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

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

March 11, 2004

March 11, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, March 11, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Edgar E. Boyd and Lisa Feldstein

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:42 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Craig Nikitas - Acting Zoning Administrator; Tina Tam; Dominick Argumedo; Paul Lord; 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. 2003.1217D (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

        342 21ST STREET - east side between Geary and Clement Streets; Lot 033 in Assessor's Block 1452 - Request for Discretionary Review of Permit Application No. 2003.08.07.1409, proposing to add two units to the existing single-family dwelling by constructing new third and fourth floors, and a rear addition in an RM-1 (Mixed Residential, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve as proposed.

        Proposed for Continuance to March 25, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

        2. 2003.1061D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        133 St. MARY'S AVENUE - Mandatory DR to demolish a fire-damaged single-family dwelling and construct a new three-story two-family dwelling in the RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
        Proposed for Continuance to April 15, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 15, 2004.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

        3. 2004.0104D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        133 St. MARY'S AVENUE - Mandatory DR to construct a new three-story two-family dwelling after demolition of a single-family dwelling in the RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.
        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
        (Proposed for Continuance to April 15, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 15, 2004.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

        4. 2004.0032D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        43 HAMILTON STREET - Mandatory DR to demolish a single-family dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, Single-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
        (Proposed for Continuance to April 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 22, 2004.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

5. 2004.0033D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        43 HAMILTON STREET - Mandatory DR to construct a single-family dwelling following demolition of a single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, Single-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
        (Proposed for Continuance to April 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 22, 2004.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

6. 2003.0946D (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

        458-460 35th AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Clement Street: Lot 042 in Assessor's Block 1466 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.02.21.8034, proposing to; (1) construct a 3' 4" deep, three-level rear horizontal addition and a two-story deck and stairs; and, (2) add a new, approximately 830 square foot, partial third floor to a two-story over ground floor structure containing two dwelling units 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 as revised.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 12, 2004)

        Proposed for Continuance to April 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 22, 2004.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

7. 2002.0731D (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

        3410 CALIFORNIA STREET - north side between Laurel and Locust Streets; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 1019 - Request for Discretionary Review of Permit Application No. 2001.05.14.9020, proposing to construct a new four unit building in an RM-1 (Mixed Residential, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Take DR and approve with modifications.

      (Proposed for Continuance to May 6, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 6, 2004.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

      8. 2002.1129E (L. GIBSON: (415) 558-5993)

        SAN FRANCISCO MARINA RENOVATION - Lot 003 of Assessor's Block 900 in the Marina District on the northern waterfront between Laguna and Lyon Streets north of Marina Boulevard - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project is the renovation of the San Francisco Marina Yacht Harbor. Water-side improvements would include installation of three new breakwater structures and the removal of two existing breakwater structures; reconstruction of portions of the degraded rip-rap slopes; maintenance dredging; replacement and reconfiguration of the floating docks and slips; replacement of gangways and security gates; installation of one oily water and sewage pump out facility and refurbishment of two existing sewage pump out facilities; and upgrade of utility services and lighting at the new floating docks. Land-side improvements would include renovation of existing marina restroom, shower, and office buildings; conversion of a vacant building into office space; construction of a new maintenance building; re-stripping of existing parking lots and public paths; and construction of a new children's play area. The site is within a P (Public) District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

      (Proposed for Continuance to June 24, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 24, 2004.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      9. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of February 12, 2003.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

      10. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commissioner Antonini:

        Re: Information provide by Commissioner Bill Lee last week

        - He thanked Commissioner Bill Lee for distributing the report from the Committee on Jobs of the San Francisco City and County Budget.

        - The most interesting item in the report is that the 300 million dollar shortfall was not a one time situation but rather endemic of a structural problem in the budget and is evidenced that there has been a huge increase in the size of the work force from 1995 to 2003; and our per capita spending is far in excess of other cities.

        - he has taken part in a study that was done in 2001 and this was exacting the finding when they compared the cities of San Jose and San Francisco.

        - He would like to calendar a discussion in the future of this particular study. It does ask a lot of questions regarding the sort of things the Commission does in terms of approving projects, housing policies, etc. Do these decisions influence the budget of the City?

        Commissioner William Lee

        Re: Landmarks Advisory Board

        - Last week there was a presentation from the Landmarks Board.

        - Is there enough staffing allocation for historic preservation and for someone to get a Certificate of Appropriateness?

          Acting Director Badiner responded:

          - The answer is no.

