651-655 Geary Street - Planning Department

Transcription

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Letter of Determination
March 9, 2012
1650 Mission St.
Suite 400
San Francisco,
CA 94103-2479
Reception:
415.558.6378
Anne Morrison Epperly
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP
121 Spear Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Fax:
415.558.6409
Planning
Information:
415.558.6377
Site Address:
Assessor’s Block/Lot:
Zoning District:
Staff Contact:
651-655 Geary Street
0318/020
RC-4 (Residential-Commercial, High-Density)
Aaron Hollister, (415) 575-9078 or aaron.hollister @sfgov.org
Dear Ms. Morrison Epperly:
This letter is in response to your request for a Letter of Determination regarding the property at 651-655
Geary Street. This parcel is located within the RC-4 Zoning District, North of Market Residential Special
Use District and the 80-130-T Height and Bulk District. The request is whether a Conditional Use
Authorization ("CU Authorization") for a project on the subject property remains valid.
On July 3, 2002, Herman Weeks - Career Resources Development Center ("Project Sponsor") submitted
Building Permit Application Nos. 2002.0703.0659 and 2002.0703.0664 ("Permits") to allow demolition of
the existing building (an Unreinforced Masonry Building constructed circa 1912) and construction of a 13story mixed-use building with 35 dwelling units, approximately 4,900 square feet of retail, approximately
10,000 square feet of office use and no parking ("Project").
On September 25, 2002, the Project Sponsor submitted an Environmental Evaluation application (Case
No. 2002.1036E) which modified the Project to allow demolition of the existing building and construction
of a 14-story mixed-use building with 40 dwelling units, approximately 5,945 square feet of retail,
approximately 5,945 square feet of office use and no parking. On February 5, 2003, the Project Sponsor
submitted a Shadow Analysis application (Case No. 2002.1036K) for the Project. On July 2, 2003, the
Project Sponsor submitted a CU Authorization application (2002.1036C) and Variance application
(2002.1036V) for the Project.
On March 11, 2004, the Planning Department ("Department") issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Environmental Evaluation) which further modified the Project to allow demolition of the existing
building and construction of a 13-story mixed-use building with 51 dwelling units, approximately 5,945
square feet of retail, approximately 5,945 square feet of office use and no parking.
On July 1, 2004, the Planning Commission ("Commission") approved a CU Authorization (Case No.
2002.1036cEKv - Motion No. 16831) to allow demolition of the existing building and construction of a 13-
www,sfplanning org
March 9, 2012
story mixed-use building with a maximum of 41 dwelling units, approximately 1,500 square feet of
ground-floor retail, approximately 16,467 square feet of office use and no off-street parking. At this
hearing, the Commission directed the project sponsor to work with Department staff to further refine the
design of the Project so that it would better fit into the existing built environment. Further, the CU
Authorization contained a Condition of Approval that required the Project Sponsor to commence
construction of the Project within 3 years of the date of the authorization and thenceforth diligently
pursue the Project to completion or the authorization would become null and void.
On August 15, 2008, Arthur Misaki ("Revised Project Sponsor") submitted an Environmental Evaluation
application (Case No. 2008.0981E) to revise the CU Authorization to allow demolition of the existing
building and construction of a 14-story mixed-use building with 46 dwelling units, 1,045 square feet of
ground floor retail and no off-street parking ("Revised Project"); however, the new project sponsor failed
to diligently pursue the application, which was closed by the Department on February 23, 2011 due to
inactivity.
On April 29, 2010, your client acquired the property. It should be noted that your client did not own the
property at the time the original or revised projects were submitted. Additionally, new information has
become available to the Department, which was not available when the Project was initially reviewed,
that indicates the existing building is a Contributor to the Uptown Tenderloin National Register Historic
District. As such, a new Environmental Evaluation application (with Historic Resource Evaluation) is
required for the Project.
In your request for a Letter of Determination, you argue that the CU Authorization remains valid because
the Department did not take formal actions on Building Permit Application Nos. 2002.0703.0659 and
2002.0703.0664 ("Permits"), which allow demolition of the existing building and construction of a 13story mixed-use building with 35 dwelling units, approximately 4,900 square feet of retail, approximately
10,000 square feet of office use and no parking. It should be noted that the Department could not take
action on these permits because 1) the project sponsor failed to work with Department staff to refine the
design of the Project and submit revised plans (as directed by the Commission) and 2) the plans
associated with the Permits (which were submitted on July 3, 2002) did not conform to the characteristics
of the Project as approved by the Commission under the CU Authorization.
Based on the above information, I have determined that the Project Sponsor did not commence
construction or diligently pursue the CU Authorization, including submittal of revised plans that comply
with the Commission’s decision, within three years of the date of the CU Authorization. As stated in the
Conditions of Approval contained in Motion No. 16831, the CU Authorization is deemed null and void.
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 9, 2012
APPEAL: If you believe this determination represents an error in interpretation of the Planning Code or
abuse in discretion by the Zoning Administrator, an appeal may be filed with the Board of Appeals
within 15 days of the date of this letter. For information regarding the appeals process, please contact the
Board of Appeals located at 1650 Mission Street, Room 304, San Francisco, or call (415) 575-6880.
Sincerely,
-0~~
-
Scott F. Sanchez
Zoning Administrator
cc: Alice Suet Yee Barkley of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP
Jerry Threet, Office of the City Attorney
Daniel A. Sider, Planning Department
Aaron Hollister, Planning Department
AJH G:\LefferstLoDI65l-655 Geary Street LOD.doc
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LUCE FORWARD
121 Spear Street
Suite 200
ATTORNEYS AT LAW FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
415.356.4600
www.luce.com
ANNE MORRISON EPPERLY, ATTORNEY
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 415.356.4677
DIRECT FAX NUMBER 415.356.3871
EMAIL ADDRESS [email protected]
39894-00001
(0t4
NE-
November 21, 2011
VIA E-MAIL& U.S. MAIL
Mr. Scott Sanchez
Planning Department
1650 Mission Street, 4th Floor
Re: 651-655 Geary Street (2002.1036CEKV)
Request for Determination: The 2004 Conditional Use Authorization is Valid
Dear Mr. Sanchez:
This office represents Success Development, Inc. ("Owner"), the owner who purchased the
commercial property located at 651-655 Geary Street in San Francisco, California (sometimes
referred to as 653-661 Geary Street ["Site"]) on April 29, 2010. The purpose of this letter is to
request a determination that a prior Conditional Use Authorization (’CU Authorization") remains
valid, thereby allowing demolition of the existing structure (on the City’s UMB list) and
construction of a new residential building in its place.
In 2004, the Planning Commission approved a CU Authorization for the construction of a new 80foot high, mixed-use building on the Site with 41 dwelling units, 1,420 square feet of ground-floor
retail use and 16,467 square feet of office space ("Project"). The Site is located in a RC-4 zoning
district and a 80-120-T height and bulk district.
One of the conditions of approval required that construction of the Project had to begin within three
years of the CU Authorization. To commence construction, an addendum to the site or building
permit had to issue. Here, no site or building permit was ever issued for the Project because the
Planning Department failed to route the building permit or the site permit back to the Department of
Building Inspection ("DBI") for further processing to ensure that those permits complied with the
San Francisco Building Code, Fire Code and other applicable code provisions. (See Print-out from
DBI’s on-line permit tracking attached hereto as Exhibit 1.) As a result, the owner of the Site was
never informed that the permit application had been canceled or denied by the Planning Department
or DBI. By this letter, the Owner requests a letter of determination that the 2004 CU Authorization
is still valid.
301291305.3
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
Los ANGELES
CARMEL VALLEY/DEL MAR
ORANGE COUNTY
RANCHO SANTA FE
LUCE FORWARD
Mr. Scott Sanchez
November 21, 2011
Page 2
Background
Planning Approvals and Environmental Review
On July 3, 2002, Permit Application No. 200207030664 was submitted for the demolition of the
existing building and the construction of the Project.’ On July 10, 2002, the permit application was
routed to the Planning Department for processing and assigned to Jim Miller.
In 2004, the Planning Department issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for the Project.
(See MND attached hereto as Exhibit 2.) The MND found that the Site was not in a local historic
district. Although at the time the Site was part of a proposed National Historic District, the building
on the Site was not rated. Thus, the MND concluded that there was no historic resource at the Site.
(Exhibit 2, p. 24-25.) Relying on the MND, the Planning Commission granted a CU Authorization
for the Project in 2004. (See CU Authorization attached hereto as Exhibit 3.) Condition of
Approval No. 2 for the CU Authorization states that the CU Authorization is null and void if the
Project does not begin "within 3 years from the date of [the Planning Commission approval]."
(Exhibit C, p. 22.) However, after the CU Authorization was granted, the Planning Department did
not return the permit application to DBI for further processing. Without an issued site or building
permit, no work on the Project could begin and no demolition permit could be issued. At the same
time, no notice of cancellation by either the Planning Department or DBI was issued.
On July 25, 2008, Nancy Clark of Touchstone Consulting, on behalf of previous owner Geary
Village LLC, submitted an environmental review application for a revised Project that would
eliminate the 16,467 square feet of office space, increase the number of dwelling units from 41 to 46,
and decrease the retail space to 1,045 square feet (the "Revised Project"). In 2010, with the
economic downturn, the previous owner decided to put the Revised Project on hold and the
Department was so informed. On March 23, 2010, Jennie Polling, the Environmental Planner of the
Note that the office space was specifically designed for the Career Resource Development Center
("CRDC") who has since moved to Oakland.
2
In 1983, the State Historical Resources Commission began, and then halted, the designation
process of the Uptown Tenderloin National Register Historic District. In 2006, the process of
designating the "Uptown Tenderloin Historic District" was restarted. In May, 2008, the State Office
of Historic Preservation ("SHPO") requested comments on the Uptown Tenderloin Historic District.
The City’s Historic Preservation Advisory Board notified SHPO of its concurrence. On February 5,
2009, the Uptown Tenderloin Historic District was placed on the Federal Register of Historic Places.
The historic register form evaluated a total of 477 buildings and sites, including the Site and the
Building which was determined to be a contributory building in the District.
301291305.3
LUCE FORWARD
Mr. Scott Sanchez
November 21, 2011
Page 3
Planning Department, responded by e-mail to Nancy Clark. Ms. Polling’s e-mail stated that "if the
new owner wants to move forward with the project (or something every similar)" he can "file a new
application for a ’neg dee’ addendum." (See Email from Jennie Polling attached hereto as Exhibit
4.) By advising the new owner to file "a neg dec addendum", it was inferred that the Revised Project
would still not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, including on a historic
resource, and an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") would not be necessary.
Analysis
It is a common practice of the Planning Department to extend the time period in which to fulfill a
condition of approval if the delay is caused by the City or other governmental agencies. This
practice is based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Equitable estoppel provides that when a party
has led another to believe a particular thing and to act upon such a belief, he is not permitted to
contradict it. A governmental agency is bound by the principles of equitable estoppel in the same
manner as a private party.
Here, after the Planning Commission approved the CU Authorization, the Property transferred
ownership on several occasions and there is no indication that the CU Authorization for the Project
had expired or that the permit application had been cancelled. Indeed, the 2010 communication from
the Department’s environmental review section led the Owner to believe that a negative declaration
addendum could be submitted for a Project similar to that approved in the 2004 CU Authorization.
Adoption of a negative declaration addendum means that an EIR would not be required.
We therefore request a determination that the 2004 CU Authorization is still valid. The fee for a
determination request is enclosed. Please contact us if you have any questions about this request.
Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Ver truly yours,
r7
For
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS
AME/jk
Enclosures: Exhibits 1 through 4
cc: Alice Suet Yee Barkley
301291305.3
LLP
EXHIBIT 1
Department of Building Inspection
http://dbiweb.sfgov.org/dbipts/default.aspx?page=permjtDetai I
Online Permit and Complaint Tracking
Permit Details Report
Report Date:
9/2 7/ 2011 12:03:38 PM
Application Number:
Form Number:
200207030664
Address(es):
0318 /020 /0
653
GEARY
ST
0318 /020 /0
661
GEARY
ST
NEW BUILDING-13 STORIES, 3 DWELLING UNITS, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE
BUILDING.
$9,500,000.00
BR-i
24 - APARTMENTS
Description:
Cost:
Occupancy Code:
Building Use:
Disposition / Stage:
Action
Date
7/3/2002
7/3/2002
7/3/2002
Stage
Comments
TRIAGE
FILING
FILED
Contact Details:
ARCHITYPE DESIGN 6363 CHRISTIE,EMERYVILLE - 5106017289
Contractor Details:
Addenda Details:
np.,r,intnn
In
Out
Step Station
______ Arrive start Hid
I
2
3
4
6
7
8
p
CPB
7/3/02 7/3/02
Checkedi
Phone
FmIshJB
Hold Description
7/3/02
41.5-558-6070
’NDA
MILLER
CP-ZOC
7/10/02
455-558-6377
- JIM
PAD-MIECH
- 415-558-6133
PAD-MJJ
415-558-6133
SFFD
415-558-6177
DPW-BSM
415-558-6060
ONE-STOP
415-358-6649
SFPUC
415-575-6941
CPB
- 415-558-6070,
Appointments:
Appointment DatejAppointment AM/PMjAppointinent Codeppointment TypeDescriptionTime Slots
Inspections:
Activity DatejInspectorInspection Descripiionjlnspection Status
Special Inspections:
Addenda No.ICompleted Datejlnspected BInspection CodejDescriplionRemarks
For information, or to schedule an inspection, call 558-6570 between 8:30 am and
Station Code Descriptions
3:00 pm.
Phone Numbers
Online Permit and Complaint Tracking home page.
Technical Support for Online Services
If you need help or have a question about this service, please visit our FAQ area.
I of 2
9/27/2011 12:02 PM
http://dbiweb.sfgov.org/dbipts/default.aspx?pagePermitDetai
Report Date:
9/27/201112:05:35 PM
Application Number: 200203121200
Form Number:
3
Address(es):
0318/020/0 655
GEARY
ST
Description:
VOLUNTARY SEISMIC UPGRADE INSTALL RIGID FRAME FOR PLAN
Cost:
$50,000.00
Occupancy Code:
B,R-3
Building Use:
28 - 2 FAMILY DWELLING
Action Date
3/12/2002
3/12/2002
3/12/2002
4/25/2002
J26/2002
12/18/2008
Stage
Comments
TRIAGE
FILING
FILED
APPROVED
ISSUED
EXPIRED
Contact Details:
Contractor Details:
Addenda Details:
’Checked
Hold Description
jBy
PA
one stop
1
-PC
3/14/02 3/27/02 3/27/02
/25/02
RODOLFO
ZULAYBAif
2
ONE-STOP 4/25/02 4/25/02
4/25/02
ROGEUO I
SHEK
CPE
4/25/02
APPRVD,YLB
4/25/02
3
KATHY
Ims permit Has Heen issued. lor intonation pertaining to this permit, please call 415-558-096.
Step Station
rrive Start
In
Hold
Out
Hold
Finish
111111
Appointments:
Appointment Dateppointment AM/PMppointment CodejAppointment TypelDescriptioælTime Slots
Inspections:
Activity Date Inspector
12/18/2008
IDermott Sullivan
Inspection Description Inspection Status
1EXPIRE
JEXPIRE
Addenda Completed
No.
Date
0
0
o
0
I
By InSpectiOflID.j
Code
01
CONCRETE
05
WELDING
j04
IREBAR/TENDONS
BOLTS IN CONCRETE
02
Remarks
I
I
For information, or to schedule an inspection, call 558-6570 between 8:30 am and 3:00 pro.
Station Code Descriptions and Phone Numbersj
Online Permit and Complaint Tr a cking home page.
Contact SFG0v Accessibility
Policies
City and County of San Francisco '2000-2009
2 of
9/27/2011 12:06 PM
Department of Building inspection
htlp://dbiweb,sfgov.org/dbipts/default.aspx?pagePermitDetai
)
)
Report Date:
9/27/201112:02:27
PM
Application Number: 200207030659
Form Number:
6
Address(es):
0318/020/0 653
GEARY
ST
Description:
DEMOLISH 3 STORIES, VOCATIONAL TRAINING BUILDING.
Cost:
Not Specified
Occupancy Code:
Building Use:
Action
Date
7/3/2002
7/3/2002
7/3/2002
Comments
Stage
TRIAGE
FILING
FILED
-
Contact Details:
ARCHTYPE DESIGN ASSOC 6363 CHRISTIE #822,EMERYVILL - 5106017284
Contractor Details:
Addenda Details:
Step Station
Arrive Start
1
CPB
7/3/02 7/3/02
2
CP-ZOC
7/9/02
3
j_
5
6
PAD-MAJ
SFFD
DPW-BSM
jCPB
I
-
Finish
ici
Hold Description
VAN
15-558-6O70
7/3/02
B RENDA
MILLER
415-558-6377
- JIM
15-558-6133
415-558-6177
415-558-6060
415-558 - 60701
1
-
Checked
Phone
Illy
-
1
Appointments:
Appointment Dateppointment AM/PMiAppointment Codeitppointment TypejDescriptionjTime Slots
Inspections:
Activity DateInspectorInspection Descriptionllnspection Status
Addenda No.ICompleted Datejlnspected B34lnspection CodelDescriptionjRemarks
For information, or to schedule an inspection, call 558-6570 between 8:30 am and 3:00 pm.
Station Code Descriptions and Phone Numbers
I
Online Permit and Complaint Tracking home page.
Contact SFGov Accessibility
Policies
City and County of San Francisco (9) 2000-20 09
I of!
9/27/2011 12:02 PM
http://dh iweb.s fgov.org’dbipts/default.aspx?page=AddressData2&S..
You selected:
Address: 653 GEARYST
Block/Lot: 0318 / 020
Please select among the following links, the type of permit for which to view address information:
Electrical Permits Plumbing Permits Building Permits Complaints
(Building permits matching the selected address.)
Permit #
Block ILot IStreet #
Street Name
Unit
Current Stage Stage Date
200207030664
0318
nan 1653
GEARY ST
FILED
07/03/2002
200207030659
0318
oao 653
GEARY ST
FILED
07/03/2002
200102061470
0 318
oao
3
GEARYST
EXPIRED
08/08/2001
8715908
0318
020
53
GEARYST
COMPLETE
10/17/1988
8705985
0318
020
53
GEARYST
COMPLETE
09/30/1987
8602726
0318
020 t653
GEARYST
COMPLETE
0 4/09/ 1 987
Online Permit and Complaint Trac2g home page.
Contact SFGov Accessibility
Policies
City and County of San Francisco '2000-2009
I of
9/27/2011 12:00 PM
EXHIBIT 2
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION L
ce
Date of Publication of Preliminary Negative Declaration: February 14,200,
Lead Agency: Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco
1660 Mission Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: (41
Agency Contact Person: Tanuny Chan
Project Title: 2002.1036E -65 1-653 Geary Street
Project Sponsor: Career Resource Development Center (CRDC)
Telephone: (415) 986-7114
Project Contact: Herman Weeks
L
/--
!
Project Address:
Assessor’s Block and Lot:
City and County:
Assessor’s Block 0318, Lot 20
San Francisco
Project Description: The proposed project would involve the construction of a 13-story building consisting of
51 residential condominium units over two floors of office, career training, and retail space totaling
approximately 11,890 gross square feet (gsf) and a 5,945-square-foot basement used for storage. No parking
spaces are proposed. The proposed structure would be approximately 60,820 gsf with portions of the building
80 feet in height and portions at 130 feet in height, up to 95 feet taller than the existing building on the site.
The existing three-story, 19,900-gross-square-foot office/career training building would be demolished.
The project site is located within a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) zoning
district and within an 80-130-T height and bulk district. The project site is also within the North of Market
Residential Special Use District (SUD). The proposed project would require a conditional use
authorization to construct over 40 feet in height to establish commercial uses above the ground-floor
because it is within the North of Market Residential SUD. The project sponsor also plans to seek a
variance from the off-street parking requirement. The existing building is an unreinforced masonry
building constructed in 1912 and has a San Francisco Heritage rating of a 1)". The site is part of the
major city block bounded by Geary Street to the north, O’Farrell Street to the south, Jones Street to the
east, and Leavenworth Street to the west within the Downtown/Civic Center neighborhood.
Building Permit Application Number, If Applicable: 200207030659 and 200207030664
THIS PROJECT COULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. This
finding is based upon the criteria of the Guidelines of the State Secretary for Resources, Sections 15064
(Determining Significant Effect), 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance) and 15070 (Decision to
Prepare a Negative Declaration), and the following reasons as documented in the Initial Evaluation (Initial
Study) for the project, which is attached:
Mitigation measures, if any, included in this project to avoid potentially significant effects: (See pgs 26-29)
In the independent judgment of the San Francisco Planning Department, there is no substantial evidence
that the project could have a significant effect on the environment.
Fins Negative Declaration adopted and issued
on
x .2j
cc:
Herman Weeks. Project Sponsor
Jim Miller, NE Quadrant
Planning Commission
Distribution List
Supervisor Cbds Daly. Board of Supervisors
0. Chavez! Bulletin Board
L Fernandez! Master Decision File
-
District 6
INITIAL STUDY
2002.1036E - 651-653 Geary Street
