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

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

April 20, 2006

April 20, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

&

Calendar

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, April 20, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:         Sue Lee; Dwight Alexander; Michael Antonini; William Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:           Shelley Bradford-Bell; Kevin Hughes; Christina Olague

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:53 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Kelley Amdur; Rick Cooper; Jonathan Purvis; Michael Smith; Aaron Starr; 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.

 

1a.        2005.1093D                                                                 (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

2900 FULTON STREET  - northwest corner at Fifth Avenue; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 1648 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.02.24.7019S, proposing to alter the existing one-story commercial structure, by adding three floors, to contain four dwelling units over the ground floor commercial level; and, redesign of the ground level to include two separate retail spaces and façade alterations with a parking garage to accommodate four parking spaces, in an NC-1 (Neighborhood, Commercial, Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 16, 2006)

NOTE: On February 16, 2006, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to April 20, 2006.  Public Hearing remains open to address new design.

                        (Proposed for Continuance to April 27, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

1b.        2005.1093V                                                                 (D. DIBARTOLO:(415) 558-6291)

2900 FULTON STREET- northwest corner at Fifth Avenue; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block1648 -Request for a Residential Open Space Varianceunder Planning Code Section 135 to require either a total of 530 square feet of common usable open space, or 100 square feet per unit if the space is private. Three of the four new dwelling units would not have access to any on-site open space. The Zoning Administrator will hear the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission. See Item "a" above for a project description.

(Proposed for Continuance to April 27, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

2.         2004.0973C                                                                        (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

7070 CALIFORNIA STREET (a.k.a. 229 - 32nd Avenue) - north side on a through lot to El Camino del Mar between 32nd Avenue and Lincoln Park; Lot 37 in Assessor’s Block 1392  - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 209.3(g), 303 and 304 of the Planning Code to modify a previously approved Planned Unit Development under Motion No. 13678 for Case No. 1994.003C for a private elementary and middle school for girls (Kindergarten through grade 8), The Katherine Delmar Burke School, to allow the construction of a new two-story arts and sciences building, and the renovation of existing facilities, in an RH-1(D) (House, One-Family Detached Dwelling) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Planned Unit Development would include an exception to rear yard requirements of the Planning Code.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 6, 2006)

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to May 11, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

3.         2006.0373TZ                                                                            (K. RICH: (415) 558-6345)

Japantown Special Use District  - [Board File No. 060266] Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi adding Planning Code section 249.31 establishing the Japantown Special Use District for property generally bounded by Bush Street, Geary Boulevard, Laguna Street and Fillmore Street, and requiring a conditional use permit for any change in use in the district not otherwise prohibited.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 11, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

4.         2004.0892EKC                                                                   (R. COOPER: (415) 558-6374)

1844 Market Street - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposed project at 1844 Market Street (Assessor’s Block 0871, Lot 16) is the demolition of an existing two-story 32,000 gross-square-foot (gsf) commercial building, built in 1909, and construction of a new 153,254 gsf, eight-story, 80-foot-tall residential building with about 5,470 square feet of ground floor retail/commercial space and about 114 residential units. The project would also include a below-grade parking garage with 85 parking spaces, with ingress and egress from Waller Street. The site, which is located in the Hayes Valley area of the Market and Octavia Street neighborhood, is in the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district and an 80-A height and bulk district. The project would require Conditional Use Authorization as a Planned Unit Development (PUD).

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Proposed for Continuance to May 11, 2006)   

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

5.                     2004.0892EKC                                                                    (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

1844 MARKET STREET - north side of Market Street on a through lot that also fronts Waller Street, between Laguna and Octavia Streets, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 0871 - Adoption of environmental findings related to the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 303 to allow development on a lot larger than 10,000 square feet, and under Planning Code Section 304 for a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) to allow a greater density than would otherwise be allowed in the NC-3 district and to allow modifications to the following Code requirements including rear yard setback, bulk, measurement of building height, projection of bay windows, dwelling unit exposure, loading and off-street parking.  The project would demolish the existing 2-story commercial building on the site and construct an eight-story mixed-use building with approximately 5,500 square feet of ground floor retail and commercial space, about 113 residential dwelling units, and up to 85 off-street parking spaces, on the subject property, which is in an NC-3 Zoning District and an 80-A Height and Bulk District.  The subject site also lies within the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan (MOP) area.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 11, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

