Minutes of Planning Commission Calendars

June 2000

Presented below are Minutes of the Planning Commission. The top of the this page lists Commission meeting dates for the month. Click on the date and you will reach the minutes for that that week. The minutes present a summary of actions taken at the Planning Commission hearing and provides a Motion or Resolution number for that action.

With most browsers you will be able to search for any text item by using the Ctrl-F keys. It is recommended you search by case number and suffix, if you know it, as that will always be a unique item. You may search by any identifying phrase, including project addresses.

(Please note, commission minutes generally are approved and finalized two weeks following the hearing date.)

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 1, 2000

PM

 

Regular Meeting



PRESENT:         Theoharis, Richardson, Antenore , Mills , Joe, Martin

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:36 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning, Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator, Hillary Gitelman, Jana Beatty, Matthew Snyder, Joy Navarrete, Kelly LaBlanc, Michael Kometani, Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary, Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary

 

A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

1. 1998.953E (NAVARRETE: 558-5975)

557 FOURTH STREET-- Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report. On Assessorís Block 3776, Lots 119 and 62, the project would demolish an existing building on the southeastern portion of the 70,400-square-foot project site, subdivide the project site into 12 equal-sized air parcels, and construct a four-story, 55-foot-tall wood frame live/work building on each air parcel. A total of 188 live/work units, occupying approximately 227,000 square feet, would be constructed along with approximately 13,000 square feet of retail space for four to six commercial tenants, which would be provided on the ground floor of the two buildings with frontage on Fourth Street. A three-level underground parking garage would occupy the entire site and would provide 188 private parking spaces (one per live/work unit), 292 public parking spaces, and 2 off-street loading spaces. The garage would be accessible on Welsh and Freelon Streets in the middle of the project block. The project site is in SLI (Service Light Industrial) District, and is in a 50-X Height and Bulk District. Note: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., on June 8, 2000.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2000).

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION:             Continued to June 8, 2000

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

2. 1999.829C (LeBLANC: 558-6351)

700 JONES STREET, northeast corner at Post Street; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0298 --Request for Conditional Use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 6 panel antennas on the rooftop penthouse and base station equipment in the basement of a mixed use building in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined) District, and an 80-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:

(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to June 8, 2000

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

3a. 1999.414C (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)

325 FREMONT STREET,east side between Folsom Street and Harrison Street; Lots 12, 13 and 14 in Assessor's block 3747 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization per Planning Code Section 253 (building exceeding 40 feet in height in an R District) and Section 249(b)(1) (site coverage exceeding 80 percent) to allow construction of a new 21-story, 200-foot-tall residential building with not more than 54 dwelling units above four levels of parking (three levels below grade and one level at grade) with up to 54 spaces, within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined District, High Density) District and the Rincon Hill Special Use District, and a 200-R Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to June 8, 2000

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

3b. 1999.414V (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)

325 FREMONT STREET,east side between Folsom Street and Harrison Street; Lots 12, 13 and 14 in Assessor's block 3747 -The Zoning Administrator will conduct a joint hearing on a request for a front setback Variance per Section 249(c)(3) and an open space Variance per Section 249(c)(4)(B).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to June 8, 2000 AYES:         Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

4. 2000.147C (LeBLANC 558-6351)

400 McALLISTER STREET AKA 401 POLK STREET, northwest corner at Polk Street; Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0766 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of six panel antennas and base station equipment on the roof of an existing building in a P (Public) District, the Civic Center Historic District and an 80-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2000 June 15, 200)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to June 15, 2000

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

5. 2000.316X (BEATTY: 558-6163)

554 MISSION STREET, north side of Mission Street between 1st and 2nd Streets, Lots 15, 17 and 18 of Assessorís Block 3708 -- Request for two exceptions under Planning Code Section 309: (1) separation of towers requirements as permitted in Planning Code Section 132.1(c)(1); and (2) on-site freight-loading service driveway requirements as permitted in Section 155(d). The project site is within the C-3-0 (Downtown, Office) District and 500-S (Lot 18) and 550-S (Lots 15 and 17) Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to June 8, 2000

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

6. 2000.209C (MILLER: 558-6344)

1470 PINE STREET, north side between Polk and Larkin Streets, Lot 7A in Assessorís Block 645 --Request for authorization of a CONDITIONAL USE for a FIBER-OPTIC TELEVISION and TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLE EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION in an existing one-story building, in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and an 80-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to June 15, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to June 15, 2000

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

7. 2000.078G                       (KOMETANI: 558-6478)

580 HOWARD STREET, north side between First and Second Streets. Lot 91 in Assessor's Block 3721 -- Request for approval under Planning Code Sections 1106 and 1107 to change the boundaries of the New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District to include the subject property and to upgrade its Article 11 designation from Category V, Unrated to Category IV, Contributory.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

(Proposed for Continuance to July 6, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to July 6, 2000

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

B. PUBLIC COMMENT

 

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President or chairperson may continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.

 

ďThe Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

SPEAKER(S):

Richard Burke

- He lives in the Polk Street District.

- He is here for an item but apparently he canít address it directly.

- When he went out as the ďpublicĒ to try to get support for his cause, he was told by the Planning Department that if he went to a 3-block area and got 20% or more of the merchants opposed, he would then be entitled to a conditional zoning hearing. Apparently, this is not true.

- He followed the rules as it was explained to him to get a zoning hearing, and it never happened.

Norman Rolf - San Francisco Tomorrow

Re: Mission/Steuart Hotel

- He would like the Commission to not certify the EIR because it has errors and misstatements of facts.

- Itís time to send a message to EIR writers that they have to produce documents that state the facts fairly and accurately as well as reports written with the welfare of the public as their first concern and not that of a private, special interest.

- The Embarcadero Freeway was approved by many government officials, yet later it was admitted to have been a mistake -- the Mission/Steuart hotel might be one too.

Patricia Vaughey

- Design guidelines were written for Telecommunications projects to protect the neighborhood.

- There is a project at Broadway and Van Ness which is across the street from a school and senior housing. She would like the Commission to look closely into the design guidelines on this issue because this breaks all of the guideline principals.

Lloyd Schoegel

RE: 554 Mission Street

- This proposed large building is certain to be disruptive to all the buildings including Golden Gate University which is located next door.

- There is another large new building across the street which is 23 stories high. There is a lot of underutilized office space in the area. The priority should be to rent this under used space.

- At present, in the square block between Mission and Market, there are at present 10 buildings, 20 to 40 stories high.

- The proposed project should be rejected.

Sue Hestor

RE: 2601 Mission Street/Bay View Bank Building

- This building is in a zone where you cannot have a single use/space more than 600 sf (anti-chain store provisions) this also applies to office space.

- The building is 90,000 sf, the landlord removed all of the non-profits and Spanish media and rented it out to Bigfoot.com

-There are pending applications, the only one is to put more antennas on the roof.

- The organizations who were displaced were real community-serving organizations and community-serving businesses.

- She would like to have a conditional use hearing so the ZA can enforce the code on the building.

RE: American Can Company Buildings on Third Street (American Industrial Complex).

- There was an article about this on the front page of last weekís Examiner - The Panni Dolce eviction.

- The owner has decided to get rid of all the tenants that face Illinois Street.

- These buildings are being emptied out. The landlord is raising the rent as a way to get people out and put Dot.Coms in there.

- Would like Commission to start regulating things.

Jake McGoldrick - Richmond Community Association

- There is a problem with defacto demolitions going on throughout the city.

- 269 Collins Street - This building is undergoing an addition, yet the building is practically demolished.

- These buildings applied for permits to remodel yet they are just being demolished.

- These types of things are becoming scandalous.

- There are other buildings that were supposed to be rehabilitated and they have been demolished (710 10th Avenue).

David Osgood - Rincon Center Association

Regarding the EIR of the Mission/Steuart Hotel

- There are a lot of unresolved issues with the EIR

- Would like to have Commissioners vote against this project.

 

C. COMMISSIONERSí QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

8. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of 2/24/00 and 5/18/00.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

9. Commission Matters

Commission Joe:

1) She would like the Department to cooperate and provide information requested by Mr. Joe LaTorre of the Mayorís Office of Housing so he can respond in 10 days.

 

Gerald Green (responded to Commissioner Joeís request):

The Commission took an action on 5/25/00 with a +3-1 vote which meant that the motion to not take DR and not add any fee or not require any action as suggested by the guidelines. The Commission opted not to do so. Therefore, there is a +3-1 decision on a motion that did not include referring this to the Mayorís Office of Housing for a fee to be calculated. On July 13, 2000 this case will come back to a full Commission to make a decision.

 

2) She would like a copy of the letter sent by Mr. Joe Latorre of the Mayorís Office of Housing.

3) She would like Department to look into the impact of the relocation of the non-profits at the 2601 Mission Street Building and the American Can Company.

 

D. DIRECTORíS REPORT

 

10. Directorís Announcements.

None

 

11. Review of Past Weekís Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.

BOS

None

 

BOA

None

 

E. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

12. 2000.235D (M.SNYDER: 575-6891)

175 BREWSTER STREET,east side between Esmeralda Avenue and Joy Street, Lot 12 in Assessor's Block 5577 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9924021 proposing to construct a single-family house on a vacant lot within an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve the Building Permit application as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2000)

Note: On May 11, 2000, the Commission passed a motion of intent to take Discretionary Review and have the proposed design modified by removing the top floor. Staff was instructed to verify the correct property survey. The vote was +6 -0. Commissioner Mills absent.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Take DR. Approved as modified by removing the top floor.

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

13. 1999.243D (BANALES: 558-6339)

1247 HARRISON STREET AND 428-8TH STREET, south side of Harrison between 8th and 9th Streets, Lot(s) 063, 065, 066 in Assessorís Block 3757 -- Request for discretionary review on an application that is proposing to demolish the existing building on site and construct three new live/work buildings containing a total of 64 units. The proposed project is in an Industrial Protection Zone, a Service/Light Industrial (SLI), District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

Note: On May 4, 2000, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing. A motion to not take discretionary review and approve the proposal failed to carry by a vote of +3 -2. Commissioners Antenore and Joe voted no. Commissioners Mills and Martin were absent.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, case continued to July 13, 2000

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

14. 2000.113D (MILLER: 558-6344)

1552 POLK STREET, southeast corner at Sacramento Street, Lot 1 in Assessorís Block 644 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA 9925357 for tenant improvements to a portion of a building (approximately 1,700 square feet of floor area) for use as a ďBlockbusterĒ video rental establishment.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

Note: On May 4, 2000, following public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing. A motion to take discretionary review and approve with conditions failed to carry by a vote of +3 -2. Commissioners Antenore and Joe voted no. Commissioners Mills and Martin were absent.

Note: On May 11, 2000, a motion to approve failed to carry by a vote of +3 -3. Commissioners Joe, Martin and Antenore voted no. Commissioner Mills absent. Continued to June 1, 2000.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Motion of intent to disapprove with a report of final findings to be presented on June 8, 2000.

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Mills

NAYES:           Richardson, Theoharis

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

 

15. 1998.604E                           (NAVARRETE: 558-6163)

Mission/Steuart Hotel, Northeast corner of Mission and Steuart Streets, Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 in Assessorís Block 3714--Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as accurate and complete. The Project consists of General Plan and Zoning Map amendments, a finding of consistency with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended, for a change of use on the Project Site (a City-owned property) from a public use (MUNI bus layover) to a private use (hotel, retail and restaurant); a Conditional Use authorization for a hotel use, a granting of a Parking Variance, and other authorizations to facilitate the construction of the hotel project.

Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Certification.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

Note: On December 16, 1999, public hearing was closed.

 

Point of Order:

Sue Hestor

- Does not agree that public comment was closed on this item.

- The public only had access to the Draft EIR and they never saw the responses.

- This item is on the calendar, therefore should be able to have public comments.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Certified

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

MOTION NO: 15074

 

16. 1998.604E                           (NAVARRETE: 558-6163)

Mission/Steuart Hotel, Northeast corner of Mission and Steuart Streets, Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 in Assessorís Block 3714--Consideration of adoption of findings pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code. Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): See list under item 17a.

ACTION: Public Hearing Closed. Approved.

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

MOTION NO: 15075

 

17a. 1998.604EKMZCRV                           (BEATTY: 558-6163)

Mission/Steuart Hotel, Northeast corner of Mission and Steuart Streets, Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 in Assessorís Block 3714--Consideration of the authorizations listed below in order to allow the construction of a hotel ranging in height from 40 feet to approximately 84 feet, with approximately 200 to 210 rooms, and with accessory retail, restaurant and meeting room space on City-owned property currently used as a lay-over yard for San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) buses and proposed to be leased my MUNI to the hotel developer who will lease the hotel to a hotel operator.

Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):

Michael Burns - General Manager of MUNI

- He is very please to present MUNIís first joint development project.

- This project grew out of a 1996 directive from the Public Transportation Commission to explore opportunities for better utilization of MUNI assets.

- This project has the potential for a very attractive use of the project by being consistent with the mid-Embarcadero development and the General Plan. This project has the potential to dramatically improve the transit friendliness of the area and most importantly it will increase transit usage to this part of the City.

- Issues that needed to be considered 1) What are the MUNI transit impacts on employees and customers? 2) What are the financial aspects of the deal? 3) What are the operational impacts?

- There will be 6 lines that will be relocated. Three of the lines (21, 71, 7) are planned to layover on the eastern side of Steuart Street.

- Two additional lines (9 - will layover on Main Street and the 31 will layover on Mission Street just east of Main Street). Just two blocks from the existing layover facility.

- Other lines (6 and 2) will be relocated to the Transbay Terminal.

- There is consideration of a swap between the 21 with the 2 to provide a transit connection to the Sutter Street corridor from the Embarcadero area.

- There will be no major impact on all the lines.

- MUNI has about 2,700 customers serviced in this area.

- There are very few people that use the layover site as an origin or a destination.

- Most passengers access MUNI on Market Street.

- 82% of ferry passengers walk to and from their destination.

- Improved connection to Market Street with the F-line stop at the Ferry Building.

- Four Muni lines remain on Stuart Street.

- BART and MUNI Metro are easily accessible at Embarcadero Station.

- Maintenances is light at the layover facility.

- The 14 Mission line was relocated out of the layout facility about 7 or 8 years ago.

- There is no apparent difference in regards to on-time buses.

- The operational impacts are minimal.

- Firmly believe that the development of this project will generate income to the city.

- Significantly, under Proposition E, these revenues are dedicated to MUNI.

- The developer will provide 1.5 Million dollars for capital improvements for the area.

- This project provides many significant long-term financial benefits for MUNI and the City.

(+) Chip Conley - Founder of Joie de Vivre Hospitality

- The company has been in San Francisco for 13 years and they specialize in small, boutique hotels.

- They were selected about 2 years ago for the project.

- They will provide many amenities for the neighborhood : 1) a design concept which is complementary to all the variety of the mid-Embarcadero projects that are occurring including the adaptive re-use of the Ferry Building which allows for more weekend and nighttime activities. 2) Easy access to the new trolley ďFĒ line stop. They are funding the cost of the trolley stop and free retail space to the non-profit Market Street Railway Company for a trolley memorabilia retail shop. 3) Bathrooms (including janitorial staff) for the MUNI drivers. 4) Enhancement of the art piece of the ILWU. 5) Hotel will be union built and union operated. 6) A teen mentor ship program and job training program for youth. and 7) a sidewalk cafe.

- This will be a transit-friendly hotel by providing MUNI fast passes to employees, and BART tickets for guests from the hotel to SFO.

(+) Clark Manus - Project Architect

- Site constraints include: Proposition K shadow plane at Justin Herman Plaza South, MUNI vent shaft at northeast section of the site, turn back tunnel structure which is underneath the site, the ďFĒ line, the ILWU commemorative piece, and a piece of land thatís on the Embarcadero side.

