Memo to the Planning Commissioncommissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/2015-002243DRPVAR.pdf · In...

www.sfplanning.org

Memo to the Planning Commission HEARING DATE: JUNE 2, 2016

Continued from the May 12, 2016 Hearing

Date: May 26, 2016 Case No.: 2015-002243DRP/VAR Project Address: 1615-1633 Grant Avenue 12-26 Medau Place Permit Application: 2015.0227.9626 & 9627 Zoning: RM-2 40-X Height and Bulk District Block/Lot: 0088 / 005 Project Sponsor: Paul C. Okamoto Okamoto Saijo Architecture 18 Bartol Street San Francisco, CA 94133 Staff Contact: Claudine Asbagh – (415) 575-9165 [email protected]

BACKGROUND The project was continued from the April 21st and May 12th Planning Commission meetings at the request of both the project sponsor and the DR requestor.

CURRENT PROPOSAL The current proposal incorporates the changes requested by the department. Specifically, the project no longer includes staircase penthouses to access private roof decks, and deck railings are now wood—not glass.

REQUIRED COMMISSION ACTION In order for the project to proceed, the Commission must take the DR and approve the project as modified.

BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION The reconfiguration of the units creates more common living space and will allow living areas to

be located adjacent to the internal courtyard. The project does not remove any dwelling units or displace any tenants. The reconfiguration of the units will create a more code compliant layout for the courtyard

stairways and allow for greater separation between buildings on the lot.

mailto:[email protected]

Memo to Planning Commission CASE NO. 2015-002243DRP/VAR Hearing Date: June 2, 2016 1615-1633 Grant Avenue 12-26 Medau Place

2

The project has been reviewed by a preservation planner and found to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for rehabilitation.

The construction of four new roof top penthouses would detract from the character of the building and should be redesigned so that the private decks are accessible by hatches. Removing the penthouses will allow the project to move forward and remain consistent with residential design guidelines.

RECOMMENDATION: Take DR and approve the project with modifications.

Attachments: Project Sponsor Correspondence, dated May 25, 2016 Revised plan set, dated May 24, 2016

BRETT GLADSTONE PARTNER

@ HansonBridgett DIRECT DIAL (415) 995-5065 DIRECT FAX (415) 995-3517 E-MAIL [email protected]

May 25, 2016

VIA EMAIL ONLY

Rodney Fang, President San Francisco Planning Commission 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103

Re: DR Hearing and Variance Hearing - June 2, 2016, 161 5 Grant Avenue

Dear President Fang and Commissioners:

We represent the Grant Ave. Trust, a group of family members. Please review this letter along with the letter I sent you in April with your first Commission Packet. The Trust owns the 16-unit building at 1615 Grant Ave. Members of the Trust are local residents of Chinese origin, and most family members have owned and managed this building for 69 years. Five units were occupied by relatives of the owners, and nine units were occupied by unrelated tenants (two units were vacant) at the time of an Ellis Act. A landlord/tenant law firm performed the eviction 8 years ago. At that time the life/safety risks were getting too serious for the owners to allow tenants (and the owners' family members) to continue to live there, and they decided to go out of the rental business until money could be raised among them, along with a loan, for a large upgrade. Unlike 8 years ago, the family now has the funds and loan commitment to restore the building to a safe and livable manner.

Interior Conditions. The conditions in the building at that time were not good, with two to four bedroom units with no common areas, dangerously steep stair risers, bedrooms with little light and no open space on the lot. Of the 16 units, for example, 75% were below 810 sf and some of those at that size were as large as three bedrooms with no living/dining room. And 50% were less than 625 sf yet some were being used for three bedrooms with no living/dining room. And 25% of the units had 1,000 sf or more but were being used as four bedrooms with no living/dining room . Now bedrooms have been reconfigured to face the interior courtyard instead of porches facing the courtyard, common areas have been provided in the units, and stairs have been reconfigured (the latter of which requires a Variance of several feet) .

We continued the hearing from a month ago as the DR Applicant and the Telegraph Hill Dwellers did not want stair penthouse on the roofs . In the drawings now before you , the stair penthouses have been changed to roof hatches.

