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

November 06, 2003

November 06, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, November 6, 2003
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Lisa Feldstein, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Shelley Bradford Bell, Edgar E. Boyd, and William L. Lee

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT ANTONINI AT 1:35 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Jim Nixon - Acting Zoning Administrator; Rick Crawford; Mary Woods; Glenn Cabreros; Michael Li; Michael Li; Craig Nikitas; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

          1. 1999.233E (W. WYCKO: (415) 558-5972)

          833 - 881 JAMESTOWN AVENUE - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The project sponsor proposes construction of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that would consist of 198 one-, two- and three-bedroom market-rate condominiums on an approximately 6.9-acre lot, located at 833-881 Jamestown Avenue on Assessor's Block 4991, Lot 277, on the northern slope of Bayview Hill. The site is currently used as an overflow parking lot for events at Candlestick Park, which is approximately one-third of a mile southeast of the project site. The site is bordered by Jamestown Avenue (and single-family homes on the north side of Jamestown) to the north, another vacant lot to the east that also is used for parking for major events at Candlestick Park, the hillside to the south, and single-family housing to the west. Although the area proposed for development is mostly flat, development would require excavation of up to approximately 30 vertical feet at the base of the hill. The project would consist of 11 separate three- and four-story buildings: seven buildings of 12 to 18 units each along Jamestown Avenue and four buildings to the rear, at the base of the hillside. Of these latter four structures, two (36 units each) would be built atop one-story gated parking garages, while smaller buildings (one of eight and one of 10 units) would flank the garages. A total of 216 independently accessible parking spaces would be provided. The proposed project would include landscaping along Jamestown Avenue, construction of a 10-foot-wide sidewalk, two off-street freight loading areas, and about 28,900 sq. ft. of common open space, including two rear yards at the base of the hillside totaling about 7,250 sq. ft. and podium- and ground-level patios. The project also would remedy an existing drainage problem on Bayview Hill above the project site, on Recreation and Park Department land. The project site is located within the South Bayshore Plan area, in an RH-2 (Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As a PUD, the project would require review and approval by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 303 and 304 of the Planning Code.

          (Proposed for Continuance to December 18, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

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

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

          2. 2002.0658C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

          735 - 7th AVENUE, southwest corner of 7th Avenue and Cabrillo Street, an "L-shaped" lot extending to 8th Avenue, between Cabrillo and Fulton Streets; Lot 36, in Assessor's Block 1650 - Request for conditional use authorization under Sections 121.1, 121.2, 151, 157, 204.5, 303, 711.11 and 711.21 of the Planning Code for lot size, use size and accessory parking for the construction of a new approximately 28,000 square- foot Safeway supermarket with up to 65 off-street surface parking spaces, to replace the existing approximately 16,000 square-foot Safeway supermarket, on an approximately 54,000 square-foot lot in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 18, 2003)

                    (Proposed for Continuance to November 13, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to November 13, 2003

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

          3a. 20003.0904DV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

          937 - 939 JACKSON STREET - south side between Powell and Mason; Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 0191 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003 0724 0318 proposing the demolition of a two-family dwelling and its replacement with a new building containing nine dwelling units. The subject property is located in an RM-3 (Mixed Residential, Medium Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and approve the Demolition Permit.

                    (Proposed for Continuance to November 20, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

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

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

          3b. 2003.0535DV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

          937 - 939 JACKSON STREET - south side between Powell and Mason Streets, Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 0191, in an RM-3 (Mixed Residential, Medium Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to construct a new four-story residential building containing nine dwelling units with a ground-floor garage containing nine off-street parking spaces, after demolition of the existing two-family dwelling. A portion of the garage level (only) is proposed to project approximately 19 feet five inches into the otherwise-required rear-yard area, leaving an area open and clear (from the ground up) of 15 feet behind it. This proposed space would be devoted to three additional bedrooms and bathrooms, which would be appended to the two two-bedroom dwelling units at the rear of the floor above, making one of them a for-bedroom unit and the other a three-bedroom unit. The upper surface of this rear projection would be finished off as a usable open space. The application requesting a Variance will be heard by the Zoning Administrator.

