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

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

September 11, 2003

September 11, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, September 11, 2003
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Edgar E. Boyd, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Lisa Feldstein

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

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director; Jim Nixon - Acting Zoning Administrator; Elaine Warren - Deputy City Attorney; Ben Helber; Matt Snyder; Rick Crawford; Geoffrey Nelson; Glenn Cabreros; Michael Smith; Ben Fu; Kate McGee; Michael Lee; Paul Maltzer; Joan Kugler; 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. 2002.0277C (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

          150 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE - north side between Jones and Leavenworth Streets, in Assessor's Block 344, Lot 4. Request for a Conditional Use authorization to construct a building exceeding 40 feet in height in an R (Residential) District, to determine an appropriate setback at the top portion of the front of the façade of the proposed building, and to allow an Institutional Use in an RC (Residential Commercial Combined) District. The subject property is zoned RC-4 (Residential-Commercial, Combined, High Density) District, is in the North of Market Special Use District, and is in an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to demolish an existing four-story, approximately 88-foot high vacant building originally used as a lodge building for the Knights of Columbus, and most recently as office space. The existing building would be replaced with a new five-story, approximately 78'-0" high building that would house administrative and some on-site service functions of the St. Anthony Foundation which provides a variety of services to homeless and other disadvantaged individuals. The proposed facility at 150 Golden Gate would function as part of a larger campus of St. Anthony's and would specifically provide space for administrative offices, counseling, health and job training services, and, temporarily, some dining services, until a new dining and residential structure could be constructed across the street.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 17, 2003)

      NOTE: On May 1, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued this item to July 17, 2003 allowing project sponsor to continue to work with the community by a vote of +7 -0.

            (Proposed for Continuance to September 18, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 18, 2003.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

          2. 2002.1105C (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

          4039 18TH STREET - south side, between Hartford and Noe Streets, Lot 81 in Assessor's Block 3583 - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 186, 715, and 151, to allow (1) conversion of an existing nonconforming large fast-food restaurant (Hot n' Hunky's) to a full-service restaurant, (2) demolition of an existing two-bedroom unit on the second floor, and (3) addition of one new dwelling unit without providing any off-street parking. The property is in the Castro Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 28, 2003)

          NOTE: On August 28, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and entertained a motion of intent to approve the restaurant conversion, but not the residential conversion by a vote +4 -1. Commissioner William Lee voted no. Commissioners Feldstein and Sue Lee were absent. Final language September 11, 2003.

            (Proposed for Continuance to September 18, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 18, 2003

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

      3. 2003.0844D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          309-311 - 2ND AVENUE - west side between Geary Boulevard and Clement Street, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 1434 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2001.01.08.9361 proposing to demolish a three-story with attic, two-unit building in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Construction of a four-story, three-unit building and three parking spaces is also proposed under a separate permit.

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

          DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WITHDRAWN BY DEPARTMENT STAFF

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Discretionary Review Withdrawn

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      4. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of 6/12; 6/19, 7/24 (continued from 9/4/03), 2003.

          Minutes of June 12, 2003 and June 19, 2003:

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, minutes continued to September 18 because of a lack of quorum of Commissioners present on those dates to take action.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

          Minutes of July 24, 2003:

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

          EXCUSED: Bradford Bell

      5. Commission Comments/Questions

          Commissioner Bill Lee:

          Re: Housing Element

          - SPUR produced a report this month that contains numbers from ABAG for projections to 2030 regarding the number of households there will be in that year.

          - He would like to have these numbers added to the Housing Element.

          Re: Housing Units

          - He would like to know how many new units of housing have been approved since this Commission has been in office. This would be separate of the DR process.

          Re: Workplan

          - Last night he had a chance to review the Planning Department's Base Line Budget.

          - He is deeply concerned about this year and next year's budget.

          - Apparently there is about $2.3 million of a one time infusion from the Department of Building Inspection.

          - Of this amount, 2.1 million goes to the staff and the rest goes to reports.

          - The fee structure has not been approved by the Board of Supervisors.

          - The Department was supposed to increase the fees so there is already a short term problem at this time.

