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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us
May 08, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Notice of Meeting
&
Calendar

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

Thursday, May 8, 2003
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

PRESENT: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; FeldsteinS. Lee; W. Lee

ABSENT: Hughes

THE MEETING WAS CALLLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD-BELL AT 1:38 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Adam Light; Isolde Wilson; Craig Nikitas; Dario Jones; Mathew Snyder; Kate McGee; Mary Woods; Rick Crawford; Linda D. 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. 2002.0778E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

          150 BROADWAY (AKA 190 BROADWAY) - Construction of Affordable Housing, Childcare Facility, Retail Space and Parking. Lot 011 of Assessor's Block 0141 - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration for the proposed new construction of 87 affordable housing units, 41 off-street parking spaces (including 3 spaces for the City CarShare Program), a 3,500 square foot childcare facility, a community room, multi-purpose room and offices associated with the residential use, 2,000 square feet of retail space, and one freight-loading space. The proposed project would consist of three separate buildings: one building would be three-stories tall, or approximately 40 feet in height; a second structure would be five-stories tall, or approximately 50 feet in height; and the third structure would be eight-stories tall, or approximately 80-feet tall. The proposed structures would contain approximately 128,000 gross square feet. The site is approximately 30,948 square feet in size and located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Battery Streets, with additional frontage on Front Street. The site currently contains a ground-level asphalt parking lot on a portion of the site and the remainder of the site is vacant. The site was also the former site of the Embarcadero Freeway off-ramp, and is owned by the City and County of San Francisco. The project site is located within a C-2 (Community Business) zoning district, the Northern Waterfront Special Use District No. 3, the Northeastern Historic District, and an 84-E height and bulk district. The proposed project requires Conditional Use Authorization and a Certificate of Appropriateness.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2003)

                (Proposed for Continuance to May 22, 2003)

                SPEAKER(S): None

                ACTION: Continued as proposed

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

          2a. 2002.0388R (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558- 6478)

          150 BROADWAY (aka 190 BROADWAY) - "Broadway Family Apartments," north side

          between Battery and Front Streets; Lot 011 in Assessors Block 0141 - The proposal is to construct a new mid-rise building that will contain 87 units of affordable housing with retail, childcare, and community spaces, built over an underground parking level accessed from Front Street and containing up to 41 off-street spaces. This project is proposed for land that is owned by the City and County of San Francisco, which is currently under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works (DPW) and is partially leased to a parking vendor. The Board of Supervisors previously approved in principle the transfer of the property from DPW to the Mayor's Office of Housing for the development of affordable housing. A General Plan Referral is needed at this time in order for the Board of Supervisors to consider (a) lease disposition and development agreement that will allow the affordable housing developer, Chinatown Community Development Center (Chinatown CDC), to move forward with development activities, and (b) a future ground lease between the City and Chinatown CDC to be entered into at the start of construction. The subject property is zoned C-2 (Community Business), is in the Northern Waterfront S.U.D. No. 3, and in an 84-E Height and Bulk District.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2003)

          (Proposed for Continuance to May 22, 2003)

                SPEAKER(S): None

                ACTION: Continued as proposed

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

          2b. 2002.0065KAC (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558- 6478)

          150 BROADWAY (aka 190 BROADWAY) - Broadway Family Apartments, north side of

          Broadway between Battery and Front Streets. Assessors Block 141, Lot 11. The subject property is zoned C-2 (Community Business), is in the Northern Waterfront S.U. D. and is in an 84-E Height and Bulk District. The project requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction within the Northeast Waterfront Historic District and a Conditional Use Authorization for a Planned Unit Development to construct a new mid-rise building that will contain 87 units of affordable housing with retail, and childcare, built over an underground parking level accessed from Front Street and containing 41 off-street spaces.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2003)

                (Proposed for Continuance to May 22, 2003)

                SPEAKER (S): None

                ACTION: Continued as proposed

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

          3. 2003.0044D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

                458 - 11th AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 030 in Assessor's Block 1534 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolitions, of Building Permit Application 2001.09.17.8447, proposing to demolish a two-story, two-unit residence in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The replacement project proposes new construction of a four-story, two-unit building.

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

          NOTE: On April 3, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to May 8, 2003, instructing the project sponsor to provide supporting information on the soundness report. Public hearing remains open on any new information provided.