6a.        2005.0543D                                                                           (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

791 SAN BRUNO AVENUE – east side at 20th Street; Lot 17 in Assessor’s Block 4075 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.04.04.9078, proposing the demolition of a one-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two -Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 25, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

6b.        2005.0971D                                                                            (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

791 SAN BRUNO AVENUE – east side at 20th Street; Lot 17 in Assessor’s Block 4075 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.04.04.9074 proposing the construction of a three-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two -Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 25, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

6c.        2005.1145D                                                                            (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

791 SAN BRUNO AVENUE – east side at 20th Street; Lot 17 in Assessor’s Block 4075 – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.04.04.9074 proposing the construction of a three-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two -Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 25, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

7.         2002.1263U                                                                       (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

333 Fremont Street - Motion to Approve In-Kind Agreement to Satisfy Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Impact Fee Requirement per Section 318.3(e). The Planning Commission approved a project at 333 Fremont Street on June 16, 2005, that includes approximately 88 dwelling units. Planning Code Section 318.3(b)(i) requires payment of $11.00 per net occupiable square foot of residential development for the Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Fund prior to issuance of site permit. The project would require a payment of approximately $800,000. The project sponsor has entered into an In-Kind Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and City Attorney, to provide physical public improvements, equal to a portion of the value owed by the sponsor, and described in the Planning Code 318.6 and in the Rincon Hill Plan. The Sponsor will pay the balance of the fee obligation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2006)

Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

B.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

8.         Commission Comments/Questions

 

Commissioner Antonini:

  • We had discussion regarding illegal signs in the last few weeks.  Apparently three is an instance where there is an illegal sign.  The owner of the building is not allowed to engage in a lease or rental of that building until this issue is resolved.  I want a little clarification on what the policy is because it would seem to me that there are mechanisms in place to try to remedy this as part of the arrangement that was approved.  In the case of signs that are illegal, one would think the first remedy would be a fine or some sort of assessment that either the sign company or the property owner instead of having a situation where a renter might be deprived the ability to rent the space as a result of the illegal sign.
  • The second item is with regard to the Rincon Hill Improvement Fund.  When it came before us I think the Commission was pretty clear on the fact that the first dollars were to be spend in terms of capital improvements for the Rincon Hill Area proper.  Then going on from there, monies would be spent throughout the city or for the area South of Market in general.  As I recall there were findings by the Commission.  I don’t really know exactly how this is being taken up once it’s gone through the Supervisors—what the priority there is on this fund.  I’d like to learn about this.

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

9.         Director’s Announcements

  • Director Macris is in meetings and might not be able to make the hearing today.

 

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

 

Board of Supervisors (reported by Dan Sider of Department staff):

  1. On Tuesday, the full Board (on a 9 to zero vote with Supervisor’s Alioto-Pier and McGoldrick absent) did a resolution urging the Environmental Review Officer to revisit the metric, which the Environmental Review staff uses to measure traffic impact.  Currently loss of levels of service is the gold standard metric for measuring traffic impact.  There have been concerns raised that loss does not adequately address bicycle trips and pedestrian trips and transit trips.  Supervisor Mirkarimi through this resolution has requested that we work with his office to develop a new metric, which would be more suitable to our transit-first city.
  2. On Wednesday, at the Land Use and Economic Development Committee the Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan amendments associated with the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan were recommended for adoption at the full Board.  There was a lengthy hearing and some amendments were made.  The Board is expected to review these matters as early as May 9th.
  3. A final note:  The Mayor did introduce a resolution on Tuesday that would authorize the Department to enter into a new lease agreement at 1650 Mission Street, next door to our current offices, to house the entire department under one roof.  We are very excited about that possibility.

