Hello San Francisco. I'm attending a Planning Commission meeting for an application to convert 1525 Pine St, currently a one-story diner called Grubstake in the Polk Gulch, into a mixed-use building with 21 homes & a restaurant using the state density bonus. 
Planning Staff says the Housing Accountability Act applies and so findings of health and safety must be made if the project is to be denied. The opponents oppose on the basis of air, light, bulk, and density.
A neighbor says their studio would be dark
One of the opponents built a scale model of the project to show that their light would be impacted.
They claim that lowering the building height from 79 feet to 4 floors would create more light for them. They claim the developer is building substandard housing.
Public comment now. They want the building capped at 4 stories to reduce environmental impact.
Next caller also opposes the project because of the unjustified impact for themselves and the neighbors. They say they're not opposed to more housing in their neighborhood or on this site, but there must be a better way to get things done.
Next caller calls Grubstake a cultural artifact, recalling taking the train across the Bay Bridge in the 1950s and discussing Grubstake's whimsical aesthetic as a "scrumptious haven." Sadly the speaker was cut off before their point was made.
Next caller says the neighbors signed a disclosure before buying their condos that the building project would be 65 feet tall, so this project should be rejected and the density bonus should be denied.
Next caller supports the project and wants to support new neighbors to the neighborhood.
Next caller is Empress of the Imperial Council, Juanita More! "I approve this current building."
That was unexpected.
That was unexpected.
Juanita More! says Grubstake has been a part of the LGBTQ+ community for a long time.
Next caller is a condo owner next door and wants the shadow reduced on their building. They say the commission has previously made decisions to reduce building sizes due to shadow. "Where are my rights in all of this?"
I just gave public comment in approval of the project.
Next caller says they live a black from the project. They support the project. SF is well poised to handle the density. There's no health/safety reasons to deny the project.
Next caller owns a vegan restaurant across the street from the project. They say it's good for business and good for housing.
Next caller supports the project at the current height and dimensions.
Following comment also supports. They want to bring people back to the City and build new housing.
Following comment also supports. They want to bring people back to the City and build new housing.
Next caller owns a business near the develop. "I could definitely use the additional housing in the neighborhood after we've lost so many people."
Next caller lives around D7/D11 and supports the project. More neighbors are good for businesses.
Next president is a past president of San Francisco Pride (for identification only). They organized a petition in support of this project. The owner has done what they can to preserve parts of the diner and salvage it. "We keep losing LGBTQ businesses." No more delays.
Next caller opposes the project. They have lost their sunlight in their home and they plan on looking for a new home because of that.
Next caller lives across the corner from the project. They think it's great reuse of a 1-story building. This project should not be further delayed.
Next caller is a D5 resident in support of the project. They're disappointed it's been in review since 2016. It will add more housing for SFans.
Next caller wants to reduce the size of the project to reduce shadow impact on the condos next door. "Why would you ruin the livability of 20 units in The Austin light well for six units?"
Next caller lives in the light well facing east. They're disabled and forced into early retirement. They want one window for air circulation. They did not sign a waiver. "It is not fair to take our light away."
Next caller lives in a studio in the neighborhood—can't afford anything larger—and is asking for the building to be approved.
Next caller is a former PG&E engineer. They say they want to challenge anyone in The Austin to say they'll be impacted. They live in an apartment in the light well, but those challenges can be averted.
Next caller is Linda Chapman, of Nob Hill Neighbors fames. "They do us no favor in replacing a survivor with replicas." She says attorneys need to get involved and says the developers threatened people at one of the meetings for this project [????]
Next caller is representing one of the condo owners next door. "If there was 20% shadow on a public park, you'd consider that significant." State density bonus law says specific adverse impacts on public health allows a jurisdiction to deny the bonus.
That concludes public comment.
President Koppel supports the project. Commissioner Tanner says that great work was done to craft The Austin, but the zoning rules have changed. She's asking Planning staff if the courtyard providing light/air to The Austin is normal. Staffer says yes.
Commissioner Tanner is making a motion to approve the project as proposed. Commissioner Diamond wants to add a condition to the motion that the project sponsor maintain lights which shine on the light well units in The Austin.
Commissioner Diamond says there's one unit on the 2nd floor giving her pause, because it would have similar problems as the units in The Austin's light well.
Project sponsor's architect says they could add a transom to increase light to this unit.
Commissioner Diamond says she's reluctant to change dimensions of the project, but she would like to add a condition to the motion to include the transom window. Commissioner Tanner is okay with that friendly amendment.
Commissioner Fung says this project has had so many exceptions, they don't know what parts of the Planning Code it follows. But because of the state density bonus law, he's prepared to support the project—grudgingly.
Commissioner Imperial stands with her last decision from the previous hearing on this project, held on June 17, 2021. She thinks the artificial light shined on The Austin's light wells is inadequate compared to direct sunlight due to Vitamin D loss. That affects behavior, health.
Commissioner Imperial finds the project unacceptable and she won't support it.
Commissioner Moore agrees, and that the artificial light won't remedy the lack of daylight—unless the sponsor proposes full spectrum light Reduction in light has a noted health impact.
Commissioner Moore agrees, and that the artificial light won't remedy the lack of daylight—unless the sponsor proposes full spectrum light Reduction in light has a noted health impact.
Commissioner Moore wants the operation of the light monitored, and otherwise finds the situation unacceptable. The setting needs to be considered. She will not support the project as proposed.
A surprising number of commissioners want to tempt the wrath of the California Government Code Sections 65915–65918.
Project sponsor has just been brought online and says they have no problem with making the light sources on The Austin full spectrum. Commissioner Tanner adds that to the motion.
The roll is being called. The motion to approve the project passes 4-2, with commissioners Imperial and Moore voting against.
That's it for this thread. Thanks for reading!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
