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

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

November 3, 2005

November 3, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, November 3, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:           S. Lee

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT DWIGHT ALEXANDER AT 1:39 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Tim Blomgren, Dan Sider, Adam Light, Isolde Wilson, Glen Cabreros, Rick Crawford, Mary Woods, Dan DiBartolo, Tom Wang, Jonas Ionin – Acting 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.

 

1a.        2004.0782D                                                                           (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)                                                                                                (

163 COLLINGWOOD STREET, east side between 18th and 19th Streets, Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 2695, Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.01.13.3183, proposing to demolish a one-story over garage single-family dwelling, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                         Preliminary Recommendation:  Pending

                        (Proposed for Continuance to November 10, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to November 10, 2005

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT:          Bradford-Bell and S. Lee

 

1b.        2004.0783D                                                                          (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)                                                                                  (

163 COLLINGWOOD STREET, east side between 18th and 19th Streets, Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 2695, 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. 2005.01.13.3186, proposing to construct a three-story over garage three-family dwelling, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:   Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to November 10, 2005)

                       

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to November 10, 2005

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT:          Bradford-Bell and S. Lee

 

            2.         2002.1129E                                                                           (L. GIBSON:  (415) 558-5993)

San Francisco Marina Renovation Project - Public hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).  The proposed project is the renovation of the San Francisco Marina at 3950 Scott Street (Assessor’s Block 900, Lot 003). Water-side improvements would include installation and removal of breakwater structures; reconstruction of degraded rip-rap shoreline slopes; maintenance dredging; replacement and reconfiguration of the floating docks and slips; replacement of gangways and security gates; installation and refurbishment of oily water and sewage pumpout facilities; and upgrade of electrical, water, and lighting services on the docks.  Land-side improvements would include renovation of marina restroom, shower, and office buildings; conversion of the vacant former Navy Degaussing Station into office space; construction of a new 1,000-square-foot maintenance building; and restriping of existing parking lots. The project site is within a P (Public) Use District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  No Action Required. Public hearing to receive comments only.

Note:  A public hearing on the Draft EIR was held on October 6, 2005.  At the request of the Planning Commission, an additional hearing on the Draft EIR was calendared for November 3, 2005.  The hearing is now proposed for continuance to November 17, 2005, with the public review period to be extended to 5 PM on November 28, 2005.

(Proposed for Continuance to November 17, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to November 17, 2005

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT:          Bradford-Bell and S. Lee

 

3.         2004.0984C                                                                           (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-5263)

2690-2696 GEARY BOULEVARD - northeast corner of Geary Boulevard and Emerson Street; Lot 004 in Assessor’s Block 1071 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 303 and 209.6 of the Planning Code to install a total of six (6) antennas and related equipment cabinets, on the existing 100-foot tall commercial structure (Public Storage Building) for AT&T’s wireless telecommunications network within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. Per the City and County of San Francisco’s Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 4 as it is a wholly commercial structure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to November 17, 2005)

 

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to November 17, 2005

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT:          Bradford-Bell and S. Lee

 

B.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

            4.         Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Antonini:  I have a couple of questions.  One is on one of the items that is being continued—The Great Highway.  I have been informed that this general review exemption occurred in June of 2004, which means we are now approximately 18 months from the time of the exemption.  So one would believe that if someone had a problem with it they would have filed an appeal before now.  I think we have a problem--one that has to be dealt with at the State level.  I don’t know if the city can do anything to limit the appeal period on these type of things—both negative declarations and categorical exemptions of environmental review—because it clearly does not seem to be used properly.  It may only be a tactic to delay.  I’m not saying that is the case here, but it seems very odd that this appeal would be done at such a late time.  I think this has happened many, many times.  This is something I would like to see if there is any jurisdiction we have or if it has to be done on a State level.

 

Kate Stacey, Deputy City Attorney responded:  Commissioner Antonini is correct in that the state law, CEQA, requires appeals of categorical exemptions and other determinations as well as negative declarations to the elected legislative body.  In our case this body is the Board of Supervisors.  The City has not adopted any procedures or time limits within which those appeals have to take place and how they have to take place.  So our office has advised that as long as threw is still an outstanding permit for the city to review and consider approval of, that those appeals are timely because the CEQA determination is linked to the approval itself.  As long as the city still has some discretionary approval, we would like the clerk of the Board to consider the appeal of those timely.

