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

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

January 22, 2004

January 22, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, January 22, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, 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 1:39 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Craig Nikitas - Acting Zoning Administrator; Jean-Paul Samaha; Glenn Cabreros; Rick Crawford; Jonathan Purvis; Kate McGee; Geoffrey Nelson; 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.

          1a. 2003.0295CV (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          899 NORTH POINT STREET - southeast corner of North Point and Larkin Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 0020 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 209.1 and 228.3 of the Planning Code to construct an approximately 40-foot tall, 4-story, 5-unit residential structure containing 7 off-street parking spaces in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2 and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project site was formerly a service station and is now in use as a parking lot. This proposal requires Conditional Use authorization because 1) it proposes a dwelling unit density of greater than 3 units in an RH-3 District and 2) it proposes to convert a service station use to residential use. This project is also seeking a Variance from the Planning Code, case No. 2003.0295CV.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 4, 2003)

          (Proposed for Continuance to February 5, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S):

          Steve Williams

          The date to be continued is fine with him.

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 5, 2004

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

          1b. 2003.0295CV (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        899 NORTH POINT STREET - southeast corner of North Point and Larkin Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 0020 - Request for Variance from Section 134 of the Planning Code to construct a 4-story residential building into the required rear yard. Section 134 of the Planning Code states that the minimum rear yard depth in an RH-3 District shall be equal to 25 percent of the total depth of the lot on which the building is situated. Rather than leave a 22' wide gap in the North Point Street frontage, the proposal is to construct an approximately 40' X 22' portion of the project fully into the rear yard along North Point Street, leaving a comparable rear yard to the interior of the lot of approximately 1,480 square feet.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 4, 2003)

          (Proposed for Continuance to February 5, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 1a.

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 5, 2004

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

          2. 2003.0868C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          540 VALENCIA STREET (A.K.A. 542 VALENCIA STREET) - Blondie's Bar and No Grill, west side between 16th Street and 17th Street, Lot 6 in Assessor's Block 3568. Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow live amplified music entertainment and DJs in an existing bar Friday through Monday pursuant to Planning Code Sections 726.48 and 790.38. No changes to the exterior of the building is proposed. The subject property is within the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 15, 2004)

      (Proposed for Continuance to February 5, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 5, 2004

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

          3. 2003.1110T (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

          ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CODE TO ALLOW A REQUIRED SECOND MEANS OF EGRESS - Initiation of an ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding a new section 136(c)(4)(A)(i-v) to allow a stairway that is a required second means of egress under the Building Code, as a permitted obstruction in the rear yard. The California Building Code no longer allows fire escapes as a second means of egress in most cases. This proposed text amendment provides an exemption to meet the requirements of the Building Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting December 18, 2003)

          (Proposed for Continuance to February 12, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 12, 2004

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

          4. 2003.0183D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

                2477-2479 SUTTER STREET - south side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets; lot 022 in Assessor's Block 1076 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.08.13.3876, proposing the demolition of a two-story, two-family dwelling within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There is a related proposal to construct a new, four-story, three-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces.

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

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 11, 2003)

          NOTE: On September 25, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and entertained two motions: 1) to take Discretionary Review and disapprove the demolition by a vote +3 -3. Commissioners Antonini, Bradford Bell, and Boyd voted no. The motion failed; 2) to continue the matter to October 16, 2003 by a vote +6 -0. Commissioner William Lee was absent.

          NOTE: On October 16, 2003, the Commission entertained two motions: 1) to take Discretionary Review and disapprove the demolition, by a vote +3 -3. Commissioners Antonini, Bradford Bell, and W. Lee voted no. Commissioner Boyd was absent. The motion failed. 2) to continue item to November 13, 2003 by a vote of +4-2. The Commission requested that a representative from another City Department review the soundness report. Commissioners Hughes and S. Lee voted no. Commissioner Boyd was absent. Public hearing will have to remain open on at least the requested additional information.

          NOTE: On November 13, 2003, the Commission continued this item to December 11, 2003 without hearing.

          NOTE: On December 11, 2003, the Commission continued this item to January 22, 2004 without hearing.

          (Proposed for Continuance to February 12, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 12, 2004

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

          5. 2002.0677D (J. IONIN (415) 558-6309)

          679 40TH AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 1583 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9909801, proposing a vertical and horizontal addition to accommodate a second dwelling unit with a second off-street parking space, to an existing single-family dwelling 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 project.

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 11, 2004 )

      SPEAKER(S):

          Steve Williams

          - He has a conflict with the date of March 11, 2004.

          - He would rather have on March 25, 2004.

          Ming Ling

          - She is not agreeable to the March 25, 2004 date. She would rather hear it on
          March 11, 2004.