(+) Roberta Acktenburg

- She is here on her behalf and on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

- This project is a win for the City, MUNI, the hospitality industry, numerous increases in jobs for San Franciscans, youth, the Waterfront, and the quality of life in San Francisco.

- She will love to get on a MUNI line at her home in Noe Valley and travel to the Embarcadero and enjoy the benefits that these developers will provide.

(+) Ray Patlan - Local Artist

- He and 9 other artists were commissioned to design a commemorative piece that stands on the corner of Mission and Steuart Streets.

- This project will enhance the area not only for the art peace but also with the other benefits.

 

Cathy Riggins - Embarcadero YMCA

- There will be adequate parking after the construction of the hotel, which was a concern for the YMCA.

- She was happy to hear that passes would be given to employees.

(+) Michael Dellar - Co-proprietor of One Market Restaurant

- They have taken an active interest with MUNI. They have had many meetings with MUNI and their consultants.

- As a neighborhood retailer, he is excited about this project.

- All of the other food service establishments are in agreement with the construction.

(+) Tho Do - Secretary/Treasurer of Local 2 Union

- The union supports the project because the developer has respected the needs of union members, the new hotel development will create many union jobs with many benefits to the members; they respect the union to organize, etc.

- The ILWU sculpture will be permanently displayed.

- Would like Commission to approve this project.

(+) Kelly Cullen - Executive Director of Tendorloin Neighborhood Development Organization

- The neighborhood was amazed and delighted when they opened a hotel in the tenderloin area.

- He has known the developer for many years and knows that they have worked with the community.

- This project is a transit -friendly project.

(+) Jim Haas - Chair, Committee for Waterfront Organ Pavilion

- Has been involved in the neighborhood for more than a decade.

- Before the area was a layover for MUNI, it was just a wasteland created from the 1958 freeway. The area was not very attractive, therefore constructing a beautifully-designed hotel will improve the area.

- The architect designed the hotel to be compatible with the organ project.

- An EIR for the organ pavilion project will be applied for right away.

- Would like Commissioners to support the project.

(+) Sue Backman

- She has the largest retail tenant of the Rincon Center which is directly across the street of the project. She is in support of the project.

- In 1993, they were approached by the owners of the Rincon Center to create a nighttime and weekend destination venue in a neighborhood which closed early in the evening. Therefore, Chaulkerís was created.

- There is much more activity and the neighborhood is increasingly more dynamic.

- The hotel developers have address the parking issues.

- MUNI can use the revenue which it will receive.

(+) Jim Mathias

- Read a letter from Tom Redulevitch, BART Director from District 9, which is in support of the project.

- Many joggers have plenty of room now to peacefully jog and have a nicer view than a lot filled with buses.

(+) Ellen Kwan - Representing Chinatown Transportation Research and Improvement Project.

- This project has been around for about 25 years. It was formed since the 1976 MUNI bus strike. TRIP has always been concerned about transportation, with transit as number 1.

- This project is truly needed for MUNI to increase their service and make service better.

- Although MUNI has to redirect their buses, the benefits for MUNI are much greater than re-directing traffic.

(+) Jim Chapel - SPUR

- They have been involved in the redesign of this neighborhood for about 20 years.

- They have wanted to get rid of that bus yard and replace with something better and nicer.

- This is a way for MUNI to turn an underutilized resource into income.

- Having private/public partnerships is the way of the future.

- Hotel is the ideal use. It is the most public of all public uses and requires very little parking.

- This is an ideal project all the way around.

(+) Charles Hardy

- He works at Boulevard Restaurant.

- He takes MUNI to work.

- The windows of the restaurant will show a nicer view than the present lot.

(+) Frederick Hobson

- This project is in District 6 - Tenderloin/Civic Center.

- Founder of an organization called People that Care about San Francisco.

- His concerns have been answered.

- This project will have art growth,

- This project will replace an ugly-looking site.

- This project is union friendly and thatís nice to see in the corporate world.

(+) Rick Laubscher - Small Business Owner, member of the Board of the Market Street Railway

- They support MUNIís operation of historic transit in San Francisco.

- This project will generously provide income to MUNI for improvements.

- They will have a location in the building to serve as a Transit Museum.

- The relocation of the current bus lines will serve public better.

- This development will be the most transit-oriented project ever.

(+) Paul Zeiger - President of the local marketing

- This is a wonderful proposed project.

- They are constantly frustrated with the lack of hotels in San Francisco.

- This will also be a visual benefit to the area.

- This project will provide much needed income to transit.

(+) Nancy Ellen - Lives at Rincon Center and owns a retail store there.

- The busses provide odors and sloppiness to the area.

- The structure will not block anybodyís views.

- Welcomes this addition to the neighborhood.

- Even though there are 2 other hotels in the area, there is still much needed space for hotel guests.

(+) Doug Wright -

- Read a letter of Rudy Nothemberg who served as the Cityís Chief Administrative Officer, General Manager of the PUC, and most recently as the president of the Transportation Commission.

- Urges Commission to move forward on this project.

(+) Kim Martinson - Executive Director of the Transportation Management Association

- Confirms the commitment of the project sponsor to become a member of their organization.

- She commends the developer for the effort to offer MUNI passes to employees and BART tickets for guest.

(+) Ray Antonio - President of Transport Local Union

- Represents MUNI operators.

- The issues brought up during construction and post construction have been addressed.

(+) Ken Maylee - Long time user of the Embarcadero

- Supports the project as it is, as well as the project developer.

(-) Norman Rolf - San Francisco Tomorrow

- A previous speaker mentioned that they have concerns on this project but in reality they are totally opposed. Citizens for a Better District 6 are opposed to this project as well.

- Transit first is the city policy and is established in the City Charter.

- This project will make MUNI operations more expensive and more difficult, less in service reliability, and degrade passenger ambiance.

- The lay over terminal should be improved properly in accordance with the mid-Embarcadero plan.

(-) Michael Levin -

- He is a 7 day a week MUNI rider, he is very concerned about what happens with MUNI.

- He is not totally opposed to constructing a hotel on this site yet he wants to be persuaded that this is a good project.

- He has great respect for the developer.

- The current design does not complement the buildings in the area.

- There have been very poorly designed buildings in the City.

(-) Dave Osgood - Representing Rincon Center Tenants Association

- There is no information provided to back up the data on transit.

- MUNI has neglected this site.

- There have been a lot of letters written to newspapers regarding concerns about traffic.

- There are many articles regarding transit in the newspapers recently.

(-) Gerald Cauthen - Transportation Engineer

- He came to San Francisco about 30 years ago.

- He is worried about the infrastructure and itís ability to keep up with what is happening to the City.

- It is obvious that MUNI is barely keeping up with the status quo.

- The key issue is the way the streets are formed in San Francsico.

- It is advantageous to have an off street facility.

- It is impossible to compare an ugly facility to a beautiful hotel.

(-) Garret Jenkins - President of the North Market Planning Coalition

- The traffic impact will increase.

- One of the reasons the Embarcadero Freeway came down was to get a better view of the bay. There are 20 other projects that are being planned on the waterfront which means that the open space will be lost. There are restaurants being planned even closer to the bay which will block the view even more.

- The proposed hotel project will bring MUNI a lot of money, yet if the corporate citizens really wanted to improve MUNI service, they would accept a transit assessment.

(-) Lloyd Schloegel

- The most important aspect of this site is the transit use.

- This project is located in front of the Ferry Building.

- The are many more hotels located around this location therefore there is enough hotel space.

- MUNI should not be in the hotel business, it should take care of its transit problems.

- This project should be rejected.

(-) Ron Mitchel - GLNB Worksite Committee Member at Potrero Division for MUNI

- He is not here to talk about ďupĒ the hotel or ďdownĒ the hotel. He is concerned about the planning of where the buses are being parked.

- This issue has been talked about in various GLNB Worksite Committee meetings he has been to.

- The 31 and 9 lines will be put on Main and Mission. These lines are brutally heavy traveled lines. There is already a lot of traffic at this location therefore would like to have these lines layover at another location.

- One idea that came out of these Committee meetings was having all the downtown trolleys go to the Transbay terminal and maybe putting the motor coaches in another spot. Having the trolleys in one spot is better for maintenance and switch trolleys if necessary.

ACTION: NONE. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT FOR ITEMS 16 &

17b-f

17b. 1998.604K                           (BEATTY: 558-6163)

Determination, pursuant to Planning Code Section 295, of whether the proposed projectís shadow would result in any adverse impact on the use of the adjacent property known as Embarcadero Plaza II-South (Justin Herman Plaza South) under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission.

Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 17a.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

MOTION NO. 15076

 

17c. 1998.604M                           (BEATTY: 558-6163)

Application under Planning Code Section 340 to amend Map 2 (Height and Bulk Plan) of the Northeastern Waterfront Element of the General Plan to change the designation of the subject site (Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 of Assessorís Block 3714) from O.S. (Open Space) to 84-E designation.

Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 17a.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

MOTION NO. 15077

 

17d. 1998.604Z                           (BEATTY: 558-6163)

Application under Planning Code Section 302 to amend the official zoning maps of the City and County of San Francisco to change the height and bulk district classification of Lot 17 of Assessorís Block 3714 from O.S. (Open Space) to 84-E and to change the use district classification for the subject site (Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 of Assessorís Block 3714) from a P (Public) district to a C-2 (Community Business) district.

Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 17a.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

MOTION NO. 15078

 

17e. 1998.604CR                           (BEATTY: 558-6163)

Application for a conditional use authorization under Planning Code Section 303 , which provides procedures and required findings for conditional use authorization, and under Planning Code Section 216(c), which requires a conditional use authorization for hotels in the new C-2" district, with exceptions from the bulk limitations of the 84-E height/bulk district pursuant to Planning Code Section 271. Also, consideration of a Finding of Consistency with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended, for the change of use of the above-referenced City-owned properties from public use for MUNI to a private hotel use on property to be leased to the hotel developer and operator.

Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 17a.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

MOTION NO. 15079

 

Concurrent with the Planning Commission hearing on the authorizations listed above, testimony will be heard by the Zoning Administrator on the following variance application:

 

17f. 1998.604V (BEATTY: 558-6163)

Application under Planning Code Section 305 for an off-street parking variance for the proposed approximately 200 to 210 room hotel project described above. Planning Code Section 151 requires 30 to 34 independently-accessible off-street parking spaces for the proposed hotel, restaurant and retail uses in the proposed C-2 zoning district. The applicant proposes to provide nine independently-accessible parking spaces on the project site, which can accommodate up to 17 vehicles through a valet operation.

Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):

Larry Badiner - Public hearing closed. This project has had significant review over a number of years. Staff believes that this project follows the master plan as well as MUNIís plan to provide a funding facility for them. Recommends approval.

 

18. 2000.023C                             (LeBLANC: 558-6351)

1731 - 1741 POWELL STREET, on the west side at Columbus Avenue; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 0101 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to:(1) operate a live theater, (2) a bar and (3) a use exceeding 2,000 square feet in the building previously known as the Pagoda Theater in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 25, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Jim Reuben - Reuben & Alter assisting Lerum Corporation

- This project will provide a state-of-the-art live theater in a now vacant structure on a prominent corner in the middle of the North Beach Commercial District.

- Theater goers will definitely patronize the surrounding restaurants and bars.

(+) Doug Alles - CEO of Lerum Corporation

- The project is to renovate the now vacant Pagoda Palace Movie Theatre into a live theatre. The building was originally built in 1908 as a live theatre and converted into a movie theatre in 1937.

- The original tall plate sign will be kept since it is the last remaining piece of history and an important symbol to the neighborhood.

- The original balcony will be restored.

(+) Ken Maley - Resident of North Beach

- This is a return to live theatre.

- Strongly supports bringing cultural activity to the City and to North Beach in particular.

- Encourages the Commission to approve this project.

(+) Brad Kelly - Partner and General Manager of Little City Restaurant

- He supports the project since the location of the theatre can contribute to the survival of the surrounding business owners.

- The proposed theatre project is the perfect liaison between the cultural experience and economic growth of the neighborhood.

- A lot of the businesses and restaurants and bars are very committed to solving problems they might have.

(+) Marshall Garland - Executive Director of the North Beach Chamber of Commerce

- After the fight with Right Aide, the community was afraid of what would be proposed for this site.

- She is truly grateful with Lerum Corporation for proposing such an wonderful idea to bring back more theatre and doing it in a way that is contemporary.

- 50 years ago, theatre went into a slump because of television, it is now time to bring back

(+) Julie Christensen - She has either lived or worked in North Bach for 21 years.

- She has appeared before the Commission many times to oppose, yet this proposal is a wonderful idea.

- She is for rational, reasoned, sensible, progressive change.

(+) Gerrie Crowly - Immediate Past President of Telegraph Hill Dwellers.

- The dwellers support this project quite strongly.

- Their concerns have either been resolved or are in the process of being resolved.

- She is happy that the building will remain as itís original purpose: a theatre.

- Urges the Commission to approve this project.

(+) Ann McGuire - Lives a few blocks from the proposed theatre

- Itís very nice to have someone to come into the community and give that much time and energy.

(+) June Osterberg - Long time North Beach Resident

- She represents the near neighbors to the theatre.

- She has lived just across the street from the proposed project for over 30 years.

- There have been many proposals for this site, but the neighbors have opposed all of the them.

- She believes that the live theatre proposal will enhance the neighborhood.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

MOTION NO. 15088

 

19. 2000.113C (CHIN: 575-6897)

2000 VAN NESS AVENUE, northeast corner at Jackson Street; Lot 005 in Assessorís Block 0595 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.6 of the Planning Code to install a total of sixteen Antennas and a base transceiver station on an existing eight-story over basement building as part of Metricomís wireless Internet network in an RC-4 ( Residential/Commercial, High Density) District and a 80-D Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION:         Approved with Staff Conditions

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT:         Chinchilla

MOTION NO. 15080

 

(+) Robert McCarthy - McCarthy and Schwartz

- The antennas will be flush-mounted each of which only generate 10 watts of power.

- Mr. Hammet read the EIR report to state that one sector was moved away from anybody.

 

20. 2000.289L (KOMETANI: 558-6478)

700 MONTGOMERY STREET, THE COLUMBUS SAVINGS BANK BUILDING, northeast corner of Montgomery and Washington Streets; that portion of Assessor's Block 196, Lot 8 occupied by the subject building -- Request for Planning Commission approval of a proposed landmark designation which was initiated by the Board of Supervisors. The subject property is a Compatible building in the Jackson Square Historic District, is zoned C-2 (Community Business) District and is in a 65-D-2 Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval No Recommendation

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Angela Alioto

- This is a truly historic site and building.

- This building survived the 1906 earthquake.

- This is a jewel of a building for San Francisco and should be classified as a San Francisco Landmark.

(+) Supervisor Becerril

- This building is an incredible addition to the Landmarks Boardís list.

- This was a pre- 1906 earthquake and fire survivor.

(+) Marsha Garland - Executive Director of the North Beach Chamber of Commerce

- North Beach has shrunk over the years but historically it really begins at the intersection Ms. Alioto referred to.

- This building should be landmarked.

(+) Gerry Crowley - Immediate Past President of Telegraph Hill Dwellers

- This building is cherished by the neighborhood.

ACTION: Approved to become Landmark No. 212

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson

ABSENT: Chinchilla

RESOLUTION No: 15089

 

AT APPROXIMATELY 5:00 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENED INTO A SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW (DR) HEARING.

 

21. 1999.639D (ARCE: 558-5986)

265 TINGLEY STREET, on the south side of the intersection of Tingley Street and San Jose Avenue, Lot 048 in Assessorís Block 6781 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9505908S, proposing to construct a new single-family house on a vacant lot in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: No recommendation at this time.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2000).

