The “necessary, desirable, and compatible” plans for a decidedly modern infill development of four little single-family dwellings to rise up to 20 feet in height on the undeveloped “flag lot” at 1846 Grove Street – a parcel which is effectively bounded by the back yards of the homes fronting Grove, Ashbury, Fulton and Masonic and can only be accessed by way of a three and one-half foot wide path to Fulton – were, in fact, approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission at the end of April, an action which has since been appealed by neighbors.
According to the neighbors’ challenge, Planning’s determination that the project doesn’t require a detailed environmental review, having qualified for a “small projects” exemption based on a standing determination that the potential environmental impacts of six new units, whether they are provided in one structure or in six, are essentially the same and not significant per California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), “is a misplaced judgment call.”
In addition, the neighbors argue that by granting the aforementioned exemption, the impact of the four-unit development on an adjacent “Major Transit Stop,” which provides easy access to three high frequency transit lines at the intersection Fulton and Divisadero, hasn’t been properly assessed.
And having heard from the project sponsor, appellants, opponents and supporters of the project, along with Planning, earlier this week, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors then unanimously affirmed that the proposed infill project is, in fact, categorically exempt from any further environmental review, denying the environmental challenge of the project.
But having then heard from the project sponsor, appellants, opponents and supporters of the project, along with Planning, the Board then overturned Planning’s approval of the 4-unit project as proposed while conditionally approving an infill development of no more than two units, with a maximum allowable occupancy of 16 people, along with a number of other conditions, on the lot.
We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.
The SFBOS is hopeless.
I don’t think it matters for the next couple of years as no one will break ground, but what BS from the BOS.
Vote out Dean Preston!
Unfu*kin believable!
Is the project zoning-compliant or did it require a variance?
Supervisor Preston accepted a “safety” argument from the opposition, despite the clear “Conditions of Approval” letter from the SF Fire Marshall, and the Letter from DBI saying that the project meets the code and is therefore considered safe.
Supervisor Preston did not invite DBI or the Fire Marshall to the hearing to testify and with Supervisor Peskin actively shut down the request from other Supervisors to hear from the Departments and force a vote.
There’s little chance Peskin does not have some connection to someone opposed to this. The man is utterly corrupt.
But, he keeps getting re-elected. So, many SF voters only care about their narrow little special interests, or they even are convince to ignorantly voting against their own interests, and what’s in the best interest for the whole city, so long as a candidate spouts the same tired platitudes and promises. I vote every election, and just keep hoping the rest of the voters finally see the light.
Is SB35 an option to get around all of this BS?
In the picture, there is a parking lot across grove street. Why not build on that instead of take away green space from an entire block of residents?
It’s a school parking lot.
This isn’t the neighbors ‘green space’ to begin with, it’s an empty lot. They will ALL still have back yards (how very privileged of them) or they can walk three blocks to Golden Gate Park. Phlueeze!
I am really surprised that the Fire Department signed off on this. One way in; same way out…3.5 feet wide. Really?
In related news: Another Ambitious Infill Development on the Boards