Proposed site plan, from December 2015 Design Review Board meeting

As you may recall, there was another Design Review Board meeting last week to look over the revised plans for the very longstanding, very controversial plan to build infill housing on the secret interior lot bordered by Hampshire, Peralta, York and Cesar Chavez.

In case you missed it, Neighbor Margo shared these terrific summary notes from the Design Review meeting:

About a dozen neighbors attended the East Slope Design Review Board meeting Wednesday evening to see the most recent architectural plans for the six-unit infill development behind our home. Local contractor Patrick Quinlan wants to build three-bedroom homes and a cliff-side elevated driveway on two undeveloped interior lots. Access would be from his lot at 1513 York Street.

The project has been in and out of the development pipeline for 15 years or more.

The latest iteration from San Francisco-based architect Stephen Antonaros drastically cuts the number of parking places. Mr. Antonaros said the city Planning Department directed the builder to reduce the number of dedicated parking places in the four three-bedroom homes from three spots to one per unit. That goes against what the neighbors had advocated for many years, but the directive is apparently in keeping with the city’s transit-first policy.

The plan envisions four three-bedroom homes on the R-2 interior lots, and two one-bedroom townhouses above a driveway/garage-door structure on the York Street access lot. The total of 14 bedrooms is unchanged from the previous plan, which we saw 18 months ago in May 2014.

But one of the concerns that neighbors voiced for many years was that the parking spaces in the development should reflect real life. The last set of plans met that concern; most neighbors thought the 18 spots for the six units would avert a flood of drivers seeking a place to park in neighboring streets, where parking is already extremely challenging, particularly at night. So, for those of us who were hoping that this project would not worsen parking in the area, the new plan, with just six parking places, is a setback.

The other major change is that the four interior buildings had been oriented in the previous layout in a sort of slanted configuration, facing northeast, following the contour of the hill, leaving some space between the buildings, and some space at each side of the lot. The city directed the architect to reduce the mass of the development, so he took that as a directive to push the houses closer together and over to one side, as well as to configure them parallel to the neighboring streets. The development now would be more like a cluster of four buildings hard up against the York Street side of the property.

The owner of the adjacent property on York Street pointed out that he had previously noted that the building on the access lot would abut two existing windows on the north side of his house. He had asked the architect to modify his plans, perhaps with a light-well. Mr. Antanaros responded that when you install a window on your property line, you take a risk that someone will construct a building there. In any case, that modification was not made.

Two neighbors asked that the builder consider leaving the space open, perhaps as an organic garden. Mr. Quinlan said the finances of the situation make that option unrealistic.

The East Slope Design Review Board volunteers, led by Wendy Cowles, went point by point through their previous concerns, expressed in a letter to the Planning Department following the last neighborhood meeting in May 2014. Mr. Antonaros tried to show how his new plans answered them. A few spirited exchanges ensued.

The Board’s concerns included traffic density within the project itself, which, of course, would be lessened by reducing the number of parking places. Another traffic concern was the “pinch point,” the area near the gate to the project, where cars can safely wait while turning into and out of York Street, which is quite steep and narrow on this block.

A retaining wall and elevated driveway directly above the back yards of the adjoining properties on Cesar Chavez were a concern both aesthetically and for safety. The builder plans to excavate, with earth-moving equipment, to reduce the scale of parts of the wall, but the proposed driveway remains right on the property line, and was not moved back.

One part of the project, the two one-bedroom townhouses on York Street, was over the neighborhood’s 30-foot height limit, and it was lowered.

The architect and builder expressed frustration at the pace that city planners are moving this project. In the 18 months since the last meeting, Mr. Antonaros said, he has had but three email exchanges with the planner, Mr. Doug Vu, and the directives he’s gotten have not added clarity for him, he said.

The review board will write another letter to the Planning Department and expects to see plans again at a later date.

Despite the contractor’s and architect’s frustrations, and several neighbors’ skepticism about the whole project, Ms. Cowles succeeded in keeping the atmosphere relatively civil and efficient. The meeting wrapped in a bit over two hours.

