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

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

February 17, 2005

February 17, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, February 17, 2005

2:00 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dwight Alexander; 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 SUE LEE AT 2:20 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris - Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Rick Crawford; Mary Woods; Dan Sider; Moses Corrette; Susan Snyder; Matthew Snyder; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

      The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

          1. 2004.0458E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

          566 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration - The proposed project would include demolition of an existing 4,344 gross-square-foot, one-story retail/commercial building and rear storage building and construction of a five-story, 50-foot-tall mixed-use building which would contain 32 residential units on the second through fifth floors and retail/commercial use on the ground floor. The residential use would be 27,491 gross square feet (gsf) in area, and the retail/commercial space would be 4,344 gsf in size. The ground floor and basement levels would include 32 parking spaces designated for the residential use with ingress and egress from South Van Ness Avenue. The ground floor would contain the commercial space and residential lobby. The 12,253-square-foot site is located within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) zoning district and within a 50-X height and bulk district. The proposed project requires a conditional use authorization for residential use in the C-M district.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 20, 2005)

          (Proposed for Continuance to February 24, 2005

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 24, 2005

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

          2a. 2004.0458C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

                566 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - west side between 16th Street and 17th Street, Block 3570 in Assessor's Lot 005 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow 32 dwelling units in a C-M District, under Planning Code Sections 215. The subject property is within an C-M (Heavy Commercial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and a PDR/ Housing Overlay Zone as designated in the Eastern Neighborhoods Interim Policies (Planning Commission Resolution 16727).

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Proposed for Continuance to February 24, 2005

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 24, 2005

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

          2b. 2004.0458V (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

                566 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - west side between 16th Street and 17th Street, Block 3570 in Assessor's Lot 005 - Request for an Exposure Variance to allow eight of the proposed 32 dwelling units to face (or have exposure to) an open space that does not meet the specification requirements of Planning Code Section 140. The subject property is within an C-M (Heavy Commercial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and a PDR/ Housing Overlay Zone as designated in the Eastern Neighborhoods Interim Policies (Planning Commission Resolution 16727).

          (Proposed for Continuance to February 24, 2005

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 24, 2005

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

          3a. 2004.0364D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

          451 FAXON AVENUE - west side between De Montfort & Holloway Streets, Lot 009, Assessor's Block 6939 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application 2003.11.24.0975, to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 6, 2005)

      (Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 3, 2005

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

          3b. 2004.0651D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

          451 FAXON AVENUE - west side between De Montfort & Holloway Streets, Lot 009, Assessor's Block 6939 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential buildings in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.11.24.0979, proposing to construct a three-story, single-family residential building with two off-street parking spaces in an RH-1 (Residential, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the New Construction Permit.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 6, 2005)

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 3, 2005

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

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      4. Consideration of Adoption:

        • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 24, 2004

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Approved

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

        • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 23, 2004

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Approved

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

        • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Approved

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

            EXCUSED: Alexander and Antonini

        • Draft Minutes of Planning Director Search Subcommittee for November 4, 2004

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Approved

            AYES: Bradford Bell and S. Lee

            EXCUSED: Antonini

        • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 18, 2004

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Approved

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

            EXCUSED: W. Lee

        • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of November 29, 2004

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Approved

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

      5. Commission Comments/Questions

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: Ordinance from Board of Supervisors

          - There was an ordinance passed which requires self-breathing replenishment systems in high rise buildings for permits issued after March 30, 2004.

          - There seems to be some question about when this ordinance will be implemented.

          - He will contact DBI to get more information because this could be applied to the Rincon Hill projects.

          Re: Letter from Ms. Azalia Merrill

          - She did an extensive search for below market rate units.

          - How are below market rate units being noticed?

          - How are people chosen to qualify for these units?

          - How does one verify the income level of the people that are chosen?00

          Re: 399/375 Fremont Street

          - His feeling is that the Commission expressed an interest that an Environmental Impact Report reflects the possibility that if a one tower option is analyzed that the impact could be analyzed up to a height of 450 feet.

          Commissioner Olague:

          Re: 724 Van Ness Avenue

          - She call for a public hearing on this project.

            Commission Secretary responded:

            - Any Commissioner can make a request, but if the request does not come from the Commission President, then she needs to have a consensus of the other Commissioners on the matter.