Note: On February 3, 2000, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this matter to 2/17/00 with instructions to staff to explore and address traffic concerns.

The vote was +7 -0.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTIONS: Without further hearing, continued to July 20, 2000

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Theoharis, Mills

ABSENT: Chinchilla, Martin, Richardson

 

22. 2000.274D                (MARTIN: 558-6616)

1230 - 18TH STREET, north side, between Texas and Mississippi Streets, Lot 013A in Assessorís Block 4001 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9912693S, proposing to add a third floor to an existing two-story, one-unit building, setting it back approximately sixteen feet from the existing second story, for a height of approximately 37 feet. Additionally, the applicant would construct a two-car garage, with two garage doors, move the existing curb cut, and make interior renovations in an RH-3(Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Steve Williams - Representing the DR Requestor

- There seems to be some confusion with the height of the buildings.

- The project property is already larger than the other homes.

- The staff doesnít want to talk about the adjacent buildings.

- There are two lot line windows facing east.

- There is a lot of room for compromise and reduction.

- The project will cause a loss of a rental unit.

- There is no additional parking being added.

- Would like Commission to reduce the project in size.

(-) Gary Shawley - DR Requestor

- He had intruders come into his home twice.

- The proposed structure will be an invasion of privacy.

- There is a petition from 85 of the neighbors to reduce the project in size.

(-) Judy Shawley - wife of DR Requestor

- They have had intruders come into their home twice.

- Why does the proposed construction have to have a window on the lot line?

- They have tried to compromise to no avail.

- The project is huge and out-of-scale.

(-) Leland Van Winkle - co-DR Requestor

- He has a 6-unit building across the street from the proposed project.

- He presently enjoys an open space feeling.

- The scale of the project is so great and out of place. The two adjacent owners would have to build up to protect or maintain their investments - removing his open space feeling.

-The scale gives the appearance that this project would be built by a full time developer yet this project is being done by a first time developer.

- The construction would remove rental units, therefore, would be decreasing affordable housing in the City.

- He would like to encourage the property owners to be patient and go back to their first choice and find the ideal house, even keeping 1230 18th Street as an investment but without the need of this major construction.

(-) David Luth - Mechanical Engineer

- The guidelines stress consideration on the impact of adjacent buildings.

- This proposal should be brought down in size.

- There is a problem with the scale of the building in regards to shadow effect on the neighborís house.

(-) Ed Schumer - 13 year resident of Potrero Hill

- Project is out of scale to the rest of the neighborhood.

- Would like to have modest modifications to the proposed unit.

(-) Rebecca de Guzman - Tenant of one of the studios at 1297 18th Street

- She has been a tenant there since 1994.

- She is also a member of the San Francisco Tenants Union because she has been concerned about the loss of rental units and decrease of the quality of life to renters in San Francisco.

- She is against the project because of the loss of family rentals.

- It has been brought up that MUNI has approved this but that the garage would interrupt the MUNI bus stop.

- The building addition is out of scale and not appropriate with the rest of the neighborhood.

- Would like to urge the Commission to consider renters and the quality of life to residents of Potrero Hill.

(+) Robert May - Project Sponsors

- There was a secret brief that was sent out to the Commissioners and he wasnít aware of this. There seems to be many discrepancies in this brief.

- The DR representative states that there is a letter from a tenant who was evicted yet he has an e-mail from the same tenant stating that he wasnít evicted.

 

(+) Robert Poyas - Neighbor lives at 1206 18th Street

- 10 years ago, he went through a similar process of a neighbor making an addition to his home.

- The property owner came to him for advice on how to go about doing this because he wanted to be sensitive to the community.

(+) David Teeters - Project Architect

- A lot has been talked about regarding the residential design guidelines.

- There are buildings that range from 40 to 45 feet in height on both sides of the street.

- Regarding the scale of the building, no one has suggested what exact scale would be appropriate.

(+) John Sweeney - 10-year resident of Potrero Hill

- He is familiar with the review process since he protested a proposed addition - he lost the appeal and none of his concerns were taken into consideration. After the addition was completed, he realized that his conception of the project was not correct and his concerns were not ignored after all.

- A year later he went to apologize to his neighbor.

(+) Sue Mell - Tenant at 285 Texas Street

- She has lived at this rental unit since 1995.

- Has no objections or reservations regarding the construction.

- The DR requestors have never come to her to get her opinion.

(+) Martha Cook -

- She is co-homeowner of proposed project.

- There was a flier that was posted throughout the neighborhood demanding they stop the construction of their monster home.

(+) Marsha Cook

- She is the mother of Martha Cook.

- She lives in Michigan and she will be moving into the addition of the proposed project.

- This project has been delayed several times.

ACTION: Take DR to make changes proposed by ZA: Property line windows to be removed, deck to be moved to the left hand side of the building, move ladder to the other side of the deck if building code allows.

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Theoharis, Mills

ABSENT: Chinchilla, Martin, Richardson

 

Adjournment:       6:23 p.m.

 

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2000.

Back to top

 

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 8, 2000

1:30 PM

 

Regular Meeting

 

 

PRESENT:†††††††††††††† Mills, Richardson, Antenore , Joe,Martin, Chinchilla

ABSENT:††††††††††††††††† Theoharis

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT MILLSAT 1:31P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning, Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator, Paul Deutsch, Scott Edmondson; John Billovits; Paul Lord; Kelley LeBlanc; Ricardo Bressanutti; Kenneth Chin; Mary Woods; Sailesh Mehra; Julian Banales; Nora Priego, Transcribing Secretary, Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary.

 

A.††††††††† ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

1.††††††† 2000.457D††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††††††††† (CHIN: 575-6897)

431 - 35TH AVENUE, west side between Geary Boulevard and Clement Street, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 1467 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 20000108558S/ 20000107526, proposing to demolish the existing single-family dwelling and construct a new two-family dwelling in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 22, 2000).

 

SPEAKER(S):†††† None

ACTION: Continued to June 22, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Martin, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††††† Theoharis


2.†††††††† 2000.288E††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (DEUTSCH: 558-5965)

SEAWALL LOT 337 COMMUTER PARKING, Appeal of preliminary negative declaration for proposed expansion of use to permit daily general (commuter) parking in the parking lot on Port property east of Third Street serving Pacific Bell Park, containing about 1,814 spaces.The lot would be open on non-baseball game days from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.On afternoon game days, general parking would not be permitted.On weekday evening game days, general parking would be permitted with non-game attending parkers required to exit the lot by 5:00 p.m.General parking would be permitted on weekend non-game days.In addition, the types of temporary uses permitted on the parking lot would be expanded to be consistent with Section 985 of the Planning Code, including 60-day limits for exhibitions, festivals, Christmas tree and Halloween pumpkin lots, etc., and 1- to 5-year limits for temporary uses and structures incidental to construction of a building, rental or sales office incidental to a new development, etc.

These proposals, by China Basin Ballpark Company and Imperial Parking, Inc., would require approval by the Zoning Administrator, the San Francisco Port Commission, and the Port of San Francisco.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 22, 2000).

 

SPEAKER(S):†††† None

ACTION: Continued to June 22, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Martin, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††††† Theoharis

 

3.†††††††† 1999.151E†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (MALTZER: 558-6391)

††††††††††††††††††††† SANITARY FILL COMPANY SOLID WASTE FACILITY PERMIT REVISION;501 TUNNEL AVENUE; Assessor's Block 4991/Lots 7, 8, 9 and 82 in San Francisco County; and Assessor's Block 152/Lots 030, 340 and 220 (partial) in San Mateo County.Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration.The Sanitary Fill Company seeks to revise its Solid Waste Facility Permit to allow for: (1) the removal of scheduling restrictions on refuse fleet hauling; (2) an increase in permitted vehicle trips per day; (3) approval to stage and handle source-separated organic waste as a separate waste stream; (4) approval to enclose the construction and demolition debris sort line and increase the hours of sort line operation; and (5) removal of the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility from the Solid Waste Facility Permit.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

(Proposed for Continuance to July 13, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):†††† None

ACTION: Continued to July 13, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Martin, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††††† Theoharis

 

4.††††††† 2000.269D†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (ZWIERZYCKI: 558-6263)

585 LAIDLEY STREET, south side between Castro and Roanoke Streets, Lot 025 in Assessorís Block 6727 - Request for Discretionary Review of building permit application No. 9923677 of proposal to construct a third-story addition on top of an existing two-story single-family residence in an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.


Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2000)

Note: On May 18, 2000, following testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to take Discretionary Review and approve the project with design changes --show new peeked roof design, add dormers to the rear, and setback building on the side of the DR requestor.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 20, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):†† None

ACTION:†††††††††† Continued to July 20, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Martin, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis

 

B.†††††† PUBLIC COMMENT

 

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items.With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception.When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar.Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.If it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President or chairperson may continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.

 

AThe Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment.In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1)responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2)requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3)directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.(Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

 

SPEAKER(S):

Donald Jans -

- His case involves a hot tub in the lightwell next to his home which creates noise and is directly outside of his window.It is also ruining the garden in his front room.

- His case came to the Commission several months ago.

- The perpetrator appealed and took six months in the appeal.†† He believes that because the Board of Appeals lacks experience on this subject, the BOA overturned the Commissionís unanimous decision.The city has a lawsuit against him for not getting a permit.

- He is asking that the Commission ask Larry Badiner or the Chief Building Inspector torehear this case in front of the Board of Appeals.

 

Rob Corquita - Little Hollywood Committee

- His committee submitted 25 pages of documents and they were never notified that this case would be heard today.


- He would like a broader part of the community to be notified for the hearing on July 13, 2000.

 

C.†††††† COMMISSIONERSí QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

5.††††††† Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of 5/25/00.

ACTION:†††††††††† Approved

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Martin, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis

 

6.††††††† Commission Matters

Commissioner Antenore:

He would like some response to Mr. Jans public comment.

 

Larry Badiner:

He has reviewed Mr. Jansí information and all of the information deals with the building code.Mr. Jans has been communicating with Mr. Cornfield of the Building Department.There is no new planning-related information that Mr. Jans has presented, it is all building code issues.The building department does have the opportunity to request a re-hearing.

 

D.†††††††† DIRECTORíS REPORT

 

7.††††††† Directorís Announcements.

Gerald Green

Regarding the Bryant Square approval: 1) This case has been challenged and appealed to the Board of Supervisors for hearing in the near future; and

2) There was a hearing before the Housing and Social Policy Committee.The Department participated in this discussion.†† Concerns that many in the neighborhoods have are about scale and size in development in many of the residential districts as well as commercial development.Staff will continue to work with Supervisor Leno on this issue.

 

8.††††††† Review of Past Weekís Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.

BOA

None

 

BOS

1) Precidio Hill School

- This case was settled the Friday before it went to the Board of Appeals.

- There were some minor modifications in the conditions: 1) confirming that the white zone in front of the school would not be extended 2) reducing the weekend activities from 6 a year to 5 a year.

2) Asia SF Restaurant at 9th and Howard

- The BOS overturned the Commissionís decision.

- There was public testimony in support of the restaurant

3) 2301 Third Street/2501 Third Street and 2601 Mission Street

- Staff is still investigating these matters and will report to the Commission in the near future.

 

E.†††††††† CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

 


9.††††††† 2000.113D†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (MILLER: 558-6344)

1552 POLK STREET, southeast corner at Sacramento Street,Lot 1 in Assessorís Block 644 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA 9925357 for tenant improvements to a portion of a building (approximately 1,700 square feet of floor area) for use as a ABlockbuster@ video rental establishment.

Preliminary Recommendation:†† Take Discretionary Review and approve with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

Note: On May 4, 2000, following public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing.A motion to take discretionary review and approve with conditions failed to carryby a vote of +3 -2.Commissioners Antenore and Joe voted no.Commissioners Mills and Martin were absent.

Note: On May 11, 2000, a motion to approve failed to carry by a vote of +3 -3.Commissioners Joe, Martin and Antenore voted no.Commissioner Mills absent.Continued to June 1, 2000.†††††††

Note: On June 1, 2000, the Commission passed a motion of intent to take Discretionary Review and disapproveby a vote of +4 -2.Commissioners Richardson and Theoharis voted no.Final language 6/8/00.

 

 

Larry Badiner

Read the findings into the record: The Commission took the action to deny based on 1) the potential for disruption of transit service; 2) the potential for double parking; 3) there was no demonstrated need for additional video rental service in the vicinity--an area already well serviced by several other such establishments; 3) the recent reduction from 3 to 2 traffic lanes and an the addition of bicycle traffic mixed in with the vehicular lane would increase traffic congestion; 4) substantial opposition expressed by neighborhood merchants and residents; 5) the proposed validated parking would be valet style making it awkward for users who might otherwise just double park; and 6) Polk Street is trying to establish itís character as a neighborhood commercial area of small local business and there is a strong public sentiment that the proposed establishment would not be compatible with that character.

 

SPEAKER(S):†† None

ACTION:†††††††††† Take Discretionary Review.Project Disapproved

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin

NAYES:††††††††††† Richardson, Chinchilla

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis

 

F.†††††††† REGULAR CALENDAR

 

10.††††† 1998.953E††††††† †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (NAVARRETE: 558-5975)


557 FOURTH STREET-- Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report. On Assessorís Block 3776, Lots 119 and 62, the project would demolish an existing building on the southeastern portion of the 70,400-square-foot project site, subdivide the project site into 12 equal-sized air parcels, and construct a four-story, 55-foot-tall wood frame live/work building on each air parcel.A total of 188 live/work units, occupying approximately 227,000 square feet, would be constructed along with approximately 13,000 square feet of retail space for four to six commercial tenants, which would be provided on the ground floor of the two buildings with frontage on Fourth Street.A three-level underground parking garage would occupy the entire site and would provide 188 private parking spaces (one per live/work unit), 292 public parking spaces, and 2 off-street loading spaces.The garage would be accessible on Welsh and Freelon Streets in the middle of the project block.The project site is in SLI(Service Light Industrial) District, and is in a 50-X Height and Bulk District. Note:Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., on June 8, 2000.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2000).

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Stan Smith - Secretary/Treasurer of the San Francisco Building Construction Trades Council

- He would like to delay the EIR for one week.He has reason to believe that some of the transportation study is lacking.

(-) Howard Strassner - Speaking for the Sierra Club

- Read from Proposition E because it directly affects the work of the Commission and the Planning Department.

- The Planning Department should not encourage big parking proposals in areas well served by transit because parking garages draw people off transit and into cars which then impede transit.Therefore, in two ways you discourage public transit.

- One of the first directions in the EIR is to discuss the alternative of a smaller garage--If you have less parking, less people would drive because there is less places for people to park.

 

 

(-) Lloyd Schloegle

- There is no need for housing here because itís not a residential area.

- There are too many proposals for housing in these areas.

- This project is not necessary and should be rejected.

(-) Sue Hestor

- This project is in the SLI district and does not allow housing

- The growing demand for live/work is the justification for this project.

- Live/work projects are now being rented out to dot.coms.

- There should be an honest analysis in this EIR which is the Departmentís current version of office and call it business services and analyze it as being used as dot.coms.

- Was this an arson fire, which makes this site available?

- The traffic study is the biggest problem.

- The project seems to incorporate as a major mitigation measure something that the Commission has no power over which is changing the street pattern.

-Would like to get another week because this issue involves working with transportation consultants and 4 levels of transportation summaries have to be analyzed.

(-) Jennifer Clary - Board of Directors of San Francisco Tomorrow

- She would like additional time to comment on the EIR.

- She is extremely confused about the policy of the department since they establish an industrial protection zone and allow uses in it that are not allowed in it.