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located at 651-653 Geary Street on Assessor’s Block 0318, Lot 20, which is approximately 7,000
square feet (sq. ft.) in size. The site is located about mid-block on the south side of Geary Street in the block bounded
by Geary Street to the north, O’Farrell Street to the south, Jones Street to the east, and Leavenworth Street to the west
(see Figure 1).
The site contains a three-story unremforced masonry building that is approximately 19,900 gross square feet (gsf)
covering the entire lot. The building was built around 1912 and is used by Career Resource Development Center
(CRDC) for office and career training. CRDC is a non-profit organization that provides social services to those in need
of job and language training for new immigrants, among other services.
The proposed project would involve the demolition of the existing three-story structure, and construction of one
building with portions of the building at 80 feet in height (North Tower) and portions at 130 feet in height (South
Tower). The new building would be 13-story (plus basement) at approximately 60,820 gsf (see Figures 2 and 3). The
proposed project would have a mix of uses including uses which are similar to the existing CRDC facility such offices
and training space, new ground-floor retail, and 11 floors of residential condominiums. The basement level would be
approximately 5,945 gsf and would contain storage space for CRDC and building services such utilities and
maintenance rooms. The ground floor would contain 5,945 gsf of retail space. The second floor would contain 5,945
gsf of administrative offices for CRDC. The third through twelfth floors would contain 51 residential units (17 studios
and 34 one-bedroom units) totaling approximately 42,985 gsf. Under Planning Code Section 315, the project would be
required to provide 12% inclusionaiy housing, or approximately six affordable units on-site because the project requires
a CU authorization or satisfy the affordability component by providing off-site affordable housing or pay an in-lieu fee
at a higher percentage. The proposed project would be setback 20 feet from the rear property line, meeting its rear yard
requirement. The proposed project would provide no parking spaces. The pedestrian entrance and access to the
building would be from Geary Street The proposed project would include 2,500 sq. ft. of rooftop garden areas, which
would serve as common open space.
The proposed project would require a conditional use (CU) authorization to construct over 40 feet in height to establish
commercial uses above the ground floor because it is within the North of Market Residential Special Use District
(SUD). The project sponsor also plans to seek a variance from the off-street parking requirement.
PROJECT SETTING
The project site is located within the Downtown-Civic Center area of the City within a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial
Combined, High Density) zoning district and 80-130-T height and bulk district. The project site is also located in the
North of Market Residential SUD. The immediate area surrounding the project site is a mix of residential and
commercial uses. Directly across Gear)’ Street to the north is the Islam Temple, a commercial garage that serves Post
Street Towers, a 17-story, 137-unit residential development. Adjacent to the garage is Alcazar Theater, several largescale residential condominiums, apartments and several four -to seven-story residential/tourist hotels over ground-floor
commercial space. immediately to the east of the project site at 639 Geary Street is Oakwood-Geary Courtyard
Apartments, a 14-story, 165-unit residential building. Immediately to the west of the proposed project is a five-story,
39-unit residential building. On the same side as the project site, further to the west towards Leavenworth Street, are
2002.1036E.651-653 Geary Street
several one-and two-story commercial buildings. On the same block further to the east towards Jones Street is a fourstory residential building over ground-floor commercial space. The block behind the proposed project, to the south
along O’Farrell Street is also predominantly residential. Apartments and residential/tourist hotels with ground-floor
commercial and parking garages are the predominant uses around the project site. The zoning around the project site is
predominantly RC4. Market Street and Union Square is located approximately five blocks to the south and east,
respectively, of the project site. Those areas are within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) zoning district,
which has a mixed of residential and commercial uses. Building heights in the project vicinity range from I to 17
stories. However, the majority of buildings are six Stories or less in height.
2002.1036E-653-653 GeaiySaect
-
EPPL..r
-
Figure 1-Project Location
Source: San Francisco Planning Department
4
2 002.1036E.651..653 Geary Street
LA
ri
BASEIIENT FLOIA PLAN
VTflJTY & STORAGE
GEARY STREET
OROUND FLOOR PLAN
RETAIL
1Figure 2-Tropoied .Building Floor Plan
FLOOR LE(L I
DC
4:
.
scale:1f8"=l’-O"
EAST 9DE EIEVATI(*4
(ST SJMLAR PQ$ITE HAND
Figure 3- Proposed Building Elevations
NOR11 (GEARY STREET) [LEVAI1ON
S(*JTH (RE’AR) ELCVAIK1H
Source Architype Design Associates, Inc.
Scale: 1/8"=l’-O"
Not
Apulicable DLijaa ed
A. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXIST iNG ZONING AND PLANS
1)
Discuss any variances, special authorizations, or changes proposed to the City
Planning Code or Zoning Map, if applicable.
2)
Discuss any conflicts with any adopted environmental plans and goals of the City
or Region, If applicable.
The San Francisco Planning Code, which incorporates by reference the City’s Zoning Maps, governs permitted uses,
densities, and the configuration of buildings within San Francisco. Permits to construct new buildings (or to alter or
demolish existing ones) may not be issued unless either the proposed project conforms to the Code, or an exception is
granted pursuant to provisions of the Code. Approval of the proposed project would result in an intensification of
development on the project site, the specific impacts of which are discussed below under the relevant topic heading.
The proposed office, career training, and retail uses would be permitted in the RC4 (Residential-Commercial
Combined, High Density) zoning district Construction over 40 feet in height (the proposed building height is 80 feet
in height with portions at 130 feet in height) within the North of Market Residential SUD have legislative setback
requirements and would require a CU authorization in pursuant to Section 263.7 of the San Francisco Planning Code to
construct over 40 feet in height. A CU is also required for establishing commercial uses above the ground-floor in a
RC-4 zoning district. Under Section 151 of the Planning Code, approximately 48 parking spaces are required for a
project of this size. No off-street parking spaces are proposed. The project sponsor plans to seek a variance from the
off-street parking requirement.
Under Planning Code Section 315, the project would be required to provide 12% inclusionazy housing on-site because
the project requires a CU authorization or satisfy the affordability component by providing off-site affordable housing
or pay an in-lieu fee at a higher percentage.
Environmental plans and policies are those, like the Bay Area Air Quality Plan, that directly address environmental
issues and/or contain targets or standards, which must be met in order to preserve or improve characteristics of the
City’s physical environment. The current proposed project would not obviously or substantially conflict with any such
adopted environmental plan or policy.
The San Francisco General Plan, which provides general policies and objectives to guide land use decisions, contains
some policies that relate to physical environmental issues. The current project would not obviously or substantially
conflict with any such policy. In general, potential conflicts with the General Plan are considered by decision makers
independently of the environmental review process, as part of the decision whether to approve or disapprove a proposed
project. Any potential conflict not identified here could be considered in that context, and would not alter the physical
environmental effects of the proposed project.
In November 1986, the voters of San Francisco approved Proposition M. the Accountable Planning Initiative, which
added Section 101.1 to the City Planning Code to establish eight Priority Policies. These policies are: (1) preservation
and enhancement of neighborhood-serving retail uses; (2) protection of neighborhood character, (3) preservation and
enhancement of affordable housing; (4) discouragement of commuter automobiles; (5) protection of industrial and
service land uses from commercial office development and enhancement of resident employment and business
ownership; (6) maximization of earthquake preparedness; (7) landmark and historic building preservation; and (8)
2002.1036E-651-653 Geary Sneet
protection of open, space. Prior to issuing a permit for any project which requires an Initial Study under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and prior to issuing a permit for any demolition, conversion, or change of use, and
prior to taking any action which requires a finding of consistency with the General Plan, the City is required to find that
the proposed project or legislation is consistent with the Priority Policies. The case reports for the CU authorization and
variance and/or subsequent motions for the Planning Commission will contain the analysis determining whether the
proposed project is in compliance with the Priority Policies.
B. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EWECTS
Al] items on the Initial Study Checklist have been checked "No," indicating that, upon evaluation, staffhas determined
that the proposed project could not have a significant adverse environmental effect. Several of those Checklist items
have also been checked "Discussed," indicating that the Initial Study text includes discussion about those particular
issues. For all of the items checked "No," without discussion, the conclusions regarding potential significant adverse
environmental effects are based upon field observation, staff experience and expertise on similar projects, and/or
standard reference material available Within the Department, such as the Department’s Transportation ImpactAnalysis
Guidelines for Environmental Review, or the California Natural Diversity Data Base and maps, published by the
California Department of Fish and Game. For eachchecklist item, the evaluation has considered the impacts of the
project both individually and cumulatively.
1) Land Use - Could the Project:
)M
NQ
DISCUSSED
(a) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community?
(b) Have any substantial impact upon the existing character of the
vicinity?
Under the proposed project, the existing 19,900 gross square foot, three-story, unreinforced masonry building would be
demolished and a new 13-story structure of approximately 60,820 gsf with portions of the building 80 feet in height
and portions at 130 feet in height would be constructed. The existing building is entirely used by CRDC as office and
career training space. CRDC offices and career training space would continue to occupy portions of the new building
at a lesser capacity. The new uses proposed on the site are retail and residential, therefore, the proposed building would
have a mix of uses including ground-floor retail, basement storage, and offices for CRDC and 11 floors of residential
condominiums.
The conversion of the project site from office and career training space to residential, retail, office, and career training
and storage would not be considered a significant impact for a variety of reasons. RC-4 districts provide for a mixture
of high-density dwellings with supporting commercial uses. The high density and mixed use nature of this district is
recognized by certain reductions in off-street parking requirements. As noted previously, the project site is also located
within the North of Market Residential SUD. The North of Market Residential SUD controls are designed to enhance
the important housing resources in an area near downtown, conserve and upgrade existing low and moderate income
housing stock, and encourage new infill housing at a compatible density. The proposed uses (office, retail, and
residential) are allowed uses in the RC-4 zoning district and the proposed uses and structure would not be substantially
or demonstrably incompatible with the existing variety of residential and commercial uses in the project area.
Apartments, residential/tourist hotels, commercial uses and parking garages are the predominant uses around the project
Site and within the RC-4 zoning district.
2002.1036E-651.653 Geary Street
The proposed building would be eight stories in height (approximately 80 feet) along Geary Street and 13 stories in
height towards the rear of the property (approximately 130 feet), with a 20-foot rear year setback. Several roof decks
are also proposed totaling 2 )500 sq.lt. The adjacent buildings immediately to the east and west of the project site are
14 and 5 stories tall, respectively. Across Geary Street with vehicular access through the Islam Temple garage is the
Post Street Towers, a 17-story residential development. The area immediately surrounding the project site consists of
commercial and residential buildings that generally range from I to 17 stones in height; therefore, the proposed 13story building would be consistent with the size and character of other structures in the area. The proposed project
would have no substantial effect upon the character of the area, nor would it disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community. Overall, effects related to land use would not be significant
2) Visual Quality
- Could the Project:
)
M
DISCUSSED
(a) Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
(b) Substantially degrade or obstruct any scenic view or vista now
observed from public areas?
V
(c) Generate obtrusive light or glare substantially impacting other
properties?
Building heights in the project block generally range from I to 17 stories. Aside from the 14-story Oakwood-Geary
Courtyard Apartments located immediately to the east and the 17-story Post Street Towers to the north, within twoblock of the project site are several other mid and high-rise buildings. The 17-story Clift Hotel is located at 495 Geary
Street. The 15-story Hotel Adagio is located at 550 Geary Street. The 12-story Castle Apartments Is located at 825
Geary Street. The proposed 13-story building would range from 80 to approximately 130 feet tall, approximately twice
as tall as the adjacent building to the west but at approximately the same height as the building to the east. With the
exception of the 14-story Oakwood-Geary Courtyard Apartments and the 17-story Post Street Towers, neighboring
buildings average 5 to 6 stories. Garage entrance for Post Street Towers is located on Geary Street while the Post Street
Towers’ pedestrian access is located along Post Street, therefore, the taller section of the building is located closest to
Post Street. However, the towers are visible from Cleary Street.
Portions of the proposed building would be 80 feet in height (North Tower) and portions at 130 feet in height ( South
Tower). It would be approximately 3 to 8 stories taller than the five-story building to the west and one story shorter than
the building to the east The view of the site would change with the construction of the proposed project Although
taller than most of the nearby buildings and potentially 95 feet taller than the existing building on the site, the height of
the proposed building would be consistent with buildings in the area, and would conform to the 80-130-T height and
bulk limit in this portion of the RC-4 zoning district. As noted in Planning Code Section 263.7, the 80-130-T height
and bulk districts are located within the North of Market Residential SUD; heights higher than 80 feet are permitted
within this district in order to transition from the higher downtown heights to the generally lower heights of the esisting
buildings in the core North of Market Residential SUD and the Civic Center area and to make more feasible the
construction of new housing.
While the new building would be taller than some of the existing buildings in the project area, it would not have a
substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect for the following reasons: 1) the building would be similar in height
to some of the other buildings in the area; 2) the building would not be of a size or type that would result in a negative
aesthetic view; 3) the project area has a commercial and residential setting; and 4) the building would not block or
2002.1036E-651-653 Geary Saw
degrade a public scenic view or vista. The proposed building would not generate obtrusive light or glare because the
proposed use would not generate substantially more light or glare than do the existing residential and commercial uses
in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the project would comply with Planning Commission Resolution 9212, which
prohibits the use of mirrored or reflective glass. In view of the above, the proposed project would not result in a
significant effect regarding visual quality.
3) Population
YES
(a) Induce substantial growth or concentration of population?
NO DISCUSS ED
V
_____
(b) Displace a large number of people (involving either housing ’or
employment)?
(c) Create a substantial demand for additional housing in San
Francisco, or substantially reduce the housing supply?
,.
V
The building is currently owner-occupied by CRDC. CRDC and their programs would be moved temporarily during
construction. Therefore, there would be no permanent displacement of any employees. Thebuilding on theprojectsite
does not currently contain any housing; thetefore, no residents would be displaced as a result of project
a maximum of 12-14 staff on-site at any one time, of which, two are full-time
implementation. CRDC in
employees and the rest are part-time employees or volunteers. The proposed project would not change the number of
employees on the project site. CRDC is a non-profit organization that provides social and philanthropic services to
those in need ofjob and language training for new immigrates or low income residents. Classes are offered Monday to
Friday, 9am to 12pm and 1pm to 4pm. There are approximately 60 students maximum in the morning and 25 in the
afternoon. The proposed project would consist of 34 one-bedroom units and 17 studio apartments for a total of 51
bedrooms. Assuming a conservative estimate of two persons per bedroom, the residential population on the site would
be about 102 persons. At full occupancy, the retail space would house about 17 employees.’ Since the number of
CR.DC employees and the number of students at the site would remain the same, the net new population would be from
the residential and retail component. Thus, the proposed project would potentially increase the on-site daily population
by about 102 residents and 17 commercial workers, for a total of 119 persons.
While potentially noticeable to the immediately adjacent neighbors, the increase in population on the site resulting from
the proposed project would not substantially increase the existing area-wide population, since the project area is a dense
and populated urban area with existing residential and commercial uses.
CRDC would not generate a demand for additional housing. The retail addition in the proposed project could potential
add 17 employees. This potential increase in employment would be small. The proposed project is a mixed-use
development and proposes 51 residential units; this would exceed the demand for housing created by the potential new
employees. The increase in available residential units created by the proposed project would balance the increase in
employment opportunities. The increase in residents and employees would not have a significant adverse effect on
existing area-wide population.
’Based on a factor of 350 gsf per employee, per the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for
Environmental Review, prepared by the City and County of San Francisco Planning Department, October 2002.
10
2002.103651.653GeaiyStreet
4) Transportatlon/Circulation
NQ
DISCUSSED
(a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
(b) Interfere with existing transportation systems, causing substantial
alterations to circulation patterns or major traffic hazards?
___
(c) Cause a substantial increase in transit demand which cannot be
accommodated by existing or proposed transit capacity?
_____
...
(d) Cause a substantial increase in parking demand which cannot be
accommodated by existing parking facilities?
V
V
V
The project site is located mid-block on the south side of Geary Street in the block bounded by Geary Street to the
north, O’Farrell Street to the south, Jones Street to the east, and Leavenworth Street to the west. Geary Street is a 69
foot-wide, one-way, westbound street with on-street parking on both sides of the street. Jones and Leavenworth Streets
are both 69-foot-wide, one-way streets with two travel lanes, and metered parking on each side of the street. Jones
Street runs north-south with two lanes of southbound traffic and Leavenworth Street runs north-south with three lanes
of northbound traffic. O’Farrell Street, just south of the project site, is a one-way eastbound street with parjcing on both
sides of the street The General Plan designates Cleary and O’Farrell Streets as major arterials (designated in the
General Plan as across-town thoroughfares whose primary function is to link districts within the City and to distribute
traffic to and from the freeways. These are generally mutes of citywide significance).’ Both Leavenworth and Jones
Streets are designated secondary arterials’ in the Genera] Plan. Cleary and O’Farrell Streets are designated Transit
Important Streets (designated in the General Plan as streets that are major arterials with high frequency of transit
service or ridership) and Neighborhood Commercial Streets (designated in the General Plan as streets which serve
pedestrians from the general vicinity and may have parking and loading conflicts).
Traffic
The proposed project would have a mix of office, retail, career training, and residential uses. There would be
approximately 5,945gs1 of utility and storage space located in the basement, approximately 5,945 gsf of retail would be
located on the ground-floor and 5,945 gsfofCRDC offices and classrooms would be located on the second floor. The
51 residential units would be located on floors 3-12 and would total approximately 42,985 gsf.