          Commissioner Hughes:

          Re: 724 Van Ness Avenue

          - He supports a review of this project just to have a clear understanding as to jurisdiction and discretion of the Zoning Administrator.

          Re: Stan Warren

          - He requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Stan Warren.

          - He was the recording secretary for the San Francisco Building Trades Council.

          Re: APA Convention

          - Are any of the Commissioners scheduled to attend?

            Interim Director Macris responded:

            - He is trying to work out a plan on the Commissioners attending the conference.

            - He will be reporting on this in the near future.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: 724 Van Ness Avenue

          - He feels that this has been discussed on a number of occasions and is satisfied with the determination.

          - Is there something that can be reversed at this time and if it can, would it be proper to do it?

          - He does not mind hearing the project or discussing it.

            City Attorney Stacy responded:

            - The Commission does not have any jurisdiction over the permit.

            - The Zoning Administrator's determinations are before the Board of Appeals.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          Re: 724 Van Ness Avenue

          - She does not feel that this should be brought back before the Commission.

          Commissioner W. Lee:

          Re: 724 Van Ness Avenue

          - He is in agreement to bring this case back before the Commission.

          - He would like to have the project sponsor come and explain things to them because there is enough public concern about this project.

          Commissioner Hughes:

          Re: Rincon Hill Plan

          - He knows that the purpose of this motion was to essentially "carve" out two projects that were in the pipeline and to set time aside when it could be reviewed.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          Re: Broadcast

          - She is glad that the Commission will be on TV again.

            Interim Director Macris responded:

            - It is true that the Commission will be broadcasted again.

          Commission Alexander:

          Re: 724 Van Ness

          - Since the Commission does not have any jurisdiction over this project, he does not agree that it should come back before the Commission.

          Commissioner Sue Lee:

          Re: Interface with the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator's Role

          - She would like to have this issue scheduled on a future Planning Commission calendar so the Commission can get a clear understanding of the Zoning Administrator's role-- perhaps late March.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      6. Director's Announcements

          Interim Director Macris Reported:

          Re: Audit Committee

          - He attended the Audit Committee on Monday to discuss the Chinatown Economic Development Group. There is still $58,000 to be accounted for. He is working toward a resolution of this.

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

          Zoning Administrator reported:

          BOS -

          RE: Appeal of 616 Divisadero (Harding Theatre)

          - This item was continued to March 16 because there was an Appeal of the Negative Declaration, which did not allow the Conditional Use appeal to be heard. The item was continued to March.

          BOA -

          Re: 4001 Mission Street

          - The Board approved this project per the project sponsor's submittals--which was what the Commission had approved.

          Re: 567 Sanchez Street

          - This case has been around for several years.

          - The adjacent neighbor settled the case so the Commission could "bless" the agreement with the neighbors.

          - When the permit came through there were some changes, which were actually quite significant.

          - The Board did not overturn the permit.

          Re: Letter of Determination

          - These have started to be posted on the Department's website.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: 567 Sanchez Street

          - If a complaint is brought, could it be brought to him [the Zoning Administrator] for a ruling or go to the Board of Appeals?

            Zoning Administrator Badiner Responded:

            - When a Commission approves a project and there is still further work to be done, staff reviews these plans and go to him only if the plans are completely different from what was approved by the Commission. He then issues a letter of determination, which could be appealed at the Board of Appeals.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT - 15 MINUTES

      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. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

      Azalia Merrill

      Re: Affordable Housing Buildings

      - The buildings that were presented to the Commission previously relate to affordable housing units.

      - There are a number of buildings that advertise that they have a "flat rate."

      - She could not understand how the mangers of the building could come up with this "flat rate."

E. 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: 1310 Stanyan Street

      Steve Williams

      - He would like to have an opportunity to respond to the briefings.

      - There are still a lot of issues to resolve: design, light and air, etc.

      - He requested that the overall height of the building be reduced.

      - He asked the Commission to adopt the good neighbor suggestions.

      Merda Metoula

      - She spoke at the previous hearing and is available for questions.

      George Matoula

      - He does not want to see the borderline changed.

      - The boundary line has been used almost for a source of "oppression!"

      - He has blueprints that show that the boundary line has changed.

      - He filed a complaint with the architect's board.

      Catherine Marcony

      - She objects to the approval of the plan.

