Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 101 Hyde Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Planning Commission on 101 Hyde Street project despite community objections
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied appeals of an 85-unit project at 101 Hyde Street, finding no error or abuse of discretion in the Planning Commission's review; commissioners noted trade‑offs between adding housing and neighborhood impacts including post office relocation concerns.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 12 denied appeals of the Planning Commission’s approval of an 85‑unit project at 101 Hyde Street, upholding the commission’s determinations including associated environmental findings.
Appellants and many neighborhood residents raised concerns about the potential loss of the U.S. Postal Service branch at the site, the inconvenience for seniors and disabled residents who use postal services, shadows on nearby open spaces and the adequacy of affordable housing on the site. John Nolte and several public commenters argued the project would remove mature trees, create construction disruption for two years and provide too few below‑market units for the Tenderloin neighborhood’s needs.
Howard Slavitt, counsel for the Merrick Family Trust (project sponsor), and project representatives said the project would add 85 housing units, including 10 on‑site affordable units (the project team cited compliance with the city’s BMR requirement), create about 5,000 square feet of ground‑floor retail, and that an environmental initial study and shadow analysis had concluded impacts were not significant.
Planning staff confirmed the site lies in the downtown general zoning district (C3‑G) and that the project was reviewed under Planning Code §309. Scott Sanchez and other Planning staff said the project met applicable code requirements and that the Planning Commission adopted an initial study (a mitigated negative declaration type review) and related conditions. Board members balanced neighborhood concerns and the public benefits of housing and voted to deny the appeals and affirm the Planning Commission’s action, including the environmental findings, by a 5‑0 vote.
The Board directed that the project sponsor should work with community stakeholders on construction‑period mitigation and encouraged the sponsor to engage on neighborhood benefits for the retail spaces, but left the Planning Commission’s decision intact.
