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

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

August 12, 2004

August 12, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, August 12, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee, Christina Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Shelley Bradford Bell

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:40 p.m.

EXECUTIVE CLOSED SESSION

      PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATIONS - The Planning Commission will meet in closed session to review applications for Planning Director as received from the Mayor's Office.

      At the conclusion of the closed session, and pursuant to Section 67.10(b) of the San Francisco Administrative Code, the Commission will reconvene in open session and shall by motion and vote elect to:

      ACTION: The Subcommittee voted to Disclose no information

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director of Planning and Acting Zoning Administrator; Susan Cleveland-Knowles - Deputy City Attorney; Leigh Kienker; Rick Cooper; Paul Lord; Mary Woods; Adam Light; Jonathan Purvis; 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. 2003.0304CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        829 FOLSOM STREET - south side between 4th and 5th Streets, a through lot to Shipley Street; Lot 091 in Assessor's Block 3752 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 207.5, 263.11, 271, and 157 to construct a nine-story, mixed-use building with up to 69 dwelling units at a density of one unit per 147 square feet of lot area under Section 207.5, to construct an 85-foot-tall building (with a 16-foot-tall mechanical penthouse) in the 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District under Section 263.11, to exceed the bulk limits at the 50-foot height by 60 feet in length and 54 feet diagonally (by 48 feet in length and 42 feet diagonally at the 65-foot height) under Section 271; and to provide parking exceeding accessory amounts (with up to 62 spaces for project residents) under Section 157. On the ground floor, garage access would be provided at Shipley Street, and up to 5,000 gross square feet of retail space would be provided with access from Folsom Street. The proposed project would also require a rear yard modification and a variance from dwelling unit exposure requirements. The site is within an RSD (Residential/Service) South of Market Mixed-Use District, and a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications and conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 27, 2004)

        NOTE: On May 27, 2004, the Commission passed a motion of intent to approve by a vote +5 -1. Commissioner S. Lee voted no. Final Language July 1, 2004. Public testimony remains open on any new information.

        NOTE: On July 1, 2004, the Commission continued the matter to August 12, 2004.

        (Proposed for Continuance to October 7, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        Re: Continuance

        Jim Salinas

        - He is representing Carpenters Local 22.

        - He is in support of the continuance.

        - The continuance should be to September and not October.

        Steve Atkinson

        - He would like to have this item scheduled sooner than October.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 7, 2004.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      1b. 2003.0304CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        829 FOLSOM STREET - south side between 4th and 5th Streets, a through lot to Shipley Street; Lot 091 in Assessor's Block 3752 - Requests for Variances. The proposal is to construct a nine-story, mixed-use building with up to 69 dwelling units, up to 5,000 gross square feet of ground floor commercial space and a 62-space parking garage. A rear yard modification is sought under Section 134(e) to provide rear yard open space within an inner court and on a 7th floor setback of 10-15 feet along Shipley Street. A variance is sought from dwelling unit exposure requirements, as the horizontal dimensions of the inner court do not meet the requirements for an open area as defined under Section 140(a)(2) for dwelling unit exposure, and 27 of the 70 units have no exposure other than this inner court. The site is within an RSD (Residential/Service) Mixed-Use District, and a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 27, 2004)

        NOTE: On May 27, 2004, Zoning Administrator has left the public hearing open and continued the item to July 1, 2004.

        NOTE: On July 1, 2004, Zoning Administrator continued the matter to August 12, 2004.

      (Proposed for Continuance to October 7, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 1a.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 7, 2004

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

        2. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commissioner William Lee:

        Re: 170 St. Germain

        - He requested input from either the Planning Department or the Building Department regarding the demolition and if it was done in compliance from the permits issued.

        - He received another letter form Walter Kapland again mentioning that the contractor exceeded the scope of work.

        - What are the procedures on having a re-hearing?

        Deputy City Attorney Cleveland-Knowles responded:

        - There is no existing provision in the Planning Code for a rehearing or a reconsideration of an item and there are no provisions specifically in the Planning Commission rules.

        - The Planning Department continues to have jurisdiction over the building permit until the Planning Department sends it back to the Building Department.

        - If the Commission would like to schedule the item again, they can.

        - This calendar would have to be noticed within it's regular time.

        Director Green responded:

        - The statement that was made at the hearing when this item was heard is not true--that the Building Department has not resolved work previous to what was presented at the Commission.

        - He believes that if these issues influenced the Commission's vote, the Commission can decide to bring this back before them at a future date.

        - He does not know how the Building Department has answered these allegations.

        - He will speak to the City Attorney to see what abilities he has to hold this permit.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        Re: Legality of Reinstitution of Controls in the Mission Area.