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 25, 2004

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

          6a. 2003.0047DDDDDDDDDDDV (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          44 LURMONT TERRACE - a cul-de-sac on the north side of Leavenworth Street between Greenwich and Lombard Streets; Lot 025 in Assessor's Block 0071 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.05.08.4122, proposing the construction of a four-story, single-family dwelling within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The related demolition, Case No. 2004.0030D is not before the Commission under the Residential Demolition Policy because the home to be demolished is appraised at greater than $1.2 million.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 11, 2003)

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 11, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 11, 2004

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

          6b. 2003.0047DDDDDDDDDDDV (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          44 LURMONT TERRACE - a cul-de-sac on the north side of Leavenworth Street between Greenwich and Lombard Streets; Lot 025 in Assessor's Block 0071 - Request for Variance from the rear yard requirements of the Planning Code to construct a single-family dwelling partially into the required rear yard, within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Section 134 of the Planning Code states that in an RH-3 District, in the case of any lot that abuts along both its side lot lines upon lots with buildings that front on another street or alley, the minimum rear yard depth shall be 25 percent of the total depth of the lot, or 15 feet, whichever is greater. On the approximately 80-foot deep subject lot, this results in a rear yard requirement of 20 feet, with the south side of the lot being considered the rear. The proposed construction would project into the required rear yard by up to 11 feet at the ground (garage) floor level, extending to within 9 feet of the south property line. The application requesting a Variance will be heard by the Zoning Administrator.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 11, 2003)

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 11, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 11, 2004

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

          7a. 2003.1268D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

          571 VALLEY STREET- south side between Castro and Diamond Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 7536 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.10.03.8119, proposing to demolish an 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 demolition.

      (Proposed for Continuance to March 11, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 11, 2004

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

          7b. 2003.1289D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

          571 VALLEY STREET- south side between Castro and Diamond Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 7536 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.10.03.8125, proposing to construct a new three-story over garage and basement, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 11, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 11, 2004

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

          8. 2003.1179T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

          PROHIBITING DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS with 20 or more Dwelling Units- Consideration of an Ordinance to amend the Planning Code by adding Section 317 and by amending Sections 710.39, 711.39, 712.39, 714.39, 715.39, 716.39, 717.39, 718.39, 719.39, 720.39, 721.39, 722.39, 723.39, 724.39, 725.39, 726.39, 727.39, 730.39, 813.13, 814.13, 815.13, 816.13, 817.13, 818.13, 212, 242, 243, 249.5 and 249.12 to make findings as to the need to preserve affordable housing in San Francisco and to prohibit the demolition of residential buildings with 20 or more dwelling units unless the applicant for the proposed demolition provides documentation that the residential building requires substantial rehabilitation, and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

          (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely.

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

          9. 2003.0872D (D. DIBARTOLO: (415 558-6291)

          40 VALPARAISO STREET - north side between Taylor and Mason Streets; Lot 034 in Assessor's Block 091 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.0313.9586 proposing the construction of a new approximately 820 square foot third-story addition atop the existing two-story single family dwelling unit. The subject property is located in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn

          10. 2003.1186D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

          306-308 CORBETT AVENUE (A.K.A. 300 CORBETT AVENUE)- northwest corner of Corbett Avenue and Mars Street, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 2660 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.17.6897, proposing to construct a four-story over garage two-family dwelling, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 20, 2003)

          DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      11. Commission Comments/Questions

          Commissioner Feldstein:

          - She wished everyone a happy Chinese New Year.

          - She has an emergency and will be leaving early today.

          - She requested that legislation is forwarded to the Commission from the Board of Supervisors include a cover sheet from staff with information on the timeline for commission review and any necessary action.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          - He hopes that in the future, the Commission can weigh in on certain legislative items.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          - In the mist of the election of officers and all the other activities during last week's hearing, I neglected something very important. I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the valuable contributions of ex Vice President Antonini. Although every member of the Commission is extremely important, .his dedication and commitment to his responsibilities as vice president benefited not only me and the Commission, but also the citizens of San Francisco. Thank you.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          - He thanked everyone for this acknowledgement. He is happy to serve the City, the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor in any capacity he is wished to serve in.

          - He feels that this is a very thoughtful as well as unified Commission and is happy to be a member.

          Commissioner Secretary:

          - She reminded the Commission that they have received the new Form 700 - Statement of Economic Interest. Although the filing deadline is April 1, 2004, she told the Commission that their deadline was March 1, 2004.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          - He wished good luck to Commissioner Sue Lee as the new Vice President.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          - Informed staff that she wants to move forward the Arts Element.

            Acting Director responded:

            - Staff is preparing a budget to bring before the Commission on February 12, 2004. During this hearing there will also be a few expanded items that need to be done to carry forth the Mayor's vision.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      12. Director's Announcements

          - Wished everyone a happy Chinese New Year.

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

          BOS - None

          BOA - None

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

          14. 2003.0966T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

          FORMULA RETAIL USES - Consideration of an Ordinance to amend the Planning Code by adding Section 703.3 and by amending Section 182 to make findings as to the need to regulate formula retail uses, to define formula retail uses, prohibit formula retail uses in the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and in the Neighborhood Commercial Cluster Districts at Cole and Carl Streets and Parnassus and Stanyan Streets, to require any building permit application for formula retail use to comply with the notice and design review procedures of Section 312 of the Planning Code, to provide that the burden to prove that a use is not a formula retail use rests with the building permit applicant or holder, and to provide that nonconforming uses in Residential District which are seeking to change in use to retail sales activity or retail sales establishment which is also a formula retail use must comply with the provisions of Section 703.3 , making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 8, 2004)

          (+) Supervisor Matt Gonzalez

          - He thanked everyone for their suggestions on strengthening this legislation.

          - It is worth noting that this legislation will only impact a small group. The existing businesses in this City (24,600); of these (20,900) or 85 percent are single location businesses. Another 15 percent (16,680) are multiple location businesses and of these the vast majority have two locations only. About one percent or less of businesses would be really impacted by this legislation. This ordinance includes impact on neighborhood character, the increase of homogenization of neighborhood commercial districts, etc.

