Bay Area Proposals/Approvals/Construction Tidbits II

[BTinSF]

^^^If you think this is the only hospital rebuild project they'll demand be molded to their wishes, you are smoking northern California's most economically successful agricultural product. So far, there are no seismically safe hospitals in the city. Actually, the VA Hospital is about to start its seismic upgrade but they, of course, get federal money and are independent of the SEIU.

And Cal Pacific now serves not only much of the northern part of the city west of Van Ness but also the Castro and Haight through its purchase of Davies. What they seem to be doing is consolidating the various branches so that each specializes in certain kinds of care. So even somebody who lives in the Castro, if they need heart surgery, say, may have to go to the Pacific Heights campus to get it or someone in the Marina who has HIV might have to go to Davies. In that way, an awful lot of San Franciscans will use the new hospital on Van Ness if it gets built.

Also, with a new UCSF general hospital in Mission Bay on hold as well, there aren't really that many hospitals in SF and no modern ones. There's SF General, Kaiser, St. Francis, St. Mary's, St. Luke's and UCSF and some smaller places like the VA hospital and Chinese Hospital. But when it comes to complex cardiovascular proceedures, transplants and other high-powered stuff, there's really only UCSF and Cal Pacific, especially since Kaiser's kidney transplant program got shut down. So even somebody who lives in, say, the BayView might find themselves getting care at Cal Pacific if they need, say, a corneal transplant.

Finally, any city's hospital network is interconnected. When there are "issues" at one hospital, it affects others. San Francisco presently has "issues" at several of its most important hospitals, starting with non-progress on seismically upgrading SF General, UCSF AND Cal Pacific. When it comes to St. Luke's, St. Mary's and St. Francis, I don't even know what plans they may have.

[fflint]

You've made some interesting points, but again--it is not true that a delay in the proposed hospital will lower the quality of health care of most San Franciscans. It does mean we go longer without seismic upgrades for a regular player in our city's health care system, yes. It does mean some consolidation will be put on hold, yes. But the Sutter group does not provide coverage or care to most San Franciscans: Kaiser enrollees, for example, won't be treated at any Sutter facility, old or new. Nor will most uninsured patients. You're overstating things.

[BTinSF]

^^^

State agency OKs huge Sutter Health bond issue, with conditions
San Francisco Business Times - 1:56 PM PDT Friday, March 30, 2007
by Chris Rauber

The California Health Facilities Financing Authority has agreed to approve a record $958 million bond issue for Sutter Health to pay for construction, renovation and new equipment at six Northern California sites, in return for Sutter's commitment to donate $8.5 million to various clinics and rural hospitals.

The deal ended a stalemate that began in December, when the authority -- the authorizing mechanism for most health-care tax-exempt bond issues in the Golden State -- voted to delay consideration of the bond issue until mid-2007, after the politically influential Service Employees International Union raised questions about the issue, reportedly the state's largest hospital bond issue ever.

"We were eager to get the deal done," said Joe DeAnda, a spokesman for the state treasurer's office. "We were able to strike a compromise."

Sutter spokesman Bill Gleeson told the San Francisco Business Times that the system had worked with representatives of the state treasurer's office and CHFFA to "craft an agreement that provides a further tangible demonstration" of Sutter's commitment to pass savings on to consumers in communities where it has a presence.

Gleeson said, "SEIU has historically opposed our efforts to provide seismically safe facilities for their own members, as well as doctors, nurses and the patients they serve." He went on to say that the union has held hospitals' "feet to the fire" on seismic improvements, while at the same time working to undermine Sutter's efforts to make those improvements.

Sutter expects its bond issue to go out in April.

In December, Sutter angrily denounced the agency's 4-3 vote to delay approving the bond issue as being based on a "misleading attack" that ignored a recommendation by the agency's staff to approve the bond issue. "It's sickening that (SEIU officials) are delighting over their role in delaying our seismic improvements," Gleeson said at the time. That work included seismic replacement or retrofit projects at Peninsula Medical Center in Burlingame, California Pacific Medical Center's Davies campus in San Francisco, and hospitals and clinics in Jackson, Modesto and Roseville, Sutter said late last year.