Since the number of CRDC employees and the number of students at the site would remain the same, and because
CRDC operations would reduce in size, from 19,900 gsf of the existing building to 11,890 gsf of the proposed building,
(5,945 gsf of office and 5,945 gsf of storage)’, for this analysis, it was assumed there would be no increase in persontrips to and from the existing CRDC office. Thus, only trips for the new residential, retail, and visitor trips were
calculated and considered as net new trips. The proposed project would generate an estimated 1,274 average daily
person-trips (7.5 for each studio and one-bedroom units, 892 trips by the retail space).
22 San Francisco General Plan, Transportation Element- Maps 6 and 7, Adopted
July 1995.
Secondary arterials are primarily intra-district routes of varying capacity serving as collectors for the major
thoroughfares in some cases supplemental to the major arterial system. San Francisco General Plan, Transportation
Element-Map 6, Adopted July 1995.
4 San Francisco General Plan, Transportation Element- Map 12, Adopted July 1995.
This is a conservative estimate since the 5,945 gsf of basement storage includes maintenance areas for the
proposed building.
11
2002.1036E-51-653 Oeaiy Street
Of the 1,274 daily person trips, about 146 would occur during the P.M. peak hour. These trips would be distributed
among various modes of transportation, including single occupancy, vehicles, carpools, public transit, walking, and
bicycling. Of the 146 P.M. peak hour person trips, 40 would be vehicular trips, 40 would be transit trips, 54 would be
walking trips, and 12 trips by other means that include bicycling and motorcycles. The trip generation of the proposed
project was calculated using information in the October 2002 Transportation impact Analysis Guidelines for
Environmental Review: (Guidelines) developed by the Planning Department. Mode split data for the uses were
obtained from the Guidelines for Census Tract 123: Mode split data for non-residential land uses were obtained from
the Guidelines for values in Superdistiict I. An average vehicle occupancy rate (obtained from the Guidelines) was
applied to the number of auto person-trips to determine the number of vehicle-trips generated by the proposed project.
The 40 vehicular trips generated by the proposed project would add a smallincrement to the cumulative long-term
traffic increase on the local roadway network in the neighborhood. The change in area traffic as a result of the project
would be undetectable to most drivers. Residents and businesses along Geary Street could experience an increase in
vehicular activity as a result of the proposed project; however, it would not be above levels which are common and
generally accepted in urban areas.
Transit
The estimated 40 P.M. peak-hour project trips utilizing public transit would be distributed among the public transit
lines providing service to the vicinity of the project site. The San Francisco Municipal Railway’s (MtJNJ) transit lines
38-Geary (outbound) serve the immediate vicinity of the project site. Within one block or approximately 350 feet from
the project site is the 38-Gear)’ (inbound) on O’Farrell Street, the 27-Bryant (inbound) on Leavenworth Street
(outbound) on Jones Street, and the 2-Clement, 3-Jackson, 4-Sutter (inbound) on Post Street. Furthermore, Market
Street is approximately six blocks or approximately 2,300 feet south of the project, is well served by transit. MUNI’s 6,
7, 9, 21, 66,71, ilL, F (historic streetcar), and Metro subway (3, K. L, M, N. and S lines) are located on Market Street.
Moreover, the Civic Center BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) station is also located on Market Street. The increase in
transit demand associated with the proposed project would not have a significant or noticeable impact upon transit
services in the project area or affect transit operations. The project would not interfere with circulation of pedestrians or
cause a substantial increase in transit demand that could not be accommodated by existing transit capacity.
Parking
Currently, parking is allowed on both sides of Gerry, Jones, and Leavenworth Streets with certain times designated for
street cleaning and truck loading. San Francisco Planning Code Section 151 requires residential projects in the RC-4
zoning district to provide off-street parking at the rate of one space for every four dwelling units. However, per section
209.1, dwelling units which are no more than 500 sq.ft. and consisting not more than one habitable room in addition to
a kitchen and a bathroom may be counted as equal 10 3/4 of a dwelling unit. The proposed unit mix consists of 11
studios fitting that definition. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating the project’s parking requirement, the building
consist of 48 units, thus 12 parking spaces would be required for the proposed 51 units. Section 151 requires
commercial developments to provide one parking space for each 500 square feet of occupied floor area where the
occupied floor area exceeds 5,000 sq. ft. Therefore, the project would be required to provide 36 parking spaces for the
17,835 gsf of retail, office, and basement storage space. in total, 48 off-street parking spaces would be required per
Code requirement. The project sponsor plans to seek a variance from the 48 off-street parking spaces requirement.
12
2002.1036E-651-653 GeaiyStreet
Based on the Guidelines, demand for parking would be 78 spaces: 56 spaces for the 51 dwelling units (1.1 spaces for
each studio and one bedroom,) and 22 spaces based on the short and long-term parking demand for the retail and office
component. Because the Guidelines have no specialized parking demand calculations for the proposed career training
use, the standard office parking demand calculations were used. Using this data results in a conservative overstating of
the parking demand. Due to the nature of CRDC clients, the trips generated would mostly be by walking or public
transit.
San Francisco does not consider parking supply as part of the permanent physical environment. Parking conditions are
not static, as parking supply and demand varies from day to day, from day to night, from month to month, etc. Hence,
the availability of parking spaces (or lack thereof) is not a permanent physical condition, but changes over time as
people change their mode and patterns of travel.
Given that the proposed project would not provide any parking, the proposed project would have an unmet parking
demand of approximately 78 daily spaces. The unmet parking demand generated by the proposed project would have
to compete for on-street parking. Although on-street parking was available on neighboring streets during the weekday
afternoon that the Planning Department staff visited the project site, the available off-street spaces might not adequately
meet the parking demand of the proposed project, causing parking in the area to become more difficult.
Parking deficits are considered to be social effects, rather than impacts on the physical environment as defined by
CEQA. Under CEQA, a project’s social impacts need not be treated as significant impacts on the environment.
Environmental documents, should however, address the secondary physical impacts that could be triggered by a social
impact. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a). The social inconvenience of parking deficits, such as having to hunt for
scarce parking spaces, is not an environmental impact, but there may be secondary physical environmental impacts,
such as increase traffic congestion at intersections, air quality impacts, safety impacts, or noise impacts caused by
congestion. In the experience of San Francisco transportation planners, however, the absence of a ready supply of
parking spaces, combined with available alternative to auto travel (e.g., transit service, taxis, bicycles, or travel by foot)
and a relatively dense pattern of urban development, induces many drivers to seek and find alternative panting facilities,
shift to other modes of travel, or change their overall travel habits. Any such resulting shifts to transit service in
particular would be in keeping with the City’s "Transit First" policy. The City’s Transit First Policy established in the
City’s Charter Section 16.102 provides that "parking policies for areas well-served by public transit shall be designed to
encourage travel by public transportation and alternative transportation." The project site is located in an area served by
transit and commercial garages.
The transportation analysis accounts for potential secondary effects, such as cars circling and looking for a parking
space in areas of limited parking supply, by assuming that all drivers would attempt to find parking at or near the
project site and then seek parking farther away if convenient parking is unavailable. Moreover, the secondary effects of
drivers searching for parking is typically offset by a reduction in vehicle trips due to others who are aware of
constrained parking conditions in a given area. Hence, any secondary environmental impacts which may result from a
shortfall in parking in the vicinity of the proposed project would be minor, and the traffic assignments used in the
transportation analysis, as well as in the associated air quality, noise and pedestrian safety analyses, reasonably
addresses potential secondary effects.
Loading
Average and peak hour (10:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.) loading demand for the proposed project would be substantially less
than one space per hour. No off-street freight loading spaces are required pursuant to Planning Code Section
152.1,
13
2002.1036E.651-653 Geary Street
and none are proposed. Traffic flow on Geary Street could occasionally be impeded by service vehicles double parking
on Geary Street; however, due to the project’s low (fewer than one stop per hour) service-call generation, the effect on
traffic flow would be considered less than significant.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions
Sidewalks in the project vicinity have substantial capacity at present. Pedestrian activity would increase as a result of
the project, but not to a degree that could not be accommodated on local sidewalks or that would result in safety
concerns. There are no established bicycle mutes in the vicinity of the project site. The propose project would not
interfere with bicycle accessibility or create hazardous conditions for bicyclists.
Construction Impacts
During the projected 12-month construction period, temporary and intermittent traffic and transit impacts would result
from truck movements to and from the project site. Truck movements during periods of peak traffic flow would have
greater potential to create conflicts than during non-peak hours because of the greater numbers of vehicles on the streets
during the peak hour that would have to maneuver around queued trucks. The project sponsor may apply for closure of
the parking lane on Geary Street in front, of the project site. Temporary sidewalks would be constructed to ensure
pedestrian safety. Lane and sidewalk closures are subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works
(DPW).
Temporary parking demand from construction workers’ vehicles and impacts on local intersections from construction
worker traffic would occur in proportion to the number of construction workers who would use automobiles.
Construction workers would park in existing on-street parking spaces and parking garages in the project vicinity.
Although construction workers may have to circulate on streets in the vicinity of the project site to find available
parking, the anticipated parking deficit would not substantially change the capacity of the existing street system or alter
the existing parking conditions in the area. In summary, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on
transportation and circulation.
5) jQ
X
- Could the Project:.
NO DISCUSSED
(a) Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining
areas?
(b) Violate Title 24 Noise Insulation Standards, if applicable?
(c) Be substantially impacted by existing noise levels?
Ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project are typical of noise levels in neighborhoods in San Francisco, which
are dominated by vehicular traffic, including trucks, cars, MUNI buses, emergency vehicles, new construction in the
area, and commercial activities. Noise generated by residential and commercial uses are common and generally
accepted in urban areas. The noise generated by the occupants of the proposed project would not be considered a
significant impact of the proposed project. An approximate doubling of traffic volumes in the area would be necessary
to produce an increase in ambient noise levels noticeable to most people. The project would not cause a doubling in
traffic volumes and therefore would not cause a noticeable increase in the ambient noise level in the project vicinity.
14
2002.1036E-651-53 Geary Street
Construction noise is regulated by the San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Article 29 of the San Francisco Police Code).
The Noise Ordinance requires that construction work be conducted in the following manner: 1) noise levels of
construction equipment, other than impact tools, must not exceed 80 decibels (dBA; a unit of measure for sound - "A"
denotes the A-weighted scale, which simulates the response of the human ear to various frequencies of sound) at a
distance of 100 feet from the source (the equipment generating the noise); 2) impact tools must have intake and exhaust
mufflers that are approved by the Director of DPW to best accomplish maximum noise reduction; and 3) if the noise
from the construction work would exceed the ambient noise levels at the site property line by 5 CIBA, the work must not
be conducted between 8:00 P.M. and 7:00 AM., unless the Director of the DPW authorizes a special permit for
conducting the work during that period.
The Department of Building Inspection (DBJ) is responsible frenforcing the Noise Ordinance for private construction
projects during normal business hours (8:00A.M. to 5:00 P.M.). The Police Department is responsible frenfo.ting the
Noise Ordinance during all other hours. Nonetheless, during the construction period for the proposed project,
occupants of the nearby properties could be disturbed by construction noise and possibly vibration. The increase in
noise in the project area during project construction would not be considered a significant impact of the proposed
project because the construction noise would be temporary, intermittent, and restricted in occurrence and level, as the
contractor would be obliged to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance.
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations establishes uniform noise insulation standards forresidential projects
(including hotels, motels, and livelwork developments). DBI would review the final building plans to insure that the
building wall and floor/ceiling assemblies for the residential development meet State standards regarding sound
transmission.
6) Mr Quality/Climate
YES
(a) Violate any ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
NO DISCUSSED
_____
be
(b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(c) Permeate its vicinity with objectionable odors?
(d) Alter wind, moisture or temperature (including sun shading
effects) so as to substantially affect public areas, or change the climate
either in the community orregion?
Air Quality
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established thresholds for projects requiring detailed
air quality analysis. These thresholds are based on the minimum size of projects that the District considers capable of
producing air quality problems due to vehicular emissions. The proposed project would not exceed this minimum
standard. Therefore, no significant air quality impacts due to vehicular emissions would be generated by the proposed
development.
Construction emissions would occur in short-term and temporary phases, but they still have the potential to cause
adverse effects on local air quality. The BAAQMD, in it CEQA Guidelines, has developed an analytical approach that
obviates the need to quantitatively estimate these emissions. Instead, BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible dust
control measures for construction activities. The proposed project would include a measure (Mitigation Measure I, in
15
2002.1036E-651-653 Geary Sireet
the Mitigation Measure section of this Initial Study) which would implement the appropriate BAAQMD measures by
requiring the project contractor to water the Site (with reclaithed water), cover soil and othennaterials, cover the trucks,
and to sweep the streets to minimize dust generation during excavation, storage, and transportation; the contractor
would also minimize vehicle emissions through prohibiting idling of motors and by implementing a maintenance
program. Because the proposed project would include these mitigation measures, it would not cause significant
construction-related air quality effects.
Shadows
Section 295 of the San Francisco Planning Code was adopted in response to Proposition K (passed in November 1984)
in order to protect certain public open spaces from shadowing by new structures during the period between one hour
after sunrise and one hour before sunset, year-round. Section 295 restricts new shadow upon public spaces under the
jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department by any structure exceeding 40 feet unless the City Planning
Commission finds the impact to be insignificant. The proposed building height is 80 feet in height at the front of the
building and 130 feet in height in the rear. To determine whether this project would conform to Section 295, a shadow
fan analysis was prepared by the Planning Department. This analysis determined that the project shadow would not
shade public areas subject to Section 295.’ Because of the proposed building height and the configuration of existing
buildings in the vicinity, the net new shading which would result from the proposed construction would be limited in
scope, and would not increase the total amount of shading above levels which are common and generally accepted in
urban areas.
The proposed project is located in the RC-4 zoning district, and is not located in the area covered under Planning Code
Section 146 and 147 which deals with shading on areas other than Recreation and Park property. The project would at
times shade sidewalks and buildings adjacent to the project However, the new Shadows created by the project would
not exceed levels commonly accepted in urban areas, and would not be considered significant.
Wind
Winds in San Francisco are most frequently from the west to northwest directions, reflecting the persistence of sea
breezes. Average wind speeds in San Francisco are the highest in the summer and lowest in the winter, with the
strongest peak winds occurring in the winter. Wind direction is most variable in the winter. Westerly and
northwesterly winds are the most frequent and strongest winds during all seasons. Of the 16 primaiy wind directions,
four have the greatest frequency of occurrence and make up the majority of the strong winds; these are the northwest,
west-northwest, west, and west-southwest.
Large buildings can redirect wind flows around and down to street level, resulting in increased wind speed and
turbulence at street level. The City has established specific comfort criteria for evaluation of proposed buildings. The
Planning Code establishes wind criteria for C-3 (Downtown) districts (Section 148), Rincon Hill (Section 249.1),
South of Market (Section 263.11), and the Van Ness corridor (Section 243). The wind hazard criterion is set at an
hourly averaged wind speed of 26 miles per hour (mph), which is not to be exceeded more than once during a year.
A project that would exceed the wind hazard criterion is considered to have a significant wind impact The Planning
Code also establishes comfort criteria of up to 7 mph for public seating areas and up to 11 mph for areas of substantial
’A copy of the shadow fan analysis is available for review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1660
Mission Street, as part of case file 2002.1036K.
16
2002.1036E-651-653 Geary Saw
pedestrian use, which are not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time. For the purpose of determining compliance
with the Wind Code, buildings with a height of more than 100 feet above grade usually would be evaluated by windtunnel testing, according to a standard wind testing protocol.
The proposed building would be up to 130 feet in height,, a wind-tunnel test was not conducted because the site is not
within the established wind criteria districts. However, a wind evaluation was conducted by an independent consultant’
to evaluate the potential physical effects of the proposed project on the pedestrian wind environment nearby.
The proposed project would replace the existing building with a residential mixed-use building consisting of an 8-story
base at about 80 feet in height and a 13-story tower at about 130 feet high at the rear of the lot. The base would be
approximately 15 to 20 feet taller than the existing five-story building to the west at 665 Geary Street; the tower section
would be approximately the same height as the 125-foot high Oakwood-Geary Courtyard Apartments at 629 Geary
Street, to the east. Along the north side of Geary Street on the project block, buildings range from 3 to 12 stories in
height.
According to the wind evaluation, the existing wind conditions at the site and vicinity are windy. Prior wind-tunnel
testing on parallel streets south of Pine Street generally has focused on properties closer to Van Ness Avenue and
properties closer to Market Street Winds it many locations along the sidewalks can be expected to exceed the 11-mph
Pedestrian Comfort Criterion of Planning Code Section 148. The proposed building, with its eight-story base and 13.
,story tower, fits well into the existing street wall and building masses on either side of the site. The predominant winds
that affect the site approach from directions ranging from northwest to west. The project would present little new area
that would be exposed to the winds from these directions. The base is also well protected by the building at 665 Geary
Street, with only the top 20 feet exposed. The Oakwood-Geary Courtyard Apartment tower now diverts strong west
Northwest and west winds down onto the roof of the two-story 651 Geary Street building and then down into the
entrance courtyard of the Oakwood-Geary Courtyard Apartments. The new tower of the proposed project would
