On Wednesday, May 29, 2019, 12:12:18 PM PDT, John Lum <[email protected]> wrote:
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
2
Dear Mr. Hillan and Mr. Pincow,
Let me introduce myself, as I am the Principal Architect of John Lum Architecture. Richard Klaja is one of my Designers who is working on the project and has been assisting with the community outreach process, along with Khoan Duong, who is the Project Architect.
Thank you both for your comments on the submission. We appreciate your close reading of our submission packet as well as your willingness to communicate to us your concerns.
Regarding the further outreach to you by Planning after you filed your DRs, we were informed by our planner that there was no response to the request to meet, and therefore we stated that information for the record. We are pleased to hear this is incorrect, and it is our understanding that our clients Kelley & Kyle have already reached out to you both and we are hopeful that this dialogue may address some of your concerns.
Mr. Pincow, our statement about the view from your home was not intended to put words into your mouth and we regret if that is what you have taken away from our submission. Rather, our statement that we believe your concern relates to the preservation of the view from your home represents our conclusion to your request to eliminate the fourth floor or reduce the height to match that of the adjacent buildings. At that alternative height, a new floor would not be physically feasible, so both options are effectively the elimination of the addition. It is our understanding that Kelley and Kyle have offered to meet to discuss any other potential compromises, while also being clear that we do not agree that elimination of the addition is a reasonable compromise. Again, we welcome the opportunity to engage in dialogue in hopes that we can find a mutually satisfactory option.
We greatly appreciate your engagement and we have attempted to address yours as well as other neighbors' feedback throughout this entire process. Consistent with the timelines associated with the process, our packet was submitted to the Commission and we e-mailed you all so that you could have both the opportunity and sufficient time to review our
materials before the hearing.
Please let us know if you have any further questions or comments.
John Lum, AIA
John Lum Architecture, Inc.
p: 415-558-9550- 0016 f: 415-558-0554
On May 28, 2019, at 4:50 PM, James Pincow <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear David and Cathleen,
I second Mr. Hillan's request and sentiment. Mr. Klaja's client reached out to me and I replied that I'd be happy to meet if there was any chance at a substantive compromise, rather than another explanation of the plans. I stand by that reply. I had already reviewed the plans with you, Cathleen, a few months ago. No one ever asked me to meet with you, David.
Furthermore, my DR application makes absolutely no mention of the view from my home. Please know that the view of downtown buildings (the only nice "view" from my home) would be eliminated whether the plans proceed in their current state or if height is reduced to the extent my DR application states I believe to be acceptable and proper.
I have asked Mr. Klaja to correct his submission accordingly.
Regards, James Pincow
On May 28, 2019, at 6:31 PM, Kenneth Hillan <[email protected]> wrote:
David and Cathleen,
3
In Mr Klaja’s summary he states, “In conclusion: We have repeatedly reached out to the DR requestors and they have refused to engage in conversation. We believe their main concerns are the effects to their view, and opposition to change.
As views from private property are not protected, we request the Planning Commission approve the project as proposed.
To date, we have not heard from any other neighbors and therefore believe we have addressed all of the concerns that have been raised.”
While I can only speak for myself, I know for a fact that no representative from John Lum architecture has reached out to myself or my husband at 64 Seward Street. I have also asked Richard to correct his submission materials to accurately reflect that I confirmed my willingness to meet to discuss the plans following the submission of our concerns and requesting a Discretionary Review of the project.
Thanks Kenneth
On May 28, 2019, at 3:26 PM, Richard Klaja <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello all,
Please find the attached materials we have submitted to the Planning Commission for the upcoming D.R. for 50 Seward Street. If you would like a hard copy of the document, just let us know, we would be happy to mail one to you.
Thank you, Richard Klaja
Designer
John Lum Architecture 3246 17th Street
San Francisco, CA, 94110 p: 415-558-9550 ext. 0022 f: 415-558-0554
<50 Seward St_DR Commission Brief.pdf>
1
Campbell, Cathleen (CPC)
From: Robert Menezes <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 10:20 AM
To: Campbell, Cathleen (CPC)
Subject: Fwd: Planning Department Public Hearing, June 6, 2019 - Case 2017-00624DRP, 50 SEWARD STREET between 19th and Douglass Streets
---Original Message---
From: Robert Menezes <[email protected]>
To: david.winslow <[email protected]>; trent.greenan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Jun 6, 2019 10:17 am
Subject: Planning Department Public Hearing, June 6, 2019 - Case 2017-00624DRP, 50 SEWARD STREET between 19th and Douglass Streets
I, Robert Menezes, residing at 47 Seward Street, am writing to register my STRONG OPPOSITION to the proposed construction project at 50 Seward Street.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
1
Campbell, Cathleen (CPC)
From: Duncan Robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 8:04 AM
To: Winslow, David (CPC); Greenan, Trent (CPC); Campbell, Cathleen (CPC)
Subject: URGENT San Francisco Planning Department Public Hearing, June 6, 2019 - Case 2017-006245DRP, 50 SEWARD STREET – between 19th and Douglass Streets
I, Ian Duncan Robertson, residing at 64 Seward / Carson Street, am writing to register my opposition to the proposed construction project at50 Seward Street.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
1
Campbell, Cathleen (CPC)
From: Tom Signore <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 10:23 AM
To: Winslow, David (CPC); Greenan, Trent (CPC); Campbell, Cathleen (CPC)
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Dear Mr. Winslow and To Who It May Concern:,
I'm writing to OPPOSE construction of the two family house expansion project at 50 Seward Street, which raises building height to 4 stories and pushes out setback to the street. I am one of at least 15-20 adjecent neighbors who OPPOSE this construction.
The proposed construction is not only out of SCALE and FORM for the neighborhood, it sets a dangerous precedent for future construction to disregard height and setback. This construction destroys a classic San Francisco home, one of 6 in a row, and creates a structure incompatable and out of harmony with our beautiful neighborhood. This project and potential future simiar project create more congestion on an already dense narrow street, and likely diminish our property values.
Opposition to this construction is very strong in our neighborhood, and if unsuccessful in stopping this construction, likely we will pursue all available means, including legal counsel, to maintain the
integrety of our neighborhood.
As a 27 year resident living at 53 Seward Street, I urge you to support myself and the many residents of the neighborhood and REJECT this action at the Planning Commission hearing today, Thursday June 6 at 1PM.
Thanks you for your consideration.
Sincerely, (s)
Tom E Signore 53 Seward Street
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.