- She really would like time to absorb it.


(+) Alice Barkley - Representing Project Sponsor

- She would like the EIR to be modified since the Department of Parking and Transportation is considering reducing Zoe Street from a two way street to a one way Street southbound at the request of some of the residents.

(+) Joe OíDonahue - Residential Builders

- Years ago people were against live/work because it wasnít providing parking, now people are against live/work because it is providing parking.

- This project is working for the future.

- Sue Bierman gave her approval on this site a few years ago.

- This is a good planning project.

 

ACTION:†††††††††† Public Hearing Closed.Written comment period extended for two weeks.

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis

 

11.††††† 1999.234E††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (EDMONDSON: 558-5994)

673-683 BRANNAN STREET/168-178 BLUXOME STREET LIVE/WORK -- Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration:Assessor's Block 3785/Lots 20 & 21 situated on the south side of Brannan Street between 5th and 6th Streets within the South of Market neighborhood.The proposed project would construct four new buildings containing a total of 177 live/work units and 177 parking spaces at 673-683 Brannan Street/168-178 Bluxome Street.The project would demolish an existing 10,000 square foot warehouse structure.Each new structure would be 55 feet tall, and would cover the full lot length and width, from Brannan Street to Bluxome Street.The project site is within an SLI (Service/Light Industrial) zoning district and within the Industrial Protection Zone adopted by the Planning Commission as an interim zoning control.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration†††††††††††††††

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 25, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):

Sue Hestor:

- There are about 450 units of live/work in 3 projects.

- Does the commission monitor occupancy in live/work projects?

- This project is next to the 6th and Brannan on ramp/off ramp. It is a critical intersection.

- Is there a market need for all these live/work projects?It doesnít seem to be--not if they are being occupied by dot.com companies.

Gary Moody:

- There are such a massive amount of live/work projects in the area.

- These live/work projects are not in compliance with state requirements.

- Things canít be made up as we go along.

- He has talked to state officials and they will look into this and he believes that they will find that San Francisco is not in Compliance.

- He has talked to HUD, the inspector generalís office.These projects are not in compliance with their guidelines either.

Lloyd Schloegle

- This proposal is in an area which is zoned for service light industry and contains several active local businesses.This is not a residential area.


- From the security standpoint, itís not a good idea to build housing away from residential areas.

- The proposed area is a vacant lot.This site would be better used as a park.

Judy West

- Her project came up previously for a rear yard variance.

- The issue is that in an industrial area, people are building live/work because it seems to be the easiest to build.

- People are not building traditional housing.

- She thinks that in order to solve the housing problems that San Francisco has,requirements that are placed on real housing in industrial areas need to be looked at again.

- No one should build residential on commercial areas until the requirements on residential are looked at.

- There are places more appropriate to build live/work.

Joe OíDonahue - Residential Builders

- He believes that 3,000 units of live/work is far short from the 10,000 units thatwas authorized in the South of Market area.

- Live/work will house contractors, plumbers, architects, etc.

- It would be much cheaper for the builder to build dot.com to begin with than to convert the live/work to dot.com.

 

ACTION:†††††††††† Public Hearing Closed.Continued to July 13, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††† Mills, Richardson, Chinchilla

NAYES:††††††††††† Antenore, Joe and Martin

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis

 

12.††††††† 2000.380T††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (LORD/BILLOVITS: 558-6311/558-6390)

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PERMIT NOTIFICATION, Consideration of a proposal to initiate amendments to the Planning Code (Zoning Ordinance) to add Section 312 to establish a 20-day mailing and posting notification requirement for building permit applications proposing demolition, new construction, alterations expanding the exterior dimensions of a building or changes of uses in Neighborhood Commercial Districts and various amendments to Section 311 providing flexibility in the scheduling of discretionary review hearings and assigning the administration of design guidelines and General Plan policies to the Director of Planning.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve resolution initiating text amendments and scheduling a public hearing on the recommendation of adoption to the Board of Supervisors for July 6, 2000.

 

SPEAKER(S):

Lloyd Schloegle

- The 30-day notice period for large and significant proposals should be retained.

- A 20-day notice is not sufficient for significant proposals pertaining to a demolition.

 

ACTION:†††††††††† Approved

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Martin, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis

MOTION NO:†††† 15081

 

13.††††††† 2000.407 †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (LORD/BILLOVITS: 558-6311/558-6390)


NC-2 ZONING DISTRICT IN THE VICINITY OF 9TH AVENUE AND IRVING STREET, Consideration of a proposal to initiate amendments to the Planning Code (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map) to create a new Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District in the vicinity of Irving Street between 5th Avenue and 19th Avenue.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve resolution initiating map and text amendments and scheduling a public hearing on the recommendation of adoption to the Board of Supervisors for July 13, 2000.

 

SPEAKER(S):†† None

ACTION:†††††††††† Approved

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis

MOTION NO.†††† 15082

 

14.††††††† 2000.426 †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (LORD/BILLOVITS: 558-6311/558-6390)

LIQUOR STORE DEFINITION AND ADDITION TO ARTICLE 7 OF THE PLANNINGCODE, Consideration of a proposal to initiate amendments to the Planning Code (Zoning Ordinance) by amending each of the Neighborhood Commercial District zoning control tables in Article 7 to add a use category called ALiquor Store@ and to make such stores either a permitted use, a conditional use, or not permitted and by adding Section 790.55 to define ALiquor Store@.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve resolution initiating text amendments and scheduling a public hearing on the recommendation of adoption to the Board of Supervisors for July 13, 2000

 

SPEAKER(S):†† None

ACTION:†††††††††† Approved

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis

MOTION NO.†††† 15083

 

15.††††††† 2000.316X†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (BEATTY: 558-6163)

554 MISSION STREET, north side of Mission Street between 1st and 2nd Streets, Lots 15, 17 and 18 of Assessorís Block 3708 -- Request for two exceptions under Planning Code Section 309: (1) separation of towers requirements as permitted in Planning Code Section 132.1(c)(1); and (2) on-site freight-loading service driveway requirements as permitted in Section 155(d).The project site is within the C-3-0 (Downtown, Office) District and 500-S (Lot 18) and 550-S (Lots 15 and 17) Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1,2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Lloyd Schloegle

- This construction is right next to Golden Gate University.There is no need for more office space.

- The construction of this building will interfere with the schoolís functions.

 

ACTION:†††††††††† Approved

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mill, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson


ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis

MOTION NO.†††† 15084

 

16.††††††† 1999.839C†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (LeBLANC: 558-6351)

700 JONES STREET, northeast corner at Post Street; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0298 --Request for Conditional Use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 6 panel antennas on the roof and base station equipment in the basement of a mixed use building in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined) District, and an 80-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Jenny Estes - Project Sponsor representing Sprint PCS

- This location complies with the Wireless Telecommunications Services Facility Sighting Guidelines and the SF Municipal Code.

- The building is commercial/residential in an RC-4 District therefore a preference 5.

- Sprint took extra care in finding an appropriate site and notifying the community and making an unintrusive design.

- There were community meetings held on January 28, 2000 and May 18, 2000.Sprint is required to notify residents within a 25-foot radius and they notified residents within a 300-foot radius.No one attended these meetings.

- The installation of the facility will be unobtrusive to public view.

 

ACTION:†††††††††† Approved

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis

MOTION NO.†††† 15085

 

17a.††††† 1999.414C†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)

325 FREMONT STREET,east side between Folsom Street and Harrison Street; Lots 12, 13 and 14 in Assessor's block 3747 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization per Planning Code Section 253 (building exceeding 40 feet in height in an R District) and Section 249(b)(1) (site coverage exceeding 80 percent) to allow construction of a new 21-story, 200-foot-tall residential building with not more than 54 dwelling units above four levels of parking (three levels below grade and one level at grade) with up to 54 spaces, within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined District, High Density) District and the Rincon Hill Special Use District, and a 200-R Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Steve Vettel - Gladstone and Vettel representing Project Sponsor

- This project is a joint venture between Doug Shaw, Mike Angady, and Jim Reiley of Angady and Reiley Contractors.

- There is a general consensus in the city that this is an appropriate location for high-density, high-rise housing.The Department is looking into even further upzoning of this area to make it easier to develop high-rise housing in this area.

- They are proposing that 10% or 12% of the units be below market value.


(+) Bob Baum - Lead Architect

- The building consists of 20 levels containing 51 apartments.

- The majority of the units are two story apartments with views of the Bay.

- There is an 1,800 square foot terrace which provides exceptional views of the Bay.

- The materials will be simple yet elegant.

(-) Lloyd Schloegle

- This appears to be improperly identified in the agenda.

- There is a large 4-story building across the street where there is a Pacific Bell facility.

- This appears to be an inopportune site for housing.

- This area should be preserved for industrial uses.

(+) Joe OíDonahue - Residential Builders

- This project has taken too long to come before the Commission.

- Projects like these should be approved because they provide funds for job training programs.

(-) Theo Brown - Owns a property at 355-375 Fremont

- The property line windows might be a problem for future projects.

- Under the new Rincon Hill Planning District, this project might be the only tower on the block.

 

ACTION:††††††††† Approved with condition that 10% of units be below market rate housing.

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††† Theoharis

MOTION NO.†† 15086

 

17b.††††† 1999.414V†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)

325 FREMONT STREET,east side between Folsom Street and Harrison Street; Lots 12, 13 and 14 in Assessor's block 3747 -The Zoning Administrator will conduct a joint hearing on a request for a front setback Variance per Section 249(c)(3) and an open space Variance per Section 249(c)(4)(B).

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):†† (same as those for item 17a)

ACTION:†††††††††† ZA Closed Public Hearing on variance and has taken the matter under advisement.

 

18.††††††† 2000.391C††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (CHIN: 575-6897)

4141 GEARY BOULEVARD, between 5th and 6th Avenues; Lots 002, 003, 004 in Assessor's Block 1539: --Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.6 and 712.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of six antennas and a base transceiver station on an existing four-story building, on Kaiserís French Campus, as part of Sprint's wireless telecommunications network in an RM-1/NC-3 (Low Density/Neighborhood Commercial-3) District and a 80-E Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKER(S):

Jenny Estes - Project Sponsor representing Sprint PCS

- This location meets the WTS Sighting Guidelines and the San Francisco Municipal Code.


- The Antennas will be flush mounted to become unobtrusive on both sides of the building.

 

ACTION:††††††††† Approved

AYES:†††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††† Theoharis

MOTION NO.†† 15087

 

G.†††††† SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

 

At Approximately 4:00 P.M. the Planning Commission Convened into a Special Discretionary Review (Dr) Hearing.

 

19.††††† 1999.543DD††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (WOODS: 558-6315)

338 - 12TH AVENUE, east side between Geary Boulevard and Clement Streets, Lot 33 in Assessorís Block 1443 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9901007S, proposing to add a new fourth floor, front, side, and rear additions to the existing single-unit building at the front of the property only in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as revised.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Stephen Williams - Representing DR Requestor

- The entire envelope is being altered.

- No part of the existing envelope will exist after the proposed project.

- In reality, this alternation is a demolition.

- An illegal demolition has already occurred at this site.

- The actual home at the proposed site used to be a Victorian cottage.It has now been rebuilt to a 3-story,3 apartment building complex.

- The lot now exceeds the density for legal units.

- There is a real fire danger because none of these permits went through Planning or the proper channels.There have been two fires at this property.

(-) Yew Mar - Second DR Requestor

- Lives next door to proposed site.

- Mr. Lam built an illegal window.

- Mr. Lam has already built 3 units.

- There is a real problem of parking in the neighborhood.

- He hopes the Commission doesnít approve this project.

(-) Helen Jue

- She is speaking on behalf of her husband and daughter.

- The proposed project is already too large.

- The building will block light and air to her property.

(-) Joanne Tinloy

- He can understand Mr. Lam wanting to expand his home since she has a family also.

- The proposed project has changed from a nice Victorian home with an in-law in the back to a 3 story building.


- Her parents who live near the proposed site, recently installed new windows in their kitchen to bring more light into their home.IF the proposed project is approved, this sunlight will be blocked.

(-) Mary Jue Loo

- She has lived with her parents until 1995.Her parents and Mr. Lam were friendsuntil Mr. Lam began building and demolishing on his property without consideration for the neighbors.

- Everything Mr. Lam has built is questionable.

(-) Loretia Yan

- She truly enjoys the light and sunshine in her home.

- The proposed 4-story building will definitely block the sunshine and light coming into her home.

(-) Kai Loo

- He grew up in San Francisco.

- He is a frequent visitor to the Yuís residence who live next door to Mr. Lamís house.

- Mr. Lamís proposal for a 4-story building will change all the light and air coming into the Yuís home.

- There has to be some regard to the quality of life.

- Read a letter from Mr. Sam Manthrop who is also a neighbor of Mr. Lam who expressed his concerns about light and air blockage to his home because of the proposed construction.

(-) Galvin Wong

- He would like Mr. Lam not to build such a large building.

(-) Art Louie

- Mr. Lam proposes to build 6 bathrooms and 2 furnaces.

- He would like the Commission to reduce the construction in scale.

(-) John Ngau - neighbor

- He has 3 concerns about the proposed construction:1) the project is already too large;2) parking is already a problem in the neighborhood; and 3) the project will cause a trend in the neighborhood when later someone else might want to build something similar in height.

(-) Jayne Loughry - neighbor

- Lives at 348 Funston Street - has lived there for the last 12 years.

- There is a strong neighborhood association where she lives.

- She is a gardener and many of the neighbors have front and back gardens.

- The proposed construction will cause less light in her garden.

(-) Bill McGuire - has lived in the Richmond District for 30 years.

- He has seen a lot of changes in the neighborhood.He belongs to Heritage, The Richmond Community Association and the Planning Association of the Richmond.

- He believes that laws should be followed.

(-) Jake McGoldrick - Richmond Community Association

- This project is too large and should not be allowed.

- If this project is allowed, it will make neighbors want to build as high.

(+) Alice Barkley - Representing Project Sponsor

- So far the Commissioners have heard a lot of allocations about what has happened in the past.

- If DBI required a permit for a demolition, the law would be abided and the permit would be applied for.

- The project sponsor wanted to live in the back in-law while the front was being remodeled.


- An encroachment that was talked about is a trim on top of the roof of the rear building.This has been removed.

- There is no way that the proposed construction will impact the neighbors home.

- The scale of the building when you look at the front facade--you are not going to be able to see the 4th floor.

(+) Doug Engmann

- Mr. Lam is a friend and has been his electrical contractor for many years.

- From the neighbors description, one would not want Mr. Lam to come to their home.

- There are no illegal units in the building.

- The issue before the Commission is the penthouse.

- Would like for project to be approved with the conditions imposed by staff.

(+) Nancy Pearlman

- She has lived on 12th Avenue for about 15 years.

- Mr. Lam has been a great neighbor for 15 years.

- Mr. Lam has always followed the rules and has requested permits when needed and has had inspectors come to his home.

(+) Nancy Lee Smith

- She met Mr. Lam when he was a bachelor and had recently purchased his home.He is now married and has a family.

- There is no better electrician than Mr. Lam

(+) Fai Wong

- He lives across the street from Mr. Lamís house.

- MR. Lam hasa lot of neighbors supporting him.

(+) Weldon Smith

- He would like to point out that the proposed houses will be a good addition to the neighborhood.

(+) David Lam

- Mr. Lamís proposed construction will make the neighborhood better in terms ofappearance, consistency in architecture and look.

- There are several large homes in the neighborhood.

 

ACTION:†††††††††† Public Hearing Closed.Continued to July 20, 2000 to give Staff time to review permit history.