 

Commissioner Antonini:  To change that, you’re saying that it does have to be at a State level?

 

Kate Stacey, Deputy City Attorney responded:  Commissioner Antonini, the Board has to adopt procedures for the appeal of exemptions and negative declarations.  It has not done so.  …The Clerk of the Board has adopted some procedural rules for how those appeals occur.  But there are no time limits within which an appeal must occur.

 

Commissioner Antonini:  So what body of the city would have power to do that sort of thing?

 

Kate Stacey, Deputy City Attorney:  The Board of Supervisors enacts amendments to the Administrative Code—to Chapter 31.

 

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator also responded:  Commissioners, the department has urged the Board of Supervisors to take this up.  The department has indicated, or I have indicated myself, that I was going to introduce or have the department introduce an ordinance that would do that.  I got a distinctly negative reaction.  It does not seem like this Board is pursuing this issue.

 

Commissioner Antonini:  Thank you.  My other comment deals with…

It has been called to my attention by a couple of people that they read in the West Portal Monthly a paraphrase of some remarks I made.  It was not a direct quote.  When you paraphrase, oftentimes, you don’t get the meaning of what was really said.  I know the author.  She does a wonderful job and I appreciate her articles very much.  But I did not say that West Portal was no longer a viable retail corridor as was mentioned there.  It’s a very viable retail corridor.  It’s one of the most viable in the city.

 

  There was a reference also made to Stonestown.  I think that they do have somewhat of a unique situation because certain retail outlets that might occur in other streets, such as Fillmore, Chestnut, even Haight, such as the Gap or Pottery Barn or others, would not locate there because they are right close to Stonestown.  In that regard, you’re a little more limited in the type of retail that will come in.  I think that was the nature of my comments.

 

I also mentioned some other streets are evolving.  You’ve seen 24th Street had a ban on new restaurants for many years and they’ve now decided that no longer applies.  I don’t know what the people in West Portal feel about financial institutions.  I certainly was supportive of their objections in the ‘70s and ‘80s on the basis that there were too many of those institutions that not only proliferates but also proliferates architecturally.  I don’t think the best land use (as we look at it today) could be on single floor large parking lots.  Historically, it’s been two or three floors.  In that regard—just on an architectural basis—it’s something I hope they look at in the future regardless of what position is taken on the overall issue of the financial institutions themselves. 

 

Finally, in regard to that, I did mention that Broderick Place over on Fell Street which we had approved was sort of a real model of what could possibly be done in a lot of these areas where you’re taking a bank in a parking lot and turning it into a market, a smaller bank, housing, parking and retail.  I’m anxious to see that project finished because it may serve as a model for some of the residential streets in the future.

 

Commissioner Olague:  Peter Cohen was mentioning the Backstreet Advisory Board he was on.  I’d like to understand where they are.  What the deliberations and what some of there findings might be and how it relates to what we are deliberating on in the Eastern Neighborhoods.  I don’t know where the best place for that would be.

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

5.         Consideration of Adoption: Draft Minutes of Special Meeting for January 27, 2005,

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT:          Bradford-Bell and S. Lee

 

6.         Director’s Announcements

Dean Macris, Director of Planning:  Next week is a short calendar and we’ll be bringing a number of items for updates.  The first is Green Buildings.  We’ve also been talking about Dwelling Unit mergers, First Source Advisory and City Build.

 

Last week you approved 410 Jessie Street.  Ms. Hester questioned whether the transit impact development fee was applicable and if paid.  She believed the sponsor—I believe the word she used was—had cheated the city out of owed fees.  I think you’ve received emails from Mr. Yarnee documenting the Muni’ exemption of this in a letter dated I think 1/7/05.  Met with Mr. Banks today.  The materials [he] presented at our meeting allowed me to confirm the 1999 launch project of this site as not subject to the Transit Impact Development Fee.  Although the proposed and approved new building configuration includes office use, the square footages at the previous use provides a credit larger than the office portion.  I think there is pretty extensive information here demonstrating compliance with the Transit Impact Development Fee.