intercept those same winds and divert them onto the rooftop of its own base, where these diverted winds are less likely
to reach the ground. Other than this change, the size, configuration and scale of the project, in the context of the
surrounding mix of buildings and being immediately adjacent to the tower of the existing neighboring apartments, the
proposed project would only minimally alter the wind flows, directions, and/or velocities on sidewalks in the project
vicinity. The wind speed on the adjacent Cleary Street sidewalks should only change by roughly one mile per hour,
with increases at locations immediately adjacent to the building and decrease at compensating locations further
downwind of the site.
As a result, wind speeds that may now meet the pedestrian comfort criterion at locations along Cleary Street would
likely remain in compliance with the proposed project in place. Conversely, wind speeds that now exceed the
pedestrian comfort criterion at locations along those sidewalks and at intersection of Cleary and Jones Streets would
continue to exceed that criterion with the project in place. There is no reason to suspect that the project would cause or
contribute to an exceedance of the hazard criterion of the Planning Code. Because the project would not cause the wind
hazard criterion to be exceeded, the project would not have any significant wind impacts.
For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to air quality.
’Environmental Science Associates, Wind Evaluation of Proposed Project, 651 Geary Street, January 29,
2003. A copy of the analysis is available for review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street,
as part of case file 2002.1036E.
17
2002.1036E.651..653 Geary Street
M
7) Utilities/Public Services - Could the Project:
(a) Breach published national, state or local standards relating to solid
waste or litter control?
NQ
____
(b) Extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new
development?
(c) Substantially increase demand for schools, recreation or other
public facilities?
(d) Require major expansion of power, water, or communications
facilities?
The proposed project is on a site that is currently served by fire, police, schools, solid waste collection, recreational
facilities, water, gas, and electricity. The project proposed new residential and retail uses to the site and would increase
the demand for and use of public services and utilities on the site and provide open space. It would increase water and
energy consumption, but not in excess of amounts expected and provided for in this area. Therefore, the project would
not result in a significant impact on public services and utilities.
The proposed project would increase demand for and use of public services and utilities on the site, but not in excess of
amount expected and provided for in this area. San Francisco consumers have recently experienced rising energy costs
and uncertainties regarding the supply of electricity. The root causes of these conditions are under investigation and
are the subject of much debate. Part of the problem may be that the State does not generate sufficient energy to meet
its demand arid must import energy from outside sources. Another part of the problem may be the lack of cost controls
as a result of deregulation. The California Energy Commission (CED) is currently considering applications for the
development of new power-generating facilities in San Francisco, the BayArea, and elsewhere in the State. These
facilities could supply additional energy to the power supply "grid" within the next few years. These efforts, together
with conservation, will be party of the statewide effort to achieve energy sufficiency. The project-generated demand
for electricity would be negligible in the context of overall demand within San Francisco and the State, and would not
in and of itself require a major expansion of power facilities. Therefore, the energy demand associated with the
proposed project would not result in a significant physical environmental effect.
M
8) Biology - Could the Project:
NQ
DISCUSSED
(a) Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or
plant or the habitat of the species?
(b) Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants, or
interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species?
(c) Require removal of substantial numbers of mature, scenic trees?
Theproject site is covered completely by the existing building. The project would not affect rare oreadangemed species
of plants or animals, nor would it diminish habitat of any species or require the removal of significant numbers of
mature trees. No other important biological resources are likely since humans have disturbed the site for many years.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on biological resources.
18
2002.1036E.61-653 Geary Street
9) Ge6Jo2v/TppoEraphv
NQ
DISCUSSED
(a) Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards (slides,
subsidence, erosion and liquefaction).
p1
(b) Change substantially the topography or any unique geologic or
physical features of the site?
The San Francisco General Plan Community Safety Element contains maps that show areas of the City subject to
geologic hazards. This map indicates areas in which one or more geologic hazards exist. The project site is located in
an area subject to nonstructural damage from ground shaking from earthquakes along the San Andreas (Map 2) and
Northern Hayward (Map 3) Faults and other faults in the San Francisco Bay Area. The project site is not located in an
area subject to potential landslide hazard (Map 5), nor is the site located in an area of liquefaction potential (Map 4), a
Seismic Hazards Study Zone (SHSZ) designated by the California Division of Mines and Geology.
A geoteclmical consultant (Globe Soil Engineers) has conducted a soil and foundation investigation for the proposed
project and prepared a report, the findings of which are summarized below.’
Three exploratory borings were drilled to depths of 16 to 20 feet. The consultant found soft to finn silty sands and
sandy clays with rock fragments and fill, over dense silty sand, overlying hard sandy sediments. Groundwater was
encountered in one of the borings at the depth of 9-10 feet. The existing building contents a basement, therefore,
development of the site would require minimum excavation for the new basement, footing, and foundation work. The
sponsor has agreed to follow the recommendations of the report in constructing the project. The consultant indicates
that the project site is suitable for the proposed project construction from a geotechnical and foundation engineering
standpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in thereport are incorporated into the design and construction
of the proposed building. The recommendations contained in the report included but are not limited to: conducting site
preparation, excavation operations, surface and subsurface drainage, drilled pier foundation and grade beams
foundations, or continuous footing foundation, retaining walls, lateral load resistance, settlements, and design
considerations.
Any groundwater encountered during construction of the proposed project would be subject to requirements of the
City’s Industrial Waste Ordinance (Ordinance Number 199-77), requiring that groundwater meet specified water
quality standards before it may be discharged into the sewer system. The Bureau of Systems Planning, Environment
and Compliance of the S.F. Public Utilities Commission must be notified of projects necessitating dewatering, and may
require water analysis before discharge. Should dewatering be necessary, the final soils report would address the
potential settlement and subsidence impacts of this dewatering. Based upon this discussion, the report would contain a
determination as to whether or not a lateral movement and settlement survey should be done to monitor any movement
or settlement of surrounding buildings and adjacent streets. If a monitoring survey is recommended, theDepamnentof
Public Works would require that a Special Inspector (as defined in Article 3 of the Building Code) be retained by the
project sponsor to perform this monitoring.
$ Soil and Geotechnical Report, Project Location 653-655 Geary Street, San Francisco, CA, July 2002- A
copy of this report is on file with the Planning Department at 1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 and is available for
public review by appointment as part of the project file 2002.1036E.
19
2002.1036E-651-653 Geary Street
Groundwater observation wells would be installed to monitor potential settlement and subsidence. If, in the judgment
of the Special Inspector, unacceptable movement were to occur during dewatering, groundwater recharge would be
used to halt this settlement Costs for the survey and any necessary repairs to service lines under the street would be
borne by the project sponsor.
Additionally, the proposed project would be required to conform to the San Francisco Building Code, which ensures
the safety of all new construction in the City. Decisions about appropriate foundation design and whether additional
background studies are required would be determined as part of the DBI review process. Background information
provided to DEl would provide for the security and stability of adjoining properties as well as the subject property
during construction. Therefore, potential damage to structures from geologic hazards on the project site would be
mitigated through the DBI requirement fora geotechnical report and review of the building permit application pursuant
to its implementation of the Building Code. Any changes incorporated into the foundation design required to meet the
San Francisco Building Code standards that are identified as a result of the DBI review process would constitute minor
modifications of the project and would not require additional environmental analysis.
10) Water Could the Project:
M IQ DISCUSSED
(a) Substantially degrade water quality, or contaminate a public water
supply?
(b) Substantially degrade or deplete groundwater resources, or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge?
(c) Cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation?
Project-related wastewater and storm water would continue to flow to the City’s combined sewer system and would be
treated to standards contained in the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for th e
Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant prior to discharge. During operations, the proposed project would comply
with all local wastewater discharge requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade water
quality. The project site is completely covered by the existing building. The project would not change the amount of
impervious surface area, and would not measurably affect current runoff or groundwater recharge. Therefore, neither
groundwater resources nor runoff and drainage would be adversely affected. Significant impacts to water therefore
would not occur as a result of the proposed project.
11) Ener2v/Natural Resources
XL
IQ DISCUSSED
(a) Encourage activities which result in the use of large amounts of
fuel, water, or energy, or use these in a wasteful manner?
(b) Have a substantial effect on the potential use, extraction, or
depletion of a natural resource?
The proposed project would meet current state and local codes concerning energy consumption, including Title 24 of
the California Code of Regulations enforced byDBI. For this reason, it would not cause a wasteful use of energy, and
the proposed project’s effects on energy consumption would not be significant.
20
2002J036E-651-653 GearyScreet
12) Hazards
)Q DISCUSSED
(a) Create a potential public health hazard or involve the use,
production or disposal of materials which pose a hazard to people or
animal or plant populations in the area affected?
_____
_V
(b) Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency
evacuation plans?
(c) Create a potentially substantial fire hazard?
____ ...
.’
Hazard Materials and Soil and Groundwater Contamination:
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the project site was conducted by an independent consultant 9 The
Phase I ESA was conducted to identify possible environmental concerns related to on-site or nearby presence of
hazardous or toxic chemicals from past and present land use activities, with particular focus on potential degradation of
soil and groundwater quality.
The Phase I ESA indicates that the area supported various commercial and residential structures since at least 1899.
The building on the subject property was constructed around 1918. Through the yeam the property housed an auto
repair garage, a residential unit, a bank, a private school, and the current tenant, CRDC. CRI)C moved into the building
on the project site in 1987. The report notes that at the time of inspection, no hazardous materials were seen in the
building Or along the sidewalks along the frontage of the property and the exterior building walls. There was no staining
or deterioration on the floor or walls of the building that could be an indication of any chemical usage. There was no fill
or vent pipes observed indicating underground storage tanks.
The Phase I investigation examined the history of uses on the project site and surrounding area for potential sources of
hazardous substances as a result of activities on and off the site that may have involved handling, storage, or disposal of
hazardous substances that would affect the quality of soils or groundwater. The ESA found several addresses near the
project site that were on the databases reviewed. A total of 120 cases with possible releases of chemicals of
environmental concerns were identified within the area of the search (within one-eight mile from the subject property).
All but one site were considered not to have impacted the site because of their distance from the site, and/or their
relative location down-gradient/cross-gradient from the site, or their no further action (NFA) status, dc-listed status, or
because no violations were listed. The closest significant address is 676 Geary Street, also known as the Hampshire
House. The property is a residential apartment building that is located directly across the subject property and is listed
as a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site. The underground storage tank was found to have leaked heater
fuel and impacted shallow soil. According to the regulatory database information with the San Francisco Department of
Public Health, Local Oversight Program (DPH-LOP), the LUST case was closed on March 3,1996. Thus, this LUST
site does not pose the potential to impact the project site.
The Phase I ESA did identify an elevator that apparently was used to access the basement of the subject building from
the sidewalk. It was observed that the elevator is not operational and has not been recently maintained. In most cases,
single-floor hydraulic elevators operate using a hydraulic piston to lift the platform. Although some elevators use water
Environmental Science Associates, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, February 2003. A copy of
this report is on file with the Planning Department at 1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 and is available for public
review by appointment as part of the project file 2002.1036E.
21
2002.1036E-651.653 Geary Street
to operate the piston, a number of older elevators use hydraulic oil. If the piston is driven with hydraulic oil, a leaking
piston could cause oil to enter the subsurface soil in the vicinity of the lift mechanism. Due to the uncertainties
surrounding the nature and condition of the elevator, the potential exists that hydraulic fluid could have leaked into the
soil. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 listed in the Mitigation Measures section of this Initial Study would
reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Based on the Phase I ESA, there is also the
possibility that the project site is within a general area of the City where hazardous residual, soil and shallow
groundwater contamination could have occurred due to the many sites that have had leaking underground petroleum
tanks. Excavation in this area could encounter unanticipated residual contamination. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 2 listed in the Mitigation Measures section of this Initial Study would reduce or avoid any potential public
health hazard as a result of disturbing soil contaminated with hazardous materials during excavation and other
construction activities on the project site.
The Maher Ordinance is a San Francisco ordinance which requires certain environmental actions for various sites,
primarily those "Bayward of the high-tide line." The project site is not within the limits of the ordinance.
Asbestos
The existing building on the project site was constructed in the early 1900s, period of time when asbestos was
commonly used in buildings. Therefore, it is likely that asbestos-containing materials may be found within the existing
structure on site which is proposed to be demolished as pall of the project. Section 19827.5 of the California Health
and Safety Code, adopted January 1, 1991, requires that local agencies not issue demolition or alteration permits until
an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable Federal regulations
regarding hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. The BAAQMD is vested by the California legislature with
authority to regulate airborne pollutants, including asbestos, through both inspection and law enfomement, and is to be
notified ten days in advance of any proposed demolition or abatement work.
Notification includes the names and addresses of operations and persons responsible; description and location of the
structure to be demolished/altered including size, age and prior use, and the approximate amount of friable asbestos;
scheduled starting and completion dates of demolition or abatement; nature of planned work and methods to be
employed; procedures to be employed to meet BAAQMI) requirements; and the name and location of the waste
disposal site to be used. The District randomly inspects asbestos removal operations. In addition, the District will
inspect any removal operation concerning which a complaint has been received.
The local office of the State Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) must be notified of asbestos
abatement to be carried out. Asbestos abatement contractors must follow state regulations contained in 8CCR 1529 and
8CCR341.6 through 341.14 where there is asbestos-related work involving 100 square feet or more of asbestos
containing material. Asbestos removal contractors must be certified as such by the Contractors Licensing Board of the
State of California. The owner of the property where abatement is to occur must have a Hazardous Waste Generator
Number assigned by and registered with the Office of the California Department of Health Services in Sacramento.
The contractor and hauler of the material is required to file a Hazardous Waste Manifest which details the hauling of
the material from the site and its disposal. Pursuailt to California law, DBI would not issue the required permit until the
applicant has complied with the notice requirements described above.
These regulations and procedures, already established as a part of the permit review process, would insure that any
potential impacts due to asbestos would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
22
2002.1036E-651.653 Geaiy Street
Lead-based paint
Lead paint may be found in the existing building, constructed in the early 1900s, and proposed for demolition as part of
the project. Demolition must comply with Chapter 36 of the San Francisco Building Code, Work PracticesforExterior
Lead-Based Paint Where there is any work that may disturb or remove lead paint on the exterior of any building built
prior to December 31, 1978, Chapter 36 requires specific notification and work standards, and identifies prohibited
work methods and penalties.
Chapter 36 applies to buildings or steel structures on which original construction was completed prior to 1979 (which
are assumed to have lead-based paint on their surfaces), where more than ten total square feet of lead-based paint would
be disturbed or removed. The ordinance contains performance standards, including establishment of containment
bathers, at least as effective at protecting human health and the environment as those in the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (RUD) Guidelines (the most recent Guidelines for Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint
Hazards) and identifies prohibited practices that may not be used in disturbance or removal of lead-based paint. Any
person performing work subject to the ordinance shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent migration of lead paint
contaminants beyond containment bathers during the course of the work, and any person performing regulated work
shall make all reasonable efforts to remove all visible lead paint contaminants from all regulated areas of the property
prior to completion of the work.
The ordinance also includes notification requirements, contents of notice, and requirements for signs. Notification
includes notifying bidders for the work of any paint-inspection reports verifying the presence or absence of lead-based
paint in the regulated area of the proposed project Prior to commencement of work, the responsible party must provide
written notice to the Director of DBI, of the location of the project; *nature and approximate square footage of the
painted surface being disturbed and/or removed; anticipated job start and completion dates for the work; whether the
responsible party has reason to know or presume that lead-based paint is present; whether the building is residential or
nonresidential, owner-occupied or rental property, approximate number of dwelling units, if any; the dates by which the
responsible party has or will fulfill any tenant or adjacent property notification requirements; and the name, address,
telephone number, and pager number of the party who will perform the work (Further notice requirements include Sign
When Containment is Required, Notice by Landlord, Required Notice to Tenants, Availability of Pamphlet related to
protection from lead in the home, Notice by Contractor, Early Commencement of Work [by Owner, Requested by
Tenant], and Notice of Lead Contaminated Dust or Soil, if applicable.) The ordinance contains provisions regarding
inspection and sampling for compliance byDBl, and enforcement, and describes penalties for non-compliance with the
requirements of the ordinance.
These regulations and procedures by the San Francisco Building Code would ensure that potential impacts of
