1525 PINE ST

2021-03-18 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

Alexis Pelosi · email · 2021-03-18 · support · source packet

1525 Pine - Continuance Request
Samantha, On behalf of the project sponsor, 1525 Pine Street Dev, LLC, we would like to request that 1525 Pine Street, Item #10 (2015-009955ENV) and #11 (2015-009955CUA) on tomorrow<U+2019>s Planning Commission agenda, be continued to the May 6th Planning Commission hearing. We are requesting this continuance based on discussions and a request for the same by the Lower Polk Neighbors Association (LPN). The … show more

2021-05-06 · 12 comments · 9 / 3

David Cincotta · spoken · 2021-05-06 · oppose

Appellant

Toby Morris · spoken · 2021-05-06 · support

Project sponsor

Alexis Pelosi · spoken · 2021-05-06 · support

Project sponsor

Shah Ali · spoken · 2021-05-06 · support

Support

Corey Smith · spoken · 2021-05-06 · support

Support

Duncan Ly · spoken · 2021-05-06 · support

Support

Theodore Randolph · spoken · 2021-05-06 · support

Support

Michael Nulty · spoken · 2021-05-06 · oppose

More mediation

Harry Virginia · spoken · 2021-05-06 · support

Support

Betty Sullivan · spoken · 2021-05-06 · support

Support

Peter Ziblatt · email · 2021-05-06 · support · source packet

1525 Pine Street-May 6, 2021 P.C. Hearing (2015-009955CUA).
Commissioners: Please see the attached letter in support of the 1525 Pine Street (Regular Calendar Item No. 8) to be heard at the May 6, 2021 Planning Commission Hearing. Please let us know if you have any questions. Peter F. Ziblatt Of Counsel [phone removed] ex. 2 (o) [phone removed] (c) [email removed] www.pelosilawgroup.com **We have moved. Our new address is 244 Kearny Street, 9th Floor San Francisco… show more

Peter Ziblatt · email · 2021-05-06 · oppose · source packet

1525 PIne Street-May 6, 2021 P.C. Hearing (2015-009955ENV)
Commissioners- Please see the attached response letter to the appeal of the MND for 1525 Pine Street (Regular Item No. 7) to be heard later today at the Planning Commission hearing. Please let us know if you have any questions. Peter F. Ziblatt Of Counsel [phone removed] ex. 2 (o) [phone removed] (c) [email removed] www.pelosilawgroup.com **We have moved. Our new address is 244 Kearny Street, 9th Floor Sa… show more

2021-05-13 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Theodore Randolph · email · 2021-05-13 · oppose · source packet

Violation of equity resolution in the decision on 1525 Pine St
Hello Planning Commission, I believe that the decision by Commissioners Fung and Chan to reject the project at 1525 Pine St because of the impact to the neighboring building is a violation of Resolution 20738 to center planning on racial and social equity. Commissioner Chan was not on the commission at the time, so I<U+2019>m going to recall a couple of the clauses of that resolution: <U+201C>RESOLVED, th… show more

2021-06-17 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Linda Chapman · spoken · 2021-06-17 · oppose

