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

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

September 22, 2005

September 22, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, September 22, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:    Dwight Alexander; Michael Antonini; Shelley Bradford-Bell; Kevin Hughes; Sue Lee; Christina Olague; and William Lee

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:40 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Ben Fu; Sharon Young; Michael Li; Daniel Sirois; Michael Smith; Elaine Tope; Joy Navarrete; Dan Sider; Jonathan Purvis; 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.         2003.1108E                                                                            (V. MASS: (415) 558-5955)

450 FREDERICK STREET - Lot 012 of Assessor’s Block 1262, bounded by Stanyan, Beulah and Shrader Streets - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed demolition of a single-family residence and construction of a three-unit residence.  The existing building is a 1,755-gross-square-foot (gsf) one-story-over-garage, single-family home, constructed in approximately 1897.  The proposed project would result in the construction of a 5,550-gsf, four-story, three-unit residential building.  The approximately 1,240-gsf ground floor would be used as a garage for the proposed three off-street parking spaces.  The remaining three floors would each contain one two-bedroom dwelling unit.  The proposed project would rise 40 feet from street level to the top of the parapet.  The site is zoned RH-3 (House, Three-Family) and is in a 40-X height and bulk district. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative  Declaration

                       (Proposed for continuance to October 27, 2005)

                       

                        SPEAKERS:     None

                        ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

                       ABSENT:           Olague

 

            2.         2004.0916L                                                                        (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

900 INNES AVENUE - northeast side between Griffith and Winters Point Boulevard. Assessor's Block 4646 and Lot 007 - Request for Landmark Designation under Planning Code Sections 1004.1, 1004.2 as City Landmark No. 250.  The subject property is within an NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial - Small Scale) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 1, 2005)   

            Proposed for indefinite continuance)

 

                        SPEAKERS:     None

                        ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

                       ABSENT:           Olague

 

            3.         2004.1162D                                                                 (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

266-272 CUMBERLAND STREET - north side between Church and Sanchez Streets.  Assessor's Block 3600 Lot 076 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No.2004 0809 1048 to construct a one story vertical addition to the existing three story building, in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.   

Preliminary Recommendation:  Take Discretionary Review, disapprove the vertical addition and allow interior modifications as proposed.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 11, 2005)

             project sponsor withdrew the permitAPPLICATION.

 

B.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

            4.         Commission Comments/Questions

            Commissioner Hughes:

  1. Requested a joint hearing with the Building Inspection Commission, regarding matters of mutual interest, related data management in the MIS system, on-going customer service and ways in which we might review and improve those aspects for both departments and how they interrelate to each other. Also a discussion, regarding the implementation of Better Neighborhoods Plus, and demolitions as it relates to permits that they see regarding alterations.

           

            Zoning Administrator responded:

  1. He is informed that the Building Inspection Commission would love to meet with the Planning Commission.
  2. They are also asking for the same.  There are certainly issues of mutual concern.


Commissioner Secretary responded to Commissioner Hughes request:

  1. A joint hearing will depend on the availability of space, but will try to get it in before the end of this year.

Commissioner Bradford-Bell:

  1. Requested that the commission reactivate the 10:00 p.m. policy.
  2. Our meetings have been running tike marathon sessions for the last few meetings.
  3. She personally will be instituting her own 10:00 p.m. policy.
  4. Our Planning Commission Secretary, who is a phenomenal person and does an incredible amount of work…  I had the opportunity to be here with her after our hearing.  She has to clean the room after we all leave.  She does it by herself.  I am letting her know that I will make sure that I do my part to be as helpful as possible and hope that my fellow commissioners and members of public would help us also.

 

Commissioner W. Lee:

  1. Requested all fellow Commissioners to work with the staff.
  2. Mentioned an e-mail from Sara Vellve regarding her concerns about when the Commission changes the scheduled order of hearings and how that affects/cost staff time, costs the City money, and causes anxiety for the staff when they then can’t get here on time.