                    (Proposed for Continuance to November 20, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

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

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

          4. 2003.0873D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          2524-2540 ANZA STREET - north side between 16th and 17th Avenues; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 1528 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.10.3209, proposing to add a new fourth floor to the existing three-story, four-unit building in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

                (Proposed for Continuance to January 8, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 8, 2004

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

          5. 2003.0193D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          244 GRANADA AVENUE - east side between Ocean and Holloway Avenues in Assessor's Block 6942 Lot 039 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.10.28.0113, to demolish the existing one family house, in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk district. There is a related proposal to construct a new two-family building.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Demolition Permit.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 16, 2003)

            (Proposed for Continuance to January 8, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 8, 2004

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

          6. 2003.1079D (R.CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          3344 MARKET STREET - northeast side between Glendale and Clayton Streets. Assessor's Block 2717 Lot 004F. Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.06.26.8149, to demolish the existing one family house and construct a new one family house in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

            (Proposed for Continuance to January 8, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 8, 2004

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

          7. 2002.0418T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

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

          Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 16, 2003)

            (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

          SPEAKER(S):

          Eileen Boken

          - This legislation is unnecessary.

          - The exemptions of 1984 are not "old" legislation.

          - She is in favor of the continuance.

          Marilyn Amini

          - This legislation needs to be continued until the NCT rezoning legislation is put on the table at the same time for public review.

          - She displayed a map of the NCT and Secondary Unit areas.

          - Documentation shows that the Secondary Units legislation and the NCT legislation were drafted to implement and enable the Housing Element transit corridor proposal.

          - Putting it in a mathematical formula: transit corridors equal secondary unit legislation plus the NCT legislation.

          Jean Thomas

          - She has lived in the Sunset district for about 30 years.

          - She recently heard about this legislation.

          - This item should definitely be continued and the Commission should be specific about what will happen after today.

          Kate White - Housing Action Coalition

          - She is disappointed that this item will be continued.

          - She looks forward to hearing this item in the future.

          - This legislation has made a lot of sense.

          Frank Bauman

          - This legislation should be continued.

          - He believes that the public has not been very well informed.

          - He just found out about it.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

          8. 2003. 0918D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

                749 CORBETT AVENUE - east side of Corbett Avenue between Romain and Morgan Alley; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 2755 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers. Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.20.7358, proposes to convert a three-unit building to a two-unit building. This property is located in an RM-1 (Mixed Residential, Low Density) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the proposed dwelling unit merger.

            (Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Discretionary Review Withdrawn.

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      9. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of October 16 and 23, 2003.

          Minutes of October 16, 2003:

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved as corrected/modified and read into the record.

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

          Minutes of October 23, 2003

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved as corrected: Correct the public comment of Bruce Bonacker on page 11.

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

      10. Commission Comments/Questions

          None

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      11. Director's Announcements

          Re: Items on Upcoming Calendars:

          - Modifications for the DR process - This will be on the calendar for November 20, 2003.

          - Rincon Hill Plan - This will be scheduled on December 4, 2003. One of the stumbling blocks for the Environmental Impact Report were the funds but that problem has been solved. A public draft of the EIR will be available within the next six months.

          - Eastern Neighborhoods - This is on calendar for November 13, 2003. Staff will be focusing on three items: 1) proposals for the interim policies or interim controls; 2) discussion on the environmental review process; 3) refinement of the production/distribution repair definition. There will be a document on the socio-economic impacts or socio-economic study so that people can start thinking about this. This issue will be before the Commission to obtain a hearing date.

          - Director Green will be at the hearing of November 20, 2003.

