CC MIN 1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

475 There was additional discussion relative to a convenient date that would accommodate all parties , after which motion and second to the motion were withdrawn and decision made to proceed with the public hearing for the purpose of taking testimony only and referral to the Planning Commission thereafter . Mayor Keckley declared the public hearing open , and affidavits of publication and mailing were ordered filed . A communication was reported by City Clerk to have been received from Mrs . A . D . Gourley , 315 Carlos Avenue , protesting con- struction of the apartment complex . Planning Director provided a brief review of the report which indicated that the action of the Architectural Review Committee was to grant an Architectural Permit , on which basis the applicant would normally be permitted to make application for a Building Permit , subject to several conditions , which he enumerated . David Ransom , 590 Chestnut Street , indicated that their purpose entering the appeal was in order to offer Council the chance to uphold Plan- ning Commission on its conclusion in the EIR on the proposal of an adverse impact . He spoke in opposition to the development , citing the range of proposed rents for the units , and expressing the belief there was need for more low - income housing instead . He read excerpts from the EIR , Lou Knowles , 401 Hudson Street , Land for People Organization , presented a written statement to Council , which he then read in full , as co-ap - pellant , protesting the development . Terence O ' Mahoney , associated with OSB Construc - tion Co . , 155 Montgomery Street , San Francisco , pointed out there had been many meetings where the matters brought up by the appellants had been reviewed . He said that the project was being financed by HUD under a program to aid in providing housing for moderate income residents . He commented on the impossibility of building low - income housing without subsidization , and also on the report by the Traffic Engineer which concluded there would be little effect on traffic from the proposed development . John Sears , Attorney for the OSB Construction Co . , spoke with regard to the validity of the appeal letter , dated June 26 , 1973 , which he noted was based on the opinion that the "Architectural Review Committee apparently did not sufficiently exercise its authority to consider the environ- mental impact of the project " . He felt this was important as being a reason to deny the appeal . He noted that the Planning Commission had acted properly under Resolution No . 6882 ( establishing procedures and guidelines for preparation of environmental impact reports ) , following which the Architectural Review Committee met and un- animously approved the application , subject to conditions , and it was the latter action which was being appealed . He referred to the Sections of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Architectural Review Committee , and methods of appeal , which he felt were not applicable in this case . As the appeal related to Resolution No . 6882 , he noted that the minutes of the Architectural Review Committee reflected that they had reviewed the contents of the EIR , and therefore there was no valid appeal and it must be denied . At request of Council , City Attorney responded to Mr . Sears ' comments , con- curring in some respects , but indicating that the appeal seemed lodged under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance , and felt that the appeal provisions 7-23 -73 Reg . Mtg .