demolition, due to lead-based paint, would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Fire Hazards
San Francisco ensures fire safety primarily through provisions of the Building Code and the Fire Code. Existing
buildings are required to meet standards contained in these codes. In addition, the final building plans for any new
residential project greater than two units are reviewed by the San Francisco Fire Department (as well as the Department
of Building Inspection), in order to ensure conformance with these provisions. The proposed project would conform to
these standards, which (depending on building type) may also include development of an emergency procedure manual
23
2002.103-651-653 Geary Street
and an exit drill plan. In this way, potential fire hazards (including those associated with hillside development, hydrant
water pressure, and emergency access) would be mitigated during the permit review process.
Occupants of the proposed building would contribute to congestion if an emergency evacuation of the downtown area
were required. Section 12.202(eXl) of the San Francisco Fire Code requires that all owners of high-rise buildings
(over 75 feet) "shall establish or cause to be established procedures to be followed in case of fire or other emergencies.
All such procedures shall be reviewed and approved by the chief of division." The owners of the proposed 130-foottall building would be subject to this requirement. Additionally, project construction would have to conform to the
provisions of the Building and Fire Codes, which require additional life-safety protections for high-rise buildings. In
view of the above, the proposed project would have no significant impacts related to hazards.
13) Cultural - Could the Project:
X
(a) Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological
site or a property of historic or cultural significance toacommunity or
ethnic or social group; or a paleontological site except as a part of a
scientific study?
____
NQ DISCUSSED
V
(b) Conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or
scientific uses of the area?
(c) Conflict with the preservation of buildings subject to the
provisions of Article 10 or Article 11 of the City Planning Code?
.
______
Archeological Resources
Factors considered in determining the potential for encountering archeological resources include the location, depth,
and the amount of excavation proposed, as well as any existing information about known resources in the area.
Construction of the proposed project would involve demolition of the existing building, which covers the entire site.
The existing building contents a basement, therefore, development of the site would require minimum excavation for
footing, and foundation work. The project site is in an area where previous site disturbance has taken place for street
grading and for construction of the existing building. Because the potential for a significant effect is unknown, the
project sponsor has agreed to implement Mitigation Measure 3 to avoid any adverse impacts on archeological resources.
Architectural Resources
The existing structure was constructed in 1912 as the Geaiy Street Garage. The building is not listed under Article 10
of the San Francisco Planning Code (which concerns sites such as designated City Landmarks and buildings within
Jljstoric Districts), or Article 11 of the Planning Code (which involves rating buildings for their architectural
The building does notappearin the Here Toda
which has been ado’
Supervisors as an official survey of historic resources in San Francisco,
However, the building is an Unreinforced Masonry Buildings (UMBs). The National Register of Historic Places or the State Office of Historic Preservation has given the building a rating of a ’1", which means that the building has not
been evaluated. The San Francisco Architectural Heritage, a non-profit preservation organization, has given the
building a rating of a ’D", which is given to buildings with minor or no historical importance. The building has been
over
on of new
Of
reappears
to
be
in
poor
cond
ition
due
to
the
many
major
inappropriate
alterations.
The building’s original two%
24
2002.1036E-651-653 Geary Street
part faade design was divided into three arched bays that enclosed the upper and lower story windows. The building
was decorated with keystones, textured spandrels and an ornate projecting cornice. However, all of the above
mentioned features have been removed and replaced with aluminum storefronts and a new brick faade. The buildin
does not appear to retain sufficient integrity to serve as a good example of retail architecture from its period because of
these modifications. This property appears not to qualify for the California Register of Historical Resources because the.
building has been substantially altered overtime and no longerretains its architectural integrity". Because the building
has no formal designation as a historical resource, and there is no evidence to support its being "deemed" significant,
and because the building has been substantially altered, it is not considered an historical resource for CEQA purposes.
Therefore, the demolition of the building as part of the project would not be a significant impact on an historic -architectural resource.
Based on the above analysis, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on architectural
- resources.
C. OTHER
YES
NO DISCUSSED
Require approval and/or permits from City Departments other than
Department ofCityPlanning orBureau ofBuilding Inspection, orfroni
Regional, State or Federal Agencies?
The proposed project would require a variance from the off-street parking requirement and a CU authorization by the
Planning Commission. The project site is located in a RC-4 zoning district, which requires a CU authorization to
establish commercial use above the ground-floor. Projects within the North of Market SUD have legislative setback
requirements and the proposed project would require a CU in pursuant to Section 263.7 of the San Francisco Planning
Code to construct over 40 feet in height The project is also within an 80-130-T height and bulk district, which as a
right would permit construction to a height of 40 feet to a maximum of 130 feet provided that proposals above 40 feet
seek a CU. The project sponsor would seek a CU, as permitted under Section 303 of the Planning Code, to construct up
to 130 feet in height The proposed project would not require any special authorizations from any other departments or
agencies.
In response to the mailed notification regarding the proposed project, members of the public expressed concerns
regarding the height of the proposed structure and noise and dust during construction. These issues were discussed
above and no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with those issues have been identified.
The decision to approve or disapprove a proposed project is independent of the environmental review process. While
local concerns or other planning considerations may be grounds for modification or denial of the proposal, in the
independent judgment of the San Francisco Planning Department, there is no substantial evidence that the project
would have a significant effect on the environment.
10 Per memo from the Planning Department’s Preservation Technical Specialist, Mark Luellen, dated
September 15, 2003. A copy of the memo is available for review by appointment as part of the project file
2002.1036E at the Planning Department at 1660 Mission Street, Suite 500.
25
2002.103-651-653 Geary Street
Q lilA
D. MITIGATION MEASURES
1)
Could the project have significant effects if mitigation
measures are not included in the project?
2)
Are all mitigation measures necessary to eliminate significant
effects included in the project?
The project sponsor has agreed to implement the following mitigation measures which are necessary to avoid potential
significant effects of the project:
Mitigation Measure I - Construction Air Quality
The project sponsor would require the contractor(s) to spray the site with water during demolition, excavation, and
construction activities; spray unpaved construction areas with water at least twice per day-,cover stockpiles of soil, sand,
and other material; cover trucks hauling debris, soils, sand, or other such material; and sweep surrounding streets during
demolition, excavation, and construction at least once per day to reduce particulate emissions.
Ordinance 175-91, passed by the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 1991, requires that non-potable water be used for
dust control activities. Therefore, the project sponsor would require that the contractor(s) obtain reclaimed water from
the Clean Water Program for this purpose. The project sponsors would require the project contractor(s) to maintain and
operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions of particulates and otherpollutants, by such means
as a prohibition on idling motors when equipment is not in use or when trucks are waiting in queues, and
implementation of specific maintenance programs to reduce emissions for equipment that would be in frequent use for
much of the construction period.
Mitigation Measure 2-Soil and Groundwater Contamination
Due to the uncertainties surrounding the nature and condition of the elevator, the property owner shall attempt to
determine additional information regarding the operation and condition of the elevator that serves the basement from
the sidewalk. Because there is a possibility that hydraulic piston lifts can leak hydraulic fluid to the subsurface soil and
groundwater, the following recommendations should help determine the level of concern.
Details of the elevator mechanical system should be clearly determined. This includes determining whether it is
a hydraulic lift system, whether the lift is operated by oil or water hydraulics, and the location of the fluid
reservoir.
Depending on whether the lift leaked hydraulic fluid, the lift mechanisms should be properly disposed upon
removal.
If it is determined that the elevator used hydraulic oil, soil surrounding the lift should be observed during
piston removal to determine the presence of hydraulic fluid. If the soil appears to contain hydraulic oil, it
should be over-excavated, segregated from clean material, and properly disposed at a landfill and should not be
reused as fill on the site.
The project sponsor shall conduct one or more Phase II Environmental Site Assessments of the project site, as
necessary, to ensure that all areas of suspected surface and subsurface contamination subject to ground disturbance
26
1
2002.1036E.651.653 Geary Street
during site development activities are sampled. Soil or groundwater samples, or both, would be collected in such areas
as directed by the Site assessment consultant and based on the conclusions of the Environmental Site Assessments.
Sampling would extend at least to depths subject to ground disturbance. The samples shall be analyzed to identify and
quantify any contamination. These studies shall be competed by a Registered Environmental Assessor (REA) or a
similarly qualified individual.
lithe sampling identifies surface and/or subsurface contamination in areas subject to ground disturbance, the area shall
be remediated in accordance with the standards, regulations, and determinations of local, state, and federal regulatory
agencies. The project sponsor shall coordinate with the Department of Public Health and any other applicable
regulatory agencies to adopt contaminant-specific remediation target levels. The hazardous substances shall be
removed and disposed of at an approved site, or other appropriate actions shall be taken.
Prior to conducting any reniediatiou activities a Site Health and Safety Plan would be prepared pursuant to California
Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) requirements and National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health guidance to ensure worker safety. Under Cal-OSHA requirements, the Site Health and Safety Plan would
need to be prepared prior to initiating any earth-moving activities at the site. The Site Health and Safety Plan shah
identify protocols for managing soils during construction to minimize worker and public exposure to contaminated
soils. The protocols shall include at a minimum:
L Characterization of excavated native soils proposed for use on site prior to placement to confirm that the soil
meets appropriate standards.
U. The dust controls specified in this Initial Study, Mitigation Measure 1.
M. Protocols for managing stockpiled and excavated soils.
The Site Health and Safely Plan shall identify site access controls to be implemented from the time of surface disruption
through the completion of earthwork construction. The protocols shall include at a minimum:
I. Appropriate site security to prevent unauthorized pedestrian/vehicular entry, such as fencing or otherbarrier or
sufficient height and structural integrity to prevent entry and based upon the degree of control required.
IL Posting of "no trespassing" signs.
M. Providing on-site meetings with construction workers to inform them about security measures and
reporting/contingency procedures.
If groundwater contamination is identified, the Site Health and Safety Plan shall identify protocols for managing
groundwater during construction to minimize worker and public exposure to contaminated groundwater. The protocols
shall includ procedures to prevent unacceptable migration of contamination from defined plumes during any
dewatering required.
The Site Health and Safety Plan shall include a requirement that construction personnel be trained to recognize
potential hazards associated with underground features that could contain hazardous substances, previously unidentified
contamination, or buried hazardous debris.
27
2002.1036E-651-653 Geary Sum
The Site Health and Safety Plan shall include procedures for implementing a contingency plan, including appropriate
notification and control procedures, in the event unanticipated subsurface hazards are discovered during construction.
Control procedures could include, but would not be limited to, further investigation of other hazards.
All reports and plans prepared in accordance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the San Francisco
Department of Public Health ()PH) and any other appropriate agencies identified by the DPH. When all hazardous
material have been removed from existing buildings, and soil and groundwater analysis and other activities have been
completed, as appropriate, the project sponsor shall submit to the San Francisco Planning Department and the DPH
(and any other agencies identified by the DPH) a report stating that the mitigation measure has been implemented. The
report shall describe the steps taken to comply with the mitigation measure and include all verifying documentation.
The report shall be certified by an REA or similarly qualified individual who states that the mitigation measure has been
implemented, and specifying the actions that have been implemented.
Mitigation Measure 3- Archeological Resources
The project sponsor shall distribute the Planning Department’s archeological resource "ALERr’ sheet to the project
prime contractor, to any project subcontractor (including demolition, excavation, grading, foundation, pile driving, etc.
firms); or utilities firm involved in soils disturbing activities within the project site. Prior to any soils disturbing
activities being undertaken each contractor is responsible for ensuring that the Alert Sheet is circulated to all field
personnel including, machine operators, field crew, pile drivers, supervisory personnel, etc. The Head Foreman or
other responsible party shall provide the Environmental Review Officer (ERO) with a signed affidavit to the ERO
confirming that all field personnel have received copies of the Alert Sheet.
Should any indication of an archeological resource be encountered during any soils disturbing activity of the project,
the project Head Foreman and/or project sponsor shall immediately notify the ERO and shall immediately suspend any
soils disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery until the PRO has determined what additional measures, if
any, should be undertaken.
If the ERO determines that an archeological resource may be present within the project site, the project sponsor shall
retain the services of a qualified archeological consultant. The archeological consultant shall advise the ERO as to
whether the discovery is an archeological resource, retains sufficient integrity, and is of potential
scientificThistorical/cultural significance. If an archeological resource is present, the archeological consultant shall
identify and evaluate the archeological resource. The archeological consultant shall make a recommendation as to what
action, if any, is warranted. Based on this information, the ERO may require, if warranted, specific additional
measures to be implemented by the project sponsor.
Measures might include: preservation in situ of the archeological resource; an archaeological monitoring program; or
an archeological testing program. If an archeological monitoring program or archeological testing program is required,
it shall be consistent with the Major Environmental Analysis (MBA) division guidelines for such programs. The PRO
may also require that the project sponsor immediately implement a site security program if the archeological resource is
at risk from vandalism, looting, or other damaging activities.
The project archeological consultant shall prepare a Final Archeological Resources Report (PARR) evaluating the
historical importance of the archeological resource and describing the archeological and historical research methods
28
2002-1036E-651-653 Geaiy Street
employed in the archeological monitoring/data recovery program(s). Information that may put at risk any
archeological resource shall be provided in a separate removable insert within the final report.
Copies of the Draft FARR shall be sent to the ERO for review and approval. Once approved by the ERO, copies of the
FARR shall be distributed as follows: California Archaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center (1 copy)
and the President of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (1 copy). The Major Environmental Analysis
division of the Planning Department shall receive three copies of the PARR along with copies of any formal site
recordation forms (CA DPR 523 series) and/or documentation for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places/California Register of Historical Resources. In instances of high public interest or interpretive value, the ERO
may require a different final ieport content, format, and distribution than that presented above.
IL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SJGtJFICANCE
x
1)
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a raze or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods, of California history or
prehistory?
2)
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
3)
Does the project have possible environmental effects which are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Analyze in the light
of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.)
4)
Would the project cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
_____
IQ
.,....
DISCUSSED
-
F. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY
-
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared by the Department of City Planning.
. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because Mitigation Measures 1-3 in the discussion above have been
included as part of the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Paul
En
,,Ut.6b9
mental
for
Gerald G. Green
Director of Planning
Officer
DATE
(i
29
2002.1036E-651-653 GeaiyStree*
EXHIBIT 3
..1.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Case No. 2002.1 O36CEKV
651 - 655 Geary Street
Motion No. 16831
Page 1
SAN FRANCICSO
PLANNING COMMISSION
MOTION NO. 16831
ADOPTING FINDINGS RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE
PURSUANT TO APPLICATION NO. 2002.I036CEKV FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET (13 STORIES) IN HEIGHT WITH SECOND-FLOOR NONRESIDENTIAL USE AND NO OFF-STREET PARKING FOR THE "CAREER RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT CENTER" TO BE DEVOTED TO UP TO 41 DWELLING UNITS, GROUNDFLOOR RETAIL USE, AND BASEMENT AND SECOND-FLOOR CAREER TRAINING AND
LANGUAGE SKILLS INSTRUCTION SPACE, IN A IN AN RC-4 (RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL
COMBINED, HIGH DENSITY) DISTRICT AND AN 80-130-T HEIGHT AND BULK DISTRICT.
Preamble
On July 1, 2004, the Planning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") conducted a duly nOtrced
public hearing on Conditional Use Application No. 2002.1036QEKV at which time the Commission
reviewed and discussed the findings prepared for its review by the staff of the Planning Department
of the City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter "Department").
It was determined by the Department, in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter "CEQA"), the State Guidelines for the Implementation of
CEQA and Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, that the proposed Project could
have no significant impact on the environment and that an environmental impact report would be
not required. A Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (hereinafter ’FMND") of Environmental Impact
(Case No. 2002.1 036CKV) was adopted and issued for the project on March 11, 2004. This
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in this Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and concurs with the findings made therein. Such concurrence is reflected in
the adoption by the Commission, on July 1, 2004, of CEQA findings as described in the FMND as
Motion No. 16830.
The Commission has reviewed and considered reports, studies, plans and other documents
pertaining to this proposed Project.
The Commission has heard and considered the testimony presented to it at the public hearing and
has further considered the written materials and oral testimony presented on behalf of the applicant,
the Department Staff and other interested parties.
MOVED, That the Commission hereby authorizes the Conditional Use requested in Application No.
2002.1 O36QEKV subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
PLANNING COMMISSION
Motion No. 16831
Page 2
herein by reference thereto, based on the following findings:
Findings
Having reviewed all the materials identified in the recitals above, and having heard oral testimony
and arguments, this Commission finds, concludes and determines as follows:
1. The statements in the preamble are accurate and also constitute findings of this
Commission.
