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

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

September 8, 2005 (minutes)

September 8, 2005 (minutes)

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, September 8, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

President: Sue Lee

Vice-President:  Dwight S. Alexander

                        Commissioners: Michael J. Antonini; Shelley Bradford Bell; Kevin Hughes;

William L. Lee; Christina Olague

 

Commission Secretary: Linda D. Avery

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:  S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

 

COMMISSIOENER ABSENT:     D. Alexander

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:45 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Sharon Young; Michael Smith; Winslow Hastie; Ben Fu; Glenn Cabreros; Jonathan Purvis; Thomas Wang; Mary Woods; Daniel Sirois; Isolde Wilson; Sarah Dennis; Linda Avery – Commission Secretary

 

 

  • 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.         2005.0256T                                                                             (P. Lord: (415) 558-6311)

                        Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District Residential Conversion to Other Institution - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 724.1 to allow for conversion of upper floor residential units in the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District as a conditional use, where: the new use will be an Other Institution, Educational Service use, only one dwelling unit in building will be converted, and that unit is the only non-residential use in the building, and no legally residing tenant with be displaced: and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 23, 2005)          

                        (Proposed for Continuance to September 15, 2005)

 

                        SPEAKERS:     None

                        ACTION:           Approved as proposed

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander and Olague

2.         2004.1166C                                                                        (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

3220 SACRAMENTO STREET - north side between Lyon Street and Presidio Avenue; Lot 008, in Assessor’s Block 1007  - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.1, 121.2, 303, 724.11, 724.21, 724.38 and 724.81 to modify an existing Conditional Use authorization for a Planned Unit Development under Motion No. 13578 (for Case No. 1992.498C at 3065 Jackson Street) for the expansion of an Other Institution (Large), Educational Service use (San Francisco University High School Annex Campus) at 3220 Sacramento Street; to allow an Other Institution (Large) use on the second and third floors; to allow a non-residential use size that exceeds 2,500 square feet, and on a lot that exceeds 5,000 square feet in area.  The site is within the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                        (Proposed for Continuance to September 15, 2005)

 

                        SPEAKERS:     None

                        ACTION:           Approved as proposed

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander and Olague

            3.         2004.0175DV                                                                      (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

3075 PACIFIC AVENUE - south side between Baker and Lyon Streets; Lot 014C in Assessor’s Block 975 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.01.10.4985, proposing to add a full third-story addition to a two-story single-family home in an RH-1(D) (House, One-Family (Detached Dwelling)) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is subject to a Side Yard Variance request, which was heard on July 28, 2004 (Case No. 2004.0175V). The Zoning Administrator's decision is pending.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit application as revised

(Proposed for Continuance to October 6, 2005)

 

                        SPEAKERS:     None

                        ACTION:           Approved as proposed

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander and Olague

4.         2004.0303C                                                                         (K. MCGEE: (415) 558-6367)        

401-407 VALENCIA STREET - southeast corner of Valencia and 15th Streets, Lot 029, Assessor’s Block 3554 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 726.83 and 303 of the Planning Code to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three (3) panel antennas and three (3) related equipment cabinets on an existing residential hotel, ‘The Royan Hotel,’ as a part of the Sprint PCS wireless telecommunications network within the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District, a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation, and the Mission Alcoholic Beverage RUSD.  The site is a Location Preference 6.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 11, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 6, 2005)                       

           

                        SPEAKERS:     None

                        ACTION:           Approved as proposed

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander and Olague

            5.         2004.0392ACE                                                                      (C. ROOS: (415) 558-5981)

            851 BEACH STREET (a.k.a. 900 NORTH POINT STREET / GHIRARDELLI SQUARE) -

bounded by Polk, Beach, Larkin and North Point Streets; Lot 001 in Block 0452 - Appeal of Negative Declaration.  The project includes a change of use for a portion of Ghirardelli Square, associated alterations and seismic upgrading of associated structures. The proposed project would convert all existing office use (about 62,000 gross square feet (gsf)), and some retail use (about 43,700 gsf), at Ghirardelli Square to hotel use that would include about 100 rooms (105,700 gsf).  Approximately 84,300 gsf of retail space would remain.  A Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration (PMND) analyzing the potential environmental effects of the proposed project was published, July 23, 2005.  An appeal of the PMND was filed on behalf of UNITE HERE, Local 2 by Sue C. Hestor, Esq., on August 12, 2005. The appellant withdrew the appeal in a letter dated August 31, 2005.  A Final Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued September 1, 2005.

