City Agency Hearings

SFMTA Engineering hearing on Friday, June 16, 10 a.m., City Hall, Room 416  (See full agenda here).

  • 9. ESTABLISH – STOP SIGN Miguel Street, northbound, at Beacon Street, stopping the stem of the “T” of the intersection
  • 30th Street at San Jose Avenue – Bike Share Station ESTABLISH – NO PARKING EXCEPT BICYCLES ESTABLISH – BIKE SHARE STATION 30th Street, north side, from San Jose Avenue to 66 feet easterly (20-foot red zone, 43-foot bike share station in approximately two unmetered parking spaces, and 3-foot additional red zone buffer)

Planning Department

20. 2016-000017DRP
(E. SAMONSKY: (415) 575-9112)
43 EVERSON STREET – south side approximately 150 feet east of the intersection with Beacon Street, Lot 024 in Assessor’s Block 7542, (District 8) – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2016.01.27.8097 proposing construction of a three-story horizontal rear addition and remodel the front facade and interior of a single family dwelling within a RH-1 (Residential House, One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.04(h).

Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2017) NOTE: On April 6, 2017, after hearing and closing public comment, the item was continued to May 18, 2017 by a vote of +6 -1 (Johnson against).
On May 18, 2017, without hearing, Continued to June 1, 2017 by a vote of +6 -0 (Johnson absent).
SPEAKERS: Ryan Peterson – Request for continuance ACTION: Without a hearing; Continued to June 15, 2017
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore

  • Also, I got a postcard telling me there will be a hearing on June 21, 5 p.m., City Hall, Room 416, on the appeal of a variance applied for for the property at 240 Chenery Street. (Right now the lot has an old farmhouse toward the back. The developer wants to expand the farmhouse and put another property on the front of the lot.)


SF Board of Supervisors, Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee, meeting on Monday, June 12, 10:30 a.m., City Hall, Room 263 (See full agenda here).

  • Ordinance amending the Public Works Code to modify the exceptions to the Surface-Mounted Facility Site Permit requirement; to allow a permittee to choose to pay an “in-lieu” fee instead of installing a street tree; to allow a permittee to choose to pay an “in-lieu” fee instead of permitting the installation of a mural on its Surface-Mounted Facility; to repeal the requirements that a permittee install landscaping or pay an “in-lieu” fee and maintain the required landscaping; to repeal the requirement that an applicant for a Surface-Mounted Facility Site Permit make reasonable efforts to locate the facility on private property before submitting an application; and to amend the requirement that a permittee maintain any required street tree.


Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “City Agency Hearings

  1. Knut Akseth


    Knut Akseth

    225 Whitney Street

    San Francisco, CA 94131

    Mobile phone: 415-298-9880


    Glen Park News

    RE: Board of Appeals Hearing, June 21, 2017 for 240 Chenery St.

    Appeal No. 17-058

    Dear Editor,

    I have filed an appeal before the Appeals Board for this spec project, as I believe that the developer’s goal is to maximize profits with little to no regard for the neighbors and has made untruthful representations in the permit applications for the project. Enclosed is a Brief filed with the Board of Appeals including Exhibits and a letter to the San Francisco Department of Public Health. They are public documents so you may distribute them as you see fit.

    The house is not an “old farm house”, but a structure built in 1915, consisting of a one-and-one half story over basement wood-frame single-family residence originally located at Arlington & Charles, according to a Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by William Kostura of November 2014.

    When the “Bernal Cut” was made in the 20s the house was moved to its current location, and is now non-compliant with the SF Planning Code as it sits in the required backyard setback. It cannot be altered/expanded without getting an exemption from the law (the code); something I believe the developer is trying to get in order to maximize profit.

    The developer proposes to expand the existing non-compliant house with legal living space of 1,200 sq.ft. to 2,924 sq.ft. See Exhibit 1, the opinion of Architect Richard Parker. A hearing was conducted before the Zoning Administrator last fall, where compelling evidence was presented that a variance could not and should not be given. A ruling came down on April 12, 2017 wherein the Zoning Administrator granted a variance after giving no consideration to the arguments presented. An appeal was immediately filed and the brief was presented by the deadline.

    In addition to the proposed enlarging of the existing non-compliant house a new house is proposed built at the front of the lot at Chenery Street, which will have an additional 5,661 sq.ft. of space. The total project size of 8,485 sq.ft.!

    I am not opposed to reasonable development, but this is way out of scale for the neighborhood and would set a dangerous presentence not just for Glen Park, but also for the City as a whole. What if every lot’s backyard could be filled in with houses?

    The preferable solution is to move the old house down to Chenery Street and perhaps expand it a bit and make it compliment the other homes on the block. Under any circumstance the illegal additions to the rear of the old house should be removed and no expansion of any external dimensions should be permitted.

    Block/Lot No: 6685/006A at 240 Chenery Street is flagged on the San Francisco Maher Map as potentially contaminated. See Exhibit 9 of the Brief package. It is the only lot flagged on this block. The developer has failed to comply with Article 22A of the San Francisco Health Code. An Environmental Site Assessment is required if more than 50 cubic yards will be disturbed. The project requires a review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). I believe the developer got an exemption from CEQA by giving false information to the SF Planning Department as to the amount of soil that would be disturbed by saying less than 50 cubic yards would be disturbed. See Exhibit 4, first page at bottom, where the box should have been checked. Mr. Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., who spent nine years with the U.S. E.P.A. in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office concurs (See Exhibit 3-A). He has also calculated that more than 250 cubic yards will be excavated for the front house (See Exhibit 12). He was unable to calculate the amount for the rear house as he found the presented plans insufficient, but it could be as much as another 100 cubic yards.

    My wife is recovering from a bone marrow transplant she received after being diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia. He immune system is compromised and any exposure to contaminate could have severe adverse effects on her health. I believe this project could do that.

    I believe the developer has misled both the Health and the Planning Departments in order to obtain permits. I’m seeking support for getting the variance vacated and the developer should be required to do Environmental studies as set forth by law.

    Letters (11 copies) of support for this must be submitted by 4:30 p.m. Thursday June 15, 2017 to:

    Appeal 17-058.

    Board of Appeals,

    San Francisco Planning Department,

    1650 Mission Street #304, San Francisco, CA 94103

    Veronica Flores, telephone 415-575-9173, E-Mail: can provide further information.


    Knut Akseth


  2. Heather World

    I wasn’t trying to disparage Ernie’s old place. It has a weather vane, Ernie kept chickens and grew food. I maintain it is an old farmhouse, and a lovely one at that.

    Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s