          - There are some amendments he would like to address: 1) legislation is being prepared by the City Attorney that would get rid of the duplicative sections of the code related to 312 notice; 2) there would be an amendment on the findings regarding the special circumstances of hardware stores; 3) the City Attorney has offered to change the language regarding the ambiguity of the language: 50 percent or more of the merchandise offered for sale.... to say: 50 percent or more of in stock merchandise from a single distributor... This would help clarify that. 4) regarding Discretionary Reviews: he was trying to give guidance on how this consideration would be taken up by staff. The ordinance is useful because it articulates certain specific concerns to take into account.

          - This ordinance is not really a one-size-fits-all that is often seen at the Board of Supervisors.

          (-) Jennifer - San Francisco Soup Company

          - They have six locations in San Francisco.

          - This legislation will hurt small and growing businesses like the San Francisco Soup Company.

          - This is really an anti progressive legislation.

          (-) Steven Sarver - San Francisco Soup Company

          - It would be very difficult for him to sign a lease because of this legislation.

          - Some of the best locations would be unavailable to him and his company.

          - The larger companies can take risks; smaller businesses cannot take these kinds of risks.

          - He and his wife have worked very hard to establish their small business.

          (-) Mel Washington - San Francisco Black Chamber of Commerce

          - People have the right to small enterprise.

          - The customers of San Francisco vote to go or not to small businesses.

          - This legislation should not protect a select few and not protect small businesses.

          - He owns a small business and is an entrepreneur.

          - This legislation will have serious impacts on the people of this city and the cost that it takes for these people to live here.

          (-) Linda Magellan - Union Square Merchant's Association

          - They have great concerns about this legislation.

          - It is very difficult already for a business to establish a location.

          - There should be a way to promote small businesses as well as continue to promote all businesses.

          (-) Bruce Qualls - Real Estate Manager for Safeway

          - The current system and processes for Discretionary Review and Conditional Uses work quite well.

          - Grocery stores are quite essential to people.

          - This legislation will make it quite difficult for grocery stores to continue to establish locations.

          (-) Ana Shimko - Cassidy, Shimko and Dawson - Representing Safeway

          - The Commission should advise the Board of Supervisor against this legislation.

          - The City is not allowed to regulate competition and that is what this legislation is doing.

          - Uses are permitted or essentially not permitted.

          - Once a business is open, their permits can be overturned etc.

          - The geographic information in the legislation is not clear.

          (-) Nathan Nayman - Executive Director on the Committee on Jobs

          - This measure is not needed.

          - There is no consensus from the small business community.

          - There seem to be other motives for trying to pass this legislation.

          - There are ways that issues related to businesses can be dealt with without this legislation.

          - This legislation would stop visionary entrepreneurs from establishing their headquarters in San Francisco.

          (-) Patricia Breslin - Executive Director for the Golden Gate Restaurant Association.

          - She urges the Commission to oppose this legislation.

          - In this difficult economic time, it is not advisable to allow this type of legislation, which stops progress for small businesses and negatively impacts the economy of San Francisco.

          (-) Ken Cleaveland - Building Owners and Managers of San Francisco

          - One of the important things to remember is that local people, and many times, immigrants own chain stores. This legislation is discriminatory.

          - He urges the Commission to reject this legislation.

          (-) Richard Ventura - Executive Director of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

          - It is very difficult for small businesses to operate in San Francisco.

          - Entrepreneurs should be given the opportunity to open their businesses.

          - The chamber opposes this legislation.

          (+) Ed Bedard - Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association

          - The association is mostly asking for neighborhood identification.

          - Why do business owners want to sneak in to neighborhoods?

          - Formula Retail uses really cost jobs.

          - Locally owned and operated businesses will use other local businesses and provide jobs to more than just their employees.

          (-) Matthew Baizer - Zao Noodle Bar

          - He is strongly urging the Commission to oppose this legislation.

          - Although he is not a destination business, he would like to expand to other neighborhoods.

          - He receives many emails requesting that he open restaurants in other neighborhoods.

          - He does use local architects, lawyers, etc.

          - This legislation will only damage the progress of his business to other neighborhoods.

          (-) Marilyn Amini

          - There are a lot of issues that really need resolution.

          - The Commission can request a continuance of 90 days.

          - Seeing the level of controversy of this legislation, Supervisor Gonzalez should agree to this

          - It would be to the interest of the Supervisor to grant an extension.

          - The Commission should not move it forward.

          (+) Peter Cohen - Hayes Valley

          - He was impressed when the Commission deliberated long and hard over the Starbucks project.

          - He was very impressed from by the comments of the Commissioners.

          - Hayes Valley requested a prohibition to these types of uses but this would probably be an exception to the rule.

          - Many residents will probably be happy with the notification requirements.

          MOTION: Motion to approve with modifications.

          AYES: Hughes and S. Lee

          NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          RESULT: Motion Failed. There was no substitute motion. The Legislation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors without Planning Commission Action.

          15. 2004.0055M (S. SHOTLAND: 415-558-6308)

                RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN SO THAT IT CONFORMS WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TRANSBAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, THE TRANSBAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE TRANSBAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - Initiation of a General Plan Amendment - Pursuant to Planning Code Section 340, consideration of a Resolution of Intent to Initiate map and text amendments to elements of the General Plan, including: the Urban Design, Transportation, Recreation and Open Space Elements, and the Downtown, South of Market, and Rincon Hill Area Plans to bring them into conformity with the Redevelopment Plan for the Transbay Redevelopment Project, the Transbay Redevelopment Project Area Design for Development, and the Development Controls and Design Guidelines for the Transbay Redevelopment Project.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of Intent to Initiate General Plan Amendments.