          - There have been two staff positions lost in that unit.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      11. Director's Announcements

        Re: Acting Director and Acting Acting Acting Zoning Administrator

        - He will be wearing two hats today and is asking for the Commission's patience.

        Re: Commissioner Feldstein

        - Acknowledged and thanked Commissioner Feldstein who brought four very large and very delicious cakes in appreciation of staff.

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

        BOS -

        The following are the new BOS Committees:

        Budget Committee: The Chair is Supervisor Sandoval, the Vice Chair is Supervisor Daly and the third member is Supervisor McGoldrick.

        Finance Committee: The Chair is Supervisor Daly, the Vice Chair is Supervisor Peskin, and the third member is Supervisor Amiano.

        Planning Department Audit Committee: The Chair is Supervisor Peskin, the Vice Chair is Supervisor Amiano, and the third member is Supervisor Daly.

        The Land Use Committee: The Chair is Supervisor McGoldrick, the Vice Chair is Supervisor Peskin, and the third member is Supervisor Maxwell.

        Re: Divisadero restrictive use district

        - The Board of Supervisors passed this unanimously on the first reading.

        Re: Formula Retail Legislation

        This legislation will go before the Land Use Committee on Monday.

        Re: 8 Washington Street

        This appeal has been accepted by five supervisors and will be heard on March 30, 2004.

        BOA -

        - Jonas Ionin from staff represented the department.

        Re: 737 Pine Street

        - This was a Zoning Administrator determination.

        Re: 3358 Cesar Chavez - Day Labor Program

        - The Board agreed with the concerns the Planning Commission had. They also agreed that the pursuit of a larger site was a priority.

    D. REGULAR CALENDAR

      13. 2003.1132D (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

        1459 4th 24th AVENUE - west side between Kirkham and Judah Streets, Lot 12 in Assessor's Block 1829 - Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.17.9719, proposing to alter a previously approved construction of a new single-family dwelling, specifically to correct the dimension of the adjacent property to the north on the site permit. The property is located in the RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        Re: Continuance

        Jerry Urman

        - He is in agreement with a continuance but to a further date than March 25, 2004.

        - He is a schoolteacher and does not like to leave his students with a substitute teacher.

        ACTION: Because the calendar shows an incorrect street address, the item was continued without hearing to March 25, 2004 (latish on the calendar)

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

      14. 2003.0741D (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

        580 OAK PARK DRIVE - end of Oak Park Drive, a cul-de-sac, 450 feet from the corner of Devonshire Way and Oak Park Drive, located in the Forest Knolls Neighborhood, in a residential enclave sandwiched between Mount Sutro and the Laguna Honda Reservoir, Lot 30 in Assessor's Block 2676 - Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.04.2261, proposing to construct a new three-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Larry Paul - Representing Project Sponsor

        - He showed various photographs of how the project would look compared to the adjacent homes.

        - He also displayed pages from the Residential Design Guidelines showing how the project could be changed to be in conformance with the guidelines.

        - By having a top floor setback it would lessen the impact of the building.

        - The rear deck is quite large and does not need to come all the way out. It could be cut out a few feet.

        (-) David Pelavin

        - He lives on this street.

        - There is a deck on the second floor on the north side. This deck should be removed because from it one could look straight into his dining room. There is not much need for that deck.

        - If this deck is not removed, he would like to have some privacy lattice installed so there is no view into his dining room.

        - This project takes away one of three off street parking spaces. If there are additional cars with this house, that will create a problem.

        (-) Amanda Hillery

        - She is concerned with the general character of the neighborhood.

        - She is concerned about the footpath that runs to the north of the proposed property.

        - This is like a green oasis and is used by the general public. There are some undesirable rodents and they might be displaced if this project is approved.

        - There have been landslides due to erosion. She would like to be ensured that the proper measures will be taken to not have any of the neighbors be impacted by the instability of the soil.

        (-) Jackie Pelavin

        - Many of the neighbors have been there for many, many years.

        - The proposed house will create a huge shadow and huge scale impact on her house.

        - The proposed house will be double the size of her house.

        - Every house on this street has setbacks.

        - They are not opposed to the project, but there are changes that she would like the Commission to take into consideration.

        - She is concerned with landslides.

        (-) Eugene Barsotti

        - He has lived on this street for 41 years.

        - One of the problems with this house is that the lot is designed so that the house could be setback from the sidewalk.

        - He does not understand why the house does not fit the size of the lot.

