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

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

September 2, 2004

September 2, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, September 2, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

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

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director of Planning and Acting Zoning Administrator; Susan Cleveland-Knowles - Deputy City Attorney; Ben Fu; Geoffrey Nelson; Glenn Cabreros; Dan Sirois; 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.

      1a. 2004.0338DDDV (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

          755 22nd AVENUE - west side between Cabrillo and Fulton Streets: Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 1665 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.29.6087S, proposing to construct a three-story horizontal extension at the rear of the existing three-story single family dwelling unit and to add an additional dwelling unit at the ground floor. The rear addition would increase the structure's depth by approximately 6 feet into the rear yard 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.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 22, 2004)

          (Proposed for Continuance to September 9, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 9, 2004

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

      1b. 2004.0338DDDV (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

          755 22nd AVENUE - west side between Cabrillo and Fulton Streets: Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 1665 - The proposal is to construct a three-story horizontal extension at the rear of the existing three-story single family dwelling unit and to add an additional dwelling unit at the ground floor. A Variance is sought from the off-street parking requirements of Section 154, as the project would provide a 2-car tandem parking configuration rather than independently accessible parking as required by the Planning Code. The subject property is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 22, 2004)

          (Proposed for Continuance to September 9, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 9, 2004

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

      2. 2003.0657C (G. CABREROS (415) 558-6169)

          1730 VAN NESS AVENUE - east side between Clay and Sacramento Streets, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 0622 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.3, 209.8, 253 and 271 to allow the expansion of an institutional use (American Buddhist Cultural Temple), the creation of a commercial space above the ground floor, construction of a building exceeding 40 feet in height, and exceptions from the prescribed bulk limits in an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. The project would result in a four-story building up to 80 feet in height containing a sanctuary, a bookstore, group housing for monks, a dining hall, dormitory rooms for students, conference rooms, offices and various other rooms associated with the institution.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Proposed for Continuance to September 9, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S):

      Re: Continuance

      Sue Hestor

      - The subject site is a one-story building.

      - She obtained the staff report about an hour ago. There were plans there that she had never seen before.

      - There is no way for this case to be appropriate for hearing next week.

      - She is asking for a minimum of six weeks.

      - She has the right to review the project as it is currently proposed.

      Steve Williams

      - He agrees that this case should be continued further out beyond this year, or at least late November or early December.

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 9, 2004

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

      3. 1999.210C (J. PURVIS: 415-558-6354)

          3620 19th STREET - North side between Guerrero and Oakwood Streets; Lots 18, 68, 70 in Assessor's Block 3752 - Status report and Commission comment on a 39-unit residential planned unit development approved by the Planning Commission under Motion No. 16134 on April 5, 2001, and amended, on appeal, by the Board of Supervisors under Board Resolution No. M01-76 on July 2, 2001. The project site has been sold and the new owners have modified the design. It is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) and RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          (Proposed for Continuance to September 9, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 9, 2004

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

      4. 2004.0635D (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          3150 18th STREET (aka 470 TREAT AVENUE) - northwest corner of 18th Street and Treat Avenue, Lots 2 and 12 in Assessor's Block 3573 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Eastern Neighborhoods Interim Policies of Building Permit Application No. 2004.05.21.4487 and Demolition Permit Nos. 2004.05.21.4485 and 2004.05.21.4484 proposing to demolish existing light-industrial structures and to construct a new structure that would contain approximately 260 units of rental workshops for arts activities, light manufacturing, repair and small business service uses, approximately 54 off-street parking spaces, a care-taker's unit, and a small café, in an M-1 District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and within a Core PDR Zone as designated in the Eastern Neighborhood Interim Policies.

