Zoning Administrator Corey Teague defends multiple tower regulations at San Francisco meeting

In a recent San Francisco government meeting, significant discussions emerged regarding the interpretation of the city's planning code, particularly concerning bulk limits for buildings. The meeting highlighted a contentious appeal against a zoning administrator's interpretation that restricts the number of vertical elements, or towers, allowed on a single building.

The appeal argued that the current interpretation erroneously imposes a limit of one tower per building, which contradicts the existing planning code and decades of precedent. Proponents of the appeal emphasized that the code does not explicitly restrict the number of towers, provided that each complies with the maximum length and diagonal dimensions set forth in the code. They contended that this new interpretation creates an unnecessary bulk limit that could hinder development and violate state housing laws.

Key points raised included the assertion that the interpretation could reduce residential density across the city, impacting numerous pending and future projects. The appeal also cited the Housing Crisis Act, which prohibits any development policy that reduces residential capacity below levels established in 2018 unless accompanied by an upzoning. The interpretation was criticized for potentially violating this act by introducing a new bulk standard that was not previously known to developers.

The zoning administrator defended the interpretation, explaining that bulk controls are essential for managing the massing of buildings as they rise in height. He argued that the interpretation was necessary to ensure consistency in how bulk is measured and to clarify the planning code's language. The administrator maintained that the code allows for multiple towers but requires that they adhere to specific bulk dimensions.

The meeting concluded without immediate resolution, leaving the future of the interpretation and its implications for San Francisco's skyline and housing development uncertain. As the city grapples with housing demands, the outcome of this appeal could have lasting effects on urban planning and development policies. The discussions underscore the ongoing tension between maintaining architectural integrity and addressing the pressing need for housing in a rapidly growing city.