Discretionary review at 1469 Pacific continues after neighbors call plan 'double‑dip' on nonconforming warehouse

Neighbors and the Planning Department returned to a discretionary review of a contentious proposal at 1469 Pacific Avenue on May 12, where the sponsor seeks to convert a two‑story warehouse into a nine‑unit mixed‑use building while retaining a large portion of the existing non‑conforming envelope.

Staff summarized the project history and explained revisions since the February hearing: the sponsor removed the rearmost 25 percent of the building depth to create a rear yard, reduced a proposed rear‑yard deck from five to three feet above the existing garage floor, added wider setbacks along side property lines, reconfigured the ground floor to emphasize a commercial storefront, and eliminated private stair penthouses. Despite those revisions, staff concluded the project retains non‑conforming walls and requires a rear‑yard variance to introduce residential use into the retained non‑compliant structure; staff recommended the Commission not grant discretionary review approval as proposed and noted neighbors’ continued objections.

Neighborhood groups (Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association, Middle Polk, Cathedral Hill NA) and adjacent property owners called the revised plan a “double‑dip” that seeks the benefit of both retention of the non‑conforming structure and full development of the buildable area. Speakers urged either demolition with a code‑compliant new building (with grade‑level open space and below‑grade parking) or a plan that genuinely reuses the existing structure without adding new envelope area behind it. Doctor requester Robin Tucker and other neighbors provided diagrams comparing existing and proposed envelopes and said the revisions did not adequately reduce impacts to light, air, privacy and rear‑yard character.

The sponsor’s design team (architect Werner Schmalz et al.) explained the rationale for retaining and adapting the warehouse floor, the constraints of programmatic parking and unit sizes, and the design changes made to respond to commissioner comments in February (more street presence for commercial uses, side setbacks, reduced parapets and smaller rooftop terraces). The sponsor also provided calculations showing the project’s open‑space provision exceeds minimums when roof terraces and private terraces are counted, and said the rear‑yard deck will be no more than three feet above the existing garage slab.

Commissioners debated whether the proposal effectively asks to retain the non‑complying warehouse while also building to the maximum permitted envelope, whether averaging provisions for rear yards apply in this neighborhood commercial district (they do not), and whether the sponsor’s revisions adequately address privacy and light for abutting homes. Several commissioners said the project needs further targeted design work — either a clearer reuse strategy or a code‑compliant new design — and recommended a focused working session among staff, sponsor and two commissioners to resolve outstanding details. The Commission voted unanimously to continue the item to June 30 and asked planning staff to convene a short design workshop with Commissioners Hillis and Moore, staff, the sponsor and selected neighborhood representatives.

The continuation gives the sponsor time to refine the proposal and to work through the neighborhood’s specific concerns about rear‑yard grade, roof‑deck size and private terraces that overlook adjacent residences. Neighbors said they will continue to press for either an on‑grade landscaped rear yard and fewer rooftop terraces or for a demolition/new‑build plan that conforms to the district’s rear‑yard standard. The June 30 hearing will return the item to the Commission if the parties cannot reach a design the Commission can accept.