- Many people involved in the industry have been working hard to establish this policy.
- CEQA laws are very confusing.
- Reduces the importance of local designations, marginalizes state properties, public comment has been ignored by the Planning Department.
- Architectural Heritage has been working diligently together with the Planning Department.
(+/-) Nan Roth
- Will these properties be referred back to the project sponsor for further analysis?
(+/-) Jeffrey Heller
- A lot of things have been worked out with Heritage and the Landmarks Board.
- He hopes that the current policy contains regulations for preservation.
- It is important to keep the policy as straight forward and simple as possible.
(+/-) David Cincotta
- He commended the Planning Department for their effort on this policy.
- More work could be done.
- Consistency in the application of these guidelines is very important.
(-) Sue Hestor
- The surveys and records are very "spotty."
- Some staff works on projects that are really wonderful.
- There should be more scrutiny on demolitions.
- More resources need to be put into this.
- Staff should not be "cavaliering" on demolitions.
ACTION: No Action Required by the Commission
16. 2002.0376E (N. TURRELL: (415) 558-5904)
8 WASHINGTON STREET - Assessor's Blocks and Lots 201/12, 171/69, and 168/58 - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 109,225-square-foot project site is located at 8 Washington Street, between Drumm Street and The Embarcadero, on the edge of the financial district. The proposed project would involve the construction of an eight-story, 84-foot-tall, approximately 283,612-gross-square-foot (gsf), 120-unit, predominantly residential building with a health club facility and parking for 170 vehicles. The existing Golden Gateway Tennis and Swim Club facility would be removed and reconstructed on the northern portion of the project site. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the proposed residential/commercial building would be from Drumm Street. The site is zoned RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) and is in an 84-E height and bulk district. The project would require Conditional Use authorization for Planned Unit Development, for bulk limit exception, and for parking.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 11, 2003)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Sue Hestor - Appellant
- She has agreed that her request to challenge the jurisdiction will be heard after this case. She did file it to be heard before this matter.
- Even a Negative Declaration has to be accurate.
- She represents Friends of the Golden Gateway. The major issue is that the project is being built on a site that has been recreation and open space that was built in conjunction with the Golden Gateway for 40 years.
- An issue that is central to this is, what is the affect of taking away the recreation space for a planned community when this is the densest residential community?
- Staff is "ducking" the housing issue.
- The project was approved by the Planning Commission as a PUD in the 60s.
- A formula was used for general athletic uses. This is not a general athletic use. It is a specific facility. Information should be given on traffic, transportation and use patterns based on the specific facilities.
(-) Thomas S. Lister - Resident of the Golden Gateway Center
- He and his wife have resided at the Golden Gateway since 1980.
- They will be directly affected by this project.
- A negative declaration gets this far and has to go through an appeal level. Many people were never contacted.
- He received only one phone call. Ever since then he has been trying to get in touch with someone, but to no avail.
- Putting 120 units in the area will overwhelm the sewage treatment of that facility.
- There will be traffic problems during and after construction.
- There will be economic impacts.
(-) Cris Biaty
- He lives in the Golden Gateway apartments.
- He is opposed to the project even though he is not a member of the tennis club.
- He is concerned about public safety.
- His apartment is on the 16th floor and can they see a lot of what goes on on the street.
- The area is not a safe situation for elderly and children regarding traffic.
- He does not feel that there has been enough study done on this.
(-) Ernestine Weiss
- She feels that there has not been enough traffic study done on the intersections surrounding the project.
- She has been able to get traffic lights in the area.
- There are a lot of seniors in the area and it could be dangerous for them.
(+) Pamela Duffy - Coblentz, Patch, Duffy and Bass
- There is no substantial evidence that this project could cause a significant negative impact on the environment.
- The Rec and Park department has done an analysis on the shadow impact.
- There has been an extensive traffic study done on the project.
- It has been one of the more thorough jobs done on this project.
- She urges the Commission to uphold the negative declaration.
ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
ABSENT: Boyd and W. Lee
MOTION: 16721
17a. 2002.0376EIKC (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)
8 WASHINGTON STREET (AKA 370 DRUMM STREET) - northeast corner at Drumm Street, Assessor's Block/Lot 0168/058, 0171/069, and 0201/0 - Adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the proposed development to construct an eight-story, approximately 84 foot high mixed-used building.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt CEQA findings.