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

          Items before the Land Use Committee:

          Re: Rincon Hill and Transbay Terminal

          - Staff joined the Redevelopment Agency for a presentation of the Transbay Area Plan and Transbay Terminal.

          - These two projects have been over the years one project, then two projects. They have also been under the joint jurisdiction of the Planning Department and the Redevelopment Commission. The projects are now under the separate jurisdiction of these departments although they are linked spatially.

          - There was no action taken. The Board of Supervisors had very pertinent questions. They were concerned about 201 Folsom and 300 Spear and how this project fit into the thinking of the department regarding Rincon Hill.

          Re: 17th and Rhode Island

          - The Planning Commission approved a reclassification and a project for 150-dwelling units and a 40,000 sq. ft. retail space.

          - This was heard at the Board of Supervisors and it was passed at the first reading.

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.

      (-) Alan Kessler

      - He is still in discussion with the project sponsor regarding the impact he will receive because of the height of this structure.

      (+) Stephen P. Johnston, AIA

      - He displayed a map of the lots and the length of the homes that are adjacent to the subject property.

      - There are two adjacent neighbors who are in support of the project.

      - He displayed photographs of the homes in the neighborhood.

      (+) Ciaran Woods - Project Sponsor

      - He has been speaking with his neighbors and they have been in support of the project.

      - This project will be for his wife and children.

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

      13. 2003.0863D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          555 VALLEY STREET - south side between Castro and Diamond Streets in Assessor's Block 7536 Lot 023 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.24 3036, to construct a 37 foot long, four story addition to the rear of the existing

          25 foot long, three story single family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential House, One Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

                NOTE: On September 25, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued the matter to October 16, requesting better plans of the surrounding area by a vote of +6 -0. Commissioner William Lee was absent.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 16, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

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

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

      14. 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 03.07.9076, 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.

          NOTE: On September 11, 2003 following public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this item to November 6, 2003 requesting plans from the Project Sponsor.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 11, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 8, 2004.

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

          15. 2003.0862D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          125 VILLA TERRACE - east side between Pemberton Place and Greystone Terrace. Assessor's Block 2719 Lot 028 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.03.1330 to construct additions to the rear and the northwest side to the existing single family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential House, One Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review, and approve the Building Permit Application as submitted.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Jeffrey Kors - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - Because there are only four Commissioners today, he would rather have this case continued because it puts him in an unfair position.

          - He would like to have this case continued until there is a full Commission.

          Jeremy Paul - Representing the Project Sponsor

          - He is not in agreement with the continuance. The holidays are coming up and it will be harder and harder to get a spot on the calendar.

          - He would like to have this case heard today.

          Re: Merits of Project

          (-) Jeffrey Kors

          - He filed a discretionary review because there will be a 9-foot building next to the porch he has towards the back part of his house.

          - A window will also be completely blocked which will diminish his light and air.

          (+) Jeremy Paul

          - This is a very responsibly designed project.

          - He displayed the site plan of the project.

          - He also gave a PowerPoint presentation.

          (+) William Froming

          - He is a neighbor and has lived in the neighborhood for 14 years.

          - He does not believe that this project will change the neighborhood.

          - This is a lovely neighborhood.

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

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

16. 2003.1027D (M. WOODS; (415) 558- 6315)

          1127 FILBERT STREET - south side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets; Lot 037 in Assessor's Block 0097 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.05.01.3561, proposing to merge one unit on the third floor with a unit on the fourth floor in an existing 4-unit building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the proposed dwelling unit merger.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Toby Long - Project Architect

          - The original plan was to renovate the third floor studio.

          - But after a few life-changing incidents, the project sponsor needed to live in a large space so he decided to merge the units.

          - The simple changes will improve the quality of life for the project sponsor.

          - The housing crisis is slowly being resolved with new multi unit structures.

          ACTION: Hearing Held. Item continued to January 8, 2004. Absent commissioners are to receive/review the hearing tapes.