      - The project will cheapen the neighborhood.

      - The project will not provide any light to the neighbor.

      CJ Higley

      - He opposes the continuance.

      - He did not raise any issues with Mr. Williams.

      - There is no reason to delay this project any longer.

      - There is actually a 1 ½ to 2 inch discrepancy for the duration of the property line.

      - Even taking the DR requestor's survey as fact, that there is a discrepancy.

      - He is happy to accept anything that turns out to be true.

      - They did offer good neighbor gestures.

      - The building height is not too large.

      - No merger was ever required.

      Mark Connel - Project Architect

      - He has available various designs for the Commission.

      - He has copies of the surveys as well.

      - He is available for questions.

      Joe O'Donaghue

      - He has not read the briefs either.

      - The question is if the lot if legally buildable.

      - The facts are that the lot in question was a legal lot.

      - As comments are allowed on comments, then it becomes another hearing completely.

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

          8. 2004.1167DD (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          1310 STANYAN STREET - east side of a n undeveloped portion of Stanyan Street between Clarendon Avenue and Mountain Spring Avenue. Assessor's Block 2706 Lot 035 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.15.8977, to construct a new single-family dwelling, three stories in height on a vacant parcel in an RH-1(D) - (Residential House, One Family, Detached) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 20, 2005)

          NOTE: On January 20, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued the matter to February 17, 2005 by a vote +6 -0. The Commission directed staff to research the permit history of the original building on the adjacent property to see if subject lot was part of the original development site for 90 Mountain Spring. Commissioner Bradford-Bell was absent

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Steve Williams

          - He submitted a letter requesting that this item be continued.

          - There is a matter of fairness here.

          - He requested some documents regarding the lot merger but he hasn't received them.

          CJ Higley

          - He is opposed to a continuance. The Commission has everything to proceed with this case.

          - He can speak to the merits of what Mr. Williams spoke about but he would rather do this when the case is called.

          Re: Merits of Project

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the good neighbor gestures suggested in plans dated January 12, 2005. Also, allow DBI or appropriate city agency to determine if subdivision maps are in conformity.

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

          NAYES: Hughes and Olague

G. REGULAR CALENDAR

          9. 2004.1106D (S. SNYDER: (415) 558-6543)

          252 HOLYOKE STREET - east side between Felton and Burrows Streets; Lot 6 in Assessor's Block 5976 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.19.5209, proposing vertical and horizontal front and rear additions to the single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 3, 2005)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Prior to this hearing, the building permit application was withdrawn.

      10. 2004.093D (S. SNYDER: (415) 558-6543)

          371 MISSOURI STREET - east side between 19th and 20th Streets, Lot 17 in Assessor's Block 4037 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit No. 2004.06.10.6121 proposing to add third floor to a two-family dwelling located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and require modification of plans to match adjacent light well.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Rich Diamond - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - He displayed two diagrams of the interior of the house showing the locations where he will lose sunlight and showing how, if the project were modified, he would loose less sunlight.

          - He displayed pictures of windows in various rooms showing how the project would block the window.

          - He is not stopping the project sponsor from building.

          (+) Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor

          - This is truly a matter of affordable housing.

          - The project sponsor was able to purchase the property from a relative.

          - The space is needed for the project sponsor.

          - The light well is facing north so it would not loose sunlight.

          - If the project were modified the project sponsor would loose a lot.

          - The loss of the square footage would cause a bathroom to be lost.

          - The rear yard scale will not change.

          (+) Joe O'Donoghue

          - The DR requestor purchased his house recently.

          - View is never an issue with the Commission.

          - He has never understood why there are some light wells that are matched.

          - He can empathized that the great view would be lost.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with a 2-foot light well to match the 10-foot dimension front to back.

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

          11. 2004.0862D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

          2847-49 WASHINGTON STREET - south side between Divisadero and Scott Streets; Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 1002 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.0414.1288S, proposing to convert the building's authorized use from four dwelling units to two dwelling units, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Building Permit Application as Proposed.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) John Conomis - Project Sponsor

          - This application offers a number of benefits. The building will be restored to the building's intended use.

          - No tenants will be displaced.