SPEAKER(S):
Re: Jurisdiction of the Planning Department
Susan Cleveland-Knowles - Deputy City Attorney
- The office of the City Attorney has reviewed the letter submitted by Ms. Sue Hestor.
- The items before the Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission (except the Zoning Administrator determination) are distinct matters, although they are related.
- It is a matter of law that the Commission does have jurisdiction to take up the item this evening.
- It is possible that future decisions by either the Board of Appeals (BOA) or the Zoning Administrator would require another application to be made for this project.
- It is up to the Commission to either hear the item this evening or to continue the matter until the mentioned situations are resolved.
Commissioner Antonini:
- Would these appeals be upheld or necessary by either of the two bodies?
Deputy City Attorney Susan Cleveland-Knowles responded:
- She cannot make any predictions. The first appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination was upheld by the BOA but there has been a request for a rehearing.
- The BOA has not decided to rehear or not.
- Regarding the second Zoning Administrator determination, there has not been a decision as of yet.
Commissioner Feldstein:
-Is it appropriate for the Commission to ask the Acting Zoning Administrator what the issue pending is and when a determination will be issued?
Acting Zoning Administrator Craig Nikitas responded:
- He received a letter requesting a determination on January 22, 2004.
- This matter has been assigned to a planner.
- Because the department is short staffed, the letter was taken in the order it was received. He did not feel there was a need to put the item ahead of this hearing.
- From a Planning Code point of view, he also believes that this hearing is properly before the Commission.
- Should his letter obviate the need for this hearing, or should it go the other way and be appealed and the BOA overturn his determination, they would bring back the entitlements for consideration.
Commissioner Feldstein:
- Can the Acting Zoning Administrator state what the question is or is this not proper?
Acting Zoning Administrator Craig Nikitas responded:
- The original letter which was upheld questioned whether this project should be heard as part of a reconsideration of the entire Redevelopment PUD in this area.
- The letter by the former Acting Zoning Administrator determined that this could be heard as a stand alone project separate of the entire consideration of the PUD.
- The second letter is a more "fine grained" question that asks whether the portions of some of the original PUDs entitling the residential portion of this were necessary in consideration of this project to be heard in its entirety?
Commissioner Antonini:
- He believes that somewhere in the 80s, the entire Golden Gateway project was no longer part of the Redevelopment and was moved under the auspices of the Planning Department.
Acting Zoning Administrator Craig Nikitas responded:
- It was in 1992 that the Redevelopment controls expired. The parcels in question were remanded to the control of the Planning Department.
- Another thing that happened was that prior to the mid-80s, Redevelopment projects of this sort were heard by the Planning Commission as PUDs and Conditional Uses. Upon the advice of the City Attorney in the mid-80s, that practice was discontinued. Should a similar project come up in a Redevelopment area today, this Commission would not be hearing the request for entitlements for it.
Commissioner Antonini:
- He believes that the Commission should hear this case today.
- There are a lot of people here to testify (for and against).
- Part of a determination that may be made in the future will not be a result based on a decision the Commission might make. No one is going to get anywhere until the Commission begins to hear this case.
Commission Bradford Bell:
- The Commission has indicated a consensus that the case will be heard.
SPEAKER(S):
Sue Hestor
- She finds it very curious that the City Attorney and the Planning Department are saying that if a Conditional Use is approved it could be buried by a determination of the Board of Appeals and the Zoning Administrator.
- This is the first time that a Conditional Use can be modified by the Board of Appeals.
- This is a very substantial issue.
- If there was a PUD approved, how was it vacated and why was it vacated?
- It is irresponsible to just go ahead with this project.
Acting Zoning Administrator Craig Nikitas responded
- He is not suggesting that the Board of Appeals would overturn a Conditional Use authorized by the Planning Commission.
- He is suggesting that should the Board of Appeals find that the Zoning Administrator erred in determining that this is properly before the Commission, it would have to be brought back before the Commission for reconsideration.
- It is not that the Board of Appeals would be directly ruling on the merits of the Conditional Use authorization but on the subsequent determination that this case is before the Commission under law.
- He sees no reason why this case cannot be heard by the Commission.
- Anything that happens in the future will have it's venue and people opposed to the decisions will have their chance to appeal it.
