To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us

February 13, 2003

February 13, 2003

 

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION



SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Tuesday, February 13, 2003
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:          Shelley Bradford Bell, Michael J. Antonini; Rev. Edgar E. Boyd,
Lisa Feldstein, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:          None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:30 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green – Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Susan Cleveland-Knowles, Deputy City Attorney; Costolino Hogan; Diane Lim; Tammy Chan; Ben Fu; Glenn Cabreros; Tina Tam; Dario Jones; Matt Snyder; Sara Vellve; Dan Sider; Nora Priego – Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

A.          CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

1.          2002.1258E          (T. CHAN: (415) 558-5982)
STONESTOWN VILLAGE PROJECT - 3251 20TH AVENUE - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report: The project site is located on the south side of Eucalyptus Drive, immediately west and northwest of the Stonestown Galleria shopping center. The proposal includes a mixed-use development comprising approximately 366,800 gross square feet (gsf) on approximately 13.7 acres primarily used as surface parking for the shopping center. The proposed development includes both residential and neighborhood-serving retail components. The residential component includes three five-story, 50-foot-tall apartment buildings, approximately 96,250 gsf, 71,400 gsf, and 62,350 gsf, respectively, with 202 subsurface parking spaces; and a two- to three-story, approximately 30-foot-tall senior care facility, totaling approximately 70,300 gsf, with 17 parking spaces. The proposed retail component includes development of a 27-foot-tall, 41,600-gsf grocery market, and construction of neighborhood-serving retail spaces totaling approximately 24,900 gsf. The project would include construction of two parking garages and reconfiguration of two surface parking lots that would contain about 1,684 total commercial parking spaces to replace 1,500 existing commercial spaces displaced by the proposed project construction, and provide 184 net new parking spaces to serve the proposed retail uses. The proposed project would also incorporate landscaping features, such as streetscape connections, landscaped walkways, interior courtyards, and open space. To implement this project, the proposed project would require a Conditional Use authorization (CU) to amend the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) to modify allowable residential density for the apartment community and potentially modify rear yard setback requirements for both residential components. In addition, an amendment of the Zoning Map would be needed to change the height district from 40 feet to 50 feet. The 13.7-acre project site is located in the Lakeshore neighborhood within Assessor's Block 7295 and includes portions of Lots 21, 22, and 23. The site is primarily within a C-2 (Commercial Business) zoning district, and portions are within a 40-X and 65-D height and bulk districts.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Receive Comments. No Action Required.
                    Note: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., on March 3, 2003.
                    (Proposed for Continuance to February 27, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):          
Re: Continuance
Karen Niglio – Merced Manor
- She would like to have the Public Hearing on March 6 and the Public Comment end on March 13, 2003.
- The continued date has been moved around many times.
- There are 19 neighborhood associations who will be affected by the continued date.

ACTION:          Continued to February 27, 2003
AYES:          Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee
RECUSED:          Antonini

          2.          2002.0575C          (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
THE PG&E TRANSFORMER STATION - located on south side of the 3400 Block of 19th Street, the parcel bounded by 19th Street on the parcel's north, San Carlos Street on the east, and Lexington Street on the west, Lot 104 in Assessor's Block 3596 – Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 209.6(b) to install a total of 6 panel antennas, and associated equipment cabinets, as part of a wireless transmission network operated by AT&T Wireless. The site is within an RH-3 (House, Three-family) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. Pursuant to the WTS Facilities Guidelines, the project is a Preference 1 Location Site, a public utility structure.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
                    (Proposed for Continuance to February 27, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to February 27, 2003
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee

          3.          2002.1117C          (B. FU (415) 558-6613)
                    245 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - northeast corner of South Van Ness Ave. and Erie Street, Lot 040, Assessor's Block 3530 – Request for Conditional Use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 12 panel antennas and related equipment at an existing three-story commercial structure as a part of Verizon's wireless telecommunications network within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and subject to the Mission District Interim Controls.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
                    (Proposed for Continuance to March 27, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to March 27, 2003
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee

          4.                    (D.ALUMBAUGH/J.BILLOVITS: (415) 558-6601/(415) 558-6390)
MARKET AND OCTAVIA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT - BRIEFING AND PUBLIC COMMENT - Staff presentation and community comments on the public review draft of the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan, distributed on December 17th 2002 as part of the Department’s Better Neighborhoods Program - comment gathering only; no approval actions. Information available at www.betterneighborhoods.org.
                    (Proposed for Continuance to March 13, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to March 13, 2003
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee

          5a.          2002.0963DV          (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)
1411 NOE STREET - east side between 27th and Duncan Streets; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 6593 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.08.01.2923 to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and replace it with a new single-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 Application as submitted.
                    NOTE: On December 19, 2002, before losing a quorum, the Commission continued this matter to February 13, 2003.
                    (Proposed for Continuance to February 20, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to February 20, 2003
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee

          5b.          2002.0963DV           (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)
1411 NOE STREET- east side between 27th and Duncan Streets; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 6593 - Front Setback and Rear Yard Variances Sought – Planning Code Section 132 (a) requires a front setback of 2 feet 7 inches and Section 136(c)(25)(A) requires a minimum rear yard of 15 feet for the subject lot. The proposed new single-family dwelling would encroach 7 inches into the required front setback and would encroach 9 feet into the required rear yard, extending to within 6 feet of the rear property line in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
                    NOTE: On December 19, 2002, before losing a quorum, the Commission continued this matter to February 13, 2003.
                    (Proposed for Continuance to February 20, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to February 20, 2003
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee

B.          COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

          6.          Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of January 16, 2003.
SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to February 20, 2003
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee

          7.          Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Antonini:
- He is glad to know that the Fourth and Freelon Project design will allow various units at various price levels to make it affordable to the neighborhood.

- It is wise for those who have projects to contact the commissioners in advance to discuss upcoming projects.

- He invites the public who either live, own businesses or who had businesses in the Eastern Neighborhoods to come to the hearing on this issue which will be held on March 3, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers.

Commissioner Feldstein:
- She requested the amendments made by the Board of Supervisors to the Fourth and Freelon Project.

Commissioner William Lee:
- He requested an estimate from staff on how much it would cost to implement the Budget Analyst's recommendations for the audit.

C.          DIRECTOR'S REPORT

          8.          Director's Announcements

1) He welcomed back the commissioners who were not present last week.

2) March 3, 2003 will be the special hearing on the Eastern Neighborhoods. This will not be an action item, just an informational presentation and to listen to public testimony.
The start time for this hearing will be 4:00 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors chambers.

9.          Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS:
Re: Fourth and Freelon
The Board of Supervisors, acting as a Committee of the Whole, unanimously voted on a +10-0 voted to approve the legislation creating the Fourth and Freelon Special Use District with some minor technical amendments. This legislation will be considered for a 2nd reading this coming Tuesday, February 18 at which time it will proceed to the Mayor's desk for his signature. The legislation is only enabling legislation, which would create the appropriate zoning to allow the project itself to proceed through the permitting process. The next step will be for the project sponsor to submit his building permit and Conditional Use applications to the Department, which this Commission will eventually consider.

Re: Special Rules Committee Meeting on Monday, February 10, 2003
This was a hearing to consider Supervisor McGoldrick's resolution creating an 11-member Planning Audit Implementation Advisory Group. As he reported last week, this Advisory Group was proposed in response to a management audit of the Planning Department that was conducted last year by the Budget Analyst. While the Department agrees with the spirit and intent of the resolution in that the Department is committed to the implementation of the recommendations of the audit, staff did not agree that this would be best carried out by the formation of yet a new deliberative body that would expend additional staff resources. After some debate, the members of the Rules Committee agreed that the matter might best be handled by this current Planning Commission or by a special Audits Committee of the Board. The resolution was continued at the call of the chair.