          SPEAKERS:

          (-) Marilyn Amini

          - She is amazed at the intent expressed in the wording on the agenda.

          - Law requires that projects be in conformity with the San Francisco General Plan.

          - This initiation was not noticed as required.

          - She is curious to know why this was not properly noticed.

          ACTION: Approved intent to initiate General Plan Amendments.

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          RESOLUTION: 16716

          16a. 2002.0580D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

                90 MARS STREET (A.K.A. 26 DEMING STREET) west side of the street between Corbett and 17th Streets, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 2654 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.31.7958, proposing to construct a three-story, single-family dwelling at the rear of an existing vacant lot located in a 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 project as submitted.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 20, 2003)

          SPEAKERS:

          (-) Victor Reda - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - His concerns are the negative effects on his living environment, safety and quality of life.

          - This proposal is a major change from the original proposal exposed at a Variance hearing.

          - It is important that no resident owner was represented at any of the deliberations when the changes were made.

          - As per the Residential Design Guidelines, the proposed building is not in harmony with the patterns of the surrounding buildings. There is no respect for the pattern of building entrances. There is no respect for rear yard patterns. The project does not lessen the potential impact on light and air or lessen the potential impact on privacy. Buildings should be similar in scale and roof forms should be compatible to adjacent buildings.

          (-) Todd Olsen

          - The street access to the subject proposal is one foot short of code requirement.

          - The garage would cause a lot of traffic and major safety issue problems.

          - Many of the occupants in the adjacent homes are senior citizens.

          - The building will be overwhelming for the entire neighborhood.

          (-) Ursula Eglund

          - Because of it's unusual narrowness, having a garage on Deming Street would be quite dangerous.

          - It is difficult for her to understand why there would be an allowance for this type of project.

          - She urged the Commission to vote down this project.

          (-) Richard McKray - EVPA

          - He has lived in Eureka Valley for 35 years.

          - He displayed a map of the Eureka Valley watershed pointing out that the property in question should allow more curbside parking. There are many neighbors who have done constructions very creatively and have less of an impact.

          - Eureka Valley has many beautiful rock formations.

          (-) Richard Kaprowski

          - Although his lot is adjacent to the project site, he was never notified of this project.

          - The wall that will be built will block the light to his garden and affect the quality of life to his home.

          - The project will also break the pattern of the back yards on the block.

          - He urged the Commission to take a close look at these plans.

          (-) Tom Archer

          - He is opposed to the Variance and the setback.

          - He is in favor of the green open space corridor that will be affected by this project.

          - He feels that encroaching little by little and squeezing in this project will affect the serenity and bird life of the area.

          - There are beautiful rock formations in the area that should be protected.

          (-) Shana Tafilla

          - There are many people who were here opposed to the project but had to leave.

          - It is quite impossible to find parking on the street where the proposed project will be.

          - She implored the Commission to review this closely.

          (-) Rob Kosten

          - He is a tenant at a structure near the proposed project.

          - His unit is in the back of the proposed project. This project will negatively impact the quality of his life.

          - He supports taking Discretionary Review.

          (+) Alice Barkley - Representing the Project Sponsor

          - She displayed the original proposal that the Discretionary Review requestor had supported.

          - The new plans are the result of various conversations with neighbors. It is unfortunate that many of the neighbors are split in their support of this project.

          - The new building is no different than what the DR requestor had supported.

          - There has been already a Discretionary Review requestor that has withdrawn their request.

          (+) Lisa Burke

          - She lives adjacent to the proposed building.

          - She will also loose light in her back yard and live next to this big building.

          - She supports this project because the project sponsor has deal with many of the issues she had.

          (+) Martin Dean

          - He represents 18 households who support this project.

          - The developer has met with the neighborhood many times; the neighbors were able to agree on many of the revisions made.

          - He feels that they have reached reasonable accommodations by the developer.

          (+) Joseph Schatz

          - He is representing two property owners.

          - The developer has been the most accommodating developer he has ever worked with.

          - The housing is very desperately needed.

          - He urges the Commission to approve the project without further delay.

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

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          16b. 2003.1170D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

          96 MARS STREET (A.K.A. 300 CORBETT AVENUE) - northwest corner of Corbett Avenue and Mars Street, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 2654 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new construction in conjunction with housing demolition for Building Permit Application No. 2003.03.21.0319, proposing to construct a four-story over garage single-family dwelling that is one in a pair of side-by-side buildings on the same lot, located in a 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 project.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 20, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 16a.

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

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          16c. 2003.1187D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

          300 CORBETT AVENUE - northwest corner of Corbett Avenue and Mars Street, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 2654 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new construction in conjunction with housing demolition for Building Permit Application No. 2003.03.10.9221, proposing to construct a three-story over garage single-family dwelling that is one in a pair of side-by-side buildings on the same lot, located in a 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 project.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 20, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 16a.

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

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          16d. 2003.1104D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

          300 CORBETT AVENUE - northwest corner of Corbett Avenue and Mars Street, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 2654 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition of Demolition Application No. 2003.03.10.9220, proposing to demolish an existing two-story, single-family dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of two side-by side single-family dwellings on the same lot) located in a 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 project as submitted

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 20, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 16a..