We also continued the hearing after Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC) asked that the owners consider dedicating two units to a rent level that previous tenants were paying, increased only by the amounts that would have been allowed by rent control rules over last 8 years . As an alternative, CCDC suggested a price at which it would be willing to acquire the building for 100% affordable housing. The owners appreciate both approaches, and also

Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 941 05 hansonbridgett.com

12411808.1

Rodney Fang May 25, 2016 Page 2

appreciate the creativity shown by Malcolm Yeung and Whitney Jones of CCOC. Those discussions took place in the last month.

However, for complicated reasons involving landlord/tenant law and economic issues, the best efforts of the owner and eeoc have not been able to resolve the issue of bringing back two tenants at their original rent, as adjusted. Construction lenders would have trouble appraising the building high enough to make the necessary loan with the reduction in rent because over the life of the 20 to 30 year loan, millions of dollars in income would not be available to serve the proposed new mortgage once the lender calcu lates the reduced income by charging original rents for two units. Original rents would be up to one half of today's BMR rents. The parties have not and likely will not be able to find a mutually agreeable price for sale to CCOC. One of the tenants told CCOC that they may want to come back but then indicated that their current rent situation is very favorable and that the rent level now enjoyed by the City's BMR tenants for similar units is a great deal more than they pay today.

Number of Bedrooms Per Unit. Plans originally sent to the planner Lily Langlois (and reproduced in the Staff Report and in my April letter to you) show that the apartments had only bedrooms and no living room/dining rooms. Your current Staff Report (prepared by the current Planner Claudine Asbagh) counted 48 bedrooms and reported that "currently the site has 12 three bedroom units, four two bedroom units."1 The owners/architect advised Lily Langlois, the Planning Staff person (at the time) that in almost all the units, tenants were using one of the bedrooms as living rooms.

Because today's tenants need a living room, there is one former bedroom in each of the new proposed 16 units that is labeled as a living room -- each was labeled as a bedroom instead of a living room on the "as existing" plans you have. As a resu lt, when one looks at the section of your Staff Report that I just quoted, and then one looks the new configuration plans before you , it appears that the ownership is now proposing 16 fewer bedrooms than "existed". Your Staff Report does not express concern over the loss of bedrooms because Lily Langlois and Claudine Asbagh of your Staff correctly understood that this is not a real reduction of number of bedrooms.

Again, there are two reasons there is no true loss in number of bedrooms:

a) Most tenants used one of the spaces labeled "bedroom" (in the existing all-bedroom units) as a living/dining room.

b) Given the lack of larger units avai lable for rent today, future tenants ma~ use the spaces showing on the Proposed Plans as "living rooms" as if they are bedrooms.

1 The Planning staffs count in the Staff Report incorrectly includes 4 existing four bedroom units (with no living room/din ing room) in the count of three bedroom units which is why the number does not add up to 48 bedrooms. 2 Tenants are legally permitted to do so since when the building was originally built in 1907, almost all if not all of the existing units could have been used as either bedrooms or living rooms, as more relaxed rules as to bedroom sizes and minimum light applied at that time.

12411808.1

Rodney Fong May 25, 2016 Page 3

And most important, tenants today need a living room/dining room area in addition to bedrooms.

The Concerns of DR Requestor (Living Three Blocks Away) That Have And Have Not Been Addressed:

1. Remove Stair Penthouses. Addressed. 3

2. No New Roof Decks. The DR states that creation of any additional roof decks "is representative of a development pattern that contributes to the displacement of long term residents". However, these roof decks were proposed by Planning Staff to make the units more livable, and the building ownership has taken that directive to create additional roof deck area to make these better quality units.

Telegraph Hil l Dwellers Concerns:

In ca lls from Ms. Nancy Shanahan to Planning Staff and Project Architect, she indicated that the Hi ll Dwellers would not oppose the project if the penthouse staircases would be replaced by roof hatches, and if the new deck rai lings would be wood. Both changes have been made on the new plans sent to the Commission through Staff today.

We bel ieve your Staff Report is correct in stating the following:

1. "[t)he Project would create a more simplified and code compliant layout for the courtyard stairways and internal floors of the units." and

2. "[t]his project would allow the building to be occupied again." and

3. "The reconfiguration of the units will create a more code compliant layout for the courtyard stairways and allow for greater separation between buildings on the lot".

