December 17, 2002
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Tuesday, December 17, 2002
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Shelley Bradford Bell, Michael J. Antonini; Rev. Edgar E. Boyd,
Lisa Feldstein; Kevin Hughes; Sue Lee; William L. Lee
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 12:50 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green – Director; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Amit Ghosh; David Alumbaugh; John Billovits; Marshall Foster; Ann Marie Rodgers; Ben Fu; Michael Smith; 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.
B . COMMISSION MATTERS
1. Commission questions/comments
Commissioner William Lee:
1) There was an item at the Board of Supervisor's hearing yesterday related to the past audit of the Planning Department and a proposal to set up an audit committee. He would like the director to address this issue. Do we really need an audit committee?
2) He would like to have a presentation by the Transportation Authority regarding transportation and funding requests for the next few years. There will be changes in the transportation industry as a result of Prop B.
He is requesting this presentation because many of the projects the Commission will be voting on will be impacted by this proposition.
Re: 653 Duncan Street
- He has a patient who is one of the Discretionary Review requestors. He has checked with the City Attorney's office regarding this issue and they said that there are two tests to determine conflict: 1) if the fiduciary interest exceeds $500.00 in the last month, which it has not; 2) Does he feel objective about this case and the answer is yes. He feels he can participate. He wanted to bring this to the attention of the public with the understanding that he has done the research related to ethics.
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
2. Director's Announcements
Re: Commissioner Lee's question
1) Supervisor McGoldrick introduced legislation that would create a task force for the Planning Department audit. He thought it would be effective to create this task force.
The Director responded to this legislation at the Transportation and Audits Committee hearing saying he would be willing to work with the Supervisor on this.
After yesterday's hearing before the Board of Supervisors, a task force is more than likely. The Director will reserve his comments until he sees the information on this task force. He will provide a copy of the audit and his response to the Commission.
Re: Joint Hearing
There are proposed dates of January 23, 2003 or February 6, 2003 to have joint hearings with the Redevelopment Commission and/or the Transportation Authority.
The first hearing in January will provide information on when this joint hearing will take place.
Re: Long-Range Planning
Supervisor Hall asked that departments that are involved in long-range planning provide information on how this information is used.
3. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS - None
BOA - None
4. Better Neighborhoods Briefing
Amit Gosh and David Alumbaugh gave a PowerPoint presentation on this briefing.
John Billovits invited the public to various Market/Octavia Neighborhood Planning Events:
The first public review plan draft will be held this evening from 6-9 p.m. at the LGBT Center (1800 Market Street - corner of Market and Octavia) on the 2nd Floor in the Rainbow Room.
On January 12 and January 18, 2003 there will be walking tours for the public. These tours will be guided by staff to talk about the plans of the Market/Octavia Plan and will be held at the northwest corner of Market and Octavia Streets from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
On January 9, 14, 21, 2003 there will be three-hour, open-office sessions in the basement of the First Baptist Church. Staff from the Market/Octavia Plan will be there to answer questions.
On January 28, there will be a second public workshop which will be the comment taking and gathering workshop. From 6 to 8:30 p.m. also at the First Baptist Church in the basement room.
On February 13 there will be a briefing before the Planning Commission so that staff can receive Commission comments and allow the public to comment on the planned draft.
- He has been involved with the planning process of the Market Street/Octavia area.
- People are very excited about his plan and hopes that this moves forward.
- He is also involved in the Transbay Area CAC.
- A developer mentioned that banks are not lending any money unless there is one for one parking. This is something worth looking into.
- This experience has been very wonderful and very educational.
- This planning program has helped her look at the bigger picture and how problems affect them.
- Learning about all this and evaluating it will help them make much better decisions.
Ron Miguel – Housing Action Coalition
- He would like to thank the department for all the research and the presentation of this project.
D. REGULAR CALENDAR
5a. 2002.0958CV (B. FU: 415-558-6613)
1271-1275 MISSION STREET - south side, between 8th and 9th Streets, Lot 075 in Assessor’s Block 3728 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization (CU) under Planning Code Section 303, to amend the conditions of approval of the previously approved CU to allow the conversion of approximately 3,000 square feet of existing basement storage space to assembly and social service use as defined by Planning Code Section 890.50(a), in a SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential Mixed Use) District with a 65-X Height and Bulk designation. The total area will be approximately 9,000 square feet. The project will continue to be operated by SAGE Project, Inc.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve project as proposed
(+) Norma Catali – Executive Director and Founder of SAGE
- This organization tries to make the lives of the women who come here as safe and clean as possible.
- They are not up against any residential community.
- They want to expand into evenings and make sure everything they do at night is safe. They would also like to occupy the building on certain Saturday and Sundays.
- This is why she would like the Commission to expand their hours of operations.
(+) (name unclear)
- She was able to receive services from the SAGE project.
- She would not be here if she was not able to receive these services.
- Their client population really requires that SAGE expand their hours.
(+) Marylyn (did not state last name)
- This organization is committed to helping the population of women who are being victimized.
(+) Cathy Lemus – Administrative Assistant
- She was able to receive services from SAGE.
- She has been able to get her life together because of SAGE.
- Prostitution goes on at night and that is why SAGE should be allowed to be available at night.
ACTION: Approved as Amended: limit on hours of operation will be lifted with a condition limiting special events/celebratory events not before 8:00 a.m. and not after 10:00 p.m.
AYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
5b. 2002.0958CV (B.FU: 415-558-6613)
1271-1275 MISSION STREET - south side, between 8th and 9th Streets, Lot 075 in Assessor’s Block 3728 - Request for an off-street parking Variance, pursuant to Section 151 of the Planning Code, will be considered by the Zoning Administrator in a SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential Mixed Use) District with a 65-X Height and Bulk designation. A total of seven (7) additional spaces are required as the result of the project. The proposal is to provide no off-street parking spaces.
SPEAKER(S): See item 5a.
ACTION: Zoning Administrator Closed the Public Hearing and Granted Variance
6. 2002.0717DDDDD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)
653 DUNCAN STREET - south side of the street between Diamond and Castro Streets, Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 6604 – Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.02.19.9476, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition at the rear of the building, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.
(-) Diane McCarney– 1st Discretionary Review Requestor
- She is against this third story addition because this project will cause serious impacts.
- There were serious impacts when the house was originally built.
- This building has been growing and has come before the Commission already.
- She displayed photographs of the proposed project and how it will impact the adjacent homes.
(-) Andre Srinivasan – 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor
- This proposed project gives the impression of being a 4-story building.
- The Duncan Street organization has tried to work with the project sponsor but there has not been any progress.
- There will be a very negative impact on the adjacent neighbors.
(-) Lynne Srinivasan – Representing Diane Carr, 3rd Discretionary Review Requestor
- She read a letter from Diane Carr who stated why she is opposed to this project.
- They have an alternative design, which was presented to the project sponsor, but there was no response.
- A redesign of the building is of no interest
- Take Discretionary review and disapprove this project
(-) Phyllis Lyon – 4th Discretionary Review Requestor
- She and her domestic partner have been involved in various issues dealing mostly with impacts on human rights and well being.
- There is overwhelming opposition to this project.
- There are four community organizations who have sent correspondence to the Planning Department stating their opposition to this project.
- Both Supervisor Leno and Bevin Dufty have expressed their opposition on this project.
- When she filed her Discretionary Review application she submitted about 39 letters of opposition which were not included in Commissioner packets. (She submitted these letters at the hearing).
(-) Pauline Shulman- Representing Elizabeth Dimas, 5th Discretionary Review Requestor
- She read a letter from Elizabeth Dimas who is opposed to this project.
(-) Michael Zucker - Architect
- He was asked to review the plans which the Discretionary Review applicants received.
- He displayed plans and explained them to the public.
(-) Keith Eickman
- He has lived in this area for 54 years.
- He is the director of the Duncan Newburg Association.
- He would like to have this project given Discretionary Review because this area needs to be protected and so this could be discussed in greater detail.
(-) Dell Martin
- She read a letter from Vicky Rosen who is the president of the Upper Noe Neighbors who opposes this project.
(-) Doug Lockyer
- He does not live in the area but knows many people who live here.
- This structure has no sense of space.
- The shadows fall across the houses on the neighbors, it is not a backyard issue at all.
(-) Michael Miller
- This property does not fit with the neighborhood at all.
- This addition just exacerbates the problem.
- He would like to encourage the developer to work with the neighbors.
(-) Jay Carris
- Because he has a small front yard, he is concerned with how shadows will impact it.
- He has lived here for two years yet he feels it's reasonable to want a shadow study.
- This structure will stick out from others in the neighborhood.
(+) Deborah Stein
- This is a classic example of neighbors asking the Commission to exercise it's extraordinary Discretionary Review powers not because of genuine land use conflicts but because of interpersonal conflicts.
- There have been many emotional neighbor versus neighbor conflicts. The Discretionary Review requestors did not want this house to be built in 1995 yet appeals were not filed in time.
- She would like the Commission to reject the request for Discretionary Review and that the disputes between these parties be done outside these chambers.
(+) Patrick McGrew – Project Sponsor
- He has been trying to communicate to the neighbors how the Planning Code works.
- He displayed graphics and plans describing the architectural aspects of the project relative to the Planning Code.
(+) Robert Stone – Project Sponsor
- He and Patrick have been communicating as much as possible with the neighbors.
- Not many of the neighbors have communicated with them regarding their issues.
(+) Denise McGrew
- This small addition will not have a negative impact on anyone.
(+) Dawn Hartman
- She is in support of this addition.
- She has been able to speak to the project sponsor and they have been able to explain in detail the project to her and her husband.
- This is a small addition to this home and will improve the aesthetics of the home. She hopes the Commission will approve it.
(+) Garrett Sanford
- He has lived on Duncan Street for many years and has known the project sponsor for many years as well.
- This area has a variety of architecture which he finds reflects the uniqueness of the valley's population and is symbolic of the diversity of San Francisco.
- This addition is welcomed in this neighborhood and he urges the Commission to approve their request.
(+) Victor Bucli
- He grew up in Glen Park and he is aware of the unique characteristics of the neighborhoods in San Francisco and diversity of styles.
- This is an incredibly diverse neighborhood.
(+) Carolyn Goeldner
- She has 16 years experience as a residential broker.
- Since the building of this home, property values have increased and have improved.
- The proposed addition is within the scale of the neighborhood. She urges the Commission to approve this modest addition.
(+) Roberta Boomer
- The project sponsors have met the required notices to the neighbors. The project sponsors have done everything correctly.
- All the homes in the neighborhood vary in design.
- The project sponsors should not be penalized because staff told them where to construct their home relative to the Planning Code.
ACTION: Continued to February 5, 2003 in order to give project sponsors the opportunity to continue to meet with the community and Discretionary Review requestors. Planning Department will continue to review and research the project.
AYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
E. 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))
Adjournment: 5:17 p.m.
THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 2003.
AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes, Sue Lee, William Lee
Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:08 PM