January 31, 2011
Could It Really Be An Unlucky 13 (Years) For 1269 Lombard In 2011?
While the Planning Commission has approved all the necessary permits and variances necessary to raze and rebuild at 1269 Lombard, and the proposed project has survived three Discretionary Reviews and a number of appeals over the past year, the project is back in front of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors tomorrow as an opponent is now challenging the Planning Department’s determination that the current property is not a historic resource and as such should be subject to an extensive Environmental Review.
As we wrote this past June:
First approved for development and excavated in 1998, the twelve year saga of 1269 Lombard involves a failed development attempt, a two year foreclosure battle (the property went back to the lenders in 2004), a four year approval process with Planning (that’s not yet over), and steadfast opposition from a neighboring tenant (yes, tenant).
As proposed, the project will "demolish the existing single-family, two-story building located towards the rear of the lot and construct two new single-family buildings, located at the front and rear of the lot separated by an open yard."
With a design that's backed by the Russian Hill Neighbors Association and all adjacent property owners, it’s on to our Planning Commission this Thursday to rule on the neighboring tenant's requested Discretionary Review opposing the project as well as front setback and rear yard variances for the design as proposed.
As noted above, the Planning Commission is now on board, but will the Board be as well or could it really be an unlucky 13 years in the making for the project as proposed?
∙ Will 1269 Lombard Finally Break Free From Its Suspended State? [SocketSite]
∙ San Francisco Board of Supervisors Agenda: February, 1 2011 [sfbos.org]
∙ 1269 Lombard Street: Appeal of Exemption from Environmental Review [sfbos.org]
First Published: January 31, 2011 2:00 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
let me guess: the tenant has one of the two windows on the left side of the building facing the empty space and wants the light? Or is he/she just capricious?
[Editor's Note: Adjacent to the rear building, actually, the proposed design for which has been flipped to by the project sponsor to provide the objecting neighbor with the light well.]
Posted by: rr at January 31, 2011 2:18 PM
well, if an [Removed by Editor] owner/neighbor is allowed to do it, then i guess an [Removed by Editor] tenant/neighbor should be allowed to also.
Posted by: anon$random at January 31, 2011 4:41 PM
anon$random, I think we had the tenant/neighbor discussion already on the other thread. There are two distinct issues, as you suggested: 1) whether this NIMBY should be allowed to object, 2) whether tenant vs. owner matters.
My personal vote is that the objector should lose on the NIMBY issues. However, even if I think the objection is invalid and the process for allowing objection is invalid, I will note that the objector should a valid objector under SF rules because it makes sense under the law for a tenant to step in for an absentee owner in protecting the property. That's just being a good tenant.
Posted by: sfrenegade at January 31, 2011 4:56 PM
The new building is out of context.. The building should come all the way to the lot line to create a "step" look. This just looks weird. Get it right or don't build it at all!
Posted by: sf at January 31, 2011 5:53 PM
Wasn't this the one where the [expletive deleted] tenant-neighbor was complaining that they would lose access to the property-in-question's roof, even though said access constituted trespass? While the level of cojones required for that might warrant some regard, the sheer arrogance of it begs for an old fashioned backhand. The Board needs to tell this clown to get stuffed.
Posted by: justme at January 31, 2011 6:49 PM
What are you babbling about, 'sf'? Which lot line -- the side hotline has a setback for neighbors windows. If you're going to make a big claim of the building being out of context, you need to be a lot clearer. Otherwise you sound like a typical irrational monkey-wrenching SF NIMBY.
Posted by: Tom at January 31, 2011 9:31 PM
What are you babbling about, 'sf'? Which lot line -- the side lot line has a setback for neighbors windows. If you're going to make a big claim of the building being out of context, you need to be a lot clearer. Otherwise you sound like a typical irrational monkey-wrenching SF NIMBY.
Posted by: Tom at January 31, 2011 9:31 PM
Actually Tom, there is no side setback requirement. If the rendering is accurate - showing a window on the side of the neighboring building at the lot line - then it's probably an illegal window in the first place.
Posted by: Schaetzer at January 31, 2011 9:46 PM
Schaetzer - if you actually check out the building, it has about a dozen side windows that will be blocked by the new building - which I assume are legal based on the age of the building? I'm actually suprised the owner isn't protesting the loss of light for those windows.
Posted by: hello at February 1, 2011 10:31 AM
It looks to me like the new front building is at the lot line, just like the one to the left (further up hill). It's only the building to the right that is set back. In fact, on the entire block, it looks like only three out of about eight buildings are set back. This new one is certainly in keeping with the "context".
Posted by: BobN at February 1, 2011 12:26 PM
How does a tenant get to object when the owner does not care? I forgot this is San Francisco - land of anarchy and chaos! The developer should pay the owner next door to expel the tenants. They can then spend the rest of their lives in fruitless lawsuits in appeals.
Posted by: Halpern at February 1, 2011 1:30 PM
What are you talking about sf? explain.
The building is very much in context and character with the adjacent buildings and neighborhood. This will be a handsome addition to the street.
Posted by: noearch at February 1, 2011 3:14 PM
Hello - There are lots of illegal lot line windows. When a new building goes in, they have to go.
The point is, there is no side setback requirement in that location.
For that matter, I think that there may not be any side setback requirements in any residential oning districts in SF, though I'm not 100% sure. Some specific developments - e.g. Presidio Terrace - may require side setbacks, but they're probably in the CC&Rs, and not the zoning code.
Consider the typical 25 x 137.5 lot in the Richmond and Sunset Districts. By the time you accommodate the setbacks there's no room left for the building.
Posted by: Schaetzer at February 1, 2011 9:37 PM