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis

 

20.††††† 2000.238DDD†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††† (MEHRA: 558-6257)

117 PARKER AVENUE, west side between Euclid Avenue and Geary Boulevard, Lot 003 in Assessorís Block 1064 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA Nos. 9912789 & 9912791, proposing to demolish the existing single-family dwelling and the construction of a new two-story over garage two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit applications as revised.

 

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) K. Rose Hillson - DR Requestor - Lives at 115 Parket Street


- The Heritage Foundation sent the Commissioners correspondence regarding preservation of the proposed site.

- They bought their property because of the air and the ambiance of light coming into their home.

- If Mrs. Piambo let her cottage deteriorate, it is no excuse for demolition.

- The new building blocks light to my home.

- The roof line is not consistent with the surrounding structures.

- The garage door does not match the other homes either.

(-) Sylvia Melikian - DR Requestor - Lives at 503 Euclid Street

- She has spent 25 years in the institutional real estate market--investing pension plans for Cities, Counties, and States into commercial real estate.Her firm owns many of the building in the City.

- She has worked with many architects and is aware of the difference in aesthetics which can be applied.

- She would request a redesign of the proposed construction.

(-) Irene M. Lieberman

- She objects to having more cars in the neighborhood.

- Her senior citizen friends find it difficult to visit her since they have to park far away.

- Her light will be cut off.

- If this project goes through, there are other properties who might want to do the same.

(-) Sarah Jane Gould

- She lives right behind the proposed structure.

- There is a tree that separates the two homes and she is concerned about the future of the home.

- There will be increasing noise to the area.

- This structure is inconsistent with the design of the other homes.

(-) Steven Hilson - Lives at 115 Parket Street

- The developers know how to make it look as though they are compromising by asking for far more than they need and then scaling it down to something that is still unreasonable just so they can say they compromised.

- The project owner, originally submitted inaccurate documents.

- Most families have more than one vehicle.

- This project will impact the parking in the neighborhood.

(-) Stuart Whitman

- Submitted a letter from Charles Edwin Chase - Executive Director of the Architectural Heritage Group who is opposed to the project.

(-) Cliff Liehe - Lives at 144 Parket Avenue

- He has lived there for 23 years.

- He respects the owners of the proposed project.

- Parking is a major issue for him.

-This proposed construction will create more parking problems in the neighborhood.

- There are 3 multi-complexes in the neighborhood.

(-) Grover Wall - Lives at 81 Parket avenue

- He opposes the demolition of the present structure and the construction of a new structure.

- People take pride in the appearance of their homes.

- The owners of the building under consideration initially declared their interest with the neighbors yet in their final proposal they have abandoned this approach.


(-) Stephanie Wall

- Founding Director of JordanPark Association

- This is a single-family, unique neighborhood.

- Her main concern is that the building is completely out of character with the neighborhood.

- There is a trend in this neighborhood to destroy some of the neighborhood character.

- She collected 62 signatures of people who are opposed of this project.

- There are two articles--one from the San Francisco Chronicle and one from the San Francisco Independent about a meeting that was held about the buildings being built which are out of character with the neighborhood.

(-) Rosemary Patten

- She understands people wanting to build and expand their homes.

- The problem is the character of the particular design.

- Itís very easy to see that the particular design far exceeds the height of the houses on either side of the neighborhood.

(+) Yoel Yodowitz - Reuben & Alter

- There have been a lot of hyperbolae.

(+)Tony Pantaleoni

- The estimate of the renovation from the existing building was done by the contractor.

- There was a termite inspection and itwas discovered that the whole foundation would have to be replaced, the house had to be jacked up.

- The cost includes bringing the construction up to code.The bathrooms had dryrot.Bathroom needed to be upgraded.

- There are many houses in the neighborhood that are 3-story homes.

- The proposed house is the smallest on the block.

(+) Anna Marie Piombo - Lives at 31 Collins Street

- She has lived in Laurel Heights for 51 years.

- This property is in a trust for her 5 children.

- She would like to build a pair of flats to add value to the block.

- She has always been honest about the construction.

- She has attended 3 meetings with the neighbors and has reduced and revised the plans many times.

ACTION:†††††††††† Public hearing closed.*Will get the input from DBI to determine if the current structure requires demolition; staff will work with Mr. Pantalenoi to improve facade in order to make it more appropriate with the neighborhood.

*(Public testimony will be open only if a new design is required from the architect).†† Continued to July 27, 2000.

AYES:†††††††††††† Antenore, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††† Joe, Theoharis

 

21.††††† 2000.345D††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††††††††† (CHIN: 575-6897)

2823-2825 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, southeast side between Arguello Boulevard and Willard North, Lot 044 in Assessorís Block 1167 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9923086, proposing a 36'-2" rear addition at the first and second floors, and the installation of a new garage door in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.


Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Leona Storm

- Her property is adjacent to the proposed property.

- There is a problem with limited open space.

- The proposed construction will cause lack of sunlight to her property.

- One of the problems is that gradually the department is allowing for less sensitivity to small houses.

- There have been two additions to the proposed property already.

- She will lose privacy both in her back yard and two of the bay windows that face into this yard.

- They are increasing the number of bedrooms by 4.It is not unlikely for these rooms to be rented to students.

- Many of the properties around the neighborhood rent to students which means that each renter might have a car; therefore, making parking a bigger problem.

(+) Lisa Wong - Project Architect

- She has designed many residential projects.

- She believes that this is a very modest addition.

- The two story extension in the back is legal.They are only adding another 13 feet past that.

- The project is only two stories high.

- She tried to address all the concerns the neighbors had.

(+) David Lee - Co-owns the property with his father.

- His father lived in the home for many years.

- The house is too small for another live-in nurse to take care of his ailing father.

- When he gets married, he will need the space for his family.

 

ACTION:†††††††††† Take Discretionary Review and approve a two unit building with the following revision of conditions: 1) remove door that lead from garage to first story;2) expand bathroom downstairs; 3) put a notice of special restriction on the property;3) remove window in walk-in closet; and 4) glass on window over vanity in the master bath should be obscure.

AYES: Antenore, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Joe, Theoharis

 

22.††††† 1998.864D††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (BANALES: 558-6339)

690 - 4TH STREET, west side between Bluxome and Townsend Streets, Lots 8 and 9 in Assessorís Block 3786, Staff-Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9824087, proposing new construction of a mixed-used live/work and retail building, following demolition of existing structures on the subject property.The subject property is in an Industrial Protection Zone Buffer and a SSO (Service Secondary Office) District and 65-X Height and Bulk District. The project proposes demolition of two existing structures on the site and new construction of a mixed-use live/work and retail building.54 live/work units and approximately 14,600 square feet of ground floor retail space is proposed.††††

Preliminary recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit as submitted.

 


SPEAKER(S):

(-) Sue Hestor

- She strongly disputes this last minute interpretation.

- This project is 85,000 square feet of live/work in an SSO district.

- This parcel was designated as SSO

- The floor plan is ideally suited for office use since it has large spaces.

- This is an office site and it shouldnít be live/work.

(-)Jake McGoldrick

- If this is an office building, then it should be approved as an office building.

(-) Gary Moony

- This project is 2 a block from CalTrain as well as other sources of public transportation and environmental agencies.

(+) Don Shaw -

- When the owners came to him they wanted a building that was mixed used with retail on the ground level and live/work units above.They wanted the buildingto fit into the existing neighborhood --which consists of mostly renovated, industrial buildings built in the early 20th century.These buildings were usually either concrete frame or brick with industrial steel sash windows.

(+) Salish Mahendra

- He read a letter from the 601 4th Street Residents Association.

- They have had meetings regarding this project and they agree with the general concept of the project.

- They had some reservation regarding the aesthetics of the building.They felt that the developers and the architects had good intentions to try to make the building match the character of the neighborhood.

- They made some suggestions at the meetings and the owners have made a revised sketch of the building which meets the suggestions.

(+) Peter Meyer - Project Sponsor

- He lives one block down the street.

- The ownerís across the street have made a few suggestions but overall supports the construction.

- This is a very substantial, nice project.

 

ACTION:††††††††††††† Take Discretionary Review and approve project with the following recommendations: 1) take the volunteer donation of $100,000 offered by Jim Reuben on behalf of his client for transit impact fees (to be paid prior to the issuance of the permit); 2) do as Commissioner Chinchilla recommended and have a Notice of Special Restriction placed on this project that would put the world on notice that this has been authorized only as live/work and not as office; and 3) that any conversion to office use would require going through the office allocation process.

 

AYES:†††††††††††††††††††††††††† Antenore, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††††† Theoharis, Joe

 

Adjournment: 7:23 p.m.

 

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2000


Back to top

 

 

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chamber - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 15, 2000

1:30 P.M.

 

Regular Meeting

 

 

PRESENT:†††††††††††††††††† Mills, Antenore, Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††††††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT MILLS AT 1:35 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Hillary Gitelman; Kelley LeBlanc; Matthew Snyder; Isolde Wilson; Catherine Keylon; Allison Borden; Nora Priego, Transcribing Secretary; Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary.

 

A.†††††††† ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

1995.385E†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (KUGLER 558-5983)

444 DIVISADERO STREET, TOUCHLESS CAR WASH Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration on Assessorís Block 1216 - Lots 5, 17, 18, 19, located on the northeast corner of Oak and Divisadero Streets in the Western Addition.The proposed project would demolish two existing buildings at 1060-1062 and 1052 Oak Street and construct a new two-story mixed-use building with two dwelling units on the second floor and an auto detailing services and a parking space on the ground floor.There would be one level of underground parking with 13 spaces accessed by a commercial automobile elevator.The underground parking would be covered by landscaping.An additional two story structure would be constructed to serve as an employee lounge and storage area.Two shed roofed open sided structures would be constructed to connect the existing car wash structure and the two proposed structures.Minor modifications in the form of the addition of a covered waiting area and the enclosure of an existing laundry facilities wold be done to the existing car wash building.The car wash vehicular circulation and queuing area would be expanded and reconfigured.The proposed site is split between two zones; lots 5, 17, 18 and the portion of lot 19 that fronts on Oak Street are zoned NC-2 while the interior remainder of lot 19 is zoned RH-3.A rezoning of the interior portion of lot 19 from RH-3 to NC-2 is proposed as a part of the project.The project also has two Height/Bulk Districts 65-A and 40-X.


(Propose for Continuance to July 13, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):†† None

ACTION:†††††††††† Continued as Proposed

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Martin, Theoharis

 

B.†††††††† PUBLIC COMMENT

 

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items.With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception.When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar.Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.If it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President or chairperson may continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.

 

AThe Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment.In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1)responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2)requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3)directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.(Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

 

Fran Martin - Visitation Planning Alliance

- There is a Home Depot being proposed at the Schlage Lock site in a Visitation Valley residential area.

- The community would rather see a grocery store, a City College of San Francisco extension, a library, etc.

Linda McKay - Member of the Little Hollywood Association

- Their community is blocked by Executive Park, Schlage Lock, and the garbage company.There is not that much space left for constructing housing.

Paul Zingary - lives at 999 Tennessee Street

- The BOA overturned the Commissionís decision on the 993 Tennessee Street case.

- Very disappointed with the whole situation.

Stephen Williams

- The BOA overturned the decision the Commission made on 993 Tennessee Street.

- There were lots of mis-information the BOA had.

- The Commissionís recommendation was presented with very little detail.

- The BOA is out of control because the department and the city attorney are not doing their jobs.

- The BOA has an obligation to enforce the law, yet it is not being enforced.

Chris Cole

- He was also at the BOA hearing last evening.

- The BOA made decisions as if the Planning Commission didnít exist.

- Staff should pay more attention with subjective matters.

Mark Gordon -

- wasnít at all happy with the way Mr. Badiner represented the Commission.

Rob Anderson - Resident of Dog Patch


- Quite disappointed and shocked at what happened at the BOA meeting.

- Felt that the decision had been made even before they went up to express their points of view.

- What is the purpose of showing up at these hearings if theyíre not going to listen.

- The developer of 993 Tennessee Street has never worked with this neighborhood.

Sue Hestor -

- There was a promise that there would be a full report on people being displaced and that has not happened.

Patricia Vaughey

Luis Fernandez - Mission Economic Development Association

- They were tenants at the 2601 Mission Street Building (Bay View Building)

- About 6 months ago all the tenants received an eviction notice.Most of the tenants are non-profits.Some of the businesses moved to Oakland yet others will be going out of business because they cannot afford the high rents.

- The owner of the building decided to rent all the floors to a dot.com company.

- He is aware that if a tenant decides to use the entire floor of the building for just one company, a conditional use permit should be applied for and it hasnít.

- There are still some floors which havenít been occupied

Anastasia Yovinopolus - Board member of the Friends of Noe Valley

- She is upset because the Department did not advertise properly for a New Zoning Administrator.

Joe OíDonahue - Residential Builders

Alice Barkley

- She was at the BOA meeting.

- There is a major disagreement from the residents and their attorneys.

- She believes that the characterization of Mr. Badiner in the BOA is grossly misinterpreted.

Sh Koosji - Staff of Mission Economic Development Association

- Regarding the building at 2601 Mission Street - would like staff to enforce the Conditional Use permit.

- The neighborhood has come out overwhelmingly to help the people who are being evicted from this building.

 

C.††† COMMISSIONERSí QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

1.†††††††††† Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of 6/1/00.

 

ACTIONS:††††††† Approved with corrections.

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

2.†††††††††† Commission Matters

 

Commissioner Mills:

1) She would like to have Action Due dates on the Action List.

2) She would like a report on whether or not the Commission, under DR authority, can impose exactions such as affordable housing and transportation fees.

3) She would like a report on the 2601 Mission Street (Bay View Building) case.

Commissioner Antenore:

1) He believes that there are some items that havenít been reported to the Commission regarding the Action List.

2) The Commission is being ignored on certain items.


Commissioner Joe:

- She would also like to see a report on the American Can Company.

 

D.†††††† DIRECTORíS REPORT

 

3.†††††††††† Directorís Announcements.

- He would like to express significant confidence in Mr. Larry Badinerís work since he became ZA a month ago.

- It is unfair that he take the blame and be criticized by decisions made by the BOA.

 

4.†††††††††† Review of Past Weekís Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.

 

Larry Badiner

993 Tennessee Street

- This case was overturned by the BOA +4-0.They felt that it was a mixed neighborhood and that there were a variety of building types, building forms and building uses.

- He seeks guidance and welcomes any recommendations from the Commission on how to represent them.

768 El Camino - a Discretionary Review

- The BOA upheld the Commissionís decision +5-0.

535 Mission Street

- This item was withdrawn even before it went to the BOA because the project sponsor upheld the Commissionís decision.

2601 Mission Street

- The permits which have been examined at this time are for some base building issues.Most of them are relatively minor.

- There are no tenant improvements yet before staff.However, these tenants improvements would be making changes to the size of the space or converting uses.

- Staff will be doing a site visit in the near future.

Live/Work Status

There are a number of reports recently on conversion of live/work to offices.There have been 3 formal complaints from Ms. Sue Hester.Staff is looking into these.If they are reported, staff will investigate.If they are illegal, or if they require further permits or further environmental review, staff will pursue them.

The conditional use abatement Language

This was before the Transportation Committee and a concern was raised from the Restaurant Association.I, as Zoning Administrator, responded making minor recommendations and changes essentially saying that the conditional use abatement was not intended to extend the grounds for abatement but to clarify the procedure for abatement.Also, the Commission would be focusing on any abatement action on issues that were in their subject matter jurisdiction only.

 

E.†††††† REGULAR CALENDAR

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (GITELMAN)

5.†††††††† Resolution delegating to the Environmental Review Officer (ERO) responsibility for taking testimony at Draft EIR hearings on Hetch Hetchy Water Treatment Project.