          - A parking space will be added.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

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

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell and W. Lee

          12. 2004.1274DD (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          1919 22nd STREET southwest corner of 22nd Street and Carolina Street, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4161 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.06.11.6191 proposing to construct a horizontal and vertical addition to the existing non-complying single-family house and create an additional unit. The property is within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Cris Gardner - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - She submitted a letter from the other Discretionary Review requestor since she had to leave.

          - The proposed project is higher than allowed so it does not conform to the mid block open space.

          They have worked with the project architect and have come to some agreement.

          - The project significantly impacts the character of the neighborhood.

          - This is bordering on excessive but acceptable to them.

          - The expandable building envelope should be contained now and in the future.

          - There is quite a bit of open space right now.

          - She displayed a photograph of a house showing the type of architecture in the neighborhood.

          - She is asking for a continuance to revisit issues that have not been resolved or to take discretionary review and adopt the conditions that they are suggesting.

          (-) Bill Canahan

          - His family owns a home on Carolina Street.

          - He appreciates that the project sponsor has not requested the tallest height allowed, because there are still things that need to be discussed.

          - He supports the suggestion of having a Notice of Special Restriction.

          (-) Dorothy Larson

          - She lives on Carolina Street.

          - She displayed a photograph of the street showing the homes on the hill.

          - There has always been a yard next to the property.

          - Most of the homes are single story. Having a two story would be too tall.

          - This project should have a set back of nine feet.

          - A yard is important to have in this area.

          (-) Pamela Vaulk

          - She is not a resident of the area.

          - She is shocked to hear that such a project would be allowed with no open space.

          - This project would set a precedent.

          (+) John Lum - Project Architect

          - This house is an opportunity for the project sponsor to live with his family.

          - The project would allow a unit in the front on the Carolina Street side.

          - If a yard were to be designed, the project would loose a lot of habitable space.

          - He knows that the project is appropriately scaled.

          - There is a very large park right across the street. The issue of the neighbors not having open space is unfounded.

          - The project meets the Planning Code.

          - This project is sensibly designed so issuing a Notice of Special Restrictions would restrict the project a lot.

          ACTION: Hearing Held. Item continued to March 3, 2005. Revised drawings/plans are to be provided to the Commission for review.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell and W. Lee

          13. 2004.0334D (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

          3579 MISSION STREET - east side, between Santa Marina Street and Appleton Avenue; Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 5712 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Number 2002.05.13.6349 proposing to construct a new structure including two dwelling units. The project also involves the demolition of an existing one-story office building under Demolition Permit Application Number 2002.05.13.6344. The property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Miles Bower - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - His home is located is on a hill so he does not get too much sunlight anyway.

          - He is happy to see that someone wants to do something with the property.

          - The neighbor has illegal signage on the property and a lot of weeds.

          - He displayed a photograph of his landscaped garden where the project sponsor stated that his garden is not well kept.

          - He displayed a diagram of what he suggests the project sponsor should do.

          (+) Van Lee - Project Architect

          - She has responded to the Discretionary Review requestor already and is available for questions.

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

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell and W. Lee

          14. 2004.0915C (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

          1598 DOLORES STREET - northwest corner of 29th Street; Lots 40 through 52, inclusive, in Assessor's Block 6618 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to modify conditions of approval set forth in Planning Commission Motion Number 16445 as modified by Board of Supervisors Motion Number M02-163 and relating to Planning Department Case Number 2000.1058C to allow payment of an in-lieu affordable housing fee rather than provide on-site affordable housing, pursuant to inclusionary housing policies set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Number 16350. In September of 2002, the City authorized construction of two 4-story buildings on the subject property containing a total of 13 units and up to 26 independently accessible off-street parking spaces; both buildings are now complete. Conditions of approval require one of the proposed units to be provided as a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit. This proposal would modify previous conditions of approval to allow the payment of an in-lieu fee to the Mayor's Office of Housing rather than provide the required BMR unit on-site. No physical work is proposed. The property is within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 20, 2005)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Alice Barkley

          - At the time that this project was approved, the Commission did not allow an offsite provision or in lieu fee payment.

          - The Board of Supervisors then determined that there would be three options: inclusionary housing, onsite/offsite provisions or in lieu fees.

          - The current law should be applied to this project.

          - The City is short of funds for affordable projects that are under construction.

          (-) Vicky Rosen

          - She lives around the corner from the subject property.