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

          17. 2003.0859D (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

                643 GREENWICH STREET - south side, between Powell and Stockton Streets, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 0089 - Discretionary Review request for building permit No. 2002.11.27.2429 to allow the addition of a full third floor and smaller fourth floor to the existing residence. The existing building is a one-story, single-family dwelling over garage, with frontage on Greenwich. A second structure at the rear of the lot is to remain as is and is not part of this project scope. The property is located in the RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Permit Application.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 16, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Discretionary Review request withdrawn

          18. 2003.0742D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

                666 - 24th AVENUE - east side between Anza and Balboa Streets; Lot 026B in Assessor's Block 1566 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.01.29.6271, proposing a horizontal and vertical addition at the rear of an existing two-story, single-family residence in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project proposes a partial third floor at the rear half of the residence and a 7-foot 3-inch horizontal addition from the existing rear wall at all three floors.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Betty Wang

          - The proposed house is located to the south of her house.

          - The project will shadow her light well. She does not want to stop the project but she requests a set back of three feet at the light well so that her light will not be minimized.

          - She has not been able to get far speaking to the project sponsor.

          (-) Art Lam

          - He lives next door to the project sponsor.

          - He supports taking Discretionary Review.

          - Any addition, no matter how tall or short, will block light and air to his home.

          (+) Denise Lindsay - Project Designer

          - The most important thing is that the Discretionary Review requestor's light well is covered.

          - His design of the project will not block any light to the neighbor's property.

          - The project sponsor looked around to purchase another property but was unsuccessful so he decided to expand his property.

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

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

      19. 2003.0914D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          2518 FILBERT STREET - north side between Divisadero and Scott Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 0944 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.03.1374, proposing to construct a three-story horizontal addition to the rear of the existing four-story, single-family residence in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Decks are proposed as part of the horizontal addition at the level of the second and third floors. Front facade alterations are also proposed.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Lou Blazej

          - There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances with this project.

          - He asks that the Commission take Discretionary Review and modify the project.

          - He displayed a map with the various lots on the block showing the open space pattern of that block.

          - Although the proposal is modest, it has a devastating impact on the Discretionary Review requestor.

          - The guidelines ask for good neighbor gestures, so he is asking that they comply.

          (-) Elizabeth Gordon - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - She has lived in her house for about 30 years.

          - The Cow Hollow Neighborhood Association does to approve of this project.

          - There are various neighbors who are present who oppose the project.

          - She asked them to stand up (about 15 people stood up).

          - She would like side setbacks on the proposed project.

          (-) Thomas Potts

          - He recently read the project report and analysis and it is very difficult to understand.

          - The project sponsor has ignored the good neighbor guidelines.

          (-) Brook Sampson - Director of the Cow Hollow Association

          - They have been in opposition to this project as proposed for a long time. They were willing to discuss the issues of why they are opposed to this project.

          - She read a section of the Neighborhood Design Guidelines specifying why they are not in support of the project.

          (-) Betty Holden

          - He lives across the street from the project.

          - He is in favor of taking Discretionary Review and modifying the project.

          - The project sponsor has not made any changes at all.

          - It is important to him to maintain the notch between the two buildings.

          - The project sponsor should honor the Neighborhood Design guidelines.

          (+) Jim Reuben - Representing Project Sponsor

          - He is very appreciative that the Commission is looking to analyze the DR process.

          - This DR project has become more of a "popularity contest" than a planning project.

          - The conditions stated by the Discretionary Review requestor are minimal.

          - Even the Neighborhood Design Guidelines are subjective.

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

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

      20a. 2003.0476DV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

          1120-1122 VALLEJO STREET - north side between Jones and Leavenworth Streets; Lots 055 and 056 in Assessor's Block 0126 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.24.0318 proposing the construction of an enclosed pavilion on the roof of the existing three-story building and the enclosure of two areas at the rear of the building that are currently unenclosed. The subject property is located 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 as modified by Department staff.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Christopher Moscone

          - He requested that this matter be moved because there are only four Commissioners today.