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

          (Proposed for Continuance to September 23, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 23, 2004

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

5. (M. FOSTER (415) 558 - 6362)

          OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED MID-MARKET SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Informational presentation on the status of the draft Mid-Market Development Plan and Special Use District (MM SUD). Staff will describe the process, goals and key proposals, and outline the schedule for Planning and Redevelopment Commission hearings for further review and adoption. No Action

          (Proposed for Continuance to October 14, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 14, 2004

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

      6. 2004.0267C (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

          3231-3237 PIERCE STREET - west side between Chestnut and Lombard Streets; Lots 005 and 006 in Assessor's Block 0489. Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 145.2, 711.24, and 303 of the Planning Code to allow an outdoor activity area at the rear of two adjoining lots as part of a proposal to create a retail nursery (considered "Other Retail Sales and Services" per Sec. 790.102 of the Code) on the property. The proposal is also to demolish an existing single-story commercial structure at the front of Lot 005 and a garage structure at the rear of lot 005 and construct a commercial structure on lot 005. The outdoor nursery area would occupy the rear yards of both Lot 005 and 006. If approved, the proposed business (Sloat Garden Center) would have 11 retail stores (in the greater Bay area) and would then be considered a formula retail business per sections 703.3 and 711.40 of the Code.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

          (Proposed for Continuance to October 7, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

      7. 2004.0151D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

          2250 JACKSON STREET - north side between Buchanan and Webster Streets; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0589 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.07.8857S, proposing to merge five dwellings units to a single-family residence in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 10, 2004)

      (Proposed for Continuance to October 14, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 14, 2004

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

      8. 2004.0393C (G. CABREROS (415) 558-6169)

          2443-2445 CLEMENT STREET - south side between 25th and 26th Avenues; Lots 035 and 036 in Assessor's Block 1457. Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 717.11 to allow development of a lot greater than 5,000 square feet in area in the Outer Clement Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project proposes demolition of three non-residential structures and new construction of a 40-foot tall, four-story, mixed-used building with one ground-floor commercial space and nine residential units.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Proposed for Continuance to November 4, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to November 4, 2004

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

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      9. Consideration of Adoption of Draft Minutes of July 1, 15 and 22, 2004.

      Minutes of July 1, 2004:

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved

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

      Minutes of July 15:

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved

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

      EXCUSED: Bradford Bell

      Minutes of July 22:

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved

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

      EXCUSED: Bradford Bell and Hughes

      10. Commission Comments/Questions

      Commissioner Antonini:

      Re: Reappointment

      - He thanked Mayor Gavin Newson for reappointing him to the Commission and hopes that the Board of Supervisors will approve his reappointment.

      Re: Memorandum from City Attorney Dennis Herrera

      - This memorandum deals with the applicability or adoption of any interim controls for Eastern Neighborhoods. There was a question of whether or not these controls could be imposed under two bases: there is a local code that limits the controls to two years and there is a state government code that does not allow controls that would prohibit certain types of housing in an area. It was ruled that the local code does not apply because the controls would be of a different nature. The state government was a bit more complicated but it basically stated that the controls were not interpreted as being a prohibition and therefore did not apply. The question remains, are they brought up to a defacto prohibition? It would be interesting to see what the state's opinion is on this issue.

      Re: Planning Department

      - What steps are necessary, if the desire is there, to make certain Division Heads of the Department at-will appointments of the Director? For example: Long Range Planning, Neighborhood Planning, Administration, Environmental Review, etc.

      Commissioner Bill Lee:

      Re: Dates projects will be put on the Planning Commission agenda

      - He had previously requested the dates for the major long term environmental impact reports on Octavia Boulevard, Mid-Market, Hunter's Point, etc.

      Commissioner Olague

      Re: SRO Policy

      - She previously requested a presentation on SRO policy.

          Director Gerald Green responded:

          - This will be scheduled under director's report on September 23, 2004.

      Commissioner Bradford Bell:

      - She is glad to be back.

      - She thanked Commissioner Sue Lee for running the meetings during her absence.

      Commission Secretary:

      Re: Calendar for the Holiday Season

      - She asked commissioners to indicate on the calendar she passed up to them their projected vacation days for the rest of the year. This will allow her to address quorum problems if necessary.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      11. Director's Announcements

      Re: Appointment of New Commissioner

      - On September 22, the Rules Committee will take up the matter of the appointments.

      Re: Hearing of September 23, 2004

      - Schedule a briefing for the SRO Policy under Director's Report.