Many thanks to Neighbor Margo for sharing her most excellent notes.

It’s been some time since we’ve heard anything about the plan to build several new homes on the “secret lot” bordered by Hampshire, Peralta, York and Cesar Chavez in northeast Bernal Heights. An East Slope Design Review Board meeting about the project was last held in May 2014,  and that session was so contentious and so depressing that it prompted one Bernal neighbor to write a powerful analysis about the dark, NIMBY heart of San Francisco’s housing crisis.

Neighbor Margo lives in a home adjacent to the proposed development site, and she brings news us about another East Slope Design Review Board meeting to discuss this project, scheduled for this Wednesday, Dec. 9 at 7 pm in the Precita Valley Community Center (534 Precita Ave).

Neighbor Margo tells Bernalwood:

There’s another hearing coming up  about the infill development project in the interior lot bordered by Hampshire, Peralta, York and Cesar Chavez.

As far as I know, the project was stalled for about a year and a half (no idea why), and now the city has asked the owner and architect to go back to the East Slope Design Review Board with revised plans. Below is a note I sent to our neighbors.

Dear neighbors:

You probably got in your mailbox, as we did, a flyer inviting us to the Precita Neighborhood Center next Wednesday, Dec.9, at 7 pm to see revised plans for building in the interior lot behind our homes on Hampshire Street.

I called Terry Milne of the East Slope Design Review Board to find out what the revisions are, and he says the board doesn’t know much. The owner and architect were asked by the city to return to the neighborhood review board with revised plans. He doesn’t know if the revisions are big or small.

We plan to go to the meeting, and hope that others who are interested will go as well.

Here is some history and background, for newer neighbors:

Patrick Quinlan, a local contractor, has owned these two interior lots and an access lot on York Street for many years — he had plans to build on the interior lots before we moved here 28 years ago, in 1988.

According to its web site: “The East Slope Design Review Board was established in 1986 by order of the San Francisco Supervisors. For building projects within the East Slope Design Review Area, a letter of recommendation from the Design Review Board is required before the San Francisco Planning Department will accept any permit application.”

The design review board’s volunteer members solicit neighborhood comments, hold hearings on a project-by-project basis, and forward their recommendations.

About 15 years ago, the board heard arguments for and against Quinlan’s plan for 10 units (5 duplexes) on the two moderately steep interior lots now covered with fennel and ivy. As the plan advanced through the Planning Department pipeline, concerned neighbors retained land-use attorney Sue Hestor and testified in opposition at a hearing before an appeals board of the city Planning Commission. The commissioners rejected the development.

Then about 10 years ago, Quinlan proposed a modified plan for 8 units. The design review board heard comments by neighbors. There was opposition, but not as fervent as against the earlier 10-unit plan. As far as we know, those plans were in the pipeline when the economy collapsed in 2008. As you know, the vacant lots are still vacant.

The next plan, reviewed by the board in 2014, was for a gated community of 6 units: 4 three-story single-family houses on the two R-2 interior lots and 2 small townhouses on a structure erected atop the entrance tunnel and gate on the access lot on York Street. Quinlan installed story-poles to indicate the heights of proposed buildings on the interior lots, but after a year and a half, some of them are now askew.

Along the cliff-like slope on the north edge (toward Cesar Chavez) of the interior lots, the plans called for a large retaining wall topped by a private street/driveway that would end in a cablecar-style turntable to turn cars around.

At the board hearing on the 2014 plans, some neighbors supported the development, saying the plan dealt with many of the neighbors’ previous concerns, including the project’s density, sufficient parking, space for garbage cans, and fire safety. Others voiced concerns, including the stability of the steep hillside above the properties on Cesar Chavez Street, the density of auto traffic in an interior lot, potential changes in rain runoff during and after construction. One other open question is the apparent need for a homeowners’ association to maintain the common structures and areas: the retaining walls, the private street and parking spaces, trash storage area, automatic gate, and the car turntable.

The review board is now set to see “revised plans.” We’ll see what’s new on Wednesday.