        - The house will just look completely out of place.

        (-) Patricia Barsotti

        - She read a letter from her neighbor who is not in support of the project.

        - She could not attend the hearing because she is an elderly, house ridden senior.

        (-) Christine Hausson

        - She lives right next door to the proposed project.

        - The area has not changed for many, many years.

        - Prior to filing this Discretionary Review, she wrote to the project sponsor and this person failed to comply.

        - She is not opposed to the building; she would like the Commission to look at all the issues presented by the people who are opposed.

        (-) Hans Hausson

        - This area is noted for landslides.

        - The concern about the slippage is very important to him.

        - There are a lot of eucalyptus trees and these trees do not have deep roots.

        - He is concerned that the roots of these trees will be impacted and can cause a danger to the neighbors.

        (-) Charles Cunningham

        - Using photographs of distant views of the area, he showed how the proposed house would compare to the other homes.

        - He is concerned with the probability of slides.

        (+) Archie Occhipinti

        - If he built the project the way the Discretionary Review requestor's architect asked him to he would be invading the sidewalk by 10 feet.

        - There is no possible way that the DR requestor could see his deck.

        - He has to have an elevator. There is no way he can get an elevator in a 22 foot pad.

        - He thinks that the architect should take another look.

        - He is curious to know if he has appeal rights.

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Public Comment Remains Open. Item continued to April 1, 2004. Staff is to contact the Department of Building Inspection for input on what (if any) special procedures are needed regarding the soil conditions. The project sponsor is encouraged to meet with neighbors.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

      15a. 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 - Mandatory Discretionary Review and 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 January 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Stan Sager

        - He is a real estate broker.

        - He has been selling real estate in the state of California for over 30 years.

        - The property's market value in December of 2003 was in the range of 795,000.

        - A property in this City would not double its purchase power in just 6 months.

        (-) Elton Buffer

        - He has lived in the neighborhood for over 45 years.

        - The neighbors have produced a video in order for the Commission to become familiar with the street. [He showed the video.]

        (-) Alice Berkley

        - She displayed a map of an aerial view of the home on Lurmont Terrace.

        - Because the Commission changed their policy regarding Discretionary Reviews, the neighbors were not able to file more DRs.

        - There are extraordinary circumstances because the location is mid block and surrounded by buildings. It is in a very sensitive spot.

        - The scale and massing is very inappropriate.

        - She presented photographs of the street without the finished project compared to a photograph of the street with the finished project showing how incredibly massive it is and overwhelming for this site.

        - At a minimum, one story of this building should be eliminated.

        (-) Tony Rodriguez

        - He is representing Dr. Calvert.

        - Dr. Calvert submitted a letter expressing his concerns about this project because he lives near the project site.

        - Part of Dr. Calvert's lot serves as vehicular access and paring for 13 residential units.

        (-) Franklin Bowles

        - He really wishes that the Commission realizes the grotesqueness of this project. It is just too large and massive.

        - He hoped that the other 150 people affected by this project would be here.

        - The neighborhood would like to have something a little more reasonable.

        (-) David Kimball

        - He and his wife live on Lombard Street.

        - They support the construction of a habited house as opposed to an inhabited house.

        - The previous owners of the proposed project had a reasonable and acceptable design.

        - He and his wife are disheartened with the loss of harmony they had valued for so many years.

        (-) Jeff Baker

        - He and his wife live on Lombard Street.

        - His view is not in any way impacted by this project.

        - They had a really good relationship with the previous owners. This is not the case today.

        - The project is just too massive and not in context with the mid-block open space.

        - He showed a lot map of the various neighbors who are opposed to the project because of size, scale and the destruction of mid-block open space.

        - This project will create a cement canyon.

        - They are also concerned with the construction noise.

        (-) Dorothy Aschetti

        - She is voicing many of the concerns her neighbors have expressed.

        - She is mostly concerned about the mid-block open space and the serenity that will be eliminated with this project.

        - She hopes that the Commission will take all these things into consideration.

        (-) Lisa Huette

        - She is representing Randy Flood who submitted a Discretionary Review request but was not able to attend the meeting.

        - The project is substantially larger than the adjacent homes.

        - She hopes that the Commission will take the concerns of the neighbor's quite seriously.

        (-) Brad Marks

        - His objection is not about views, it is about the appropriate handling of the mid-block open space.

        (-) Carrie Novatney

        - She agrees with all the concerns of the neighbors.