          - The Department needs to let the Commission know what the options are.

          Commissioner Hughes:

          Re: Transit First Policy

          - He took a look at the Transit First Policy.

          - He requested a brief discussion on this as it relates to the General Plan and planning at some point in the future.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: 5810 San Jose Avenue

          - Last week this project was approved. It dealt with the sale of four affordable units.

          - The other units in that project sold at around $190,000 or less. It was quite disturbing that units are being sold in the open market at this amount.

          - He requested some kind of statistics on sale prices of new housing in San Francisco for the last two years as opposed to all housing.

          Commissioner Sue Lee:

          Re: Rincon Hill

          - She requested that copies of the Transbay Design for Development document be transmitted for members of the Commission so that they can be kept abreast of what is being proposed for Transbay.

          - She requested a very brief status report on the efforts of the Department in completing the Rincon Hill Plan.

          - Member of the Commission should be kept aware as well as members of the public.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          Re: audit

          - She instructed staff to scheduled a status hearing on the audit in November.

          Commissioner Bill Lee:

          Re: Item 9 - Discretionary Review Policy

          - Is there a way to use community boards during the pre-application process?

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      6. Director's Announcements

          Acting Director Larry Badiner's Report:

          Re: Trip to New York

          - He will be gone for a few days next week. He will be available by phone and fax.

          Re: Commissioner Lee's Request Regarding Budget:

          - The Department is concerned about the fee ordinance and is working closely with the Controller and the Mayor's Office. He will be able to respond to questions regarding this issue at the hearing of September 25, 2003.

          Re: Rincon Hill

          - He has reviewed the latest draft on this and it was sent to Gerald Green via Federal Express yesterday. Once his comments and Director Green's comments are incorporated, the document will be released.

          Re: Transit First Policy

          - A discussion on this as it relates to the General Plan will be scheduled in the near future. A lot of the housing requests made by the Commission will be in the Housing Element Report. This report will be issued on September 18, 2003. There will be some follow-up memos which will probably come out on September 25, 2003. The hearing on the Housing Element will be held on October 9, 1003.

          Craig Nikitas of Staff gave a Review of Interim Policy on Mandatory Discretionary Reviews of Residential Demolitions.

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

          BOS - None

          BOA - None

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

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

      Re: 527 23rd Avenue

      April Ford

      - She thanked staff of the Planning Department for working with her and her neighbors on this project.

      - She has modification issues including: incorrect measurements on the plans, the light well location on the north side of the project is off place, and a third parking space should be noted on the plans.

      - There are a significant amount of windows and she requested that these windows face in instead of towards her property.

      - The exit stair should be looked at more closely.

      Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor

      - He admits that there are discrepancies in the plans.

      - The intentions of the project sponsor are to deal with all the issues. The light well will be installed.

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

          8. 2002.1268D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

                527 23RD AVENUE - west side between Anza and Balboa Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 1566 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.09.05.5649, proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition at the rear of the single-family dwelling, a new third floor and a partial fourth floor in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal would create a second dwelling unit and a second off-street parking space.

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

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 10, 2003)

                NOTE: On July 31, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to take Discretionary Review and approve as modified by a vote of +6 -0. Commissioner Bradford-Bell was absent. Final action to consider modifications scheduled for August 21, 2003.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved the Project with the following modifications since the Commission determined that more accurate plan information was required and several modifications to the proposed alteration of a single-family dwelling were appropriate. Accordingly, the Commission took Discretionary Review and instructed staff to approve Building Permit Application No. 2002.09.05.5649 with modifications to achieve the following: (all modifications reference drawing set R3, presented to the Commission at the public hearing).

                · A site survey by an independent licensed engineer shall be conducted on the subject property, including elevation references for the two adjacent properties. All existing structural and landscape features of the subject and adjacent properties shall be referenced in this site survey. Adjacent properties are to be measured to the greatest degree of accuracy possible, depending on available access to those properties. All project features on all drawing sheets are to be rectified against this site survey, specifically the location of light wells on the subject and neighboring properties, and the overall depth of said properties.