 

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded to Commissioner Antonini’s concerns:

  • The case you are talking about has to do with a restaurant that is seeking a permit to start creating a restaurant; to make out a permit to do the tenant improvements for a restaurant in the downtown area which would normally be easily approvable—almost an over the counter kind of thing.  However, we have a complaint that there is an illegal general advertising sign.  [Planning Code] Section 175, subsection C says that no permit shall be granted, approved or issued by any city department where the lot on which the structure is or will be maintained has created contrary to the provisions in this code.  The long and short of it is if there is a violation on the property, we can’t approve another permit on it.  There are some exceptions that we generally allow – if there is a roof leaking we would allow the roof to be repaired for safety and stuff.  I have been working closely with the specifics of this case to figure out as best as possible if we can determine whether this general advertising sign is legal.  I received an email this morning confirming from the public’s point of view that this was a new sign.  I do have a permit that shows there was a sign permitted in this location from either ’67 or ’57.  But then the question becomes has it been continuously maintained as a sign.
  • ·         The Code is the law and we love it.  This really is not the restaurant’s fault.  They have nothing to do with this.  But it is one of the tools we have to say to a property owner that one of your lessees is in violation and is affecting another lessee.  And you as the property owner need to help us get them into compliance.  Otherwise frankly what does a general advertising company based out of state care whether we think they’re illegal or not?  They’ll drag it out as long as they can so they can get their rent.  It’s only going to start damaging another tenant.  Unfortunately that is the hammer that we have now.  We don’t have the fines right now.

 

Board of Appeals (reported by Zoning Administrator Badiner)

  • 578 to 592 Jersey Street.  We denied the request fro use of vinyl windows in this case.  The Board of Appeals upheld our decision.  It went to court.  The court overturned the Board of Appeals upholding our decision.  The Board of Appeals vacated their decision last night.  I do not know the details but I will get that and provide copies or report back.

 

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.

 

            None

 

E.         REGULAR CALENDAR 

           

            11.       2006.0124C                                                                                  (M. LI: (415) 558-6386)

412 Broadway - north side between Kearny and Montgomery Streets, Lot 033 in Assessor’s Block 0144 - Request for conditional use authorization to extend the hours of operation of the existing entertainment establishment (dba “Broadway Showgirls Cabaret”) of approximately 15,000 square feet.  The business is currently open until 2:00AM, and the proposal is to extend the hours of operation until 4:00AM.  There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space.  The project site is within the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Prior to today’s hearing, this item was withdrawn.  There was no Commission action.

 

 

 

            12.        2006.0187C                                                                                    (M. LI: (415) 558-6386)

2209 Polk Street - west side between Green and Vallejo Streets, Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 0550 - Request for conditional use authorization to add a bar to the existing full-service restaurant (dba “Table Spoon”) of approximately 2,000 square feet.  The proposal consists of changing a Type 41 ABC license (on-sale beer and wine) to a Type 47 ABC license (on-sale general).  There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space.  The project site is within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Approved

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

MOTION:              17228

 

            13.       2006.0056C                                                                    (E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)

317 Cortland Avenue - the north side of Cortland Avenue between Bocana and Bennington Street; Lots 015 and 014 in Assessor’s Block 5667 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 161(j) and 303 for the reduction of off-street parking spaces for proposed dwelling units at 317 Cortland Avenue and for existing dwelling units at 331-333 Cortland Avenue, to demolish an existing two car garage and to allow in its place construction of a two--unit mixed-use building within the NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40 –X height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Without hearing, continued to May 18, 2006

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

14a.      2005.0894CPR                                                                        (M. SMITH:  (415) 558-6322)

100 ARMORY DRIVE west side between Sloat and Skyline Boulevards, Lot 005 in Assessor’s Block 7281  - Request by Verizon Wireless for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 234.2(a) to allow for the construction of a freestanding wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three (3) antennas mounted to a 50’ tall monopole, located in a P (Public) District, Coastal Zone Special Use District, and a OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.  Per the City & County of San Francisco’s Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the site is a Preferred Location Preference 1 site as it is a public-use building

                         Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Approved

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

MOTION:              17229

 

14b.      2005.0894CPR                                                                       (M. SMITH:  (415) 558-6322)

100 ARMORY DRIVE west side between Sloat and Skyline Boulevards, Lot 005 in Assessor’s Block 7281  - Request by Verizon Wireless for Coastal Zone Permit authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 330 to allow for the construction of a freestanding wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three (3) antennas mounted to a 50’ tall monopole, located in a P (Public) District, Coastal Zone Special Use District, and a OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District. 

