Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals trims 1050 Valencia project, imposes noise and construction conditions after Marsh-led appeals
Summary
After hours of testimony from neighbors and the Marsh theater, the San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5–0 to grant appeals in part for the 1050 Valencia Street project, removing the top story and imposing sound‑mitigation and construction‑hour conditions; adoption of written findings was scheduled for Jan. 15, 2014.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 11 voted unanimously to modify approvals for a proposed five‑story, 12‑unit building at 1050 Valencia Street after neighbors and performers from the adjacent Marsh theater argued the project’s scale and noise risks threatened the historic neighborhood and a long‑standing cultural venue.
The board removed the project’s top floor from the approved envelope, directed designers to build an acoustically robust party wall along the Marsh property line, and required a planted buffer for a second‑floor roof deck. The panel also directed staff to add permit conditions the parties had agreed to, including a construction liaison and tighter limits on exterior construction during the Marsh’s performance schedule. The board set Jan. 15, 2014, to adopt detailed findings.
Why it matters: The Marsh, a small nonprofit theater and neighborhood cultural anchor, drew dozens of speakers who warned that prolonged construction noise and a rooftop entertainment space next door could undermine performances and the venue’s finances. Neighbors and the Liberty Hill Historic District group also argued the building’s bulk and height were out of scale with adjacent Victorian homes on Hill Street.
Marsh artistic director Stephanie Wiseman told the board the theater’s programs are sensitive to noise: “The Marsh cannot survive an 18‑month construction period that permits, without significant conditions, noise in the order of jackhammers, generators and large idling trucks,” she said during public comment. Mary Gallagher, who helped negotiate a list of protective measures, outlined a set of conditions for the record including a daily construction liaison, temporary halts to noisy equipment for scheduled daytime performances and buyer disclosure requirements intended to reduce future nuisance claims.
Project counsel and the architect said the design complies with zoning, the project was the subject of multiple planning reviews and a CEQA mitigated negative declaration, and that significant acoustical measures were incorporated. Melinda Sarjapour, counsel for the sponsor, said the project “is entirely consistent with the zoning district” and pointed to changes made after Planning Commission review. The project’s acoustical consultant said the completed building would likely reduce certain ambient noise at the Marsh by acting as a barrier.
Board members repeatedly pressed both sides about enforceability. Planning staff cautioned that some requests — notably those that depend on future legislation, such as preventing residents from obtaining neighborhood parking permits — could not be implemented by the department if the law does not change. The Board nonetheless adopted a package of permit conditions it described as necessary to reduce the risk of future conflict and to temper the project’s immediate impacts.
The vote and next steps: The board’s motion to grant the appeals in part, remove the fifth story and adopt the condition package passed 5–0. The board directed staff and the parties to submit proposed findings in advance of a Jan. 15 hearing, at which it will formalize the written basis for the conditional approval.
What stays unresolved: The board left open some items that depend on legislation or third‑party agencies (for example, whether future residents should be barred from obtaining neighborhood parking permits), and it asked the parties to submit more precise condition language before findings are adopted.