2. On, July 2, 2003, Herman Weeks, Director, Career Resources Development Center
(hereinafter "CRDC"), owner, (hereinafter ’Applicant" or "Project Sponsor") filed Application
No. 2002. 1O36CEKV (hereinafter "Application") requesting authorization of a Conditional
Use for a building exceeding 40 feet in height with second-floor non-residential use and no
off-street parking (hereinafter "Project"), at 651 - 655 Geary Street, south side between
Jones and Leavenworth Streets, Lot 20 in Assessor’s Block 318 (hereinafter "Subject
Property"), in an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District, and in an
80-1 30-T Height and Bulk District.
2. The Project site is in the North of Market Residential Special Use District No. 1 (hereinafter
"NOM RSUD").
3. The Subject Property is a rectangular parcel with 51 feet of frontage on Geary Street and
7,012.5 square feet in area. It is currently improved with a two-story 13,260-gross-squarefoot building used as the training center and offices of the CRDC. This organization trains
immigrants in English language skills and prepares them for jobs in the hotel and restaurant
trades. It is funded, in part, by the San Francisco Mayor’s Office. The proposed new
building would have no off-street parking. The Code would require, in this case, one space
for each four dwelling units (ten spaces) and, generally, one space per 500 square feet of
occupied floor area for the non-residential portion of the building (approximately 30 spaces)
under Case No. 2002.1036CEKV. The Project is the subject of a requested Variance of
Code standards for commercial-serving off-street parking (Case No. 2002.1036CEKM.
4. In addition to its 41 condominium dwelling units, the Project would have ground-floor retail
space of approximately 1,500 gross square feet (hereinafter "gsf’). The basement, the rear
of the ground floor and the second-floor space would be the replacement space for the
CRDC training facility (approximately 16,467 g.st). The Project includes five affordable
dwelling units per terms of Planning Code (hereinafter "Code") Section 315, et seq.
5. Section 1O1.1(b)(1-8) establishes Eight Priority Planning Policies and requires review of
permits for consistency with said policies. They are included in the preamble to the Master
Plan and are the basis upon which inconsistencies in the General Plan are resolved:
(1)
That existing neighborhood-serving retail uses be preserved and enhanced and
future opportunities for resident employment in and ownership of such businesses
PLANNING COMMISSION
Case No. 2002.I036CEKV
Motion No. 16831
Page 3
enhanced;
The proposed Project would not remove any businesses. However, it would
replace an outdated language, computer and employment training facility with a
new space. In addition, it would add 41 dwelling units to the City’s housing stock
and new retail space of approximately 1,500 gsf. It would not otherwise
negatively impact any existing neighborhood-serving retail uses. The proposed
new uses would enhance existing neighborhood-serving retail uses largely by
introducing 41 new households to patronize them. Also, the proposed uses
would create employment opportunities.
(2)
That existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected in
order to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods;
The proposed Project design is articulated in such a way as to fit in well with the
existing neighborhood character. The Project would add economic diversity by
providing retail, social service and residential space.
(3)
That the City’s supply of affordable housing be preserved and enhanced;
The Project would enhance the City’s supply of housing by adding five new
affordable housing units (out of a total of 41 net-new dwelling units). In addition,
The Project Sponsor would contribute as much as $91,625 dollars to the "North
of Market Affordable Housing Fund" pursuant to the terms of Code Section
263.7(g).
(4)
That commuter traffic not impede MUNI transit service or overburden our streets or
neighborhood parking;
Traffic generated by the Project is not expected to impede MUNI transit service
or local streets or neighborhood parking. The Project site is adjacent to the
shopping, theatre and financial districts and is very well served by transit. This
Project would further the City’s adopted "Transit First" policy.
That a diverse economic base be maintained by protecting our industrial and service
(5)
sectors from displacement due to commercial office development, and that future
opportunities for resident employment and ownership in these sectors be enhanced;
The Project would not remove any industrial or service uses, as no such uses are
currently operating on the site. The Project would generate employment opportunities
available to a diverse socio-economic range of City residents in its construction phase
and, later, in its retail and training components.
(6)
That the City achieve the greatest possible preparedness to protect against injury
and loss of life in an earthquake;
PLANNING COMMISSION
Motion No. 16831
Page 4
The Project would be constructed according to current local building codes to
insure a high level of seismic safety.
(7)
That landmarks and historic buildings be preserved; and,
The subject site is developed with a building of no architectural or historical
significance. No landmarks or historic buildings would be affected by the
Project.
(8)
That our parks and open space and their access to sunlight and vistas be protected
from development.
The Project would have no impact on public parks, open space, or vistas. It was
analyzed for its potential for shadow impacts on public open spaces and was found not
to create any. The Project would not impact any vistas.
In summary, the proposed project is consistent with and would promote the general and specific
purposes of the Code provided under Section 101.1(b) in that, as designed, the project would
provide needed affordable housing plus ancillary service, retail, institutional and theatre/arts uses
that would contribute to the character and stability of the neighborhood.
6. Section 124 of the Code establishes basic floor area ratios (hereinafter "FAR"). In the subject
RC-4 District, 4.8:1 is the base FAR. This requirement does not apply to dwelling units or other
residential uses. The subject building would have a non-residential floor area of approximately
16,800 square feet (or an FAR of approximately 2.4:1).
7. Code Section 132.2 establishes setbacks in the NOM RSUD. In order to maintain the
continuity of a predominant street wall along the street, setbacks of the upper portion of a building
which abuts a public sidewalk may be required of buildings located within the boundaries of the
NOM RSUD as a condition of approval of Conditional Use authorization otherwise required by
Section 253 of the Code for building in "R" Districts which exceed 40 feet in height. Pursuant to
Section 132.2(b), a setback requirement may be imposed in accordance with the provisions set
forth below pursuant to the procedures for Conditional Use authorization set forth in Code Section
303.
Pursuant to Code Section 132.2(c), for a building in excess of 40 feet in height, a setback may be
required by Section 253 of the Code. In no event may the Commission impose a setback
requirement of more than 20 feet applicable to the portion of a building which exceeds 50 feet in
height. If the applicant can demonstrate that the prevailing streetwall height on the block on which
the proposed project is located, as established by existing cornice lines, is in excess of 50 feet, then
the Commission may impose a setback of up to 20 feet applicable to the portion of the building
which exceeds the established prevailing streetwall height; provided, however, that if the applicant
demonstrates that the prevailing streetwall height is in excess of 68 feet, the maximum setback
requirement which may be imposed is 16 feet. If the applicant can demonstrate that a building
PLANNING COMMISSION
Motion No. 16831
Page 5
without a setback would not disrupt the continuity of the prevailing streetwall along the street, then
the Commission may grant approval of the Conditional Use authorization without imposing a
setback requirement as a condition thereof. In the subject case, the prevailing streetwall is
approximately 75 to 80 feet in height. At the 80-foot level of the proposed building, it steps back 16
feet thereby complying with the terms of this Section (without an exception).
8. Code Section 134 establishes rear yard requirements. In an RC-4 District, this rear-yard area
must be equal to 25 percent of the total depth of the lot on which the building is situated and must
be provided at the lowest story containing a dwelling unit, and at each succeeding level or story of
the building. These requirements are intended to assure the protection and continuation of
established mid-block, landscaped open spaces, and maintenance of a scale of development
appropriate to each district, consistent with the location of adjacent buildings. The proposed Project
would comply with the provisions of this Code Section,
9. Section 135 of the Code establishes standards for usable open space for dwelling units in
various zoning districts. In the RC-4 District, it requires 36 square feet of usable open space per
dwelling unit if that space is all private. Common usable open space may be substituted for private
space at a ratio of 1.33 square feet to one (48 square feet per dwelling unit in the subject case).
Accordingly, there would need to be at least 1,476 square feet of private open space or 1,963
square feet of common usable open space for the 41 proposed dwelling units. The Project design
features a series of terraces at the third, eighth and 1 jth floors. In addition, each apartment would
have a private balcony/deck of at least six by seven feet (42 square feet) or larger. Therefore, the
proposed Project would comply with the usable open space standards of this Section. There is no
open space requirement for the retail or training components of the Project.
10. Code Section 140 requires that one room of each dwelling unit must look out onto the street,
onto a Code-complying rear yard, a side yard at least 25 feet in width or onto a courtyard generally
of minimum dimensions of at least 25 feet in each direction, which space must increase in its
horizontal dimensions as it rises from its lowest level. The space must be unobstructed, except for
certain specified permitted obstructions. All of the proposed 41 dwelling units in the subject building
would comply with this standard.
11. Section 141 of the Code requires screening of rooftop features in numerous zoning districts
including RC-4. Pursuant thereto, rooftop mechanical equipment and appurtenances to be used in
the operation or maintenance of a building must be arranged so as not to be visible from any point
at or below the roof level of the subject building. This requirement applies in construction of new
buildings, and in any alteration of mechanical systems of existing buildings that results in significant
changes in such rooftop equipment and appurtenances. The features so regulated must in all
cases be either enclosed by outer building walls or parapets, or grouped and screened in a suitable
manner, or designed in themselves so that they are balanced and integrated with respect to the
design of the building. Minor features not exceeding one foot in height are to be exempted from this
regulation. The subject building is designed in such a way as to comply with these standards.
12. Section 143 of the Code requires the planting of Street trees in numerous zoning districts
including RC-4. In such districts, Street trees must be installed by the owner or developer in the
case of construction of a new building. Pursuant to Section 143(b) thereunder, such street trees
PLANNING COMMISSION
Assessor’s Block 318,-Lot 20
Motion No. 16831
Page 6
installed must be a minimum of one tree of 15-gallon size for each 20 feet of frontage of the
property along each street or alley, with any remaining fraction of 10 feet or more of frontage
requiring an additional tree. These trees are to be located either within a setback area on the lot or
within the public right-of-way along such lot. Code Section 143(c) thereunder requires the species
of trees selected to be suitable for the site, and, in the case of trees installed in the public right-ofway, the species and locations are subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
Procedures and other requirements for the installation, maintenance and protection of trees in the
public right-of-way are those set forth in Article 16 of the Public Works Code. The Project would
comply with the standards of this Section.
13. Code Section 151 contains the schedule of required off-street parking spaces. In an RC-4
District, dwelling units are required to be served by one off-street parking space for each four such
units. Retail and other general office/commercial spaces is required to provide one off-street
parking space for each 500 square feet of occupied floor area. Accordingly, the subject Project
would be required to provide ten such spaces for its residential component and up to 30 spaces for
the non-residential portion of the building for a total of up to 40 spaces. No off-street parking is
proposed as part of the project. Therefore, the Applicant has filed companion Variance Application
No. 2002.1 O36CEKV.
14. Section 152 of the Code contains the schedule of required off-street freight loading and service
vehicle spaces in zoning classifications other than C-3 and South of Market Districts. In these
districts, retail stores, wholesaling, manufacturing, newly-constructed live/work units and all other
uses primarily engaged in the handling of goods are required to provide off-street loading when their
occupied floor area(s) exceed 10,000 square feet. Offices, hotels, apartments, all other live/work
units and all other uses (not included above) need not provide off-street loading until the occupied
floor area exceeds 100,000 square feet of floor area. Accordingly, no off-street loading requirement
applies to the subject Project.
15. Section 161 of the Code establishes various exemptions from off-street parking and loading
requirements. The following exemptions apply to the requirements for off-street parking and loading
spaces set forth in Section 151 of the Code. This provision, as an exemption, is to be narrowly
construed.
In its Subsection 161(e), it states that no off-street parking is required for any principal use
in an RC-4 District for which the form of measure is occupied floor area, where the occupied
floor area of such use does not exceed 10,000 square feet.
Pursuant to Subsection 161(h) thereunder, the off-street parking requirements for dwelling
units in the NOM RSUD, as described in Section 249.5 of the Code, may be reduced by the
Commission as a Conditional Use as set forth in Code Section 303. In acting upon any
application for a reduction of requirements, the Commission must consider the criteria set
forth below in lieu of the criteria set forth in Section 303(c), and may grant the reduction if it
finds that:
(1) The reduction in the parking requirement is justified by the reasonably
anticipated auto usage by residents of and visitors to the project; and
PLANNING COMMISSION
Motion No. 16831
Page 7
In that the Subject Property is very well served by public transit, it is likely
that the residents of the proposed new building will have ample other
opportunities to meet their transportation needs.
(2) The reduction in the parking requirement will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, convenience, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity.
The densely developed area that includes the Subject Property would benefit
by a reduction in the amount of automobile traffic it its vicinity. The trainees
at the CRDC facility are largely immigrants who would not drive to the site.
16. Section 249.5 of the Code establishes the NOM RSUD. Its boundaries are shown on Sectional
Map No. 1SUb of the Zoning Map. They include the subject lot. Section 249.5(b) sets forth the
"Purposes" of the NOM RSUD:
"In order to protect and enhance important housing resources in an area near
downtown, conserve and upgrade existing low and moderate income housing stock,
preserve buildings of architectural and historic importance and preserve the existing
scale of development, maintain sunlight in public spaces, encourage new infill
housing at a compatible density, limit the development of tourist hotels and other
commercial uses that could adversely impact the residential nature of the area, and
limit the number of commercial establishments which are not intended primarily for
customers who are residents of the area, the following controls are imposed in the
North of Market Residential Special Use District."
Section 249.5(c) thereunder establishes the "Controls" applicable to the NOM RSUD. The
following zoning controls are applicable in the NOM RSUD. Certain controls are set forth in other
Sections of the Code and are referenced herein.
(1) Conditional Use Criteria. In making determinations on applications for Conditional Use
authorizations required for uses located within the NOM RSUD, the Commission must
consider the purposes as set forth in Subsection 249.5(b) above, in addition to the criteria
of Section 303(c) of the Code.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 209.8 of the Code, commercial
establishments are limited to the ground floor and the first basement floor, except that such
establishments may be permitted on the second story as a Conditional Use if authorized
pursuant to Section 303 and Section 249.5(c)(1) of the Code. The Project proposes one
level of non-residential use above the ground floor. It is for the future use of the CRDC for
training purposes as described herein. Therefore, subject to the authorization of the
requested Conditional Use, the Project would be consistent with the terms of this Section.
(5) In the portion of the area designated as Subarea No. 1 of the NOM RSUD, as shown on
Section Map 1SUb of the Zoning Map, the density ratio is one dwelling unit for each 125
PLANNING COMMISSION
Motion No. 16831
Page 8
square feet of lot area. Accordingly, the Subject Property could accommodated up to 56
dwelling units
(6) Off-street parking requirements may be modified by the City Planning Commission, as
provided in Section 161(h) of the Code (see above).
(7) A bulk district "T" applies pursuant to the provisions of Code Section 270, Table 270
therein (see below).
(8) Special exceptions to the 80-foot base height limit in height and bulk districts 80-120T and 80-130-1 may be granted pursuant to the provisions of Section 263.7 of the Code
(see below).
(9) Building setbacks are required in this District pursuant to Code Section 132.2; subject to
provisions for exceptions set forth therein (see above).
17. Section 253 of the Code establishes review of proposed buildings and structures exceeding a
height of 40 feet in "R" Districts. Pursuant to Section 253(a) thereunder, notwithstanding any other
provision of this Code to the contrary, in any "R" District, wherever a height limit of more than 40
feet is prescribed by the height and bulk district in which the property is located, any building or
structure exceeding 40 feet in height may be permitted only upon approval by the Commission as a
Conditional Use under Code Section 303.
18. Section 263.7 of the Code establishes special height exceptions in the NOM RSUD. Pursuant
to Section 263.7(a) thereunder, in the 80-120-1 and 80-130-1 Height and Bulk Districts, and
located within the boundaries of the NOM RSUD, height exceptions may be approved by the
Commission, pursuant to the provisions set forth below, from the base height of 80 feet up to 120
feet in the 80-120-T District and up to 130 feet in the 80-130-1 District.
Section 263.7(b) thereunder, in establishing "Findings and Purposes" for this Section, states that,
in the 80-120-T and 80-130-1 Height and Bulk Districts located within the NOM RSUD, heights
higher than 80 feet would be appropriate in order to effect a transition from the higher downtown
heights to the generally lower heights of the existing buildings in the NOM RSUD core area and the
Civic Center area and to make more feasible the construction of new housing, provided that
development of the site is also consistent with the general purposes of the NOM RSUD as set forth
in Code Section 249.5(b). Because development at heights greater than 80 feet may create
pressures on existing affordable housing in the area, it is desirable to ameliorate such pressures by
requiring that a portion of the value added to the new development resulting from the granting of a
height exception be contributed to a fund established for the purpose of stabilizing, rehabilitating,
and retaining existing affordable units in the area. The amount of contribution is to be a reasonable
proportion of the value added to the development as a result of the extra building area enabled by
the height exception.
Pursuant to Section 263.7 (c) thereunder, exceptions from the base height of 80 feet may be
permitted, up to 120 feet in the 80-120-1 Height and Bulk District, and up to 130 feet in the 80-130I Height and Bulk District, upon approval by the Commission, according to the procedures for
PLANNING COMMISSION
651 655 Geary Street
Motion No. 16831
Page 9
Conditional Use approval set forth in Section 303 of the Code. Under Section 263.7(d) below, the
Commission may impose conditions on the approval of applications for Conditional Use
authorization, required pursuant to Section 253 for buildings which exceed 40 feet in height in an
"R" District, if such authorization includes a grant of an exception to the 80-foot base height limit, in
order to mitigate the impact that such height exception is likely to have on the existing supply of
affordable housing in the area. The condition must require that the applicant pay a fee to the City
Controller which must be deposited in the North of Market Affordable Housing Fund. Floors 9
through 13, the portion of the proposed building that would exceed 80 feet in height, would contain
approximately 18,325 gsf of floor area.
Subsection 263.7(e) thereunder, states that the fee required pursuant to Subsection 263.7(d)
above must be equal to the sum of $5 times the total gsf of floor space located above 80 feet in
height as determined by the Zoning Administrator, as shown on the building plans. Accordingly, the
applicable fee for the subject Project would be $91,625. The fee is due and payable prior to the
issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy, unless the project sponsor agreesto and qualifies
for participation in an amortized payment program, to be established by the Director of the Mayor’s