- People opposed to the Conditional Use can appeal it to the Board of Supervisors and people who feel that the Zoning Administrator made an improper decision can appeal that at the Board of Appeals. And if the latter happens, under Section Code 303(f), the Department would have to bring a Conditional Use back to the Commission that was not properly before them under flawed information.
Acting Director Larry Badiner:
- There are substantial issues that they will be dealing with.
- There have been occasions when a project sponsor has filed an appeal to the Board of Appeals right before the Planning Commission hearing. This is not the case on the issues brought up by Ms. Hestor.
Pamela Duffy
- There is no appeal pending at the Board of Appeals (BOA).
- There was, and the Board of Appeals heard it on January 14, 2004. The BOA upheld the Zoning Administrator's determination.
- A request for rehearing was filed.
- Ms. Hestor filed a request for a different determination which hasn't been issued, which hasn't been appealed, and which is not before the Board of Appeals.
- The only matter here is that whether or not this Conditional Use is something that this Commission can hear and has the jurisdiction to hear--and it does.
- There is a strategic debate here.
Commissioner Feldstein:
- She would like the Acting Zoning Administrator to explain step by step how the Commission got from Ms. Hestor's assertions that the they are dealing with a PUD and the department's understanding that the Commission is not dealing with a PUD.
- She disagrees with Ms. Duffy's statements.
Acting Zoning Administrator Craig Nikitas responded:
- He would recommend that the Commission look at the typical PUD this Commission sees, which is not what is in front of them now, in terms of the whole Redevelopment Area.
- This is not a three-quarter acre parcel with 30 units on it that came in for a PUD to have the rear yard adjusted and the typical sort of things that the Commission often sees in the smaller residential PUDs.
- This is a complex series of entitlements that occurred over 15 to 20 years that was overlaid with each other. They involved residential, high-rise, commercial uses, and sometimes including overlaying blocks.
- He is not quite sure that there is an easy way to sort it all out.
- In the intervening years, there have been a lot of changes in the area. For example: the Embarcadero Freeway is gone and there has been development of Ferry Park which has allowed a lot of open space. Over time many things have evolved that may not be completely clear.
- In one of the early entitlements, Sidney Walton Park was required to be developed as park space until 1992 after which the owners of it could build structures on it to the highest and best use of the land.
- In the mid-70s the Redevelopment Agency suggested to the Board of Supervisors that the City acquire that and keep it open space in perpetuity by buying the development rights. There was no PUD that reconsidered the entire redevelopment area to do that.
- It is reasonable and acceptable to look at the proposed development as its own unit and separate from the residential area it has used as recreational space and it will continue to be used as recreational space with the addition of buildings.
- Given the current conditions, it makes sense to look at this on it's own, without reconsideration of 15 blocks and two decades work of entitlements that are overlaid and overlapping on it.
Commissioner Hughes:
- There has been a determination on the PUD by the Board of Appeals.
- This determination is that the block that this proposed project is on is not part of a PUD.
Acting Zoning Administrator Craig Nikitas responded:
- That is not precisely the determination.
- It is that the entire redevelopment area does not need to be reconsidered as a modification of the PUD that would entitle this project.
- Appellants can request a rehearing upon the provision of new information. The Board of Appeals will decide whether to grant the rehearing or not. This is the only thing that is pending before the Board of Appeals on this project.
Commissioner Hughes:
- In the event that the Board of Appeals reverses its earlier decision and if the Commission acts on it this evening, the entire project comes back to them [the Commission].
Acting Director Larry Badiner:
- The Department could determine that the Conditional Use was inappropriately before the Commission and they could invalidate the CU.
- If the Board of Appeals overturns their decision upon a request for rehearing or ultimately through a process, the Zoning Administrator and the City determine something that is adverse to the project, the Project Sponsor would probably modify it and the Department would bring back a modified Conditional Use.
Re: Merits of the Project
(+) Jeffrey Heller - Representing Project Sponsor
- He gave a PowerPoint presentation on the general aspects of the project showing renderings, photographs of the proposed structure, engineering drawings emphasizing the swimming pools and shadow analysis.
(-) James Eggert - FOGG - Friends of Golden Gate
- He lives to blocks away from the project.
- He read a letter from Edward Healthow who is opposed to the project.