      Re: Environmental Review for Home Depot

      - The Department received a first draft of this document and the Department did not believe that there was adequate coverage. The document was referred back to the Home Depot consultant to answer questions and issues. Currently, this document has not be returned.

      - When this document is returned, a hearing will be scheduled.

      - He does not believe there will be any hearings in September or October regarding this matter.

      Request from Commissioner Lee:

      - A timeline can be developed but this timeline will only be an estimate.

      - At some point, he will present a timeline on more than what is happening with the Environmental Review.

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

      BOS - None

      BOA -

      Re: 2349 Franklin Street

      - Julian Banales represented the Department on this matter.

      - This case was a dwelling unit merger from four to three dwelling units.

      - The matter was continued to September 15, in order to determine if there was consistency with the determination from the Commission.

      13. 2003.1254D (E.TOPE: 415-558-6316)

          170 ST GERMAIN AVENUE- - North side at Glenbrook Avenue; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 2708 -- Status report and Commission comment on allegations that the Planning Commission had based approval of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.31.0905, proposing to construct a horizontal and vertical addition to an existing single family dwelling in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwellings) District and a 40-x Height and Bulk District, on false information. The Commission requested a tentative re-hearing of this case on October 7, 2004.

      Walter Kaplan - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

      - The Discretionary Review requestor lives adjacent to the property.

      - A permit was taken out to do a small job and it became a very large job.

      - When they discovered this, an inspector was called.

      - A second over-the-counter permit was obtained.

      - The first day of the hearing, Commissioner William Lee requested that both Discretionary Review requestor and Project Sponsor determine the details of the demolition.

      - The Commission was lead to believe that everything was fine, but everything is not fine because there is work being done beyond the scope of permits.

      Wayne Campbell - Representing Project Sponsor

      - His clients were dealing with several contractors at a time. They were under the impression that there was no need to obtain permits for small jobs inside the house.

      - Today he is talking mostly about the height of the building.

      - There are issues that will be solved with their resubmission of the plans.

      - There are some permits that are not even relevant to permits that the Commission decided upon.

      Mila Molosof - Project Sponsor

      - Her property is now gated so she would like to know how Mr. Kaplan obtained pictures and took measurements of her house.

      Eve Hudson

      - She is alarmed about the precedent that Mr. Kaplan is trying to set.

      - Her client is now trying to solve the issues with the inspector.

      - She requests that the Commission separate the unrelated issues before they go before the Board of Appeals.

      MOITON: Set a Hearing Date for October 7, 2004 to consider whether or not the Commission will rescind their action.

      AYES: Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

      NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee

      RESULT: Failed to receive a majority vote. The Planning Commission will not consider rescinding their vote on October 7, 2004 or any subsequent date.

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.

    Sue Hestor

    Re: 266 -270 14th Street

    - She has a policy issue with this project.

    - There is a very large concentration of automobile uses [in the area].

    - The issues of this project could send out a wrong message.

E. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTIONS - Public Hearing Closed

    14. 2003.1226DV (K. MCGEE: (415) 558-6367)

      266-270 14th STREET - north side of 14th Street, between Mission and South Van Ness Streets, Lot 20 in Assessor's Block 3531- Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application 2003.11.26.1242 proposing to change the use of the building from a live/work use to an assembly and entertainment use per Planning Code Section 221. The property is located in a C-M (Heavy Commercial) Zoning District, in a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and in the Housing/Mixed Use area of the Eastern Neighborhoods.

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

      (Continued from July 15, 2004 Hearing)

      NOTE: On July 15, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this matter to September 2, 2004 by a vote of +4-0 (Commissioner Bradford Bell was absent and Commissioner Olague was excused) in order to review the new Conditions of Approval. Public Comment is open only issues related to the Conditions of Approval.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with revised Conditions of Approval.

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

      EXCUSED: Olague

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

      15a. 2003.0404D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

          971 CAPP STREET - east side between 24th and 25th Streets; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 6518 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.07.22.9493 to demolish an existing single-family dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of a new four-family dwelling) in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and approve demolition.

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Cesar Estrella - Project Architect

      - The proposed project is consistent with the demolition requirements.