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

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          17. 2003.1247D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

          41 JERSEY STREET - south side of the street between Church and Dolores Streets, Lot 049 in Assessor's Block 6535 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.12.1812, proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition with a roof deck at the rear of the building located in a 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 project as submitted

          SPEAKERS:

          (-) Marlene Duschek

          - She lives next to the proposed project.

          - Her house is already kind of dark because it is set back from the adjacent homes.

          - There is mold and mildew in the area.

          - She feels that the proposed project will affect negatively her light and air.

          - She will also have a negative impact on the view form her home.

          - She is concerned with the privacy she will lose with the proposed deck.

          - One of the neighbors who were in support of the project will be moving and selling their home so she is concerned of what will happen then.

          (-) Adolpho Martinez - General contractor

          - The project will affect the Discretionary Review requester who is chronically ill because of the construction pollution.

          - The neighbor is allergic to everything except the dog.

          (+) Leslie Tick

          - She submitted a document relative to the Discretionary Review request.

          - This project has no exceptional or extraordinary impacts to any of the adjacent homes.

          - She would just like to build another bedroom and a family room.

          - She and her husband have two children that share a room. They are starting to get overcrowded.

          - The Discretionary Review requestor is allergic to cats but she has cats.

          (+) Jim Fischer

          - One of the adjacent neighbors has been very amenable and has worked with them on dealing with the issues.

          - They are also available to answer any questions.

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

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          18a. 2003.0900D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          42 BEAUMONT AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 1086 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.11.01.0541, proposing to demolish a two-story building containing one dwelling unit. The subject property is 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 demolition.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 20, 2003)

          SPEAKERS:

          (+) Pat Buskovitch

          - He is not the project engineer for the new building, he is just the project engineer evaluating the demolition of the building.

          - The building was demolished by a major fire and sat there for three years. All that is left is to scrape the lot.

          - This building is a public nuisance.

          (+) Jeremy Paul

          - He gave a PowerPoint presentation on the general aspects of the project.

          (-) Daniel Duncan

          - He thanked the Commission for allowing the public to have these hearings.

          - He will be extremely impacted environmentally by this project.

          - He displayed pictures of the outside of his home and showed how the project will affect negatively his home by cutting out a chunk of light and air.

          - Parking in the area is at a "crisis" level.

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

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          18b. 2003.0866D (G. NELSON 415-558-6257)

          42 BEAUMONT AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 1086 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential buildings in association with residential demolitions, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.11.01.0552, proposing to construct a four-story building containing two dwelling units and two off-street parking spaces. The subject property is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

      SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 18a.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved the Project as Modified:

                · The applicant shall modify the project to reduce the projection of the building into the rear yard of the property and to provide increased space between the rear yard structure at 50 Beaumont and the proposed subject building. The Commission indicated that the revised structure should comply with the Planning Code and not require a rear yard Variance.

                · The applicant shall modify the project so as to eliminate those ground floor elements that may lend themselves to the creation of an illegal ground floor unit. Modifications to the ground floor are to include, specifically, the removal of the hallway from the street to the rear of the ground floor, the elimination of any shower, tub, or other bathing apparatus, and the modification of the rear stair to make it "open" (i.e. not able to be closed off by the simple addition of doors at either end). The modifications should result in the clear incorporation of the ground (aka first) floor habitable space into the second floor unit.

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          18c. 2003.0866V (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          42 BEAUMONT AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 1086 - Request for Variance to Rear Yard requirements to allow construction of a new four-story building, a portion of which would be located in the required rear yard. The first, second and third floors of the four-story building would extend 5 feet 9 inches into the required rear yard, and exterior stairs to the third floor level would extend an additional 6 feet 8 inches into the required rear yard. The building would contain two dwelling units. The subject property is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 20, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 18a.

          ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and denied the Variance.

          19. 2003.1306D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          594 48TH AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street; lot 016M in Assessor's Block 1497 - Staff-Initiated Discretionary Review to review Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.23.0202, proposing the modification of a previously approved permit to add a partial third story to a two-story single-family dwelling within an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height/Bulk District. On April 7, 2003 the applicant was issued a Building Permit (BPA No. 2002.03.20.1980) to construct a partial third story addition in conformity with the plans approved at a public hearing for Discretionary Review on September 26, 2002 (Case No. 2002.0718DDDD). The current proposal is to enlarge the partial third floor addition by extending the approved envelope toward 48th Avenue by approximately 9 feet. Since this proposal represents a significant change from what was originally approved, Staff has initiated a new Discretionary Review public hearing to review this proposal.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the building permit application.

          19. 594 48TH AVENUE

          SPEAKERS:

          (+) Raymond Aukker - Project Sponsor

          - He purchased his home five years ago.

          - He is seeking approval for an enclosed deck.

          - He has applied and paid for city permits on previous construction projects he has done to his home.

          - It has been seven months since he applied for this permit.

          - He has discovered that many of the windows are too old and require replacement.

          - He jumped the gun on the installation of the top floor windows. He has submitted a letter to the Commission explaining the reason for this.

          - He will voluntarily remove the windows on the third floor and purchase and install the windows required by the revised plans.

          - He will absorb the penalty of the lost time and the cost of replacing the windows.

