Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Planning Commission approval for 42 Miramar despite neighborhood objections
Summary
The board denied appeals to overturn Planning Commission approval for demolition and a three‑story replacement at 42 Miramar Avenue, ruling the project complies with code and residential design guidelines; neighbors raised notice, scale and parking concerns but the board found the process adequate and the project within the allowed envelope.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3–1 on June 13 to uphold Planning Commission approval of permits for demolition and construction at 42 Miramar Avenue, rejecting neighborhood appeals that argued the project was out of scale for the block and that neighbors had not received adequate notice.
Appellant Georgia Deanda and others told the board they were surprised by the project’s scale (a three‑story house with a 300‑square‑foot front deck), said multiple neighbors lacked notice of discretionary hearings and asked for additional conditions including limits on work hours, wildlife removal plans and changes to the front deck. Deanda asked that the project be reopened for discretionary review.
Permit counsel Kelton Finney and planning staff described a long public process: the case dates to 2005, underwent repeated updates, and received a July 8 Section 3.11 notice to properties within 150 feet. Planning staff and the Planning Commission reviewed later revisions; staff told the board the project was found code‑compliant and that the Commission voted unanimously to approve the revised project. The department said some neighbors live outside the discretionary notice radius used for the later hearing, which explained why not every neighbor received the December hearing notice.
During deliberations, several commissioners expressed sympathy for neighbors’ concerns about scale and the visual effect of a front roof deck, but concluded the application met planning and design guidelines in context. Several board members encouraged further outreach between the project sponsor and immediate neighbors and suggested the permit holder consider minor adjustments if feasible. The board’s final vote to deny the appeal (thus upholding the permit) recorded President Chris Huang as dissenting, while Vice President Frank Fung and Commissioners Hillis and one other voted to uphold the permit.
The decision leaves the Planning Commission’s conditions and plan set in effect; neighbors were advised by board members to continue engagement with the project sponsors and planning staff if they seek voluntary additional mitigations.