        - He will be receiving an answer regarding this issue.

        - He will report on this in the future.

        Commissioner Hughes:

        Re: 170 St. Germain

        - If he understood correctly, the Commission has the right to reschedule a case that had previously been heard by the Commission.

              Director Green responded:

              - The Commission has the right to reschedule an item.

        Commissioner Hughes:

        - So the Commission could rescind it's decision, take the item off calendar, etc.?

        - He recommends that the item be scheduled on the October 7, 2004 calendar.

        - The basis of the request is that if this is a frivolous assertion or it has merit, the commission needs to decide on this case dependent upon the facts.

        Commission Antonini:

        - If some resolution is found prior to that date, the project should not be held up because of the calendared item.

        Director Green responded:

        - This would be a tough call for the Planning Department because staff will be preparing for a hearing, dealing with the Building Department and trying to find out what is the case regarding the other permit because the permit in question was not the permit that was before the Commission. It would be difficult to make a decision prior to the suggested calendared date.

        - It is important to wait to the calendared date so that the Commission is prepared and ready to take an action.

        Commission Antonini:

        - He just wants to make sure that the Commission is not crossing jurisdictions.

        Commissioner Hughes:

        - This affords both parties the opportunity to review the tapes and make a transcript of them.

        Director Green responded:

        - If it is the desire of the Commission to calendar this for reconsideration on October 7, 2004, staff can present on September 2, under director's report the information we are aware of at that time. The Commission can acknowledge if this is something they need to reconsider or if it is something that has been resolved and no longer needs to be heard. Scheduling this on September 2, would allow the Commission and staff to engage in a dialog and contact the individual who made these statements.

        Commissioner Sue Lee:

        - This is fine with her but she does not want this to become a precedent for other case, or to become a tactic to delay cases.

        Commissioner William Lee:

        - There are a lot of issues in various cases that have been decided upon by the Commission so he wants to find out what the truth is on this case.

        Director Green responded:

        - He wants to be clear that the issue here is whether or not what the Commission heard is truthful or not.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      3. Director's Announcements

        None

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

        BOS -

        Re: Finance and Audits Committee

        - Finance Fee Adjustments was heard and was unanimously moved on to the full Board after the summer recess.

        Re: Retail/Pharmaceutical Review

        - An amendment to delete the requirement that changes a use to a retail coffee store or pharmaceutical/personal toiletries use are subject to notification and review. This was considered by the Land Use Committee and passed along to the full Board with the modifications that were discussed at a previous Commission hearing.

        Re: Designations of Landmarks

        - 300 Bartlett Street (Carnegie Mission Library) and Laguna Honda MUNI Station this was passed on to the full Board with support by the Land Use Committee.

        Re: Legislation Introduced on August 3, 2004

        - Two pieces of legislation were introduced: 1) would involve controls for movie theatre demolitions. 2) prohibit formula retail in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial Districts. These were introduced by Supervisor Peskin.

        - Supervisor Gonzalez introduced legislation that would bring on Conditional Use requirements in the Haight Commercial districts.

        - Supervisor Hall introduced legislation that would increase the allowable height for elevator penthouses.

        BOA - None

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

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

      Re: 2601 Mission Street

      David Fein

      - They have reduced the height of the antennas to be installed at this location.

      Dan Figueroa

      - He is available to answer questions.

      - The engineer is also available to answer questions.

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

      5. 2003.1208C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

        2601 MISSION STREET - southeast corner at 22nd Street, Lot 69 in Assessor's Block 3637 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 712.83 and 790.80 to replace nine antennas that are now on the southern and western walls at the roofline with nine antennas that would be located on the middle portions of western, southern, and eastern walls approximately 77-feet above grade. These antennas are part of an existing Wireless Telecommunications Services facility operated by AT&T Wireless. The site is within an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate-Scale) District and a 50-X / 65-B Height and Bulk District. Pursuant to the WTS Facilities Guidelines, the project is a Preference 2 Location Site, an existing site on which a legal wireless telecommunications facility is currently located.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 3, 2004)

        NOTE: On April 15, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to June 3, 2004, instructing the Project Sponsor to provide better coverage maps. The vote was +5 -0. Commissioners Feldstein and Hughes were absent.

        NOTE: On June 3, 2004, the Commission continued the matter to July 1, 2004.