           

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

 

BOS – (Dan Sider reporting)

  1. Home Depot was continued again to next week.  It will appear on the 11/8/05 calendar.  It will be the third time calendared.
  2. Supervisor Maxwell’s proposal—Visitacion Valley General Plan Amendment and Impact Fees—was passed unanimously at the Board this week on first reading.
  3. Supervisor Mirkarimi introduced a proposal for rezoning of certain parcels along the Haight Street corridor to Stein and Pierce Streets to an NC-2, small scale neighborhood commercial classification.  We will bring this to you in the coming months for your review.

 

Commissioner Olague:  As far as the Visitacion Valley fees are concerned, was there any discussion regarding Bayview?

 

Dan Sider:  There was some discussion at the Committee level.  It is my understanding that there was not a level of discussion at the full Board on Tuesday.

 

BOA – (Jonas Ionin reporting)

  1. 586 Lisbon Street, a project that was subject to the mandatory demolition policy.  Collin O’Neill, the project sponsor appealed your decision.  I believe the demo wasn’t so much of an issue before the Commission as much as the new construction.  There were some dimension problems and reduction of plans that were illegible and the project was disapproved.  The sponsor hired a new architect, modified the project that satisfied the department.  The Board of Appeals then overturned your decision approving the demolition and new construction permit applications.
  2. 567 Sanchez Street:  There were three discretionary reviews before you.  This had been appealed to the Board a couple of times, and last night was the third hearing.   The appeal was related to the agreement that was ratified by the Commission by taking DR and adopting all those conditions of approval.  There was a motion to overturn your disapproval and allow three of the minor modifications.  However, that motion failed 3 to 2.  In that motions failing, the Board upheld your disapproval.

 

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.

 

Jim Salinas:  RE:  To commend Commissioner Olague and the entire panel.

  1. I’ve watched this panel come together around different land use issues, but most especially the fact that San Franciscans be allowed to go to work. 
  2. I think that this panel has shown itself to address those benefits that directly affect the entire community of San Francisco. 
  3. I have watched City Build, which is in its infancy stages.  If City Build is what it currently is and what it could be in a year or two, I think this Mayor has come up with on heck of an idea and it’s already affecting a lot of San Franciscans.
  4. I believe that young San Franciscans, especially in the black and brown community be given opportunities where they might not have one if it were not for programs like City Build.
  5. You have a lot of work in from of you, a great responsibility, a great charge, all of which you do with a passion.
  6. I’ve watched a lot of young brothers and sisters on a daily basis and the only hope some have is at the end of a bullet.  But you’ve changed that and I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for that passion.

 

Sue Hester:  RE:  Some suggestions

  1. – The way to solve this problem is to give the public notice that one exists.  For example, when a Section 311 notice is issued, there is a legend at the bottom of it saying there is an environmental document available on this project and tell them where they can get a copy of it.
  2. Conflict of Interest – In light of the newspaper article last Friday and Saturday about the former Planning Director, I think maybe it’s time for the Commission and staff to think about whether there needs to be a more robust training on this across the board on such things as what is the radius whereby you have a conflict.  Maybe the City Attorney needs to think with you on this.

 

Joe O’Donaghue:  RE:  Contractors avoiding going through the planning process

  1. When they fill out applications, they lie at the counter.  As a result, they never come to the Planning Department.
  2. The Director of the Bureau of Building Inspection stated in her application that she has four floors of occupancy in her building.  It only has two.  Her application avoided coming to the planning process.  Her permits were given out in record time.

 

  1. 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.

 

8a.        2005.0400D                                                                         (D.SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

147 Laidley Street - east side, between Harper & Fairmount, Lot 025, Assessor’s Block 666 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application 2005.05.27.3621, to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Did not take DR and approved

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

ABSENT:          S. Lee

                       

8b.        2005.0577D                                                                            (D.SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

147 Laidley Street - east side, between Harper & Fairmount, Lot 025, Assessor’s Block 6664 - 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. 2005.05.27.3626, proposing to construct a three-story, single-family residential building with two off-street parking in an RH-1 (Residential, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Did not take DR and approved

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

ABSENT:          S. Lee

           