 

SPEAKER(S):†††††††††††††† None

ACTION:†††††††††††††††††††††† Approved


AYES:††††††††††††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††††††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

RESOLUTION NO.:††††††† 15090

 

6.†††††††† 2000.147C††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (LeBLANC 558-6351)

400 McALLISTER STREET AKA 401 POLKSTREET, northwest corner at Polk Street; Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0766 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of six panel antennas and base station equipment on the roof of an existing building in a P (Public) District, the Civic Center Historic District and an 80-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2000)†††††††††††††††††††††††

 

SPEAKER(S):

Jennifer Estes - Representing Sprint PCS

- This site complies with the WTS Facility Sighting Guidelines as well as the San Francisco Municipal Code.

- This is a preference one location since it is a publicly used building.

- They have tried to make the site visually unintrusive.

Lloyd Schloegel

- This antenna system is likely to be disruptive to City Hall.

- This is unnecessary, therefore, should not be approved

 

ACTION:†††††††††† Approved with Conditions as Drafted

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

MOTION NO.†††† 15091

 

7.††††††† 1999.323C 2000.323C†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (LeBLANC: 558-6351)

545 POWELL STREET, Request for Conditional Use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 4 panel antennas on the existing rooftop penthouse of a building and base station equipment inside a new penthouse on the roof of the building in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

 

SPEAKER(S):†† None

ACTION:†††††††††† Continued Without Hearing to June 22, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

8.††††††† 2000.303C††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (M.SNYDER: 575-6891)

2548 - 24TH STREET- (The San Francisco General Hospital Parking Garage), the parcel bordered by 24th Street, San Bruno Avenue, 23rd Street, and Utah Street, Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 4213 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 234.2 to install three sectors of antennas (four antennas in each sector) on the roof of the elevator tower located at the 23rd Street and Utah Street corner of the garage, in a P (Public Use) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.††† As part of the proposal, a stealth screen would be installed to hide the proposed antennas from view and a base transceiver station would be installed within the garage.†††

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

 


SPEAKER(S):

Molly Kales - Representing Nextel Communications

- No comments - available for questions

Cathy Ramashadi - Resident of the Mission District for many years

- She realizes that these antennas send off microwave signals.

- The medical issues regarding these antennas should be dealt with before more are installed.

- The location where these antennas are proposed is near a school, near a bus stop, and most especially near San Francisco General Hospital.

Liz Kilian - She lives across the street from the garage

- She and her husband are against the installation of these antennas.

- The towers of the garage where these antennas are proposed already exceed the height limit.

- The residents of the neighborhood, especially the ones that live directly adjacent to the garage, already experience diminished light because of the height of the towers.

- Read a letter from Pat Howard who lives at†† 2635 23rd Street who is opposed to the installation of these antennas.

Anastasia Yovinopalus

- The antennas are ugly and the staff should plan better.

- She doesnít know what the tests show but these antennas are ugly and residents do not want them.

Joe Kilian - Lives near the proposed site

- Is it a fact that these antennas wont affect the sensitive monitoring equipment at SF General since it is a block from the emergency ward?

- How much is being paid for the installation of these antennas and where is the money going?

Keith Majar - lives near the proposed site.

- He would like more information on the health aspects of these antennas.

Patricia Katanio - Lives on Utah Street

- She is opposed to the installation of this antenna since it will have ill affects on her and the neighbors.

 

ACTION:†††††††††† Approved

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

MOTION NO.:††† 15092

 

9.††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 2000.216C †††††††††† (KIM: 558-6290)

510- 520 FREDERICK STREET, northwest corner at Frederick and Stanyan Streets; Lot 006 in Assessorís Block 1263 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow the installation of two panel antennas and an interior equipment shelter in the basement of an existing mixed-use building as part of a wireless telecommunication network, pursuant to Planning Code Section 710.83, in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 25, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):†† None

ACTION:†††††††††† Continued Without Hearing to July 27, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis, Martin


 

10.†††††††† 2000.209C††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (MILLER: 558-6344)

1470 PINE STREET, north side between Polk and Larkin Streets, Lot 7A in Assessorís Block 645 ‑‑Request for authorization of a CONDITIONAL USE for a FIBER‑OPTIC TELEVISION and TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLE EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION in an existing one‑story building, in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and an 80‑A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):†† None

ACTION:†††††††††† Continued Without Hearing to July 20, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

F.†† SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

At Approximately 3:00 P.M. the Planning Commission will convene into a Special Discretionary Review (Dr) Hearing.Procedures governing Special DR Hearings are as follow: DR Requestor(s) are provided with up to five(5) minutes for a presentation and those in support of the DR Requestor(s) are provided with up to three (3) minutes each.The Project Sponsor is then provided with up to five (5) minutes for a presentation and those in support of the Project are provided with up to three (3) minutes each.At the conclusion, each side (not each person) is provided with 2 minutes for a rebuttal.Those cases that are scheduled on this calendar prior to 3:00 PM, but have not been called or heard by 3:00 PM, could be continued to a later timeor date as determined by the Commission.

 

11.††††††† 1999.684D†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (WILSON: 558-6602)

129 RANDALL STREET, south side between Whitney and Chenery Streets, Lot 038 in Assessorís Block 6663 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9911578, proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a new two-unit building in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review, approve project.

Prior Action: Public comment was closed at the February 17, 2000 hearing.The Commission continued the item to allow further discussion between the project sponsor and neighbors.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 25, 2000).

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) John Rohosky - Project Architect

- He would like to request that the Commission not take DR and approve the project.

- This is not a monster home as it has been characterized and it is in character with the neighborhood.

- This project does not require a conditional use permit or a variance.

- There have been many changes from the original design (e.g. dropped the height to line with the adjacent buildings, etc.)

- Every effort has been made to respect Proposition M.

(-) Art Bender lives at 127 Randall Street

- It is true that there have been revisions made to the design.Yet, they would like more substance revision.

- In his view the house still looks like a monster home.


(-) Paul Curtis - lives at Fairmaunt Street

- A 4-story building is out of character in the entire neighborhood.

- The neighbors also have endorsements from the Upper Noe Valley Association, The Glen Park Association, The Noe Valley Democratic Club; District 8 Democratic Club.

(-) Andrea Wurland -

- At 158 Randall Street, there was proposal for a large building yet it stayed within the character of the neighborhood.

- This project is clearly deserving of further review and a redesign.

(-) Anastasia Yovinopalus

- This is a good opportunity for the Commission to set a precedent.Will the Commission decide to make buildings higher without considering the neighbors, the view, the character of the neighborhood, etc?

(-) Patricia Vaughey

- She believes that this project could be revised more since there is enough space in the back of the house for a deck instead of on the top floor.

(-) Paul Travis - Lives at 123 Randall Street

- There are other proposed projects on the same block.

- If the Commission approves the project, it will set a precedent and the other projects proposed on this block will want to build as high or higher.

(-) John Murary - Lives on Chenery Street

- His neighborhood has been in existence at least 110 years without 4-story buildings.

(-) Jeff Mounce - Lives on Church Street

- The neighborhood is not against the construction, they would just like to reach a compromise -- it needs to be smaller.

(-) Lory Stazacallis - Lives at 140 Randall Street

- She is not against having this building built.

- The developer has not lived at the proposed project, therefore, he has no sensitivity about the character of the building.

- She is opposed to the size and dimensions of this building.

(-) Mr. Axit - lives on Whitney Street

- He is aware of two buildings that were built across from this project about 15 years ago.

- Both houses were considerably small since at that time they were restricted.

(+) John OíReily -Project Sponsor

- He has many letters in support of this project.

- He has not ignored the requests of the neighbors.

(+) Joe Anzer - He owns Real Management Company of Noe Valley

- He has worked with the neighbors and with the architect.They have attended community meetings and every time there have been changes, the architect has come back with revised designs.

- San Francisco needs housing and new homes should be designed for the modern family.

(+) Jim Zack - neighbor

- He became involved in the project when the neighbors sent him an invitation to attend one of their community meetings.He wasnít very impressed with the tone the neighbors had against this project.

-This project is 100% code compliant.It doesnít require any variances or anything out of the ordinary.

- If anyone wants to build and develop their property they have the right as granted by the planning code.


- There is such a concern about the developers who come into the neighborhood.Cities need developers since if there were no developers there would be no housing.

 

ACTION:††††††††††††† 1st motion:Take Discretionary Review with the following changes: 1) set back 8 feet further on the 4th floor; 2) project sponsor to continue to work with staff on architectural detailing of the facade with specific reference to the skylight on the 3rd floor.

AYES:†††††††††††††††† Chinchilla, Richardson

NAYES:†††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe

ABSENT:†††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin, Mills

 

ACTION:††††††††††††† 2nd Motion: Take Discretionary Review with the following changes: 1) remove 4th floor 2) modifications of the front facade to fit into the character of the neighborhood.

AYES:†††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe

NAYES:†††††††††††††† Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin, Mills

 

ACTION:††††††††††††† 3rd Motion: Continue to July 27, 2000 until there is a full commission - Public Hearing will be closed.

AYES:†††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin, Mills

 

12.††††††† 2000.229D ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (WILSON: 558-6602)

1946 - 21ST AVENUE, east side between Ortega and Pacheco Streets, Lot 032 in Assessorís Block 2114 - Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 20000121665, proposing to add a third story to the existing two-story house in an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the buildingpermit application as submitted.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Lisa Fung

- A 3rd story addition would change the character of the neighborhood since most homes are 2 stories.

- The addition of the 3rd story would block view and light from the adjacent home.

- There are no good neighbor actions from the project sponsor.

- The 3rd story should be denied.

- The project goes against the neighborhood character.

- The planner stated that there were no opposing neighbors and that is not true.

(-) Shirley Grey

- She is speaking on behalf of her mother who lives next door to the proposed construction.

- The proposed construction will block sunlight to her motherís kitchen and breakfast room.

- Her motherís stairway will be right under the construction.It is not fair for neighbors to deal with the noise of the construction.

- She agrees to all of the statements from Ms. Fung.

- These homes are more like condos since they are very close.

(+) Wilson Ng - Project Architect


- He is representing Mr. and Mrs. Yap.

- He is proposing an addition of 2 bedrooms and 2 baths.

- The construction will be built in accordance with all codes.

- He had meetings with planning Staff and he addressed the 3rd story addition.

- There are other houses in the neighborhood which have 3rd story additions.

(+) Michael Yap - Project Sponsor

- He and his family (5 total) live in a 2 bedroom/1 bath home.They have lived in this house for 16 years.

- He and is wife wanted to move to another larger home.However, due to the housing shortage, houses are priced higher than what he and his family could afford, therefore, they decided to make an addition to his home.

- The first choice was to build below but that was not structurally possible, then there was the 2nd alternative to build behind the house but this was not feasible either because it would cast a shadow on the neighborís home and that would also take away from their daughters playing outside or weekend barbecues.So the only alternative was to build above.

- He talked to their neighbors about the proposed addition, they seemed indifferent or said no without giving any reasons.

 

ACTION:††††††††††††† Approved

AYES:†††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin, Mills

 

13.††††††† 2000.473D††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††† (KEYLON: 558-6613)

82-86 GARDEN STREET/ 2383-2389 & 2393-2399 POST STREET, southeast corner of Post and Broderick Streets, Lot 013 in Assessorís Block 1079 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA Nos. 2000/01/19/431, 2000/01/19/426 and 2000/01/19/433, proposing to subdivide a former gas station site into three code complying lots and construct a four-story, three-unit building on each of the three lots in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Celia Hamilton - DR Requestor - Lives at 345 Post Street

- She was very happy when Kaiser Permanente Hospital finished their construction on the addition of the hospital.

- Now there is a proposal for another construction.

- She and the neighbors agree that the noise involved in a construction is nerve wracking.

- She would like for construction to start not before 7:00 a.m. and no construction work on Saturdays.

(-) Sharyl Laibe - Lives at 2345 Post Street

- She has lived at this location since 1994.

- Three months after she moved into this apartment, construction began at the UCSF Medical Health Center.The construction lasted 2 years and the workers started at 6:00 am.After this construction was completed, Kaiser Permanente Hospital began construction of an addition.

- Because of the high rent on apartments, she cannot afford to move.

- She does not object to the construction, yet she does object of such an early construction start time.The project sponsors should be considered of the neighbors.


(-) Patricia Vaughey

- She has a suggestion: Construction time from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (Which means that they stop working at 6:00 p.m so construction workers can do their clean up and be out by 7:00 p.m.

(+) Alice Barkley - Representing Project Sponsor

- This is not a large project like UCSF or Kaiser.It will take about 9 months to complete.

- 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Monday to Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and no work on Sunday.

(+) Joe OíDonahue - Residential Buildings

- When you limit construction time, the cost goes up.

- He lived at 25 Garden Street many years ago and at that time the neighborhood wasnít very good so he is happy that the neighborhood is changing and improving.

- The reality is that we all live in a City and certain areas are more intense in regards to development therefore there will be noise.

 

ACTION:††††††††††††† Do not take DR but provide construction contact information and Building Department contact information to DR Requestor.Hours of construction will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday; and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays; no construction on Sundays.

AYES:†††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††††††† Theoharis, Mills, Martin

 

14.††††††† 2000.535D††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††† (KEYLON: 558-6613)

2129 GREENWICH STREET, south side between Webster and Fillmore Streets, Lot 052 in Assessorís Block 0516 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 200004187529, proposing to modify the originally approved building envelope, under Case No. 98.986V, of a four-story, three-unit building, resulting in a decrease of overall square footage of the project in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.

 

SPEAKER(S):††††† None

ACTION:††††††††††††† Withdrawn

AYES:†††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††††††† Theoharis, Mills, Martin

 

15.††††††† 2000.353DD††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (BORDEN: 558-6321)

541 & 547- 29TH STREET, south side between Noe and Castro Streets, Lot Nos. 038 and 037 in Assessor's Block 6630 -- Request for Discretionary Review on a proposal to demolish the vacant buildings existing at 541 and 547 29th Street and to construct two new 4-story, 2-unit residential buildings in an RH-2(Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: TakeDiscretionary Review and require that plans be revised per staff's recommendation.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Alan Kronsky - 1st DR Requestor - lives at 553 29th Street

- He would like modification of the design of the proposed project.


- He stood in front of the Commission a few years ago when he wanted to add rooms to his home.His case was approved because he took into consideration the opinion of his neighbors and the look of other homes in the neighborhood.

- The developers will come and do their construction and then leave.

- Sun and light will be blocked to his home and the design just does not fit with the neighborhood.

- There were many plans and schemes brought forward from the architect.Yet, every time there was a new scheme items were eliminated and others were added which made negotiations just stop.

(-) David Zovikian - 2nd DR Requestor - lives at 538 29th Street

- The design of this construction is completely out of character to the neighborhood.He doesnít oppose the construction or development of the neighborhood.

- He would like developer to eliminate the 5th floor penthouse and 12 foot setback into the rear.

- The developer has no interest in the neighborhood.As soon as this home is built, the developer will move on to the next project.

- He has lived in his home for 10 years and has no intention to move.

- Million dollar condos do not make a neighborhood.

(-) Jim Gordon - Lives next door of the property

- He approves of an RH-2 development that is in scale with the neighborhood.

- Many people in the neighborhood have built additions to their homes but nothing like the proposed project.

- The project is not in scale with the neighborhood.

- The guidelines state that if nothing helps then reduce the size of the building.

- The construction will block light, air, and views to the adjacent neighbors.

(-) Amy Gordon

- The developers didnít start negotiations until November and they broke off negotiations the second week of January.

- Their requirements have been the same since July and they have been very honest and very positive about these requirements.

- There have been many changes to the plans, even last minute changes, yet there is still no agreement.