      - Safety and economic concerns are the reasons for the demolition. The home is unsafe for the habitants.

      - The new project will provide more units for rental.

      - A pre-application hearing was held with the Department of Building Inspection.

      - The property is of no historical resource.

      - He is requesting that the Commission approve the demolition.

      (+) Ben Nema

      - He is requesting demolition and reconstruction of this building not for financial reasons but because of aesthetics, weak structure, etc.

      - He is concerned for his grandmother because she lives there. They would like to improve the property so she can have a decent home.

      - There are drug dealers in the area and he is concerned for the safety of his grandmother.

      (-) Sergio Antorno

      - He just heard of this project a few hours ago.

      - He owns the building next door.

      - He would like to ask for a postponement because he was out of town and was not aware of the project.

      - His building will be negatively affected because he has various windows that will be blocked.

      - He is a developer and is not against any project. He would just like to have more time to really analyze the plans.

      (-) Robert Bender

      - He is against the demolition of rent controlled housing and replacing it with market rate housing.

      - He has nothing against the owners.

      ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition

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

      15b. 2004.0761D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

          971 CAPP STREET - east side between 24th and 25th Streets; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 6518 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new construction as a result of housing demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.22.9494 for the new construction of a four-family dwelling in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.

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

      ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following conditions: 1) Façade of the building be done out of stucco or wood type siding, but not both; 2) the bay windows on each floor connect, 3) windows be typical 1-over-1 pane and be set back a minimum of three inches, 4) treatment of ground floor be redesigned; and 5) project sponsor should continue to work with staff on the design.

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

      16. 2004.0367D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

          40 DAY STREET - north side between Dolores Street and San Jose Avenue; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 6634 - Request of Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.01.21.4492, proposing to fill in a rear building notch on either side of the first and second floors and construct a one-story rear addition and a third story vertical addition to an 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 revised.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Discretionary Review request withdrawn.

      17a. 2004.0097D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

          2070 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE - north side between Central and Lyon Streets; lot 019 in Assessor's Block 1150 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.09.29.6052, proposing to demolish a two-story two-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The two-family dwelling is located at the front of the lot. There are related proposals to demolish a single-family dwelling at the rear of the lot and to construct a four-story, three-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces.

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

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) C.J. Higley - Representing Project Sponsor

      - The project is comparable to the other buildings in height and bulk.

      - The project meets the stringent requirements for demolitions.

      - The required setback is the only thing they were not able to agree with staff on.

      - They have addressed the issue of visual transition.

      - The project will be a very attractive addition to the neighborhood.

      (-) Robert Bender

      - They are opposed to the demolition of buildings that do not need to be demolished.

      - This is a social injustice.

      - He has lived his whole life to be a working Christian.

      (-) Doug Waggener

      - He lives on Golden Gate Avenue.

      - His house will be the most affected by this demolition.

      - If the demolition were to be approved, he cannot image that there would not be severe damage to his property.

      - The project involves digging down to the garage level and this concerns him.

      (-) Kathleen Ewing

      - She is the only neighbor who has contact with the project sponsor and it was not a good meeting.

      - She submitted a letter related to suggested changes and she has not heard anything.

      - Everything seems to be pro forma.

      (-) Michael Helquist

      - He lives on Golden Gate Avenue--which is three buildings from the property in question.

      - Their association is not opposed to development.

      - The project sponsor has not been cooperative in communicating with the neighbors.

      - They request a continuance so that there can be more meetings and planning.

      - The Planning Department and Conditions give due considerations to concerns.

      (-) Megan Allison Wade

      - She is a staff member of Supervisor Gonzalez.

      - She is not speaking for the office of Supervisor Gonzalez, but as a neighbor.

      - There has been minimal communication and notification.

      - This is a neighborhood of very organized and aware neighbors who notice when they are not noticed.

      - There are many forces in the neighborhood who are paying attention to this.

      (-) Tys Spiffen - North of Panhandle Neighborhood Association

      - They are very easy to find and very easy to work with.

      - He suggests that this item be continued so that they could have more time to look at the plans.

