Commission approves 1800 Van Ness project with conditions including on‑site BMR and design refinements

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve a modified planned‑unit development for 1800 Van Ness (Case 2011.0094C), contingent on a set of conditions addressing design refinements, parking allocations and affordable‑housing commitments.

Glenn Cabrera of the Planning Department introduced the project as a two‑building development: an 8‑story mixed‑use building at Van Ness and Clay with approximately 94 dwelling units and ground‑floor commercial space, and a 4‑story building fronting Washington Street containing four units. Staff recommended approval with conditions, including required parking provisions and protective conditions for the adjacent California Club building drawn from the site’s previous approval.

Developer Dean Gevis described changes from an earlier entitlement: smaller average unit sizes to broaden affordability, an increase in on‑site BMR units (the sponsor proposed 15 on‑site BMR units, versus seven in the prior approval), removal of internal driveways in favor of a larger landscaped courtyard, 41 bicycle spaces and plans to provide three car‑share spaces (with an option to convert one market parking space in year one if needed). Architect Faraz Mirza discussed the massing, facade materials (metal panels and zinc), and energy performance (projected to exceed Title 24 energy requirements by more than 15%).

Public comment was mixed. Several neighborhood residents and associations raised concerns about increased density, parking and potential shadowing. The Middle Polk Neighborhood Association and other neighborhood groups provided letters of support contingent on the developer’s commitments to on‑site BMR units, bicycle parking and expanded car‑share allocation.

Commission debate focused on ground‑floor retail heights, corner treatment and materiality. Commissioners asked staff and the architect to pursue less aggressive black‑and‑white contrast, to explore reducing the prominence of vertical fins, and to consider switching living areas to the corner to create a more active ‘lantern’ on the street corner. The commission also negotiated a parking total that included 98 residential spaces plus three car‑share spaces (with a possible conversion to a fourth car‑share in year one), for a working total cited in the motion of 103 spaces including car‑share allocations.

Commissioner Sugaya moved approval with conditions that incorporated earlier protections for the California Club, required staff to continue working with the architect to soften the massing and material contrast, required the living‑room/bedroom swap at the corner lantern element, and set the parking/car‑share conditions. Commissioner Bridal seconded. On the motion the commission voted unanimously to approve the project with the stated conditions and periodic staff reporting as the project moves through design review and permitting.

Next steps: Staff will continue to work with the project architect on materials and detail and will report periodically to the commission. Conditions (including the California Club protections, design refinements and parking/car‑share commitments) are to be incorporated into the final permit approvals.