                      (Proposed for Continuance to May 22, 2003)

                SPEAKER(S): None

                ACTION: Continued as proposed

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

      4. (J. RUBIN: (415) 558-6310)

          CENTRAL WATERFRONT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN - informational presentation and update on the Central Waterfront Neighborhood Plan, part of the Better Neighborhoods Program. No action is required.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2003)

            (Proposed for Continuance to May 15, 2003)

                SPEAKER (S): None

                ACTION: Continued as proposed

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

      5a. 2002.1298CV (M. LI: 9415) 558-6396)

          624 LAGUNA STREET - northeast corner at Ivy Street, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0807 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to demolish a vacant one-unit residential building and to construct a four-story, 40-foot-high senior care residential facility for up to 30 residents within the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The project is the subject of a concurrent Variance hearing before the Zoning Administrator.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          (Proposed for Continuance to June 19, 2003)

                SPEAKER (S): None

                ACTION: Continued as proposed

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

5b. 2002.1298CV (M. LI: 9415) 558-6396)

          624 LAGUNA STREET - northeast corner at Ivy Street, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0807 - Parking variance sought. The proposed project is the demolition of a vacant one-unit residential building and the construction of a four-story, 40-foot-high senior care facility for up to 30 residents within the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The Planning Code requires provision of three off-street parking spaces. The project is proposing to provide zero off-street parking spaces.2

          (Proposed for Continuance to June 19, 2003)

                SPEAKER (S): None

                ACTION: Continued as proposed

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

      6. 2002.1084C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

          321-323 GRANT AVENUE - west side between Bush and Sutter Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 0286 - Request for conditional use authorization to convert residential hotel rooms to nonresidential use and to establish a tourist hotel use within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District, an 80-130 F Height and Bulk District, and the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District. The existing building, the Baldwin Hotel, contains 61 residential hotel rooms, of which 45 are vacant. The proposed project is to convert the vacant residential hotel rooms to tourist hotel rooms. There will be not physical expansion of the existing building.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 20, 2003)

            (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

                SPEAKER (S): None

                ACTION: Continued as proposed

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      7. Commission Comments/Questions

      Commissioner S. Lee:

      - Since Planning Commission's meetings are not currently been televised because of budget constrains, we could see whether we can explore the concept of finding different businesses to sponsor or underwrite the cost of one meeting, so that every single meeting would be sponsored by a different entity in the interest of public disclosure/access to our meeting.

      Commissioner Boyd:

      - Commended staff on the excellent presentation on the Housing Element.

    Commissioner Antonini:

    - Is the Combination of Units going to be included in the Housing Element?

    Commissioner Bradford-Bell:

    - Thanked Friends of City Planning for a wonderful dinner

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      8. Director's Announcements

          - Responded to Commissioner Antonini's request for discussion on the need to schedule a presentation about merger policies

          - Announced his decision to accept the Fellowship at Harvard University

          Zoning Administrator:

          - Clarified an interpretation on dwelling unit mergers.

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

          Board of Supervisors:

          - Land Use Committee: Supervisor Hall held a hearing on the Sutro Tower Retrofit Plan coming to the Planning Commission on a mandatory Discretionary Review on May 22,2003.

          - Conditional Use appeal for 2690 Harrison will be heard at the Board on Tuesday, May 20, 2003

          - Conditional use appeal for 1017 Ocean Avenue, filed by the neighbor, will be heard on May 20, 2003.

          -

      10. 2000.1268CVX (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

          663-665 SUTTER STREET - South side between Mason and Taylor Streets, Lot 11, in Assessor's Block 297 - Review of Art Requirement under Planning Code Section 149 as provided for in the Conditions of Approval related to the previously-approved Section 309 (Review of Downtown Buildings) Determinations of Compliance and Exceptions for the new Olympic Club addition. The proposed art project will be sculptured friezes on the front facade of the building. The purpose of this item is to update the Planning Commission on the art project previously approved.

      Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

                SPEAKER (S):

                (+) Paul Adamson, Hamburger Steel Architects

          - Gave a general description of how the project's art requirement is being met.

          ACTION: Meeting held. No action required

    D. REGULAR CALENDAR

      11. 2003.0016C (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

          653 KEARNY STREET - west side, southwest corner of intersection with Clay Street, in Assessor's Block 226, Lot 1 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization to operate a small fast food restaurant in the CCB (Chinatown Community Business District) and a 50-N Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to operate a "Subway" small fast food restaurant of less than 1,500 square feet in one of two ground floor retail tenant spaces at the subject site. The proposal includes a new storefront and signage, as well as interior tenant improvements but no expansion of the existing building.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                SPEAKER (S): None

                ACTION: Approved as amended:

          1. This approval is for the operation of an approximately 980 square-foot small fast food Subway restaurant, in a currently vacant ground floor retail space at the project site. The project shall be in general conformance with the plans stamped Exhibit B and dated May 8, 2003 on file in Case Docket No. 2003.0016C.