(-) Rob Rufner - lives at 436 Day Street

- Their situation is different because they live in the back of the house.Their kitchen window will look at the back of the proposed house.Instead of a blue sky and pitched roof skyline, they will now be looking at a gigantic edifice.

(-) Howard Levit - Lives at 450 Day Street

- Have lived at this house for 23 years.

- During these years, he has witnessed many additions to homes that meet with the character of the neighborhood.

- The two houses proposed meet all the characteristics of a monster house.

(-) Anastasia Yopinopolus - Noe Tenants Association and Friends of Noe Valley

- Where are the fire exits?

- There are fire hazards to the proposed homes.

- Developers should size their projects down.

- This project needs a second look.

(-) Peg OíMalley - Lives at 567 29th Street

- She and her family have added to their home like many of the neighbors yet they have been respectful to the neighbors and the neighborhood.

- The proposed houses will bring incredible income to the developer when sold.

(-) Connie George - Lives 531 29th Street

- Her concerns are that the house is out of scale to the neighborhood.


- There will be loss of light to their neighborhood.

- There will be a loss to the green belt in the neighborhood.

(-) Robert Thomas - Lives at 546 29th Street

- There were other people who wanted to come to the hearing but werenít able to come.

- Would like for project to be reconsidered by the Planning Department.

(-) Dave Munks -President of the Noe Valley Democratic Club

- He is concerned with the issues of community.

- There is incredible anxiety going on in the neighborhood if this project is approved, more people will want to build without consulting the neighbors.

(-) Mark Tully - Lives at 610 29th Street

- He was shocked and aghast to see the demolition notice at the proposed site.

- All the neighbors have joined to demand a downsizing of this project.

(-) Mary Arguelles - Lives at Noe and Day Street

- This is a group of people that want to work together and prove that they can do that.Most people have either planned a project, been through a project and added on to their homes and it works and now they are all raising their families there.

(-) Vicky Rosen - President of Upper Noe Valley Neighbors

- This is about respect for people and where they live.Itís about preserving the environmental quality of where people live.

- She feels that itís really disrespectful for developers to not try and honestly work with people because the people are who will remain long after the developers have gone.

- It is very important to keep with Proposition M.

(-) Celeste West

- She recommends that plans be reworked to be compatible with neighborhood buildings.

- Please consider the earth and all the creatures.Do not allow for land to be exploited by massive floor plans.

- Please support humanityís deep need for buildings designed with love, imagination, playfulness and humor.

(-) Marilyn Heiss - Lives at 650 29th Street

- She and her family have lived there for 8 years.

- The housing market at the time they bought their home, wasnít as it is now and they had a choice of where to live.

- They are not against the development but developers should not be able to overwhelm everything around them.

(-) Paul Curtis -

- He came to the hearing to oppose 129 Randall Street.The proposed construction is a few blocks away from his home so it is still his neighborhood.

- The proposed home will make the neighborhood be out of character.

(-) Connie Fangled - Lives at 540 29th Street

- She has leukemia and stays at home a lot.The thought of going thorough the construction is overwhelming.

- Her tenant has threatened to move out because of the hardship the construction will cause.

(-) Rick Berman - Lives at 511 29th Street

- The name of his wife was listed as supporters of the project.The behavior of the developer in compiling a list of neighbors in support is deceptive.

- Adding buildings that tower over 29th Street is a disservice to them.


- Their experience with this developer is unwillingness to consider the intent of the Residential Design Guidelines.

(+) John Sanger - Sanger & Olson - Representing Project Sponsor


- There arenít any insertions in the communications to the Commissions with neighborhood support for this project.What was presented to the Commission was a survey of the neighborhood opinions.

- They took very seriously the staff comments and changes.Just yesterday they were able to provide a response to all the neighborís comments and staff recommendations.He realizes that staff hasnít been given enough time to analyze these changes, therefore, would be willing to propose a continuance.

- 6 schemes have been developed yet they havenít been able to satisfy all of the neighborís needs.

(+) Joe OíDonahue - Residential Builders

- This conflict is about the recent intrusion of AMonster Homes@.

- This is a very modest proposal.

- Cassidy Construction has never sold any of their buildings for rental.

(+) Shawn Gorman - Project Architect - Gary Gee Architects

- There were many schemes to try to meet the issues the neighbors brought up.

(+) James Ninemacker - one of the Project Sponsors†††††††††††††††††††††††† - There are other buildings that are larger with penthouses and lesser setbacks, only at certain angles can you see the penthouse.

 

ACTION:†††††††††† Continue project to June 22, 2000, with an intent to take Discretionary Review with the following recommendations:to allow the Project Sponsor and both DR requestors to review the most current floor plan scheme which involve: 1) the penthouse needs to be significantly reduced as in Scheme AE@ 2) the twelve foot rear extension is to be eliminated 3) Side deck on 541-29th Street eliminated 4) At547 29th , allow better access to the light well of adjacent property.

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis, Mills, Martin

 

16.††††††† 1999.767D††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† (JONES: 558-6477)

374 - 24TH AVENUE, east side between California and Clement Streets, Lot 023A in Assessor's Block 1410 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9900945, proposing to demolish the existing two-story, single family dwelling and construct a four-story, three-unit dwelling in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review, approve project.

 

SPEAKER(S):†††† None

ACTION: Continued Without Hearing to July 6, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††††† Theoharis, Mills, Martin

 

Adjournment:6:25 P.M.

 

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2000.

 

Back to top

 

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 22, 2000

1:30 PM

 

Regular Meeting

 

 

PRESENT:†††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:37P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning, Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator, Isolde Wilson, Kenneth Chin, Tony Kim, Joy Navarrete,Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary, Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary

 

A.††††††††† ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

1.††††††† 2000.211C †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (KEYLON: 558-6613)

570- 42ND AVENUE, east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 60 in Assessorís Block 1503- Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 209.1(g) to construct a four unit building on a 6,000 square foot lot in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to July 6, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):††††† None

ACTION:††††††††††††† Continued to July 6, 2000

AYES:†††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

2.††††††† 1999.827EC †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (GORDON: 558-6309)


160 HARRISON STREET, at the northeast corner of Main and Harrison Streets; Lot 8 in Assessor's Block 3745 --Request per Planning Code Section 304 for Conditional Use Authorization under the Planned Unit Development process: (1) for establishment of a utility use as defined by Planning Code Section 209.6(b), in a P District pursuant to Planning Code Section 234.2, (2) for an off-street parking exception of 51 spaces under Planning Code Section 151, where 76 off-street parking spaces are required, (3) for an exception to the minimum stall dimensions for approximately 14 off-street parking spaces per Planning Code Section 154(a), and (4) for an exception to minimum dimensions for 2 freight loading spaces per Planning Code Section 154(b). The property is in a P (Public) Zoning District, the Rincon Hill Special Use District - Residential Subdistrict and a 105-R Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to July 6, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):††††† None

ACTION:††††††††††††† Continued to July 6, 2000

AYES:†††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

3.††††††† 2000.266C†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (KIM: 558-6290)

720 MOSCOW STREET, west side between France and Italy Streets; Lot 024 in Assessorís Block 6338 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 234.2(a) of the Planning Code to install a total of two antennas and a base station on an existing Fire Station building as part of Sprintís wireless telecommunications network in a P (Public Use) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to July 6, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):†††† None

ACTION:†††††††††††† Continued to July 6, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

4.††††††† 2000.288E††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (DEUTSCH: 558-5965)

SEAWALL LOT 337 COMMUTER PARKING, Appeal of preliminary negative declaration for proposed expansion of use to permit daily general (commuter) parking in the parking lot on Port property east of Third Street serving Pacific Bell Park, containing about 1,814 spaces.The lot would be open on non-baseball game days from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.On afternoon game days, general parking would not be permitted.On weekday evening game days, general parking would be permitted with non-game attending parkers required to exit the lot by 5:00 p.m.General parking would be permitted on weekend non-game days.In addition, the types of temporary uses permitted on the parking lot would be expanded to be consistent with Section 985 of the Planning Code, including 60-day limits for exhibitions, festivals, Christmas tree and Halloween pumpkin lots, etc., and 1- to 5-year limits for temporary uses and structures incidental to construction of a building, rental or sales office incidental to a new development, etc.

These proposals, by China Basin Ballpark Company and Imperial Parking, Inc., would require approval by the Zoning Administrator, the San Francisco Port Commission, and the Port of San Francisco.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 8, 2000)

(Proposed for Continuance to July 6, 2000)


 

SPEAKER(S):††††† None

ACTION:††††††††††††† Continued to July 6, 2000

AYES:†††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

 

5a.††††† 1999.668BX††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (MILLER: 558-6344)

38-44 TEHAMASTREET (also known as 543 Howard Street), north side of Howard Street between First and Second Streets, Lot 111 in Assessorís Block 3736 -- Request for Determination of Compliance pursuant to Section 309 with respect to a proposal (1) torenovate the existing building interior, including remodeling the foyer, adding three elevators and adding two new stairwells; (2) construct a third and fourth level atop the building to a new height of 64 feet along Tehama Street; and (3) convert up to 49,950 square feet on the first, mezzanine, second, third and fourth floors of the building to office use.The entrance to the office space would be on Howard street.Approximately 26,100 square feet of existing industrial space in the basement and in the rear of the first floor and first floor mezzanine would remain.The entrance to the industrial space will be on Tehama Street.There is no parking on this site and none is proposed.The project lies within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office-Special Development District) and a 350-S Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 6, 2000 July 27, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):†††† None

ACTION:†††††††††††† Continued to July 27, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

5b.††††† 1999.668BX††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (MILLER: 558-6344)

38-44 TEHAMA STREET, (also known as 543 Howard Street), north side of Howard Street between First and Second Streets, Lot 111 in Assessorís Block 3736 -- Request under Planning Code Sections 320-322 (Office Development Limitation Program) to allow the creation of up to 49,950 square feet of office space in an existing industrially-occupied building of approximately 49,000 square feet proposed for expansion to approximately 73,000 square feet.Approximately 26,100 square feet of existing industrial space would remain in industrial use.The project lies within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office-Special Development District) and a 350-S Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 6, 2000 July 27, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):†††† None

ACTION:†††††††††††† Continued to July 27, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

6a.††††† 2000.063CV †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)


1638 KIRKWOOD AVENUE, north side between Phelps Street and Newhall Street; Lot 52 in Assessor's block 5279:††† Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow a residential care facility for seven or more persons per Planning Code Section 209.3(c).The applicant, Jelani House, Inc., already operates a transitional living program for up to 27 women at this location, with substance abuse treatment services provided off-site elsewhere in the neighborhood.The proposal would add substance abuse treatment services by State-licensed personnel on-site at this location, and would increase the allowed number of residents to a maximum of 39 (women and children).The live-in program would offer treatment and support for drug/alcohol dependent women and their children in a residential environment.Residents would live in the program for a period of 12 to 18 months.No building alterations are proposed.The property is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 13, 2000.)

 

SPEAKER(S):††††† None

ACTION:††††††††††††† Continued to July 13, 2000

AYES:†††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

6b.††††† 2000.063CV †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)

1638 KIRKWOOD AVENUE, north side between Phelps Street and Newhall Street; Lot 52 in Assessor's block 5279: The Zoning Administrator will conduct a joint hearing on a request for a Variance from the off-street parking spaces required for a proposed residential care facility with up to 39 residents.Planning Code Section 151 requires one off-street parking space for each 10 residents, where the number of residents exceeds nine.In this case, four off-street parking spaces would be required.There is no existing off-street parking at the property and none is proposed.The property is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 13, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):†††† None

ACTION:†††††††††††† Continued to July 13, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

7.††††††† 1999.738D ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (CHIN: 575-6897)

2131 DIVISADERO STREET, west side between Clay and Sacramento Streets, Lot 004 in Assessorís Block 1004 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9914768, proposing to raise a portion of the roof to match existing roof at the rear of a three-story, two dwelling unit building in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 20, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):†††† None

ACTION:†††††††††††† Continued to July 20, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

B.†††††† PUBLIC COMMENT


At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items.With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception.When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar.Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.If it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President or chairperson may continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.

 

AThe Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment.In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1)responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2)requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3)directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.(Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

 

Mrs. Angela S. Vista-Jaramillo - Lives at 5 Montecito Avenue

- She would like the Commission to approve her curb permit.

- 53 homes in her neighborhood have the same problem she has and they all have the same driveway.

Sue Hestor -

- Regarding the enforcement of illegal conversions in the case of Bay View Bank and American Can Company.

- Department staff made a site visit and they were treated poorly.

- She receives many calls from people being evicted illegally.

- Why hasnít there been an abatement proceeding for these two cases?

Ed Caceres - tenant at 2601 Mission Street (Bay View Building)

- It is unreasonable that nothing has been done on an abatement.

- There are 4 attorneys who do probono work for the Latin community and they are being kicked out of this building.

Beatrice Welch - Reporter for Tecolote Newspaper

- She has been put on the case of the organizations that have been evicted from 2601 Mission Street (Bay View Building).

- She has learned that Planning Commission is Arubber stamping@ the displacement of Latinos because thatís the thing to do to bring dot.coms into the community.

- She canít understand why the abatement proceedings are not going on.

 

C.†††††††† COMMISSIONERSí QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

8.††††††† Commission Matters

None

 

D.†††††††† DIRECTORíS REPORT

 

9.††††††† Directorís Announcements.

 

5 Montecito Avenue - Mrs. Jaramilloís request during Public Comment:

- Staff has spent many hours with the project sponsor.The conclusion is that the permit application before the department is not permitted under the provisions of the Planning Code.

- The project sponsor needs to alter the permit or seek a justifiable variance.

 


2601 Mission Street (Bay View Bank Building)

- A letter has been sent tot he Building Department that asks that all permits be suspended.At the same time, a letter has been sent to the property owner asking additional information.

-††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† - It is the opinion of the Planning Department that a Conditional Use Authorization may be required because of physical alterations that resulted in a greater use size than the Planning Code allows.

 

10.††††† Review of Past Weekís Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.

BOA

None

 

Finance Committee

- The Mayors office increased the budget slightly.

- The recommendation from the budget analyst to the board was to reduce: materials, supplies, fringe benefits, etc. which are normal recommendations.

- The Department requested a Transcriber/Typist position which the budget analyst wasnít too much in agreement with.This position is needed to meet the demands and increase in responsibilities resulting from Proposition G.Commission minutes are to be more detailed and they are to be provided in a much quicker turnaround.

-There are a number of public members who are willing to stand behind the department in terms of seeking additional funding for the Transit Oriented Studies that are being done, especially for the Balboa Park area.There is a good chance that there will be support since district elections are coming up.

 

11.††††† Staff report on whether or not the Commission has authority, under the Discretionary Review process to impose exactions such as affordable housing and transportation.

 

Gerald Green:

- Currently the Commission has the ability to require projects to mitigate certain impacts in the following ways: under the conditional use process, the Commission implements the inclusionary housing policies; under the affordable housing program, the Commission is able to provide an exaction from office development which goes to affordable housing fund, transit impact fee, child care and open space in certain districts.Currently, this is not imposed using the Discretionary Review process. Normally, the Commission has the responsibility of acknowledging that there is a direct relationship or nexus between the impact of a project and the condition which is imposed.The Commission does acknowledge that a certain project does create additional demands on housing, transit, etc.†† Ms. Boyagen of the City Attorneyís office will expand on this issue.

Judy Boyagen

- The general principal under Federal and State law, is to impose a monetary fee or other type of exaction that requires the showing that there is a connection between the impact of the project and the conditionsimposed to mitigate that impact.

- Under state law that is actually codified of the government code starting at Section 6600.It actually sets forth a nexus requirement and accounting reporting requirements.