Commissioner Antonini:

  1. Fee Study – requested that a copy be distributed to all Commissioners.

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

  1. Director’s Announcements
  2. In response to a couple of the commissioner’s concerns/delight about spending time with staff into the late hours--there are a couple of things we have been thinking about and will share those ideas with you in a memo.  For instance, there are a variety of different ways of taking public comment on an item, for example.  The Board of Permit Appeals stipulates that if you are member of the party that is on appeal you get a certain amount of time (like we give 5 minutes for the discretionary review applicant).  Another idea, and I think we implemented it today, is to expand the use of the consent calendar.
  3. Announced to the Commission that Dan Sider has been selected to be the Board of Supervisors’ liaison.

 

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

BOS:

  1. Two ordinances were reviewed: the Baby Diaper Changing Resolution introduced by Supervisor Sandoval – the ordinance was passed on first reading.
  2. Supervisor McGoldrick’s changes to the Section 311 of the Planning Code.  As the Zoning Administrator mentioned last week, the Board of Supervisors took two of the Planning Commission recommendations and also passed it on first reading.
  3. Both items will appear before the Board for final action next week.
  4. Three CEQA appeals were scheduled to be heard by the Board.  None these were heard. 
  5. The Quonset hut appeal on 20th Street – Appeal of the environmental document was withdrawn.
  6. At the Land Use Committee:
  7. 150 Otis Street (Former Juvenile Hall) passed to the full board for consideration as a landmark.
  8. Better Neighborhood Plus – Supervisor McGoldrick introduced a resolution to allow you more time to review it.  The new review period expires October 7, 2005.
  9. Supervisor Mirkarimi is interested in pursuing changes to the Planning Code in order to include the new Octavia Boulevard within the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District.
  10. Supervisor McGoldrick has introduced a resolution for adoption.  This resolution would urge our department to require, as part of all building permit applications, a three-disclosure statement.

 

BOA:

  1. The Green Cross on 22nd and Guerrero is a Medical Cannabis Dispensary that was raising extensive neighborhood discussions. The permit was suspended.  A hearing was held on July 15 where it was ultimately determined and issued a draft of a series of 28 conditions.  Ultimately, they were submitted to the Board of Appeals with the recommendation to overturn his (the Zoning Administrator) recommendation of suspension and impose these conditions.  The Dispensary decided to move to another district.

 

  1. Department’s Work Program and Budget – Status Report
  1. Zoning Administrator announced that Alicia John-Baptiste, Chief Financial Officer, was out of office last week, and requested this item be continued 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:

            Marilyn Amini

  1. Formally requested that the Medical Cannabis Dispensaries come back to the Commission.

Shawn Gorman

  1. Expressed concerns about the legislation that Supervisor McGoldrick forwarded to the full Board of Supervisors regarding the 311 notifications.

Espanola Jackson

  1. Expressed concerns about Better Neighborhoods Plus.

Francisco DeCosta

  1. Addressed issues regarding the Office of Emergency Services.
  2. Planning Commission should have some sense of development in the City and work with other agencies so it something happens we have some standard operating procedures in place.
  3. One component of the Better Neighborhoods Plus legislation is the element that is going to be introduced that places it in the Administrative Code.  Why has it been taken from the Planning Department and put into the Administrative Code?

Judy Berkowitz

  1. Expressed concerns about the Pre-Application process.

 

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.

 

SPEAKERS:

Javier de la Garza, Representing Project Sponsor for 401 University

  1. This facility would be a part of the Sprint PCS infrastructure and will improve the services for Sprint PCS subscribers and community.

            Francisco DeCosta

  1. Planning Commissioners have to bear in mind that whether it is a State, Federal or Local law, they have to address the safety of constituents.

Peter Chau

  1. Do not let another wireless carrier come into our community.
  2. Please let our senior residents and other residents have a peaceful life

Russell Clark, Sprint PCS

  1. Our goal is to provide adequate service.
  2. We cannot provide quality service if we do not have the necessary coverage in the necessary areas.