          3. Any proposed awnings shall be compatible with scale and character of the historic building. No plastic illuminated "bubble" awnings, or awnings containing signage that is out of scale and inappropriate for the historic character of the building shall be installed on this building.

          7. The applicant shall designate a staff person to be a community liaison for the operation of the proposed wine shop restaurant. This person will serve as a first contact to handle any issues or problems that may arise with the operation of the wine shop restaurant. This person's name and telephone number will be on file with the Zoning Administrator and appropriate neighborhood organizations. The applicant will keep the above parties apprised should a different staff liaison be designated.

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

          MOTION NO. 16576

          12a. 2003.0028XCV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

          150 POWELL STREET - southeast corner of Powell Street and O'Farrell Street, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 0327 - A request for Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code for two alternate, mutually exclusive uses, both of which would demolish three un-rated buildings located on the project site, construct an addition connected to the east side of the existing 150 Powell Street building, and renovate that existing building, rated as Category IV under the Planning Code. The proposed addition and renovated 150 Powell Street building would have four stories, approximately 65 feet tall, and would include retail space, and an approximately 3,600 gross square foot landscaped courtyard and lobby on the first floor. Both alternatives require a determination of compliance with the Planning Code pursuant to Section 309, with an exception to loading requirements. No parking would be provided as part of the Project. The subject site is within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District, an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District, and the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District. Option (1) would provide ground floor, basement, and mezzanine retail, with the upper three stories used for up to 50 dwelling units, all uses permitted as of right. This alternative requires an additional exception under Section 309 (rear yard), and also must obtain variances from residential parking (13 spaces), dwelling unit exposure, and open space requirements, at a concurrent hearing before the Zoning Administrator. Option (2) would provide ground floor and mezzanine retail, with the upper three stories used for up to 50 units of time share condominiums, categorized as a "hotel" use under the Planning Code and requiring a Conditional Use authorization. The basement would be used as accessory spa and gymnasium space for the time-share residents. This alternative has no parking requirements.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions of both Options 1 and 2.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2003)

                SPEAKER (S): None

                ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 6/12/03

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

          12b. 2003.0028XCV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

          150 POWELL STREET - southeast corner of Powell Street and O'Farrell Street, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 0327 - A request for a Conditional Use Authorization to allow up to 50 units of timeshare use (classified as a hotel) under Sections 216(b)(i) and 303 of the Planning Code The proposed project would demolish three unrated buildings located on the project site, construct an addition connected to the east side of the existing 150 Powell Street building, and renovate that existing building, rated as Category IV under the Planning Code. The proposed addition and renovated 150 Powell Street building would have four stories, approximately 65 feet tall, and would include retail space, and an approximately 3,600 gross square foot landscaped courtyard and lobby on the first floor. No parking or off-street loading would be provided as part of the Project. The project would provide ground floor and mezzanine retail, with the upper three stories used for the 50 units of time-share units. The basement would be used as accessory spa and gymnasium space for the timeshare residents. The subject site is within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District, an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District, and the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                SPEAKER (S): None

                ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 6/12/03

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

          12c. 2003.0028XCV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

          150 POWELL STREET - southeast corner of Powell Street and O'Farrell Street, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 0327 - A request for variances from (1) residential parking requirements (a 13 space parking variance); (2) residential open space requirements (a proposed courtyard that provides the required square footage does not meet the light and air standards for common residential open space); and (3) dwelling unit exposure requirements. The proposed project would create up to 50 dwelling units by demolishing three unrated buildings located on the project site, constructing an addition connected to the east side of the existing 150 Powell Street building, and renovating that existing building, rated as Category IV under Article 11 of the Planning Code. The proposed addition and renovated 150 Powell Street building would have four stories, approximately 65 feet tall, and would include retail space, and an approximately 3,600 gross square foot landscaped courtyard and lobby on the first floor. No parking would be provided as part of the Project. The project would provide ground floor, basement, and mezzanine retail, with the upper three stories used for up to 50 dwelling units, all uses permitted as of right. The subject site is within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District, an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District, and the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District.

                SPEAKER (S): None

                ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 6/12/03

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

          13. 2003.0093TZ (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

                JACKSON SQUARE SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the Planning Code to add Section 249.24 to establish the Jackson Square Special Use District, amending the Zoning Map Sectional Map No. 1 SU to show the boundaries of this District, requiring that within a portion of this district all ground floor and basement level office use be subject to Conditional Use Authorization and in other specified portions be prohibited, requiring that within this District adult entertainment enterprises be prohibited, modifying the abandonment period for permitted conditional uses in this District, and making findings of consistency with the General Plan and Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2003)

                SPEAKER (S):

                Supervisor Aaron Peskin

          - Gave an general analysis of proposed code amendments

          Clement Cheng

          - The proposed special use district will hinder adaptability, hurt property values and the viability of the neighborhood.