        - No matter what happens, they will be able to maintain their view of Coit Tower.

        - She is very concerned about the mid-block open space. It will be negatively impacted.

        (-) Jerry Mutz

        - They overlook the mid-block green space to the north.

        - His interest in this green space is not about views but about cherishing a soft area and their gardens.

        - This area is a home for raccoons and birds and not for an extremely large home.

        - The residents of the block really treasure and appreciate open space, greenery and pathways.

        - The neighbors approved the previous proposal because it respected the open space.

        (-) Catherine Mutz

        - She is representing Marilyn Duffy who was not able to attend the hearing but is opposed to the project.

        - She read a letter from Ms. Duffy.

        (-) Fred Sherman

        - He and his wife live on Lombard Street.

        - This is a true neighborhood with a great deal of friendliness and concern.

        - This project is just too out-of-scale. It does not respect greenery and does not fit into the neighborhood.

        - Many of these same neighbors supported an expansion by the previous neighbors that was approved without any Discretionary Review.

        (-) Jim Salinas

        - A few months ago he was able to go by 44 Lurmont Terrace.

        - This little house should have been able to be renovated without designing it in such a large and massive way.

        - Houses that are affordable starter homes for some families are being torn down.

        (-) Penelope Clark - Co-Chair of the Russian Hill Neighbors

        - She submitted a letter from her Board of Directors stating their opposition to this project as it is currently proposed, as well as the variance.

        - Because there is a garage in the buildable area there is no need to put it in another location.

        - The project sponsors have not made any effort to communicate with the neighbors to deal with the issues they might have.

        (-) Shawn Leonard

        - She has had the chance to work both commercial and residential markets of construction.

        - She is concerned about at trend that seems to be going on in San Francisco--the demolition of existing properties.

        - There are a lot of beautiful properties in the area.

        - She feels that this home is structurally sound and should not be abolished.

        - The Planning Commission should not allow the demolition of homes and allow something larger to be built.

        (-) Valerie Young

        - She lives directly across from the subject property.

        - She has lived in the area for 18 years.

        - She and her husband are opposed to this project because it involves demolishing a medium sized home and replacing it with a very large, very massive, four level structure.

        - The new home is completely inappropriate for this neighborhood.

        (-) Jason Wisner

        - This is an extremely large project that is not harmonious with the neighborhood character.

        - He is opposed to the demolition and [the proposed house] should not be allowed.

        - There is an existing property that can be refurbished.

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Publish Hearing Remains Open. Item Continued to May 27, 2004. Commissioners expressed concern with the size of the proposed house, the unusable interior space, and the top floor.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

      15b. 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 January 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 15a.

        ACTION: Zoning Administrator Continued Item to May 27, 2004. Public Comment Remains Open.

      16a. 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.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) David Silverman - Representing Project Sponsor

        - He thanked staff and the Acting Director for working so hard on this project.

        - This home will provide parking spaces where the current home does not have one at all.

        - The project sponsor has reached successful conclusions with the neighbors. These neighbors have submitting letters confirming this.

        - The project fully complies with the Residential Design Guidelines.

        - This project provides family housing and there are no exceptional circumstances.

        - The engineering firm that prepared the soundness report is here and is available for questions.

        (+/-) Father Nazarin

        - He is a catholic priest and lives across the street from the proposed project.

        - He is concerned with a public notice that stated there was to be a hearing on January 22. That hearing did not happen and was continued to this date. The problem with that is that no one was notified of this continuance. There probably would be more people here today to speak on this project. That is why he would like to have this project continued.

        - He is also concerned that when construction is going on and because the street is quite narrow, this could cause problems if there were to be a catastrophe. He would suggest that the construction equipment be put below the spot where there is a constant bottle neck.

        (+) Hector Navarro

        - He knows the area quite well.

        - He supports this project. The current building is quite ugly.

        (+) Drake Gardner - Project architect

        - He does not believe that there are any problems regarding the neighbors knowing when the hearing would be.

        - Based on the response from the neighbors he feels that he has developed a project that is acceptable to the neighbors.

        (+) Luke O'Brien

        - The current structure is quite an eyesore.

        - He is in support of the new structure.

        (+) Brian McGee

        - The project sponsor has done a great job in communicating with the neighbors about the design and changes and has dealt with the issues.

