Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 150 Van Ness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals conditions approval of 150 Van Ness, requires ground‑floor reconfiguration after parents raise preschool concerns
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 10 modified the Planning Commission’s approval of the 150 Van Ness project, ordering the developer to reconfigure ground‑floor units so they face a public right‑of‑way after parents and neighbors raised concerns about lot‑coverage calculations, a narrow 5½‑foot setback to La Porte preschool, and late mitigation agreements.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted unanimously on June 10 to modify the Planning Commission’s findings for the 150 Van Ness residential project, ordering the permit holder to reconfigure its ground‑floor plan so all dwelling units face a public right‑of‑way.
The change follows a lengthy appeal by residents and parents of the newly opened La Porte preschool, who said the project’s approved design leaves about 5½ feet between classroom windows and a 13‑story tower and that Planning Commission reviewers relied on inaccurate lot‑coverage figures. "We both support highly dense residential development … though we feel strongly that it must be appropriately scaled," appellant Sarah Hickey told the board, urging a review of code applicability and alternative designs.
The permit holder said it has offered mitigation and design adjustments. "Our proposed project is 100% in conformance with the plan," said Oz Ericsson, a representative for the developer, and the team outlined a program to swap hotel rooms and residential units on the ground floor so the lot‑coverage rule would no longer apply there. Architect Stracken Forgan also described a revision (shown as Exhibit G) that would position residential units to face the street and eliminate the need for a Ground‑Floor lot‑coverage exception.
Planning Department staff told the board that department reviewers and the zoning administrator had concluded the Section 309 exception was appropriately applied for this downtown special‑use district, but acknowledged that subsequent, more conservative calculations raised the Ground‑Floor lot‑coverage from figures presented at the Planning Commission. Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department said the sponsor’s alternate layout — shifting hotel rooms — would address the discrepancy at the lower level and that the department believed the remaining differences were within the scope of substantial conformity.
The board’s motion found error in how the Planning Commission had applied lot‑coverage calculations for the ground floor and modified the adoption of findings to require the configuration reflected in the developer’s Exhibit G. The board adopted CEQA findings and carried forward the mitigation monitoring and reporting program adopted by the Planning Commission.
The public record for the hearing includes dozens of parents and neighborhood representatives. Jill Manton of the San Francisco Arts Commission praised the developer’s 1% for art contribution, while neighborhood housing advocates urged the board not to delay housing production, noting the project includes 50 below‑market‑rate units.
The Board of Appeals’ action does not vacate the project. Instead it requires the ground‑floor plan change the applicant proposed and preserves the Planning Commission’s environmental mitigation measures. The decision will be reflected in a revised permit approval and associated CEQA documentation.
