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

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

March 27, 2003

March 27, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, March 27, 2003
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Shelley Bradford Bell, Michael J. Antonini; Lisa Feldstein,
Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Rev. Edgar E. Boyd

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:35 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Dan Sider; Sara Vellve; David Alumbaugh, John Billovits; Michael Li; Adam Light; Dan Sirois; Kelley Amdur; Carol Roos; Glen Cabreros; Rick Crawford; Ben Fu; Tom Wang; 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. 2002.0418T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

                Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by repealing Section 207.2 [Second Unit] in its entirety, adding new Section 207.2 and amending Section 209.1 to authorize one additional secondary unit limited to 750 square feet of gross floor area on a lot within 1250 feet of a Primary Transit Street or Transit Center and also within 1250 feet of a Neighborhood Commercial or Commercial zoning district, and constructed for the elderly or persons with physical disabilities and to prohibit the owner from legalizing an illegal unit pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance; by amending Sections 135(d), Table 151 of Section 151 and 307(g) to establish the amount of open space; and adopting findings.

                (Proposed for Continuance to April 24, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Marilyn Amini

          - She feels that there was not adequate notice on this item.

          - It has been said that there were notices in the public libraries, yet the library near her home has been closed. Apparently it is posted on the internet, but she does not have a computer. It was also published in the Saturday Independent, but the print is really small and she did not receive it.

          Steven Linder

          - He also did not know about these proposed changes. He found out about it from the previous speaker.

          - He feels that there was not adequate notice for the public to come and speak about this proposed change.

          ACTION: Continued to April 24, 2003

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          2. 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

                (Continued from Regular Hearing of February 13, 2003)

          NOTE: Although a public hearing was held on February 13, 2003, public comment remains open.

            (Proposed for Continuance to April 24, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Continued to April 24, 2003

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      3. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes February 20 and March 3, 2003

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Minutes of February 20, 2003 - Approved

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          EXCUSED: Feldstein

          ABSENT: Boyd

          ACTION: Minutes of March 3, 2003 - Continued to April 3, 2003

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

      4. Commission Comments/Questions

          None

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      5. Director's Announcements

          Re: Housing Element

          Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, responded:

          - There is a lot of confusion on what staff is asking the Commission.

          - The only question that staff has before the Commission is if the Department should advertise for a hearing. This is called an initiation.

          - The Director will clarify a few things when this item is called.

      6. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

          John Paul Samaha gave a presentation on the Board of Supervisor's item:

          The following items were passed out of the Land Use Committee by a unanimous vote:

          1) Third Street Alcohol Restricted Use District

          2) Designation of the Dogpatch Historic District

          3) Zoning Map Amendment - King and Townsend Streets (601 King Street)

          Matters at the Full Board:

          Re: 1193 Oak Street - Appeal of a Conditional Use

          - This was an authorization to allow a master tenant to run a bed and breakfast out of her dwelling unit.

          - A member of the Board announced that they had received new information about this matter and the item was continued for one week.

          Re: 40-50 Lansing Street - Appeal of a Negative Declaration

          - Appeal was continued for two weeks and will be heard again as a 3:00 p.m. Special Order before the Board of Supervisors on April 8, 2003.

          Re: Zoning Map Change

          - The Full Board sent this back to the Land Use Committee because of a technicality.

          - Apparently the Negative Declaration document was not circulated to every member of the Board.

          The Board passed the following legislation on second and final reading:

          1) Conditional Use Revocations legislation

          2) Designation of 1338 Filbert Street Cottages as a Landmark

          3) 1250 Haight Street - Special Use District to create Haight Street senior affordable housing.

          Note: The Land Use Committee will not meet this coming Monday, March 31. Besides the 1193 Oak Street Conditional Use Appeal, no significant Planning items will be considered by the Full Board at its Tuesday, April 1, meeting.

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

          7. 2003.0023Q (J. VOLLMANN: (415) 558-6612)

          1562-1570 FELL STREET - south side between Lyon Street and Central Avenue, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 1207 - Request for approval of a five-unit residential condominium conversion subdivision in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to change the existing building to a condominium form of ownership and does not involve expansion, alteration, or demolition of the existing building.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of condominium conversion subdivision application.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Condominium Conversion Subdivision Application Approved

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16551

          8. 2003.0032C (J. VOLLMANN: (415) 558-6612)

          1200 9TH AVENUE - southeast corner of 9th Avenue and Lincoln Way; Lot 051 and 052 in Assessor's Block 1742 - Request for conditional use authorization pursuant to Section 730.48 of the Planning Code to provide live entertainment and music within the existing 66-seat full-service restaurant, Canvas Café, and pursuant to Section 730.21 to increase the use size from approximately 4,000 to 4,200 square feet by providing outdoor seating on the front patio. The subject site is located in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Mathew Blair - Owner

          - They have done a few entertainment pieces. Three and a half months a go, he found out that this was prohibited. They immediately stopped doing the entertainment pieces.

