Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds planning approval for 1420 Taraval, rejects neighborhood appeal 10-1
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 10‑1 on June 30 to uphold the Planning Commission’s conditional use authorization for a mixed‑use project at 1420 Taraval Street, rejecting a neighborhood appeal that sought to preserve the existing house and protect rent‑controlled neighbors’ windows.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 10-1 on June 30 to uphold the Planning Commission’s conditional use authorization for a mixed‑use development at 1420 Taraval Street, allowing demolition of an early 20th‑century house and construction of a four‑story building with three dwelling units and ground‑floor commercial space.
The vote came after a multi‑hour public hearing in which neighborhood groups, preservation advocates and nearby tenants argued the house is a rare surviving example of early Parkside housing, provides “naturally affordable” rent‑controlled housing and that the planned replacement would block narrow side windows at 1414 Taraval that tenants use for light and ventilation. Eileen Vulcan, president of the neighborhood group SPEAK, said the appellant ‘‘believes that the house at 1420 Taraval is guilty of three crimes,’’ listing loss of naturally affordable housing, inappropriate ground‑floor commercial in that block and unequal treatment of West Side historic resources.
Planning staff and the project sponsor disagreed. Planning staff told the board the department found the property significant under some historic criteria but concluded the structure no longer retained sufficient integrity after alterations and therefore is not a historic resource under state standards. Aaron Starr of the Planning Department told supervisors the commission balanced competing general‑plan policies and found the project consistent overall, noting the project would add two net family‑sized units and roughly seven bedrooms to the housing supply.
Justin Zucker, an attorney for the project sponsor, said the proposal would add three roughly 1,500–1,600 square‑foot units and a commercial storefront along the transit corridor, and that the tenants at 1420 had submitted letters supporting the project. Sponsor Peter Mandel said he had lived in the building previously and described negotiations he said he undertook with neighbors.
Neighbors and appellants pressed two threads: (1) that the Planning Department’s pre‑application affidavit omitted attendees and responses to neighborhood concerns, and (2) that the project would cover narrow side windows of rent‑controlled units next door. Several callers — including the owner of 1414 Taraval — said their concerns were not recorded in the pre‑application affidavit and asked for mitigation that would preserve light and air.
Supervisor Norman Yee, who called the hearing, and Supervisor Mar, who advanced a motion to approve the conditional use authorization, both described the project as transit‑oriented and consistent with the neighborhood commercial corridor. Supervisor Peskin voted no; Supervisor Mar’s motion to approve the Planning Commission decision passed 10‑1 and supervisors voted to table two alternate motions (items 26 and 27) that sought to reverse or direct written findings with respect to the conditional use.
Votes at a glance: - Item 25 (approve Planning Commission decision / conditional use authorization): Passed 10‑1 (Supervisor Peskin dissenting). - Items 26 and 27 (motions to disapprove or to direct findings in support of disapproval): Tabled.
Board action preserves the Planning Commission’s approval and allows the project to move forward subject to the Planning Department and building permit processes. Opponents said they plan to pursue the matter in the CEQA historic‑resource appeal process, which Planning staff said is the proper forum for challenging historical determinations.
The public hearing record included written submissions and multiple callers for and against the appeal; preservation groups urged denial, while several neighborhood merchants and residents urged approval as a way to revitalize the corridor and add housing.
Ending: The board’s decision upholds the commission’s weighing of competing housing, design and historic‑resource policies. Appellants said they intend further action through the CEQA appeals process; the Planning Department and project sponsor said they will continue to process permits and mitigation as required.