          - He represents the Discretionary Review requestor.

          - This case is not a simple matter.

          John Glugoski

          - He lives across the street from the property and he seconds the request to have this case moved.

          Jay Cappella

          - He does not want to be postponed. The hearing date for this case has been postponed many times. During that time, there have been a lot of discussions and many issues have been resolved.

          - His wife is expecting a baby and delaying the project would impact his family life quite negatively.

          Re: Merits of Project

          (-) Christopher Moscone - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

          - This project has changed many times from the beginning.

          - The variance is asking to further increase and encroach the non-compliance aspect of the project.

          - There is no need to have a variance. He believes that the project sponsor could build without a variance.

          - Developing a simple roof garden would be a solution.

          - It is the responsibility of the Acting Zoning Administrator to allow the smallest variance allowable.

          (-) Bruce Bonacker - Project Architect

          - He displayed a map of the assessor's block in order to show the mid-block open space and demonstrate that the DR requestor does not have the benefit of a mid-block open space.

          - The DR requestor's rear yard is quite important with regards of privacy and sun.

          - He displayed a photograph of the DR requestor's view to their yard.

          - The rear windows on the DR requestor's back yard that are very close to the project sponsor's rear windows, so there are issues with privacy.

          (-) Melissa Conroy Whitney

          - She and her family live on Jones Street adjacent to the proposed project on Vallejo Street.

          - They have been trying to make a home for themselves, but this project will cause a real significant cost to her family.

          - The project sponsors have not contacted them regarding this issue.

          - They are concerned about the privacy impact of this project and request that fixed and obscure glass be installed on any windows on the second, third or fourth floor rear addition.

          - Their bedroom windows are less than 10 feet from the proposed kitchen addition. Their child's bedroom is in line of site of all three levels of construction.

          - She opposes the fourth floor level because of the light impact it will have.

          (-) John Glugoski

          - He lives on Vallejo Street.

          - He submitted a letter regarding the reasons for his opposition to this project.

          - He understands that the project has changed, and that this information only went out 24 hours ago. This is not enough time for everyone to look through the new plans.

          - If the project goes through, it will create a tremendous invasion of privacy.

          (-) Catherine Ferrera

          - This project is a huge concern to her and her sister.

          - There has been misleading information given to them.

          - The project will encroach on their privacy. It will increase the noise and impact their garden.

          - They have tried to negotiate but have not been met with a compromise.

          (+) Jennifer Cherk - Project Sponsor

          - She displayed a lot plan of her property.

          - She has a very modest sized lot. It is actually the smallest on the entire block.

          - Her property is not directly facing the DR requestor's property.

          - The south facing window has a distance of 18 feet from the DR requestor.

          - She has been trying very hard to solve privacy issues. They have proposed obscured glass and setbacks.

          - She has been in this house for 15 years, first as a renter then as a property owner [as a tenancy in common]. She is the third generation to live on this property.

          (+) Susan (Bo) Lee - Co-Owner

          - They have very small units.

          - She is the owner of the second floor.

          - She does not have very much space to expand.

          - She has asked the DR requestor to prove what harm there would be if there was no obscure glass.

          - She mitigated the sound of the DR requestors back yard living area by installing double pane glass.

          - She does not have a back yard.

          (+) Jon Ridenour

          - There is a neighbor who is complaining about loosing privacy yet the project is actually building in a privacy factor.

          - He feels that this DR is more about keeping the project sponsor from seeing into the DR requestor's garden than it is about any issues that are going to involve their life to an extraordinary circumstance.

          (+) George Hauser - Architect

          - He can assure the Commission that there has been plenty of interaction on this project.

          - He does not think that there were any issues with the second floor expansion in regards to the variance.

          - There was an issue with the obscure glass because it is unnecessary to restrict a project in this way.

          - The project architect has done a great job in designing this project to be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood.

