2001-06-14 · 37 comments · 22 / 15
Amanda Lewis · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
Urged the Commission to approve this project
On 4/6/00, the Commission asked us to come with a new design
The Commission did not say that the façade was going to be removed
Instructed to keep in character with the neighborhood
Moving it forward provides better light
Accommodate the driveway
Replacement of windows on the second floor
Design is as requested by the Commission
The façade is kept with the other restrictions
Jeannene Przyblyski · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
Please preserve the neighborhood
character
This is a demolition.
This will destroy the existing house, destroying the precious example
of our Victorian heritage and disrupt the relation with other Victorian
houses in the neighborhood
The community is fighting for the
soul of the neighborhood.
Fighting
for a city that cares about its history and honors its past, and understand
tha… Please preserve the neighborhood
character
This is a demolition.
This will destroy the existing house, destroying the precious example
of our Victorian heritage and disrupt the relation with other Victorian
houses in the neighborhood
The community is fighting for the
soul of the neighborhood.
Fighting
for a city that cares about its history and honors its past, and understand
that what distinguishes a great city from a mediocre one, are the accumulated
layers of architectural history.show more Richard McRee · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
Opposed the response from the developer
Retain the façade of the building
Needs to be send back to the drawing board
Steve Williams · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
It is against the law for an owner
to let a building deteriorate deliberately
Urged the Commission to not reward
deliberate damage to the building in order to obtain a demolition permit.
Rachael Briya · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
Preserve the architectural history of this beautiful City
Approve the project.
Project would increase density.
The owner has worked to do what this Commission
asked him to do
Owner has demonstrated that he is willing to save the integrity and
character of the building
James Cassiol · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
Unbelievable that this project has
gone this far
Project sponsor has compromised
Allow this project to go forward. Do not delay it more.
This City needs housing
Margaret Brown · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
This is a neighborhood with a mixture of buildings
This building is not a jewel.
It is a dilapidated building
Property owner tried to compromise
It is an attractive design
Support the property owner
(-
)
Taylor Walker
The projcet maintains the character of the block
It maintains the scale and architectural history of the building
It would add much needed housing
to a major urban transportation hub
It preserv… This is a neighborhood with a mixture of buildings
This building is not a jewel.
It is a dilapidated building
Property owner tried to compromise
It is an attractive design
Support the property owner
(-
)
Taylor Walker
The projcet maintains the character of the block
It maintains the scale and architectural history of the building
It would add much needed housing
to a major urban transportation hub
It preserve significant parts of
the old building, including all the characteristic defining featuresshow more Nolan Griffin · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
Permit the proposed improvements to this property
We have a tremendous housing shortage
in the City.
Urged the Commission to approve
this project
Adele Zierler · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
Housing is so short in the City
and neighbors are not realizing it will enhance their property
Urged the Commission to approve the project
Joan Bard · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
It will enhance the neighborhood
Robert Roper · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
Supports project that is being proposed
This is a real benefit to the City
City needs additional housing
Approve this project
Nancy Stamm · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
Plans had gone through a variety of changes
Plans before you have been compromised,
and we believe it is a very good compromise
Retained
a substantial portion
of the old house and the original façade to accommodate many of the concerns
raised of the DR applicant
Tried very hard to situate the building
on the property site, to preserve the look of the original house in the
neighborhood
T… Plans had gone through a variety of changes
Plans before you have been compromised,
and we believe it is a very good compromise
Retained
a substantial portion
of the old house and the original façade to accommodate many of the concerns
raised of the DR applicant
Tried very hard to situate the building
on the property site, to preserve the look of the original house in the
neighborhood
The existing building is not a landmark.
It is an old structureshow more David Meisner · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
Supports project
Ken Ralph · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
Supports project
Chip Doyle · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
This is a great project
Recommends that the Commission accept this
wonderful project
Would maintain the charm of the area
Robert Walters · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
The reason
for moving the building down is very essential--the current stairs that
go to the building are very steep and in order to bring them to code but
appear the same, we brought the building forward.
There are other reasons why we lowered the building--the windows
on the second floor would
be 5 feet high
Trying to do a good project within the constraints we were giving
was a challeng… The reason
for moving the building down is very essential--the current stairs that
go to the building are very steep and in order to bring them to code but
appear the same, we brought the building forward.
There are other reasons why we lowered the building--the windows
on the second floor would
be 5 feet high
Trying to do a good project within the constraints we were giving
was a challenge
There is open space in front of the buildingshow more Robert Bregoff · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
Support the Discretionary Review applicant
Saving a substantial part of the project is really important
to the neighborhood
Richard Worner · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
Support the original design of the project
Courtney Clarkson · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
Retain the building that could never
be replicated
Joe Butler · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
Retain the front portion of the
house.
It was built in 1888.