          Nancy Ho-Belli

          - Opposed revisions to the Planning Code

          Noel Lawrence

          - Opposed legislation

          Gary Gavello

          - Opposed legislation

          Michelle Donnelly

          - Opposes this measure because it is too restrictive. We would have to apply for any sort of special permit or authorization for office use. It will present an financial hardship on property owners, especially in these current economic time.

                Don Gressman

          - Opposed legislation

          Sarah Stocking

          - This is a very good long-term strategy for preserving an area that it is so unique to San Francisco. It is not just the historic quality of the buildings, but also the nature of the retail environment. With better economic times, it will expand.

          Robert Mosher

          - This ordinance is something for the present, it is not for the future. It is also to ensure that what happened before cannot happen again.

          Michael Weller

          - I would like to see a good viable economic mix of interest in our neighborhood

          Thierry Chantrel

          - Supports legislation

          Diana Kelly

          - Supports legislation

          Ken Dupey

          - Opposed legislation

          Charles Kirtley

          - Supports legislation

          Patricia Vaughey

          - Supports legislation

                ACTION: Approved as modified:

                SEC. 249.24. Jackson Square Special Use District

                In order to provide for the protection and enhancement of specialty retail and antique store uses in the Jackson Square area, there shall be established the Jackson Square Special Use District as designated on Sectional Map No. 1 Su of the Zoning Map. The boundaries of this special use district shall be coterminous with the boundaries of the Jackson Square Historic District as established by Appendix B to Article 10 of this Code and further described in section 3 of that Appendix. The following provisions shall apply within the Jackson Square Special Use District.

          a) Purposes. These controls are intended to protect and enhance the unique retail character of the special use district. All decisions of the Planning Commission and Department for the establishment of ground floor and basement use shall be guided by the following factors:

                1) Continuation and enhancement of existing ground floor and basement retail uses are of critical importance to the character of the District and displacement of such uses should be discouraged;

                2) Attraction and retention of similar new retail establishments that conform with the character of this District should be encourage; and

                3) Uses that greatly intensify the density of employment have a negative impact on the provision of neighborhood services, traffic circulation, and limited on- and off-street parking.

          b) Controls.

                1) General. The provisions of the C-2 use district as established in section 210.2 and applicable provisions of the Garmet Shop Special Use District (section 236) and the Washington-Broadway Special Use District (section 239) shall prevail except as provided in photographs 2) and 3) below.

                2) Conditional Uses. Office uses set forth in sections 219(a), (b), (c), and (d) at the ground floor are subject to conditional use authorization pursuant to section 303 of this Code, provided, however, that building lobbies, entrances, and exits to and from the basement ground floor, or upper floors, and other reasonably sized common areas at the ground floor shall be permitted without conditional use authorization. In addition to the findings required under section 203(c) for conditional use authorization, the Commission shall make the following findings:

                  a) The use shall be necessary to preserve the historic resource and no other use can be demonstrated to preserve the historic resource.

                  b) The use shall be compatible with, and shall enhance, the unique retail character of the District.

                3) Prohibited Uses.

                  Adult entertainment enterprises, as defined in section 221(k), are prohibited

                SEC. 178 CONDITIONAL USES

                d) and the Jackson Square Special Use District

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

          RESOLUTION NO. 16577/16578

      14. (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558- 6306)

          RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION POLICY - Consideration of revisions to the Planning Commission's Residential Demolition Policy. This report provides an overview of current procedures for Planning Department review of residential demolition applications that do not require Conditional Use authorization. Revisions to criteria relating to specific General Plan Policies are suggested. Changes to procedures for determinations of building "soundness" are proposed. This is an informational presentation, with no action to be taken by the Planning Commission. The Commission may adopt specific policies, procedures, and criteria regarding residential demolitions at one or more future hearings, following a period of review and public comment.

                SPEAKER (S):

          Pat Lackey

          - The most important things would be for people that work in the City, be able to afford to live in the City.

          Jim Salinas

          - Believes it is important to refurbish these properties. Many are made in architectural designs that are important to San Francisco and were constructed in an era that workmanship was valued.

          - By tearing down these small more affordable properties, you allow the developers to make huge profits and build units that are outside the range of the average San Franciscan.

          - Please do not let profit become the motive for tearing down pieces of San Francisco, that can house families, seniors, renters--thereby keeping our families here in San Francisco rather than have them relocate to San Pablo, Pittsburgh, Vallejo, etc.