                · The plans shall indicate the parking arrangement of 3 parking spaces in the garage. Two spaces shall be `tandem' and one space shall be independently accessible.

                · The wetbar shown on the fourth floor plans shall be removed.

                · The north side windows on the rearmost bedrooms located on the second and third floors shall be changed from 5'-0"X6'-8" to 5'-0"X5'-0".

          AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          RECUSED: Bradford Bell (She had not been given the material from the last hearing to review.)

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

          9. (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

          DISCRETIONARY REVIEW POLICY - INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION ON PROPOSALS TO SIMPLIFY AND EXPEDITE THE REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY REVIEW CASES.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Daniela Kirshenbaum - Pacific Heights Residents Association/Neighborhood Network

          - Everyone is asking for a smooth, well functioning and well operating City Planning Department/Commission. She understands their concerns.

          - The situation has come to a point that home owners have to see which planners have good tempers and which ones are ill tempered.

          - Many people have real concerns about neighborhood character.

          - She realizes that this policy will be looked at closely. She is available as well as other neighborhood representatives to help in this process of problem solving.

          Terry Milne - Bernal Heights Design Review Board

          - Neighborhoods need to be able to have hearings about development plans.

          - The design review boards work to help homeowners not have to come to Discretionary Review hearings.

          - The restrictions on DR's are going to be counter productive since staff has not taken into consideration several points that would require technical education and corrections.

          - Only Commission action can direct staff to get more information.

          - Without Commission action there is no other way to get satisfactory conditions on the project about infrastructure elements.

          Kendall Goh

          - When there is a conflict between the developer and the neighbors, the Commission becomes a neutral arbitrator of the case.

          - One problem with having community boards, is enforcement. Community boards do not seek to enforce what was decided upon.

          - The system must allow the public to raise complaints to a neutral arbitrator. There has to be a system to allow the balance of power.

          Ron Miguel - President of the Planning Association of the Richmond District

          - Sometimes neighborhood associations act as design review boards and sometimes as administrative screening boards.

          - The idea of revisiting design review has been on everyone's mind for quite some time.

          - Clarity and consistency are key words on this issue.

          - It is fact that one can get different opinions on the same project from different planners.

          Kirk Scott

          - He commended the Commission for taking up this issue.

          - The Planning Department has already been very responsive in looking at some of the ideas that have been out there in reforming the DR process.

          - The single most important thing to change the process would be engaging early on in the pre-application review meeting. A quick yes or a quick no is better than a maybe.

          - The very specific process of DR's should be limited to cases that have significant neighborhood impact.

          Marilou Lascari

          - She really appreciates the part of this DR report that talks about the pre-application process.

          - The quality of life was worth the amount of money they paid during a DR process a few years ago.

          - She questions the suggestion of charging for time and materials.

          - There are plenty of people who would volunteer to become a Discretionary Review board.

          John Carney

          - He has filed four DR's over the years.

          - He feels that this is a delaying tactic. The process should only take 30 to 40 days.

          - This would allow time to get cases processed rather quickly.

          - The Planning staff does not travel to sites to see the neighborhood and be able to determine if a house will become a monster house.

          - Staff has written letters opposed to things that are in 311 notices and the public has to write a DR to support staff.

          - The dimensions that are on drawings are not always correct

          - The process should be made as fast as possible.

          Pat Buscovich

          - DR's are important to him.

          - The current system does not work.

          - There has to be some accountability.

          Hiroshi Fukuda

          - DR's are very important.

          - DR's are the only means in which residents can protest a project that is within code that is a detriment to the neighbors.

          - The affects of DR's are lifetime consequences to citizens.

          Jeremy Paul

          - The computation of cost does not take into account one really important cost--moral and the mileage that these cases puts on the staff.

          - DR cases wares staff down as much as DR cases wares Commissioners down.

          - These cases do not need to take up so much time.

          Alice Barkley

          - She endorses the staff recommendation on this issue.

          - The pre-application process is not a new one. This was required several years ago. The problem with not doing the pre-application is that staff does not give the complete information to the applicants. The initial consultations should be taken back as it was in the past.

          - Staff recommendation should be based on the volume increase in projects.