      ACTION: Hearing Held. Item continued to allow the Project Sponsor to conduct community meetings. Item continued to October 7, 2004. Public hearing will remain open.

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

      17b. 2004.0098D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          2070 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE - north side between Central and Lyon Streets; lot 019 in Assessor's Block 1150 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.02.23.6957, proposing to demolish a one-story single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The single-family dwelling is located at the rear of the lot. There are related proposals to demolish a two-family dwelling at the front of the lot and to construct a four-story, three family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces.

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

      SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 17a.

      ACTION: Hearing Held. Item continued to allow the Project Sponsor to conduct community meetings. Item continued to October 7, 2004. Public hearing will remain open.

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

      17c. 2004.0099D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

          2070 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE - north side between Central and Lyon Streets; lot 019 in Assessor's Block 1150 - 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. 2003.09.29.6049, proposing to construct a four-story, three-family residential structure with three off-street parking spaces in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There are related proposals to demolish a two-family dwelling at the front of the lot and a single-family dwelling at the rear of the lot.

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

      SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 17a.

      ACTION: Hearing Held. Item continued to allow the Project Sponsor to conduct community meetings. Item continued to October 7, 2004. Public hearing will remain open.

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

      18. 2004.0544D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

          850 EL CAMINO DEL MAR - north side between 32nd Avenue and Lake Street; lot 020 in Assessor's Block 1312 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.01.21.4516, proposing to alter a single-family dwelling by creating a new hipped roof, enlarging a rooftop stair penthouse, expanding the second floor by 4 feet at both the front and rear, enclosing an exterior corridor and extending a rear terrace at the first floor, in an RH-1(D) (Residential, Single-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Discretionary Review request withdrawn.

      19. 2004.0365DD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          850 45TH AVENUE - east side between Cabrillo and Fulton Streets; Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 1687 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.22.2792 proposing to add a second dwelling unit, add two floors and a horizontal addition to the rear of the existing single-family residence resulting in a four-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                  Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 22, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S):

      (-) Joyce Hong - Discretionary Review Requestor

      - The problem she has with this project is the design because it is quite large.

      - If this project is approved, it will cause a "domino affect" in the neighborhood.

      - This four-story building will destroy the character of the neighborhood.

      - There are 44 homes on the block and 138 cars. This makes a shortage of 11 spaces already on the block. This would increase traffic and parking problems.

      - The project should remain two or three stories.

      (-) Suny San Pedro

      - He lives on 44th Avenue.

      - He is concerned about the height of the building.

      - He likes to see the sun and the trees. This project would be detrimental because it will diminish the light and cause mold on his house.

      - He would be fine with a building of only three levels.

      - The fourth floor is not consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines.

      (-) Joanna Jaskey

      - The lots are about eight to ten feet lower because of the ground.

      - Any building with three living levels above a garage level would actually be five stories high.

      (-) Ron Miguel

      - He hopes that the Commission will accept the staff recommendation and remove the top floor.

      (+) C.J. Higley - Representing Project Sponsor

      - The project will add a horizontal and vertical addition.

      - He respectfully disagrees with the recommendation of staff.

      - The design elements enhance the neighborhood character and include a fourth story.

      - The proposed project makes use of all the design techniques of the Residential Design Guidelines.

      - All these techniques reduce the bulk of the building.

      - Most of the buildings on the block are three story buildings and are much bulkier than the subject home.

      ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following modification: Remove 4th Floor.

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

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      20. 2004.0540D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

          1050 DOLORES STREET - west side between 23rd & 24th Streets, Lot 037, in Assessor's Block 3649 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's Policy on Dwelling Unit Mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.04.13.1112, proposing to convert a five-family dwelling to a four-family dwelling The subject property is located in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low density) District in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve dwelling unit merger

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor

      - It would be very expensive to remodel this house.

      - People who use the lower level rooms would have a better quality of life.

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

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

      ABSENT: W. Lee

4:00 p.m.

Item 21 was taken out or order and followed item 18.