Conclusion. These units were never part of any legal "affordable rental stock" and were affordable due in part to the cramped designs of 1906, the lack of open space, and the very limited light well light to small bedroom windows.

The ownership is not a speculative developer. Obviously a speculative developer would not have left these units empty for 8 years -- instead, they would have immediately been renovated and sold as TIC's.

While the rent for the proposed units will be more expensive than that paid by the prior family members and by unrelated tenants 8 years ago, the rent will remain more affordable than most units of their size today given that the rooms are still quite small (grandfathered to the eighty

3 In my April 12, 2016 letter to you, I stated that the Building Department will most likely later disallow the roof hatch and will then disapprove the decks reached by those hatches. That is because the only stairs that are small enough to reach the roof are circular metal stairs, and the Building Department will almost never approve hatches above circular metal stairs .

12411808.1

Rodney Fong May 25, 2016 Page 4

year old Housing Code), and there is no parking and no amenities other than a laundry area -and a small amount of deck space to be shared by 16 units. Interiors will not be created in the stylish manner of new apartment buildings all over the City. Nonetheless, the cost of improving the 100 year old building's safety, security and design means that rents cannot stay the same as 8 or more years ago.

This 1908 year old building with original fagade is National Register Eligible and in an historic district, and now that funds are available to preserve it for many more generations, it is time for this project to go forward .

We respectfully request that the Planning Commission allow this renovation project (fully supported by your Staff) to move forward so that the family which has owned it for almost 70 years can provide a safe and healthy living environment to occupants, something which will inject life and housing back into this building, a building that really affects the immediate area as it is a building that fronts on three streets.

i;~ Brett Gladstone

cc: DR Requestor Ms. Flandrich [email protected]

12411808.1

Units

4 8 4

16 Total Bedrooms and Living Rooms:

Bedroom Count from Plans Provided to Planning Department and Planning Commission

Dated February 25, 2015

Existina Pro Dosed Bedrooms Living Units Bedrooms

Rooms 4 0 4 3 3 0 8 2 2 0 4 1

48 0 16 32 Total

48 Bedrooms 48 and Living Rooms:

Living Rooms

1 1 1

16

12414236. 1

135 SQ. FT.

1631 GRANT AVROOF DECK

REF. DW

BEDROOM 1

BEDROOM 2

KITCHEN

LIVING ROOM

16

5 3

3

11

BATH

H

I

I

I

(E) LIGHTWELL

REF. DW

BEDROOM 1

BEDROOM 2

LIVING ROOM

KITCHEN

BATH

16

5 3

3

11 E

I

I

I

1A4.1

11A4.2

1631 GRANT

1629 GRANT

1619 GRANT

1617 GRANT

+26'-8" ELEVATION769 SQ. FT.




1A4.2

11A4.1

(E) LIGHTWELL

N

17'-0" x 37'-6"636 SQ. FT.

DN

DN

(E) STAIRS

(E) STAIRS

REF. DW

DN

(E) STAIRS

(N) SPIRAL STAIR TO ROOF

BEDROOM 2

BEDROOM 1

LIVING ROOM

KITCHEN

BATH

16

5 3

3

11 H

I

I

I

HALL

LIVING ROOM

REF.

KITCHEN

DW

DN

(E) STAIRS

BEDROOM 2

BEDROOM 1

(E) LIGHTWELL

16

5 3

3

11

BATH

H

I

I

I

17'-0" x 37'-6"636 SQ. FT.