(+) Jim Gerber - President of the Western Athletic Clubs
- He has more than a casual interest in making sure that the future of the tennis club is in his best interest and his members' best interest.
- He is satisfied that the finished product will meet the needs of the community that is served by the tennis and swim club.
- He was concerned about how the transition will take place during the construction period. He is very satisfied with the arrangements that they have made with various other clubs to serve members in the mean time.
(-) Nan Roth - Telegraph Hill Dwellers
- The dwellers have had a long time association with the Golden Gateway.
- She read a letter from the Telegraph Hill Dwellers Association who are not in support of the project.
(+) Stan Warren - San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council
- This project parallels a vision for the community. It will also increase housing.
- Housing is very necessary.
- This project complies with all the codes and he urges the Commission to approve the project.
- It will also create many construction jobs.
(-) Helen Hui - Golden Gateway Commons
- They have written various letters in opposition to this project.
- The original designers of this project designed it to create a certain amount of open spaces.
- This new developer is destroying a facility that is used by many.
- She urged the Commission to deny the project.
(+) Jim Salinas - Carpenter's Union Local 22
- He was born and raised in San Francisco.
- There is a huge housing crisis in the City.
- The development team has done due diligence and has been very sensitive to the neighbors in the area.
(-) Victor Honig - Block II Golden Gateway Commons
- There is a constant saying that there is a shortage of housing. It is true.
- The shortage is in affordable housing and not in luxury housing.
- He lives in Golden Gateway Commons No. 2.
- The height of the building would be out of scale to the buildings in the Embarcadero.
(+) Martha Fry - Landscape Architect
- They did an analysis of the health of the trees currently in the Golden Gateway.
- Many trees have been mistreated and need to be replaced. Other trees will be kept.
- The pool podium (exterior pool terrace) will contain hardsape and lawn.
- Proper irrigation will be installed to create a safe and beautiful environment.
(-) Nan McGuire - FOGG
- She is a member of the Golden Gateway.
- District 3 has the highest density of all the districts.
- District 3 is tied with District 6 on the least amount of open space per capita.
- The developer wants to totally demolish the pools and increase the fitness space.
- The current fitness space is under utilized.
- She urges the Commission to not approve the project.
(+) Dean Macris
- This project does bring some solid benefits to the City.
- The project will also offer fiscal advantages to the City.
- This project can play a key role in establishing open space.
(+/-) Jim Miller
- He is a member of the Planning Department and lives in the Golden Gateway but is not a member of the fitness center.
- A planned unit development approved by a Conditional Use, is a Conditional Use.
- It can only be modified by the Planning Code by a new Conditional Use.
- The property which is the subject of the early Conditional Use planned unit development is not lost in the archives of the past.
- The matter is still under the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals until they rule on a rehearing. It does not leave their jurisdiction until they are through with it.
- So this matter is inappropriate before the Commission.
(+) Walter Johnson - Labor Council
- He supports this project completely because it will provide necessary residential units.
- It is important to provide jobs, not just housing.
- It is important to move forward.
(-) Lee Radiner - Golden Gate Tennis and Swim Club
- He lives in the Golden Gateway and is a member of the Tennis and Swim Club.
- He submitted a petition with about 3,000 signatures of people who are opposed to the project.
- The club participates in various organizations and all this will be affected.
- This project will create 120 luxury units, which will destroy the neighborhood.
(+) John Hamilton
- He is representing the Project Sponsor
- They have been working on the planning and study of this project for about two years.
- All this analysis has created a lot of comments.
- He thanked the members of the Planning Commission for all their work on this project.
(-) Cris Biotti
- The intersections at Washington and Drum and Jackson and Drum are very dangerous intersections.
- There are future projects at the waterfront that are not being discussed right now and should be.
- Computer generated numbers do not tell the complete story.
- Residents of the Golden Gateway have not been heard and are being ignored.
- The residents of the Golden Gateway want their open space and want this project to be reduced.
(-) Ernestine Weiss
- There are various projects at the waterfront that will affect the traffic in the area and all this is not being discussed right now.
- This area will have the worst traffic jams.
- This is the most unnecessary building being proposed.
- There was a recent death because of the dangerous traffic situation.
- Open space is more necessary than luxury housing.
(+) Michael Alexander
- He travels the area various times a week.
- He has been a very active member of various boards and organizations in San Francisco.