          (+) John Lum - Project Architect

          - The main reason for the Discretionary Review was for the third floor.

          - The exceptional and extraordinary situation is that his client naively proceeded ahead with the proposed construction.

          - He is feeling very comfortable with the current plans.

          - This project is a small addition to an already approved third story.

          - The reason why this project has been designated for disapproval by staff is because it would seem as if the project sponsor is being rewarded for going ahead with construction without it having approved permits.

          (+) Edward Jong

          - He is a neighbor of the project sponsor.

          - He prefers the enclosed deck because it will be a more balanced design.

          - If the deck is open, it will be a big deck on a peaked roof. This would be contradictory to the neighborhood.

          - None of the houses in the area have such large decks.

          (+) Barry MacDonnell

          - He reviewed the architectural drawings and has seen the construction. He supports the project.

          (+) Joyce Belli

          - She lives on Anza Street.

          - Enclosing the deck and moving the windows with the original design will be in keeping with the design of the homes in the neighborhood.

          (+) Harrold W. Woodson, Jr.

          - His home is three houses from the proposed house.

          - The project sponsor has done a wonderful job improving his home.

          - The revised symmetrical design is more in character with the neighborhood.

          - He recommends approval of this project.

          (+) George Orbelian

          - He lives two houses away from the project sponsor.

          - The project sponsor's home is quite beautiful and has gone out of his way to be considerate to his neighbors.

          - He hopes that the Commission will support this project.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Disapproved the Project. The Commission required staff to issue a letter of notification to the Department of Building Inspection of changes. They also required the project sponsor pay time and material to the Planning Department.

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          20a. 2003.1251D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          187-189 LOWER TERRACE - south side between Roosevelt Way and Levant Street. Assessor's Block 2627 Lot 033 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.1104.0731, to construct a new three story two family dwelling on a vacant lot 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.

          SPEAKERS: None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 12, 2004.

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          20b. 2003.1256D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          191-193 LOWER TERRACE - south side between Roosevelt Way and Levant Street. Assessor's Block 2627 Lot 032 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.0828.3384, to lift the existing two story, two family residential building 5 feet to develop a new floor of occupancy beneath the existing building, and develop a two car garage on the street level 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.

          SPEAKERS: None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 12, 2004.

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          21. 2003.1103D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          7909 - 7911 GEARY BOULEVARD - south side between 43rd and 44th Avenues; Lot 046 in Assessor's Block 1501 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001.06.08.1143 proposing to construct a two-story rear addition, 10-feet in depth, to the existing two-story, two-unit building 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 as submitted.

          SPEAKERS:

          (-) Nea Hanscomb - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - She is wondering why all the photographs she submitted are not in the packet presented to the Commission.

          - The area is already very congested.

          - She is wondering why the project sponsor is not being required to comply with the 45 percent clear space in the rear yard with a 12 foot extension.

          (+) Paul Detimofeev

          - The Discretionary Review requester submitted her version of the proposed project.

          - He requested that the Discretionary Review requestor's overhead version of the project be disregarded because it is not accurate.

          - The DR requestor's blinds from the window near the proposed deck are always drawn.

          - He does not believe that the proposed deck will invade any privacy of the DR requestor's home.

          - Regarding the noise disturbance: the proposed deck is quite small so he is certainly not hosting a "dance party" on it.

          - He and his wife always chose to park outside and not inside the garage.

          - He has spoken to other neighbors and they are agreeable with the project.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved the Project.

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          22. 2003.0860D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

          357 HOWTH STREET - east of Howth Street between Mount Vernon Avenue and Ridge Lane; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 7035 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.21.2744, proposing a one-story (over storage) rear horizontal extension and stairs leading from the new addition to the rear yard, to an existing single family dwelling within an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Cristian Ard

          - There has already been a continuance before because the permit applicant was out of compliance.

          - Now the applicant is doing construction work without a permit.

          - He does not think that all these continuances are fair.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely.

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

          23. 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):

          (-) Frederic Campagnoli - Representing Discretionary Review Requestors

          - There will be a light well on the East side of the property and a light well on the West side--therefore not denying any bedrooms of light.

          - The new Residential Guidelines encourages light wells.

          - There is a need in the City to provide housing for the mentally disabled.

          - A three-foot setback is still necessary on the West side because there is an egress.

          - He is willing to compromise although he is still concerned with the size of the building.

          - If the windows were blocked off, there would be a loss of light to the two adjacent homes. This would cause a negative impact on the livelihood of the care homes.

          (+) Jeremy Paul

          - There is a recordation against one of the Discretionary Review requestor's from 1987 recorded by the Property Conservation Division of the Department of Building Inspection which states that the building built in 1923, in the event that the space on the East side of the building is built upon, thereby obstructing the windows of the building, a light and air easement will be obtained, or the windows will be blocked off and the required light and air ventilation will be required for the rooms affected.

          - There was a property conservation inspection of the occupancy back in the 80s and the permits are still open on bringing the building up to code.

          - There are many issues that the Building Code does not permit the Commission to tread on.

          - The current design proposes light wells on both sides of the property to provide reasonable accommodations to the windows that are there.

          (+) Pat Buskovitch

          - He is very familiar with the code requirements.

          - He has never seen a building with seven windows on the property line.

          - There cannot be egress windows on property lines.

          - The Building Department does not want people egresssing across property lines.