Re: Land Use Committee Meeting – Monday, February 24, 2003 – 1:00 p.m.
1) JFK Drive Saturday Closure – The Planning Department published a Negative Declaration on November 30, 2002. The appeal deadline was December 20, 2002. There were no appeals filed. The Final Negative Declaration was adopted on January 6, 2003.

2) The Committee will consider making the cottages at 1338 Filbert Street a landmark. The Landmarks Board considered this matter last year, and the Planning Commission voted to not recommend making the cottages a landmark. The Land Use Committee will still consider this matter on February 24, 2003.

BOA - None

D.          PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

          At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          This section not applicable anymore because item 10a. Conditional Use application has been withdrawn.

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

          10a.          2002.1048CV            (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)
                    53-55 ELIZABETH STREET - south side between Guerrero Street and San Jose Avenue; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 3645 – Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Board of Supervisor's Resolution No. 500-02 (Mission District Interim Controls), to merge two dwelling units; within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval.
NOTE: On February 6, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to February 13, 2003, to allow the absent Commissioners to participate by a vote of +4 –0. Commissioners Feldstein, Sue Lee, and William Lee were absent.

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Conditional Use Application has been withdrawn.

          10b.          2002.1048CV            (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)
53-55 ELIZABETH STREET - south side between Guerrero Street and San Jose Avenue; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 3645 – Request for a Rear Yard Variance to construct a deck and stairs within the rear yard of the subject property, within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation.
Zoning Administrator continued the matter to February 13, 2003. Public Hearing closed.

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Zoning Administrator granted the Variance




F.          REGULAR CALENDAR

          11.                      (C. HOGAN: (415) 558-6610)
                    PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR FY 2003-2004 – Presentation of the San Francisco Planning Department Work Program and Budget, and consideration of approval of a draft resolution adopting the Planning Department's proposed work program and budget for fiscal year 2003-2004.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Lois Scott
- She is here representing the Planner's Chapter of Professional and Technical Engineers – Local 21
- She complemented this Commission on their thoughtful comments and advocacy on this subject.
- She presented to the Commission a letter with suggestions, which actually almost reflects the suggestions the Commissioners have just mentioned.
- She would like more correspondence between the Controller and the Mayor.
- Long range planning should be presented in a five-year approach.
- She requested that the public hearing be extended.
(+) John Elberling
- About Discretionary Reviews, he would like the Commission to look at alternatives.
- If there are abuses to the Discretionary Review process, then perhaps having the Zoning Administrator look at cases before coming to the Commission would help.
- The issue of code enforcement is very much a topic in community meetings.
- A good proposal just needs to be explored and implemented.

ACTION:          Approved
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee
RESOLUTION:          16528

          12.          2001.1174E          (T. CHAN: (415) 558-5982)
436 CLEMENTINA STREET - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration - Assessor's Block 3732, Lot 62. The site is part of the major city block bounded by Howard Street to the north, Folsom Street to the south, 5th Street to the east, and 6th Street to the west within the South of Market neighborhood. Clementina and Tehama Streets are minor streets bisecting this city block. The proposed project would demolish the existing one-story, 5,000-square-foot warehouse on this 5,625-square-foot site and construct 28 residential condominium units over approximately 1,250 square feet (sq. ft.) of ground-floor commercial space, and eight off-street parking spaces within a new eight-story structure. The proposed structure would be approximately 37,975 sq. ft. and 85 feet in height, an increase of 32,348 sq. ft. and seven stories in height above the existing structure. The project site is located within the RSD (Residential Service Mixed-Use) zoning district and within the 40-X/85-B height and bulk district. Projects within the RSD zoning district require a conditional use authorization to determine the residential density for buildings over 40 feet in height. The project site is also within the South of Market Redevelopment Plan Area..
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration.
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 5, 2002)

SPEAKER(S):
(-) Jay Sweet – Boyd Lighting Co.
- One of the big issues he has is parking and loading/unloading trucks.
- He also has a concern with the height of the building.