                9.            2005.0770H                                                                         (A. LIGHT, (415) 558-6254)

450 SUTTER STREET - north side between Powell and Stockton Streets, Assessor's Block 285, Lot 6 - Request for a Permit to Alter to replace original steel frame casement windows that have deteriorated and determined to be beyond repair. The existing windows have been surveyed in detail. The proposed replacement units are new aluminum casement windows matching the original windows in profile, color and overall appearance.  The subject property is located in a C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) Zoning District, and a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

ABSENT:          S. Lee

MOTION:           17137

           

  • REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

                        10.        2004.0672ECV                                                            (t. blomgren: (415) 558-5979)

2660 HARRISON STREET, west side between 22nd and 23rd Streets; Lot 4A of Assessor’s Block 3639, mid-block between 22nd and 23rd Streets. - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration for the construction of two 40-foot-tall, four-story buildings with 34 residential units each for a total of 68 residential units and with 26,000 gross square feet (gsf) each for a total of 52,000 gsf.  The project would include 34 parking spaces per building located in a basement parking garage under each building.  The project site is located in a Heavy Commercial (C-M).  The project site is located within the proposed rezoning of the Eastern Neighborhoods

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

 

SPEAKERS:

Pat Delgado

  1. I’m a resident of the immediate area.
  2. I have met with the developer many times
  3. He has addressed all of our neighborhood concerns and I’m in full support of this project

John Victor

  1. I live across the street from this project
  2. The west side of the block is light industrial.
  3. One of our concerns is that light industrial is changing.
  4. We would love to see the kind of housing on the other side of the street—keeping with the neighborhood
  5. The architects met with us several times.  I’m concerned about the height restrictions across the street.  Our building is about 25 feet high and this building directly across the street from us will be 40 feet high.
  6. I’d love to see more ownership possibility there.
  7. I guess I’m not giving it my full approval and I’m not saying it’s bad either.

 

ACTION:           Negative Declaration Upheld

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

NAYES:            Olague

ABSENT:          S. Lee

MOTION:           17138

 

                        11a.      2004.0672ECV:                                                                       (D.Sider: (415) 558-6697)

2660 HARRISON STREET, west side between 22nd and 23rd Streets; Lot 004A in Assessor's Block 3639 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the construction of dwelling units within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) Zoning District pursuant to Planning Code Section 215(a). The proposal would demolish an existing two (2) story vacant commercial building and construct two (2) new four (4) story over garage buildings containing a total of sixty-eight (68) dwelling units. A total of sixty-eight (68) off-street parking spaces would be provided in a below-grade garage. The property is within a C-M Zoning District, the ‘Housing/Mixed Use’ sub-area of the Eastern Neighborhoods area as   set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Number 16727, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

 

SPEAKERS:

Sue Hester:

  1. We have a rezoning process that is now four years into the process and all we have at this point for the Mission is a map that syas housing, PDR, mixed use, et cetera.  This is not planning a neighborhood.
  2. We in the Mission and Potrero Hill want neighborhoods developed.
  3. You do not have a discussion on what makes this industrial part of the Mission a neighborhood.
  4. All you have from staff is, it’s supposed to be housing.
  5. What makes a neighborhood our of an area like this?
  6. When the Commission approved most of Harrison Street as live/work, and as you’re filling up all the rest of this with housing, you really should be looking at what is a neighborhood.  It’s what we’re entitled to.
George House, Representing the Project Sponsor
  1. The project will provide 6 to 8 units of housing on the west side of Harrison Street
  2. It is in compliance with section 315 of the planning code.
  3. It provides the required 12% BMR (below market rate) units.
  4. This project was conceived through a collaborative process between the public and the project team.  This process literally formed this building in terms of its massing, the layout, parking, unit mix, scale and the aesthetics
  5. He gave a description and overview of the project design.