          Addison Strong

          - Affordability is an obvious concern for anyone who lives in San Francisco

          Jeremy Paul

          - The concept of demolition versus alteration is an artificial barrier. There is no difference in process between a major alteration and a full demolition.

-

          Marilu Lascari

          - Housing demolition should not be made easier and there should be more regulations.

          Russell Murphy

          - It is hard to bring some of these old houses up to date with the structural standards in San Francisco today.

          David Silverman

          - Report is very thorough but it does not mention a very important feature that should be taken into account: what is the age of the house? This should be considered independent of the question of soundness.

          - There is a suggestion in the report that increases the threshold of an upgrade cost to 75% in cases that are called owner neglect. He has handled quite few of these cases and can tell you that there is no agreement on how to distinguish owner neglect from normal aging or construction deficiency. This is an area that needs more analysis and consideration.

          Ahmad Larizadeh

          - Supports revisions to the criteria related to specific General Plan Policies.

          Steve Vettel

          - One of the replacement policy in the draft, one of the things you look at it is that the replacement building provides family housing--that becomes a plus.

          - Others special-needs housing identified in the General Plan as high need is elderly housing and group housing for mentally disabled adults.

          Daniela Kirshenbaum

          - This report is a big step in the right direction

          - Neighborhood character is something that we always we need to think about, and it is spelled out in this report.

          - It is hard to find opportunities where demolitions have enhanced neighborhood character.

          Pat Buscovich

          - A lot of these buildings were built a long time ago and they are not functional today.

          - We need to look at single-family homes differently than multi-family housing.

          - Reports need to be done by people who do not have a financial interest, but an interest in the design so you can get an un-bias report.

          Joe O'Donoghue

          - In the 1960s and 1970s the rate of demolition was .3%, 1500 to 1900 units per year. Today the rate of demolition is about .4% and single family homes today are .01% to .03% of that.

          Charlie Varon

          - Let's be very careful when we think about demolition. Think about the architectural heritage, historical heritage, or the cultural heritage, that we are taking away from our kids.

          Hiroshi Fukuda

          - We need to create a more efficient and accurate demolition system to be able to preserve our buildings and neighborhoods.

          Gary Gee

          - The criteria for a minimum two-bedroom units is maybe too strict. It does not allow flexibility.

          Dick Millet

          - Something has to be done. We need to go back to 1300 sq. ft. This will give 3 bedrooms and 2 baths and families might be able to live there, instead of these great luxury homes [where most of them can't].

          Shawn Gorman

          - Design is really a separate issue from demolition. It is tied more often than not to cases coming before you as a result of a demolition occurring before the residential design can be approved.

          Patricia Vaughey

          - Concerned about the Commission voting on this, until after the demolition issue is settled at the Board of Supervisors. Much of what is in this seems to be what is in front of the Board of Supervisors, and some the wording seems to be extremely controversial.

          - Believes that you might be breaking CEQA by doing a policy like this and not doing it jointly with the Housing Element.

          Kepa Acknowsky

          - Would like to request that this type of study expand to include other zoning areas in San Francisco.

          Sue Hestor

          - Regarding Recommendation 13: Someone buys a property that has a failure of maintenance from the prior owner. That could not work, because 1) there will be collusive transactions to avoid; 2) property would be priced as a tear down. If you want to keep the land value down so that someone who has the hope of buying a condemned building, you have to take the value for rehabbing a demolition out of that property. You are not going to do it.

          Joe Buttler

          - The soundness report formula that is currently in place could be reasonably applied to the majority of buildings that are more than 50 years of age, due to the code upgrade, seismic and otherwise. A broader context view of demolition within the neighborhood should be considered, and those parts in the master plan excluded from the summary of the demolition policy today, should be included.

          Judy Berkowitz

          - One of the things that she is particularly concerned about is the 2/3 of the interior demolition without notice.

          Alice Barkley

          - In terms of the old buildings, it mentions in the report that the environmental evaluation would hold out those buildings with architectural merit and historical significance.

          Marilyn Amini

          - Urged the Commission not to act on the demolition policy until you hear fully the Housing Element, and take public comment.

    ACTION: Meeting held. No action required.

E. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

      At approximately 6:30 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

          15. 2002.1267DD (D. JONES: (415) 558- 6477)

                686 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 Discretionary Review and approve the building permit as submitted.

                (Continued from Regular Hearing of May 1, 2003)

                SPEAKER (S):

      David Aranika, First Discretionary Review Requestor

          - There are some exceptional and extraordinary circumstances surrounding this project.

          - One of his concerns with the proposed project has to do with the second and third floors of the building and the depth of the building.

          - Their air and light to adjacent properties is significantly diminished.

          - Asked the Commission to consider the impact to his light, space and visual [view].