(-) Tom Kohler
- He is in favor of development in the neighborhood but the height of this building is not reasonable and will impact negatively the neighborhood, contrary to what the EIR states.
(-) Laura Weil
- She lives on Tehama Street.
- Adding a deficit of parking on Clementina will affect Tehama Street.
(-) Allison Kohler – Tehama Street Neighborhood Association
- She read an e-mail from a neighbor who is concerned with the negative impact the height of the building will cast on their building.
(-) Gassia Salibian
- She agrees with what the previous speaker stated.
(-) Raphael Sperry
- He is a member of SPUR.
- He read a letter from Jim Chappell of SPUR who is not supporting this project.
(-) Richard Parker - Architect
- He has serious reservations with some aspects of this report.
- This building is not compatible with the neighborhood and is bad urban planning.
(-) John Sanger – Sanger and Olson
- There is a lot of information, which is not stated In the Negative Declaration.

ACTION:          Negative Declaration Upheld
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee
MOTION:          16529

          13.          2002.0896C          (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
                    436 CLEMENTINA STREET - north side, between 5th and 6th Streets, Lot 062 in Assessor’s Block 3732: Request for Conditional Use (CU) authorization under Planning Code Section 263.11 to allow Special Height Exceptions within the South of Market Residential Service District (RSD) with a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk Designation. The proposed project would demolish the existing one-story, 5,000 square-foot warehouse and construct 28 residential units over a ground-floor commercial space, and ten off-street parking spaces within a new eight-story structure. The proposed structure would be approximately 75 feet in height.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Lisa Bentley – Project Architect
- She is here to answer any questions from the Commissioners.
(-) Jay Sweet
- He does not believe in an out-of-scale project or in a project that will cause a negative effect on the neighbors.
- This building is out of character with the neighborhood.
- This project will bring more density in an already dense area.
- There will be business owners who will have to move away because of the negative affects this building will cause.
(-) Tom Coler
- The shadow impact on his home will be dramatic.
- He would not be here if this building would be below the 40 foot limit.
- He is in favor of development but his concern is the number of units, which are still unsold and vacant in the neighborhood, and now this building will bring more units.
- This building will also be out-of-scale with the neighborhood.
(-) Laura Weil
- She is concerned with parking.
- Her driveway is practically blocked everyday.
- This building will also block the light coming into her home.
- The benefit does not out weight the cost of this project.
(-) Allison Kohler – Tehama Street Neighborhood Association
- She lives behind the proposed project.
- This building towers over everything on Clementina and Tehama Streets.
(-) David Bushnell – 450 Architects and Clementina Neighborhood Association
- He circulated a petition and received over 100 signatures in opposition to this project.
- The project is out-of-scale with the neighborhood.
- The project will severely negatively impact the neighbors.
- Parking is already a problem on this street and if this building is built, parking will virtually be impossible.
- He welcomes proactive developers.
(-) Gosha Samian
- Light will entirely be blocked into her home.
- She spends a long time going around the block looking for parking already in this neighborhood.
(-) Richard Parker – 450 Architects
- There are 20 code sections that this project does not comply with.
- Good housing needs to be built and he is here to ask for respectful development.
- Never once did the developer ask the adjacent neighbors their opinion or invite them to look at the model of the building.
(-) John Sanger – Sanger and Olson
- This project does not comply with many of the criteria of the Planning Code.
- There are questions of consistency of scale and adequate off street parking, etc.
- Everyone favors additional housing yet this is a ridiculous project for this area.
(-) John Elberling
- He shares his neighborhoods concerns that the potential for an addition of housing units is not worth the loss of several businesses in the neighborhood.
- This project has an inadequate staff report
- This project should not be approved as it is currently presented.