Incorrect height limit maps

2021-07-15 · 2 comments · 0 / 2

Linda Chapman · email · 2021-07-15 · oppose · source packet

Re: Status of 1525 Pine Street
Mr Li, Thank you for providing a hearing date I did not find. Maybe the planner I phoned will be able to provide more information. That phone number, I reported to commissioners, did not take calls, or accept messages. For your information regarding environmental appeal-- inasmuch as technical problems defeated my testimony at the May hearing: 1. Wind impacts defeated my attempt to walk to Van Ness using Pi… Mr Li, Thank you for providing a hearing date I did not find. Maybe the planner I phoned will be able to provide more information. That phone number, I reported to commissioners, did not take calls, or accept messages. For your information regarding environmental appeal-- inasmuch as technical problems defeated my testimony at the May hearing: 1. Wind impacts defeated my attempt to walk to Van Ness using Pine (my cross street), when I passed Grubsake only to walk into an impassible wall of wind, by The Austen. Where the Department allowed highrise construction-- in the area that was established for 65 foot height limits by the 1979 map representing the BOS approved Nob Hill Neighbors and NCD rezoning plans-- it now is more difficult, sometimes impossible or hazardous for pedestrians to navigate sidewalks between Polk and Van Ness. The afternoon I set out for Van Ness (with the idea of stopping at Grubstake on my return trip) was a far cry from the high wind conditions we often experience. Walking from Larkin, and even along Polk, I experienced wind flurries and gusts typical for breezy afternoons. I wonder how Austen residents manage to enter their home on windy days-- even if NO development at 1525 Pine adds tall surfaces to catch more wind currents like those deflected to sidewalks by the high rise hotel and The Austen (both exceeding current height limits). Can the Department require modifications at The Austen to reduce impact of that (unlawfully approved) structure on the pedestrian environment? Before the Department approved projects exceeding 65 feet EAST of Van Ness, it was well known that wind from the hotel posed significant problems for pedestrian travel along California and especially Pine Streets. I stopped crossing Van Ness at Pine to reach my bus stop on windy days-- after being trapped on the median, with nothing to cling to, fearing for my life. I suppose the highrise built on the southwest corner may exacerbate notorious wind impacts from the hotel. Now I find cumulative impacts from the hotel, The Austen, and likely Pine Towers, prevent me from using my cross street even to reach the EAST side of Van Ness. I had to retreat to Polk Street, pressing my body against building walls till I was by Grubstake, clinging to whatever hand holds I could find to avoid being upset onto the pavement. I was terrified-- after previous experience of being blown across a sidewalk, down into the street, where by good fortune no car ran over me before two men picked me up. I was then unable to pass through that wind tunnel, until the two men walked me past it, holding me at each side. The wind wall at The Austen was a like experience-- in that I could not exert the force to press my body past it. I was saved from falling during my retreat by gradual maneuvers from one hand hold to the next. No pedestrians are safe with conditions that highrises created for Nob Hill-- let alone the neighborhood's large population of older residents, or people with disabilities. 2. Why were false zoning maps still in a file I saw after it was presented with analysis as a basis for decisions? 3. Why is the obvious candidate for city landmark designation not considered-- apart from contributing to an historic district? Is a written report available yet about the proposed historic district? Where can one find the developer commissioned report denying historic significance? Was there an action to consider historic preservation that I should look for? There are no barriers to retaining this unique historic restaurant intact-- except that condo developers saw a tear-down. There is even vacant land for expanding the food operation. Arguments as to why a restaurant can't function as it functioned for decades were advanced by sponsors at meetings I attended-- all unreasonable or false. Let alone mitigations promised-- they will save business signs and serve the same menu (i.e., offer hamburgers). Where are all those letters and comments that commissioners and the public need to see? Please email copies-- as I don't see them online. I am aware the sponsor paid good money for the architects, bars and and other business owners represented as "Lower Polk Neighbors" to claim the project has support in the community (which would mean the residents of Nob Hill and our NCD). I wonder whether the sponsor finally agreed to pay a surcharge demanded to get a letter to support project changes because of significant opposition voiced at LPN meetings. $40,000 was mentioned. Linda Chapman 1316 Larkin St 628- 867- 4005 land line (while cell is unavailable) does not record very good messages. On Tuesday, June 22, 2021, 01:32:02 PM PDT, Li, Michael (CPC) [email removed]> wrote: Hi Linda. For the latest status update on 1525 Pine Street, please contact Claudine Asbagh at [phone removed] or [email removed]. Claudine is reviewing the applications for the conditional use authorization and the state density bonus. On June 17, both items were continued to the hearing on July 22. My involvement, which was limited to the environmental review, has concluded. On May 6, the Planning Commission rejected the neighbors<U+2019> appeal and upheld the CEQA document. As you requested, we<U+2019>re compiling the letters of support and opposition. Those will be sent to you via email. Thank you. Michael Li, Senior Environmental Planner Environmental Planning Division San Francisco Planning 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94103 Direct: [phone removed] | www.sfplanning.org San Francisco Property Information Map Due to COVID-19, San Francisco Planning is not providing any in-person services, but we are operating remotely. Our staff are available by e-mail, and the Planning and Historic Preservation Commissions are convening remotely. The public is encouraged to participate. Find more information on our services here.show more