NOTE:  This item is for Commission and public information only.  There is no action to be taken on this item.

            Appeal of Negative Declaration Withdrawn

 

B.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

            6.        Consideration of Adoption – Draft Minutes of June 16, 2005.           

 

                        ACTION:           Approved

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander and Olague

 

             7.        Commission Comments/Questions

 

Commissioner Antonini:

Re: Article in the today’s Examiner, Unaffordable Housing, written by Joe Cobb, used to be Chief Economist for the US Senate.  Basically his thesis is ‘The higher the percentage of inclusionary housing that is required by a locality, the lower the amount of housing that is produced overall.’  He points out that over the last 30 years that this has been in force we’ve only produced about 228 units statewide that classify as inclusionary.  He uses the case of Watsonville that had an inclusionary requirement of 25% for nine years and virtually nothing was built by the market.  Since it was lowered in 2000 they have increased their housing stock by 12%.  This might not be overwhelming, but it is something we should look at--how much a deterrent a particular policy is at the higher levels from the production of housing and how much does it add to the sale prices of those units that are market rate?  Would like to hear from any staff or anyone who has additional statistics on this issue and what has been the track record of this type policy in the last 20 years in California.

 

 

 

Commissioner W. Lee:

Re: Next month’s presentation by the Director of the Mayor’s Office of Housing, regarding housing issues and affordable housing -- he would like to extend the invitation to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and get their input on what other counties are doing regarding housing and affordable housing issues?

 

Commissioner Bradford-Bell:

Re: Asked everyone to pray for and help all Katrina’s Survivors.

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

8.         Director’s Announcements

           

                        None   

 

  1. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

            BOS:

  1. Supervisor Maxwell has introduced a fee ordinance that proposes to be imposed on projects approved in Executive Park and Visitacion Valley.  This ordinance will come to the Planning Commission.  Associated with that, it was the supervisors’ judgment that she should defer action on the General Plan amendment, which in fact was the item before the Board of Supervisors at the time.  The decision you made on General Plan amendments is for the Board to either approve or disapproved.   Supervisor Maxwell chooses to disapprove on the bases that she did not want any project to go forward pending the disposition of this proposed ordinance.
  2. Will attend a meeting in Visitacion Valley with the Board of Supervisors to give a status report regarding site plans and potential impacts on Executive Park.  I will also bring that committee up to date on the status of Leland Avenue.  This is one of the projects that we have under the Better Streets Project.
  3. On October 6, 2005, you will have a presentation on Green Buildings.
  4. On October 20, 2005, you will have a discussion regarding Affordable Housing.
  5. On October 27, 2005, you will have an enforcement presentation so you can be brought up to date on the enforcement program.
  6. The Board has presented a zoning map amendment for Roosevelt Way and Henry Street to zone that parcel as open space.

 

BOA:

  1. 4967-69 17th Street - dwelling unit merger.  The Commission expressed concerned about this merger even though the tenants had left.  The Board originally heard this on 8/17/05 and closed the hearing to allow Commissioner Allbright to hear the findings.  They voted to overturned the Planning Commission’s denial, and approve the merger +5 to -0, they sited that the original configuration of the building was a single family dwelling and also noted that while there was a Certificate of Final Completion, it said that this was a two-unit building.  We were not able to locate a building permit that allowed it to go from a single to two-family building.
  2. 455 Pennsylvania Street – heard in February. The Planning Commission took discretionary review and removed the fourth floor, set the third floor back by 15 feet, recessed the garage door and remove the proposed parapet. Project sponsor did not agree with the changes and asked that the permit be disapproved.  The Board upheld the Planning Commission’s determination.  They also felt it would be appropriate for the project sponsor to take advantage of the rear yard pop-up that is permitted under the code.
  3. 763 University Street - Planning Commission took discretionary review.  Your decision was appealed – The Board upheld the Planning Commission +4 to -0 and required the Planning Department to further review for conformance to Residential Design Guidelines.

            -     Regarding information on legislations:  you will find this week a summary of the Medical Cannabis Dispensaries legislation.  We are going to continue to provide you with this kind of summary as we get the legislations.  It will be a very brief outline of just the facts contained within without creating any policy issues.