          - There are some fundamental issues with the adjoining property.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following modifications: extend the proposed lightwell on the east side to the ground floor, thereby providing light and ventilation to the bedroom windows of the adjacent property. The extension of this lightwell is expected to block the passageway to the rear of the proposed unit, thereby eliminating any direct access to the rear rooms and the possible creation of an illegal dwelling unit at the ground floor.

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          24. 2003.1315D (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

          2116 18TH STREET - north side between Kansas and Vermont Streets, Lot 21 in Assessor's Block 4010. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001.10.04.9988, proposing to add a 300 square foot vertical addition to the existing dwelling unit. The subject property is located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          SPEAKE(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Lewis Epstein

          - He has no objection to continuing this item to February 20, 2004.

          - The Project Sponsors are in India and will be back in the middle of February.

          Mary Louise Green

          - She lives next door to the subject project.

          - Mr. Epstein has not been able to speak to the Project Sponsor but there are other neighbors who have.

          - The Project Sponsors have been planning this trip for a long time.

          - She is amenable to the continuance date so there could be further conversations with the Project Sponsors return.

          John Carney

          - It is only fair to allow the continuance to February or March.

          Re: Merits of the Project

          (-) Lewis Epsten

          - He just discovered that the project sponsors were in India and will not be back.

          - The building is being built on top of a crawl space.

          - He resolves to appeal the project if there is no postponement.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved the Project

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          25. 2003.1164D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

          6725 CALIFORNIA STREET - south side between 29th and 30th Avenues, Lot 47 in Assessor's Block 1404 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.03.13.9612 proposing to alter the existing two-story, single-family dwelling by raising the building approximately eight feet in order to create a new ground floor to contain a two-car garage, with a new dwelling unit behind, and expanding the building to the front, rear and sides. The subject property is located in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (name unclear)

          - He does not have any objections to the project except for a light well that will be blocked.

          - This would cause a negative impact to a second story window that leads to the kitchen.

          - All he is asking is that the project sponsor to find a away to either preserve the two feet separation or provide us a similar size light well.

          (+) Joel Yodowitz - Reuben and Alter - Representing Project Sponsor

          - Rather than seeking to demolish this house, the project sponsor has decided to elevate the house, put in a garage and remodel the house.

          - He is ready to agree to a third light well.

          - He displayed a photograph of the front view of the subject property and the Discretionary Review requestor's home.

          - The light well in question does not extend fully to the floors of the adjacent home.

          - The project sponsor has tried to accommodate the Discretionary Review requestor's concerns.

          (+) Jason Lakehammer - Project Architect

          - He displayed photographs showing how the lightwell requested would have a huge impact on the feasibility of the project and the feasibility of keeping the existing structure. Also, it goes beyond what the Residential Design Guidelines are asking for.

          (+) Maria Butcher - Project Sponsor

          - It is very important to her to save this house.

          - She does not want to build a monster house and neither do her neighbors.

          - She asks that the Commission approve the project without a third light well.

          ACTION: Hearing Held. The Commission expressed concerns that statements about preserving this structure or the essence of it are not reflected in the plans submitted. Item continued to March 25, 2004. Public hearing will remain open on any new information presented.

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          26a. 2003.1012D (F. JONES (415) 558-6477)

          168 29th STREET - south side between Dolores Street and San Jose Avenue; Lot 017 in Assessors Block 6617. Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.04.6254 pursuant to the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions. The proposal is to demolish an existing 1-story, residential unit with commercial space in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Demolition.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 18, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 11, 2004

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

          26b. 2003.1316DD (F. JONES (415) 558-6477)

          168 29th STREET - south side of 29th Street between Dolores Street and San Jose Avenue; Lot 017 in Assessors Block 6617. Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.04.6258 pursuant to the Planning Commission's policy for review of all new residential construction. The new construction is also the subject of a Discretionary Review filed by an adjacent neighbor. The proposal is for the new construction of a four-story, four-unit building in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 11, 2004

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

          27. 2003.1166D (B. FU: (415) 558- 6613)

          1130 GILLMAN AVENUE - east side between Hawes and Ingalls Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 4938 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.09.1845 proposing to construct a two-level rear addition to the existing two-level building in an RH-1 (Residential, One-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Linda Todd - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - She and her mother have lived at this house for about 51 years.

          - She is protesting the proposed construction because it will have a detrimental impact on their living environment.

          - She has no intention on moving or adding on to their house.

          - If an addition is extended further than her house, they will suffer from lack of ventilation and sunlight.

          - She would hope that the Commission will consider the impact they will have.

          - She would request that the addition not extend further than their house.

          (-) Jacqueline Phillips

          - She knows the Discretionary Review requestors.

          - The DR requestors will have their sunlight and view blocked by the new construction.

          - One of the DR requestors is an elderly lady and she spends a lot of her time inside. She does not drive so stepping outside of the back part of her house is the only way she gets some light and air.

          (-) Frank Dawson

          - He does not agree that the proposed construction will "enhance" the neighborhood.

          - It will bring more congestion to the neighborhood. The house is located near Candlestick Park so there is a lot of traffic already.

          (+) Jose Gonzalez - Project Architect

          - This addition does not significantly affect the DR requestors light and ventilation.

          - The rear elevation was designed similar to what is designed in homes in the neighborhood.

          - The project sponsors have gone through the proper permits and procedures.

          - The design has been modified twice by request of the Planning Department.