      21. (G. GREEN: (415) 558-6411)

          REVIEW AND COMMENT ON INTERIM POLICIES AND CONTROLS FOR THE EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS: (including eastern SOMA, Showplace Square, and the Mission). Review and comment on adopted policies and initiated draft interim controls, which were established by the Planning Commission on February 12, 2004 to set forth areas for Housing and Mixed Uses, Core PDR (Production, Distribution, and Repair), and Housing/PDR in specified Eastern Neighborhoods Community Plan Areas. This hearing will summarize prior Commission actions and provide an opportunity for the Commission to comment on Staff recommendations for potential policy amendments and modifications to initiated interim controls.

      NOTE: On February 12, 2004, the Commission adopted Resolution 16726 initiating draft controls and Resolution 16727 adopting policies for portions of the Eastern Neighborhoods. On May 6, 2004, the Commission adopted Resolution 16783, which amended the boundaries of the SOMA as addressed under Resolution 16727. On March 25, 2004, Commission President Bradford Bell re-opened the consideration of initiation of interim controls for the Mission, as addressed under Resolution 16726. On June 3, 2004, without a hearing, the Commission continued the matter to July 1, 2004. On July 1, 2004, the Commission held a public hearing and continued the matter to September 2, 2004.

      SPEAKER(S):

      Charlie Sciamas - MAC

      - It has been about four years that this issue has been discussed.

      - The community planning process began because the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition fought to initiate this.

      - Until the community planning process is completed, there is a need to establish controls in the Mission District.

      - The documents, which were issued recently, do not contain the issues that the community has raised.

      Fernando Marti

      - They support the interim controls in their prior version without the amendments.

      - He displayed a map of a previous industrial report in 1999. What is outlined is the NEMIZ.

      My Do - MAC

      - She supports the interim controls, which were submitted in July.

      - These new controls lack community input.

      - The new controls are flawed in many respects.

      - Building heights are allowed that can block light and create wind tunnels.

      - Without real interim controls in place, PDR would be lost on a case-by-case basis.

      - She urges the Commission to adopt the interim controls that were discussed in July.

      Miriam Zamora

      - She works in the community fighting for the rights of the community.

      - Historically there have been controls protecting the Mission District.

      - How is it possible that a team of four people can completely make changes without the input of the community as well as the staff which has been working on this for the past six years.

      - Every job has a process and it cannot be done like pulling something from you sleeve.

      Richard Marquez

      - He welcomed back Commissioner Bradford Bell.

      - They are tired of being tired. They are tired of delays. They demand interim controls.

      - Certain moves coming from inside the Planning Department have stalled the progress of the Mission.

      - It is time to go beyond land use controls.

      Oscar Grande - MAC/PODER

      - They don't want the interim rules that the Planning Department has presented.

      - These rules do not promote family housing.

      - They want a meaningful discussion of the interim controls which were submitted in July.

      - There is staff that is not here today that have been sidelined.

      Maria Lavoy

      - She has been a resident of the Mission since she was three months old.

      - She is concerned that a beautiful community is being dilapidated because of policies.

      - If you are going to come into the Mission and are going to build a project, the community needs to be respected.

      - She knows what it is to struggle.

      - She is asking the City to take responsibility for these interim controls.

      Carmen Ramirez

      - She is representing all the women and the residents of the Mission.

      - She asks the Commission to be human and try to understand the people that live in the community.

      - It is important to receive help from the Commission.

      - It is important to have these changes.

      - There are many changes going on in the community but none of these are positive.

      Francisco DeCosta

      - He is going to speak for the people of the area.

      - The Commission can see the concrete jungle.

      - If the Planning Department does not have a dialogue with the community, then something is wrong.

      - Quality of life issues are not being dealt with.

      - The Commission should pay attention of the voices of the community.

      Robert Pender

      - He has lived in his home since 1969.

      - He is sure that the citizens here have lived in their home just as long or maybe even longer.

      - People are being forced out of the City.

      - His children have had to move away from San Francisco because they cannot afford to purchase property.

      - The Commission needs to take care of the new generations.

      Kurtis Eisenberger - Mission Colation for Economic Justice and Jobs

      - He thanked the Commission for allowing them to listen to their concerns.

