DATE/TIME: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 7:00PM
1. ACTIVE PROJECTS:
a. 1023 Vallejo Street (Julia Morgan House): No new revised design has been submitted yet.
b. 1338 Filbert Cottages: Finishing work proceeds: Completion estimated for June.
c. 2125 Hyde Street (The “Hyde-A-Way”): The original request to convert the north side front house into four apartments was denied by the City and a new Public Hearing is scheduled for 4/26/17 @ City Hall, now requesting that the home be converted into THREE apts.
d. S.F. Urban Design Guidelines: We have yet to find a way to make these work for Russian Hill.
e. Wireless Antennae on Wooden Poles: Although the majority of new Verizon facilities proposed recently have been for metal poles (most of the equipment inside the pole, instead of four ugly boxes plus antenna on the wooden poles), Anne Brubaker of SF’s Coalition to Underground Utilities is concerned that AT&T has begun claiming wooden poles, with a new one going in on Leavenworth @ Greenwich 108 feet from Verizon’s latest, and she is further concerned that Sprint is suing to erect their own poles 200 feet apart. It was also noted that House Bill 649 unfortunately passed in the Sacramento State Senate (taking away rights of local communities to have control over placement of wireless antennae), the result being that SF and many other cities are suing because this takes revenue away from cities.
f. Undergrounding Utilities: The battle continues (but is frustrating!)
2. NOTICES RECEIVED
A. Notice of Environmental Review: 2025 Van Ness/1675 Pacific Avenue –This is a very large project within our boundaries.
B. Notice of Public Hearing 4/24/17: 1765 Leavenworth (Vallejo): Renovation of an existing 2 family residence with vertical expansion of upper unit: A member of DZLU will attend.
C. Variance Hearing (4/26 @ City Hall): 982 Green Street to legalize construction done without permits, including two new garages at the front of the building, potentially exposing the project to the possibility of reversing the work and/or the imposition of fines. It is believed that permits were originally applied for, which could include historic review, but the process was taking a very long time. Not connected to the variance, the historic appropriateness of the replacement windows may be an issue. Otherwise the work seems to have been well done.