              NOTE: On July 1, 2004, the Commission continued the matter to August 12, 2004.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 16847

    F. REGULAR CALENDAR

      6. 2004.0088C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

        1042 MINNA STREET - north side between Layfayette and 11th Street, Lot 76 in Assessor's Block 3511 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 253 to construct three dwelling units that would be over 40-feet tall within an RH-3 District and 130-L Height and Bulk District. Conditional Use authorization is required for construction of any structure over 40-feet tall in a residential district. The subject site is within an RH-3 (House, Three-family) District and a 130-L Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 5, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        Toby Morris - Representing the Project Sponsor

        - The continuance allowed them to meet with the neighborhood and this meeting was fruitful.

        - This is a neighborhood with 40+ foot tall buildings. The project is therefore consistent with the neighborhood.

        - They have received a letter from Mr. Page who is requesting to bring down the stage tower a few feet.

        Joe O'Donoghue

        - The suggestion from the Commission to postpone this item was a good one so that they were able to meet with the neighbors.

        - It is important to build up to the allowable height.

        Tom Page

        - He appreciates the continuance allowed last week.

        - He knows that they have reached the best solution possible.

        ACTION: Approved as Amended per revised plans dated August 10, 2004.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 16848

      7. 2004.0522C (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

        2001 UNION STREET - southwest corner of Union Street and Buchanan Street; Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 0541 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Section 725.49 of the Planning Code to convert a portion of the currently vacant ground floor retail space into a financial service use (Comerica Bank), within the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Jerod Eigerman - Reuben and Junius

        - The size of the store will not be increased.

        - The site has been vacant for many years.

        - The building application has been filed and neighbors have been notified.

        - There are no physical impacts to the building.

        - The project directly serves the needs of this district. It is neighborhood serving.

        - There are only two other banks along the street.

        - This project will not create an over concentration.

        (+) Lynn Beteag - Comerica Bank

        - The bank has been in business for 150 years.

        - Their services are based in three areas: small business, business wealth, and institutional management.

        - They have about 11,000 employees.

        - They are in a growth mode and are very excited about opening up a branch at this location.

        - They plan to be a corporate neighbor and plan to be there for many years.

        (+) Mark Palmer - Comerica Bank

        - Their mission is to provide entrepreneurs with resources to get their business off the ground.

        - They provide people with successful strategic plans, retirement plans, etc.

        (+) Jan Hinterman

        - She is a San Francisco native.

        - She works in the building and is excited that this bank wants to open a branch at this location.

        (+) Matt Kabu

        - He has been living in the area for more than 18 years.

        - He also has worked in the building for about five years.

        - Even thought there are other banks on the street, he welcomes Comerica Bank because they might provide competitive rates.

        (+) Charles Yun - Comerica Bank

        - They provide many personalized services to the community.

        - They spend a lot of time as consultants. They listen to their clients and direct them on to where they want to go.

        (+) Ronald Harris

        - He has been associated with Union Street since 1968.

        - He is the property manager of the building and supports this project.

        (+) Shaw Dehghan

        - He has been a business owner on Union Street for many years.

        - He supports this bank.

        - Having another bank would help the merchants on the street.

        (+) Alen Wall

        - He is a surgeon and is very familiar with the area since he has been there since 1958.

        - He has helped to bring other small businesses to the area.

        - Comerica is known for being involved in their community.

        (+) Otis Watson - Comerica Bank

        - It is his responsibility to make sure that the bank supports small businesses, housing initiatives, etc. within the communities that they serve.

        - Their master plan for growing branches is supported by many organizations and communities.

        - They have contributed about $149 thousand to grants.

        (+) Jim Salinas

        - He is impressed with what he just heard about filling community needs and would support this project.

        (-) Leslie Lenheart - Union Street Merchant's Association

        - She does not want to sound as if the association is mean, but they have always tried to have businesses be mostly shops and restaurants.

        - They passed out a questionnaire to the tenants of that building.

        - Allowing this bank could change the balance of the neighborhood.

        ACTION: Approved with Conditions from the Merchant's Association: 1) If lease is up and Comerica leaves, building will revert back to retail; 2) Comerica should cooperate and work with them on their various promotional and advertising activities and participate in their events. They are not asking that they belong to the Association but just to participate.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 16849

      8. 2003.0053E: (L. KIENKER: (415) 558-5970)

        520 CHESTNUT STREET. North side, between Powell and Mason on Assessors Block 0052, Lot 009. Appeal of Negative Declaration. The proposed project is construction of a 27,143-gsf multi-story vertical addition to an existing industrial building and basement, resulting in an approximately 35,000-square-foot four-story building of 20 residential units and 21 independently accessible parking spaces in a below-ground garage. The project would require Conditional Use and Variance authorizations (2003.0429CV). The subject property is in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 15, 2004).

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Susan McCullaugh - Appellant

        - She lives on Chestnut Street.