      Joe Buttler, Representing Second Discretionary Review Requestor

          - The overlapping of these four corner lots and their shallow buildings meets the minimum standards of the Planning Code. If applied to the sponsor's application, it would not adequately protect the light and air of the three other homes.

        Dick Meister

          - What it amounts to is the question of fairness and equity.

          - It violates the privacy and light of two neighbors.

      Gerry Meister

          - Would like the same standards that have been previously al\pplied in the neighborhood be applied on this project.

          - Minimal reduction inside has been asked for. It would be a good service to the neighborhood if it is granted.

      James Haire

          - The subject house is the oldest on this part of the hill. In essence, it has some historic value.

          - Strongly supports the project.

      Jim Ruben, representing Project Sponsor

          - The rear yard, that has been retained is 40%, not 25%.

          - This is a modest extension at most.

          - There is no way either the first and second floor could impact either of the Discretionary Review requestors.

          - The project sponsor wants to preserve a house that obviously contributes to the character of the neighborhood.

          - Opposing the retention of the house and its renovation in a way that is a practical solution is not good to anybody right now.

          - Asked the Commission to not take Discretionary Review and follow staff`s recommendations.

        Bill Pashelincky, Architect of the Project

          - Gave a general description of the project

      Mary Sangiacomo

          - Always been her dream to restore a Victorian home and make it her family home.

          - This home has a very rich history.

          - The house cannot presently be occupied. To make it livable for her family, they needs to extend the rear to modestly increase the size of the building.

      James McFadden

          - Strongly supports this project.

      Steven Aiello

          - There is a well established pattern of three-story buildings on this block.

          - These people are saving a home that could easily be demolished.

                - They are keeping the roof down instead of doing a cathedral-style roof in the back.

                ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved as submitted.

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

          16. 2003.0312D (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

                761 KANSAS STREET - east side between 19th Street and 20th Street, Lot 17 in Assessor's Block 4073 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.10.25.0003 proposing to construct a vertical and rear horizontal addition, as well as a new front facade. The property is within an RH-2 (House, Two-family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

                (Continued from Regular Hearing of May 1, 2003)

          SPEAKER (S):

      Lou and Ruth Goldheimer, Discretionary Review Requestors

          - Supports their new neighbor's need to expand and enhance their home

          - Has agreed that a third floor on top of the second will provide them with the space they want.

          - Would like to emphasis their two goals for this Discretionary Review: 1) The rear depth of the house be modified to be in line with and comparable to the adjacent neighbors; 2) the mass and volume of the house be mitigated by progressive setbacks that would preserve some neighbors access to sun, air, and views.

      Katherine Krebs

          - Concerned about the preservation of the beauty and character of their neighborhood.

          - The volume and mass of the proposed building must be mitigated by the use of progressive setbacks so it is comparable with the rest of the neighborhood.

        Rose O'Leary (Spoke on behalf of Rubin Sutherland)

          - Supports Discretionary Review

      Philip E. LeMaster

          - This building does not fit the neighborhood.

          - The style looks like it belongs in an intercity office complex of cement, glass, and steel in the shape of a box.

      Pam Davis

          - This alteration does not add to the housing stock. There is no justification for tripling the size of the home.

          - This is a single-family dwelling.

          - The builders are not planning to make this home two units.

          - There is absolutely no advantage to the City and the taxpayers for a house of this dimension.

      Robert Graham

          - This project is totally out of character with the neighborhood.

      Michelle Garside

          - Asked the Commission to use their power and do what it says in the Planning Code.

          - We would like to preserve our neighborhood. It is a very special place because we love how we live there. We do not live big.

      Judith Leash

          - Urged the Commission to consider the guidelines adopted in 1989 and to review neighborhood comparability.

      Gregg Goddard

- Supports Discretionary Review.

      Miguelina Perez

          - Supports Discretionary Review.

      Ben Goldheimmer

          - The proposed new home is not in keeping with the sizes of the homes currently on this block.

          - The project designer is proposing a home that is nearly 4.000 square feet, while the other three-story structures are approximately 2500 square feet. This is 1500 square feet larger than the norm.

      Garry Sinclair

          - This project will greatly impact their garden.

          - They would lose their privacy.

      Kris Gardner

          - I'm here today to support the residential design guidelines.

          - The project before you proposes a design that is in conflict with the residential design guidelines in the following area: the addition proposes an extension into the rear yard that is greater than a garden level floor.

          - The proposed rear yard extension is out of alignment with the adjoining neighbors to the south as well as to the north.

      Catherine Wayland

          - Concerned about retaining the integrity of the Potrero Hill Neighborhood.