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

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

      16b. 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.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 22, 2004)

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

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approve the project with the following modification: add 1 foot of elevation to the second floor and 1 foot elevation to the third floor.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

      17. 2004.0092I (D. ARGUMEDO: (415) 558-6284)

        ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY - Notification by Zoning Administrator of filing of 10 year abbreviated Institutional Master Plan by Alliant International University per Planning Code Section 304.5 (d). The University's San Francisco Bay Area campus is currently located in Alameda but proposed for relocation to One Beach Street. As this is submission of an abbreviated institutional master plan, the Planning Commission may, at its option, either hold or not hold a public hearing on the plan.

        Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required. Receipt of Public Testimony only.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Connell F. Persico - Alliant International University

        - He is exited about bring back an asset that originated in 1970.

        - The students and faculty in psychology and education dedicate thousands of hours of service to young children and adults.

        - They are working diligently on developing a traffic plan to avoid problems.

        (+) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

        - They worked closely with the San Francisco Bike Coalition, City Car Share, Housing Action Coalition, Walk San Francisco and Rescue MUNI.

        - All of them are in support of the University's Master Plan because Alliant has diligently been working on providing public transportation to the University.

        - They provide a monthly pre tax transportation benefit to students and faculty.

        - No one will be prohibited from driving, but they will pay market rate parking fees.

        - Transportation for a Livable City also applauds the University for not providing off street parking.

        - He urges the Commission to approve this master plan and direct the project sponsor to provide City Car Share and/or bicycle stalls.

        ACTION: Commission decided to not hold a public hearing.

      18. 2004.0050T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

        PERMITTING TOURIST HOTELS OF 75 ROOMS OR LESS IN THE SERVICE/SECONDARY OFFICE (SSO) ZONING DISTRICT - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 818 and adding Section 818.78 to Table 818 to allow a tourist hotel of 75 rooms or less as a principal permitted use in the SSO (Service/Secondary Office District; adopting findings of consistency with the priority polices of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval with recommendations.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Bill Barns - Office of Supervisor Daly

        - Supervisor Daly supports the recommendation of planning staff. Approvals through Conditional Use is a good idea. Supervisor Daly also believes that by making it through Conditional Use, the question of displacing PDR is addressed. The Commission would have to have a hearing if PDR is being displaced.

        - All of the Commission understands that the South of Market community planning process needs a little work.

        - The residents of SOMA are interested in a variety of uses.

        - The SOMA residents do not want the Community Planning Process to inhibit development.

        - This legislation is appropriate while the Community Planning Process is finalized.

        (+) Jim Meko - SOMA Leadership Council

        - The staff recommendation is flawed. If staff included more facts the recommendation would have been approval with some recommendations.

        - All seven Commissioners have approved removing SOMA from the Eastern Neighborhoods process. Now staff has gone ahead and taken the areas back into the process without approval of the Commission.

        - Staff is considering a radical down zoning of the area and some of the western South of Market.

        - This kind of legislation should be based on the context of a healthy mixed use and not isolating PDR.

        - Western SOMA was removed from the Eastern Neighborhoods process because the process was unresponsive to how the residents envision the future of SOMA. No one supports Core PDR.

        - He urged the Commission to approve the legislation.

        (+) Ernesto Cerrillos

        - He has been a hotel worker for many years.

        - He is in favor of building small hotels.

        - There would be more opportunities for employees.

        - San Francisco is a beautiful city and this would provide a large income for the City.

        (+) Circe Sher - Metrovation

        - She has been working with Supervisor Daly to allow a hotel on her property.

        - She believes that the site on 5th and Townsend has evolved into a good site for a hotel.

        - There are great amenities in the area to support a hotel.

        - The hotel would have 50 rooms and the design would be elegant and historical.

        (+) Wayne Wilson - 655 5th Street Homeowners Association

        - Everyone in the association is in support of this legislation because we believe it will bring vitality to the neighborhood.

        (+) Mark Dumolien - 695 5th Street Homeowners Association

        - He echoed Wayne Wilson's comments.

        - Hotels provide 24% foot traffic and it fits with the live/work businesses and others in the area.

        - He support the legislation.

        (+) Peter Morse - Townsend Association LLC

        - He owns a business in the area and has seen how it has developed.

        - This legislation would not displace any PDR uses.

        - There is a lot of talk about whether the neighborhood should be exclusive PDR. He is unaware of the discussions on this subject.

        - The hotel will enhance the mixed uses in this vibrant neighborhood.

        (-) Mark Seiler

        - His major concern is that he has not been involved in the community planning process.

        - His concern is that his property will be down zoned and this will have a negative impact on him.