          (+) Dart Cherk - Project Architect

          - He requested that the Commission approve this project.

          - He grew up in this house. He is the father of the co-owner.

          - He was trained to always consider all things.

          - This project does not impact the neighbors.

          (+) Jay Capela

          - He has really made an effort to reach out to the neighbors.

          - He wants to move the project forward.

          - He disagrees with the recommendation made by the planner that there was no need for a bathroom on the fourth floor. His family is growing and he feels that there is a need for the bathroom.

          (+) Esther Cherk

          - She has watched the agony of her daughter with this project and all the compromising she has had to do.

          - She thought that a compromise had been accepted except for a mere three feet.

          - Her husband is an architect that really believes in community and considerate designs.

          - They have gone to the PG&E center various times to study the shadow impacts which is not much of an impact.

          MOTION No. 1: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project based on the October 29, 2003 plans.

          AYES: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          NAYES: Antonini

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

          RESULT: Motion Failed

          MOTION No. 2: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project based on the November 5, 2003 plans.

          AYES: Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee

          NAYES: Feldstein

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

          RESULT: Motion Failed

          ACTION: In the absence of a third motion, the Commission did not take an action and the project is approved as submitted.

      20b. 2003.0476DV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

          1120-1122 VALLEJO STREET - north side between Jones and Leavenworth Streets; Lots 055 and 056 in Assessor's Block 0126 - Rear yard variance sought. The proposed project is the construction of an enclosed pavilion on the roof of the existing three-story building and the enclosure of two areas at the rear of the building that are currently unenclosed. The subject property is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. A rear yard of 15 feet, measured from the rear property line, is required for the subject property. The proposed roof pavilion will extend to within 3'6" of the rear property line and encroach into the required rear yard. The application for variance will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator closed the Public Hearing and will render a decision in the next two weeks.

          21. 2003.0091AC (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

          333 DOLORES STREET - east side between 16th and 17th Streets; Lot 57 in Assessor's Block 3567 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209 and to allow the expansion of an existing institutional use (Children's Day School), located on a portion of a designated city landmark (Landmark No. 137). The proposal is to construct three (3) 24' x 40' temporary prefabricated classroom trailers. The Certificate of Appropriateness for this project was heard before the Landmark Preservation Advisory Board on September 17, 2003 and approved by the Planning Director on September 29, 2003. The property is located in RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 2, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          (did not state name)

          - He is not in agreement with the continuance.

          - He took off work today and he would like to have it heard today.

          Tracy Kirkham

          - The reason for the continuance is because they are in dialogue with one of the Commissioners so that they can completely flush out the concerns of health and safety.

          (did not state name)

          - He believes that this case should be continued longer.

          - The reason for the continuance is because Children's Day School did not post the notice properly. That is the reason why he would like to have this item continued longer.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to November 13, 2003.

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

      4:30 P.M. 6:45 p.m.

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

          RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION POLICY - A proposal to modify and refine interim criteria to implement a Temporary Residential Demolition Policy requiring mandatory Discretionary Review of all dwelling unit demolitions not requiring Conditional Use authorization, with certain exceptions; to adopt a specific Soundness Determination process; and to adopt criteria for conformity with applicable General Plan policies and objectives; and a recommendation to apply this policy for an approximate six-month period, after which a long-term policy would be presented for consideration and adoption by the Commission.

          Preliminary recommendation: Adopt the Temporary Residential Demolition Policy.

          NOTE: On November 6, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission kept the Public Hearing open and continued to this item to December 11, 2003.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Cris Durazo - South of Market Community Action Network

          - She urged the Commission to vote in favor of this when there is a full Commission.

          - Exhibit 3 doesn't put a measurement on how there are no out-of-compliance votes. When does a project not get approved?

          - This would be a concern of hers.

          - She likes the fact that the Planning Department is making this more systematic.

          - She is glad that this is also becoming more scientific.