 

ACTION:          Approved with conditions as drafted

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

ABSENT:         S. Lee

MOTION:         17139

 

11b.      2004.0672ECV:                                                                          (D.SIder: (415) 558-6697)

2660 HARRISON STREET, west side between 22nd and 23rd Streets; Lot 004A in Assessor's Block 3639 - Request for Variances from (1) rear yard requirements because the project would contain an inner court of roughly 63 feet in depth by 39 feet in width while the Code would otherwise require a rear yard space of 110 feet in width by 31 feet in depth and (2) dwelling unit exposure requirements is needed because 48 total units are proposed without windows which would face (a) a code-compliant rear yard, (b) a street or alley, or (c) an open area of at least 25 feet in each horizontal dimension, as would otherwise be required by the Code. The 48 units in question would access light and air through the aforementioned inner court. The proposal would demolish an existing two (2) story vacant commercial building and construct two (2) new four (4) story over garage buildings containing a total of sixty-eight (68) dwelling units. A total of sixty-eight (68) off-street parking spaces would be provided in a below-grade garage. The property is within a C-M Zoning District, the ‘Housing/Mixed Use’ sub-area of the Eastern Neighborhoods area as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Number 16727, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

 

SPEAKAERS:    Same as those listed for item 11a.

ACTION:            The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variances.

 

12.        2005.0842D                                                                          (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

135-1139 GREEN STREET, in Assessor's Block 125, Lots 115-116, Request for Discretionary Review on Building Permit Application No. 2005.06.16.5311 to construct a new subterranean basement and five car garage under three existing two-story townhouses.  A garage entrance door would be inserted into the far east side of the existing masonry retaining wall along the Green Street frontage.  A curb cut will also be constructed.  The subject property is in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to December 8, 2005

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT:          Bradford-Bell and S. Lee

 

13.        2005.0530D                                                                        (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

562 9TH AVENUE - east side between Anza and Balboa Streets; Lot 034 in Assessor’s Block 1551 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.03.17.7771, proposing to remove the existing extension and deck at the rear of the single-family dwelling and to construct a new three-story addition and deck with stair projecting four feet deeper into the rear yard than the existing deck, 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.

 

SPEAKERS:

Ron Konapaski
  1. I’ve lived in the house next door to this project for the last 36 years and this has a very negative impact on our property.
  2. We attempted to work with the neighbors in making some modifications to this but they basically stonewalled us.
  3. I am concerned with the potential illegal living space in the basement
  4. I am also concerned with the size of the addition in terms of bulk and protrusion into the backyard.
  5. And finally, I’m concerned with the fact that it is so close to our deck.
  6. It is also out of character for the neighborhood inasmuch as it goes up three stories.
Darren McMurtry, Project Architect
  1. I suppose the main thing to point out is that the DR requestors’ addition is similar to the bulk and mass of ours—his is three stories, ours is three stories.  His goes out 12 feet, ours goes out 12 feet.  I think ours definitely fits within the fabric of this neighborhood.
  2. He gave an overall description of the project design and layout.

 

ACTION:          Did not take DR and approved

AYES:             Alexander, Antonini, Hughes and W. Lee

NAYES:          Olague

ABSENT:         Bradford-Bell and S. Lee

                      

14.         2004.0400D                                                                 (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

730 GREAT HIGHWAY - east side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 1595 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2003.05.29.5813 and 2005.10.18.5856 proposing to construct two three-story, two-unit buildings (four units total) on the vacant subject lot in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  The subject lot is bounded on three sides by the Ocean Parc Village Planned Unit Development.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 27, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to December 8, 2005

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT:          Bradford-Bell and S. Lee

 

15.        2004.0750D                                                                 (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

520 HOLLOWAY - north side between Capitol and Miramar Avenues.  Assessor's Block 6937 Lot 018A - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004 0719 9132 to construct a two-story vertical addition, and side additions to partially fill in the side yards in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.   

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

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued indefinitely

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT:          Bradford-Bell and S. Lee

 

16.        2004.1314D                                                                       (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

46 ALPINE TERRACE - west side between Duboce Avenue and Waller Street; Lot 004 in Assessor’s Block 1258 – Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.04.13.1119, proposing to convert the building’s authorized use from four units to a single-family dwelling with two kitchens, in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the building permit application as submitted.

 

SPEAKERS:

Jeremy Paul, Representing the Project Sponsor

  1. When the owners bought the building, the #R report said the building was unknown probably because the permit records were missing.  They knew it needed a lot of work but could be ideal for the type of living arrangement they sought for their community and their extended family—their modern family.
  2. He gave a detailed presentation of the project’s current and proposed design and layout.