- He has listened closely to the testimonies on this project. There is no open space situation here.
- His major problem with this project is the 170 parking spaces, which require conditional use, and is grossly in excess of what is needed.
- There are 120 families that will gain housing, and many of these will be seniors.
(-) Lorraine Sorensen
- She lives in the North Beach area.
- She read a letter from a member of the public who had to leave and is opposed to the project.
(+) Dina Poursardar
- Her husband was an architect.
- She is in support of this project. It will be a piece of art.
- She admires the architect of this project.
(-) Lawrence Doxsee
- He lives on Union Street.
- He swims quite often at the Golden Gateway pools.
- This project will eliminate three of the tennis courts and open space.
- The project will also eliminate a lap pool and place it on a second floor which will have a shadow cast upon it by adjacent buildings.
(+) John Wilson - Webcor Builders
- When approved the project will be built by a contractor that has done a lot of work in San Francisco and has worked with a lot of City agencies.
- The developer proactively came to them and told them that it was not a Redevelopment Project but it was the right thing to do to develop some guidelines similar to the agency's.
(-) Bob Iwersen - Friends of Golden Gateway
- His great-grandparents came to San Francisco in 1952.
- He lives in the Golden Gateway Commons.
- He is an architect and belies that the Golden Gateway Tennis and Swim Club is one of the best athletic centers in the City.
- This facility should be enhanced rather than marginalized.
- He is concerned with the loss of view.
(+/-) Bruce Bonacker
- He is active on many community board, but this evening he is speaking on his own.
- He was asked by Jane Winslow to look over the project.
- Regarding the urban design and views: he feels that the scale of the building is appropriate.
- There are no historic buildings that will be demolished and that is good.
(-) Holly Suzara - Friends of Golden Gateway
- As a property owner and a resident of the community, she does not feel that a property owner can do what they please to their land.
- The project does not improve the quality of life for the residents.
(+) Franz Nagai
- He has lived at the Golden Gateway Center for the last 25 years.
- He has no plans to move away.
- He is semi-retired and is looking for some place to buy.
- He is in support of the project because he would like to buy a unit and live in it when the project is over.
- The health club will be improved and he is looking forward to it.
(+/-) Thomas S. Lister - Resident of the Golden Gateway Center and Member of the Tennis and Swim Club
- He is opposed to the design of the project but is neutral to the loss of open space and the residential component.
- For a long period of time, there has been open space and this will be lost.
- The only times he has had to call the sewer plant is when it is not raining.
(+) Keith Wilson
- His wife is a frequent tennis player.
- The speakers against this project are saying that the health club will be gone forever. The only thing being lost are three tennis courts.
- The health club will be greatly improved plus 120 residential units will be created.
- There are a lot of resources that are being put into low income housing and very little put into middle-income housing.
- This is a very equitable project that is tastefully designed.
(-) Paula Aspin
- She is opposed to everything that the previous speaker said.
- She is not going to be able to afford the fees when the athletic club is finished.
- There is nothing wrong with the way the club looks presently.
(+) Frank O'Neal - Pier 50-A
- He is a former member of the Port Commission.
- He has participated in various developments at the waterfront.
- He is very close to the Embarcadero and has an office at the waterfront.
- He likes this project. It is moderate and tasteful.
(-) Betty Magovern
- She has been a tenant at the Golden Gateway for almost 32 years.
- She is no longer a member of the Swim and Tennis Club.
- This is not a private club. This is a club that the public can go to.
- She does not support this proposal.
(+) Ron Miguel - Chair of the Housing Action Coalition
- He has been to various site visits and has had conversations with various people that live in the Gateway.
- This is great urban design. Dean Macris said it best by saying that it frames the section of the waterfront between itself and the MUNI property.
- The project is near transit and will have increased service.
- The project meets the planning criteria, etc.
(-) Eula Walters
- She has lived in the Golden Gateway for 32 years.
- She can swim in the pool in the morning and see the Ferry Buildings.
- She is worried about loosing the view of the Ferry Building and the clouds.
- This is the best City and best area to live at.
- If this is taken away, the Commission will take away one of the best things that the City has.
(-) John Hill - FOGG - Friends of Golden Gate
- He lives in the outer Richmond and is a member of the Tennis and Swim club with his family.
- Fitness facilities are tremendous family assets.