9'-5"

FROM FRONT FACADETO EDGE OF ROOF DECK

17'-0"

A B C D

1

2

3

4

5

SOUTH GRANT AVE WING ROOF

135 SQ. FT.

GRAN

T AV

ENUE

MED

AU P

LACE

1

2

3

4

5

A B C D

C D

(N) ROOF HATCH

C D

NOTE: (N) ROOF DRAIN UNDER DECK

NOTE: (N) ROOF DRAIN UNDER DECK

(N) PAINTED WOOD & CABLE GUARDRAILS @ (N) ROOF DECK (TYP)

(N) GLASS OR CABLE RAIL GUARDRAILS @ (N) ROOF DECK (TYP)

(N) DN

(N) DN

(N) DN

(N) DN

(N) DN

(N) DN

NORTH MEDAU WING FLAT ROOF

SOUTH MEDAU WING FLAT ROOF

ROOF DECK

ROOF DECK


(E) LIGHTWELL

(E) LIGHTWELL

(E) LIGHTWELL

23'-0" TYP9'-0" TYP2'-6"

(N) ROOF HATCH

16'-3" TYP

NOTE: REMOVE (4)-(E) SHTMET DUCT HOODS ON ROOF FROM OLD KITCHENS




9'-3

"

(N) GLASS OR CABLE RAIL GUARDRAILS @ (N) ROOF DECK (TYP)

FROM FRONT FACADE TO EDGE OF ROOF DECK

(N) 1-HR F-R PARAPET GUARDRAIL

135 SQ. FT.

135 SQ. FT.



(N) ROOF HATCH

(N) ROOF HATCH




5'-0

"

6'-1

"17

'-10"

8'-3

"

18'-3"13'-8"2'-6"

NORTH GRANT AVE WING ROOF13'-8"

PERMIT SET

SHEET

JOB

DRAWN

DATE

1308

30 FEBRUARY 2015

REVISIONS DATE

18 Barto

lSa

n Fran

cisco

CA 94

133

415 986

-‐2815 fa

x415 788

-‐2118

OKAM

OTO

SAIJ

OARCHITECT

URE

GRANT

AVEN

UE

LAND T

RUST

1615

- 3

3 GRANT

AVEN

UE

/ 1

2 - 26

MED

AU P

LACE

SAN F

RANCI

SCO, CA

LIFO

RNIA

P R O P O S E D T H I R D F L O O R P L A N1/4" = 1'-0"1

P R

O P

O S

E D

3 R

D

F L

O O

R

P L

A N

( @

G

R A

N T

A

V.

B L

D G

. )

&

R O

O F

P

L A

N

( @

M

E D

A U

P L

. B

L D

G. )

CL

A2.3G R A N T A V E N U E W I N G R O O F P L A N1/4" = 1'-0"5

PLANNING REVISION 12/07/15




11A4.2

+ 16'-8" FIN. FLR.

+ 9'-1" FIN. FLR.

+ 3'-2" FIN. FLR.

- 1'-8" FIN. FLR.

1A4.2

(N) SOLID CORE EXTERIOR WOOD DOOR @ (E) EXIT CORRIDOR



(E) FRONT STONE STAIRS SHALL REMAIN -- CLEAN & REPAIR DAMAGED EDGES IN KIND (TYP)

(E) FRONT STONE STAIRS SHALL REMAIN -- CLEAN & REPAIR DAMAGED EDGES IN KIND (TYP)

ALL PAINTED WOOD WINDOWS ARE EXISTING AND TO REMAIN. REPAIR OR REPLACE WOOD SASHES IN KIND TO MATCH EXISTING.

THERE ARE NO NEW WINDOWS BEING PROPOSED FACING GRANT AVENUE & MEDAU PLACE.

EXISTING PAINTED WOOD APARTMENT UNIT ENTRY DOORS SHALL REMAIN.

EXISTING BLACK PAINTED METAL SCREENS @ GRANT AVENUE FIRST FLOOR SHALL REMAIN. NEW FIXED TEMPERED GLASS SHALL BE INSTALLED BEHIND SCREENS WITH BLACK PAINTED SASHES (5 TOTAL).

EXISTING BLACK PAINTED METAL SCREENS @ MEDAU PLACE CRAWL SPACE SHALL REMAIN (7 TOTAL).

THE ONLY PROPOSED NEW WORK ON THE TWO STREET FACADES IS TO REPLACE THE PAINTED EXTERIOR EXIT DOORS (3 TOTAL BOTH STREET FACADES).