Stefan Smith, One of the owners of the project

  1. When he and Mr. Stanley found this building 11 years ago, it was a mess inside and out, but I saw right away that it was an opportunity to have a home for several of us to live as a community or as a family.
  2. We’ve put a lot of work in it in the beginning and have been saving a long time to finish restoring the building to the home that it originally was.

Stanley Eng, One of the owners of the project

  1. Since 1994 we have lived in the house as a community—as a family.
  2. I’ve known Stefan for over 25 years.  We have been best friends.
  3. We see this as a house, always will and always will.
  4. If this was ever required to return to three units or four units of five units, I think we would have no choice but to move out because it would render it a place not suitable for our use.

Norman, A resident of 46 Alpine Terrace

  1. I cannot imagine how this house could ever be made into the kind of multiple units that are being described in some fictional way
  2. This is a very livable place and I’m happy there
  3. I’m retired and on a fixed income.  It’s one of the few places I’ve found in San Francisco that I could afford as well as be in a very stimulating community
  4. I trust that the Commission will see it this way and will approve this.

 

MOTION:           To not take DR and approve as submitted

AYES:              Bradford-Bell, W. Lee, and Olague

NAYES:            Alexander, Antonini, and Hughes

ABSENT:          S. Lee

RESULT:           Motion failed

 

MOTION:           To take DR and approve as two units with a kitchen in each

AYES:              Antonini, Alexander and Hughes

NAYES:            Bradford-Bell, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT:          S. Lee

RESULT:           Motion failed

 

ACTION:           A substitute motion was not made.  The building permit application is approved as proposed.

 

17.        2005.0743D                                                                  (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

330 CHESTNUT STREET - north side between Grant Avenue and Stockton Street; Lot 010, Assessor’s Block 0054 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy on       dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.07.22.8371, to convert three dwelling units to two. The project would merge an existing unit at the first floor and a one-bedroom unit that occupies the remainder of the first floor and entire second floor of the structure. The subject property is within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the

application.

 

SPEAKERS:

Cornelia Griffin, Representative of the Project Sponsor

  1. City Planning approved the removal of this unit in the year 2000 and if the contractor had done a final signoff on it, none of us would be here today.
  2. The previous owner lived in the house thinking that it had been converted to a two-unit building.
  3. He described the current conditions of the project site.
  4. My clients bought the house with the intention of living there and raising a family there, which is exceedingly difficult to do in a one bedroom home.
  5. I’d hate to see them have to rent this unit out and not have the room for their children and leave the city because they don’t have a second bedroom.
  6. The unit has been empty for five years and has not been part of the housing stock for that long.  No one has been dispossessed.  No one has been moved out.

Dave McGreger, Building Owner

  1. We would like to change it from three units to two units in oder to have a practical and appropriate single-family home.
  2. My wife and I recently married and plan on starting a family.  We would like to incorporate this efficiency apartment to give us a safe usable second bedroom.
  3. We have a rental unit downstairs on the first floor that we have rented to a very nice young woman and intend to keep that on the market.
  4. We both work in the city and would very much like to stay in the city and raise our family here.

 

ACTION:           Did not take DR and approved

AYES:              Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

ABSENT:          Alexander, S. Lee and W. Lee

 

18.        2004.0898D                                                                           (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

62 GLADSTONE DRIVE– west side between Cambridge Street and Silver Avenue; Lot 016 in Assessor’s Block 5886 – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.01.09.3689 to construct a two-story addition, at the rear of the existing one-story over garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

SPEAKERS:

Jeffrey Chan, Representative of Project Sponsor

  1. My clients have revised this three times—two before the DR request came in and once afterwards.
  2. They have a family of six and are living in a two-bedroom, one bath house right now.

 

ACTION:           Did not take DR and approved

AYES:              Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

ABSENT:          Alexander, S. Lee and W. Lee

 

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))

 

             NONE

 

Adjournment:   5:40 p.m.

 

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2006.

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Approved

AYES:                 Antonini, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

EXCUSED:           S. Lee

ABSENT:             Alexander, Bradford-Bell

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:18 PM