- He combines family outings by going to the club and shopping at the Embarcadero.
- The numbers just don't make sense: 120 luxury condos vs. 1,700 members that include seniors and children.
(-) Tim O'Shea
- He is speaking on behalf of families and children.
- There are 400 kids in the summer camps.
- There is a quality of community at the club.
- The club is a very rare asset.
(+) Khay Loke - Project Manager - Hamilton Partners
- He read a letter from the Deputy Director of Car Share who is in support of the project because the project will contain up to two parking spaces for car share.
(-) Nicholas O'Neill
- If the Golden Gateway goes, it will not be coming back.
- It is important to hang on to what we have.
- He has lived in various countries and in no place has he seen a facility like the Golden Gateway. He and his wife are members and hopes that his future kids will benefit from it.
- The club is mobbed by families.
(-) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City
- This project has too much parking.
- If there is any site that does not have to exceed the code for parking, it is this site.
- There is no need for the amount of parking proposed.
- The current club operates with 15 parking spaces only. Thirty-three percent of an increase in parking and reducing membership, tennis courts, etc. just does not make sense.
(-) Martin Ward - Director of Operations of Carramerica
- Carramerica is opposed to this project because the tower will have a detrimental operational economic impact on the Golden Gate Commons.
- It will be difficult for Carramerica to lease space.
- The construction of the tower will cause a negative impact to various tenants.
(+) Pamela Duffy
- The families that will benefit by living in the affordable housing that this project will create are not here to defend themselves.
- The recreational facility will be different only by three tennis courts. In comparison, many more people will benefit from this project.
- The club has notified its members on how they will provide for them while construction is going on.
(-) Sue Hestor - FOGG
- The decision that the Commission is making will have a lot more implications than on this project.
- Golden Gateway is at the highest density that is allowed.
- There is going to be a lot more resistance from people when one is trying to convince them that a good job can be done on residential density in this City.
- There is very little information in the packets the Commissioners have regarding the history of this project.
(-) Joan Chucheck
- She is a lifelong swimmer. The City is just terrible for a swimmers.
- For a swimmer who wants to swim outdoors, Golden Gateway is the only one.
- What she sees that is being proposed is just another high rise development that will take away from the general public's ability to swim outdoors.
- She urges the Commission to realize that people need more than just housing and this includes recreation.
ACTION: CEQA findings Adopted
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
ABSENT: Boyd and W. Lee
MOTION: 16722
17b. 2002.0376E!KC (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)
8 WASHINGTON STREET (AKA 370 DRUMM STREET) - northeast corner at Drumm Street, Assessor's Block/Lot 0168/058, 0171/069, and 0201/012 - Request for a determination regarding the significance of net new shadow on Embarcadero Plaza I caused by the construction of a proposed eight-story, 84-foot-high mixed-use building.
Preliminary Recommendation: Determination that the net new shadow is de minimus.
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 17a.
ACTION: Determined that the net new shadow is de minimus.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
ABSENT: Boyd and W. Lee
MOTION: 16723
17c. 2002.0376E!KC (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)
8 WASHINGTON STREET (AKA 370 DRUMM STREET) - northeast corner at Drumm Street, Assessor's Block/Lot 0168/058, 0171/069, and 0201/012 - Request for a determination regarding the significance of net new shadow on Ferry Park caused by the construction of a proposed eight-story, 84-foot-high mixed-use building.
Preliminary Recommendation: Determination that the net new shadow will not be significant or adverse.
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 17a.
ACTION: Determined that the net new shadow will not be significant or adverse
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
ABSENT: Boyd and W. Lee
MOTION: 16724
17d. 2002.0376E!KC (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)
8 WASHINGTON STREET (AKA 370 DRUMM STREET) - northeast corner at Drumm Street, Assessor's Block/Lot 0168/058, 0171/069, and 0201/012 - Request for conditional use and planned unit development authorization to construct an eight-story, 84-foot-high building containing up to 120 dwelling units, a garage with up to 170 parking spaces (120 residential spaces and 50 nonresidential spaces), a 10,000-square-foot health club, and outdoor recreation facilities comprising six tennis courts and two swimming pools (one indoor and one outdoor), and an athletic apparel/equipment shop. The project site, located within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District and an 84-E Height and Bulk District, is currently occupied by tennis courts, swimming pools, and a surface parking lot.