Espanola Jackson

  1.          Our community is surrounded by wireless antennas.  We do not want more.

Howard Woo

  1. Respectfully asked the Commission to deny Sprint PCS their application at 401 University.

Nick KuKulica

  1. Sprint has followed all the guidelines from the Planning Department.

 

 

  1. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

 

8a.        2004.0374CR                                                                                (B. FU:  (415) 558-6613)

401 University Street - southeast corner of University and Bacon Streets, Lot 002, Assessor’s Block 5973 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 234.2 and 303 to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three panel antennas and related equipment cabinet on a new 30’-0” high, 6.5” to 8” thick flagpole on a vacant Location Preference 1 lot as a part of Sprint’s wireless telecommunications network within a P (Public) Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

NOTE: On September 1, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and passed a motion of intent to deny by a vote +4 –2.  Commissioners Antonini and Alexander voted no.  Commissioner Bradford-Bell was absent.  Final Language on September 22, 2005.

           

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Disapproved

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

            NAYES:            Alexander and Antonini

            MOTION:           17107

 

            8b.        2004.0374CR                                                                                (B. FU:  (415) 558-6613)

401 University Street - southeast corner of University and Bacon Streets, Lot 002, Assessor’s Block 5973 - Request for General Plan Referral pursuant to 4.105 of the City Charter to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three panel antennas and related equipment cabinet on a new 30’-0” high, 6.5” to 8” thick flagpole on a vacant Location Preference 1 lot as a part of Sprint’s wireless telecommunications network within a P (Public) Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

NOTE: On September 1, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and passed a motion of intent to deny by a vote +4 –2.  Commissioners Antonini and Alexander voted no.  Commissioner Bradford-Bell was absent.  Final Language on September 22, 2005.

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Disapproved

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

            NAYES:            Alexander and Antonini

            MOTION:           17108

 

G.         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.

 

9.         2004.0832Q                                                                          (S. Young: (415) 558-6346)

            2145 CALIFORNIA STREET - south side between Laguna and Buchanan Streets, Lot 22 in Assessor’s Block 0651, five-unit residential condominium conversion in an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to change the existing 5-unit residential building to a condominium form of ownership and does not involve expansion, alteration, or demolition of the existing building.

                        Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 11, 2005)

                       

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Approved

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

            MOTION:           17110

 

10.        2004.0633C                                                                                   (M. Li (415) 558-6396)

268-272 McAllister Street - north side between Larkin and Hyde Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 0347 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility for Cingular Wireless (consisting of three antennas and four equipment cabinets) on the McAllister Hotel.  One antenna will be attached to the side of an existing rooftop penthouse, one antenna will be concealed inside a false vent pipe on the roof, and one antenna will be attached to the front façade of the building.  The equipment cabinets will be located in the basement of the building.  The project site is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District, and an 80-T Height and Bulk District.  The proposed facility meets Location Preference 5 of the WTS Facilities Siting Guidelines.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Approved

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

            NAYES:            Bradford-Bell and Olague

 

ITEMS 11a. AND 11b. PULLED OF CONSENT CALENDAR AND HEARD AFTER THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

 

11a.      2005.0282d                                                                         (d. sirois: (415) 558-6313)

3975 19th street - north side, between Sanchez & Noe, Lot 089, Assessor’s Block 3601 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application 2005.04.01.8981, to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

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

 

11b.      2005.0283D                                                                          (D.SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

3975 19th Street - north side, between Sanchez & Noe, Lot 089, Assessor’s Block 3601 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.04.01.8983, proposing to construct a six-story, two unit residential building with two off-street parking in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

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

 

12a.      2004.0284D                                                                             (D.SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

206 Acadia Street - east side, cross street Joost, Lot 022, Assessor’s Block 6767 -Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application 2004.02.18.6669, to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

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

 

12b.      2005.0680D                                                                             (D.SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

206 Acadia Street - east side, cross street Joost, Lot 022, Assessor’s Block 6767 -Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.02.18.6670, proposing to construct a three-story, single-family residential building with two off-street parking in an RH-1 (Residential, House, 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.

