Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Bernal Heights appeals; upholds four‑lot subdivision and site permits
Summary
Neighbors urged the board to require 12‑foot sidewalks, added setbacks and design changes for a four‑lot Bernal Heights project. The board heard extensive testimony but denied the appeals, finding the site permits were properly issued after Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors review.
On June 21 the San Francisco Board of Appeals denied consolidated appeals challenging site permits for a four‑lot subdivision and construction of four single‑family houses on a steep triangular lot in Bernal Heights.
Neighbor representatives said the project would replace an open block with a wall‑like three‑story development, reduce pedestrian safety by leaving only an eight‑foot sidewalk, and fail to meet recommendations in the Better Streets Plan and Bernal Heights East Slope guidelines. “We’re asking for a yardstick’s worth of space — a modest 12‑foot sidewalk or equivalent setback — to preserve pedestrian safety and neighborhood character,” appellant Betsy Brown told the board. Appellants also criticized maintenance uncertainties for proposed public stairs and called for varied roof lines and more articulation so the development would read as four distinct homes.
Project counsel Dan Fratton and the sponsor’s team said the design incorporated numerous voluntary concessions made during planning and discretionary review, including side setbacks increased to four feet between buildings, lowered building envelopes and placement of much of the building volume below grade to reduce apparent height. The sponsor described off‑site landscaping and a public staircase on Carver Street and said they could widen sidewalks on private property to about 8 feet 7 inches; planning staff explained that further widening to 10–12 feet would likely require lane or parking changes and multi‑agency coordination.
Planning’s Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez reviewed the permit and discretionary review history and said the project complied with Bernal Heights special‑district rules and planning code requirements. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors previously approved subdivision and discretionary review; the sponsor reported the supervisors’ vote was unanimous with one recusal.
After deliberation the board denied the appeals (4–0), concluding the site permits were properly issued. The sponsors offered to incorporate several modest landscape and fencing changes the appellants sought, and the board noted continuing agency review for required streetscape and public right‑of‑way items.