SEE ROOF PLANS FOR LOCATION OF PROPOSED ROOF DECKS. NEW GUARDRAILS SHALL BE PAINTED WOOD & CABLE RAIL. DECKS SHALL BE STAINED WOOD.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

S H E E T N O T E S:

(E) PAINTED METAL SCREENS SHALL REMAIN (TYP @ 5 LOCATIONS ON GRANT AV)

(E) PAINTED METAL SCREENS SHALL REMAIN (TYP @ 7 LOCATIONS ON MEDAU PL)

(N) ROOF DECK W/ PAINTED WOOD & CABLE GUARDRAIL @ 1631 GRANT AV

(N) COMMON ROOF DECK W/ PAINTED WOOD & CABLE GUARDRAIL @ MEDAU WING

(E) OUTLINE OF THE GRANT AV WING BEYOND

1 2 3 4 5

12345

(E) PAINTED METAL SECURITY GATE @ FRONT FACADE

(E) PAINTED METAL SECURITY GATE @ FRONT FACADE

(N) COMMON ROOF DECK WL PAINTED WOOD & CABLE GUARDRAIL @ MEDAU WING

24'-6

"

26'-8

"

27'-3

"



(N) PRIVATE ROOF DECK W/ PAINTED WOOD & CABLE GUARDRAIL @ 1617 GRANT AV

PERMIT SET

SHEET

JOB

DRAWN

DATE

1308

30 FEBRUARY 2015

REVISIONS DATE

18 Barto

lSa

n Fran

cisco

CA 94

133

415 986

-‐2815 fa

x415 788

-‐2118

OKAM

OTO

SAIJ

OARCHITECT

URE

GRANT

AVEN

UE

LAND T

RUST

1615

- 3

3 GRANT

AVEN

UE

/ 1

2 - 26

MED

AU P

LACE

SAN F

RANCI

SCO, CA

LIFO

RNIA

P R O P O S E D E A S T E L E V A T I O N ( G R A N T A V E . )1/4" = 1'-0"1

P R

O P

O S

E D

E X

T E

R I O

R

S T

R E

E T

E

L E

V A

T I O

N S

A3.1

CL

P R O P O S E D W E S T E L E V A T I O N ( M E D A U P L . )1/4" = 1'-0"11




GRANT STREET LEVEL OUTLINE

+ 8'-8"

- 1'-9"

+ 13'-2"

+ 2'-10"

MEDAU SIDEWALK LEVEL OUTLINE

14 MEDAU PL.

12 MEDAU PL.

16 MEDAU PL.

18 MEDAU PL.

22 MEDAU PL.

20 MEDAU PL.

24 MEDAU PL.

26 MEDAU PL.

1617 GRANT AV.1619 GRANT AV.1629 GRANT AVE.1631 GRANT AVE.

1633 GRANT AVE. 1627 GRANT AVE.

1621 GRANT AVE. 1615 GRANT AVE.

SOUTHPASSAGE

CENTRALPASSAGE

+ 25'-0"

+ 20'-6"

TOP OF PARAPET

MEDAU 2ND FLR

MEDAU 1ST FLR

TOP OF PARAPET

MEDAU PL 2ND FLR

MEDAU PL 1ST FLR

+ 19'-11"GRANT 3RD FLR

+ 9'-6"GRANT 2ND FLR

+ 0'-0"SOUTH GRANT AV WING 1ST FLR

- 2'-7"(E) CONCRETE

+ 32'-7"TOP OF PARAPET

+ 27'-6" GRANT 3RD FLR

+ 17'-1" GRANT 2ND FLR

+ 0'-0" (E) COURTYARD CONC DATUM

+ 4'-1" NORTH GRANT AV WING 1ST FLR

+ 40'-2" GRANT 3RD FLR






11A4.1

1A4.1

11A4.1

1 2 3 4 5

12345

+ 0'-0" (E) COURTYARD CONC DATUM

+ 0'-0"(E) COURTYARD CONC DATUM

CONC WALKWAY

+ 1'-9"