 

10.        Music Concourse - Status Report.

           

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Meeting Held.  No Action

 

 

11.        Rincon Hill - Report on Final Approvals.

 

            SPEAKERS:    

            Jeffrey Leibowitz

  1. If this Nexus study proves to be faulty and it is not accurate, there is no equation between affordable housing and new development being created.  The City needs to step up to the plate and put a stop to this kind of extortion.

Jim Miko

  1. The slush fund is a development fee already agreed to by developers of all the projects affected in the Rincon Hill area.
  2. The fees would be allocated based on the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors.

ACTION:           Meeting Held.  No Action

 

  1. Green Building – Informational Presentation

ACTION:  Without hearing, moved to October 6, 2005.

 

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.

 

SPEAKERS:

Sue Hestor

Re:      1140 Potrero Demolition – A demolition project disapproved by the Planning Commission.

  1. Suggested that the Department assign or implement a better system of filing appeals at the Board of Appeals.

Jim Miko

Re: Shared some information regarding the Western-Soma Citizen Planning Task Force.

 

 

E.         CONSENT CALENDAR

 

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission.  There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

 

 

 

13.        2005.0197C                                                                          (S. YOUNG:  (415) 558-6346)

2022-2024 HAYES STREET - north side between Clayton and Cole Streets; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 1194 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 209.3(c) and 303 of the Planning Code to increase the bed capacity of an existing residential care facility, which provides drug and alcohol treatment program services ("Asian American Residential Recovery Services"), from 22 to 26 beds in an RH-3 (Residential House, Three-Family) Zoning District and a 40‑X Height and Bulk District.  No exterior modifications will be made to the existing building envelope.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

                        SPEAKERS:     None

                        ACTION:           Approved

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

                        MOTION:           17091

 

14.        2005.0529C                                                                            (M. SMITH:  (415) 558-6322)

230 WEST PORTAL AVENUE - north side between Vicente Street and 14th Avenue, Lot 012 in Assessor’s Block 2988A - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 729.41 to establish an a 886 square-foot wine bar, located in the West Portal Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District and 26-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

           

                        SPEAKERS:     None

                        ACTION:           Approved

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

                        MOTION:           17092

 

15.        2005.0485C                                                                          (M. SMITH:  (415) 558-6322)

69 & 75 West Portal Avenue - south side between Vicente and Ulloa Streets, Lots 019 and 023C in Assessor’s Block 2979A - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 729.42 to enlarge an existing full-service restaurant (Mozzarella di Bufala) by merging the space with the vacant ground floor commercial space in the adjacent building on the adjacent lot, located in the West Portal Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District and 26-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                       

                        SPEAKERS:     None

                        ACTION:           Approved

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

                        MOTION:           17093

 

  • REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

16a.      2004.1326ACV                                                                    (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)

144 King Street - north side, between 2nd and 3rd Streets; Assessor’s Block 3794, Lot 24 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to construct an 11-story, approximately 130-room hotel, per Section 216(b)(i) of the Planning Code. The property is located within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District with a 105-F Height and Bulk limit.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 1, 2005)

 

                        SPEAKERS:    

                        David Levy, representing Project Sponsor

  1. This project is an outstanding project for the City and the area.
  2. Urged Commission to approve this project.

Michael Stanton, Architect

  1. Gave an overall description of the project.

                        Harold Moose, Project Sponsor

  1. He made a statement regarding the concerns and needs for a hotel in this infrastructure.
  2. Strongly urged the Commission to approve this project.

Ernestine Weiss

  1. Asked the Commission to approve this construction.  It will be an improvement in the area and compliment the area.  It’s a perfect fit.  Please approve this and let them get started.

Ian Lewis, Unite Here Local 2

  1. The construction of this hotel will bring the kind of jobs that really contribute to the City and the community.

Jeffrey Leibowitz, Rincon Point South Beach CAC

  1. This is a great project for this community.  We requested that there be some public improvements along that alleyway because it will be their front door.

Jim Salinas, Carpenters Local 22

  1. This is a very responsible project sponsor who has chosen a very reputable and very responsible union contractor with long ties to the community.
  2. Asked the Commission for their support and to approve the project and move it forward.