          - He thanked staff for their support of this project.

          - He supports the arts and would like to provide a place where artists can create music.

          - There are many retailers and residents who support the events and live music.

          (+) Mike Fleming

          - He runs a business in San Francisco and lives near this restaurant.

          - The problem is that the space is too small so he is in support of enlarging the space.

          - He supports the arts and having artists perform here is very positive.

          (+) Susan Maerki

          - She supports this project.

          - The issues here are about the hours of operation so she supports the conditions placed on the entertainment portion of the request.

          (-) Richard Geno

          - He lives near the café.

          - The bedrooms of the adjacent homes are very close to the patio area of the café.

          - There is a back up problem of vehicular traffic.

          - There have been a few people who have objected to the amplification of the music. He does not object to the poetry reading.

          (+) Elliott Easterling - San Francisco Arts Community

          - A lot of the adjacent buildings are businesses.

          - He is very involved in the art community. There is a connection between the arts and music.

          - There are a lot of people who speak in support of this venue.

          (+) Marco Gargenta

          - He spoke in support of the music scene in San Francisco.

          - This venue is very incredible. It was built from ground up to serve entertainment.

          - There is a great interest for many bands to play at the café even during late night hours.

          (+) Mary Ellen Elizabeth Neylon

          - She feels that the community does not have enough venues for music and fashion.

          - It is important for young people to go to a place where they can express themselves.

          - It is a great place to get a cup of coffee or a glass of wine.

          (+) Dorian Christensen

          - As a musician he was very excited to find a venue that is more "grass roots" than commercial.

          - There is quite a bit of exposure at the café for musicians and artists who don't have a big name.

          - He supports this project completely.

          (+) Tom McDonnagh

          - Regarding the parking issue, he recommends people take more public transportation.

          - Businesses should be given the opportunity to prosper.

          - This is a wonderful place for all ages.

          ACTION: Approved with the following amended conditions: 1) Prohibit outdoor speakers; 2) entertainment on patio should be spelled out; 3) Hours of operation for loud music should be limited to Friday and Saturday to 2:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday to 12:00 midnight; 4) "good neighbor" provisions are to be stated in the motion.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16552

          9. 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 for a Preference 4 location 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

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 13, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Permit Application Withdrawn

          10. 2003.0083C (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

                570 GREEN STREET - north side of Green Street between Stockton Street and Grant Avenue; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0116: Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow amplified live and recorded music (defined as "Other Entertainment" by Planning Code Section 790.38) in an existing restaurant and bar, d.b.a. "Amante," as required by Planning Code Section 722.48. Performances would occur on Saturday and Sunday between 9:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., and would consist of non-amplified and amplified live music performed by up to four jazz musicians. No alteration to the building or any other modifications to the operation of the bar are proposed. The site is in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Erik Boardman - Owner

          - North Beach Neighborhood Association supports this request.

          - There is security at the premises because of ABC's crack down of not allowing minors in.

          - He is happy to answer any questions.

          ACTION: Approved with the following amended conditions: 1) Correction of the language stating that performances of up to four musicians should be changed to not specify a number of musicians; 2) apply "good neighbor" policies; 3) hours of operation should be seven days a week granting the hours up to 12:00 midnight without referencing starting time.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16553

          11. 2000.465M (T. OJEDA (415) 558-6251; J. JARAMILLO (415) 558-6318; J. LAU (415) 558-6383)

          HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - FINAL DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW - Staff presentation of Housing Element Final Draft for Public Review released February 10, 2003. The Planning Commission will also consider a resolution of intention to adopt proposed amendments to the General Plan. The resolution of intention only enables the publication of a formal notice for a public hearing. It is at that future hearing that the Planning Commission would consider the proposed amendments to the General Plan under the provisions of Sections 340 and 306.3(b)(3) of the Planning Code. Proposed revisions will update the Residence Element adopted in 1990 and include an assessment of housing needs, new policies to increase housing production such as higher residential densities along appropriate transit corridors and downtown neighborhoods; encouragement of housing development in neighborhood commercial districts; reconsideration of residential parking requirements; and policies supporting construction of new family housing. The Final Draft for Public Review incorporated modifications based on comments and other feedback received by the Planning Department in the first draft.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Daryl Higashi - Director of the Mayors Office of Housing

          - San Francisco is far behind in having a housing element accepted by the State of California.

