Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Large Residence Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Preservation Commission narrows review of ‘large residence’ bill, urges clarifications
Summary
After hours of public comment, the commission endorsed planning staff’s recommendation to remove a conditional‑use trigger for historic properties in a proposed ordinance aimed at discouraging oversized single‑family expansions, and requested additional clarifications on thresholds and gross‑floor‑area measurement before the Planning Commission acts.
The Historic Preservation Commission on July 7 endorsed a targeted change to a supervisor-sponsored ordinance intended to discourage conversions of modest single‑family houses into large luxury homes while encouraging additional housing units.
Supervisor Mandelmann’s office and staff described a proposal that would trigger a planning-commission conditional-use (CU) authorization when projects exceed size thresholds (notably a 2,500‑square‑foot per‑unit trigger and various percentage‑increase rules). Planning staff proposed a set of modifications — including exemptions for projects that maximize density, raising marginal expansion limits for large homes, and removing the CU trigger for certain historic‑resource situations — and recommended the commission weigh in on the preservation component.
The hearing drew extensive public comment from architects, housing advocates, nonprofit groups and longtime residents. Critics warned a single, citywide 2,500‑square‑foot threshold could capture many routine projects, increase cost and processing time for smaller homeowners, and disproportionately affect households needing incremental additions. “This legislation with a threshold of 2,500 square feet will subject over 50% of those projects to have to go for conditional use approval. This is insane,” one architect/longtime resident said, citing planning-department permit statistics.
Planning staff noted measurement differences between assessor records and planning gross‑floor‑area calculations and recommended the commission urge clearer definitions. The department’s preservation team also said historic resources already receive robust review through Article 10/11 and CEQA, and that adding a CU trigger tied to historic status could create duplication and additional cost without a clear preservation benefit.
After discussion the commission adopted a narrower recommendation: they endorsed planning staff’s recommendation number 6 to remove the CU trigger tied to historic properties, and asked the supervisor’s office and planning staff to provide clearer definitions of gross floor area, thresholds and any grandfathering or timing rules before the Planning Commission considers the ordinance. The motion passed 7–0.
Next steps: the commission’s recommendation and clarifying questions will be transmitted to the Planning Commission and supervisor’s office for further drafting and public review.