PERMIT SET

SHEET

JOB

DRAWN

DATE

1308

30 FEBRUARY 2015

REVISIONS DATE

18 Barto

lSa

n Fran

cisco

CA 94

133

415 986

-‐2815 fa

x415 788

-‐2118

OKAM

OTO

SAIJ

OARCHITECT

URE

GRANT

AVEN

UE

LAND T

RUST

1615

- 3

3 GRANT

AVEN

UE

/ 1

2 - 26

MED

AU P

LACE

SAN F

RANCI

SCO, CA

LIFO

RNIA

P R O P O S E D E A S T C O U R T Y A R D E L E V A T I O N1/4" = 1'-0"4

P R

O P

O S

E D

C O

U R

T Y

A R

D

E L

E V

A T

I O

N S

CL

P R O P O S E D W E S T C O U R T Y A R D E L E V A T I O N1/4" = 1'-0"9

A3.2




+ 1'-0"

MEDAU STREET LEVEL OUTLINE

GRANT AVENUE SIDEWALK LEVEL LINE

+ 0'-0"

+ 9'-6"

+ 19'-11"

- 0'-6"

+ 32'-7"

TOP OF PARAPET

3RD FLOOR

2ND FLOOR

1ST FLOOR

- 2'-7"

(E) CONCRETE @ COURTYARD BEYOND

+ 17'-1"

+ 27'-6"

+ 0'-0"

+ 40'-2"

TOP OF PARAPET

3RD FLOOR

2ND FLOOR

DATUM @ COURTYARD

+ 5'-1"

1ST FLOOR

+ 13'-3"

+ 2'-10"

+ 25'-0"

+ 0'-0"

1ST FLOOR

2ND FLOOR

TOP OF PARAPET

DATUM

+ 8'-8"

- 1'-9"

+ 20'-6"

TOP OF PARAPET

2ND FLOOR

1ST FLOOR

CONC @ LAUNDRY

(N) COMMON ROOF DECKS W/ PAINTED WOOD & CABLE GUARDRAILS @ MEDAU WING

(N) ROOF DECKS W/ PAINTED WOOD & CABLE GUARDRAIL @ 1617 & 1619 GRANT AV

12345

1 2 3 4 5

1627 GRANT AVE.(E) LOWER LEVEL

(N) GASMETERS

TRASH /RECYCLING

CENTRALPASSAGE

1621 GRANT AVE.(N) LOWER LEVEL

1629 GRANT AVE.

1627 GRANT AVE.MAIN LIVING LEVEL


1631 GRANT AVE.



1619 GRANT AVE.

(N) LAUNDRY

1617 GRANT AVE.


EXTERIORCORRIDOR

SOUTH

(N) GASMETERS

26 MEDAU PL.EXTCORR

NORTH

24 MEDAU PL. 22 MEDAU PL.

20 MEDAU PL.

18 MEDAU PL.

16 MEDAU PL. 14 MEDAU PL.

12 MEDAU PL.

(N) CRAWL SPACE

(N) CRAWL SPACE

+ 3'-8"

TRASH RM1615 GRANT AVE.(N) LOWER LEVEL

(N) ROOF DECKS W/ PAINTED WOOD & CABLE GUARDRAIL @ 1617 & 1619 GRANT AV

PERMIT SET

SHEET

JOB

DRAWN

DATE

1308

30 FEBRUARY 2015

REVISIONS DATE

18 Barto

lSa

n Fran

cisco

CA 94

133

415 986

-‐2815 fa

x415 788

-‐2118

OKAM

OTO

SAIJ

OARCHITECT

URE

GRANT

AVEN

UE

LAND T

RUST

1615

- 3

3 GRANT

AVEN

UE

/ 1

2 - 26

MED

AU P

LACE

SAN F

RANCI

SCO, CA

LIFO

RNIA

L O N G I T U D I N A L S E C T I O N 1 ( G R A N T W I N G L O O K I N G W E S T )1/4" = 1'-0"1

P R

O P

O S

E D

L O

N G

I T

U D

I N

A L

B U

I L

D I N

G

S E

C T

I O

N S

A4.1

CL

L O N G I T U D I N A L S E C T I O N 2 ( M E D A U W I N G L O O K I N G E A S T )1/4" = 1'-0"11




(N)

MEDAU PLACE

COURTYARD

+ 13'-3"

+ 2'-10"

+ 25'-0"

+ 17'-1"

+ 27'-6"

10'-5

"11

'-9"

