Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 75 Howard topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Planning Commission on 75 Howard after contested public debate; variances stand
Summary
After hours of public testimony and lengthy staff explanations, the Board of Appeals declined to overturn the Planning Commission’s approvals for the 75 Howard project and the zoning variances were left in place (either upheld or left in effect by operation of law). Critics cited shadowing, waterfront step‑down and urban design concerns; supporters cited housing and affordable‑housing in‑lieu commitments.
The Board of Appeals on Jan. 27 concluded deliberations on a contested 20‑story, 133‑unit project at 75 Howard Street and related zoning appeals without reversing the Planning Commission’s approvals. The discussion drew extensive public testimony both opposing and supporting the proposal, and lasted several hours.
Opponents—including neighborhood groups and individual residents—argued the building fails to "step down" toward the Embarcadero, will cast new shadows on Rincon Park, and is too bulky for the waterfront edge. Appellants urged the Board to find that Planning abused its discretion in granting multiple exceptions and a rear‑yard exception under section 309 of the planning code. Supporters—labor unions, housing advocates and business groups—said the project replaces an underused above‑ground parking garage with housing near transit, would contribute an in‑lieu affordable‑housing payment (project sponsor volunteered 33 1/3% in‑lieu), and would create construction jobs.
Planning staff and the project team detailed the design iterations, setback geometry, tower separation and code findings; Planning concluded the project meets applicable standards and recommended upholding the 3.09 determinations and associated EIR findings. Board members debated the visual relationship to the Embarcadero, the risk that a narrow DPW parcel in front could be developed in the future, and whether the project’s massing is more typical of downtown C3 districts.
A motion to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision failed; by operation of law the Planning Commission motion was upheld. Separately, two appeals of zoning administrator variances for dwelling‑unit exposure and garage opening width (items 8a/8b) were considered; a motion to deny those appeals (i.e., to uphold the variances) failed on a 2–2 vote, and therefore the variances remain effective by operation of law. The Board emphasized that Planning’s review and the EIR had been extensive and that many stakeholders—including the Board of Supervisors—had previously reviewed project materials.
Why it matters: The decision preserves a major waterfront housing project and its associated in‑lieu affordable housing commitment while highlighting continuing neighborhood concerns about massing and waterfront design.
