Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 300 Grant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues appeal over 300 Grant development amid shadow, mass and conservation-district concerns
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued the appeal of a 10‑story, 45‑unit downtown project at 300 Grant (appeal 08‑108) to Oct. 1 after appellants argued the planning commission and staff failed to analyze increased massing and shadow impacts; the board recorded a 3–0 vote to continue to allow full membership to weigh the complex land‑use issues.
The Board of Appeals voted to continue the appeal of the 300 Grant Avenue project (appeal 08‑108) to Oct. 1 after a heated exchange over building mass, shadows and conservation‑district compatibility.
Sue Hester, representing neighbors opposing the approved height and bulk exceptions, presented graphics and argued the project’s mass shifted toward Harlan Place and that planning materials emphasized the building “skin” rather than changes in massing. "When the planning commission had this project before them, they didn't have any explanation of how all of the massing had changed," Hester said, urging the board to require removal of a ten‑foot projection that she said materially increases morning shadows on the adjacent Landmark Building at 333 Grant.
Shelby Campbell, the project sponsor from Madison Marquette, replied that the building had undergone many iterations and that the approved project had been reduced from earlier proposals: "The project that got approved in June 2008 is 10 stories and 45 homes," she said, noting the sponsor had worked with preservation architects and neighborhood groups. Alan Martinez, the sponsor’s preservation architect, described modest bulk exceptions (five feet on some upper floors) and said the massing was typical for corner buildings in the conservation district and that design features reduce apparent height.
Planning staff told the board dwelling‑unit exposure was a variance (not before the board on this appeal), that shadow studies were performed and that the Board of Supervisors had upheld the department’s CEQA review. Staff emphasized downtown housing and density goals and noted the project’s inclusionary‑housing in‑lieu obligation would be based on the 45 units (resulting in eight equivalent inclusionary units, staff said).
Commissioners said they were split: several members expressed concern about bulk and how the project sits next to lower, narrow buildings on Harlan Place; others emphasized the extensive public process, CEQA review and need for housing downtown. Given the technical complexity and missing participants who said they expected a continuance, Commissioner Goh moved to continue the appeal to Oct. 1; the motion passed 3–0. Parties may submit additional materials before the continued hearing.