+ 0'-0"

+ 8'-8"

- 1'-9"

+ 20'-6"

+ 9'-6"

+ 19'-11"

- 0'-6"

COURTYARD

+ 0'-0"

2'-1

0"

+ 10'-2"

+ 40'-2"

+ 32'-7"

TOP OF PARAPET

3RD FLOOR

2ND FLOOR

DATUM

1ST FLOOR

2ND FLOOR

TOP OF PARAPET

DATUM

+ 1'-9"

(E) CONCRETE

+ 4'-10"

BASEMENT

TOP OF PARAPET

3RD FLOOR

2ND FLOOR

1ST FLOOR

TOP OF PARAPET

2ND FLOOR

1ST FLOOR

(E) CRAWL SPACE

4'-6" 4'-7"

+ 7'-0"

LANDING

+ 15'-3"

LANDING

+ 0'-10"

LANDING

+ 22'-5"

LANDING

+ 12'-1"

LANDING

+ 5'-9"

LANDING

40 R

ISER

S @

6 3

/4"

EA =

22'

-6"

3'-6" 5'-6" 3'-6"

3'-6"

45 R

ISER

S @

6 7

/8"

EA =

25'

-9" +

/-

(N) CONC WALKWAY & STAIRS (SHADED)

- 2'-7"

(E) CONCRETE

+ 2'-11"

(E) SIDEWALK

(E) LIGHTWELL

18'-4" +/-

REMOVE (E) DOORS & WINDOWS (DASHED)

34'-6" +/-

(N) CONC WALKWAY & STAIRS (SHADED)

15R

@ 6

" =

7'-5

" +/

-

(N) PRIVATE ROOF DECK W/ PAINTED WOOD & CABLE GUARDRAIL @ 1629 GRANT AV


(N) ROOF HATCH FOR (N) PRIVATE ROOF DECK @ 1629 GRANT AV

(N) FIRE-RATED PARAPET W/ PAINTED EXTERIOR SIDING @ 1629 GRANT AV

GRANT AV SIDEWALK

(N) COMMON ROOF DECK W/ PAINTED WOOD & CABLE RAIL GUARDRAIL @ MEDAU WING

(E) LIGHTWELL

(N) PRIVATE DECK W/ PAINTED WOOD & CABLE GUARDRAIL & ROOF HATCH @ 1617 GRANT AV

A B C D

A B C D

C D

(N) CRAWL SPACE

GRANT AV SIDEWALK

MEDAU PLACE

22 MEDAU PL.

20 MEDAU PL.

14 MEDAU PL.

12 MEDAU PL.


GAS METER RM


1617 GRANT AVE.

1627 GRANT AVE.

1629 GRANT AVE.

(N)

(N)

3'-6"

3'-6"

CENTRAL PASSAGE

11R

@ 6

" EA

= 5

'-6"

+/-

(E) CRAWL SPACE


PERMIT SET

SHEET

JOB

DRAWN

DATE

1308

30 FEBRUARY 2015

REVISIONS DATE

18 Barto

lSa

n Fran

cisco

CA 94

133

415 986

-‐2815 fa

x415 788

-‐2118

OKAM

OTO

SAIJ

OARCHITECT

URE

GRANT

AVEN

UE

LAND T

RUST

1615

- 3

3 GRANT

AVEN

UE

/ 1

2 - 26

MED

AU P

LACE

SAN F

RANCI

SCO, CA

LIFO

RNIA

S O U T H E R N T R A N S V E R S E S E C T I O N (L O O K I N G N O R T H)1/4" = 1'-0"1

P R

O P

O S

E D

B U

I L

D I N

G

S E

C T

I O

N S

A4.2

CL

M I D D L E T R A N S V E R S E S E C T I O N (L O O K I N G N O R T H)1/4" = 1'-0"11

S O U T H E X I T C O R R I D O R S E C T I O N (L O O K I N G N O R T H)1/4" = 1'-0"5




Memo to the Planning Commissioncommissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/2015-002243DRPVAR.pdf · In...

Documents

Transcript of Memo to the Planning Commissioncommissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/2015-002243DRPVAR.pdf · In...