Linda Chapman · email · 2021-07-15 · oppose · source packet

Re: Status of 1525 Pine Street. See my comments from June 22 that follow.
Thank you for the response. My Friday morning looks free-- and the cell number usually will record a clear message: 516 5063. I look forward to updates on historic preservation issues, and the projected CU hearing. The phone number I called for 1525 Pine was published as yours. Writing emails poses a problem while USF (my technology resource) is closed. Where are the letters of comment I tried to see for mon… Thank you for the response. My Friday morning looks free-- and the cell number usually will record a clear message: 516 5063. I look forward to updates on historic preservation issues, and the projected CU hearing. The phone number I called for 1525 Pine was published as yours. Writing emails poses a problem while USF (my technology resource) is closed. Where are the letters of comment I tried to see for months? Did the sponsor succeed in extracting a second support letter from the permit expediters styling themselves Lower Polk Neighbors, after leaders gave two meetings entirely to arguments about project changes, required additional payment, announced their intent to decide LPN recommendation in private? Absent contacts from the file that are public information, I am about to begin ringing random doorbells at The Austen. I have not been back to 1545 Pine since my passage was defeated by local wind impact at the highrise that was approved for a block zoned as 65 feet, and notorious for high winds. Previously, travel to Van Ness along the south sidewalk of Pine Street could be considered when winds near the hotel make the north sidewalk problematic. Significant emotional impact follows prolonged struggles to maintain ones footing while winds threaten to knock you from your feet. My retreat toward Polk Street was not quickly accomplished-- as I tried to control a wheeled cart, find handholds on a building, and guess the risks of moving, unsupported, during unpredictable moments when intense gusts look like subsiding. My protracted maneuvers near the Austen were so unnerving that I continued to feel insecure that afternoon while taking alternative routes to and from Van Ness. along Bush Street and our alleys. Still shaken, I halted many times to assess prospects for finding support and avoiding gusts from the west wind flowing past buildings-- especially around the taller new buildings. While shopping on Polk Street was not a problem, adverse conditions around 1545 Pine scotched my plan to stop in at Grubstake. Linda Chapman On Thursday, July 8, 2021, 02:05:28 PM PDT, Asbagh, Claudine (CPC) [email removed]> wrote: Hi Linda, After the hearing today I did a search in my email, while I had received Michael<U+2019>s email to you, my spam filter moved your email message to my junk folder. My apologies for the delay in my responding. Additionally, the former planner on this project is no longer with the city, I<U+2019>ve taken the project on. Can you let me know when you are free for a call? Sincerely, Claudine Claudine Asbagh, Principal Planner Northeast Quadrant/Current Planning San Francisco Planning 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94103 Direct: [phone removed] | www.sfplanning.org San Francisco Property Information Map Expanded in-person services at the Permit Center at 49 South Van Ness Avenue are available. Most other San Francisco Planning functions are being conducted remotely. Our staff are available by e-mail, and the Planning and Historic Preservation Commissions are convening remotely. The public is encouraged to participate. Find more information on our services hereshow more