          - In Recommendation 14, which talks about rental protection, it does say that the Commission will look at the loss of rental stock. She is concerned that the proposed housing is not being 1:1. It is important to look at affordability.

          - Housing stock should include affordability.

          Jeremy Paul

          - He has been before the Commission on may demolition cases.

          - Staff has done a very good job on this.

          - He is in support of a guideline but is very reluctant to support anything that will limit the discretion of this Commission.

          - This discretion should be respected.

          - People should keep clearly in mind what they want to protect.

          - This will encourage a lack of maintenance, a lack of sound stewardship of properties.

          - The project sponsor should be clear about what they want to do with a project.

          Patrick Buscovich

          - Guidelines are very important. He has seen reports and sometimes he does not even know what is being discussed.

          - Discretion is important for the Commission.

          - The $200 value is ok with him.

          - It is important to not look at this analysis by quantity. It is important to look at them in a quality manner.

          - It is important that planners do site visits.

          - Long term viability is very important as well.

          Hiroshi Fukuda - Richmond Community Association

          - Staff mentioned that there were not [many] comments on this policy, yet not that many people know about it.

          - One of the more important aspects of this policy is cost.

          - This item needs to be continued.

          Maria Sousa - Board of Directors of the Planning Association of the Richmond District

          - They only became aware that this was on the agenda this week.

          - They were able to get the case report on Tuesday so their comments are not as complete as they would like.

          - They would like to commend staff on a clear and earnest effort in developing the written criteria.

          - Demolitions have been historically controversial. In their district, there have been more than 35 in the last 12 months.

          - Recommendation No. 6 - they feel that there is little consideration on how a building that will be demolished will affect the policy that existing housing needs to be preserved and protected.

          - There is nothing that prohibits the author [of the soundness report] from being involved in another project with the project sponsor.

          - Staff does not have enough expertise on demolition reports.

          - There should be a higher threshold than the 50 percent.

          Judith Berkowitz - EMIA, CSFN

          - There is pending revisions to the Residential Design Guidelines as well as Discretionary Review Proposals.

          - There is no consideration of these proposals with the demolition policy.

          - In the discussion under rental protection, there is no reference to the fact that many of the demolitions that are being approved are previously owner-occupied homes. The replacement buildings are multi housing units.

          - Greater weight should be placed on preserving housing and neighborhood character.

          - They question staff on wanting to adopt a demolition policy on criteria based on new policy demolition of family housing in recommendation 17.

          - She appreciates the fact that there will be no action taken this evening.

          Beatrice Franklin

          - She is a resident of Trinity Plaza.

          - Trinity Plaza is proposed for demolition.

          - The plaza has a variety of people like, families, single people, etc.

          - She is looking for all the support they can receive.

          Terry Milne

          - He is unclear about this proposed policy.

          - Will the structure of this policy reduce the number of Discretionary Reviews?

          - Does staff have any numbers on how this policy will reduce the workload for Commissioners?

          Joseph Bradford

          - He lives on Potrero Hill.

          - He just submitted an application at the Planning Department and was not told of this hearing.

          - He recommends that people at the counter be more educated on everything that is going on.

          - More information should be placed on the website as well.

          - He asked that the Commission as well as staff look at the per square foot value as another way of evaluating a house.

          Sue Hestor

          - She submitted a list of the last demolitions approved by the Commission by Districts.

          - Staff has done a very admirable job on getting this out to the community.

          - It is a good idea to keep this in the context of the major exterior alteration legislation as well as the residential design guidelines.

          - She disagrees that a cottage only has the value of a "tear downer".

          - Because of the lack of clarity of the policy, everything is considered a "tear downer."

          - It is important that staff do site visits.

          ACTION: Meeting Held. Public Comment Remains Open. No Action Required by Commission. Item continued to December 11, 2003.

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

      None

Adjournment: 8:26 p.m.

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2003.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved

          AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          EXCUSED: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:07 PM