Office of Housing and Economic Development (MOHED) and the Planning Director, such program
to be subject to subsequent review and approval by the Commission and the Board of Supervisors,
which program would result in the City receiving an amount equivalent to the value of the
contribution at the time the temporary certificate of occupancy is issued.
Code Section 263.7(f) establishes a procedure regarding temporary Permit of Occupancy. The
Director of the Department of Building Inspection (hereinafter "DBI") must provide notice in writing to
the Zoning Administrator at least two business days prior to issuing a temporary permit of
occupancy for any building subject to the provisions of this Section. If the Zoning Administrator
notifies the Director of DBI within such time that the provisions of this Section have not been
complied with, the Director of DBI must deny the temporary permit. If the Zoning Administrator
notifies the Director of DBI that the provisions of this Section have been complied with or fails to
respond within two business days, the temporary permit of occupancy may not be disapproved
pursuant to this Section.
Section 263.7(g) establishes a ’North of Market Affordable Housing Fund" (hereinafter "Fund"). All
monies collected by the Controller pursuant to this Section are to be deposited in the Fund. All
monies deposited in the Fund must be used solely to stabilize, rehabilitate, and retain affordable
housing in the NOM RSUD. No portion of the Fund may be used, by way of loan or otherwise, to
pay any administrative, general overhead, or similar expense of any entity except for servicing cost
related to participation in the amortized payment program. The Fund is to be administered by the
Director of the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Economic Development (MOHED).
Code Section 263.7(h) thereunder establishes "Rules an Regulations for Implementation". The
Director of MOHED and the Planning Director shall prepare and submit to the Commission and the
Board of Supervisors for review and approval such rules and regulations as may be necessary for
the implementation of this Section. The Director of MOHED and the Planning Director shall further
propose such amendments or additions to the rules and regulations that he or she determines to be
necessary. Such amendments and additions must include periodic revision of the fee to reflect
current conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Motion No. 16831
Page 10
19. Section 270 establishes bulk requirements. For the "T" District in which this site is located,
buildings may be a maximum of 110 feet in length and 125 feet in diagonal dimension above a
setback height established pursuant to Code Section 132.2 (see above). In no case may this
setback height be more than 80 feet. In the subject case, an 80-foot streetwall height applies.
Above this level, the building would be approximately 87 feet in length and a diagonal dimension of
96 feet. Therefore, no bulk exception would be needed and the proposed Project complies with the
Section 270 standards.
20. Section 295 concerns the review of structures exceeding 40 feet in height insofar as their
shadowing of lands under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Parks Department. It requires that
such buildings have no significant or adverse shadow effects on such affected lands. On November
6, 2002, the Planning Department determined that the proposed building would have no shadow
impact on protected properties (Case No. 2002.0927CEKVX!). This finding is reflected in the Final
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Case No. 2002.0927CKVX!) adopted
and issued for the Project.
21. Pursuant to Section 303, the Commission may authorize a Conditional Use only after holding a
duly noticed public hearing and making findings that the proposed use will provide a development
that is necessary or desirable for and compatible with the neighborhood or the community, that such
use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience or general welfare of persons residing
or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property, improvements or potential development in the
vicinity and that such use will comply with the applicable provisions of the Code, and will not
adversely affect the General Plan.
The proposed Project complies with the criteria of Section 303(c) of the Code in that:
A.
That the proposed use or feature, at the size and intensity contemplated and at the
proposed location, will provide a development that is necessary or desirable for, and
compatible with, the neighborhood or the community.
The development of housing, both affordable and market rate, is a priority for San
Francisco. In a densely developed area such as such as the neighborhood
including the Subject Property, new housing as proposed would be of benefit to the
area. The replacement of the existing CRDC training facility would provide a
valuable asset to members of the nearby community (both trainees and employers).
The site could easily accommodate the Project. There are ample transit
opportunities in the area.
B.
That such use or feature as proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
convenience or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or
injurious to property, improvements or potential developments in the vicinity,.with
respect to aspects including but not limited to the following:
PLANNING COMMISSION
(1)
Motion No. 16831
Page 12
The nature of the proposed site, including its size and shape, and the
proposed size shape and arrangement of structures;
The Project would be well within the dwelling-unit density established for
the site. The Project Sponsor proposes to develop up to 41 dwelling units.
These units would be a variety of sizes, many large enough to house small
families. The proposed building, in massing, scale and design, would blend
well with the surrounding development. Open space for the proposed
Project would be in the form of individual balconies as well as terraces on
the third, eighth and ll" levels of the building. Building stepping (as
described herein) would make the new building blend well with its
surroundings, especially the building immediately to the east ("Oakwood Geary Courtyard").
Additionally, the Project proposes a small amount of retail space on its
ground floor, This new commercial use would provide an interesting
pedestrian streetscape without impacting the residential nature of the
Project.
(2)
The accessibility and traffic patterns for persons and vehicles, the type and
volume of such traffic, and the adequacy of proposed off-street parking and
loading;
The Subject Property is well-served by public transit of many varieties.
Pursuant to the City’s Transit First" policy and the Code’s low requirements
for off-street parking in RC-4 Districts, the Applicant is proposing no offstreet parking. This is supported by community stakeholders and would be
consistent with the nature of the surrounding area.
(3)
The safeguards afforded to prevent noxious or offensive emissions such as
noise, glare, dust and odor;
The Project does not propose any uses likely to generate offensive
emissions, such as noise, glare, dust, or odor. The Project’s predominant
use is residential with supporting services.
(4)
Treatment given, as appropriate, to such aspects as landscaping,
screening, open spaces, parking and loading areas, service area, lighting
and signs;
The Project would be appropriately landscaped. There would be open
space at grade level (in the rear) to separate the proposed use from
buildings to the south (rear). Space on balconies and terraces would be
provided for the use of the residents of the proposed dwelling units. Street
trees would be installed in compliance with the standards set forth in Code
Section 143.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Motion No. 16831
Page 13
C. That such use or feature as proposed will comply with the applicable provisions of
the Code and will not adversely affect the General Plan as elaborated herein below.
The Commission hereby finds that the Project will comply with or affirmatively
promote the following Objectives and Policies of the General Plan (Project specific
findings are in italics):
The Downtown Area Plan contains the following relevant objectives and policies:
Space for Housing
OBJECTIVE 7:
EXPAND THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING IN AND ADJACENT TO
DOWNTOWN.
Policy 1:
Promote the inclusion of housing in downtown commercial developments.
The Project would provide up to 41 dwelling units in an established RC-4 downtown
residential neighborhood.
Urban Form
OBJECTIVE 14:
Policy 1:
CREATE AND MAINTAIN A COMFORTABLE PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT.
Promote building forms that will maximize the sun access to open spaces and other
public areas.
The Project would not create any significant new shadows and is consistent with the
General Plan. While some new shadows are unavoidable with high-rise buildings, highdensity projects are encouraged by the Code in the RC-4 Districts. The proposed building
design is a stepped 13-story mass that will address nearby buildings (especially the
"Oakwood - Geary Courtyard "building to the east) by respecting the established stre atwall.
New shadows would be minimal. The Project would not cast any shadows on properties
under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department, and is therefore in
conformance with Code Section 295.
Policy 2:
Promote building forms that will minimize the creation of surface winds near the
base of buildings.
As outlined in the FMND prepared for it, the Project would not significantly affect wind
conditions.
OBJECTIVE 16:
Policy 1:
CREATE AND MAINTAIN ATTRACTIVE, INTERESTING URBAN
STREETSCAPES.
Conserve the traditional street-to-building relationship that characterizes downtown
PLANNING COMMISSION
Assessors Block 318, Lot 20
Motion No. 16831
Page 14
San Francisco.
Policy 4:
Use designs and materials and include activities at the ground floor to create
pedestrian interest.
The Project would be compatible with its environment and with the established character of
the nearby area. The blocks around the Subject Property are developed with high-density
residential uses mixed with ground-level commercial establishments and hotels. The visual
characteristics of the buildings in the vicinity of the Project Site are varied, reflecting a
variety of/and-use patterns and architectural sty/es over the past one hundred years. The
proposed new building would provide a transition from the largerbuildings to the east to the
somewhat lower-density area to the west. Due to the variety of building heights and scales
in the general area, the Project would blend into long-range views of the site and into the
densely-built urban fabric of the area. New buildings similar in height and form to the
Project building have been built in recent years in the nearby area to the Subject Property.
Moving About -- Moving to and from Downtown
OBJECTIVE 18:
Policy 2:
ENSURE THAT THE NUMBER OF AUTO TRIPS TO AND FROM
DOWNTOWN WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE GROWTH OR
AMENITY OF DOWNTOWN.
The Project will further provide incentives for the use of transit, carpools, and
vanpools, to reduce the need for new or expanded automobile parking facilities.
The Project site, at present, is used as a training faculty for immigrants who are learning
language, computer and job skills. The Project proposal is to replace it with a new training
facility topped with a residential tower containing up to 41 dwelling units (five of them
affordable) and no off-street parking. This arrangement is in direct compliance with the
City’s adopted "Transit First" policy and is supported by neighborhood stakeholders. It
would discourage commuter parking and would encourage the use of transit.
Moving Around Downtown
OBJECTIVE 20:
PROVIDE FOR THE EFFICIENT, CONVENIENT AND COMFORTABLE
MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS, TRANSIT VEHICLES AND
AUTOMOBILES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN.
OBJECTIVE 21:
IMPROVE FACILITIES FOR FREIGHT DELIVERIES AND BUSINESS
SERVICES.
Policy 2:
Discourage access to off-street freight loading and service vehicle facilities from
transit preferential streets, or pedestrian oriented streets and alleys.
Geary Street in the vicinity of the Subject Property is a Transit Preferential Street. No offstreet loading or parking would be provided as part of the Project. Therefore, there would
14
PLANNING COMMISSION
651 655 Geary Street
Motion No. 16831
Page 15
be no curb cuts on Geary Street and no in-and-out movements potentially disruptive to
transit vehicles. Loading needs of the proposed use would be light.
OBJECTIVE 22:
IMPROVE THE DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION SYSTEM,
ESPECIALLY WITHIN THE CORE, TO PROVIDE FOR EFFICIENT,
COMFORTABLE, AND SAFE MOVEMENT.
Policy 1:
Provide sufficient pedestrian movement space.
Policy 5:
Improve the ambience of the pedestrian environment.
The Project Site allows for sufficient pedestrian movement. The Project involves the
construction of a new building including dwelling units, retail, and training uses with no offstreet parking. The activity resulting from the Project would be largely a replacement of the
existing "training" uses. No new vehicle movements across the sidewalk would be
generated as part of the Project.
Seismic Safety
OBJECTIVE 23:
REDUCE HAZARDS TO LIFE SAFETY AND MINIMIZE PROPERTY
DAMAGE AND-ECONOMIC DISLOCATION RESULTING FROM FUTURE
EARTHQUAKES.
Policy 2:
Initiate orderly abatement of hazards from existing buildings and structures, while
preserving the architectural and design character of important buildings.
The Project would reduce hazards to life safety and minimize property damage and
economic dislocation resulting from future earthquakes through building design and
construction in compliance with current structural and seismic codes.
The Residence Element contains the following relevant objectives and policies:
OBJECTIVE 1:
Policy 4:
TO PROVIDE NEW HOUSING, ESPECIALLY PERMANENTLY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS WHICH MEETS
IDENTIFIED HOUSING NEEDS AND TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE
DEMAND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREATED BY EMPLOYMENT
GROWTH,
Locate infill housing on appropriate sites in established neighborhoods.
The Project site is within an established residential area. The Subject Property is housing
opportunity site and is appropriate for new housing. The Project would include 41 new
dwelling units, five of them affordable pursuant to thepro visions of Code Section 315, et
seq.
OBJECTIVE 2:
TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING WITHOUT OVER CROWDING
15
PLANNING COMMISSION
Motion No. 16831
Page 16
OR ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE PREVAILING CHARACTER OF
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.
Policy 2:
Encourage higher residential density in areas adjacent to downtown, in underutilized
commercial and industrial areas proposed for conversion to housing, and in
neighborhood commercial districts where higher density will not have harmful
effects, especially if the higher density provides a significant number of units that are
permanently affordable to lower income households.
The Subject Property is an underutilized lot near downtown that is appropriate for residential
intensification. It affords an opportunity for the Project Sponsor to rep/ace the desirable
existing training facility (that performs an educative service to the neighborhood and the
community) to acquire new quarters and to provide 41 new dwelling units (five of them
affordable pursuant to Code Section 315, et seq.). The proposed building would place
needed housing near the central business district
OBJECTIVE 4:
TO REDUCE THE RISK OF BODILY HARM AND LOSS OF HOUSING IN
AN EARTHQUAKE.
The proposed building would be built to current new-construction standards for seismic
safety as contained in the Building Code.
OBJECTIVE 7:
Policy 2:
TO INCREASE LAND AND IMPROVE BUILDING RESOURCES FOR
PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
Include affordable units in larger housing projects.
The proposed building would place needed housing near the central business district. Five
of the 41 dwelling units proposed would be "affordable" pursuant to Code Section 315, et
seq.
OBJECTIVE 12:
TO PROVIDE A QUALITY LIVING ENVIRONMENT.
Policy 1:
Assure housing is provided with adequate public improvements, services and
amenities.
Policy 2:
Allow appropriate neighborhood-serving commercial activities in residential areas.
Policy 4:
Promote construction of well designed housing that conserves existing
neighborhood character.
The Project is well designed and would be an attractive addition to the established
neighborhood in which it would find itself. It would include a small amount of neighborhoodserving retail space as well as replacement space for the existing CRDC training facility
thereby enhancing the district. Public services, improvements and amenities (including all
varieties of public transit) abound in the vicinity.
16
PLANNING COMMISSION
OBJECTIVE 13:
Motion No. 16831
Page 17
TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM HOUSING CHOICE
Policy 1:
Prevent housing discrimination based on age, race, religion, sex, sexual preference,
marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, disability, health (AIDS/ARC), source
or amount of income, citizenship or employment status as a family day care
provider.
Policy 2:
Promote adaptability and maximum accessibility of residential dwellings for disabled
occupants.
The Project would be handicapped accessible per the City’s new-construction building
standards. The Project would comply with all applicable City laws in regard to its
employment and marketing practices.
The Urban Design Element contains the following relevant policies and objectives:
OBJECTIVE 1:
Policy 2:
EMPHASIS OF THE CHARACTERISTIC PATTERN WHICH GIVES TO
THE CITY AND ITS NEIGHBORHOODS AN IMAGE, A SENSE OF
PURPOSE, AND A MEANS OF ORIENTATION.
Recognize, protect and reinforce the existing street pattern, especially as it is related
to topography.
The Project would add to the image and orientation of this downtown neighborhood. The
Project site is located within the downtown core on the south side of Geary Street, between
Jones and Leavenworth Streets. There are no significant public views in this area that
would be affected by the Project. "Public views" refers to views from public places such as
parks and open spaces, views from private open spaces that are open to the public, and
views from streets and sidewalks where topography or other local physical features create a
significant view corridor".
The Project Site is in an area that has been designated for high-density residential
development. The area surrounding the site is already in such a development pattern. In
light of the existing and proposed large buildings in the vicinity, the Project would not
obstruct any significant public views.
Policy 3:
Recognize that buildings, when seen together, produce a total effect that
characterizes the city and its districts.
The Project recognizes that buildings, when seen together, produce a total effect that
characterizes the City and its districts The height, massing, color, and shape of the
proposed building would ensure its compatibility with the other buildings comprising the San
Francisco skyline. In the vicinity of the Subject Property, there is an existing pattern of
middle-sized buildings of various ages with a mixed-use nature. The proposed building,
with its massing, stepping, mix of uses, and materials, would fit well into this neighborhood
17
PLANNING COMMISSION
Motion No, 16831
Page 18
character.
OBJECTIVE 3:
MODERATION OF MAJOR NEW DEVELOPMENT TO COMPLEMENT THE
CITY PATTERN, THE RESOURCES TO BE CONSERVED, AND THE
NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT.
Policy 1:
Promote harmony in the visual relationships and transitions between new and older
buildings.
Policy 2:
Avoid extreme contrasts in color, shape and other characteristics which will cause
new buildings to stand out in excess of their public importance.
Policy 5:
Relate the height of buildings to important attributes of the city pattern and to the
height and character of existing development.
Policy 6:
Relate the bulk of buildings to the prevailing scale of development to avoid an
overwhelming or dominating appearance in new construction.
The proposed building would promote harmony in the visual relationship and transitions
between new and olderbuildings in the neighborhood. The clean lines of the building would
blend with nearby buildings, both newer and older. Thus the proposed building would
incorporate the design elements of nearby existing buildings and would avoid extreme
contrasts in color, shape and other characteristics that would make it stand out in excess of
its civic importance.
City Pattern
Policy 5:
Relate the height of buildings to important attributes of the city pattern and to the
height and character of existing development.
Policy 6:
Relate the bulk of buildings to the prevailing scale of development to avoid an
overwhelming or dominating appearance in new construction.
The Project would be consistent with the surrounding streetscape and would be visually
compatible with the surrounding buildings. it is in the middle of an existing area of middlesized buildings generally providing high-density housing and hotel accommodation The
Project would form a transition between the larger buildings to the east and slightly smaller
ones to the west.
OBJECTIVE 4:
IMPROVEMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT TO
INCREASE PERSONAL SAFETY, COMFORT, PRIDE AND
OPPORTUNITY.
Policy 12:
Install, promote and maintain landscaping in public and private areas.
Policy 13:
Improve pedestrian areas by providing human scale and interest.
18
PLANNING COMMISSION
Motion No. 16831
Page 20
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS TO THE CAPACITY OF
THE CITY’S STREET SYSTEM AND LAND USE PATTERNS.
Policy 34.1: Regulate off-street parking in new housing so as to guarantee needed spaces
without requiring excesses and to encourage low auto ownership in neighborhoods
that are well served by transit and are convenient to neighborhood shopping.
In this downtown neighborhood, the herein-authorized Project would provide no off-street
parking for residential or commercial uses. This is consistent with the City’s adopted
"Transit First" policy and with the congested nature of the subject site. Employment,
shopping, entertainment and services are abundantly available within easy waling distance
of the Subject Property.