2021-07-22 · 19 comments · 10 / 9

Theresa Calderon · email · 2021-07-22 · oppose · source packet

Re: 2015-009955CUA 1525 Pine St Public Comment Docs for July 22nd hearing.
Hi Claudine, Can you please add this to the written record so that the commissioners have access before the meeting tomorrow? Best, Theresa Calderon On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:19 PM Theresa Calderon [email removed]> wrote: Hi Michael and Claudine, My name is Theresa Calderon and I am planning to call in to the meeting tomorrow with 2 other members of the public who live in the build next to the 1525 Pine St… Hi Claudine, Can you please add this to the written record so that the commissioners have access before the meeting tomorrow? Best, Theresa Calderon On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:19 PM Theresa Calderon [email removed]> wrote: Hi Michael and Claudine, My name is Theresa Calderon and I am planning to call in to the meeting tomorrow with 2 other members of the public who live in the build next to the 1525 Pine St project. The agenda item is 13 for case number 2015-009955CUA. We are planning to present the PDF in succession. Please upload the PDF slides titled V7_1525_pine_st_theresa_calderon_[phone removed].pdf so that I can refer to them during the meeting. I'll be using a subset (Slidese 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11) Also attached below for your reference. I've also attached our brief for review. Minute 1 (Slide 4) We think the sponsor's study doesn't paint the whole picture of how the east facing studios in the light well will be affected. We want to show that based on their light study data that the inside of our units will be very dark. Here you see the 3rd floor unit will have around 400 LUX at the window so we measured around 370 LUX at the window and took a picture of the living room. The light in the living room is 147 LUX which is 50% lower than the window light. This is considered "dark" and "very dark" in the kitchen according to the lux light range. (Slide 5) We've also done the same procedure for all the mornings throughout the year. See that the mornings are in the dark to very dark range during fall, winter and spring. (Slide 6) The afternoon, fall, winter and spring are in the dark to very dark range. As you can see here, the inside of the units paint a very different picture than what the tables and the colorful graphs shown by the project sponsor. With the proposed building height, all 10 of the studio units will be very dark in the mornings and afternoons throughout the year. A majority will be below the average specified by the table. Minute 2 (Please scroll through Slide 7, 8, 9 quickly and stop at 10) We want to show that the actual light reduction for the lower floors are significant (more than 50- 90%) and that lowering the height of the building will be effective in improving the morning light. To do this we've built scale models, set it up on the roof with the correct orientation and measured the 2nd and 4th floor light throughout the day. (Slide 10) You can see here that lowering the building doesn't change the light much at the time of day the sponsors measured for their study but the light at 10:30 am between 9AM and 12PM is significantly improved by lowering the building height to 4 floors. The light blocked will be 43% rather than 93%. That's an 8-fold improvement in light quality for the second floor. (Slide 11) This slide shows what the inside of the 2nd floor will look like with 4 floors which puts it in the "normal" light range rather than "dark" Minute 3 Conclusion and Request To summarize our findings, our light study shows that 10 east facing studio units that only has one window will be in darkness all day. Our light will be reduced by more than 90% for the whole year except for an hour at noon. The light conditions will not be suitable for seniors and disabled people like Tony who lives there right now. These light conditions will be some of the worst in the city because of the extra height and exceptionally small courtyard. Adding artificial light does not fix our problem because it does not increase access to natural light. There is also no law requiring the owners of the building to maintain the light once the building is built. The commission should consider reducing the number of units by 10 and lowering the height to 4 floors because the project is destroying the habitability of at least 10- 20 units next door. Without any changes the commission should reject the conditional use. If the commission approves, they are setting a dangerous precedent that allows developers to destroy the habitability of neighboring homes under the banner of increasing housing when what they are really doing is adding substandard housing to the city<U+2019>s inventory. Best, Theresa Calderonshow more