- The funds have to be segregated, accounted for, reported to the people that contributed and a return of the money if it is not used for the purpose it was collected.


- There is no major legal difference between a fee and exactions through legislation or through the Commissionís discretionary powers..†† It is still the same requirements.Through legislation, you have the opportunity to do the study which will demonstrate the nexus and set the appropriate fee.

- Under state and federal laws the fee of the impact has to be proportional to the impact.

- It is difficult for the Commission to do this on a case by case basis.

- The Commission does have the authority to impose compliance with future legislation (Russ vs. San Francisco).

- In Conclusion, I [Judy Boyagen] believe that legislation is preferred but if the Commission complied with all the legal requirements, it can be done under the Discretionary Review power.

Gerald Green:

- There have been some projects where there has been a nexus study.

- There is a nexus study being prepared for the expansion of the transit impact fees beyond the C-3 districts.It will be available to the Commissioners in the near future.

- The Commission does have a right to put a Aplace holder@ condition on certain projects.It should be determined before what kind of projects and at what scale these projects should have conditions.

- Another option would be for the Commission to develop a policy in which conditions on a general basis would be imposed from a project where the relationship of the impact would require it.

- Staff is preparing a nexus study to allow for the expansion of the transit impact fees beyond the C-3 Districts which will be availabe in the near future.

- In July, staff will begin to brief the Commissioners on the appropriate steps to taketo address the interim controls that have set up the industrial protection zones.

Sue Hestor:

- One of the things that is missing from this issue is the role of environmental documents.

- Before these fees were imposed on projects, environmental documents played a key role in determining the impact on housing and transit.This eventually set the basis for the implementation of these fees.

- The Commission has more responsibility now.The Commission has to demand that the EIRís generate adequate information.

Joe OíDonahue - Residential Builders

- There is a housing crisis right now on housing and live/work.

- Live/work is functional zoning

- Privatizing MUNI would make the department more efficient.

- They proposed to the Board Of Supervisors on EIRs--that they include socioeconomic impact analyses as part of the reports.

John Bovis

- There seems to be a need to expand the authority of the Commission and try to exact some penalty from projects.He suggests that the Commission come up with clear legislation that describes the authority the Commission would like to have.

- It is a good idea to write good environmental impact reports, therefore, there is a good basis from which to proceed.

Joe Cassidy - Residential Builders

- They have never sued anybody.

- They do not advocate or threaten Lawsuits.

 


ACTION:Continued to July 20, 2000 - for further discussion which would allow the additional contribution of absent Commissioners and could ultimately lead to an action by the Commission.A resolution should be drafted which sets forth the Commissioners reasons for considering this policy and what the actual policy will be.

This item will be calendared under Directorís Report.MEA Staff to be invited.

 

E.†††††††† CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

 

12.††††† 2000.353DD†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (BORDEN: 558-6321)

541 & 547- 29TH STREET, south side between Noe and Castro Streets, Lot Nos. 038 and 037 in Assessor's Block 6630 -- Request for Discretionary Review on a proposal to demolish the vacant buildings existing at 541 and 547 29th Street and to construct two new 4-story, 2-unit residential buildings in an RH-2(Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: TakeDiscretionary Review and require that plans be revised per staff's recommendation.

Note: On June 15, 2000, following public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to take Discretionary Review and approve with staff recommendations by a vote of +4 -0.The recommendations are to allow the Project Sponsor and both DR requestors to review the most current floor plan scheme which involve: 1) the penthouse needs to be significantly reduced as in Scheme AE@ 2) the twelve foot rear extension is to be eliminated 3) Side deck on 541-29th Street eliminated 4) At547 29th , allow better access to the light well of adjacent property.Commissioners Martin, Mills and Theoharis were absent.

 

SPEAKER(S):†† None

ACTION:†††††††††† 1st Motion:Approve

AYES:††††††††††††† Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

NAYES:††††††††††† Antenore, Joe

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

SPEAKER(S):†† None

ACTION:†††††††††† Continue to July 6, 2000.Absent commissioners to review hearing tapes from 6/15 and 6/22, prior to final action.

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

F.†††††††† REGULAR CALENDAR

13.††††† 1999.310E††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (NAVARRETE: 558-5975)

322-6TH STREET, Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration - Assessorís Block 3754 Lot 3.The proposal is to demolish one existing industrial/commercial warehouse building on the site and construct one building containing 15 live/work units and 15 off-street parking spaces within a 3-story structure (including mezzanine approximately 50 feet in height.The project site is located in a Service/Light Industrial/Residential (SLR) Mixed Use District, within a 50-X height/bulk district.The proposed project site is within a Mixed Use Housing Buffer area, adopted by the Planning Commission as in interim zoning control.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):††††† None

ACTION:††††††††††††† Appeal withdrawn

 

14.††††† 2000.399C††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (KIM: 558-6290)


2001 - 37TH AVENUE, (A.K.A. 2750 Rivera Street), northwest corner at 37th Avenue between Ortega and Quintara Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 2094 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.6(b) of the Planning Code to install a total of 16 antennas and an equipment cabinet on the existing three-story Saint Ignatius Preparatory School building as part of a wireless telecommunications network in an RH-1(Residential House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

Robert McCarthy - McCarthy and Swartz representing Metricom

- The proposal is to install antennas at Saint Ignatius High School.In the past there have been successful installations of antennas for Cellular One.

- The installation has been endorsed by the school.

- Informational meetings were held with the Board of Regents.

- The proposed antennas will allow for students to go into the wireless technology.

- At the community meeting, there were 3 people who expressed health concerns.

Galinda Wong - lives on 37th Avenue

- She lives near Saint Ignatius High School.

- She is opposed to the installation of these antennas because she is concerned about the health affects these antennas will have with the students and the residents living near the school.

 

ACTION:††††††††††††† Approved

AYES:†††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:†††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

MOTION NO.††††††† 15093

 

15.††††† 1999.893C †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (M. SNYDER:575-6891)

114 7TH STREET, southwest corner of 7th and Mission Streets, Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 3727, commonly known as Hotel Britton - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 816.73 and 227(h) to install two panel antennas at the base of the roof's flagpole approximately 66.5-feet above grade, and to install a base transceiver station on the property, in an SLR District and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.†† The installation of the antennas and related equipment would be part of a wireless communication network operated by Sprint PCS.

Preliminary Recommendation:Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 25, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):

Jennifer Estes - Represents Sprint PCS

- The petition complies with the WTS Facility Guidelines and the San Francisco Municipal Code

- The antennas will not be visible from the street.

- The equipment will be in the basement.

 

ACTION:†††††††††† Approved

AYES:††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT: Theoharis, Martin

MOTION NO.††††† 15094

 

16.††††† 2000.427C †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (CHIN: 575-6897)


2201 VAN NESS AVENUE, northeast corner at Broadway; Lot 007, in Assessor's Block 570: --Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.6 of the Planning Code to install a total of three antennas and a base transceiver station on an existing four-story building (Broadway Manor Motel) as part of Sprintís wireless telecommunications network in an RC-3 (Residential Commercial, Medium Density) District and a 80-A/80-D Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKER(S):†††† None

ACTION:†††††††††††† Without hearing, continued to September 14, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT: Theoharis, Martin

 

17.††††† 2000.323C †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (LeBLANC:558‑6351)

†† ††††††††††† 545 POWELL STREET,southwest corner at Bush Street; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 0284 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 4 panel antennas on 2 sides of the existing rooftop penthouse, and base station equipment on the roof of the penthouse in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

 

SPEAKER(S):†† None

ACTION:†††††††††† Without hearing, continued to August 3, 2000

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

G.†††††††† SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

At Approximately 3:30 P.M. the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (Dr) Hearing.

 

18.†††††††† 2000.431DD††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††† (LeBLANC: 558-6351)

1329-31 VALLEJO STREET, southwest side between Larkin and Hyde Streets, Lot 030 in Assessor's Block 0153 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9922926, proposing to construct a partial fourth-floor addition and rear decks at the 2nd and 3rd floors.The addition would be setback 15'-8" from the front of the existing building in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with one modification.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Heather Donovan - 1st DR Requestor

- Her neighborhood has an appearance of a small neighborhood.

- The architect never came forward to show the design of the construction.

- The proposed construction will affect the sunlight coming into her home.

(-) Noreen Lum - 2nd DR Requestor

- She is here on behalf of her parents who live near the proposed construction.

- She would like the sponsor to move the penthouse north of their light well where it will reduce the impact on the sunlight coming into the light well.

- The penthouse is located right in the middle of the building, where the light well is.


- She went to the PG&E Energy Center to get a light study.This is a study of the sun and shading patterns.It can show how the sun will shadow for a particular time of the day during the year.

- She showed pictures of the impact the addition would have on sunlight being blocked onto their light well.

(+) Corey Reed - Project Sponsor

- This is not an exceptional case.There is no significant harm to the neighborhood nor is it out of character to the neighborhood.

- The issues the neighbors seem to have is the sunlight being blocked.

- There is no impact on anyoneís view.

- In respect to the character of the neighborhood--there are several buildings that are different in shape, size and look.

- There are a couple of improvement projects proposed on this street.

- The size of the immediate neighborís light well is quite large.

- The structural engineer has determined that the design of the addition could not be revised.

(+) Michael Reed - Project Sponsor

- The proposed addition is within the Zoning Requirements of 40 feet.

- The impact on the Lumís is minimal.

- There are numerous buildings in the area that are already 4 stories.

- They were approved by the Planning Department once already.

(+) Rodrigo Santos - Structural Engineer for the Project

- Their primary concern was for safety to the owners and their neighbors so the owners asked for a full seismic analysis of the structure.

 

ACTION:†††††††††††† Approved

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

19.†††††††† 2000.457D††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††††††††† (CHIN: 575-6897)

431 - 35TH AVENUE, west side between Geary Boulevard and Clement Street, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 1467 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA Nos. 20000108558S/ 20000107526, proposing to demolish the existing single-family dwelling and construct a new two-family dwelling in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 8, 2000)

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Akiko Yamagishi - DR Requestor

- She and her husband didnít approve of the first design

- She would like to have the 4th floor removed since her sunlight will be blocked and her privacy will be invaded.

- Her husbandís hobby is gardening which requires a lot of sunlight.

- 423 and 439 35th Avenue - They both had a proposal to build a 4th floor and both were denied by the Commission.

(-) Richard Jow

- Lives south of the subject property.


- Although this is in an RH-2 District, there are 8 single-family uses.Single- family uses are smaller in scale.

- The neighbors feel that the 4th story that is proposed is out of scale and out of character to the neighborhood.

- They would only like to have the building scaled down since they are not against the addition.

(-) Dennis Kelly - Lives on Geary Boulevard

- There are no 4 story buildings in the neighborhood.

- 3 stories seem to fit into the neighborhood.

- The construction will do damage to the neighbors and the neighborhood.

(-) Ed Christoph - lives at 36th Avenue

- His backyard meets the yard of the proposed construction.This construction will block their light as well.

(-) Jay Talkoff - lives at 419 35th Avenue

- 423 35th Avenue - the decision before the Planning Commission was held on 1998.It currently has a stop work order.

- He does not oppose Mr. McGrath building his home.But if you look at the overall scope and scale, it stands beyond what the neighborhood can sustain at this point.

- Would like Commission to sustain the feel of the neighborhood and not approve a 4th story addition.

(+) John Sanger - Sanger and Olson

- He is representing the project sponsor.

- The sponsor is very sympathetic of the DR requestor.

- The project sponsorís home is the shortest house on the block.

- The project sponsor and the project architect have accommodated all the requirements and the design guidelines, therefore, seeks approval.

(+) Joe OíDonahue - Residential Builders

- The Yamagishiís house it is a single family, 2-stories over garage structure.

- The Yamagishiís house is larger than the proposed 2 unit buildings.

- This is a 2 unit area and RH-2 District.

(+) Michael Hickey

- He has seen the quality of work Mr. McGrawth brings into his buildings.

 

ACTION:†††††††††† No Discretionary Review.Approved as proposed

AYES:††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

20.†††††††† 98.600D(M.SNYDER): 558-6891)

391 PENNSYLVANNIA, northeast corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 19th Street, Lot 18 in Assessor's Block 4040 -- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9810040, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition to an existing one-story-over-basement single-family house in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit as submitted.

SPEAKER(S):†††† None

ACTION:†††††††††††† Withdrawn by DR Requestor

 


21.††††† 2000.135D†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (PURVIS: 558-6354)

1000-16TH STREET & 1400-7TH STREET, all lots within the blocks bounded by 16th Street, 7th Street and Hubble Street, including Lots 1, 2, and 3 in Assessor's Block 3833 and Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 3834 -- Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application Nos. 20000508-9360, -9370, -9376, -9383, -9391, -9395, 20000510-9607, and 20000518-0401, proposing to demolish a complex of nine industrial buildings, formerly part of The Glidden Company paint manufacturing facility, and vacant since 1996.The site is within the M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and is within the Industrial Protection Zone where demolition of industrial buildings is subject to Discretionary Review.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Joan Holden - Coalition for Jobs, Arts and Housing

- Would like to know how the Commission will ensure that this site will remain strictly industrial.

- This site is very suitable for industrial use.

- She would like Commission to ask more questions about what will be the future of this site.

(+) Ralf Kerstetter - Attorney for the Glidden Company

- The property has been used as a paint facility for about 70 years.

- The property is in need of environmental remediation.

- Environmental consultants have been hired to look at the site and are already working with the Department of Public Health.

- It is necessary for these buildings to be removed in order to do the environmental remediation.

- There have been intruders starting fires on the property.

- Fire, Police and Building Department have asked to have this building demolished.

- They donít have any idea of what will be the replacement project.

- The property has become a safety and health hazard to the area.

(+) Eric Scone - Dames and Moore

- The Glidden Company would like to clean up the site from the contamination they caused so that they mitigate their future liability with the property.

- There are various contaminants at the site due to other factors.

- The Glidden Company will only clean up contaminants they caused.

 

ACTION:†††††††††††† Approved

AYES:††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

22.††††††† 1999.310D ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (PURVIS: 558-6354)

322 - 6TH STREET, west side between Howard and Folsom Streets, Lot 3 in Assessor's Block 3754 -- Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 9907717 and Building Permit Application No. 9907715, proposing to demolish a two-story industrial building, (the former location of both Hansan Carpet & Blinds and Advanced Courier), and to construct a 15-unit live/work project.The project site is within the SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and within the Mixed-Use Housing Buffer Zone where all live/work proposals filed before April 22, 1999 require Discretionary Review.


Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review.

 

SPEAKER(S):††††

(-) Sue Hestor -

- 575 Harrison Street; 580 Howard Street; 1001 Mariposa Street; 208 Pennsylvania Street; 1488 Harrison Street; 1209 Indiana Street - These projects were authorized as Live/work projects but are becoming dot.com projects.

- If this project is proposed for live/work, then conditions should be placed on this project for it to remain live/work.

(+) John Sanger - Sanger and Olson - Representing David OíKeaffe

- The project sponsor is spending a lot of money to sound proof the walls because of the night club nearby.

- The appeal of the negative declaration by the nightclub owner was withdrawn earlier today and taken off the calendar.

(+) Joe OíDonahue - Residential Builders

- Last year, there was an issue that live/work projects would drive out projects in the South of Market.Now the jobs are coming in and itís disrupting the South of Market.

- A builder could construct dot.coms cheaper than live/work projects.

 

ACTION:†††††††††††† Approved

AYES:††††††††††††††† Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT:††††††††††† Theoharis, Martin

 

Adjournment: 5:18 p.m.

 

 

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, July 6, 2000.

 

Back to top

Return to the Planning Department's Home Page. Click here.


San Francisco City and County Links