As part of the current deal, State Treasurer Bill Lockyer said Thursday, Sutter agreed to donate the $8.5 million to small and rural facilities outside of its 26-hospital network. "With this record deal," Lockyer said, California is taking a positive step toward providing adequate health care for all its citizens."

Over the next six years, the treasurer's office said, Sutter has agreed to donate $4 million to help rural hospitals create an electronic medical records system, and $750,000 annually to community clinics.

California law requires entities receiving tax-exempt bond financing from CHFFA to use all or part of any savings generated by that mechanism "to benefit the general public," regulators said. The financing authority is working to revise its guidelines to make them more clear.

SEIU Friday hailed the decision an "unprecedented action," marking the first time a state bonding authority has required a hospital borrower to guarantee that some of savings received from the issuance of tax-exempt debt are passed on to consumers.

Its Oakland-based United Healthcare Workers West unit, which represents about 140,000 hospital and health-care workers in the state, has long tangled with the Sutter system over a number of issues, notably Sutter's refusal to negotiate with the union on a systemwide basis, rather than hospital by hospital.

In a statement issued March 30, the union said CHFAA's decision "sends a clear message" to Sutter and other nonprofit hospital borrowers that they must take seriously their obligations to hold down the cost of care. "We welcome CHFFA's efforts to ensure that consumers really do benefit from this bond by requiring Sutter to make additional contributions to clinics and rural hospitals," John Borsos, administrative vice president of United Healthcare Workers West, said in the statement. Borsos said the union will continue to work with the agency to develop guidelines ensuring that consumers benefit directly from the tax-exempt financing undertaken by nonprofit health systems.

The union claims that some nonprofit hospital systems "appear to have used the tax-exempt funding to achieve market dominance and charge prices far higher than competitors."

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/03/26/daily49.html?t=printable

The SEIU is terribly altruistic. Who can doubt that if it came down to a decision between saving money for consumers and new raises for their members, they'd go with the consumer?

Anyway, it seems clear to me that their plan is to use the state-mandated seismic upgrade of hospitals all over the state to gain political leverage for their own purposes--and it surely doesn't stop with Sutter Health.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by fflint

You've made some interesting points, but again--it is not true that a delay in the proposed hospital will lower the quality of health care of most San Franciscans. It does mean we go longer without seismic upgrades for a regular player in our city's health care system, yes. It does mean some consolidation will be put on hold, yes. But the Sutter group does not provide coverage or care to most San Franciscans: Kaiser enrollees, for example, won't be treated at any Sutter facility, old or new. Nor will most uninsured patients. You're overstating things.

Kaiser enrollees might be treated at Sutter facilities. Kaiser does not do all kinds of care. For example, they are now sending all transplant patients to UC. Kaiser simply pays for the care. Any uninsured person needing emergency care in the northwestern or central part of the city might well be taken to the ER of a Sutter hospital.

Furthermore, modernization of these facilities is much more than a matter of seismic safety. I don't expect an earthquake to bring the roof down on my head if I'm in one of these hospitals. But hospitals have come a long way in terms of designing not only for comfort but also safety since any of San Francisco's present facilities were built. There are now ways to design buildings to minimize hospital-acquired infection and medication errors, for example.

If you've spent any time in one of SF's hospitals, you come to realize how outdated the buildings are for practicing 21st century medicine. I want them rebuilt for these reasons--like the SEIU, I'm willing to use seismic safety as an excuse.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^If you think this is the only hospital rebuild project they'll demand be molded to their wishes, you are smoking northern California's most economically successful agricultural product. So far, there are no seismically safe hospitals in the city. Actually, the VA Hospital is about to start its seismic upgrade but they, of course, get federal money and are independent of the SEIU.

And Cal Pacific now serves not only much of the northern part of the city west of Van Ness but also the Castro and Haight through its purchase of Davies. What they seem to be doing is consolidating the various branches so that each specializes in certain kinds of care. So even somebody who lives in the Castro, if they need heart surgery, say, may have to go to the Pacific Heights campus to get it or someone in the Marina who has HIV might have to go to Davies. In that way, an awful lot of San Franciscans will use the new hospital on Van Ness if it gets built.