          - The neighborhood wants to keep the affordable unit.

          - The development was approved with great controversy.

          - Contributing to the Mayor's Office of housing does not contribute to the affordable unit.

          - She requested that the Commission not allow this to happen.

          (-) Claudia Be

          - She is a new homeowner in this neighborhood.

          - She has been authorized by the homeowners association and the residents of the units to speak for them.

          - She requested that the Commission deny the variance.

          - The plumbing expert stated that when a few of the units were flooded during the rains, it was because there was something wrong with the architecture and the plumbing.

          - By approving this project, it would allow construction by a negligent builder.

          (-) Sue Hestor

          - This was a very controversial project.

          - The developer made a statement that the neighborhood did not want a "poor unit".

          - The money that is being offered, is money that does not match the affordability of the unit.

          - The Commission should allow an Inclusionary unit at this project site.

          ACTION: Disapproved

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

          MOTION: 16948

          15. 2005.0128U (M. CORRETTE: (415) 558-6295)

          1886 MISSION STREET - west side between 14th and 15th Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 3547 - Appeal of Inner Mission North survey findings - Following the Landmarks Boards' Public Review Process for Cultural Resource Survey findings, the Planning Commission must review written objections to the Inner Mission North Cultural Resource Survey Phase II (California Department of Parks and Recreation Survey Forms - DPR 523A and 523B) survey findings as presented by property owner. The Commission is requested to evaluate the owner's objection to the proposed California Historic Resources Status Code (CHRSC) assigned to the property at 1886 Mission Street. It should consider and adopt a resolution to either: 1) endorse the evaluation and the CHRSC rating that found the property to be individually eligible for the California Register (3CS), or 2) determine, based on historical evidence and evaluation criteria, an alternate CHRSC status code.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a resolution upholding the evaluation and Status Code of 3CS as recommended by the Landmark's Board.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Brett Gladstone

          - He is interested in having this item continued.

          Re: Merits of the Project

          (-) Brett Gladstone

          - Planning Staff issued a negative declaration previously on this building.

          - In 2004, the revisions to the project were done, the Landmarks Board designated the building as historic.

          - A rating of 6L means that it should be on a City and State survey but should not be categorized with a historic rating.

          (-) Augustine Faxon

          - It has been five years since he started with this project.

          - The intent is to have affordable housing and to have community space for the neighbors to meet.

          - He will be able to train the youth of the Mission to work on this project.

          - It is worth keeping the history but not to designate it as a landmark.

          (-) Warner Schmalz - Project Architect

          - He displayed various pictures of buildings that are old but would not be designated as a Landmark.

          - They are similar to the subject project.

          - The project was built with poor quality materials and badly constructed.

          - The history of the subject building is in the labor units that met there and not into its architecture.

          - The history of the building will be maintained in pictures and statements that will be displayed in the lobby of the building.

          - He hopes that the Commission will vote similar to the vote of the 2000 Commission and not designate this site a Landmark.

          (-) Roberta Gavino

          - She is a member of the Carpenter's Union.

          - She hopes that the Commission will allow the developer to construct affordable housing at this location.

          - There is nothing historical about this building.

          (-) Ruben Santana

          - He made an evaluation report on the well being of the project.

          - The building is not something that anyone would want to maintain.

          - The building should be demolished and a properly engineered structure should be constructed.

          - He grew up in the neighborhood and has seen the area not progress at all.

          - He would like to have this area progress.

          - This is just another "white elephant."

          (-) Michael Davos

          - This project was not designated a Landmark when the project came before the Commission a few years ago.

          - This building should just be demolished.

          - He hopes that the Commission votes to not designate it a Landmark.

          (-) Carmen Perez - Spoke through a translator

          - This project could bring many benefits to the neighbors.

          - This project will allow a community space for the residents of the area.

          (-) Sofia Ayala - San Francisco Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

          - She read a letter from the president of the Chamber requesting that the Commission not give this building with a historic rating.

          (-) Phillip Lesser - President of the Mission Merchant's Association

          - Everyone in the Mission is at a loss as to why this building would even be considered a landmark.

          - There are wonderful buildings in the area. If this building was an attraction he would totally be in agreement with land marking it in order to continue the beauty in the Mission, but it is not.

          - The building is only a crime magnet.

          (-) Gus Murad

          - He lives and works in the Mission District.

