Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 11, 2010 3:00pm-3:30pm PST

3:00 pm
a regular calendar. this has strictly to do with the certification of the environmental impact report. this has to do with the in our mental impact report, -- on the environmental impact report, not the request for conditional use and the project itself. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is sam. i find the eir findings laughable and out of touch with the majority of the neighborhood issues. there were simply answered with, "no significant impact on the character, look, and feel of the neighborhood." i find it unbelievable that a large six-story building replacing a two-story building
3:01 pm
would have no impact. 32 residential units were there were none, at least that many cars, parking, daily traffic, and many more residents. we're not talking about factors, but 38 times, five times as large, and i wanted to make sure that it was noted that it will be a significant impact to the look and feel and the character of that neighborhood. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there any additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioners? secretary avery: commissioners, you are now at consideration of findings and final action. a public hearing for this category is closed. the item before you is item number 4, case number 200 7.0519, 1645 pacific ave. what is before you is the certification of the final
3:02 pm
environmental impact report. >> good afternoon. i'm with the analysis division of the planning department. before you is the certification of the final environmental impact report for 1645 pacific avenue, which consists of demolition of the commercial building and its replacement with a new 65-foot tall, 32 residential unit building. a copy of the rest of the final eir certification motion is before you and was distributed with comments and responses for the eir document on october 14, 2010. the draft eir for the product was published and circulated for review, and comments on the november 18, 2009, 62 days, ending on january 19, 2010. during the public, time, the historic preservation commission held a hearing on the draft eir on december 2, 2009.
3:03 pm
comments received from the historic preservation commission related mainly to cultural resources, the historic resources evaluation, and mitigation measures. these were memorialized in a comment letter from the historic preservation commission. the planning commission held a public hearing on december 10, 2009. 15 members of the public and three planning commissioners provided comments at the draft eir hearing. the planning department received a total of seven comment letters through the mail, and other 3, fax and e-mail. the draft eir hearing transcripts and all, letters are contained in at the comments and responses document. the eir document was distributed and posted on the planning department's website. the planning department has fully complied with the provisions of the california environmental quality act, ceqa, ceqa guidelines, chapter 31 of
3:04 pm
the administrative code of the city and county of san francisco to communicate the ceqa process and the proposed project. the informal review process followed by the planning department to the proposed project has been procedurally correct and substantially adequate. besides individual responses to commons, the eir document includes changes to the draft eir. the changes is to clarify information or make minor changes and corrections to the eir document. some of those changes were due to changes in the project, others were in response to comments received on the draft eir. other clarifications to the eir document resulted in changes and findings to the conclusion of the draft eir. the draft eir certification before the planning commission, certification is not an action to approve the project. it is just a decision the eir has been completed in compliance with ceqa and is adequate,
3:05 pm
objective, and accurate. if the planning commission certifies the eir, they can proceed with considering approval of the proposed project. asked to adopt mitigation measures and a recording program as part of the ceqa findings following the eir certification. since the document has come to the attention of the planning department, a comment letter was not included, however, concerns raised were adequately addressed in the eir did not require discussion. a detailed memo responding to the, letter -- to the comet letter was distributed. inow i will readgñ record. regarding the changes it
3:06 pm
represents corrections to typos and errors in the comments and responses document. this is underlined, text deleted so that the document will be shown with a strike force. it will be included in the comment letters and it does not present meaningful information that would alter the conclusions presented and the draft eir and does not trigger the need to recirculate the 6c to the ceqa act. i have copies of that four members of the public and the commission. it covers inclusion of the letter and is not present any new information that would alter the conclusions presented in the draft eir. consequently, this will not trigger the need for recirculation pursuant to ceqa. subsequent to the preparation of the final eir, revisions to this
3:07 pm
product have been proposed or not analyzed and eir. -- which were not analyzed in the eir. it was a change from 15 fromto 10 feet on several floors. in response to concerns from the department, the product sponsor has indicated it would keep the 15-foot setbacks on the second, third, fourth, and fifth floors, including the sixth floor, which was a project covered in the draft eir analysis. in7< rd(-evidence has been presented today that would change the conclusion released in the final eir. the department recommends the planning commission a drat -- about the draft motion before you that certifies you have reviewed and considered the content of the eir, decided it
3:08 pm
department's independent judgment, analysis, and that the procedures through which the final eir was prepared comply with the provisions of ceqa and chapter 31 of the administrative code of the city and town of san francisco. this concludes my presentation on this matter, unless commission matters at become less commissioners have any questions. thank you for your consideration. president miguel: thank you. commissioner olague? vice president olague: move to approve. commissioner antonini: second. president miguel: certify. vice president olague: or certify, yeah. secretary avery: commissioners, on the motion to certify the final eir -- [roll call vote] secretary avery: thank you. the final and formal document has been certified. commissioners, before you now is item five, case 200 7.0519c,
3:09 pm
