said they needed a ground-mounted monopole-type solution to cover the immediate area and that a faux eucalyptus offered a better visual fit than a narrow pine-style artificial tree. The project engineer explained that eucalyptus-style faux trees have multiple branches and can conceal antennas at moderate heights more effectively than a singular-pole pine, and cited examples in other Bay Area locations. Mary Woods told commissioners the planning department and Rec and Park had granted a certificate of appropriateness for the design and that public-health and other reviews had been completed.

Several commissioners pressed staff and the sponsor for clearer visuals and for assurances about long-term screening. Vice President Moore said of the visual simulations, “I share the concern ... that those older trees may at some point veil, and what do we do then?” Staff responded that the packet contained photo simulations and that the proposed faux eucalyptus would match the approximate height of surrounding trees; in staff’s description, \"The existing trees are about 80 to 90 feet. So I think the actual proposed fake tree is about 80 feet with 10 feet of canopy...\"

Community outreach and response: Commissioner Williams pulled the item from consent to raise a Marina Community Association letter that said it had not been notified of pre-application outreach. Staff said a larger notification radius is required for wireless CUAs and verified that mailings and additional notifications had been sent; staff said they would provide outreach documentation to the association. No speakers from the Marina Community Association appeared to testify at the hearing.

Vote and procedural result: On a recorded roll-call vote, the commission approved the conditional use authorization 6–1, with Commissioner Williams voting no. The approval places the item’s conditions and design requirements into the project record; staff and the sponsor said they would continue follow-up coordination with Rec and Park on lease negotiations and final design details.

Next steps: The project sponsor and Rec and Park will finalize lease terms and the sponsor must comply with the planning conditions and any technical monitoring or public-safety requirements identified in the approvals. The sponsor indicated additional visual studies and RF (radio frequency) documentation are available upon request.","The San Francisco Planning Commission voted 6–1 to allow AT&T to place wireless antennas inside a faux eucalyptus at the Palace of Fine Arts parking lot, after staff and the project sponsor described technical and aesthetic trade-offs and responded to neighborhood notification concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission denies Mosser Hotel conversion; proposed swap with Minna Hotel rejected 5–2

Planning Commission adopts preservation design standards to guide additions to historic buildings

Planning Commission backs supervisor’s notice-of-rezoning ordinance with staff modifications, 5–2

Planning Commission approves faux-tree cell site at Palace of Fine Arts over one dissent