ACTION:          Continued to March 27, 2003 – Public Hearing shall remain open.
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee

G.          DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

Approximately 6: 15 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

          14.          2002.0835DDDDD          (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
                    2750 GREENWICH STREET - north side between Baker and Broderick Streets, Lot 013 in Assessor’s Block 0939 -- Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.24.7478 proposing a horizontal expansion to the front of the third floor and a three-story horizontal expansion to the side and rear of the existing three-story, single-family residence located within 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 project as submitted. Take discretionary review and approve the project with proposed modifications.
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 23, 2003)

Note: Four of the Five Discretionary Review requests have been withdrawn.

SPEAKER(S):
(-) Kathleen Morse – Discretionary Review Requestor
- She recently purchased the property next door to the subject property.
- The units in the building she recently purchased are quite small and the subject property will block light into these units.
- Although she does not live in the building, she is voicing the issues the tenants have.
(-) Bob Nicholson
- He lives in the apartment complex next door to the subject property.
- He plans to remain and live in the unit so any consideration the Commission will give to renters would be appreciated.
(-) Patricia Voughey
- The architect would not return her phone calls.
- The Commission should consider the people living in these units since the proposed construction will block their light.
(-) Dennis Doyle
- He manages the apartment complex next door to the proposed property.
- There is not much light and air that the apartment
- Whatever compromise which may have been reached with the neighbor on the other side of 2750 Greenwich, apparently it is not going to be accorded to them in the apartment building because when the building is extended there will be a solid fire wall which will make it a very intrusive building.
(-) Mark English – Project Architect (for four neighbors to the west)
- He did come to an agreement after a great deal of work with the Del Santos and their project architect.
- The withdrawal of four of the Discretionary Review requestors is based on mitigating the massing and loss of light and air to Susan Newfield to the west, the building was pulled back on the top two levels about two feet, also an open railing for both the terrace at the top of the first level and the cantilever balcony.
(+) Joel Yodowitz – Reuben and Alter – Project Sponsor
- This is the first time that he has seen the Discretionary Review requestor.
- The fact that there were four Discretionary Review withdrawals out of five means that there were several meetings and a lot of negotiations. No one was excluded from these meetings.
- The agreement from these DR requestors was mostly made possible by the Cow Hollow Neighborhood Association.
- The project sponsors intend to have children and live there for many years.
- The project cannot be cut back further.
(+) Bill Peschell – Project Architect
- This project is very modest and small.
(+) Frank Del Santo – Project Sponsor
- He has always tried to make his project compatible with the neighborhood.
- People were still unhappy yet he has worked hard to compromise.

ACTION:          Took Discretionary Review and approved with the following modifications: Provide a three-foot setback from the west side property line for all floors of the rear extension. The three-foot setback shall start at the rear (north) wall of the adjacent building to the west. Windows shall be permitted within the setback area.
          The rear wall of the first (ground) floor shall extend no further than 74 feet from the front property line.
          The rear wall of the second and third floor shall be held at the 45-percent rear yard line, exclusive of the cantilevered deck proposed at the third floor. The cantilevered deck shall extend no more than 4 feet 6 inches from the rear wall and be set back three feet from both side property lines. The cantilevered deck shall have an open railing.
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes; W. Lee
NAYES:          S. Lee
ABSENT:          Boyd

          15.          2002.0839D          (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
2616 UNION STREET - north side between Divisadero and Broderick Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 0946 - Staff-initiated request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.23.7377 filed to authorize the relocation of the west wall of a new deck built at the rear of this single-family house. Contrary to the wall location approved by the Planning Commission on May 25, 2000 in their consideration of Discretionary Review Case No. 2000.331D, filed on Building Permit Application No. 2000.01.27.446, the stucco wall was built to the west side property line. The plans approved by the Commission at that time indicated the west wall of the deck to be located approximately 8 inches away from the west side property line. The subject property is located within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the application.