      - In an area that has been shown industrial, there are 900 rental units.

      - Controls are defective.

      Milton Gaines

      - He displayed a parcel map showing that 30 percent is now public benefit space in a 42 block area.

      - Is this too low? Is this too high? What should the set limit be for the NEMIZ?

      - The definition of PDR is faulty.

      James Collins - Six Street Agenda

      - Without interim controls there are no set limits on what a developer can do in their neighborhoods.

      - The blue prints that Commissioners have before them is not the same as the one that they presented in July.

      - Reconsider the correct blueprint.

      Susan Marsh

      - She lives at 17th and Mission Street.

      - Not everything is negative in her neighborhood.

      - She finds her neighborhood enjoyable. But there are various problems--like the lack of affordable housing.

      Bill Murphy

      - He is a third generation San Franciscan.

      - He urged the Commission to pass interim controls.

      Ellen Pound

      - She is a housekeeper residing at the Jerry Hotel in the Mission.

      - She urged the Commission not to change the rules that they have agreed to.

      - Housing development should be protected.

      Rene Salcedo

      - She has lived in the Mission for many years.

      - She works for La Raza Centro Legal.

      - There are small business owners who cannot keep workers

      Bob Meyers

      - More people would probably be here if there had been adequate notice.

      Phillip Lesser

      - About three years ago he was against interim controls.

      - He has so much faith in the Commission [and believes] that they will be looking at each project one by one.

      Fred Snyder

      - He pleads with the Commission to bring the community together.

      - The process has been flawed since the beginning because there has not been community input.

      - Part of the problem has been the contentiousness between the groups.

      - It is important to bring this back and have some meaningful discussions.

      Michael Burke

      - He owns property at 16th and Bryant.

      - In February 2004, the Commission determined that policies rather than controls would be best for the NEMIZ.

      - They have sited state law which supports their contention that you cannot subject the NEMIZ to interim controls because there has not been any change in circumstances that supported previous interim controls.

      - The Commission should not "tie their hands" with interim controls in the NEMIZ. With policies the Commission will have full discretion under Discretionary Review.

      Kepa Askenazy

      - She requested that the Potrero Hill area be removed from this discussion because they were not properly noticed.

      - She suggested that the Commission make a motion to speak specifically on the area of the Potrero/Showplace Square area.

      - They have lost a lot of businesses recently.

      - She requested from the Commission direct Director Green to return the Citywide staff back to working on the Eastern Neighborhoods.

      Babette Drefky

      - Potrero Hill should be removed from this discussion.

      - She invited the Commission to Potrero Hill.

      - It is important for staff to come to the community and chat.

      Toby Levine

      - She has been a resident of the Mission District since 1967.

      - In 1994, there was a rezoning plan that was developed for the NEMIZ. It had community and commission support. The problem with this plan is that there was no money for the EIR. So the whole plan was stopped or forgotten about.

      - That plan was very different than the one being proposed. It promoted job development and job preservation.

      - She believes that this plan is moving in the wrong direction.

      - The maps are not right either and they need to be fixed.

      Jim Meko

      - Alleys are where residential population is found.

      - In the existing zoning there is little protection for the alleys.

      - There is now panic in the Mission with developers trying to take advantage of this interim.

      - All the alleys are very important to SOMA.

      Toby Levy - Architect

      - She has been an architect for 20 years.

      - She believes in the diversity of South of Market, it's development patter and it's uses.

      - The 40 foot height limit exclusion on the alleys should not be eliminated.

      - As an architect, it is really hard to face your client down when there is a real ambiguity.

      - She requested that we keep the 40 foot height limit on the 40 foot wide streets.

      Debra Stein - GCS Strategies

      - This is an opportunity to consider the more generalized concern about how long range planning products are used.

      - There is a site that the Eastern Neighborhoods has been excluding.

      - The Eastern Neighborhoods is not the only long range planning that has taken too long.

      Lou Blazej

      - Right now there is environmental review limbo because the loss of PDR needs to be analyzed while people are still trying to define it. This is not fair.