          - Concerned about building Monster Homes that will impact the sun, air, and light of the neighborhood.

      Tito Patri

          - Urged the Commission to require the proponents to go back to the drawing board and design something that is neighborly, not necessarily just according to the rules.

        Dick Millet

          - The design is beautiful, it is just in the wrong place. The character is wrong for this place, and it is not in the single-family zone.

      Steve Williams, representing John and Triny Artol

          - How is this not a demolition? Look at the plans. The Department has to explain how this is not a demolition when all you are saving is just a little bit of a wall.

          - Even what we proposed to you today would at least make it a major alteration.

          - Urged the Commission, as part of the Discretionary review, to put this scheme back in place.

          Joel Yodowitz

          - The Discretionary Review requestors conveniently omitted from their drawings the fact they have a rear yard cottage and 100% lot coverage themselves. They also miss-categorized the remaining rear yards in the block.

          - The proposed project comes in about 66 feet. As you can see, several of the other buildings are larger than that. There is no specific continuance of space.

          - The proposed house would be about 3480 square feet, not 4100 square feet as the Discretionary Review requestors mentioned tonight.

          - The project impact on light and air has been mis-represented.

          - The subject property is north of the Goldheimers. It will have a very minimal impact. It will only extended about an additional 13 feet into their year yard.

      Robin Coleen, Project Sponsor

          - Their renovation respects setbacks. And because of her love of gardening, this features lots of landscaping elements in the front and rear of the house.

          - This house was conceived as a solar house. We hoped that the energy efficiency of it would inspire more on the hill to use solar power.

          - In our design, we made considerable efforts to accommodate our neighbors--lapping off corners, preserving setbacks, moving a balcony to preserve one of the neighbors' privacy, lowering solar panels, etc. In fact, we have made many compromises over the last nine months through many meetings.

      David Coleen, Project Sponsor

          - This is an old house that has two substandard additions. In the structural evaluations we found out that these additions are about to fall down. We will take them down before they fall down. The main part of the house will stay. We have an addition proposed in the back and an additional floor added to the top.

          - We have been through a lengthy process here. We have been working with our neighbors for nine months now. We had over thirty design meetings with neighbors including the Goldheimers.

          - We are proposing to renovate a house completely within the rules.

      Chris Thompson

          - He is in support of the builders of this building largely because he is simpatehic to the ardorous nature of the task at hand--trying to get a project approved in the City.

          Peter Eurenever

          - Supports the project because it adds to the energy on the hill.

      - The design fits in with the neighborhood.

      Babette Drefke

          - Found that all the proposed improvements are within the Planning Code. Therefore it is necessary to side with those who are trying to improve the neighborhood.

      - Urged the Commission to approve the application.

                ACTION: Approved as modified:

          - Provide a consistent three-foot side setback for the last nine-feet of depth of the addition on its southern side; and

          - Reduce the height of the clearstory by one-foot and increase its setback from the front building wall by three-feet.

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; W. Lee

          ANAYES: S. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

          17. 2002.1065DD (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

          1469 18TH STREET - corner of 18th and Connecticut, Lot 27 in Assessor's Block 4036 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.09.05.5714 proposing to change the use to include "Other Entertainment" with a Police "Place of Entertainment" permit, doing business as the "Lingba Lounge," located in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2003)

                SPEAKER (S): None

                ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 5/22/03

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

      18a. 2002.1171DV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

          2312 WEBSTER STREET - east side between Washington and Jackson Streets; Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 604 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.09.04.5572S, proposing to reconfigure the existing two-unit building to a single-family configuration with a new small auxiliary unit at the garage level in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the proposed reconfiguration of units.

                SPEAKER(S): None

                ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 5/22/03

          AYES: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Hughes

      18b. 2002.1171DV (M. WOODS: (4150 558-6315)

          2312 WEBSTER STREET - east side between Washington and Jackson Streets; Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 604 - Rear yard and non-complying structure Variances sought: Approximately fifty percent of the rear building wall of the lower two floors of the existing three-story over garage, two-unit building is within one foot of the rear lot line and the existing rear exit stairs are less than two feet from the rear lot line, thus making the building non-complying. The proposal is (1) to expand the garage level such that the entire garage level is within one foot of the rear lot line; (2) to rebuild the rear exit stairs in the southeast corner with one-hour fire rated walls up to the third floor level; and (3) to construct a new fire escape stairs in the northeast corner with one-hour fire rated walls at the fourth floor level. The subject property is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                SPEAKER(S): None

                ACTION: Without hearing, the Zoning Administrator continued this to 5/22/03

      19. 2003.0075DDDDD (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          139 RANDALL STREET - south side between Chenery and Church Streets. Assessor's Block 6663 Lot 036 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.0930.7802, to construct a new four story, two family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential House, 2 Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Modify the Project

                SPEAKER(S): (ON THE CONTINUANCE ONLY)

                Jenny Mendez, Project Sponsor

          - Willing to make some changes, but they need to be seen by the neighbors. We want to work with them and reach a compromise.