          - There are funding programs that organizations will be able to apply for with this measure.

          - If there is no adopted plan approved by the Commission and or approved by the Board of Supervisors, San Francisco will not be able to apply for housing funds from the State.

          - This opportunity should not be missed.

          - He is in support of this plan.

          - Supporting this plan allows for market rate housing.

          - He hopes the Commission will continue to work with staff to move along this initiation.

          (+) Olson Lee - Assistant Deputy Director of the Office of Housing at the Redevelopment Agency

          - The agency's housing plan is incorporated with the City's annual housing plan also.

          - There is a need for more affordable housing as well as a need to save and preserve affordable housing.

          - Housing is difficult but it is more cost effective to save affordable housing than to build fresh.

          - There is a need for a compliant housing element.

          - He urges the Commission and staff to do whatever can be done to expedite the process and allow for the appropriate public comment on the housing element.

          (-) Steven Linder

          - The housing element encourages secondary units near transit and this increases crime.

          - Families with children are a protected class under California law and they have certain needs.

          (+) Joya Calagos - SFOP

          - They believe that San Francisco should be a City for all.

          - City policy should promote families and communities.

          - Each person has the right to have his or her space, which means affordable housing.

          - If affordable housing is not supplied, children will not be able to afford (a place) to live and will eventually need to move out of the City.

          (+) Oscar Herrera - SFOP

          - He feels that there is a lack of affordable housing.

          - This policy is very important. The decisions that the Commission makes will affect the children of this City and their future.

          (+) Tracy Parent

          - She is a real estate agent who works with immigrants.

          - She urges the Commission to expedite this policy.

          - Her one concern is that the implementation of the plan should be more explicit.

          - If the density bonus would be leveraged, the City would save millions of dollars and this would allow for focus on building affordable housing for the most in need--Seniors.

          (+/-) Michael Harris - San Francisco Rev. Com.

          - He has concerns about the draft housing element and the oversight of income to affordable housing and jobs for low-income residents.

          - The date and needs analysis section does not address the key relationship between jobs for existing residents that result from approved projects of this Commission.

          (+/-) Susie Wong - Chinese Community Development Corporation

          - She suggested having a senior staff person be in charge of the implementation of this policy. That person could also be a liaison with the Board of Supervisors.

          - She also requested a tracking system.

          - Fund and produce an annual publication that would have a summary of the reports issued by the proposed Housing Element Implementation Officer.

          (+/-) Craig Adlemon - Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation

          - He thanked staff for the thorough work of this report.

          - He emphasized the importance of affordable rental housing.

          - It is important also to have participation from community organizations.

          - It is easer to buy and rehabilitate buildings for affordable housing than to build new.

          (-) Calvin Welch - CCHO

          - He recognizes the challenge of the housing element.

          - For housing, the project work force is what is important.

          - The needs assessment is correct in this report.

          (+/-) Danny Burkes - Westwood Park Association

          - This housing element that is now under consideration is very important to the future of families in San Francisco.

          - The association requests that the housing element be continued for at least 90 days in order to hold public meetings and incorporate public comment on the proposal.

          - This policy should not be approved in its current form.

          - He encourages the Commission to expedite this continuance.

          (-) Joe O'Donahue

          - The housing element does not address why the delivery system failed and why the housing crisis since 1986 keeps getting worse and worse.

          - The delivery system is a shambles. There is a disparity between housing costs, housing crisis, and construction.

          - There is a need to get some economists and do some econometrics.

          (-) Jill Kent

          - There is much concern about the housing element.

          - There has not been good notification about this proposal.

          - There has been a petition in the West Portal neighborhood that requests that this housing element not be approved. It should be continued until there is sufficient public comment from the various neighborhoods.

          - It is important to explain the pros and the cons.

          (-) Bernie Choden - SFT

          - The draft element does not meet the requirements for this City, and it does not provide the tools needed.