        - They are concerned that 12 units face the common lot line with the units of the next building over.

        - They appreciate the concession that they made, but they don't feel that it is enough.

        - She has not been able to get all of the residents to agree on the concession.

        ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 16850

      9a. 2003.0429CV (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

        520 CHESTNUT STREET. North side, between Powell and Mason on Assessors Block 0052, Lot 009. Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 722.11 for development on a lot over 5,000 square feet. The proposed twenty unit (20) residential building would retain the existing historic two-story industrial building and construct two new stories on the roof that are set back eight feet from the face of the building. Twenty-one (21) independently accessible parking spaces and bicycle storage would be provided in the existing basement. The total project would consist of approximately 35, 000 square feet in a four-story building. The subject property is in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will hear related variance requests.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Jim Reuben - Reuben and Junius - Representing Project Sponsor

        - The building does have a bit of a history.

        - The neighbor who filed the appeal is located in the next building.

        - There is a very large skylight located in the building of the appellant.

        - The building can only be set back in so many places otherwise it would interfere with ADA requirements for bathrooms, etc.

        - There were other neighbors who were opposed to the project but when the setback was designed, many approved of the project.

        (+) David Sternberg - Project Architect

        - The existing building has a basement garage and they are keeping this for parking.

        - The podium is actually at street level.

        - Through many processes, they have been able to keep the façade in the front.

        - He displayed a floor plan of the proposed project.

        (-) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

        - He is concerned with the one-to-one parking requirements.

        - The project is located a few blocks from the 15 and 30 MUNI lines.

        - So the requirements don't make sense.

        - The project is also located in an area where not that many people own cars.

        - He suggested that this requirement be revisited.

        (-) Howard Strassner - Sierra Club

        - The parking should be unbundled in this project.

        - The Better Neighborhoods project does not support one-to-one parking.

        - It is important to encourage the developer to use the space for something else.

        (-) Fabian Alberts

        - He lives on Francisco Street.

        - They are the only unit that would be affected by the project.

        - They are concerned that if the building goes up 40 feet, it would affect their light and view.

        (-) Susan McCollough

        - There might have been some misconception on which neighbors are opposing the project. It seems that there are some neighbors who are neutral. She wanted to make this clear.

        - Parking is a very big issue in the area.

        - Street cleaning has been stopped in the area because people do not want to move their cars.

        ACTION: Approved as Amended: Unbundle the parking

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 16851

      9b. 2003.0429CV: (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

        520 CHESTNUT STREET. North side, between Powell and Mason on Assessors Block 0052, Lot 009. Request for Variances and Rear Yard Modification: (A) rear yard modification in accord with Section 134(e)(1) to provide a reduced rear yard, equal approximately 1200 square feet where approximately 2300 square feet are required. (B) Variance to Section 135(g)(2) to provide usable open space that does not meet the required minimum dimensions or area for fourteen of the proposed dwelling units, (C) Variance to Section 140 to provide less than the required minimum dimensions or area for dwelling unit exposure for eight dwelling units proposed for the third and fourth floors. The proposed project is the subject of a Conditional Use hearing as described above. The subject property is in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 9a.

        ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and felt that there are grounds for support of the variances. He will relay this information to the Zoning Administrator.

      10. 2004.0402C (W.HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)

        165 GUERRERO STREET - east side, on the corner of Guerrero and Brosnan Streets; Lot 29 in Assessor's Block 3533 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization for a residential care facility, dba as "Pleasant Street Grove Home", for more than seven persons, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.3(c). The property is located within an RM-2 (Mixed Residential, Moderate Density) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk limit.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Mark Gisler - Project Sponsor

        - He is available for questions.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Antonini and Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 16852

      11a. 2204.0272XV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

        83 McALLISTER STREET - south side between Leavenworth Street and 7th Street N., Lot 32, in Assessor's Block 351 - Request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit conversion of existing office space to approximately 60 residential dwelling units, with an exception to the Planning Code rear yard requirements; and for the granting by the Zoning Administrator of dwelling unit exposure and parking variances; for the subject property, which is in the C-3-G Zoning District and a 80-X Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will hear the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission. The proposal is to seismically upgrade the subject five-story office building (The Methodist Book Concern, a contributor to the Civic Center Historic District, and a Category I Building under the Downtown Plan); and convert the existing office use to approximately 60 small dwelling units, with ground floor retail and lobby space, and supporting residential services on the basement level. No parking would be provided, and no exterior alterations to character-defining facades are proposed, therefore no Certificate of Appropriateness would be required for this project.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Steve Vettel - Representing Project Sponsor

        - The units, although small, have a lot of volume.

