f.415.558.0554
[email protected]
On Nov 22, 2019, at 4:24 PM, Teague, Corey (CPC) <[email protected]>
wrote:
John,
I apologize for the delay responding to this issue. In short, this is an unusual context relative to the front setback requirement, and specifically the method and
requirements for averaging. There are no documented ZA interpretations regarding this situation. After reviewing in detail, the nature of the adjacent front setbacks (both literal and as measured per the Code), along with the angled front property line, provide some measure of flexibility in how I interpret the average front setback measurement. As such, I determine this project to be consistent with Planning Code Section 132.
I’ll also inform Mr. Hillan. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
Corey A. Teague, AICP, LEED AP Zoning Administrator
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 11:57 AM To: Teague, Corey (CPC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Campbell, Cathleen (CPC) <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Placed on Hold by ZA FW: DR request 2017-006245DRP 50 Seward Street Front Setback
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Corey,
I wanted to follow up with my email from a couple of days to address specifically Mr.
Hillan’s inquiry to Section 132 (b). It’s really puzzling to us that Mr. Hillan has been so dogged in his opposition to the project, as he does not live adjacent but is three houses down to the North, and there is no effect to his house from our project. I’d also like to note that it has been two months since we had our 311 hearing, and my clients would like the alteration permit signed by Planning and released to DBI for its issuance of the permit. Our submittal was over 2.5 years ago on April 19, 2017 so you can imagine that any further delays are causing them extreme frustration.
In regards to Mr. Hillan, I am attaching a diagram that shows how our project complies with Section 132 (b) Alternative Method of Averaging, and specifically Mr. Hillan’s question about the attached Planning Code Section 132, which states when the Alternative Method of Averaging is used that “all portions of the resulting setback area on the subject property shall be directly exposed laterally to the setback area of the adjacent building having the greater setback.” I bold and underline the specific words that are important in this code section for emphasis.
Our project complies with the requirements of this section: Our setback does have exposure to the neighbor who has the larger setback. The code clearly states
that all portions of our setback must be directly exposed, but it does not state that the direct exposure be to ALL of the setback area of the building having the greater
setback. There is exposure of at least 1 foot 9.5 inches of the larger setback area next door. Exposure is not needed to the entire depth of the setback of the adjacent property next door. The RDAT reviewed the project twice and did not question the Alternative Method of Averaging.
Please keep in mind that the drafters of this section could have written the last half of Section (b) of Section 132 to state the following :”provided further, all portions of the resulting setback area on the subject property shall be directly exposed laterally to ALL PORTIONS of the setback of the adjacent building having the greater setback.” The drafters did not use the words I have bolded. They used the words ALL PORTIONS in the first part of the phrase, and not in the last part of the phrase. That itself has great significance here.
Again I note that this project has been vetted numerous times by staff, the RDAT and of course the Commission.
Please see the attached diagram that explains our project situation graphically. If this is easier to talk on the phone, please call me at my studio or on my cell at 415.420-7874
John Lum, AIA
Cathleen Campbell our planner for 50 Seward, told us that you have placed a hold on the processing of our site permit due to concerns about the front setback brought up by one of the losing DR requestors, Kenneth Hillan. We understand he has been very persistent.
Although we respect the public process that we have followed during our 311 process, after the Commission’s decision, the DR applicant loses his/her right to continue questioning the project. with the recourse of taking the project to the BOA if still not satisfied. We do appreciate the fact that Cathleen has met with Mr. Hillan numerous times to address his concerns but are concerned that his pestering has now resulted in a further delay to our project.
Could you please let me know when you will be releasing this hold as our clients and we are anxious to get this project into construction?
Thanks for your attention to this, John Lum, AIA
Kenneth John Hillan, 64 Seward Street, San Francisco, CA, 94114 Appeal No.: 20-058