SPEAKER(S):
(-) Merel Glaubiger – Discretionary Review Requestor
- She and her husband have owned property next door from the project sponsor for many years.
- She is opposed to this project for various reasons but stated that the built in barbecue does not have a permit and is a fire hazard.
(+) Daniel Glaubiger
-There is an intentional violation to the planning process.
- The barbecue his wife spoke about is above the firewall, which defeats the purpose.
- When this case came before the Commission a few years ago, the Commission took Discretionary Review to make modifications.
(-) Daniel G. Archer – Project Architect
- He requested that the barbecue in question be moved so that it does not become a hazard.
- The issues are that there are citizens that can ignore past promises and that they can ignore the government--in this case the Planning Commission and Discretionary Review board.
(+) Alice Barkley – Project Sponsor
- The property owner acknowledged that before they moved into this house they hired an architect and a licensed contractor who did not construct what was agreed upon.
- The project sponsor is willing to remove the permanent barbecue and use a portable one instead.
(+) Mike Malone
- He and his wife purchased the property in 1998. It required massive renovation. He moved into another place while the construction was going on and obviously hired people who did not do the job well.
- He went through all the approval processes. He thought that he and his wife had moved into a home that had all the proper permits.
- He moved into the house about two years ago and has started a family.
- He has had a very good relationship with all of his neighbors.

ACTION:          Took Discretionary Review and approved with the following modifications: Remove the permanent barbeque (including the gas line) on the rear deck and adjacent to the west side property line. (The use of a portable barbeque at this location is permitted.)
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee
NAYES:          Feldstein
ABSENT:          Boyd

          16.          2002.1130D          (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)
                    3739-16TH STREET - south side, between Castro and Flint Streets, Lot 35 in Block 2622 - Mandatory Discretionary Review request, under Planning Commission Resolution Number 16078, for a building permit (No. 2002.10.02.7994s) to allow reduction of dwelling units (from three to two) on the subject property. The property is located 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 the dwelling unit merger as proposed.
                    NOTE: On December 19, 2002, before losing a quorum, the Commission continued this matter to February 13, 2003.

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Nan White - Owner
- The tenant who lived in the other unit was ready to move out already.
- They will be adopting children. That is why they would like to merge the units.

ACTION:          Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the merger.
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT:          Boyd

          17.          2002.0832D          (D. JONES: (415) 558-6477)
                    1121 MORAGA STREET - south side, between 18th and 17th Avenues, Lot 030 in Block 2032 - Discretionary Review request, for a building permit (No. 2002.04.17.4126S) to allow the construction of a new third story and rear deck to the existing two-story, single-family dwelling. The property is located in the RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit as modified.
                    NOTE: On December 19, 2002, before losing a quorum, the Commission continued this matter to February 13, 2003.

SPEAKER(S):
(-) Vadim Yampolsky – Discretionary Review Requestor
- He is opposed to this project because it will block the light to his home.
- He would like to have the addition moved as far away from his light as possible.
(-) Yenbo Wu
- He is opposed to the third level addition because it will block sunlight to his home It will also negatively affect his property value and will violate the harmonious line of houses down the hill, making it unpleasant.
(+) Mimi Wong
- She and her husband would like to add more space for their growing family.
(+) Tom Haymond
- He has lived and worked in San Francisco all his life as well as his children.
- He would like to remain living here in San Francisco.
- He and Mimi have been communicating with the neighbors, they have done the various reports required and have done all they can to be able to be allowed to have their project.
(+) Lisa Wong – Project Architect
- She and the project sponsor have made all the compromises possible trying to avoid coming before the Commission.

ACTION:          Did not take Discretionary Review and approved Alternative B (third story - front setback of 17 feet and side setback of 7 feet for portion adjacent to and forward of Discretionary Review requestor’s lightwell).
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT:          Boyd

          18.          2002.0267D          (M. SNYDER: (415) 558-6891)
                    1600 MISSION STREET southwest corner of Mission Street and Otis Street, Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 3512 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.03.19.1823 proposing to construct a four story vertical addition at the southern end of the property, which would add approximately 6,500 gross square feet of office use specifically for design professionals. The property is within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) District, and a 105-J Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
                    NOTE: On December 19, 2002, before losing a quorum, the Commission continued this matter to February 13, 2003.

SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuance
Bob Meyers – City Planning Consultant and Architect
- He requested that this matter be continued so that the Landmarks Board may be able to have this case before them.
Robert McCarthy – McCarthy and Swartz - Representation
- The original request does not have anything to do with preservation.
- Originally this case was requested to have been continued from the December 13, 2002 Planning Commission hearing and nothing was mentioned about preservation.
- He does not agree with the continuance of this matter.

Re: Merits of the Case
(-) Bob Meyers – Discretionary Review Requestor
- He would like the Commission to reject this proposal in order for this case to go before the Landmarks Advisory Board and determine that this building is historically significant.
- The design of the proposed building is just blocked shaped and is not aesthetically pleasing.
- He would like the Commission to withhold their vote for a few weeks.
(+) Brian O'Flinn
- He presented letters of support from neighbors and businesses that support this project.
- He has been involved in the preservation of structures for many years.
- He has restored the building since he purchased it.
(+) Harvey Hacker – Project Architect
- At first he was skeptical when the project sponsor came to him with the idea for this project.
- He supports the current proposal and displayed diagrams of the project.
(+) Owen Erickson – Mission National Bank
- This project is a real upswing for this area.
(+) Marshall Crossman – Marshall Crossman Design
- She is here to support the project because there is not enough spaces of this size that people can utilize.
(+) John Hanson – Starboard Commercial Real Estate
- This is a great project for the neighborhood.
- There is definitely a demand for space.
(+) Patricia Franklin – CEO, Atlas Island Media, Inc.
- She has worked in this area for a long time.
- Bringing a building of this stature to the area would attract entrepreneurs.
(+) Jerry Lowe
- He owns property that is close by.
- He is here to support the project. He would rather have a building there than look at a changing billboard.
(+) Slimone Ajili – Crepes A-Go-Go
- He hopes that the Commission will improve this project because it will be something positive to the area.
- Since he has opened his small crepe restaurant, there has been much improvement.
(+) Edward J. Cansino – Edward J. Cansino Lighting Design
- He is here to support this project.
- This is the perfect example of bringing something positive to the area.
(+) Bijan Fouladi
- He works upstairs from National Car Rental.
- When he was told that this building would add square footage to his office, he was very happy.
(+) Scott Faber
- He operates the National Car Rental space.
- He is in support of this project because there has been great attention to the design details.
- This will not impact their operations.
(+) Philip Lesser – President of the Mission Merchants Association
- This project is adding to the economic vibrancy of the area.
(+) Ron Christensen
- He owns a business on 16th and Capp Street and because of positive projects like this, the area has cleaned up a bit.

ACTION:          Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT:          Boyd

          19.          2002.1124D          (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)
                    2734 DIAMOND STREET – west side between Chenery Street and Lippard Avenue, Lot 025 in Assessor's Block 6740 – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2002.05.28.7564, proposing an approximately 6 foot horizontal addition at the ground/first floor, and an 8 foot horizontal addition at the second floor. The property is located within a RH-2 (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:          Discretionary Review request has been withdrawn.

          20.          2002.0636DD          (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)
111 MANCHESTER STREET – east side, south of Stoneman Street, Lot 019 in Assessor’s Block 5544 – Two Discretionary Review requests, the first initiated by Department Staff, pursuant to Planning Commission residential demolition policy, of Building Permit Application Number 2002.04.22.4580, which would demolish an existing single family dwelling, and the second initiated by a member of the public, of Building Permit Application Number 2002.04.22.4585, which would construct a new single family dwelling on the same site. The property is located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District, the Bernal Heights Special Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.