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

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

 

            13a.      2005.0107D                                                                        (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

206 SURREY STREET - north side between Van Buren Street and Lippard Avenue, Lot 021 in Assessor's Block 6730 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.04.04.1519, proposing to demolish a two-story single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

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

 

13b.      2005.0154D                                                                        (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

206 SURREY STREET - north side between Van Buren Street and Lippard Avenue, Lot 021 in Assessor's Block 6730 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.04.1517, proposing to construct a two-story over garage single-family dwelling, located in a 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 as proposed

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Did not take Discretionary Review and Disapproved

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

 

  • REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

            14a.      2003.0295CDV                                                                      (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

899 NORTH POINT STREET - southeast corner of North Point and Larkin Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 0026 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 209.1 and 228.3 of the Planning Code to convert a service station use to residential use and to construct an approximately 40-foot tall, 4-story, 5-unit residential structure containing 7 off-street parking spaces in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2 and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  The project site was formerly a service station and is now vacant.  This project is also seeking a Variance from the Planning Code, and is the subject of a request for Discretionary Review. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 11, 2005)         

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to October 27, 2005.

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

            ABSENT:          Olague

 

            14b.      2003.0295CDV                                                                      (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

899 NORTH POINT STREET - southeast corner of North Point and Larkin Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 0026 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.25.3201, proposing to construct an approximately 40-foot tall, 4-story, 5-unit residential structure containing 7 off-street parking spaces in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2 and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  This project is also seeking a Variance from the Planning Code, and requires Conditional Use authorization.

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

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 11, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to October 27, 2005.

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

            ABSENT:          Olague

 

            14c.      2003.0295CDV                                                                    (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

                        899 NORTH POINT STREET - southeast corner of North Point and Larkin Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 0026 - Request for Variance from the rear yard requirements of Planning Code Section 134.  The proposal is to construct an approximately 40-foot tall, 4-story, 5-unit residential structure containing 7 off-street parking spaces in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2 and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. A Variance is required to construct an approximately 40’ X 22’ portion of the project fully into the rear yard along North Point Street, leaving a comparable rear yard to the interior corner of the lot of approximately 1,480 square feet.  This project also requires Conditional Use authorization, and is the subject of a request for Discretionary Review.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 11, 2005)

           

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to October 27, 2005.

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

            ABSENT:          Olague

 

15.        2005.0522C                                                                           (E. TOPE: (415) 558-.6316)

3041-3045 FILLMORE STREET - west side between Filbert and Union Streets, Lot 004 in Assessor’s Block 0534 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 725.38 and 790.84 to allow a conversion from residential to nonresidential use on the second floor of a building in the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  The proposal is to convert an approximately 1,280 square foot two-bedroom flat to office use (to be used in conjunction with Fredericksen’s Paint store located on the ground floor).

            Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 11, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:    

            Malcolm Morrison, Architect, representing Project Sponsor

  1. Gave a brief description of the project.
  2. My client wishes to use their building to sustain and enhance their business.
  3. The second floor conversion would be a compatible use mitigated by no changes to the exterior of the building and very little change to the interior.

Dennis Drobiazch, Project Sponsor

  1. We need room to offer all the services that our customers desire.
  2. The space above our paint shop would be ideal for expansion of our clerical department, as well as an excellent location to offer home improvements and home improvement classes for our customers.
  3. We have never asked the Commission anything, except approval of the paint store.
  4. With increased competition from other retailers, we feel we need more space to achieve our goal and to survive in this very competitive retail business.

Mary Drobiazch

  1. Asked the Commission to approve their application.

Linda Galego.

  1. We are the oldest hardware store in San Francisco. Our method of success has always relied on our ability to be flexible. 
  2. The community around us is changing, and so must we.