        - He would like to be included in the community planning process.

        (-) David Baker

        - He displayed a map of SOMA explaining how it is so out of date. But this map was printed form the database.

        (-) Sue Hestor - Hotel Workers Local 2

        - There is no compelling reason to do this outside the completion of the South of Market planning process

        - The hotel workers really track what is going on in the hotel industry.

        - Right now the hotel industry is going through a tough time. There is a high number of vacancies.

        - The focus was misplaced in the staff analysis.

        - It is totally proper to have a finding in this area.

        - Local 2 is against this legislation and is against anything that would take away any of the Conditional Use provisions.

        (+) Jaime Rossi - Chamber of Commerce

        - He submitted a letter from neighbors who are in support of the project.

        - Any plans to extend CalTrain would have to stop at 4th and Townsend.

        - The area is a truly a mixed use area.

        - This is going to bring PDR forward and not backward.

        - Hotels create hundreds of construction jobs and jobs within the hotel.

        ACTION: Approved the legislation with recommended modifications that would include requiring Conditional Uses in that area and to not allow hotels on sites where there has been PDR use for the last 18 months.

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, W. lee

        NAYES: S. Lee

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

        RESOLUTION: 16740

      19. 2003.1312T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

        LANDMARK TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND ARTWORK CONTRIBUTIONS - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 128 to allow a City-owned landmark in a P (Public) zoning district that is adjacent to properties zoned C-3 (Downtown Commercial) to sell Transferable Development Rights and by a amending Section 149 to authorize the landmark to receive artwork contributions in order to finance rehabilitation and restoration of the exterior of the property; adopting findings of consistency with the priority polices of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 26, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) David Owen - Representing Supervisor Peskin

        - Supervisor Peskin will be proposing at the Land Use Committee the following amendments: 1) the first amendment clarifies what the floor area ratio base is for public buildings meeting a strict criteria for landmark statutes in the ordinance. The basis of what is used to calculate the amount of TDR that could be available for sale for such a building; 2) where a development lot must be located to transfer P building TDR meeting the historic criteria set forth in the ordinance parallels the existing language in section 128 was omitted in the draft of the ordinance; 3) corrects a missed cross reference which is the old section 5 and is crossed out in the proposed amendment so that the concept of the arts funds could be used on exterior elements needs to be restated at that point in the ordinance.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

        RESOLUTION: 16739

      20. 2003.1260D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

        111 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE - east side near Berkshire Way; Lot 031 in Block 7277 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.08.1594S, proposing to construct a horizontal and vertical addition to an existing single family dwelling in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House Districts, One-Family, Detached Dwellings) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Denis Driscoll - Discretionary Review Requestor

        - He is requesting that the proposed construction be modified because it will cause a negative impact on his property and it is not consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines.

        - With his proposed compromise, he will still loose some light and a window but he is willing to compromise.

        - He showed photographs demonstrating how with the new construction he will loose a large a mount of sunlight to his property.

        - He suggests that they lower the ceiling height from 9 feet to 8 feet.

        (-) Joanne Driscoll

        - She and her husband are native San Franciscans.

        - Their daughter is allergic to mold and is asthmatic.

        - She requests that their family needs be considered as well.

        (-) Leslie Zamarripa

        - She owns property on Country Club Drive.

        - She feels that the project that is being proposed is out of scale and will take away from the planned openness.

        - Plans are not customarily read easily. Once built, projects have proven to be a different matter than what was drawn.

        - She is concerned that the height will diminish light and increase mold to the DR requestor's home. This will be quite a problem since their daughter is allergic to mold.

        (-) Nancy Berger

        - She has been a homeowner on Country Club Drive for many years.

        - She read a letter from a neighborhood who was not able to attend the meeting and is against the construction.

        (+) Therese Peffer - Project Designer and Agent

        - The proposed addition would only be above the crawl space.

        - They have complied with all of the Planning Codes as well as the Residential Design Guidelines.

        - She believes that there will be no impact on the neighbors.

        - She has designed a setback of eight feet.

        - There are several [existing] precedents in the neighborhood (she showed a photograph of a few on that street).

        - She is not clear if the 56 signatures that are not in support of the project saw the project or they are just against construction completely.

        - She does not believe that this addition is exceptional or extraordinarily.

        (+) Maria Bonkowski

        - The construction is just simply because they need an extra bedroom for their child.

        - There are many homes that have construction additions. So the neighborhood will change inevitably.