        - There can be lofts because of the good use of space.

        - The windows on all the units are quite large and quite high.

        - There are large storage units in the basement as well as a gym and a community area.

        - It is not possible to put any parking spaces here.

        - This is a unique housing project in a transit rich location.

        - The building should be converted to a higher and better use.

        (+) Carolyn Diamond - Executive Director of the Market Street Association

        - She is here to support the project.

        - This project has all the positive elements of a good development.

        - This will draw a mix of residents.

        - The project meets some of the goals for the Mid-Market area.

        (+) James Stewart - Hastings College of Law

        - They support this project and feel that it will help revitalize the neighborhood.

        - It will also provide housing for the students of Hastings College.

        (+) Richard Almond

        - He has been involved in housing in the tenderloin.

        - This project provides good housing options for downtown financial services.

        - It provides housing for people to take their first step in the business world.

        - The developers have given every indication that they care for the neighborhood.

        (+) Jeremy Nelson - TLC

        - They support an off street parking Variance and one-to-one bicycle paring.

        - This project is quite adequate since it provides more housing than parking.

        - Housing units without car parking are more affordable.

        - They requested that the project sponsor work collaboratively with DPT and DPW to enliven the expansive right of way since it is not a standard sidewalk width. This could be done through the use of landscaping, street trees, pedestrian scaled lighting, seating, special pavement treatments, etc.

        - He suggested that they provide bicycle parking as well.

        ACTION: Approved with Conditions as Amended: 1) The BMR units required as part of the inclusionary ordinance would not be the units that are adjacent to the deepest portions of the light well.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 16853

      11b. 2004.0272XV (A. LIGHT (415) 558-6254)

        83 McALLISTER STREET - south side between Leavenworth Street and 7th Street N., Lot 32, in Assessor's Block 351 - Request for dwelling unit exposure and parking variances for the subject property, which is in the C-3-G Zoning District and a 80-X Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will hear the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission. The proposal is to seismically upgrade the subject five-story office building (The Methodist Book Concern, a contributor to the Civic Center Historic District, and a Category I Building under the Downtown Plan); and convert the existing office use to approximately 60 small dwelling units, with ground floor retail and lobby space, and supporting residential services on the basement level. No parking would be provided, and no exterior alterations to character-defining facades are proposed, therefore no Certificate of Appropriateness would be required for this project.

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 11a.

        ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and believes there are grounds for granting the variance and will recommend that the Zoning Administrator do so. He will also recommend that the designation of units be mixed throughout and at least 10 bicycle parking spaces be added to the project.

        12. 2004.0506D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

              464 30TH STREET - North side between Noe and Sanchez Streets. Assessor's Block 6639 Lot 020 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004 0310 8295, to construct horizontal and vertical additions to the existing one family dwelling including a full third story and a rear extension 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 proposed.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Donna Hitchens - Discretionary Review Requestor

        - She has lived here for 25 years. The primary light and air is on the side that faces the project and it will be blocked.

        - This is really an issue of the light and air available to their home.

        - She realizes that the project sponsor has the right to renovate and make a profit.

        - They set up a meeting with the project sponsor after the last continuance. They made an offer and have not received a counter offer from them.

        (-) Bob Baum - Project Architect

        - The developer does not comply with Prop M or the Residential Design Guidelines.

        - There is more than one neighbor who opposes the project.

        - He displayed diagrams of the project showing that the proposed project is not comparable in height and bulk.

        - They have prepared a model which displays a project that is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines and consists of good neighbor policies.

        (-) Mark Madsen

        - He lives on 30th Street.

        - He has a business at home and relies on the light coming into his work area.

        - He does not oppose to the remodel but he does oppose the size and bulk of it.

        - The developers will not be their neighbors since they will just remodel and leave. The neighbors have a long time interest in the area.

        (-) JoAnne Madsen

        - They have made improvement to their home keeping within the neighbors wishes.

        - They enjoy natural light in four bedrooms. This light really opens up the house and makes it look larger and warmer.

        - Their picturesque windows will look into a wall.

        - They will loose much of the charm and appeal of their home.

        - Her garden has been a tenure project for many years.

        - The project sponsor has continued with their project with disregard to the issues exposed by the neighbors.

        - Please preserve the neighborhood and her garden by not approving this proposal.

        (-) Claire Piltcher

        - She funded Friends of Noe Valley about 30 years ago.

        - She has worked closely with [many] developers and she has concerns. The revised Residential Design Guidelines are not being met (and knows the older version by heart).

        - This is clearly a demolition and it is happening all over the city.

        - If there isn't some relief given to these neighbors, they will have to appeal the decision.