Mike Newman, Swinerton Builders

-  Wants to join in on the love fest for this project and urged the commission to approve it.

                        ACTION:           Approved as amended:  Project Sponsor shall work with other associated property owners to develop a unified plan and submit it for review and approval by the Planning Director, for sidewalk and street improvements, including the alley.

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

                        MOTION:           17094

 

            16b.      2004.1326ACV                                                                       (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)         

144 KING STREET - north side, between 2nd and 3rd Streets; Assessor’s Block 3794, Lot 24  - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness, pursuant to Section 1006.2(b) of the Planning Code, for the demolition of a non-contributory building in the South End Historic District and the construction of a new 11-story hotel building. The property is located within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District with a 105-F Height and Bulk limit.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 1, 2005)

 

                        SPEAKERS:     Same as Item 16a.

                                                ACTION:           Approved as amended:  Project Sponsor shall work with other associated property owners to develop a unified plan and submit it for review and approval by the Planning Director, for sidewalk and street improvements, including the alley.

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

                        MOTION:           17095

 

 

 

            16c.      2004.1326ACV                                                                      (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)                                                     (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)                              (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)                                                     

144 KING STREET - north side, between 2nd and 3rd  Streets; Assessor’s Block 3794, Lot 24 - Request for Floor Area Ratio (FAR), Bay Projection, and Parking Variances under Sections 124, 136(c)(2) and 151 of the Planning Code. The proposed hotel building would exceed the allowable FAR (which is 5 to 1), with a proposed FAR of 6.13 to 1. Two bay projections on the front elevation of the hotel would project approximately 4’-6” over the property line, while an angled corner bay would also project approximately 4’ at its deepest point. These proposed projections exceed the maximum three-foot projection required by the Code. The proposed project would not include any off-street parking, although the project is required to provide eight off-street parking spaces. The property is located within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District with a 105-F Height and Bulk limit.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 1, 2005)

 

                        SPEAKERS:     Same as Item 16a.

                        ACTION:        Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variances subject to standard conditions of approval.

 

17.        2004.0076C                                                                                   (B. FU:  (415) 558-6613)

1350 Natoma Street - west side, between 14th and 15th Streets, Lot 089 in Assessor's Block 3548 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 215 and 303 to allow the construction of 8 residential dwelling units in a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation, and in a Housing/Mixed Use overlay as designated by Planning Commission Resolution No. 16727. The proposal is to demolish the existing industrial building and construct 8 dwelling units within a new four-story over ground floor parking garage building containing a total of 8 off-street parking spaces.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve project as revised with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 14, 2005)

 

                        SPEAKERS:

                        David Silverman, representing project sponsor

  1. This project strikes the right balance between housing density and existing neighborhood character.
  2. The new building will replace a dilapidated warehouse and will enhance the neighborhood by bringing family friendly dwellings to an area slated for more housing developments by both the General Plan and the Eastern Neighborhood Zoning policies.
  3. This is a beautifully designed building that complies with the Planning Code and deserves the Planning Commission support.

Eric Quezada, MAC

  1. Over the last couple months, MAC has been working with a group of neighbors on Natoma and Minna Streets basically looking with a compromise.
  2. We are all familiar with MAC concerns about the loss of PDR.
  3. We are not in agreement with everything that is in the plan, but we feel that this is a compromise that with came with neighbors input.
  4. We would like to present to you an alternative vision of a better project--one that meets the broader and longer-term goals.
  5. It is not a question that this particular design meets all the codes.
  6. What we want to provide is a framework that met the goals of the neighbors.
  7. We hope that in your wisdom, you look to all the alternatives that are out there, and understand that we work with many different interests.

Ciaran Scallan

  1. Opposed to project.
  2. This huge monolith of a building of 50 feet or so is not going to do anything for our neighborhood.  It is out of character.

Ted Whipple

  1. Feel that the Conditional Use application should be denied.
  2. Project is simply too big for this alley.  It is out of character.
  3. It is un-affordable to most of the neighbors.

Luke Longin

  1. Concerned about parking.

Marna Schwartz, MEDA

  1. Concerned about the need for affordable housing in that area.
  2. Many of the neighbors are unable to purchase in the area and are being displaced.
  3. If you continue to erect buildings such as the proposed development that are going to be luxury styled, there will be further displacement in the community.