      - Everyone has been waiting for an initial study to be published for over 14 months. This is hurting projects and it's hurting the community.

      - He welcomes Gerald Green back and offers his full support.

      Theodore Brown

      - He represents a development on Rincon Hill that has been in the process for over three years.

      - The EIR has been held up because of long range planning.

      - He thought housing was important to this City.

      - Long range planning should not kill development and housing in the City.

      Fiona O'Connor

      - She would rather have plans than planning.

      - She has had a small business for about 30 years and has been frozen in time because of interim controls.

      - Small businesses need to grow instead of coming to these meetings all the time.

      Lois Scott

      - She is here for the Planner Chapter of Professional and Technical Engineers.

      - It is an ethical tenant that Professional planners should respect the professional views of colleagues.

      - There was a prior agreement with the union and the Planning Department that when there are major reassignments of work it should be done with advanced consultation and discussion with the planners involved.

      - This process would have been improved if there had been open and clear communication about the intent of the Director.

      - The Citywide team's professional views should have been respected.

      - There is a divided department because of the handling of this situation.

      Tomas Lee - Tom Amiano's Office

      - It has been enlightening to listen to 2 ½ hours of testimonies.

      - They are concerned also that they did not get advanced notice of this situation.

      - Neighborhoods need economic development and to create jobs.

      - Businesses should come in with the community's interest at heart.

      Sue Hestor

      - The staff report gives very truncated information of the situation.

      - Many developers do not want controls.

      Joe Boss

      - He is glad that Mr. Green is back from his fellowship and is taking care of organizing everything in his office.

      - It is very important to figure out how to fix the machine to see what it can produce.

      Alice Barkley

      - The planning for all of the areas started in NEMIZ around 1984.

      - It took until last Friday to get the motion out. That is why staff was not able to get anything.

      - Many PDR businesses are moving out.

      - She suggests that you throw away everything and do some real planning.

      ACTION: Hearing held. Public comment closed. Item continued to October 28, 2004 for policies or controls. If policies, define boundaries and define the NEMIZ. If controls, initiate the process.

      22. 2003.0980C (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

          4840 MISSION STREET - north side between Onondaga Avenue and Seneca Avenue, (AKA Valente, Marini & Co. Funeral Home) Lots, 019, 025 & 026 in Assessor's Block 6956 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 712.64 (mortuary use) and 712.21 (use size over 5,999 square feet) to construct a new two-story, 13,740 square-foot mortuary facility that would replace the existing 26,432 square-foot Valente, Marini & Co. Funeral Home. The subject property is located in NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) and RH-1 (Residential House, Single Family) Districts and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Dan Sullivan

      - The funeral directors have been in business for about 80 years.

      - The location of the funeral home is in a rich and vibrant community.

      - The project is supported by the residents as well.

      ACTION: Approved

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

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      MOTION: 16854

      23. 2004.0658T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

          PARK NEXUS STUDY - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code Section 139 to provide that $100,000 of Downtown Special Park Fund monies shall be used to fund a nexus study, under the direction of the General Manager of the Recreation and Park Department, to examine whether the Downtown Park Fees should be imposed on uses other than office and on geographical areas of the City other than C-3 uses districts and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved with the following Amendments:

          1) Page 2 of the draft Resolution, 2nd paragraph, item a:

          a) Assure that the contract for conducting the specified Nexus Study requires a maximum 90-day review and comment period by the Planning Department prior to the release of the final report.

          2) Add a new item b which reads:

          b) Assure that the Planning Department is involved in the scope of the study.

          3) original item b becomes item c.

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

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      RESOLUTION: 16855

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

    Charles Marsteller:

    Re: 727 Van Ness Avenue

    - He requested that the Commission scheduled this project because there are significant technical policies for the Department of City Planning.

    - There are concerns about the policy implications with this project.

    - They have submitted a DR application which was initially accepted and then rejected.

        Director Green Responded:

        - This issue will be placed under Director's Report next week, September 9, 2004, so that the Commission can respond and/or ask questions.

Adjournment: 8:30 p.m.

PLEASE NOTE:

The

      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, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

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