Francisco DeCosta

  1. Spoke in support of the project.

Louis Beta

  1. Supports the expansion for the conference room and learning center.

 

                        ACTION:           Approved

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

                        NAYES:            Olague

                        MOTION:           17111

 

16.        2004.0546CE                                                              (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

680 Illinois Street - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. On Lots 3 and 7 of Block 3994, the project would demolish two concrete warehouse/garage structures at 680 Illinois Street and 550 18th Street and construct one 50-foot tall building consisting of 35 dwelling units, 9,128 square feet of retail/commercial space, and about 35 off-street parking spaces.  The project would include 74,012 square feet in five-stories, and four commercial spaces on the ground floor.  The 50,966-sf residential uses would have open space provided through a second story deck.  The 10,580 sf parking garage would be at the ground floor and accessed from Illinois Street. The two warehouse structures located at 680 Illinois Street (or 2075 Third Street) and 550 18th Street are included in the Central Waterfront Cultural Resource Survey, the M-2 zoning district, and 50-X height and bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

            (Continued from the Regular Meeting of September 15, 2005)

 

                        SPEAKERS:    

            Allan Landsberg, First Appellant

  1. Requested to the Commission that a complete Environmental Impact Report be prepare for this project.
  2. His concerns are based on five specific areas: land use, transportation, air quality, hazardous materials and visual quality.
  3. Land use related concerns are based on the project’s contributions are continuing to whittle away the viable land for PDR activities.

Patrick Mooney, Second Appellant

  1. We are not opposed to development in the area.
  2. We do believe that this is a unique opportunity because this neighborhood is going through a rebirth.
  3. There has not been consideration given to parking.

            James Halloran, Local 22

  1. Concerned about the hazardous materials and the lack of documentation of those materials.
  2. Some 50 years ago, there were several stored tanks removed from the site.  There is no documentation of the process in which they were removed or of any potential hazard that was in place at that time.
  3. A building in this area may have many different concerns--possible asbestos exposure.
  4. There is quite possibly lead paint exposure within the building and its exterior.

David Cortez, Local 22

  1. Concerned about parking.
  2. This project is going to be a negative impact to our members.
  3. Urged the Commission to conduct an investigation of how the lack of parking is going to affect the traffic and air quality in the area.

Gary Cooley

  1. Asked the Commission to reject the conditional use application for this project, because it does not meet the high standards established by the City for granting the permit.
  2. This project as proposed does not have enough parking for all of its commercial spaces.
  3. It will rely in part on street parking and result in [people] driving around until a space becomes available.
  4. Parking is even worse when the Giants are playing at home.

  Judith Gatewood

  1. Asked the Commission to reject the conditional use for this project, because it does not address the project’s impact on both the members and the workers of Local 22.

Shawn Leonard

-  Opposes the project.

Jason DeCook

  1. It is inappropriate to continue building residential structures in an area that needs production, distribution and repair uses.

Pat Mulligan

  1. Urged the Commission to reject the negative declaration for 680 Illinois Street.

 

Hector Cardenas

  1. Opposes the project.
  2. Concerned about the traffic issue.

Sylvia Reynolds

  1. Asked the Commission to reject the negative declaration.

No name stated

  1. Concerned about traffic.

Aaron Gruss

  1. The findings of this mitigated negative declaration regarding the historic buildings on the site, are not consistent or adequate.
  2. About four years ago the Planning Department conducted a historic resource survey in the Waterfront area.  That survey resulted in the creation of a potential historic district to which these buildings are contributors.
  3. A survey advisory committee made up of 13 qualified professionals from across the City reviewed the survey results. They included the Planning Department, S.F. Architectural Heritage, Landmarks Board, Architectural Resources, Port of San Francisco, S.F. Beautiful, Page & Turnbull and The California Office of Historic Preservation.
  4. When they reviewed the findings they requested the following conditions: “establish justifiable boundaries of the district, define the characteristics of contributory buildings to the district and create a list of structures that would be contributors and non-contributors to the district”
  5. This works has not been completed. 
  6. The Planning Department needs to provide more information about this potential district before we can determine the impact this project will have.

Joe Bass

  1. Read a letter from the Dogpatch Association, requesting that the Commission require that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared.

Francisco DeCosta

  1. Concerned about quality of life issues that have not been addressed in this negative declaration.

Tomas McCarthy

  1. Opposed to project because of the lack of clarifications on environmental issues involve with this project.
  2. This project should be subject to a very careful environmental review.