Tracy Parent, MEDA

  1. Talking about family friendly dwellings -- we feel there is a big disconnect between the proposed plan, and what family friendly means for the neighbors.
  2. The families that live in this neighborhood cannot afford this kind of luxury condominium units.
  3. 70% of household in the Mission earn less than $90,000 dollars a year.
  4. Who are these units for?
  5. Asked the Commission to support the alternative plan.

Maire Sheahan

  1. Opposed to Project.

Hsing-Yen Fu

  1. Concerned about privacy.

Robert Hernandez

  1. Strongly objects and protests the 50-foot height that is proposed to be built.

Fernando Marti, MAC

  1. We need our modest market rate units for the families in the Mission District so they can stay with their community and not have to leave the neighborhood.

Mariana Viburro

  1. This project proposes to build ten luxury condominiums, which are not accessible to any family that currently lives in the vicinity.

Patricia Moore

  1. This project will be helpful for the neighborhood to grow, and will also help to solve some of the many problems we have with gangs.

Joe O’Donoghue

  1. There is no impact on tenants.
  2. We live in a rent controlled City.
  3. This project is being built on a lot where there are not tenants.

Dan McCarthy

  1. In favor of project.

Shawn Kikran

  1. In favor of project.

James Nunamacher

  1. In favor of project

Antonio Perez

  1. Supports building because it will bring pride and ownership to the neighborhood.

John O’Conor

  1. Urged the Commission to approve this project as proposed.

Peggy Lewis-Phil

-  Concerned about her privacy.

                        ACTION:           Approved a 40-foot project to maximize 2 bedroom units requiring that at least 50% of the units have 2 bedrooms.

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

                        NAYES:            Olague

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

                        MOTION:           17096

18.        2004.1257C                                                                                     (B. FU:  (415) 558-6613)

1026 Valencia Street - west side, between 21st and Hill Streets, Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 3617 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 726.43 and pursuant to Planning Code Section 303, to allow the establishment of a new ground floor large fast-food restaurant in the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District with a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation, and in a Housing/Mixed Use overlay as designated by Planning Commission Resolution No. 16727.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 1, 2005)   

 

                        SPEAKERS:

                        Jeremy Paul, representing project sponsor

  1. Asked the Commission to approve this application

Tom Given

  1. Urged the Commission to approve this application.

 

                        ACTION:           Approved as amended:  Unless applied for and receives Conditional Use authorization, there shall not be any use of the rear patio.

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

                        MOTION:           17097

 

19.        2005.0094C                                                                                (B. FU:  (415) 558-6613)

81-83 Ervine Street - east side, between Campbell Ave. and McClaren Park, Lot 033 in Assessor's Block 6190 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121(f) and 303 to construct two single-family dwellings on two lots having a lot width of less than 25’-0”, as the result of a lot split in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

                        SPEAKERS:

                        Tony Pantelioni, Architect for the project

  1. Gave an overall description and review of the project.

 

                        ACTION:           Approved

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

                        MOTION:           17098

 

 

            20.        2004.0392ACE                                                             (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

851 BEACH STREET (a.k.a. 900 NORTH POINT STREET / GHIRARDELLI SQUARE) - bounded by Polk, Beach, Larkin and North Point Streets; Lot 001 in Block 0452 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 216, 240.2 and 303 proposing to convert 62,000 square feet of existing office use and 39,000 square feet of existing retail space in six connected buildings along the Polk and North Point frontages of Ghirardelli Square to up to 101,000 square feet of tourist hotel use with up to 99 guest rooms.  The project proposes no expansion of the building envelope and minor alterations to the existing facade.  The property is in a C-2 (Community Business) District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2 and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  Ghirardelli Square is City Landmark No. 30.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                       

SPEAKERS:

Jim Reuben, representative of the Project Sponsor

  1. Gave some history, stated there was no opposition and respectfully asked the Commission to approve this application.

Mark Correnburger, Architect

  1. Gave an overall review and description of the project.
  2. The proposal is to preserve the existing historic fabric;
  3. Revitalize the uses in the upper levels; and
  4. Strengthen the structure of the buildings (that are unreinforced masonry buildings).