          - He walked around the building and it is really in a bad shape.

          - He cannot see the historic significance for it or setting a high rating value to it.

          (-) Nick Aiello - Senior Vice President of the Mission National Bank

          - He has been in the banking business in the Mission for 30 years.

          - Everyone in the Mission is wanted and needed by the residents of the Mission District.

          - It should not take four years to make a decision on this building.

          - He has been in the building and there is nothing historical there.

          (-) Milton Gaines

          - He has been in business for 35 years in the Mission District.

          - He feels that this is a judgment call. Many people feel that it is a historic building and many people believe that it is not.

          - He feels that this building should not be designated historic.

          - This area is an area in the Mission that needs the most improvements.

          (-) Fred Snyder

          - He appreciates the presentation made by staff.

          - He is not sure if this designation is a way to stop construction in the Mission Street.

          - The building is rundown and dilapidated and should be demolished.

          - The project that is being proposed would clean up the neighborhood tremendously.

          (+) Will Smith

          - Even if the money was found to restore the building, there is no point in fixing it if it is going to sit empty.

          (-) John O'Brian

          - He was born in the Mission District.

          - He is in favor of the project because it will create affordable housing and jobs for the building trades.

          - He is shocked that someone would suggest designating this a Landmark.

          (-) Jose Moreno - Housing Action Coalition

          - The building has no historical significance as far as he is concerned.

          - The project will add much needed housing and tax revenue.

          - The Housing Action Coalition voted to [demolish this].

          (+) Tim Kelley - Landmark's Board President

          - They have gone through a process of evaluation of this building.

          - The Board voted unanimously to recommend this building to be designated a Landmark.

          - A historic resource is a category under CEQA that represents the quality of a building.

          (-) Kate White

          - The site has no architectural merit, according to Heritage.

          - She appreciates that the owner has improved the project but it is not very well designed.

          - The proposed project will improve the area greatly.

          (+) Erin Grucz - San Francisco Architectural Heritage

          - The Planning Department takes their historic research very seriously.

          - This property has been through a lot.

          - She urged the Commission to uphold the designation by staff.

          (-) Rosario Anaya - Mission Language and Vocational School

          - She is here to support Mission Gardens, which is a project that will be a gateway to the Mission District.

          - It is very encouraging for the community to see a project that will allow possible homeownership.

          - The developer has done his due diligence by seeking community input.

          - She asked the Commission to not allow a historical value of this project and allow a developer to improve the building.

          (-) Toby Levine

          - She has been a resident of the Mission for about 38 years.

          - She lives in a Landmark building.

          - This building is a very simple, uninteresting, old and rundown building that has no architectural merit.

          - It does have its historical merit--but that is all.

          - The Landmarks Board is advisory to the Commission where the decision rests.

          - It is time to give it the right category and allow the project that everyone wants.

          (-) Lamar Baker

          - He is a member of the Carpenter's Union.

          - This building really needs to be fixed.

          - It is important to rebuild areas of San Francisco.

          - The developer is a great person that will allow a project that will benefit everyone.

          - He recommended that the Commission not designate this a Landmark.

          (+) Sue Hestor

          - There is a lot of support for a replacement project.

          - This item is not about the project but about the process.

          - This is not saying that the project cannot be built.

          - She appreciates the various staff reports.

          - The environmental document should just be done.

          (-) Dale Watson

          - She is a carpenter.

          - The building is only going to be a target for crime.

          - This building should just be demolished and allow for an affordable project.

          (-) Kinn Sean Webber

          - He has not seen the building but can understand everything that is being said.

          - When a building is conditioned for housing, it allows for people to live there peacefully.

          (-) Azelia Merrill

          - She is a native San Franciscan and belongs to the Carpenter's Union.

          - This building is not contributing to the culture of the neighborhood.

          - The building has acquired a lot of mold.

          - She does not see any merit to designate this with architectural value.

          ACTION: Passed a Motion of Intent to overturn the Landmarks Board designation of 3CS and designate the project a 6L. Final Language February 24, 2005.

          AYES: Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

          NAYES: Alexander and Sue Lee

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

H. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

None

      Adjournment: 7:18 p.m. - In Memory of Stan Warren

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2005.

SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved

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

      ABSENT: Alexander

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:15 PM