Luke Vratny

  1. This project is a logistic nightmare to all our union members.

Catherine Chase

  1. Concerned about parking and hazardous materials.

John Sanger, representing Project Sponsor

  1. This preliminary negative declaration has covered all issues.  This was not a rush job. It has been one long year.
  2. The environmental study was conducted by an independent organization, ICS, and determined that there was no obvious contamination present.
  3. Of course asbestos is sometimes found in buildings that are more than 50 years old, and these buildings are proximately 50-55 years old.

            MOTION:           To uphold the appeal

            AYES:              Hughes and Olague

            NAYES:            Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, and W. Lee

ABSENT:          S. Lee

RESULT:           The motion failed.  The Negative Declaration is upheld.

MOTION:           17112

 

17.        2004.0546C                                                                                (B. Fu: (415) 558-6613)

680 Illinois Street - northwest corner of Illinois and 18th Streets, Lots 003 & 007 in Assessor's Block 3994 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 215, 303, and 304 to create a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow the construction of up to 35 dwelling units, 7,000 square feet of commercial space, and 41 independently accessible off-street parking spaces within a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation, and in the Housing/Mixed Use Zone as designated by Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202.  Exceptions are requested from density, off-street parking, and permitted obstructions, as mandated by the Planning Code.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of September 15, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:    

            John Sanger, Representing Project Sponsor.

  1. Gave a general description of the project.

Eva Hom

  1. Supports this project because it is located in an area that is well served by transit.

Reed Shelby

  1. Concerned about he parking issues.

Marge Vincent

  1. Read some letters from some of the residents in the area supporting this project.

Marty Wolf

  1. This project is very welcome in our neighborhood.

Johanne Gormley

  1. Is in support of the project.

Manuel Alvarado

  1. Supports the project because the City needs beauty and that is what we are going to have at 680 Illinois St.

Dierdre Cassidy

  1. In support of the project.

Randy Thume

  1. This project has the full support of most of the neighbors in the area.

Pat Mulligan

  1. This project does not fit in the Central Waterfront Plan.

            No name stated

  1. Asked the Commission to reject the conditional use application.

  Jim Halloran

  1. There is a huge concern about public safety.
  2. If a project is going to be built there, the project must be abated properly prior to the beginning of construction.

Joe Boss

  1. We all recognize that we need to produce housing.  And yet, here is a project that will stick up to 50 feet in an area that when the Planning Department finishes it could be 60 or 65 feet.
  2. It is unfortunate to allow this conditional use to move forward when you quite possibly are leaving 15 or 20 residential units aside.  This will be rather tragic.

Jim Salinas Sr.

  1. Our members will be greatly impacted.
  2. This type of project is devastating to the neighborhood.

James Nunemacher

  1. Our goal is to contribute good quality, high quality housing to San Francisco.
  2. Asked the Commission to approve the conditional use application.

Judith Gatewood

  1. It is extremely disingenuous to say that the developer has repeatedly met with Local 22 staff and the Executive Board of the Dogpatch association.
  2. It is the duty of the Planning Commission to make this City livable for everyone.

 

ACTION:           Public hearing was held and remains open.  To address a noticing problem, the item is continued to October 27, 2005.

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

            ABSENT:          S. Lee

 

              18a.     2005.0868ETM                                                                      (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

Establishing a Visitacion Valley Community Facilities and Infrastructure Fee and Fund. - Consideration of an Ordinance adding Planning Code Sections 319 through 319.7 to impose a $4.58 per square foot fee on new residential development in the Visitacion Valley area, to establish a Visitacion Valley Community Facilities and Infrastructure Fund to mitigate impacts from residential development on public infrastructure in Visitacion Valley including libraries, streets, playgrounds, recreational facilities, and community centers, and making findings including findings under the California Environmental Quality Act

            INFORMATIONAL ONLY

           

SPEAKERS:

Espanola Jackson

  1. Executive Park has always been residential.  It has never been a mixed-use area.

Francisco DeCosta

  1. It is wrong for some ordinance to propose to the Planning Department and the constituents to build a street, swimming pool, park, library, or open space without due process.
  2. The meeting that was held at Visitacion Valley--60% of the people did not know anything about what was going to be done.
  3. It has to be an open process.