          - If further reductions are required, it would affect the project completely.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with modifications: Require that the building set back three (3) feet (on the second floor only) for a length of 14 feet to the rear deck and that a Notice of Special Restrictions be recorded.

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

          NAYES: Feldstein

          28a. 2003.0890DV (B. FU: (415) 558- 6613)

          1637 19TH STREET - southeast corner of 19th and Wisconsin Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 4069. Mandatory Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.08.14.2046 pursuant to the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, to demolish an existing two-family dwelling 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 demolition.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) David Sternber - Project Architect

          - He submitted a letter of support from the neighbors.

          - The house is in extreme disrepair.

          - Most of the neighbors are in support of the new construction.

          - The project sponsor is trying to do a modest construction.

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

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein

          28b. 2004.0015D (B. FU: (415) 558- 6613)

          1637 19TH STREET - southeast corner of 19th and Wisconsin Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 4069. Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.14.2054 for the new construction of a two-family dwelling 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 project.

      SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 28a.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following condition: reduce height of stairs at penthouse.

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

      ABSENT: Feldstein

          28c. 2003.0890DV (B. FU: (415) 558- 6613)

          1637 19TH STREET - southeast corner of 19th and Wisconsin Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 4069, in a RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family House) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. A Variance is also required for the construction of the building within the required front setback area and without the required landscaping area.

      SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 28a.

      ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the Variance.

          29a. 2002.0605CV (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

          4614-4630 CALIFORNIA STREET - "The St. James Episcopal Church and Pre-School"; Lot 049 in Assessor's Block 1368 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.3(f) & (j) of the Planning Code to allow for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a new building for the St. James Episcopal Church administrative facilities, offices for non-profit counseling accessory to the church-related services, and a child-care facility providing less than 24-hour care for 13 or more children by licensed personnel within an 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 December 18, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Mary Moore Gaines - Project Sponsor

          - She has watched the congregation grow rapidly and significantly.

          - They have had their preschool for 41 years.

          - The Richmond District is very underserved for this type of service.

          - There are a few worn out buildings that need to be replaced that will serve the community.

          ACTION: Approved with the following Conditions of Approval:

          1. This authorization is to demolish existing church related structures and construction of a new building for the St. James Episcopal Church administrative facilities, offices accessory to the church-related services, a community facility, and a child-care facility providing less than 24-hour care for 13 or more children by licensed personnel on the property at 4614-4630 California Street, Assessor's Block 1368, Lot 049, in general conformity with the plans identified as EXHIBIT B, dated May 2003, and reviewed by the Commission on January 22, 2004.

          2. The authorization granted herein shall be valid for a period of three (3) years from the date of the adoption of Motion No. 16717 and shall become null and void after that time if the required building permits have not been obtained.

          3. The authorization granted herein is contingent upon the granting of rear yard and off-street parking variances by the Zoning Administrator.

          4. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the tenant of the dwelling unit to be demolished for logistical and financial assistance to relocate.

          5. The pre-school facility shall be limited to 68 children between the ages of 2 and 5.

          6. A neighborhood liaison shall be made available to respond to neighborhood concerns and monitor traffic at the drop-off site for the pre-school.

          7. Once the number of pre-schoolers reaches a level where the drop-off site begins to back-up and impede the flow of traffic along California Street, a traffic coordinator shall be implemented to regulate the drop-off location and assist the flow of traffic.

          8. The community facility shall be limited to hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m..

          9. The accessory office space shall be limited to a quarter of the total floor area occupied by the Church and leased to non-profit tenants only, except as an integral part of the Church or Child-Care facility as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

          10. Noise and odors shall be contained within the premises so as not to be a nuisance to nearby businesses or residents.

          11. An enclosed waste storage area shall be provided within the establishment. All trash and recycling containers shall be kept within the building until pick-up by the disposal company.

          12. Should monitoring of the Conditions of Approval of this Motion be required, the Project Sponsor shall pay fees as established in Planning Code Section 351(e)(1).

          13. Should implementation of this Project result in complaints from interested property owners, residents, or commercial lessees which are not resolved by the Project Sponsor and are subsequently reported to the Zoning Administrator and found to be in violation of the Planning Code and/or the specific Conditions of Approval for the Project as set forth in Exhibit A of this Motion, the Zoning Administrator shall refer such complaints to the Commission, after which it may hold a public hearing on the matter in accordance with the hearing notification and conduct procedures as set forth in Sections 174, 306.3, and 306.4 of the code to consider revocation of this conditional use authorization.

          14. The Project Sponsor shall assure the execution and recordation of the specified conditions as a Notice of Special Restrictions at the Office of the County Recorder/ County Clerk.

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

      ABSENT: Feldstein

      MOTION: 16717

          29b. 2002.0605CV (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

          4614-4630 CALIFORNIA STREET - Request for Parking and Rear Yard Variances. Article 1.5 Section 150(b) of the Planning Code requires child care facilities to provide one independently accessible off-street parking space for every 25 children, where the number of such children exceeds 24. Section 150(d) requires that existing parking spaces be retained. The project proposes no new off-street parking spaces where 2 are required. Article 1.2 Section 134 of the Planning Code requires a 45 percent rear yard, which can be reduced to 25 percent through averaging or 15 feet whichever is greater. The project proposes a 15 foot rear yard where 25 feet are required.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 18, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 29a.

          ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the Variance.

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: 10:05 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, February 19, 2004.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:13 PM