Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 151 153 Liberty topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission declines discretionary review and approves Liberty Street addition despite neighbors’ excavation and CEQA concerns
Summary
After neighbors and their counsel raised concerns about excavation, potential subsidence, and a recorded 1988 notice of special restrictions, the Commission voted 5–0 to decline discretionary review and approve the project at 151–153 Liberty Street, finding historic‑preservation and environmental review had been addressed.
The Planning Commission on July 10 voted unanimously to decline discretionary review and approve a residential addition at 151–153 Liberty Street despite objections from the DR requester about excavation, shoring, CEQA and an earlier recorded notice of special restrictions.
DR counsel described excavation up to 18–22 feet and argued the project's categorical CEQA Class 32 (infill) exemption might be improperly applied given potential impacts to adjacent historic foundations; they also cited a 1988 recorded notice of special restrictions that they said required a variance and public hearing if the building envelope were expanded. The DR team provided peer‑review comments from an engineer and said they hoped to reach a private agreement but asked the Commission to consider conditions if it proceeded.
Staff and the project architect said the project had received a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC motion no. 0219), that the zoning administrator reviewed the record and determined the prior variance (tied to a rear shed) no longer applied because the shed would be removed, and that the Department found the project consistent with residential design guidelines. The project sponsor said shoring designs and peer review materials had been provided and incorporated.
Commissioners debated the technical concerns but concluded there were no exceptional circumstances requiring discretionary review; Commissioner Moore moved to not take the DR and approve the project. The motion passed 5–0 (Antonini, Gordon, Moore, Sugaya, Wu). The record shows the zoning administrator reviewed the variance question and the HPC had issued a certificate of appropriateness.