        - The DR requestors have not been given the opportunity for a light well or a set back.

        (-) Darlene Crisp

        - She has lived in the neighborhood for many years.

        - This project conflicts with the City's Master Plan.

        - This massive construction will increase the rental rate and selling price for properties.

        - The size of the building is completely out of scale with the neighborhood.

        - The massive expansion in the rear yard will block sunlight to the neighbors.

        - If one lived next door to this project, one would not like to have their lifestyle affected.

        (-) Jace Levinson

        - The impact will be detrimental.

        - This proposal is just too huge and it will impact the adjacent building.

        - While the Planning Code allows the size of this project, it is not required.

        (-) Tom Mogensen - Upper Noe Neighbors

        - They support the Discretionary Review because the project does not respect the character of the neighborhood.

        - It seems that the matter here is not having bedrooms but how big these bedrooms should be.

        - He suggests that the Commission take Discretionary Review.

        (+) John Sanger - Representing the Project Sponsor

        - Often when there is a renovation, it will impact the adjacent neighbors in some way.

        - The project will extend 13 feet in the rear and will be set back.

        - A neighbor did a similar project in 2002 and it did not include a setback.

        - The Residential Design Guidelines allows what is being proposed.

        - The project will not have an intrusion in the mid block open space.

        (+) James Aaron - Project Architect

        - The intent of the project was to not impact the neighbors.

        - He has not had an opportunity to view the model that was presented by the Discretionary Review requestor's representative so he has not been able to verify the scale.

        - The project has a very convectional design.

        (+) Joe O'Donaghue

        - Staff approved this project not because of developer power.

        - His house is right next to a very blank wall. We live in a city so it is hard to avoid these types of situations.

        - If this situation was really about light and air, the way the project is being designed, this has no impact at all.

        - Many of the neighbors in Noe Valley are not here and they are not here for a reason.

        (+) Mark McGee - Project Sponsor

        - He is not going to apologize for what he does.

        - He is not a developer.

        - He just wants to remodel a house.

        - He hopes that the Commission sees that they are just trying to make a living.

        (+) Richie Hart - Residential Builders Association

        - He has known the Project Sponsor for many years.

        - What they are asking is very reasonable.

        - There is a housing crisis and this project will increase housing.

        - He strongly recommends that the Commission approve this project.

        (+) Jim Keith - Residential Builders Association

        - If the DR requestor's logic prevails, they would not be able to live in the house that they live in.

        - The idea that the Project Sponsor's project impacts light and air is not adequate.

        - Many people support this project and he hopes that the Commission will support it as well.

        (+) Joe Cassidy

        - He has been building in Noe Valley for many years.

        - There is always a fight.

        - He knows the Project Sponsor and knows that they are building a great project.

        (+) Grace Shanahan

        - The McGees are long time builders in the Noe Valley area and they are very respectful of what they build.

        - She encourages the Commission to support the project.

        (+) Dave O'Keiff

        - He has built small projects in the area.

        - It seems that when someone remodels or builds a larger home it automatically becomes a monster home.

        - Many neighbors are more than happy with this project because it will increase their property value.

        - He hopes that this is not just a view issue.

        (+) Reed Caroll

        - The project is comparable to other projects.

        - The project is consistent with adjacent properties.

        - This project should be applauded and supported instead of being rejected.

        (+) Sean Keigran

        - This project is one aspect of an overall housing crisis.

        - Communities should accept all types of houses.

        - If the housing crisis needs to be solved, all housing projects should be accepted.

        - He has not heard anything that is substantial at this hearing.

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Public Comment Closed. Item Continued to September 9, 2004 in order for both parties to put on paper the various alternate revisions suggested.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      13. 2004.0462D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

        3016 PINE STREET - north side between Lyon Street and Presidio Avenue, Lot 14 in Assessor's Block 1031 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.01.29.5170S proposing to add a two-story vertical addition and a two-story horizontal addition at the rear of the existing one-story over garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Mark Welch - Discretionary Review Requestor

        - He knows that there is a logical solution to the issues that both parties have.

        - He feels that the proposed project is out of character with the rest of the homes.

        - He met with the project sponsor and suggested they eliminate the penthouse and have a flat roof therefore constructing a second floor.

        - This project will be intrusive.

        (+) Ray Stephen - Project Sponsor

        - The DR requestor states that he was not able to meet with him. He has had many meetings with the DR requestor.

        - The DR requestor states that the project is too large. He displayed an aerial photo proving that the subject property is smaller than the ones in the area.

        - He has tried everything he can to try to not block the view from the DR requestor.

        - He has support of all the neighbors.

        ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved the project as proposed.

        AYES: Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and W. Lee

      14. 2004.0404D (S. SNYDER: (415) 558-6543)

        1609 REVERE AVENUE - south side between Third Street and Lane Street, Lot 1B in Assessor's Block 5342 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.11.06.9583 proposing to add horizontal and vertical additions, and to change the occupancy from a Single-family to a Two-family dwelling. The property is within an RH-2 (House, Two-family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn

        15a. 2004.0676D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

              77 BLUXOME STREET - south side between 4th and 5th Streets; Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3786, within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) Mixed-Use District, and a 65-X Height and Bulk District in the Industrial Protection Zone. Mandatory Discretionary Review under Resolution No. 16202 of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.06.10.6727 to demolish a two-story commercial building, formerly used as PDR space, and its replacement by a seven-story, 108-unit SRO (Single Room Occupancy) residential building with a 16-space residential parking garage on the ground floor, subject to a rear yard modification.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Alice Barkley - Project Sponsor

        - She is available for questions.

        (-) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

        - They strongly support this project because it follows the Planning Code with respect to residential car parking. The parking provides the potential for one-to-one residential bicycle parking which will be secure in the garage as well as add 108 additional units of market rate affordable car free and car light housing.

        - The only issue they have is the inclusion of the 10 non accessory commercial project spaces in the project. They oppose this because the project is located in an excellent local and regional transit services area.

        - The width of the driveway should be narrowed as well.

        (+) Charles Breidinger - Project Sponsor

        - This building has been vacant since 1999.

        - One of the employees tried to resurrect the business but was unsuccessful.

        - There are a few letters from various organizations in support of the project.

        (-) John (did not state last name)

        - He urged the Commission to take Discretionary Review because the code is not clear and final.

        - He would like to substantially reduce the project and not allow the open space Variance.

        - Once this project is up, there will be a lot of transition. He feels that there will be larger traffic and parking issues.

        - He feels that not all of the operational issues have been discussed.

        - He hopes that the Commission will take Discretionary Review.

        (-) Teresa Beltramo

        - She lives on Townsend Street and is a business owner.

        - She opposes the project for the same reasons as the previous speaker.

        - This area has a lot of tourists and this type of use is not adequate for the area.

        (-) Sue Hestor

        - The PDR uses are slowly being pushed out.

        - There is a precedent that is being set here.

        - This project is starting out with substandard exposures.

        (+) Joe O'Donaghue

        - This project is in the most desirable part of the City.

        - He welcomes social economic diversity in this neighborhood.

        - There is a need for SROs.

        - This is a good project. It recognizes the singles in the City.

        (+) Richie Hart

        - The project sponsor is a mechanical engineer so there is no concern for ventilation.

        - Student housing is totally out of schedule. There is a need for student housing.

        - These units are needed.

        (+) Jim Keith

        - This is desperately needed housing.

        - Staff has presented well here.

        - All types of housing is necessary.

        - It is going to be a good addition to the neighborhood.

        - The project is in a transit corridor.

        (+) Erik Lew

        - He is in support of the project.

        - This project creates affordable housing.

        (+) Redmond Lyons

        - He is in support of the project.

        - This is the first project that he has seen of this type.

        - The developer should be supported and commended.

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Public Comment Closed. Item continued to September 9, 2004 to allow all Commissioners to vote.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

    15b. 2004.0677D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

              77 BLUXOME STREET - south side between 4th and 5th Streets; Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3786, within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) Mixed-Use District, and a 65-X Height and Bulk District in the Industrial Protection Zone. Mandatory Discretionary Review under Resolution No. 16202 of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.10.6726 to construct a seven-story, 108-unit SRO residential building following the demolition of a two-story commercial building.

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

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 15a.

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Public Comment Closed. Item Continued to September 9, 2004 to allow all Commissioners to vote.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        15c. 2003.0366V (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

              77 BLUXOME STREET - south side between 4th and 5th Streets; Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3786, within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) Mixed-Use District, and a 65-X Height and Bulk District in the Industrial Protection Zone. Request for Rear Yard Modification under Planning Code Section 134 (e) to construct an 65-foot-tall, seven-story SRO residential building, with open space provided within a 1,530 square-foot inner court, a 420 square-foot rear setback, and a 3,400 square foot roof deck in lieu of the 2,100 square foot (25 percent of lot area) standard rear yard.

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

        ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator closed the Public Hearing and believes there are findings to support the modifications.

      16. 2003.1217D (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

        342 21ST AVENUE - 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: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 17, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Steve Williams - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

        - He agrees with the determination by staff.