        - The design is harmonious with the other homes.

        - She hopes that the Commission will consider their concerns.

        (+) Joseph Bonkowski

        - He and his wife included the DR requestors many times.

        - In the beginning the DR requestors were only concerned with privacy, then it became air, then it became sunlight until they came to a complete stop.

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

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

        NAYES: Hughes

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

      21. 2003.0945D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        1907 EGBERT AVENUE - northeast corner at Bayshore Boulevard; Lot 002B in Assessor's Block 5439 - Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.11.2024, proposing new construction of a 2-story-over-garage single-family dwelling. The site is in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Johnny Esquinoni

        - He displayed a diagram showing the scale of the adjacent homes.

        - The proposed house will have a negative affect on his view.

        - With the current arrangement, there is a telephone pole and wires coming to his house. He does not know how the construction will affect these wires.

        - The project will also have a negative impact on the property value of his home.

        (+) Rodrigo Galimba - Project Sponsor

        - The answer to the DR requestor's question is that the construction will not block the view.

        - The new house will not extend more than what is allowed.

        - The sun rises in the east and the sun travels from east to west. So from 7 to 10 he will receive a lot of sunlight.

        (+) Mila Galimba

        - This is their long awaited dream house.

        - This home is for their family only. She hopes that the Commission will approve their proposal.

        - The proposed project will comply with the design requirements of the neighborhood.

        - The new construction will improve the neighborhood's visual aspects.

        (+) Marcela Galimba

        - This home is built for the family and will be only owner occupied.

        - There will be bedrooms for the members of the family.

        - They are a very close family and that is how their culture is.

        - She provided letters of support from their neighbors.

        (+) Rodrigo Galimba, Jr.

        - He has a family and there is not much space in their home.

        - Every time he comes home he wishes that he and his family could have a larger place to live.

        - He is so lucky to have a dad to support him.

        - He is confused about the "cultural thing" that the DR requestor has mentioned.

        (+) Joseph Galimba

        - He is so upset about the "cultural thing" accusation from the DR requestor.

        - They are just a very close family.

        - He hopes that the Commission will approve the project and take their concerns into consideration.

        (+) Bolfo Alano - Project Architect

        - There will be a deck with a parapet railing on both sides.

        - There are some stairs that are an issue because of privacy. He is willing to design he stairs on the other side.

        - He is proposing to have a skylight installed.

        - Regarding the utility lines, he will deal with those issues with the utility company.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

        22a. 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 January 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        Re: Continuance

        Eric Christenson

        - He was shocked to find out that this item was not on today's calendar.

        - He called the case planner regarding the omission and the planner did not give it too much importance.

        - Then an agenda addendum was issued twp days ago and it is listed as item 22 when it was supposed to be in the beginning of the calendar.

        - He agrees to the continuance so long as the item is properly noticed.

        Rom Vernalli

        - He was just told that he was going to be on the calendar today.

        - Even though he just found out about being on today's calendar he is prepared to go forward with the case.

        Re: Merits of the Project

        (+) Michael Levitt - Project Architect

        - The units would range in size from two to three units.

        - He showed a map of the surrounding neighborhood.

        - He also showed a map of the building to building lot coverage.

        - This house will follow the gradual slope of the hill.

        - The proposed building façade will be three stories over a ground floor garage with additional living space on the garden level and in back.

        - The overall mass of the building has been reduced.

        - The design of the building follows the Planning Codes as well as the newly revised Residential Design Guidelines.

        (-) Jeremy Paul

        - There is no opposition to the demolition nor to replace it with housing.

        - There is very little commercial use left on this block.

        - The Project Sponsor is making use of the NC designation to build a building that is far out of scale and character.

        - The building is on a key lot. This lot has distinct impacts on the surrounding properties.

        - The Residential Design Guidelines addresses these types of lots.

        - The design that is proposed really accommodates the key lot components.

        - A very successful building could be built on this site with a better design.

        - There are Residential Design Guideline issues here as well.

        (-) Ruth Bender

        - She just moved to Noe Valley. She loves the character of the neighborhood and the open space.

        - When she looks outside her front door she has sunlight. If this building is approved she will loose this sunlight.

        (-) Steban Guevara

        - Demolishing and building such a monolith will send the cost of housing out of reach.

        - The point here is that people should understand that they need to maintain their homes.

        - He is concerned about his garden. It is an extension of his home and needs to have sunlight all the time.