          Marilyn Amini

          - The Department is very biased pro developer, pro special interest groups, and pro density.

          - The Department is required to comply with prescribed standards.

          - Planning review and determination is also very biased.

          Rom Morgan - Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center

          - He advised the Department that the DR process is a very unique tool and if taken away it would devastate the Department.

          ACTION: Public Hearing Closed for Today.

                Item will be rescheduled on October 9, 2003

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          10. 2003.0389D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

          111 LOBOS STREET - south side between Capitol and Plymouth Avenues; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 7104 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.07.15.1446, proposing to demolish an existing two-story, single-family dwelling. The project also proposes to subdivide the existing lot into two separate lots and construct a new two-story, single-family dwelling on each of the two lots 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 demolition.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 31, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Rose Lew - Representing Project Sponsor

          - She apologized for the request to continue.

          - Even though the procedural aspect of this project is wrong because the owner has not obtained a third party to evaluate the conditions, the content of the evaluation is correct.

          - The structural speculations show that the building is structurally poor and potentially dangerous. It is in need of plumbing, heating and it has no insulation.

          - The electrical system is not up to current code.

          - The plumbing is steel and can produce leaks at any point.

          - A new roof is needed because it has many layers already.

          - The building has no lateral system so there is a possibility of collapsing.

          - The new construction would give the neighborhood a better appearance and would provide more housing.

          - Parking will not be a problem because both units will have a garage.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the project.

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

      11. 2003.0383D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

          718 CHURCH STREET - West side of Church between 19th Street and Cumberland, Lots 001C, in Assessor's Block 3600 - Mandatory Discretionary review, under the Planning Commission policy for dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application 2003.03.06.9036 to merge two dwelling units in a 7 unit building. The subject property is located in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low density) District in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the dwelling unit merger.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Alice Barkley

          - The proposed merger will make a 1,200 square foot, two-bedroom unit for a family of three.

          - This building sustained severe fire, smoke and water damage from the adjacent building.

          - The project sponsor has put their previous residence for sale and will move into the proposed unit.

          - This building was Ellis Acted. The timing of the Ellis Act and the fire was about one day apart.

          - Regardless of the Ellis Act, the building was damaged later and made uninhabitable.

          - All of the tenants are suing the insurance company because of the damage caused.

          - About two or three tenants were in the process of purchasing units but then the fire came.

          (+) Peter Keane - Dean of Golden Gate University School of Law

          - This is an attempt to have a living arrangement in San Francisco that is satisfactory to their needs.

          - The fire created a great deal of problems for the tenants.

          - The project satisfies most of the requirements for a merger.

          (+) Lawrence Abeln - Project Sponsor

          - The intent of he and his partner is to have this owner occupied.

          - The fire occurred because the next door neighbor fell asleep while keeping a candle lit.

          - He provided between $10,000 and $36,000 to each and every tenant for relocation.

          - There have been significant building code upgrades done to the building.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the merger

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

      12. 2003.0662D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

          149 HAMERTON AVENUE - south side of Hamerton, between Bosworth St & Mangels - Mandatory Discretionary Review of demolition application 2003.04.04.1497, pursuant to the Planning Commission's interim policy requiring review of residential demolitions, to demolish a single-family dwelling. The project also includes the construction of a new single-family dwelling under a separate permit. The subject property is located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One Family) District, in a 40-X Height & Bulk District.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          Ray Banday - Project Architect

          - He is available for questions.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          13. 2003.0190D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          442 - 20TH AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 034 in Assessor's Block 1525 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition of Demolition Permit Application No. 9917935 proposing to demolish a two-story single-family residence, in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-x Height and Bulk District. The project also proposes the construction of a new four-story, three-family dwelling on the site.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the Demolition Permit Application.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Rev. Arnold Townsend

          - He is assisting the owner who is a good friend of his.

          - There was a soundness report that was submitted to the Department of Building Inspection and this report was forwarded to the Planning Department.

          - The project sponsor has been waiting for about three years for this project to be approved and this is just too much time since the soundness report gave clearance for demolition.

          - The present tenants do not have a problem with this demolition.