Also, with a new UCSF general hospital in Mission Bay on hold as well, there aren't really that many hospitals in SF and no modern ones. There's SF General, Kaiser, St. Francis, St. Mary's, St. Luke's and UCSF and some smaller places like the VA hospital and Chinese Hospital. But when it comes to complex cardiovascular proceedures, transplants and other high-powered stuff, there's really only UCSF and Cal Pacific, especially since Kaiser's kidney transplant program got shut down. So even somebody who lives in, say, the BayView might find themselves getting care at Cal Pacific if they need, say, a corneal transplant.

Finally, any city's hospital network is interconnected. When there are "issues" at one hospital, it affects others. San Francisco presently has "issues" at several of its most important hospitals, starting with non-progress on seismically upgrading SF General, UCSF AND Cal Pacific. When it comes to St. Luke's, St. Mary's and St. Francis, I don't even know what plans they may have.

As a UCSF employee within the Medical Service (in the Vice chairs office, DoM/SoM), I've been to several strategic planning meetings regarding our 'hospitals,' Money is our primary concern and we are closing in on the final tranche of funding. It is not the city's control. Nor is it an issue of the union. SEIU has no entities on campus. We are a state entity. The VA, btw, is also halfway through it's seismic retrofit. That is done for patient protection, as a federal facility it is exempt from city and state laws (but not JACHO, hence the modest upgrade to the actual hospital). Additionally, the Mission Bay hospitals will be highly specialized (read, areas of practices/healing with inelastic and highly compensated demand, ob/gyn, pediatric illnesses and cancer. When completed, Moffitt and Long will be basically gutted from the interior out and rebuilt for seismic standards but also to allow space to be closed down when bed populations dictate.

SF General has let preliminary engineering contracts for the final feasibility and there were soil testing/drilling crews on the 'great lawn' last week as I was leaving a science meeting in Bldg. 3.

[BTinSF]

^^^On Friday, I received a letter from the VA saying that the seismic work on their inpatient building was to begin this month and take 18 months. As somebody who visits their main outpatient building 4 or 5 times a year, I can tell you nothing's been done there. If they are halfway through with the work, I don't know where it would have been done.

Certainly the UC facilities, as state agencies, are not under the city's control--I didn't say they were. But clearly there have been delays and changes of plans, largely due to funding issues as you say. Initially, there was consideration of a major new hospital built jointly with SF General. That seems to have gone by the boards. About a year ago, SF Business Times wrote:

Officials at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center confirmed Tuesday that they anticipate delaying their plans to build a women's, children's and cancer hospital at Mission Bay, citing skyrocketing construction costs.

Since 2003, projected costs for the proposed 210-bed hospital have shot up from $700 million to $1.2 billion, according to Mark Laret, CEO of UCSF Medical Center. So instead of completing the Mission Bay hospital by the end of 2012, to help meet state seismic safety standards requiring hospitals to upgrade or replace potentially unsafe acute-care facilities, UCSF instead expects to focus its immediate attention on retrofitting and expanding its 75-bed Mount Zion campus.

In January, Laret will present plans to the University of California's Board of Regents to delay the Mission Bay project and instead concentrate on upgrading Mount Zion.

"We remain committed to the vision of a clinical campus at Mission Bay, and we would like to do that as soon as possible," Laret told the Business Times on Tuesday. But at this point, it looks as if construction at Mission Bay may not start until 2015 or thereabouts, unless UCSF can rapidly generate adequate funding for the project.

Ideally, Laret said, "we would like to be building (at Mission Bay) much sooner than 2015 ... (but) it's a function of the new revenue we can generate and the rate of inflation on the expense side . . . ."

I have read that SF General has finally figured out a way to shoehorn a new facility into their Potrero Hill campus (by putting a lot of it underground):

San Francisco General Hospital has come up with a new architectural plan to build a 230-bed seismic replacement hospital on its Potrero Hill campus while preserving its aging existing structures there.

The new concept: Placing the new structure between two controversial brick buildings that neighborhood activists and preservationists insist on preserving.

The new plan, by San Francisco architects Anshen + Allen, is the latest in a series of proposals to replace the seismically challenged 496-bed hospital, including a failed attempt to buy land at Mission Bay and "co-locate" a hospital with UCSF Medical Center's proposed women's, children's and cancer hospital there.

Mitch Katz, M.D., director of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, which runs SF General, has estimated the price tag for the new facility at $622 million.