John King

  1. Read the Executive Park Executive Committee resolution on behalf of his father, who was unable to make this meeting.  In the letter they urged the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to not approve the proposed fee ordinance.

George Yurvee

  1. Opposes the ordinance.

Erick Harrison

  1. He is concerned about the timing of the payment, the amount of the fee, and [lack of] certainty.
  2. Unlike other areas in City, we have a substantial amount of infrastructure and site preparation work we need to do before we start building on the residential building infrastructures.

Michael Burk

  1. We all win with the project is built.  The developers get the projects up.  We get more housing, and there are fees that come through and support community facilities.  But if the developer cannot finance his project, we all loose.  Timing is the key issue here.

Barry Freeland

  1. Fees like these make projects less viable.  They make us look harder to try to figure out where to get the money.  It has the potential of killing jobs.

ACTION:           INFORMATIONAL ONLY. NO ACTION

 

18b       2005.0868ETM                                                                        (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

General Plan Amendment in connection with the Executive Park/Candlestick Cove Project. - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco General Plan in connection with approvals for the proposed Executive Park -- Candlestick Cove Project; adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and adopting findings that the General Plan amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the eight Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

INFORMATIONAL ONLY

 

SPEAKERS:       Same as Item # 18a.

ACTION:            INFORMATIONAL ONLY. NO ACTION

 

TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND FOLLOWED #17

 

             19a.     2005.0626D                                                                          (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

3350 20th STREET - northwest corner of 20th and Shotwell Streets; Lot 015 in Assessor’s Block 3594 - Request for Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.11.19.9724 to demolish a one-story Quonset hut used as a artist’s live-work studio, and replace it with a mixed-use building with six dwelling units over garage and commercial space in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Use

District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take DR and Approve the Demolition.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 4, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:

            Nick Paguaro, Mission Ant-Displacement Coalition

  1. The proposed project at this site is to build more market rate housing, which is not what we need in our neighborhood.
  2. The Mission District is historically an artist community. It values the vibrancy of its culture.
  3. One of the reasons why the character of the Mission is changing is because this sort of project is allowed to come in and take away these resources.

Unclear name

  1. There have been more PDR displacements and there are no zoning controls.
  2. The lots of Quonset Hut is really significant and offers flexible use for artist.
  3. It is also significant in terms of displacement pressures on PDR businesses

Malia Chavez

  1. Encouraged the Planning Commission to please not to displace the Quonset Hut.
  2. Quonset Hut is really representative of flexible use places.

Jose Carrasco

  1. This is authentic art space for people to create.  Art is shrinking in the Mission year by year.
  2. Quonset Hut is perfectly suited for this kind of thing.
  3. Keeping the Quonset Hut will preserve the culture and ethnic character and continuity of the Mission District.

Lou Blazej, representing Project Sponsor

  1. Project Sponsor would be willing to entertain a serious offer to sell the building if the neighborhood group had the money.
  2. Unfortunately, the Discretionary Review Requestor is using this appeal process to try to frustrate this development so they can kind of force a sale.
  3. This building right now is not for sale.
  4. Asked the Commission to not use their discretionary power in this type transaction, which is very unfair.
  5. Also gave a brief description of the project.

            Joe Perella

  1. Is in favor of the project.

Allan Callahan, one of the building owners

  1. Asked the Commission to approve their project.

 

            ACTION:           Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

            AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee

            NAYES:            Bradford-Bell and Olague

            ABSENT:          S. Lee

 

            19b.      2004.1022D                                                                           (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

3350 20th STREET - northwest corner of 20th and Shotwell Streets; Lot 015 in Assessor’s Block 3594 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.11.19.9736 to build a five-story building with six dwelling units over garage and commercial space following demolition of a commercial live/work studio in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Use District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 4, 2005)

           

            SPEAKERS:     Same as Item #19a.

            ACTION:           Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

            AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee

            NAYES:            Bradford-Bell and Olague

            ABSENT:          S. Lee

 

I           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: 9:04 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 10:00:18 PM