          - There needs to be a melding of institutions and corporations .

          - There needs to be a strategy.

          - An expert needs to be hired before a date is set to provide proper input.

          (-) Mary Anne Miller

          - There is a major demand for housing in her district.

          - SPEAK is in the foot notes as a community group that was consulted on this, but that must have been about a year ago. They have not been contacted recently.

          - Her organization is willing to help because they are housing friendly.

          (-) Dan Kalb - SFT

          - His comments regarding the proposed document: 1) It is important that developers not get away with just having all the same unit sizes in a given large development; 2) there should be higher density on large transit corridors; 3) financing is the biggest challenge; 4) the increase in housing stock has to be approved and built in proportion and concurrent with improvements in infrastructure and transit services; 5) there should be hearings throughout the City before this document is finally approved; 6) educational programs to inform the values and reality of new housing; 7) he suggest that there be caution about asking for any CEQA exemptions.

          - He supports much of what Mr. Calvin Welch spoke about.

          (-) Marilyn Amini

          - The newspaper wording stated that this hearing was for an intent to adopt and now it has been changed to an intent to initiate.

          - She lives in a transit corridor and many people are concerned about what is happening at transit corridors.

          - She is worried that this is not sufficient notice about something this important.

          - There is faulty data that the needs are based on.

          (-) Judith Berkowitz - Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods

          - She feels that there has not been enough notice for people to give proper comment.

          - It is important to have comments from all neighborhoods.

          - She requested that the Commission continue this for at least 90 days.

          (+/-) Francisco Centurion - Russian Hill Neighbors

          - He requested that this be continued for at least 60-90 days in order to get sufficient input from his neighborhood.

          (-) Pinky Kushner - SPEAK

          - The element is too vague.

          - There are various ideas that could be implemented in the element.

          - More time is needed for this element to be successful.

          (-) Edward Evans - Community Resources Action Project

          - Many seniors and disabled people are in jeopardy of loosing affordable housing.

          - He is very supportive of making permanent subsidized housing for seniors and disabled people.

          - Housing should be provided on all levels.

          - In the tenderloin there has been a focus on low income and subsidized housing. Market rate housing should be brought there as well.

          (-) Eric Quezada - MAC

          - He does not know whether to just laugh, cry or through his hands up from frustration.

          - It is important to move this policy forward after receiving the proper input from neighborhoods.

          - It is getting very difficult for neighborhoods to believe that there is a process that rally matters.

          (+/-) John Bardis - Inner Sunset Action Committee

          - He is dismayed about the process of today.

          - This should not be a final draft since there has not been a draft in 13 years.

          - There has not been any environmental review.

          - There is a need for public review and it has not been presented to the public yet.

          (-) Hiroshi Fukuda - Richmond Community Association

          - He is glad that the Director of Planning has mentioned that there will be future neighborhood input because this is a very important policy matter.

          - The citizens need to read this. Copies should have been provided at all public libraries and the Supervisors should have copies to provide to the residents of their districts.

          - A document that is this important needs a lot of public comment.

          (+) Cris Durazo - SOMCAN

          - She is glad that there will future public comment.

          - The environmental impact report should be parallel to this proposal.

          (-) Margaret Brodkin

          - She feels that the City is "hemorrhaging" families and the reason is housing.

          - She is glad that most of their ideas were incorporated in the plan.

          - The challenge now is how to make it happen.

          (-) Nahla Awad

          - She read a letter from a member of San Francisco Merchants Association who requested that this item be continued in order to receive more public comment.

          (-) Sue Hestor

          - This document is contradictory to the policy of the Planning Department since the Department approves a housing project just to have housing.

          - The income levels need to be looked at.

          - Demolition policy also needs to be looked at closely.

          - The most affordable housing is what should be analyzed.

          - Any housing does not equal housing.

          (-) Tom McDonaugh

          - Housing is a basic human need.

          - Only one third of the people living in San Francisco own their own housing.

          - San Francisco needs to make sure that the inhabitants of the City are home owners--this is a long time benefit to this City.

          - Part of the backbone of the City was excluded from home ownership.

          - housing is so expensive because it is highly controlled. That is why it (prices) continues to escalate.

