Project sponsor seeks height waiver for San Francisco development after zoning map error

The San Francisco Planning Commission convened on July 4, 2025, to address a significant zoning map error affecting a proposed 80-foot tall development project. The meeting began with a presentation from project sponsor Steve Vettel, who clarified that the error, recently discovered by the department, indicated a height limit of 65 feet instead of the previously assumed 80 feet. This discrepancy came as a surprise to the project team, who had completed environmental and design reviews without knowledge of the map error.

Vettel emphasized that the project, which had received unanimous approval in February 2024, was entitled to an additional development standard waiver under the state density bonus program. He argued that the project's design, which includes a 10-foot setback to protect light and air for neighboring residents, remains unchanged and poses no significant public health or safety impacts. The project team has also increased the number of on-site inclusionary units from nine to eleven in response to community feedback.

Public comments during the meeting raised concerns about the implications of the density bonus law and the need for transparency regarding its interpretation. Speaker Sue Hester urged the commission to seek guidance from the planning department and city attorney, suggesting that a public session be held to clarify the law's application. Other community members expressed concerns about the project's scale and design, arguing that it does not align with the character of the Nob Hill neighborhood.

Following public comments, the commission deliberated on the matter, with discussions focusing on the necessity of granting the additional waiver to proceed with the project. The meeting concluded with a call for further consideration of the issues raised, highlighting the complexities surrounding urban development and community impact in San Francisco. The commission is expected to make a decision on the waiver in the coming sessions, with ongoing discussions about balancing development needs with neighborhood preservation.