1645 pacific ave. this is a request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon. my name is kevin, with planning staff. the request before you is for conditional use authorization for a project that would demolish an existing all repair and parking building and a portion of another all repair building -- automobile repair and construct a new building containing 32 -- two dozen square feet. conditional use authorization is required to develop a lot greater than 10,000 square feet in size and bulk exceptions. bill have dwelling units and a mixture of sizes and retail spaces. the building complement's the eclectic scale and architectural character of the area, utilizing various treatments and sculpting to help reduce the
3:10 pm
apparent size and transition to the surrounding developments. the project would preserve an existing his store facade and incorporated into the garage entry. the property would transition from a relatively underutilized site with automobile repair and parking uses to a mixed use project. staff recommends support of the conditional use authorization request. we've received correspondence in support of the product from individuals in the area as well as the housing action coalition and san francisco architectural heritage. these high light the quality of design, and the location of the housing. staff has also received letters in opposition from individuals and community groups that expressed concern about the scale of the project compared with the surrounding context, the loss of automobile repair space and jobs, shot is on the
3:11 pm
surrounding sidewalk, and degradation of views on pacific avenue. i should note that all of this correspondence both in support and opposition was received e design and projecteceived program changes described it today. the project sponsor and the neighborhood association have reached agreement on several revisions to the project that were described as part of the last item. it should this commission was to approve the project, staff would be to revise the motion to accurately describe the facade, including accurate measurements to correctly describe the number of dwelling units. there was a reduction from 39 dwelling units described in the motion, to accurately calculate the number of units for the project, and to describe that the car share spaces proposed for the product would now be open to the public rather than solely set aside for use by the residence. this concludes my presentation,
3:12 pm
and i am available to answer any questions. mahnke. president miguel: -- thank you. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the project sponsor and builder. if i could, i would like to bring out a representative from the neighborhood association who has been a very tenacious advocate for the community and helped arrange the final compromise with the help of the president and board of supervisors just this week and i would like her to describe a few with the changes that we have made. and i will make i presentation of the project as part of my time, if i could. president miguel: ok.
3:13 pm
>> thank you, president miguel, commissioners. i'm what the neighborhood association. i live a few blocks from the proposed building. last week, we asked for one-week extension on this project and you offered that to us. we appreciate that. it in the time from last week to this week, we have had a very long 3.5-hour negotiating session with supervisor chu's t"-we discussed many aspects of this project. the major issues were shadow at night andñr ball, and we were ao concerned about the other minor things. there were five people that came
3:14 pm
to this negotiation session, and we worked very hard with them on behalf of the neighborhood and with the project sponsor to come to a solution. we are disappointed that we were not able to get some of the things that we very badly wanted, such as height reduction and the bulk production. -- reduction. i would list the agreement that we have come up with, and i would like to talk about the enormous amount of work that was done on behalf of the neighbors in the neighborhood. because without the leadership we never would have come this far. we have agreed for a 15-foot setback on the floor, to mitigate the shadows going on the northern side of this overshadowing -- this is
3:15 pm
overshadowing the firehouse that is there and the other properties. this will bring the shadows down to the equivalent of a 50-foot building. this will provide some relief. we also have the full bmr for the units, and there is -- that is the fraction that will be paid into the fund. we also wished for and received two car shares, or a couple of cars and the benefit of having public meeting space and retail space, except that we are not yet least. this is a very difficult negotiation and many people are disappointed and many people are relieved. some members of the public are
3:16 pm
here to speak to you today, and i appreciate them coming here and wanting their voices to be heard. these voices should be heard, and hopefully they will feel better being part of the process today. >> i would like to say that i have agreed with all of these changes that we have negotiated. it looks like i lost a unit during the setback redesign and i am back to 38 units. this is for two bedrooms and two bathrooms. this has gone down slightly because of the loss of units. with that, i would like to present my presentation but i do not see this on the television. thank you. we have to switch this -- sorry about this. please push the button. which of these buttons?
3:17 pm
that is the computer. i thought that we have this worked out before. this is the elevation of the project. and we will see later on, that this is the same architectural style but we have cut back the sixth floor, with the 15-foot setback. just to set this context, two buildings on one lot, on a block with a number of large lots, with the conditional usage application, this is about a little bit larger than the
3:18 pm
average size. i am on a couple of sides next to the height limit, with the zoning -- this is in the polk neighborhood zoning district. this is the historic structure, and the building -- to the east, this is to the west to pacific heights. this is directly across the street, and this is looking down to pacific heights. and this is looking up to knob hill. we're looking at the predominantly large structures on the block, these other large structures immediately behind
3:19 pm
me. and in particular, the nine story residential building. my original plan was the slowly conforming plan but i requested that the variants for this setback to include windows and the original plan from two and a half years ago, this was given to the neighborhoods with written and public comments, that this building was too tall. the density of the building is too much, and the commercial district allows for the rear yard variants. this would accomplish six stories of residential on this extreme. i did not have this so i could get six stories of residential.
