Board continues Bernard Street appeals; orders revised plans and UDU screening before May 29 hearing

The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued appeals over a contested renovation at 45–49 Bernard Street on April 3, asking the permit holders to submit revised, code‑compliant plans and giving planning staff time to finish an outstanding screening for a possible unauthorized dwelling unit (UDU) in the basement.

Appellants, represented by attorney Evan Rosenbaum, told the board the project as submitted is larger than what the planning commission approved and contains code and life‑safety concerns. "This project is a mess," Rosenbaum told commissioners, asking the board to require the sponsor to submit plans that preserve mid‑block open space, restore private open space for units and require sprinklers rather than a fire escape.

The permit holders, Lindsay and Tina Houston, said the building is their primary residence and is in disrepair. They said their scope focuses on foundation and seismic upgrades and a modest horizontal extension to provide usable living space. "We have made concessions to date that address every single one of their requirements," Lindsay Houston said, noting reductions in building depth and other changes made during the review process.

Architects and appellants raised a separate concern: whether a basement unit was previously occupied and therefore constitutes a UDU that must be legalized or replaced by an ADU. Corey Teague, zoning administrator, explained the planning department's UDU screening process — which looks for rent‑board, utility and other records — and said a determination could be expected within about a week to 10 days, depending on records.

Teague also told the board that a change in the planning code that took effect in January amended RH3 rear‑yard requirements (eliminating averaging and establishing a hard 30 percent requirement). On this site that change effectively requires a very small adjustment to the plans (about three inches) but does mean the issued plans will need amendment to comply with current code and open‑space rules.

DBI representative Kevin Birmingham said the site permit's primary scope is foundation replacement and other structural work; DBI will review addendum plan sets for any roof‑deck, fire‑escape or ADU work when they are resubmitted.

Public comment split the room: tenants, neighbors and community advocates both supported and opposed the Houstons' project. Supporters emphasized dilapidated conditions, tenant support and the public interest in updating aging housing; opponents raised displacement concerns and argued that a UDU or tenant evictions warranted stricter conditions and that the board should enforce planning commission directives that had removed a spiral stair and roof deck access.

After discussion the board voted 4–0 to continue the Bernard Street appeals to May 29 and directed the permit holders to submit revised plans to the Board Office and appellants by the Thursday prior to that hearing. The board asked the revised plans to (a) comply with current planning code requirements (including corrected rear‑yard/open‑space calculations), (b) address or explicitly remove the planning commission's discretionary conditions (related to roof deck, spiral stair and Third‑Floor parity) and (c) provide enough detail for planning and DBI to sign off during plan check. Planning staff will continue the UDU screening and provide its determination to the board and parties when complete.

What happens next: The board set a May 29 hearing date for the continued matter and a deadline for plan submission the Thursday before the hearing; planning expects to complete the UDU screening within roughly 7–10 days and will notify the board and parties of its finding.