          - All the buildings on the block are family sized dwelling units except for the subject property.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve this demolition.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition

          AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Hughes, W. Lee

          NAYES: S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Feldstein

          14. 2003.0636D (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

                28 SYLVAN DRIVE - east side between Sloat Boulevard and Ocean Avenue, Lot 042 in Assessor's Block 7250 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.02.3530, proposing to construct a partial third story vertical addition to the existing two-story, single-family dwelling located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take DR and approve the building permit with modifications.

      NOTE: Previously scheduled for July 10, 2003.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Rich Gunn - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - Every house going from east to west is lower.

          - When the houses were designed many years ago, the character was respected.

          - There are two-story family dwellings in the neighborhood.

          - He asked to preserve the character of the neighborhood and the two-story dwellings that are already there from corner to corner; also to maximize the space inside the building before adding a third story.

          (-) Raymond Gee

          - He does not want the neighborhood look and feel to be taken away because of this project.

          - He is in support to the revision plans from the Planning Department.

          (-) Jerome Ng

          - He has lived in the neighborhood for 22 years.

          - The vast majority of the homes have been maintained two stories.

          - His questions is: what is the purpose of the expansion? The answer was that the extension would be a library which is something he can appreciate yet the plans show two bedrooms and a bathroom.

          - He urges the Commission to deny the application and have the project sponsor go back to the drawing board.

          (-) Francis Prete

          - The entire neighborhood consists of two story rooflines.

          - He concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Department.

          (+) Meyer Jew - Project Sponsor

          - He believes that this project should be approved because the Discretionary Review requestor and his supporters have not shown exceptional and extraordinary circumstances to justify denial.

          - He displayed diagrams of the subject project and explained that there have been many neighbors who have singed letters of support for his project.

          - He walked throughout the neighborhood and counted that there have been a few homes with vertical additions.

          (+) John Hentz

          - When he looks west out through his back windows, he can see two homes with vertical extensions.

          - This is something that is really needed for the project sponsor and his family.

          - He is considering this type of extension in the future.

          - He does not believe that this project will take away from the character of the neighborhood.

          (+) Joan Kobota

          - The addition would not change the character of the neighborhood.

          - There is an inconsistency with regard to the staff recommendation.

          - View is not a significant factor to take Discretionary Review.

          - She agrees that the pre-application process is very important.

          - She urges the Commission to approve this project.

          (+) Twan Ng

          - He described the various floor plans and their dimensions.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved Project (with instructions to staff to continue to work on design)

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

      15. 2003.0110DD (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

                1921 PALOU AVENUE - south side between Rankin and Silver Avenue, Lot 042 in Assessor's Block 5330 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001.10.04.9988 proposing to construct a new single-family, two story dwelling unit on a vacant lot. The subject property is located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Carry (did not state last name)

          - He has no objection to continuing this project.

          - He is just a bit bothered with the fact that he found out about the continuance this morning

          Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor

          - He also recently found out about the request for continuance.

          - He was just contacted to do some research.

          - He would rather hear it as soon as possible.

          Frederic A. Campagnoli - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - He supports the continuance.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to November 20, 2003.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

      16. 2003.0435DD (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          231 DELANO AVENUE - south side between Santa Ynez and Rudden Avenues. Assessor's Block 3211 Lot 017A - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Applications No. 2001 0904 7432, 2001 0904 7434, and 2002 0510 6251, to respond to Department of Building Inspection enforcement actions relating to illegal occupancy and construction without permits in an RH-1 (Residential House, One Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. In particular, the Project will:

      1. In the building at 231 Delano Street;

          a) Eliminate ground floor rooms and restore parking.

            b) Eliminate an illegal third floor dwelling unit.

            c) Legalize a second story deck constructed on the rear 5 feet from the south side property line.

      2. In the building at 231 A&B Delano Street;

          a) Eliminate ground floor rooms and restore parking.

          b) Legalize the reconstructed and repaired rear stairs.

          c) Legalize four bedrooms in each of the two dwelling units in the building.

