2001-07-12 · 31 comments · 18 / 13
Tim Colen · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- This is really a bad project. This is a highly unusual case and there are there many reasons why, even until now, these lots have not been developed.
- This meeting is an exact repetition of the Landmark hearing.
- The developer took the case to the Board of Appeals and lost.
- The developer said that the Planning Commission did not have the discretionary power to turn down a pr… - This is really a bad project. This is a highly unusual case and there are there many reasons why, even until now, these lots have not been developed.
- This meeting is an exact repetition of the Landmark hearing.
- The developer took the case to the Board of Appeals and lost.
- The developer said that the Planning Commission did not have the discretionary power to turn down a project that met zoning laws and building codes.
- What this case proved is that the Commission can turn down a residential development if it is determined that the project is unsuitable for the location.
- Nothing has change on Edgehill except for 2 landslides--one a massive land failure in 1997 only 15 feet away from this project site; which is 50 feet away from one of our neighbors home that was condemned and demolished only 4 years ago.
- Here are some of the project's flaws: 1) it's been repeatedly proven that this site sits on some of the most geologicly (unstable) land in the Bay Area; there is a long history of landslides in the area, all of them related to human alterations of the slopes and vegetation. Additional geological sheer zones were documented during an investigation of the site. In spite of these no further investigation was required. 2) The developer argues that this project has been approved by the City Structural Advisory Committee (SAC), but what SAC determined was ignored. What SAC found was the project simply met the building codes and that is all. In addition, SAC only reviewed within the boundaries of the two subject lots, there has been no review whatsoever of the surrounding area including the street or adjacent properties, safety issues outside of these lots has simply not been considered. 3) There should be no illusions here. How many homes are being considered here today? We documented that this is a 5 lot, 6 home project. The developer intends to build 2 homes at a time in order to evade the requirements of CEQA and other requirements. We call this illegal serial development. 4) Edgehill Way has very unusual liability characteristics; it is a dedicated non-accepted (street). In fact, it is a private street. We are facing a situation where approval is being considered for structures to be build on (the) cliff, in an area known to have repeatedly had slope failures. Yet the City has repeatedly denied any responsibility for this street. 5) This developer proposes to widen a 10 foot wide street by 4 feet. This will be a large complex construction project in and of itself, involving more drilling and excavating deep into these steeps slopes. We were told that the proposed widening would provide both improved emergency vehicle access and additional street parking. We think that is physically impossible and is dangerous to our neighborhood.
- Urged the Commission to determine that this is not a sensible project for this neighborhood or for the City itself.show more John Curran · spoken · 2001-07-12 · oppose
- Urged the Commission to deny Discretionary Review
Barry King · spoken · 2001-07-12 · oppose
- It would be an asset to the neighborhood
Julie Keith · spoken · 2001-07-12 · oppose
- Long term resident of San Francisco and opposes the Discretionary Review
Brandon Lawlor · spoken · 2001-07-12 · oppose
- In support of denying Discretionary Review
Mathew Carlin · spoken · 2001-07-12 · oppose
- Born and raised in the neighborhood.
- Would like to see the project go forward.
Mary Naughton · spoken · 2001-07-12 · oppose
- These homes would be a beautiful asset to the neighborhood
Larry McAuliffe · spoken · 2001-07-12 · oppose
- There is no reason why this construction couldn't be approved
Laurie Regalia · spoken · 2001-07-12 · oppose
- Urged Commission to approve this project
Warner Schmalz · spoken · 2001-07-12 · oppose
- The size of the building is considerably small
- There are 4 parking spaces on the property
- There is no blocking of the street
- These buildings meet the requirements of the building code. The Planning Code specifically allows for (development on) deep down slope lots.
- This is not a surprise project in the City
Eddy Gutierrez · spoken · 2001-07-12 · oppose
- Born and raised in the neighborhood.
- This would be an asset to the neighborhood.
- All the information you need is before you. Please do not delay this project any further.
Harry O'Brien · spoken · 2001-07-12 · oppose
- The question is not whether or not the City and the developer have a special responsibility to take care of the development of the site--that is a given, that is why this application has already been in process for over 3 years
- After the mudslide in 1997, the City imposed a moratorium on construction. The result to that was in the year 2000 permanent controls required review by the structural a… - The question is not whether or not the City and the developer have a special responsibility to take care of the development of the site--that is a given, that is why this application has already been in process for over 3 years
- After the mudslide in 1997, the City imposed a moratorium on construction. The result to that was in the year 2000 permanent controls required review by the structural advisory committee. This project went to the structural advisory committee in 1999, voluntarily.