        - The proposed project will allow the people who will live in that building to look into his garden, bedroom and dining room.

        (-) Eve Maher

        - She feels that this project is not in compliance with this neighborhood.

        - It will cut out sunlight for many hours.

        - None of the neighbors are in favor of this project.

        - She has a back yard and this building will block sunlight to her yard.

        - The units will not be affordable anyway.

        - She is just asking that the building come down one story.

        (-) Lauren Bender

        - She lived in San Francisco for 11 years and then moved away. Now, because of a new job, she is able to come back to San Francisco.

        - This building will rally change the character of the five houses that will be impacted.

        - This is the first time that she has seen the design of the project.

        - She feels that it would be great to replace the building that is currently there but the proposed replacement building is just too large.

        (-) David Robb

        - He concurs with everything that everyone has said.

        - There is only one other building that has four stories, and that building is located on a corner lot.

        - He is concerned with the sunlight being diminished.

        - The building should just be scaled down.

        (-) Eric Christensen

        - He has a lot of support for his compromise for this project because it will only have three floors.

        - They are asking to move the stair penthouse, reducing the depth of the building.

        - The neighborhood has mostly three story houses.

        (-) Amy Van der Wyk

        - This is very important to her because her children spend time in their sunny back yard.

        - Her husband went around the neighborhood to see other key lot homes.

        - He estimated an area of the wall that was taken up by windows.

        - She would like to see other windows being designed on the other side.

        - Going down 30 feet would make a huge difference.

        (-) Hussein Safa

        - He lives on Dolores Street, right in back of the proposes structure.

        - He is grateful that the facade is similar to the neighborhood character.

        - He would like the Commission to allow a three story building with a lot less windows.

        (-) Maria Cordero

        - Because of the height of the proposed structure, she will loose a lot of sunlight to her house.

        - The project will also cause mature trees to come down.

        - A three story building will be a good compromise.

        (-) Bill Caldwell

        - He is not directly impacted by this building, but he does not like the precedent that this project is setting.

        - The large air well causes an invasion of privacy.

        - Originally there were 36 windows on the property line.

        (-) Barbara Savitz

        - She is concerned that the neighbors will loose their sunlight.

        - As a nurse, she is aware of how sunlight and open space can affect people's well being and mental health.

        (-) Frederick Jermer

        - He is not immediately affected by this building but is concerned about the quality of life that the new building will cause.

        - This building will set a precedent in the neighborhood.

        - He is not a NIMBY, he just feels that this building is too large.

        (+) Lou Blazej

        - There are four story building in the neighborhood.

        - This project is between Mission and Church streets, which are transit oriented streets.

        - This project would be very convenient to public transportation.

        (+) Ron Bernale

        - He is one of the sponsors and a general contractor.

        - When they purchased the property they hired Michael Leavitt. There were several meetings and reviews with the Planning Department. Many times the design was revised.

        - He went to members of the community to discuss the project.

        - There have been several letters of supports.

        (+) Jim Athenrod

        - His mom and dad were both raised in Noe Valley and now he owns a real estate business there.

        - The project fits the character of the neighborhood and will be a plus.

        (+) Alrein (did not state last name)

        - He is constantly frustrated with the type of homes that are being built in Noe Valley. This project will be good with the quality of life in the neighborhood.

        - He would like to be given the opportunity to purchase housing.

        - This will be good quality development.

        (+) Dennis Francis

        - He purchased this property about a year ago.

        - He has had a lot of meetings with the Planning Department as well as the neighbors. There have been a lot of modifications to the project because of these meetings.

        - He feels that they have worked very hard to communicate with the neighborhood.

        - He asked the Commission to approve the project.

        (+) Phillip McCarthy

        - He has received a total of 17 letters in support of the project.

        - There are a lot of people who are in support of the project.

        - He asked that the people in the audience who are in support of the project to raise their hands.

        (+) Patrick Stack

        - He has looked for property to purchase in Noe Valley. He got terribly frustrated and gave up.

        - The more property is available, the more people have choices to purchase.

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

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

        22b. 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.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 22a.

        ACTION: Hearing held. Public hearing remains open. Item continued to April 15, 2004 with the following expressed concerns: 1) the building is too tall. They would like to see a three story proposal; 2) would like to see a re-configuration of the windows in the lightwell-there are too many of them; and 3) Commissioner S. Lee felt the building extended too far into the rear.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

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))

      None

Adjournment: 11:03 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, April 1, 2004.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

EXCUSED: Feldstein

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