Linda Chapman · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose

Respond with substance

Toby Morris · spoken · 2021-07-22 · support

Project sponsor architect

David Cincotta · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose

Significant loss of light

Brent Pope · spoken · 2021-07-22 · support

Support

Robert Fruchtman · spoken · 2021-07-22 · support

Support

Mike Chen · spoken · 2021-07-22 · support

Support

Paul Maldonado · spoken · 2021-07-22 · support

Support

Jill Richie · spoken · 2021-07-22 · support

Support

Emily Jane Corbett · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose

Should be continued

Theresa Calderon · email · 2021-07-22 · oppose · source packet

Request for Organized Opposition Presentation for 1525 Pine St Project on July 22nd
Hearing Hello Commissioners, I am requesting a 10 minute time slot to present an organized opposition against the 1525 Pine St Project. I will be representing myself (Theresa Calderon), Mark Cooper and Anthony Ciechalski. We all live in studios in the lightwell and we want to make sure our concerns are addressed by the developers and the commission. The sponsors' light study shows that the 79ft building ca… Hearing Hello Commissioners, I am requesting a 10 minute time slot to present an organized opposition against the 1525 Pine St Project. I will be representing myself (Theresa Calderon), Mark Cooper and Anthony Ciechalski. We all live in studios in the lightwell and we want to make sure our concerns are addressed by the developers and the commission. The sponsors' light study shows that the 79ft building causes significant adverse effects to the light quality of the neighboring east facing studio units that have no exposure to a street or alley. However the sponsors claim that the impact is not significant because they are replacing natural light with artificial lights. This mitigation does not address our concern of lack of access to natural light. There are no requirements that the lights be maintained after construction. The sponsors are building more units at the direct cost of the health and safety of the neighboring residents. The project adds 14 studio units and creates 11 substandard studio units next door (1 studio unit in 1525 Pine St). This is a bad tradeoff for the city and sets a bad example that encourages future developers to sacrifice the health and safety of residents to increase their profits by building more substandard housing. The planning commission should not allow this to happen. I've attached a presentation that outlines the significant adverse effects of the proposed 79ft project on 10 studio units, especially those of us on the lower floors. 20 total units in the 1545 Pine St "Austin" building are affected. The presentation also contains an appendix of quantitative data. Effects on east facing studio units: I've combined the light study with photos taken from inside a floor studio to show that mornings and afternoons will be dark to very dark throughout the whole year. The photos also show how all the studio units will be very dark to pitch black in the winter time. The significant light reduction of more than 99% during the mornings and afternoons for the east facing studio units on the lower floors. The effects should be mitigated because having residents live in darkness is bad for their health. Light Quality is protected by the Planning Code. This is especially detrimental for seniors and disabled people like Tony who have limited ability to leave their home. This is also detrimental for the 2 BMR units in the lightwell. Clear Ask: This should be mitigated by reducing the height to 4 stories because it effectively increases the lighting from "dark" to "normal" for the lower floors. The proposed artificial lighting is not enough because it is not a sustainable substitute for natural light. Maintaining the artificial lighting in the lightwell is not required by law and can be easily taken down after the project is built. Best, Theresa Calderon, Mark Cooper, Anthony Ciechalskishow more

Juanita More · spoken · 2021-07-22 · support

Support

Allen Choi · spoken · 2021-07-22 · support

Support

Gaurav Arora · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose

Opposition

Betty Sullivan · spoken · 2021-07-22 · support

Support

Thelma Calderon · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose

Opposition

Alexis Pelosi · spoken · 2021-07-22 · support

Project sponsor

Patricia Rose · spoken · 2021-07-22 · oppose

Modify to reduce impact to neighbors

David C · email · 2021-07-22 · oppose · source packet

Correction of Agenda Statement Regarding 1525 Pine Street Matter
Mr. Ionin, I want to call your attention, and the attention of the Commissioners, to a lack of information on the Agenda of the Planning Commission for the hearing scheduled for July 22 for the matter of 1525 Pine Street. (This omission also appears in the Agenda for June 17,2021.) The statement describing the actions during the original hearing of this matter on May 6, 2021 ignores, or forgets, the initial action of… show more

1525 PINE ST

Hearings

Comments by hearing (36)