SPEAKER(S):
(-) Kendall Goh – Discretionary Review Requestor
- Because there was confusion regarding the time limit to submit a Discretionary Review request she is the only DR requestor. Otherwise, there would be more.
- She lives adjacent to the proposed project.
- She and her neighbors as well as the North West Bernal Design Review Board oppose this project.
- The proposed structure is disruptive to the visual character of the neighborhood in direct contrast to the residential design guidelines.
- The project is too tall, out of scale and it's not compatible to the surrounding buildings.
- They also dispute that the current house should be torn down because it has been neglected.
- The demolition of the existing building will eliminate affordable housing. Low income tenants were actually evicted.
- This project will also set a precedent encouraging other developers to tear down the Bernal Victorian cottages.
- The light and air of adjacent properties will be impaired because of this project.
(-) Beth Newman
- She would have been another DR requestor but there was a misunderstanding and she wasn't able to submit.
- It appears that the City rewards people for neglecting their houses and/or rental properties.
- She is opposed to the demolition.
(-) Jeff Berzan
- He would also have filed a Discretionary Review request.
- He opposes this project because he believes it is too large.
(-) Christopher Burt
- He would just like to add that the three bedrooms are larger than 100 square feet as was mentioned in the design review notes.
(-) Virginia L. Rhea
- She lives on Manchester Street.
- She is opposed to the demolition. The tenants should not have been asked to leave.
- This project will block light and air from adjacent buildings.
- She passed a letter to the Commission from a neighbor who is opposed to the project.
- This house is also too tall and it just does not fit into the neighborhood.
- She also passed a petition from more than 100 neighbors who oppose the construction.
(-) Dennis Davenport
- His house would have qualified as a tear down but he chose to remodel.
- He cannot believe the claim from the project sponsor that it would be less expensive to demolish and reconstruct than to just remodel.
- He is against the demolition and against the height and volume of the new construction.
(-) Arthur D. Levy
- He would like the Commission to grant Discretionary Review and disapprove the project since the demolition fails to comply with the demolition restrictions in the Bernal Heights special Use District.
(-) Gail Sansbury – North West Bernal Design Review Board
- The Board is against this project because it is too large and this makes the project out of character with the adjacent buildings.
- Many neighbors attended the community meetings and they expressed overwhelming concerns about the height and the negative impact on the adjacent properties.
- The Board suggested that the 4th floor be eliminated and then they would consider approval of the project.
(-) Rebecca Rhine
- This project is totally out of scale with the neighborhood.
(-) Dean Fernandes
- He is not supporting the demolition and new construction of this project because it is a monster home.
(-) Ron Trauner
- He lives across the street from the proposed home.
- He realizes that he will loose some of his view yet he is more concerned about how this project will change the character of the street.
- He recommends that the Commission disapprove the project or have the project sponsor eliminate the top story.
(-) Ginger Ray – speaking on behalf of Rolf G. Kvalvik
- He and his family are against this project because it is out of scale and out of context with the character of the neighborhood.
(-) Morris Quinlan
- He is against this project because it is out of scale with the neighborhood.
(-) Ron Reiner
- He opposes the construction of this house because it does not go with the neighborhood.
(-) Annette Schubert
- She is opposed to the construction of this house.
(-) Laure Hansen
- She is against the construction.
(-) Dell Crouse
- He is against this project because it is out of character with the rest of the houses on the street.
(+) Stephen Antonaros, AIA
- He has been working on this project for over a year.
- Many of the neighbors who spoke have seen the drawings for this project and he also presented the project at the Bernal Design Board.
- He moved into the neighborhood a few years ago. He was also part of the inception of the Bernal Heights Special Use District.
- He described the architectural aspects of the new construction.
- He submitted a letter from the Project Sponsor who was not able to attend the hearing.

ACTION:          Public Hearing Closed, item Continued to February 27, 2003.
AYES:          Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes; S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT:          Boyd

H.          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.

The 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))

          SPEAKERS: None

Adjournment: 10:23 p.m.


THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003.

SPEAKERS:          None
ACTION:          Approved
AYES:                    Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT:          Bradford Bell, Boyd

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:05 PM