- This is not a project that has not undergone careful review by the appropriate agencies and careful engineering by the project sponsor's team.show more Henry Cohen · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- Lives two blocks from the proposed project.
- It changed owners in order to be developed.
- I Know for a fact that the condition of the hill it is very unstable
- Urged the Commission to ask the developer to have a geological study of the hill done.
Joan Gerardo · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- Urged the Commission to take Discretionary Review based on the overwhelming argument by Mr. Klein.
Pat Shires · spoken · 2001-07-12 · oppose
- Spoke about the geological aspects of the hill
Joan Bard · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- My house is on top of the hill directly over this project
- Has lived on the neighborhood for 36 years
- The landslide in 1997 weakened the foundation of her house
- There is no way, if there is a fire, that any fire engine can get through. This is a very narrow street.
Donna Caravelli · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- Urged the Commission to reject this proposal by the developer to build 6 structures on the lot in question.
- Concerned about the amount of water that runs off the hill during the rainy season. The water has nowhere to go. This becomes a raging river.
- This affects the entire neighborhood
- Would like to know the impact of the erosion, and who is going to pay for it.
Adam Duddley · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- Concerned about the safety issue. Particularly concerned about how they will go about construction on these sites. What are the staging plans? Where will the vehicles park that are needed for the construction (to bring the materials, equipment, etc.) that will not block access?
Yalan King · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- Concerned about parking and safety. There is a significant parking problem.
- Homes in the vicinity of the proposed project are composed of 1 or 2 car garages
- In most of the City there is a calculation that is based on the square footage of the structure along with the number of bedrooms that corresponds directly to the number of car spaces that are going to be developed for the homeowners an… - Concerned about parking and safety. There is a significant parking problem.
- Homes in the vicinity of the proposed project are composed of 1 or 2 car garages
- In most of the City there is a calculation that is based on the square footage of the structure along with the number of bedrooms that corresponds directly to the number of car spaces that are going to be developed for the homeowners and visitors.
- 1500 square feet with 5 bedrooms is not adequate. At a minimum we are going to have more cars blocking access.
- The area where this project is proposed to be built is the narrowest road and there is absolutely no room for any parking. No one is taking in consideration the additional cars and the incremental traffic. How will this contribute to the existing difficult road access that we encounter?
- Requested a full Environmental Review.show more Joan Kingery · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- Deny the project
- We need to preserve the open space
Ron King · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- Concerned about the width of the road. With a 4 foot decrease there would not be enough space to get a fire truck through there in case of an emergency.
- This activity, because of the hill, is a massive undertaking.
- Concerned about the safety of the hill as well as the neighborhood
Steve Ellis · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- Lives immediately next to the proposed project
- Concerned about the safety of the house as well as his personal safety
- This is not a two home project
- This a monster project
Jack Frankel · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
former President, Edgehill Neighborhood Association - Supports Discretionary Review
Patrick Hannon · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
speaking of behalf of Isabel Wade - Approve Discretionary Review or at least recognized that this is a 6 lot development project that will impact the entire mountain.
- Edgehill Mountain's open space is a vital and valueable component of our City's urban forest
- As a new member of the open space advisory committee, he is extremely disturbed by the apparent disregard of the previo… speaking of behalf of Isabel Wade - Approve Discretionary Review or at least recognized that this is a 6 lot development project that will impact the entire mountain.
- Edgehill Mountain's open space is a vital and valueable component of our City's urban forest
- As a new member of the open space advisory committee, he is extremely disturbed by the apparent disregard of the previous open apace committee's recommendation that this land remain open space.
- Have the concerns of the community been included in your deliberations regarding this development?
- San Francisco does not have very much open space
- We must be vigilant against hasty decisions that may squander this precious resource
- Urged (the Commission) to examine the entire scope of this project and the potential negative impact on the Edgehill Mountain open space before making a final determination.show more Don Wilson · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- Opposed to development on this particular site
- Discretionary Review process for this project could not be complete without an EIR which will include an independent geotechnical analysis of the proposed building site
- EIR is justified since the project site is within 50 feet of another housing development where a major rockslide and mudslide occurred a few years ago. Edgehill Mountain … - Opposed to development on this particular site
- Discretionary Review process for this project could not be complete without an EIR which will include an independent geotechnical analysis of the proposed building site
- EIR is justified since the project site is within 50 feet of another housing development where a major rockslide and mudslide occurred a few years ago. Edgehill Mountain is a fragile area, particularly on the western and southern slopes of the hill.