          ACTION: The Planning Commission, pursuant to Planning Code Section 340, initiates an update and amendment of the Housing Element of the General Plan of the City and County of San Francisco. The consideration of the proposed amendments for adoption will occur at a duly noticed hearing on May 1, 2003.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16554

          12. 2002.0260C (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

                965-985 GENEVA AVENUE - south side of Geneva Avenue, between London and Paris Streets, Lots 006, 007, 008, 009 and 010 in Assessor's Block 6409 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization by AT&T Wireless Services Inc. to install a wireless telecommunications facility at the former Apollo Theater pursuant to Planning Code Section 712.83, which includes the installation of six panel antennas, and associated equipment in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The subject site is a Preference 2 location (co-location site) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Siting Guidelines, 1996.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 13, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Bill Stevens - AT&T Wireless Services

          - This site would improve the service to the Geneva/Crocker Amazon areas.

          - There are Metro PCS antennas there already.

          - He displayed photographs of how the antennas will be integrated into the building.

          - There was a community outreach meeting and there were only four attendees.

          ACTION: Approved with the exclusion of Condition 18 of Exhibit A. It is not required as part of this proposal. This condition was recorded on the property as part of the Metro PCS facility approval from the previous Planning Commission.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16555

          13. 2002.1120C (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

                678 PORTOLA DRIVE - north side between Sydney Way & Woodside Avenue, Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 2892 (AKA Ebenezer Lutheran Church) - Request for Conditional Use authorization by Verizon to install a wireless telecommunications facility at the Ebenezer Lutheran Church pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.6(b), which includes the installation of 2 panel antennas, and associated equipment in an RH-1 (D) (Residential House One-Family Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The subject site is a preference 1 location (publicly-used structures) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Siting Guidelines, 1996.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 20, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Jennifer Donally - Verizon Wireless

          - This area has no coverage and there are constant dropped calls.

          - Currently Nextel and AT&T have antennas there.

          - A community meeting was held. Notices in three languages went out and no one attended this meeting.

          (+) Kenney Silverman - Radio Frequency Engineer for Verizon Wireless

          - He displayed maps of the streets, which show what areas receive and don't receive coverage.

          MOTION No. 1: Approval

          AYES: Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee

          NAYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          RESULT: Motion failed

          ACTION: Public hearing closed. Continued to April 10, 2003, instructing the project sponsor to provide better maps.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          14a. 2002.0446CEKV (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          40-50 LANSING STREET (A.K.A. 35 GUY PLACE) - a through lot that faces Lansing Street on its south side and Guy Place on its north side, within the block surrounded by First Street, Harrison Street, Essex Street, and Folsom Street, Lot 11 in Assessor's Block 3749 - Request for Conditional Use authorization for: (1) the construction of a building within a Residential District that would be taller than 40-feet pursuant to Planning Code Section 253(a); and (2) for the construction of a building that would have full lot coverage within the Rincon Hill Special Use District pursuant to Planning Code Section 249.1(b)(1)(B). The building would be 84-feet tall and contain up to 82 dwelling units. The subject property is within a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Mixed, High Density) District, an 84-R Height and Bulk District and the Rincon Hill Special Use District / Residential Subdistrict.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 6, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 10, 2003

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          14b. 2002.0446CEKV (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          40-50 LANSING STREET (A.K.A. 35 GUY PLACE) - a through lot that faces Lansing Street on its south side and Guy Place on its north side, within the block surrounded by First Street, Harrison Street, Essex Street, and Folsom Street, Lot 11 in Assessor's Block 3749 - A request for variances from (1) the exposure standard required under Planning Code Section 140; (2) the loading space standard required under Planning Code Section 152; (3) the setback standard for building mass above 50-feet as required under Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(3); (4) the frontage standard that requires at least 50-percent of all frontages be comprised of building entrances and display windows as mandated by Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(1)(C); and (5) the requirement that restricts parking on the first and second levels being any closer than 25-feet horizontal distance from any street grade as mandated from Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(5)(C) . The subject property is within a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Mixed, High Density) District, an 84-R Height and Bulk District, and the Rincon Hill Special Use District / Residential Subdistrict.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 6, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 10, 2003.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          15a. 2002.0925ACV (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

                639-699 2ND STREET - northeast corner of 2nd Street and Townsend Street, Lots 4 and 5 in Assessor's Block 3789 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 818.14 for the establishment of up to 112 dwelling units within the SSO (Service / Secondary Office) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and the South End Historic District. The development would include up to 112 dwelling units, 155 off-street parking spaces, and two retail spaces on the ground floor.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Jim Ruben - Representing Project Sponsor

          - There is no opposition to this project.