Ian Lewis, Unite Here Local 2

-     This hotel will bring good quality living-wage jobs to San Francisco

 

                        ACTION:           Approved with drafted conditions 

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

                                MOTION:           17099

 

21a.      2004.1272DDV                                                                   (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

600 KANSAS STREET (AKA 2111 18TH STREET) - west side south of 18th Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 4029 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.21.3730, proposing to convert the existing single-family dwelling at 600 Kansas Street into a two-family dwelling following the subdivision of an existing lot into two lots, with off-street parking provided on the newly created adjacent lot, subject to granting of a parking variance by the Zoning Administrator; in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary review and approve the building permit as it has      been submitted.

           

SPEAKERS:

Jeremy Paul, representing first Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. There are some serious design issues with this project.
  2. The orientation of this building with the rear yard facing the main living portion of the Edelson’s home is a very in-appropriate decision.
  3. He could decide to turn these buildings toward Kansas Street or 18th Street.
  4. The decision to face toward 18th Street backed-up the main living area of that house directly to the Edelson’s home in a way that is completely unnecessary for a quality project.
  5. The addition to the existing building unreasonably increases the housing density adjacent to 606 Kansas.
  6. The height and bulk are way out the norm for this neighborhood.
  7. It is a very poor design of this building.

John Carney

  1. Strongly objects to the staff recommendations.
  2. Concerned about the parking.

Mary Louise Green

  1. This new building should be facing Kansas Street, and it should be a flat not a duplex.

Babette Drefke

  1. Concerned about parking.
  2. Parking on Potrero Hill is at a premium right now.

Dick Millett

  1. Concerned about parking.
  2. Also concerned about the fire escapes.

Anne Symoa

  1. The proposed project would create little parking spaces, cutting up the open space.
  2. This building already violates the intention of the general plan by having a front yard instead of a backyard.

Nic Vereczlky

  1. This building would be out of character.
  2. It will really reduce the existing front lot size, and would take the entire corner.
  3. The original plans done and turned into the City, were reviewed properly.

Veva Edelson

  1. Presented to the Commission a petition of about 160 signatures opposing this project.

Jennifer Durrant

  1. Her concern is that the developer at the corner of 18th and Kansas Streets wishes to create a 160 x 50 foot lot and two 20 x 50 foot lots.  This will be 40% of the size of a normal Potrero Hill lot.
  2. One Potrero Hill lot should not be split into three.

Robin Myers

  1. Read a letter from David Colleen, Architect for the State of California, and resident of the Potrero Hill opposing the project.

Athena Poppas

  1. This project would have an unusual impact on privacy to neighboring interior living space.

Robert Fender

  1. Concerned about the height, loss of light, and view.
  2. The new proposed structure would block the northern view of the downtown skyline.

Dan Miller, Project Sponsor

  1. Gave a general overview of the project, and respectfully requested that the Commission approve his application.

Joel Yodowitz, representing the Project Sponsor

  1. Project Sponsor did, what a responsible Project Sponsor should do...
  2. He met several times with neighbors and Planning Department staff.

Henry Quan, Architect

  1. Generally described the project.

Scott Cross

  1. In favor of project.

Rob Fisher

This project has a lot of merits.

                        ACTION:           Meeting held.  Continued to October 20, 2005 to address design concerns.  Public hearing remains open.

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

 

            21b.      2004.1272DDV                                                                   (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

600 KANSAS STREET (AKA 2101-2103 18TH STREET) - west side south of 18th Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 4029 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.21.3740, proposing to construct a new two-family dwelling on a newly created lot at the southwest corner of Kansas and 18th Streets following the subdivision of an existing lot into two lots; in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary review and approve the building permit as it has      been submitted.

 

SPEAKERS:  Same as 21a.

                                                ACTION:           Meeting held.  Continued to October 20, 2005 to address design concerns.  Public hearing remains open.

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

 

           

            21c.      2004.1272DDV                                                                    (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

600 KANSAS STREET (AKA 2111 18TH STREET) - west side south of 18th Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 4029 - Request for Parking and Rear yard Variances to subdivide a 5,000 square-foot lot into two lots, with an existing single-family dwelling on one 2,950 square-foot-lot fronting solely on 18th Street and a proposed new two-family dwelling to be built at the corner on a 2,050 square-foot lot.  The rear yard for the existing building would    be provided within a 15-foot setback on the east side (between the existing and proposed buildings) and no off-street parking would be proposed for this lot, requiring both rear yard and parking variances; in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

 

SPEAKERS:    Same as 21a.

