Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment And Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds redevelopment agency's permits for 1450 Franklin after heated debate
Summary
After hours of testimony on historic significance, planning compliance, and redevelopment plan authority, the San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3-2 to uphold demolition and site permits for a 69-unit project at 1450 Franklin Street; findings will be adopted later.
The board on March 4 voted 3-2 to uphold the redevelopment agency's demolition and site permits for the proposed 1450 Franklin Street project following lengthy testimony from preservationists, sponsors and redevelopment staff.
San Francisco Architectural Heritage urged the board to revoke the permits, saying the existing 1922 auto showroom may be a historic resource and that the EIR and project process did not adequately analyze preservation alternatives. "The proposed project was totally inappropriate for the site and out of scale and character to the surrounding neighborhood," Jack Gold of Heritage said.
Project counsel and the redevelopment agency argued the project had been through a two-year planning, outreach and EIR process under the Western Addition A2 redevelopment plan prior to the plan's statutory expiration and that the agency had authority to approve the project and enforce owner participation agreements. Redevelopment General Counsel Jim Morales said the agency had worked to alert developers and the public about the jurisdictional transition created by the plan's expiration.
Planning staff raised concerns about current Planning Code density limits and affordable housing requirements (noting that, under Planning Code calculations, a higher percentage of affordable units would be required than the project proposed). The Planning Department also said an architectural survey under way might identify the building as an individually significant resource.
After robust deliberation about vesting, statutory authority, and neighborhood impacts, the Board upheld both the demolition and site permits 3-2, with findings to be adopted at a later date. The board rejected a late attempt to attach an extra inclusionary unit by a 3-2 margin, so permits were sustained without new conditions.
Redevelopment and the sponsor said they would move forward with the conditions and design items required in subsequent plan and construction submissions; preservation advocates said they are reviewing legal options.