          - He submitted a letter from the San Francisco Trades Council supporting this project.

          (+) David Sternberg - Architect

          - He had a few challenges in designing the type of material for this building.

          - He displayed images of the proposed building.

          (+) Doug Perry - Publisher of Organized Labor

          - His organization is in support of this project.

          - He urges the Commission to look at the economic needs of the City and approve the project.

          ACTION: Approved with Conditions: 1) in the Certificate of Appropriateness it states "Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Application" and it should be corrected to read: Commission hereby approves the permit to alter subject to the conditions in the Conditional Use Application"; 2) on Page 14, Exhibit B of the Conditions of Approval there is no date of the exhibit and it should be March 3, 2003; 3) Shall provide two car-share spaces; 4) Unbundling of parking from the units. Staff believes that this proposal meets the Certificate of Appropriateness and Conditional Use.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          NAYES: Feldstein

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16556

          15b. 2002.0925ACV (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          639-699 2ND STREET - northeast corner of 2nd Street and Townsend Street, Lots 4 and 5 in Assessor's Block 3789 - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish (as defined by Planning Code Section 1005(f)) a contributory structure within the South End Historic District and construct a new structure that would contain up to 112 dwelling units, 155 off-street parking spaces and two ground floor retail spaces. The project is to demolish the interior portion of the existing historic structure and construct a new structure that would incorporate the historic facades of the existing building. The property is within an SSO (Service / Secondary Office) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and the South End Historic District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 15a.

          ACTION: Approved the Certificate of Appropriateness with amendments stated in Item 15a.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          NAYES: Feldstein

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16557

          15c. 2002.0925ACV (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

                639-699 2ND STREET - northeast corner of 2nd Street and Townsend Street, Lots 4 and 5 in Assessor's Block 3789 -- Request for a rear yard modification under Planning Code Section 134(e) rear yard open area in central courtyards and along the north side of the property, in association with the construction of 112 dwelling units. The property is within an SSO (Service / Secondary Office) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and the South End Historic District.

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 15a.

          ACTION: Rear Yard Exception Granted by the Zoning Administrator

          16. 2002.1231C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

                1017 OCEAN AVENUE - south side between Harold and Lee Avenues, Lot 041 Assessor's Block 6945 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization by Verizon Wireless to install a wireless telecommunications facility at the subject property pursuant to Section 711.83, which includes three (3) panel antennas, and associated equipment in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Per the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Location Preference 2 (Co-Location Site).

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Jason Smith - Verizon Wireless

          - This building is considered to be a preference 2 because it has another legally permitted wireless carrier on the rooftop.

          - The building represents the highest preference on the search ring because there were no public-use structures to meet their coverage objectives.

          - There was a community meeting held in the neighborhood and trilingual notices were sent within a 300 foot radius of the subject site. A Chinese translator attended the meeting and was able to answer the concerns of the attendees.

          - There are two copies of the color coded map that displays the coverage in the area.

          (-) Tsu Lan Lam Kwong

          - She lives on Ocean Avenue.

          - This antenna will be installed very close to her and she is concerned about the radiation it will transmit because this is hazardous to people's health.

          - There are children living in the area as well as City College.

          - She has about 200 signatures objecting to the installation of this antenna.

          - She attended the community meeting and expressed her opposition to this antenna.

          - She would like to have the antennas that are already installed be removed.

          (-) Kin Hung Kwong

          - He opposes the installation of this antenna because it will be hazardous to his health.

          - There are a lot of City College students who attend a restaurant that is near this location.

          - He is concerned that he will get cancer by the radiation of the antenna.

          (-) Miu Lam

          - She is opposed to the installation of the antenna.

          - These antennas should be installed in open spaces and not in residential areas.

          - There are many students who eat lunch near the area where the antenna will be installed.

          - She lives in the area and is concerned with the health hazards.

          ACTION: Approve with the understanding that the Project Sponsor will improve aesthetics by screening both antennas on the sides with screen boxes of a design that is acceptable to staff and will take care of eliminating graffiti on the walls.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16558

E. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

      At approximately 7:00 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

      17. 2002.1257D (S. VELLVE (415) 558-6263)

          1225 CAPITOL AVENUE - west side between Ocean and DeMontfort Avenues; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 6935 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.07.10.1031, to demolish a two-story, single-family dwelling to be replaced by a three-story, two-family dwelling in a RH-2 (House, Two-Family) Zoning District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 13, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Lincoln Lue - Project Architect

          - The building is deteriorating. The floors are not leveled. Some walls have been tilted and have mildew stains. The kitchen roof leaks. The bathrooms have plumbing problems and the linoleum is peeling off the floors. The exterior wall shingles are falling and missing.