ACTION:           Zoning Administrator continued item to October 20, 2005.  Public hearing remains open.

 

22a.      2005.0071D                                                                              (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

                        179 SADOWA STREET - south side between Capitol and Plymouth Avenues; Lot 032 in Assessor’s Block 7138 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application Nos. 2003.12.29.3124, 2003.12.29.3125 and 2003.12.29.3124 proposing to demolish a single-family dwelling, an independent garage structure and a greenhouse in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

             (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 4, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:

Jeffrey Chang, representing Project Sponsor

-  Asked the Commission to approve this application.

                        ACTION:           No DR and approved

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

 

22b.      2005.0072D                                                                             (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

179 SADOWA STREET- south side between Capitol and Plymouth Avenues; Lot 032 in Assessor’s Block 7138 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of the replacement structures in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.12.29.3123, proposing to subdivide the lot into two lots and construct a two-story, single-family dwelling on one of the two lots in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

                         (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 4, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:

Jeffrey Chang, representing Project Sponsor

-  Asked the Commission to approve this application.

                        ACTION:    Took Discretionary Review and approved as modified:

-  Enlarge the garage area by removing the ground floor family room and its adjacent full bathroom; and

- Record a Notice of Special Restrictions on the Land Records under the Planning Code that the ground floor area shall be used as an accessory to the dwelling above.

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

 

22c.      2005.0073D                                                                               (T.WANG: (415) 558-6335)

183 SADOWA STREET - south side between Capitol and Plymouth Avenues; Lot 032 in Assessor’s Block 7138 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of the replacement structures in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.12.29.3131 proposing to subdivide the lot into two lots and construct a two-story, single-family dwelling on one of the two lots in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 4, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:

Jeffrey Chang, representing Project Sponsor

-  Asked the Commission to approve this application.

                        ACTION:           Took Discretionary Review and approved as modified:

-  Enlarge the garage area by removing the ground floor family room and its adjacent full bathroom; and

- Record a Notice of Special Restrictions on the Land Records under the Planning Code that the ground floor area shall be used as an accessory to the dwelling above

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

                       

 

23.        2005.0091D                                                                       (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

1234 PAGE STREET - north side between Baker and Lyon Streets; Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 1220 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.13.3211, proposing to legalize the building’s use from three units to two units, 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 building permit application.

 

SPEAKERS:

Chris Klingebiel, Project Sponsor

  1. Described the project and the reasons for it.  Asked the Commission to approve his application.

                        ACTION:           Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the request

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander and W. Lee

 

            24.        2005.0472D                                                                       (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

4054 20TH Street - north side, between Noe & Sanchez Streets, Lot 020, Assessor’s Block 3601 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2005.03.18.7894, to construct a three-story horizontal and vertical addition to the rear of the existing single-family dwelling. The subject property is located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family, ) District in a 40-X Height and Bulk District and in the Dolores Heights Special Use District.

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

 

SPEAKERS:

Joseph Sidas, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. The proposed project is out of scale.
  2. This third floor addition will seriously impact his property.

Bernard (unclear last name)

-  Opposes the project.

Mark Thomas

  1. In favor of Discretionary Review.

Rolland Treiko

  1. Concerned about his privacy.

                        Johan Multan, Architect, representing Project Sponsor

  1. Gave an overall description of the project.
  2. Requested that the Commission approve this project.

Joe Skanka

  1. Opposed to Discretionary Review and supports the project.

Kevin Murphy

  1. In favor of the Project.
  2. There will be very minimal impact to the neighborhood.

Jeremy Stone

  1. Respectfully asked the Commission to approve her project
  2. Needs to expand to be able to raise her children in San Francisco

No name stated

  1. Read a letter from John Eickan and Philip Fenster, giving their full support for the project.

Paul Manzer

  1. Spoke in support of the project.

 

Alice Poppers

  1. Read a letter from a neighbor, expressing their full support for the project.

Andrew Murdock

  1. In full support of the project.

Donald Kay

  1. Ready a letter from a neighbor who could not attend but supports the project.

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

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

 

            25.        2004.1233D                                                                       (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

2549 POST STREET - south side between Baker and Lyon Streets; Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 1081 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.10.14.6841, proposing to legalize the installation of property-line windows on the east side of the three-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 building permit application.