Sponsor not only incorporated the
rear addition in square footage, but adds one to two stories to the front
of the building
Judith Hoyem · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
DR Requestor Over 900 people signed a petition to save this house
Plan does not show a substantial portion retained
How can the façade be preserved?
Moving it forward is not keeping the house
They will be building two stories on top of the building
Asked that the new construction
start 32 feet back
Variance on the side they have the stairway right on the rear
We ask to approve this 3 units building, but with conditions
Mark Ryser · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
I have followed this project since
November 1998, and wrote to the Commission in April '99, March '00 and most
recently on 6/5 of this year
Hope you had chance to look at the
letter of 5/29 sent to Ms. Lewis
Commented on the retention of historic
preservation
Community will not compromise.
The community did not resist the project sponsor's desire to redevelop
this site; t… I have followed this project since
November 1998, and wrote to the Commission in April '99, March '00 and most
recently on 6/5 of this year
Hope you had chance to look at the
letter of 5/29 sent to Ms. Lewis
Commented on the retention of historic
preservation
Community will not compromise.
The community did not resist the project sponsor's desire to redevelop
this site; they did not demand the retention of the existing building
Project sponsor had conceptions,
and maintained a substantial part of the buildingshow more Paul Duchscherer · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
historian
Its is important to know in what
context the house was built
The façade in the current position
was part of the integrity of the streetscape
Felix Smith · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
This sound like a demolition, it
is a violation of the instruction of this Commission
Lucia Bogatay · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
This commission should uphold the decision
of the previous Board, which in her reading
required substantial retention of the building, not a substantial
retention of the front of the building
They should hire an architectural preservation specialist
Will Prague · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
One of the problems we have with dealing with a lot of projects coming through
Planning and Building is the definition of terms
What is a façade? Is it an architectural treatment or is it structuraly
part of the building?
This building was hand built literally piece by piece
Gustavo Serina · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
Supports the former Commission's
decision made on April 6
Moving this façade causes enormous
risk
Moving this façade is not necessary to accommodate the construction of the
3 expensive condominiums that have been proposed
We do not want a demolition
Honor the intent as well of the letter of the original ruling
Vicki Rosen. President · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
Noe Valley
Support the Discretionary Review
applicant
Please retain a substantial portion
of the Victorian building,
Preserve the façade.
It is a beautiful streetscape. It is part of
San Francisco's historical architecture
Mark Benjamin · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
Support the Discretionary Review requestor
Moving the façade would destroy
the character of the neighborhood
Several homes in the area that have
done remodeling have kept totally within the character of the neighborhood.
This particular project does not preserve the character or the architecture
of the rest of the homes in that block
Support the original Planning
Commission decision
Asked the… Support the Discretionary Review requestor
Moving the façade would destroy
the character of the neighborhood
Several homes in the area that have
done remodeling have kept totally within the character of the neighborhood.
This particular project does not preserve the character or the architecture
of the rest of the homes in that block
Support the original Planning
Commission decision
Asked the Commission to review the Discretionary Review requestor's
plan for the buildingshow more Steve Bartoletti · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
Planning Commission voted unanimously
a year ago, over a thousand people signed petitions
Sponsor is trying to circumvent the unanimous
ruling of the Commission
The Commission and the neighborhood agreed to support a variance that would
benefit the sponsor, allowing him to build deep into the lot.
But this was in exchange for preserving the front half of the 100
year old Victorian
Dennis Richards · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
Urged and reaffirmed the decision
that was made last year
We do need housing in the City.
Supported the compromise agreement
Andrew Laws · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
Asked the Commission to uphold the previous decision
Preserve the front of the house.
There will not be alterations to the front of the house
Scott Larimer · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
This is a demolition, and is not
in the spirit of the original ruling
If we follow this ruling, everybody
will be happy
Erin Day · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
Opposed to the current plans proposed by the current owner
Uphold Commission decision from last year
Freddie Niem · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
Lived one block south of the proposed project
A lot of Victorian houses have been demolished
in our neighborhood, especially in recent years.
We need to preserve the history of this City
Bill Kostura · spoken · 2001-06-14 · support
In the course of his work he has
to evaluate historic buildings sometimes--deciding whether they have local,
state, or national significance.
As he traveles he has gained more prospective about San Francisco
Victorians.
There is not another
city made of wood.
San Francisco
is very unique in the Country because many of our houses was/is made out
of wood
You do not see this kind o… In the course of his work he has
to evaluate historic buildings sometimes--deciding whether they have local,
state, or national significance.
As he traveles he has gained more prospective about San Francisco
Victorians.
There is not another
city made of wood.
San Francisco
is very unique in the Country because many of our houses was/is made out
of wood
You do not see this kind of housing
in the entire country
In Oakland most of the Victorians
are gone.
In San Francisco we should
consider our Victorians a national treasureshow more Ed Cramer · spoken · 2001-06-14 · oppose
Supports the project--either the
original project or as proposed today.
This is really an eyesore to look at it.
In favor of restoring or building
a new structure