Planning Commission approves Laidley Street project over tenant and neighborhood objections, 4–2

The San Francisco Planning Commission on April 14 approved a conditional-use authorization for a demolition-and-rebuild project at 144 Laidley Street that replaces one single‑family home with two four‑story single‑family residences and two accessory dwelling units (ADUs), producing a net increase of three housing units. The project passed on a 4–2 vote after extensive public comment expressing concern about tenant impacts, demolition policy, and scale.

Staff (Gabriela Pantoja) told commissioners the department had held pre‑application and follow‑up meetings, received six neighborhood correspondences (four opposing, two supporting), and concluded the project is "on balance" consistent with the general plan and planning code with recommended conditions. Project counsel Alan Murphy and the architect described design changes made after neighborhood input — notably removal of penthouses to reduce shadow effects — and emphasized compatibility with nearby building patterns.

Residents and tenant advocates sharply contested the project during remote public comment. San Francisco Tenants Union and neighbors said the house is tenant‑occupied and asked what would happen to the tenants; one caller said the structure is a "gorgeous home" and questioned whether demolition is justified. Another caller raised foundation and traffic concerns, and several neighbors described the proposal as an oversized 'monster' build that would reduce light and privacy and do little to increase affordability.

Staff clarified two points in response: calendar language stating that the commission’s action constitutes project approval for CEQA means a CEQA appeal is ripe only after the commission acts; and staff’s understanding is that the current tenant is the project architect, that the tenant supports the project, and that the owner has obligations for eviction and relocation protections under local rent law. The tenant on the record said they had been living at the property "just over 2 years" and that current rent was "$5,100 a month." The tenant also offered to provide lease documentation if needed.

Commissioners then debated possible redesign options and whether to continue the item to allow staff and the sponsor to rework ADU sizes and unit distribution (ideas included increasing ADUs to 800–1,000 sq ft or reconfiguring toward a 4‑unit multiplex). A continuance motion to June 16 with ADUs increased to 800 sq ft was moved and seconded but failed on a roll call.

Following that, Commissioner Coppell moved to approve the project as proposed with conditions; that motion passed on a 4–2 vote with Commissioners Ruiz and Imperial opposed. Commissioners who voted in favor cited the net increase in units constrained by RH‑1 zoning; opponents emphasized demolition of an occupied house and unresolved neighborhood concerns.

Next steps: The project approval is subject to standard conditions and to any timely CEQA appeals; staff indicated the applicant would need to provide documentation and follow relocation/eviction protections if those processes apply.