 

SPEAKERS:     None

                        ACTION:           Without hearing continued to October 6, 2005.

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

                        ABSENT:          Alexander

 

6:00 P.M.8:10 P.M.

 

26.      2005.0524T                                                                            (S. DENNIS: (415) 558-6314)

BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS PLUS TEXT AMENDMENTS   - Consideration of an Ordinance [Board of Supervisors File Number 050601] which would establish a “Better Neighborhoods Planning and Implementation Process” by (a) adding Chapter 36 to the Administrative Code in order to set forth uniform procedures for developing comprehensive neighborhood plans, (b) amending Administrative Code Section 3.4 to provide for integrated budget documents, and (c) adding Section 312A to the Planning Code regarding discretionary review for projects located within plan areas.

Preliminary Recommendation: Commission Holds Public Hearing

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 14, 2005)

NOTE:  On August 4, 2005, following public testimony, the commission president directed that this iteM be calendared for discussion at all commission hearings through september 15, 2005—with possible action on september 15, 2005.

 

SPEAKERS:    

Mary Helen Baiscor

  1. Better Neighborhood Plus Plan will limit our input on various projects
  2. Better Neighborhood Plus will weaken the Planning Code and is likely to be destructive to neighborhoods.
  3. There is no guarantee that this will reflect the neighborhood’s needs or characters. But there is every chance that it will be an imposition by others.  That is not in our best interest.
  4. Why are you in such hurry to make such significant changes?  These changes that might be potentially destructive.
  5. Urged the Commission to take more time to consider and amend this plan or amend the Planning Code itself.

Ron Miguel

  1. One of his concerns is the appropriateness of applying the legislation [to] an area of 40 acres or more.  40 acres is too small.

Joe Boss

  1. Expressed his concerns about the need analysis and impact analysis, not being the financial responsibility of the development project.

  Tim Colen

  1. Supports the efforts of the remarkable working group who came together to draft this legislation.
  2. San Francisco needs to grow and change and the key to do this essentially is with the type of planning contemplated in this legislation.

Alice Barkley

  1. Requested that Rincon Hill be exempted from this legislation.

Jim Meko

  1. Spoke in favor of the legislation.

Dave Bisho

  1. Asked Commission for a time extension of 45 days before a decision is made.

Hiroshi Fukuda

  1. Opposes the legislation

Kenneth Kruszka

  1. Read a letter from Mary Burns, President, Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association, requesting the Commission to grant an extension.

John Bardis

  1. It is really pretty remarkable.  You’ll be asked by some group that was not planning staff, to participate in a non-public process to accept legislation that was part of a backroom session and then introduce it to the Board of Supervisors.

Jeffrey Leibowitz

  1. What legislation are we discussing here?
  2. What legislation is going to be forward to the Board of Supervisors?
  3. Concerned about whether or not the studies, particularly for the Eastern SOMA--the improvement and funding studies that were called out in the legislation, are being conducted now by the Planning Department.

 

 

Judith Berkowitz

  1. Any change by the City to Land Use Controls, the Planning Code, and the planning implementation process should be accomplished by amending the Planning Code not the Administrative Code.  A process that fundamentally defines planning should be in the Planning Code, not in the Administrative Code.
  2. Requested that this legislation be sent back to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendations to be placed in the Planning Code.

Marilyn Amini

  1. There is a lot to address regarding this legislation.  There was no public notification or process.  Land use controls should be part of the Planning Code instead of the Administrative Code.

Bernard (unclear last name)

  1. We would like far more discussion.  There should be further delays by the Board of Supervisors, and your recommendations to the Board.

Emery Coleman

  1. Opposed to the legislation.
  2. More studies should be done.
  3. Does not trust the Planning Department.

ACTION:           Meeting Held. No Action

 

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))

 

SPEAKERS:

  • 1.John Bardis

Re: Application Permit Process.

 

  • 2.Marilyn Amini

Re: Commission’s 90 days review period of Board legislations.

 

Adjournment: 9:20 P.M.

 

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2006.

 

SPEAKERS       None

ACTION:            Approved

AYES:               S. Lee; M. Antonini; Bradford-Bell; K. Hughes; C. Olague

ABSENT:           D. Alexander; W. Lee

 

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