But furniture, fixtures and equipment will add an estimated $158 million to the tab, according to a Sept. 25 site feasibility study by the architecture firm.

The new Anshen + Allen plan includes a proposal to build a large "super-floor" basement for various diagnostic and other clinical functions so the overall design meets existing zoning height limits and other restrictions, according to the study released Monday.

In addition, the overall plan calls for a nearly 386,000-square-foot new structure that can be expanded, if needed, to add 37 beds and about 42,000 square feet.

City officials now expect to put an initiative on the ballot by either June 2008 or November 2008 to foot the bill for construction costs. Such an initiative would require a two-thirds yes vote to pass. In January, Mayor Gavin Newsom delayed plans to put the initiative on this November's ballot, citing uncertainties about the project's cost, scope and impact.

Katz and city officials also reduced the project's size early this year, from 267 beds to the current estimate of 230. Construction costs in Northern California for new facilities can top $2 million per bed, according to local architects and hospital construction experts.

Many hospitals statewide must meet a Jan. 1, 2013 deadline to fix or replace seismically unsafe facilities, although that deadline could change if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs SB 1661, a bill now on his desk that would push that back by an additional two years for facilities that have made a good-faith effort to meet the 2013 deadline.

Katz has said he expects to gain an extension from the state to complete the massive project by 2015, two years later than the existing deadline. But that may become a moot point if the governor signs SB 1661 this week.

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/09/25/daily7.html?t=printable

Now to figure out where and how to get the money (given the 2/3 requirement to pass bonds) and actually design something--before the facility shrinks some more. I'm sure the SEIU will have a lot to say about all this as they did about Laguna Honda.

Anyway--that's 2 new hospitals (including an SF General that's less than half the size of the current one) by 2015 . . . maybe. Just hope I don't need major surgery or otherwise get seriously ill in the next 8 years.

[BTinSF]

New downtown rental apartments:

Archstone Smith makes play to build SoMa rentals
San Francisco Business Times - March 30, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

Rental developer Archstone Smith is in contract to acquire a three-acre site South of Market for about $35 million, a project that would mark downtown's first large-scale rental housing development in several years.

Denver-based Archstone, which owns 90,000 apartments nationwide, is looking to build a rental complex at the Golden Gate Transit bus parking lot at Eighth and Harrison streets, a parcel Target, have looked at developing in 2002.

The zoning allows up to 720 units, but with 40-foot height limits, so the developer would need a variance to accommodate that number of apartments, according to Amir Massih, an assistant vice president for Archstone Smith.

"It's got great drive-by traffic and we love the neighborhood, the diversity of uses and types of buildings," said Massih.

The deal comes at a time when construction costs have scared away many rental housing developers. But with average rents in apartment buildings with 50 units or more jumping from $1,750 to $2,000 since 2004, rental developers are once again looking for opportunities in the city. The parcel sits smack in the middle of a neighborhood that is undergoing an extensive planning process. The Western SoMa Task Force is looking at a long-range plan that could rezone several key areas of the neighborhood, including the parcel Archstone plans to buy.

"We are just now plugging into an ongoing 18-month Western SoMa planning process to determine the future of the area," said Massih. "We think the work the task force is doing gives us an advantage, a viable partner that will help us figure out what the community wants."

Jim Meko, chairman of the Western SoMa Task Force, said he appreciated that Archstone is a rental housing developer interested in doing something different than the pricey condos that are sprouting by the thousands out in SoMa, Mission Bay, and Rincon Hill. Meko said the parcel is one of five or six key development sites in the area. He stressed that the neighborhood doesn't want to see all of them turned into housing and wants development that generates jobs, as well as places to live.

"Everybody is being relatively supportive -- we're not a bunch of communists," said Meko, who owns a printing business in the neighborhood. "We'd like to see it developed."

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/04/02/story8.html?t=printable

[BTinSF]

West Portal Condos:

Leafy west side tract scores a new developer
San Francisco Business Times - March 30, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

San Francisco's most bucolic transit-oriented condo development is back on track.

Four months after Union Capital Properties dropped an agreement to build 200 condos in West Portal's woodsy Christian Science enclave known as Arden Wood, a Washington, D.C., developer with deep San Francisco roots has taken over the project.