- The development of 3 homes on Kensington Way approximately 200 feet below the site, was nearly a disaster because of the excessive excavation of the hill site, which required the construction of an emergency containment wall some 50 feet high to contain and secure the hill site.show more Jerry Klein · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- Was a member of the Planning Commission on January 14, 1992, when this project came before the Planning Commission.
- In no way can he be characterized as anti-development.
- When this project came to us, there were signs that this was a very dangerous site, lacking proper access, landslides, just not a proper site for development. The Commission then voted unanimously to require the Zon… - Was a member of the Planning Commission on January 14, 1992, when this project came before the Planning Commission.
- In no way can he be characterized as anti-development.
- When this project came to us, there were signs that this was a very dangerous site, lacking proper access, landslides, just not a proper site for development. The Commission then voted unanimously to require the Zoning Administrator to review the cumulative effects of any development and to record our (concerns) and require a full EIR
- This site is not appropriate for development. Nothing has physically (changed) to make these lots safe. The only thing that has changed has been the house's prices.
- The proposed building of 2 units is (part of) a serial developmentshow more Howard Ellman · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
representing Dr. and Mrs. Bruce Albert - They live directly across the street from the proposed project.
- Part of their consternation and connection with this project builds on a point that Mr. Eisenberg made--the road improvement, which is an intergrowth of this project, which is required. In order for this project to go forward, it must be considered in connection with this application.
- … representing Dr. and Mrs. Bruce Albert - They live directly across the street from the proposed project.
- Part of their consternation and connection with this project builds on a point that Mr. Eisenberg made--the road improvement, which is an intergrowth of this project, which is required. In order for this project to go forward, it must be considered in connection with this application.
- It was originally designed with tight backs that encroached on the Albert's property. That design was just presented to DPW. It was then discovered that (earlier information was inaccurate and the new was) not given to the Albert's. When they discovered this, they called attention to the fact there was an encroachment. The initial response from the developer was that there was no encroachment. When it was discovered, he agreed to pull back and to a redesign. The redesign was filed with the Planning Department last week and has just been reviewed by the geotechnical people.
- Even though the original proposal said that the original tight backs were required for structural safety, those tight backs have been significantly reduced.show more Darren Van Hoff · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- Have been involved with this project since September 1988.
- Reviewed the documents that the developer has provided and have been given the opportunity to observe the large diameter borings that were lodged down the hole. Were also at the site and recognized the conditions out there. On the large diameter borings we noticed that there were sheer zones filled with clay--sheer zones that are simil… - Have been involved with this project since September 1988.
- Reviewed the documents that the developer has provided and have been given the opportunity to observe the large diameter borings that were lodged down the hole. Were also at the site and recognized the conditions out there. On the large diameter borings we noticed that there were sheer zones filled with clay--sheer zones that are similar to the one that caused landslides in the past.show more Neil Eisenberg · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- This is a serial development. That means when you are looking at the design of these two houses, you are doing so out of context with the other 4 homes that will be developed.
- In the absence on having the total picture before you, it is hard for you to say that this is in character with the neighborhood.
- Secondly, the geological information that we have received so far is inadequate.… - This is a serial development. That means when you are looking at the design of these two houses, you are doing so out of context with the other 4 homes that will be developed.
- In the absence on having the total picture before you, it is hard for you to say that this is in character with the neighborhood.
- Secondly, the geological information that we have received so far is inadequate.
- In this case, these homes are proposed to bet 5500 square feet--triple the size of the adjacent homes. They are out of proportion with the neighborhood. And who knows how the other 4 home are going to be designed in the future.
- The City's policies specifically provide for open space. The design question is what (open space) can you see from the area?
- Our office has been the attorney for Edgehill Way for two years, yet we had never heard from the developer with respect to a compromise on the design.
- This is a classic case where you should take Discretionary Review.show more Craig King · spoken · 2001-07-12 · support
- Against the proposed project because of the history of the mudslide in the 1997.
Jim Keith · spoken · 2001-07-12 · oppose
- In support for the project