22. Section 314, et seq. - Child Care. This Section establishes requirements for the provision of
child care or in-lieu cash payments for office and hotel development projects. The Project, as a
predominantly residential development, is not subject to these requirements.
23. Section 315 establishes housing requirements for residential development projects.
Sections
315.1-315.9 set forth the requirements and procedures for the Residential Inclusionary Affordable
Housing Program ("Program"). The Program requires that a nominal twelve percent of the dwelling
units on site must be affordable either as rentals or as ownership units, for a fifty-year period
beginning at issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. If the Below Market Residential ("BMR")
units are to be provided on site, they are required to reflect the proposed mix of unit sizes in the
project and to be equal in construction quality and finish materials to the market-rate units.
Alternately, pursuant to Section 315, the Project Sponsor may elect to provide "BMR" units off site
or pay an in lieu fee which two options must be equivalent to 17 percent of the number of dwelling
units in the project. The subject Project would comply with the provisions of said Section 315 in
that five of the proposed dwelling units would be permanently affordable, by the terms of this
Section
The Commission, after carefully balancing the competing public and private interests, hereby finds
that authorization of the requested Conditional Uses would promote the health, safety and welfare
of the City.
DECISION
That based upon the Record, the submissions by the Applicant, the staff of the Department and
other interested parties, the oral testimony presented to this Commission at the public hearing, and
all other written materials submitted by all parties, the Commission hereby APPROVES Conditional
Use Application No. 2002.I036QEKV (for height above 40 feet in an "R" District, second-floor nonresidential use and no residential-serving off-street parking) subject to the following conditions
attached hereto as Exhibit A which is incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
APPEAL AND EFFECTIVE DATE OF MOTION: Any aggrieved person may appeal this
Conditional Use authorization to the Board of Supervisors within thirty (30) days after the
date of this Motion No. 16831. The effective date of this Motion shall be the date of this
Motion if not appealed (After the 30-day period has expired) OR the date of the decision of
20
PLANNING COMMISSION
Case No. 2002.1 036EKV
Motion No. 16831
Page 21
the Board of Supervisors if appealed to the Board of Supervisors. For further information,
please contact the Board of Supervisors at (415)554-5184, City Hall, Room 244,1 Dr. Canton
B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94012.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion was adopted by the Planning Commission on July
1, 2004.
Linda Avery
Commission Secretary
AYES:
Commissioners Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee and Olague
NAYES:
None
ABSENT:
None
EXCUSED; Commissioner Bradford Bell
ADOPTED: July 1, 2004
21
PLANNING COMMISSION
File No. 2002.1 O36CEKV
Motion No. 16831
Exhibit A
Page 22
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(1) The authorization herein is of a Conditional Use for a new mixed-use building containing up to
41 dwelling units with second-floor non-residential use and no off-street parking spaces as
described in the text of Motion No. 16831. Final plans for this Project shall be reviewed and
approved by the Staff of the Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
-
(2) Construction of the herein-authorized Project shall commence within three years of the date of
this action and shall be, thenceforth pursued diligently to completion or the said authorization
shall become null and void.
(3) Five dwelling units, representing 12 percent of the 41 proposed dwelling units in the Project,
shall be provided subject to the affordability requirements of Code Section 315, etseq.
Environmental
The three mandatory Mitigation Measures identified in the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Case No. 2002.1 O36CEKV) adopted and issued (as amended) for the Project are hereby
imposed as conditions of approval of the Project. They are:
(4) Mitigation Measure I - Construction Air Quality
The project sponsor would require the contractor(s) to spray the site with water during
demolition, excavation, and construction activities; spray unpaved construction areas with water
at least twice per day; cover stockpiles of soil, sand, and other material; cover trucks hauling
debris, soils, sand, or other such material; and sweep surrounding streets during demolition,
excavation, and construction at least once per day to reduce particulate emissions.
Ordinance 175-91, passed by the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 1991, requires that
non-potable water be used for dust control activities. Therefore, the Project Sponsor would
require that the contractor(s) obtain reclaimed water from the Clean Water Program for this
purpose. The Project Sponsor would require the project contractor(s) to maintain and operate
construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions of particulates and other
pollutants, by such means as a prohibition on idling motors when equipment is not in use or
when trucks are waiting in queues, and implementation of specific maintenance programs to
reduce emissions for equipment that would be in frequent use for much of the construction
period.
(5) Mitigation Measure 2 - Soil and Groundwater Contamination
22
PLANNING COMMISSION
File No. 2002.I036CEKV
Motion No. 16831
Exhibit A
Page 23
Due to the uncertainties surrounding the nature and condition of the elevator, the property
owner shall attempt to determine additional information regarding the operation and condition of
the elevator that serves the basement from the sidewalk. Because there is a possibility that
hydraulic piston lifts can leak hydraulic fluid to the subsurface soil and groundwater, the
following recommendations should help determine the level of concern.
Details of the elevator mechanical system should be clearly determined. This includes
determining whether it is a hydraulic lift system, whether the lift is operated by oil or water
hydraulics, and the location of the fluid reservoir.
Depending on whether the lift leaked hydraulic fluid, the lift mechanisms should be properly
disposed upon removal.
If it is determined that the elevator used hydraulic oil, soil surrounding the lift should be
observed during piston removal to determine the presence of hydraulic fluid. If the soil
appears to contain hydraulic oil, it should be over-excavated, segregated from clean
material, and properly disposed at a landfill and should not be reused as fill on the site.
The Project Sponsor shall conduct one or more Phase II Environmental Site Assessments of
the Project site, as necessary, to ensure that all areas of suspected surface and subsurface
contamination subject to ground disturbance during site development activities are sampled.
Soil or groundwater samples, or both, would be collected in such areas as directed by the site
assessment consultant and based on the conclusions of the Environmental Site Assessments.
Sampling would extend at least to depths subject to ground disturbance. The samples shalt be
analyzed to identify and quantify any contamination. These studies shall be competed by a
Registered Environmental Assessor (REA) or a similarly qualified individual.
If the sampling identifies surface and/or subsurface contamination in areas subject to ground
disturbance, the area shall be remediated in accordance with the standards, regulations, and
determinations of local, state, and federal regulatory agencies. The Project Sponsor shall
coordinate with the Department of Public Health and any other applicable regulatory agencies to
adopt contaminant-specific remediation target levels. The hazardous substances shall be
removed and disposed of at an approved site, or other appropriate actions shall be taken.
Prior to conducting any remediation activities a Site Health and Safety Plan would be prepared
pursuant to California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) requirements and
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health guidance to ensure worker safety. Under
Cal-OSHA requirements, the Site Health and Safety Plan would need to be prepared prior to
initiating any earth-moving activities at the site. The Site Health and Safety Plan shalt identify
protocols for managing soils during construction to minimize worker and public exposure to
contaminated soils. The protocols shall include at a minimum:
I. Characterization of excavated native soils proposed for use on site prior to placement to
confirm that the soil meets appropriate standards.
23
PLANNING COMMISSION
File No. 2002.1 O36CEKV
Motion No. 16831
Exhibit A
Page 24
II. The dust controls specified in this Initial Study, Mitigation Measure 1.
III. Protocols for managing stockpiled and excavated soils.
The Site Health and Safely Plan shall identify site access controls to be implemented from the
time of surface disruption through the completion of earthwork construction. The protocols shall
include at a minimum:
I. Appropriate site security to prevent unauthorized pedestrian/vehicular entry, such as fencing
or other barrier or sufficient height and structural integrity to prevent entry and based upon
the degree of control required.
II. Posting of "no trespassing" signs.
Ill. Providing on-site meetings with construction workers to inform them about security
measures and reporting/contingency procedures.
If groundwater contamination is identified, the Site Health and Safety Plan shall identify
protocols for managing groundwater during construction to minimize worker and public
exposure to contaminated groundwater. The protocols shall include procedures to prevent
unacceptable migration of contamination from defined plumes during any dewatering required.
The Site Health and Safety Plan shall include a requirement that construction personnel be
trained to recognize potential hazards associated with underground features that could contain
hazardous substances, previously unidentified contamination, or buried hazardous debris.
The Site Health and Safety Plan shall include procedures for implementing a contingency plan,
including appropriate notification and control procedures, in the event unanticipated subsurface
hazards are discovered during construction. Control procedures could include, but would not be
limited to, further investigation of other hazards.
All reports and plans prepared in accordance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to
the San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH) and any other appropriate agencies
identified by the DPH. When all hazardous material have been removed from existing buildings,
and soil and groundwater analysis and other activities have been completed, as appropriate, the
Project Sponsor shall submit to the San Francisco Planning Department and the DPH (and any
other agencies identified by the DPH) a report stating that the mitigation measure has been
implemented. The report shall describe the steps taken to comply with the mitigation measure
and include all verifying documentation. The report shall be certified by an REA or similarly
qualified individual who states that the mitigation measure has been implemented, and
specifying the actions that have been implemented.
(6) Mitigation Measure 3 - Archeological Resources
24
PLANNING COMMISSION
File No. 2002.I036CEKV
Motion No. 16831
Exhibit A
Page 25
The Project Sponsor shall distribute the Planning Department’s archeological resource "ALERT"
sheet to the project prime contractor; to any project subcontractor (including demolition,
excavation, grading, foundation, pile driving, etc. firms); or utilities firm involved in soils
disturbing activities within the project site. Prior to any soils disturbing activities being
undertaken each contractor is responsible for ensuring that the Alert Sheet is circulated to all
field personnel including, machine operators, field crew, pile drivers, supervisory personnel, etc.
The Head Foreman or other responsible party shall provide the Environmental Review Officer
(ERO) with a signed affidavit to the ERO confirming that all field personnel have received copies
of the Alert Sheet.
Should any indication of an archeological resource be encountered during any soils disturbing
activity of the project, the project Head Foreman and/or project sponsor shall immediately notify
the ERO and shall immediately suspend any soils disturbing activities in the vicinity of the
discovery until the ERO has determined what additional measures, if any, should be
undertaken.
If the ERO determines that an archeological resource may be present within the Project site, the
Project Sponsor shall retain the services of a qualified archeological consultant. The
archeological consultant shall advise the ERO as to whether the discovery is an archeological
resource, retains sufficient integrity, and is of potential scientific/historical/cultural significance.
If an archeological resource is present, the archeological consultant shall identify and evaluate
the archeological resource. The archeological consultant shall make a recommendation as to
what action, if any, is warranted. Based on this information, the ERO may require, if warranted,
specific additional measures to be implemented by the Project Sponsor.
Measures might include: preservation in situ of the archeological resource; an archaeological
monitoring program; or an archeological testing program. If an archeological monitoring
program or archeological testing program is required, it shall be consistent with the Major
Environmental Analysis (MEA) division guidelines for such programs. The ERO may also
require that the project sponsor immediately implement a site security program if the
archeological resource is at risk from vandalism, looting, or other damaging activities.
The project archeological consultant shall prepare a Final Archeological Resources Report
(FARR) evaluating the historical importance of the archeological resource and describing the
archeological and historical research methods employed in the archeological monitoring/data
recovery program(s). Information that may put at risk any archeological resource shall be
provided in a separate removable insert within the final report.
Copies of the Draft FARR shall be sent to the ERO for review and approval. Once approved by
the ERO, copies of the FARR shall be distributed as follows: California Archaeological Site
Survey Northwest Information Center (1 copy) and the President of the Landmarks Preservation
Advisory Board (1 copy). The Major Environmental Analysis division of the Planning
Department shall receive three copies of the FARR along with copies of any formal site
recordation forms (CA DPR 523 series) and/or documentation for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places/California Register of Historical Resources. In instances of high
25
PLANNING COMMISSION
File No 2002.I036CEKV
Motion No. 16831
Ex hibitA
Page 26
public interest or interpretive value, the ERO may require a different final report content, format,
and distribution than that presented above.
Recordation
(7) The Applicant shall cause this "Exhibit A" to be recorded against the title of the Subject Property
as a Notice of Special Restrictions under the City Planning Code.
Design
(8) The Project architect shall continue to work with the Planning Department to develop further and
to refine the design of the Project.
(9) Decisions on final materials, glazing, color, texture, landscaping, and detailing shall be subject
to Department staff review and approval.
Landscaping
(10) A final landscaping plan, which plan shall include the installation of street trees in front of the
Project site, shall be developed and approved by the staff of the Planning Department prior to
the issuance of any Building Permit(s) for the Project.
Performance
(11) The Applicant shall appoint a person or persons to act as a neighborhood liaison. The function
of said liaison shall be to consult with residents of the Project and neighbors in the surrounding
neighborhood to resolve problems or complaints arising from operation of the Project. The
Applicant shall report the name and telephone number of said community liaison to the Zoning
Administrator for reference.
(12) Should implementation of this Project result in complaints from interested property owners,
residents or commercial lessees, which complaints are not resolved by the Applicant, (and/or
the appointed community liaison for the Project), and are subsequently reported to the Zoning
Administrator and found to be in violation of the Code and/or the specific conditions of approval
for the Project as set forth in this Exhibit A, pursuant to Section 174 of the Code, the Zoning
Administrator shall take appropriate violation abatement action and the Commission, after
holding a public hearing on the matter in accordance with the hearing notification and conduct
procedures as set forth in Section 174, pursuant to Section 3063 and 306.4 of the Code, may
revoke the subject Conditional Use authorization.
G:\WP51M0T10NS\Geary 651 - 655 -- Cu Motion.doc
26
EXHIBIT 4
Jeanie
Poling/CTYPLN/SFGO
To kam@jaidinnet
cc
bcc
03/23/2010 04:54 PM
Subject 651-655 Geary environmental fee
To follow up on our meeting this morning, Geary Village, LLC filed an environmental
application for a negative declaration addendum on 9/14/08 (Case No. 2008.0981 E) and
paid a fee of $8,447. We spent about 25 staff hours, or $2500 on the project until we
stopped last March.
If the new owner wants to move forward with the project (or something very similar), he
has two options:
1. Get an authorized letter from the previous owner saying that he will not request a
refund. We continue to charge our hours to the same case and bill the new owner only if
our time and materials billing exceeds the $8,477 initial fee charged.
2. File a new application for a neg dec addendum. The fee is currently $9,114. Staff could
build on the work we’ve previously done, but under a new case number.
Jeanie Poling
Environmental Planner
Major Environmental Analysis
San Francisco Planning Department
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400
ph: (415) 575-9072 fax: (415) 558-6409
[email protected]
Quick Dates
;diction used:
aIifornia - Civil - San Francisco County Superior Court (Unlimited Jurisdiction) - California - Civil
cted event:
)ATE OF SERVICE (BY HAND) OF MEMORANDUM OF COSTS.
Date
Time Authority/Description
11/21/2011
CRC 3.1700(a)(1)
DATE OF SERVICE (BY HAND) OF MEMORANDUM OF COSTS.
12/06/2011
CRC 3.1700(b)(1)
LAST COURT DAY TO FILE AND SERVE NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE OR TO TAX COSTS.
ipuLawfi Vision
TM
Page 1
11/22/2011 12:12 PM
Page 1 of
Epperly, Anne
From:
Jerry Threet [[email protected] ]
Sent:
Thursday, November 10, 2011 1:58 PM
To:
Keehnen, Jill
Cc:
Barkley, Alice; Epperly, Anne; Shanagher, Denis
Subject: RE: 651-655 Geary Street (2002.1036CEKV), Request for Determination: The 2004 Conditional Use
Authorization is Valid
Ms. Keehnen My apologies for the delay in responding, but I have been out of the office.
Although our office sued your client on behalf of the Building Department, the permit approval process
remains the same for your clients. Therefore, you should follow the normal procedures for seeking such
approvals. Although I appreciate being copied on matters you send to Planning in this regard, they are the
agency you should write with your applications.
Since I have received this request, let me take a moment to help clarify something that may make
processing your request easier. It is unclear to me whether you are seeking a determination regarding the
validity of the CU for the "original project" or "revised project" (which never received Planning Commission
review). Can you clarify your request? Also, the ZA does not make determinations regarding validity of
the environmental review, that is the job of the ERO. If you also need such a determination, that is a
separate process.
Lastly, the fee for a Letter of Determination is $588. Please forward a check and hardcopy of the request
to the Planning Department, Scott Sanchez, Zoning Administrator. They will start work on it once they
receive these two items.
Sincerely,
Jerry Threet, Deputy City Attorney
Neighborhood and Resident Safety Division
Counsel to Sunshine Task Force
Office of City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera
1390 Market Street, 6th Floor
Direct: (415) 554-3914
Fax: (415) 437-4644
jerry.threet'sfgov.org
The information contained in this electronic message may be confidential and may be subject to the
attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. It is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this electronic message in error, please notify me by telephone at (415) 554-3914, and delete the original
message from your email system. Thank you.
From;
"Keehnen, Jill" <[email protected] >
To:
<Jerry.Threetsfgov.org >
Cc:
"Epperly, Anne" <[email protected] >, "Shanagher, Denis" <DShanagherLUcE.com >, "Barkley, Alice" <ABarkIeyLUCE.com >
11/18/2011
Page 2 of 2
Date
Subject
11/07/2011 09:43 AM
RE: 651-655 Geary Street (2002.1036CEKV), Request for Determination: The 2004 Conditional Use Authorization is Valid
Dear Mr. Threet Attached is correspondence of today’s date from Attorney Anne Epperly regarding the abovereferenced matter. Original will follow via U.S. Mail.
<<1 1-7-11 letter to Sanchez_Threet (2).PDF>>
Jiff 7(flefinen, £egalTi4ssistantfor
gera&fM. Murpfiy, J4nirew S. Jizarini aniflnne M. fEppe4y
Direct Line: (415) 356-4691
Rincon Center II
(415) 356-4600
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the email and any attachments without reading, printing, copying or forwarding it, and please notify us.
**************
CONFIDENTIAL
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
please delete the e-mail and any attachments without reading, printing,
copying or forwarding it, and please notify us.
http://www.luce.com
Please consider the en ronment below printing this email. [attachment 11-7-11 letter to Sanehei lhreet (2).Pl.)l’ deleted by Jei ry ThreetiClVAll1
11/18/2011

651-655 Geary Street - Planning Department

Transcription

Similar documents

Ah-Nab-Awen Park - City of Grand Rapids

Schottenstein Center

Printable PDF version, books only

Parking Lot Striping - Parking Control Unit

Pencader Corporate Center

Chaparral`s Monster Parking Lot Sale expects to draw 50,000

Event Parking

August 2015 ECRC-Parent Link Centre Stepping Stones Society

home on the dunes - Gulfview Construction

Municipal Parking