      3. In the building at 231 C Delano Street;

          a) Eliminate an illegal dwelling unit in the building.

          b) Legalize a deck constructed on the northeast corner of the building.

          4. Demolish the existing detached garage between the 231 and the 231 A&B Buildings,

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project with Modifications.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) David Hooper

          - The property is a legal nonconforming structure.

          - This was an opportunity to bring his concerns to a public forum.

          - The question has centered on no effective property management and a disregard for the housing code. He is looking for some way for someone to say, enough is enough!

          - This is a problem piece of property. Someone should be accountable for maintaining the property.

          - The garages, which have never been used as a garage, be made available to the tenants for the storage of their cars.

          - He hopes that the Commission will agree to take Discretionary Review and help the neighbors deal with this long term problematic piece of property.

          (-) Paula Savich

          - She does not live in the neighborhood any longer. When she first moved into the neighborhood, there were never these kinds of problems.

          - One parking space per unit is reasonable.

          (-) Miriam Sosa

          - She has a problem with the windows and the neighbors.

          - Her windows are always closed because she has no privacy.

          - She does not clean the yard anymore because it depresses her.

          (-) Joe Aner

          - He has lived in the neighborhood since 1998.

          - There are some really noisy tenants in the neighborhood.

          - His issue is the noise. Although many of the tenants have moved out.

          - He hopes to get families to live in these units.

          - The subject property is just an eyesore.

          (-) Roberto Artiga

          - He has lived in the area close to 30 years.

          - Before, the neighborhood used to be a peaceful place. The disruptions started about 6 or 7 years ago.

          - When the property owner started to rent by room is when the problems started.

          - The garages have been converted into living quarters and have been rented to people for storage so there is no place to park cars.

          (-) (first name unclear) Cotero

          - The tenants cannot park in the garage because they are being used for storage so people park in front of his home.

          - This forum seems to be the place to be able to solve all the problems.

          (+) Harold Smith - Real Estate Broker

          - He has been helping the project sponsor clear up all the violations.

          - The City Attorney's Office has helped to get rid of these violations.

          - There are building permits that are about to be issued to correct these violations.

          - Many of the issues the previous speakers have spoken about will be corrected.

          - The house will be conformed legally and the illegal units will be eliminated.

          ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with staff modifications:

                a) The units in building 231 A&B shall have a maximum of two bedrooms.

                b) All violations of the Planning and Building Codes must be corrected and all illegal dwelling units eliminated.

                c) The Project Sponsor shall appoint a community liaison officer to deal with issues of concern to neighbors related to the operation of this Project. The name and telephone number of the community liaison officer shall be reported to the Zoning Administrator for reference.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

      17. 2003.0700DD (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          565 CLIPPER STREET - south side between Douglass and Diamond Streets. Assessor's Block 6556 Lot 021 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003 0307 9076, to construct a new third floor and a three story rear addition to the existing two story single family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project with Modifications.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) David Lewis - 1st Discretionary Review Requestor

          - He will have three major windows blocked with this project. He considers this a problem since it will block the light to his home and to a deck in the back.

          - He has spent a lot of time working on his yard.

          - Even though there are some things that will be preserved, he believes that this is a demolition.

          - He would like this project scaled down to make it work in the neighborhood.

          (-) Colette Carpin

          - She is concerned with the size and bulk of the proposed project.

          - The elevation from her property is lower than the adjacent ground level of the subject property. So the project will tower over her property and will impact the air.

          - She is not looking forward to totally being walled in with a tower.

          (+) Derrik Wu - Representing Project Sponsor

          - The project sponsor will be providing living space for her family and her extended family.

          - After the plans were submitted, he had an opportunity to speak with the neighbors.

          - The project sponsor listened to the neighbors and has scaled down the project.

          - He has not had a chance to submit the revised design plans because he has only shown them to the neighbors and is waiting for their comments.

          ACTION: Public Hearing Closed. Item continued to November 6, 2003. The project is required to submit the plans to the Commission and Department staff.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

H. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

      None

      Adjournment: 7:38 p.m. - In memory of the victims of the September 11, 2001 attack.

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2003.

      SPEAKERS: None

      ACTION: Approved

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

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