3:20 pm
i was not providing the affordable housing and they were worried about the shadows. we began to redesign the project and this is the current design on the model. this is the view down pacific. this is from the block back to nob hill. this is the -- this is not the revised one. over the past three years, i have made a number of changes to the project to address the community concerns, other than 65 feet. this is in a tight zone. this is adjacent to the buildings and this is the one thing that i have held very firm on. there were concerns about setting a precedent. i will leave this for you.
3:21 pm
blocking the view from jackson street. i have said that this is not protected in the city. the building has been completely redesigned into a number of different forms with different color and texture, with multiple levity levels. and i have gone from 59 units, and now i am down to 38 units with the latest change. i have dropped all this below grade, and this has an eye scratched -- a nice garage. we have a lot of retail space on pacific avenue, and this is a great community oriented to small retail. we have seen a historic structure. they say that there is no shadow
3:22 pm
impact. i have gone ahead and made this. we see the revision at the sixth floor, to show the four will not be visible by residence below. this area is set back at the top floor. this is the revised elevation and it does not show up well. i hope to be able to plant as much as the department of public works is going to allow me to do. i was able, when we changed the number of units, i was able tad the private, dedicated storage space for each unit, and a large private parking area, for 40 bucks, adjacent to the area of the building.
3:23 pm
this is a response to the view of the hillside. this is from half a block away. this is not as great an impact as well was put in the eir. this is if you approach the building at the pedestrian level. you are not losing a view of the hills of the city, but rather the buildings themselves. i will conclude my presentation on the staff report, and i hope that you will support the project. i have been working on this for a long time. the soil available for any questions. and so is my architect. >> thank you. i have a number of speaker cards. i would like to thank the project sponsor and the architect.
3:24 pm
the neighborhood association and particularly supervisor chu for not only bring everything together between all of you, but doing this in one week. if everyone can do this, this is one to save us a lot of trouble. if this can be done before this comes to the commission. roseman, su, and koppel. >> hello, thank you. i am not very good at public speaking. i brought some notes to read. i have been a realtor for just
3:25 pm
shy of 22 years here in san francisco. as such, you can imagine i am not against development. i am at happy -- -- i am not have the if you approve this building. -- i am not going to be happy if you approve this building. that is not right to build a building that is too large for the neighborhood. by having another oversize building in the area, you are creating a manhattan on pulled street. -- polk street. this is like north point, which led to prop m, the height limit.
3:26 pm
i believe that this would destroy the beauty of the city that we have been talking about, how this has been described as such a wonderful place to visit. i am not against development, is adjusted for, for the preservation of the look of the neighborhoods. i feel that his building belongs in south beach one mission bay, and not on pacific avenue. i question, also, why there were these statutes on this. we have seen the latest revived -- the latest revised numbers on this. i believe that this exception should not be allowed, just for all of the reasons that i have stated. and i feel that we really need to preserve -- preserve these areas because these are
3:27 pm
buildings that are not very tall. 1650 was not a great idea. this is there and this has been built already. but two wrongs do not make a right and i hope that you will consider these ideas. for this development and all future developments. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with a real-estate development company in san francisco. i would like to read this for my partner. he would have liked to be here but he had an appointment. i would like to offer my testimonial to ask that you approve this development. i have known him for more than 20 years and have had the
3:28 pm
opportunity to support a number of his projects over that time. this is very high quality and i understand that some of the neighbors are against this proposed building a life for this to be reduced. we value the neighbors and we have had a good working relationship with these stakeholders. we believe the insisting height limits are appropriate. and we know that the proposed building at 1655 pacific ave will be smaller than some of the neighbors. we believe that the neighborhood engagement with this project has been worthwhile, because this is significantly modified and improved and we believe that this will be a positive addition to the neighborhood and we ask the planning commission to support this project. and i will submit this to the record.
3:29 pm
>> good afternoon. i am from the san francisco electrical construction industry, to support this project on pacific avenue. after i met the developer, he has been available for discussions and working together on the project. he has directly supported the industry over multiple decades, hiring local contractors who employed the trained labour force in these industries. and the electrical apprentices ship program. and once again, we are in support of the project and we want to grant the conditional use authorization. [reading names]