          - The house has been vacant for years.

          - The house does not have a garage either.

          - A soundness report was issued.

          - Staff made a site visit and concurred that the house should be demolished.

          - The new building will alleviate housing shortages and will be an improvement to the environment.

          (+) Mike Brown

          - There are a lot of young men in the community that he uses to improve properties.

          - He will probably keep the house for his family or rent it out to a family. That is his priority.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition permit.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          18. 2002.0682D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

                263 DUBLIN STREET - southeast side between Russia Avenue and Crocker Amazon Park; Lot 004I in Assessor's Block 6284 - Request of Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.04.11.3673, proposing to construct a two-story addition at the rear of the existing one-story over garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as revised.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Deborah Kent - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - She is happy that the subject property has been purchased and that it will be renovated.

          - She thought it would be best that she not speak to the project sponsor and let the Discretionary Review board suggest what to do.

          - Even though the plans have been reduced in the rear, she still has problems about the negative visual and aesthetic issues.

          - She is concerned that there will be two units in this single-family home. The zoning in this area does not support two units either.

          - She believes that the master bedroom should be reduced a bit so that the house does not have a "boxed look."

          (+) Johnny Huey - Project Sponsor

          - He has done everything possible to deal with neighbor's issues and has changed the plans many times.

          - He feels that if the Discretionary Review requestor would give him a chance to speak to her, maybe they could come to an agreement.

          - He has no intention of making his home into two units.

          - He has support from the surrounding neighbors.

          - He requested that the Commission approve his application.

          (+) Ashley Huey

          - She cannot wait to have her own room.

          - She is anxious to get a puppy and if this project gets approved, there will be enough room for her to get a puppy.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project with the condition that a Notice of Special Restriction be issued on the single-family status of the dwelling.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          19. 2002.1310D (K. SIMONSON: (415) 558-6321)

          2625-2627 BRODERICK STREET - west side between Green and Vallejo Streets, Lot 6 in Assessor's Block 955 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.10.23.9477, proposing to merge two dwelling units to create a single-family dwelling. The subject property is in an 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 project as submitted.

          (Continued from Regular Hearing of March 20, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Tara Cahn - Architect

          - This project began with the intent to make as few changes as possible.

          - The aim is to preserve the architectural integrity of the building.

          - The project preserves the character of the Cow Hollow neighborhood. It will also bring the building into conformance with the Building Code.

          (+) Phokion Potamianos - Project Sponsor

          - He has a growing family.

          - This house has exceptional architectural details that they would like to preserve so there will be minimal changes.

          - All his neighbors support the project.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the merger.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          20. 2002.1164D (K. SIMONSON: (415) 558-6321)

                2901-2925 SCOTT STREET - west side between Union and Filbert Streets, Lot 4 in Assessor's Block 945 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.08.30.5396, proposing to construct a glass windscreen on a portion of the roof of a 3-story, 7-unit building. The subject property is in an 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 project as submitted.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Patrick Buscovich - Engineer

          - He requested that this case be heard today because they have had to wait about a year for this date.

          - He is not in agreement with a continuance.

          Jackie McMan

          - She feels that the Discretionary Review requestor's issues are only related to views.

          Re: Merits of the Case

          (+) Patrick Buscovich - Engineer

          - He displayed maps of where the proposed windscreen will be located.

          - This is a good opportunity for the Commission to think about the qualities of Discretionary Reviews.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          21. 2003.0259D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          2825 BROADWAY - south side between Broderick and Baker Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0963 -- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.09.20.7108, proposing to remove nine existing dormers and to construct nine new dormers and two skylights on the roof of a single-family residence located in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Discretionary Review Withdrawn

          22. 2002.1267DD (D. JONES: (415) 558- 6477)

                628 28TH STREET - north side between Douglass and Diamond Streets, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 6605 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.10.02.8026, proposing to construct a three-story rear horizontal extension, and to modify the existing pitched roof to a flat roof towards the rear of the three-story single-family dwelling located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve the building permit as submitted.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 1, 2003 because of a notification error.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

F. 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))

          None

Adjournment: 8:21 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2003.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd

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