Republic Urban Properties, which has developed more than $4 billion in office, housing and retail over the past 30 years, mostly around Washington, has been picked to develop the verdant 12.3-acre property.

While Republic Urban Properties is new to the Bay Area -- the firm has just opened a San Francisco office and has one project in San Jose -- its West Coast president is Robert Mendelsohn, a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Mendelsohn served 10 years on the board before leaving in 1977 to become assistant to the secretary of the interior in the Carter administration.

The property, which opened in 1930 as the Christian Science Benevolence Association on the Pacific Coast, is home to a senior housing and care facility and runs along Wawona Street between 15th and 19th avenues. The owner, Arden Wood Inc., is looking to develop about half of the land to raise money for ongoing capital improvements. Mark Nelson, hired by Arden Wood Inc. to select the developer, is himself building eight 3,000-square-foot homes along the 15th Avenue part of the property.

Mendelsohn said he was reluctant to tag Arden Wood development with the label "unique" -- a word attached to nearly every high-end condo project in town. Yet in this case, he said it may apply.

"If unique means one of a kind, Arden Wood truly may be one of a kind," he said. "It's an urban forest very close to the center of town."

Mendelsohn, a former resident of nearby St. Francis Wood, said he expects ample neighborhood meetings where the details of the development will be worked out. At between 150 and 200 units, the project will be bigger than anything that has been built in tight-knit and development-averse West Portal. Yet with several Muni transit lines serving the village-like downtown, which is a quick walk from Arden Wood, smart growth advocates have pushed the site as an obvious place for low-key infill housing.

While planning is in the early stages, Mendelsohn said he would like to carve part of the property out as a public park. The lush woods are not now open to the public, and many lifelong West Portal residents have never set foot on the property.

"It's beautiful to look at, but it would be nice to have a part of it used by the neighbors," he said.

Arden Wood Inc. describes the property on its web site as a "haven for spiritual renewal for students of Christian Science." The campus offers nursing care, senior rental residences and boasts "lovely meals, beautiful gardens, woodland paths, fully equipped libraries and metaphysical talks."

The developer has hired Patri Merker as architect and Nibbi Brothers as contractor.

"We're excited someone has stepped up to do this and look forward to a really well-designed project in an area that badly needs family housing," said Tim Colen, executive director of the Housing Action Coalition and a former president of the Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association.

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/04/02/story17.html?t=printable

[coyotetrickster]

Well, speaking of the diablo, looks like Dede Wilsey will be coming to help UCSF raise at least $500 million for the new hospital. Man, I wish I had her rolodex.... (or palm pilot, but Dede strikes me as a rolodex-kind of woman). See BT, there'll be new hospitals before the next century!

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by fflint

You've made some interesting points, but again--it is not true that a delay in the proposed hospital will lower the quality of health care of most San Franciscans. It does mean we go longer without seismic upgrades for a regular player in our city's health care system, yes. It does mean some consolidation will be put on hold, yes. But the Sutter group does not provide coverage or care to most San Franciscans: Kaiser enrollees, for example, won't be treated at any Sutter facility, old or new. Nor will most uninsured patients. You're overstating things.

How many Hospitals are owned by Sutter in SF proper?

[fflint]

I don't know off-hand...and I'm feeling too lazy to look it up. I'm on vacation starting tonight!

[condodweller]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

How many Hospitals are owned by Sutter in SF proper?

I think CPMC is the only Sutter affiliate, but their holdings include the Davies Hospital campus and St. Luke's. My concern is that concentration of CPMC at its proposed new facility (only a few blocks from St. Francis Hospital) would simply marginalize these other campuses to outpatient facilities, with no emergency services.

[urban_encounter]

correct.....

I looked it up and found (actually two hospitals but CPMC operates three separates facilities...)


California Pacific Medical Center

California Campus
Davies Campus
Pacific Campus

and....

St. Luke's Hospital

[Reminiscence]

A somewhat modified update:

[J_Taylor]

^^^ nice.
It will be interesting to hear all the backlash, which I feel is only just starting with One Rincon.
But hey I'm a fan of it

[pseudolus]

Newspaper Notice for San Francisco Planning Department for April 6 and 7, 2007.

NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF EIR

2004.0764E: 1634-1690 Pine Street: Assessor's Block 0647, Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 11a. The proposed project would demolish five buildings and a surface parking lot; and construct a residential building with two towers, which would contain about 282 residential units, 14,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and about 332 parking spaces. The total size of the building would be approximately 473,910 square feet. The base of the building would be seven stories and 65 feet tall; the west tower would be 25 stories and approximately 240 feet in height; and the east tower would be 12 stories and approximately 127 feet tall. The three levels of basement parking would include two off-street loading spaces, 282 residential stackers, and 50 commercial stackers. The 35,463-square-foot rectangular project site is located on the north side of Pine Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street. The project site is located within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale, Neighborhood Commercial) district and a 130-E height and bulk district. The proposed project would require a Conditional Use Authorization from the Planning Commission for a Planned Unit Development to merge the six parcels, to increase dwelling unit density, to modify the bulk requirements, and to authorize the replacement of existing parking spaces. In addition, a zoning map amendment would be required to reclassify the existing 130-E height and bulk controls to 240-G. (CHAN)

http://sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=25756

[BTinSF]

^^^I think that would put it across the street from SF Towers:



If I remember, there's a couple of small (2 story) buildings there (one a Hertz office) and a gas station on the corner. I wonder if the SF Towers folks will go NIMBY on it.

[BTinSF]

SF BizTimes:

--Big article on Renzo Piano and a discussion of both his current projects in SF (The Academy of Sciences amd the 1st & Mission tower). Piano says he's opposed to "aggressive, powerful, arrogant buildings"--he calls them "phallic symbols" and says they "don't tell very interesting stories". He says at First & Mission he wants to keep some of the existing small buildings because they "are part of a story" and says the new structures may not end up being 1200 feet (we are not wedded to that) but "they should be quite tall because they become more subtel and elegant ans beautiful like that and the city, from time to time, needs some tall, iconic buildings . . . . We can do a building that is tall and iconic, but at the same time very tolerant, very light, very transparent." There's more--will post Sunday.

--Alex Tourk, husband of Gavin's former girlfriend, has become a "consultant" to CPMC to help them get their new hospital built.

--The city is buying 1 S. Van Ness and 1650 Mission, 2 buildings where it has been leasing offie space.

--Discussion of turning the Metreon into a conference center, but apparently without the blessing of its owner (Westfield). Also mention of the possibility of development of a whole new convention facility "where there is still room to build like along the waterfront piers, in Mission Bay or Bayview-Hunters Point".

--Wilson Meany Sullivan has bought 525 Howard which is next door to its Foundry Square III site at First and Howard. They may be planning to combine the lots for a larger building.

--13 story, 169 ft building at 59th & Horton in Emeryville

[FourOneFive]

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Newspaper Notice for San Francisco Planning Department for April 6 and 7, 2007.

NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF EIR

2004.0764E: 1634-1690 Pine Street: Assessor's Block 0647, Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 11a. The proposed project would demolish five buildings and a surface parking lot; and construct a residential building with two towers, which would contain about 282 residential units, 14,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and about 332 parking spaces. The total size of the building would be approximately 473,910 square feet. The base of the building would be seven stories and 65 feet tall; the west tower would be 25 stories and approximately 240 feet in height; and the east tower would be 12 stories and approximately 127 feet tall. The three levels of basement parking would include two off-street loading spaces, 282 residential stackers, and 50 commercial stackers. The 35,463-square-foot rectangular project site is located on the north side of Pine Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street. The project site is located within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale, Neighborhood Commercial) district and a 130-E height and bulk district. The proposed project would require a Conditional Use Authorization from the Planning Commission for a Planned Unit Development to merge the six parcels, to increase dwelling unit density, to modify the bulk requirements, and to authorize the replacement of existing parking spaces. In addition, a zoning map amendment would be required to reclassify the existing 130-E height and bulk controls to 240-G. (CHAN)

http://sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=25756

i downloaded the NOP from the SF Planning website, and we all should be worried. guess who the architect is.... Heller Manus! ugh. let's just say the design is quite uninspired.

[San Frangelino]

--13 story, 169 ft building at 59th & Horton in Emeryville

Here is the purposed Emeryville Building from the East Bay Biz Journal.

http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2007/04/02/story1.html