        - For six years, staff has been telling the developer to remove the 4th floor and match the light-wells, yet the developer has not agreed to it.

        - This developer has caused the department to spend a lot of money.

        - This project even got to the point of being cancelled.

        - He would actually want to have the project cancelled in order to stop serial applications.

        (-) Jack Norton - Discretionary Review Requestor

        - He was born and raised in the neighborhood and his mother (91 years old) lives across the street.

        - The proposed project does not meet the Residential Design Guidelines.

        - According to the Architectural Heritage Foundation, his house was the first to be built on that block.

        - The proposed project would be the largest on the block. It is too large and will overwhelm and denigrate their home.

        - All buildings surrounding the project are only two stories.

        - There are various neighborhood organizations who do not support the project.

        (-) Loren Lopin

        - He lives in the neighborhood.

        - Six planners have recommended to revise the project and eliminate the fourth floor and provide good neighbor gestures.

        - He asked the members of the audience who oppose this project to stand up (about 20 people stood up).

        (-) Dennis Estrada

        - He has lived in the Richmond District for 35 years.

        - He is representing the 21st Avenue Coalition and they agree to the recommendations provided by staff.

        (-) Julian Hultgren

        - He lives on 21st Avenue and is against this project.

        - He believes that eliminating the 4th floor would be much more in keeping with the neighborhood.

        - There is an apartment building on the block and it is only three stories.

        - Limiting the project to three stories would make it more compatible with the neighborhood.

        (-) Marjorie Norton

        - She is 91 years old. She has lived across the street from the proposed house since 1912.

        - She opposes the four story building because it is big and out of character with the neighborhood.

        - She urges the Commission to limit the project to three stories.

        (-) Edwina Cherrington

        - She has lived across the street from the proposed project since the 1960s.

        - The subject project is an exact replica of her home.

        - The four story modern building is too large.

        - It is another "Richmond Special"

        - She asks the "professional" developer to limit the project to three stories and retain the façade.

        (-) Hiroshi Fukuda - Richmond Community Association

        - He feels that "alterations" are sometimes deceptive. This has major alterations.

        - Families are leaving San Francisco because there are not enough single-family homes.

        - Thousands of homes have been taken off the market.

        - Recent studies have indicated that San Francisco is behind in providing housing.

        - This project is not going to help people who need moderate housing.

        (+) Jerod Eigerman - Reuben and Junius

        - The project sponsor is not a professional developer.

        - The project is code compliant.

        - He has no knowledge of any agreement with Jake McGoldrick.

        - Discretionary Review is for extraordinary circumstances. Good neighbor gestures have been made in this case.

        - What they are asking for is not outlandish.

        - There is nothing in the guidelines that states that if there is one building on one side you cannot build higher.

        - There is no peculiar hardship because they are on the south side.

        (+) Reza Khoshnevisan - Project Architect

        - Regarding the demolition, if a floor were to be added, the entire foundation would have to be replaced.

        - There is no way that the fourth floor would be visible.

        - He is available if the Commission has any questions.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approve the project with the following conditions: The modifications included:

              · Eliminate the fourth floor;

              · Continue the side setback at the rear of the southern side down to the roof of the ground level to match the existing setback and allow for light and air to the DR Requestor's window;

              · Provide an interior connection between the "Common Room" on the first floor (garage level) and the second floor; and

              · Require an NSR be recorded to restrict the "Common Room" on the first floor from becoming an illegal unit.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      17. 10TH & MARKET (AKA 1401-1435 MARKET STREET) - Informational presentation by the Project Sponsor. The proposed project includes (a) the creation of a 10th & Market Special Use District, (b) the construction of a 24-story office building for occupancy by the City and County of San Francisco, (c) the construction of a 21-story building containing up to 250 market-rate dwelling units with a garage for up to 230 parking spaces, and (d) the construction of a 15-story building containing up to 200 below-market-rate dwelling units for senior citizens. This project is currently scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing on Thursday, September 23, 2004.

        SPEAKER(S):

        Jim Buckley - Citizen's Housing

        - They appreciate the opportunity to present this project to the Commission.

        - With him are Don Falk and Valery O'Donnell from Tenderloin Development Corporation.

        - They have acquired this site at a very reduced cost.

        - The community really needs affordable housing in the area.

        - There are three parts to the project: 1) senior housing; 2) work force housing; 3) office building.

        - This is a very elaborate process. They have tried to connect various City agencies to move this project forward.

        Leo Chao - SOM Architects

        - He gave a general presentation of the architectural elements of the project.

        ACTION: No Action Required by the Commission.

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. 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: 9:15 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2004.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

EXCUSED: Bradford Bell

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:14 PM