          Andrea Werlin

          - Has tried to meet with the developer. She is not sure the developer is willing to meet them even half way or at all.

          Laurie Stacikaly

          - It is very disingineous to request a continuance at this time.

          Diane Sid-Champion

          - Urged the Commission not to postpone this case.

      Mark Lange, Designer

          - The continuance will allow them specially to review the vast changes recommended by the Planning Department.

- THE ITEM WAS NOT CONTINUED.

      Dianne Sid-Champion, Discretionary Review Requestor

          - Gave the Commission an overview of her concerns.

          - Supports the recommendations from the Planning Department that will reduce the size of the proposed building, yet provide for two new family size three-bedroom dwelling units.

          - Objects to the proposed building because it violates virtually every one of the residential design guidelines.

      Paul Curtis, Discretionary Review Requestor

          - We do not oppose development in the neighborhood. We just want something that can keep up with the character of the neighborhood

      Laurie Stacikaly, Discretionary Review Requestor

          - 139 Randall Street is not a precedent, it is a mistake.

          - Concerned about the parking impact on the neighborhood.

      Andrea Werlin

          - Urged the Commission to take Discretionary Review and deny the permit.

      Arny Lera, representing Discretionary Review requestors

          - Showed a computer generated picture that showed a rendering of the proposed house when built.

      Paul Travis

          - Does not support the project.

      Jenny Mendez, Project Sponsor

          - The benefit of this project is that it would address the chronic housing shortage in the City.

      Eduardo Mendez, co-Project Sponsor

          - The project is following all the residential design guidelines stipulated by the Planning Department.

          - Neighborhood supports the project.

      Eduardo Paniagua

          - Supports the project.

      John Wooly

          - The project conforms to the residential design guidelines.

      Mark Lanaking

      - Does not support the project

      Elena Estudias

          - Urged the Commission to deny the application for Discretionary Review

                ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with modifications:

          1) The height of the building shall be reduced to three stories and shall not exceed a maximum of 30 feet.

          2) The roof parapet shall not exceed 6 inches in height.

          3) If a deck is developed on the front of the second story roof, the deck shall be enclosed with an open rail and not a solid parapet and the railing shall be setback 5 feet from the front of the lower floor.

          4) The building shall no exceed 65 feet 7 inches in height.

          5) The building shall match the light wells in the adjacent buildings to the east and west.

          6) The garage entrance, driveway and curb cut for the building shall be relocated to a location that will minimize the impact of the driveway on street parking space,.

          7) A required street tree shall be planted in front of the property and the frond setback area, excluding the driveway and entry walkway, shall be landscaped with plant materials. A landscaping plan for the front setback area shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Department.

          8) The garage door shall not exceed 8 feet in width.

          9) The final design of the front façade of the building shall be modified to better reflect the character of the neighborhood. Approval of the final design of the front façade by Planning Department staff is required.

          AYES: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell; Hughes

      THIS ITEM WAS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND HEARD PRIOR TO #19.

      20. 2003.0193D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          2146 45TH AVENUE - east side between Quintara and Rivera Avenues. Assessor's Block 2173 Lot 040 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.1204.2727, to construct a two story horizontal addition to the rear of the existing one story, single family in an RH-1 (Residential, House, 1 Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Modify the Project

                SPEAKER (S):

      Tana Hall

          - The proposal as it stands, is very insensitive to the neighborhood and increases the value and enjoyment of one property at the expense of all the others on the block. It is also at the expense of the character of the neighborhood.

          - The height is too tall for the area. The bulk and its encroachment into the rear yard impacts open space. They are building to the full legal limit of the property. They lack good neighbor features to mitigate the negative impacts, which are increased density, lost open space, views and privacy.

        Kelly Stanley (read a letter from Ellen Mary James-Smith)

          - Privacy, view, quality of open space, increased density in the neighborhood, and the worry that such a large building would be used for multiple families are all immediate concerns.

      Dennis Young, Architect, representing Project Sponsor

          - Gave a general description of the project.

      Helen Chiung, Project Sponsor

          - Needs to expand her house, to be able to raise her children.

                ACTION: Approved with modifications:

          - The Commission determined that the second floor of the addition shall be deleted from the plans.

          AYES: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; S. Lee; W. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Hughes

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: 10:25 P.M.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 2003.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:06 PM