                        Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Approved

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

MOTION:              17230

 

14c.      2005.0894CPR                                                                       (M. SMITH:  (415) 558-6322)

100 ARMORY DRIVE west side between Sloat and Skyline Boulevards, Lot 005 in Assessor’s Block 7281  - Request by Verizon Wireless for a finding of consistency with the General Plan pursuant to Section 4.105 of the City/County Charter to allow for the construction of a freestanding wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three (3) antennas mounted to a 50’ tall monopole, located in a P (Public) District, Coastal Zone Special Use District, and a OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District. 

                                Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Approved

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

MOTION:              17231

 

15.        2005.0757C                                                                         (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

5131-5133 Mission Street - east side between Geneva and Amazon Avenues, Lot 013 in Assessor’s Block 6410 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 712.43 to establish an 1,800 square-foot Chinese fast-food restaurant, located in a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Approved

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

MOTION:              17232

 

16.         2006.0209D                                                                         (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

1638 LAKE STREET - north side between 18th and 17th Avenues; Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 1341- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.11.21.8667 proposing to extend the second story approximately 12’ 6” into the rear yard, and to extend the first story approximately 19’ 6” into the rear yard on a four-story, one-unit building in an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation- Do not take Discretionary Review and approve project as submitted.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 16, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:       

Sarah - DR Requestor

  1. I live at 1630 Lake Street.  I am directly east of the subject property
  2. The corner lot they keep referring to as vacant lots, they’re people’s yards.
  3. Not my yard.
  4. The three lots have been combined in one yard and three center homes that you can see are detached.
  5. Except for a couple bay windows and a small front porch, they are not built to the property line
  6. The subject project is proposing building 19 –1/2 feet out onto the property line to the west.  Basically abutting this vacant lot which is somebody’s yard
  7. My deck, which I eat 99 out of 100 meals with my family of four plus a very big dog will be cast in the shadow form this house.  This basically affects my kitchen and eating area, which is kind of the center of the family home.
  8. I bought my house in 2000 and have put about $350,000 into it, all within the footprint because I respected the precedent that was set [of no one expanding beyond the existing footprint].

Jason Thomas – Project Owner

  1. We agree, we think it is a wonderful neighborhood.
  2. Our home was built in 1913.  We think there are a lot of wonderful elements to the house, and yet it does not reflect the realities of modern living.
  3. Our project is really just an expansion of a current, very small breakfast nook to provide some flow through between the kitchen and the living room, some out door space, and a bedroom beneath it for our family.
  4. I wanted to comply with the design guidelines and we chose an architect we thought was very thoughtful and who would design something that fit with the character of the neighborhood.

David Gast - Project Architect

- Gave a detailed description of the project.

Robert Pender – San Francisco Tenants Network

  1. We do support 1638 Lake Street

 

ACTION:              Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

            17a.     2005.0735D                                                                          (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

64 PRENTISS STREET - west side north of Chapman Street; Lot 17 in Assessor’s Block 5628 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.06.23.5943, proposing the demolition of a two-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  

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

 

SPEAKERS:       

Shannon Engle Brecht – Project Owner

  1. We love Bernal Heights and are a small family of four that wants our Bernal Home
  2. The building we are talking about is a 97-year old home that has no historical significance.
  3. It has foundation failure, wet rot, dry rot, extreme mold and mill due damage, and most of the supporting studs are heavily damaged.
  4. No family can be healthy and safe in that house.
  5. It is going to be much more energy efficient to deconstruct and salvage what we can for building the new house, which is what we prefer to do.
  6. We want to build a couple of modest unique family homes that will still be a healthy part of the neighborhood in 80 or 100 years.
  7. We want to be part of the precedence that the San Francisco Department of the Environment has tried to set for building modest green homes in San Francisco.
  8. We are committed to doing rainwater collection for our landscaping, using reuse wherever possible, reuse of materials, using solar harvesting for our electricity, and using structured insulated panels because that reduces the environmental damage during the building process.
  9. The Department of the Environment gave us a letter of endorsement that our building qualifies as green.
  10. We’ve worked with the Design Review Board and addressed not just any variances with the code they found where we were a little off, but also just with neighbor’s preferences.
  11. I think it would be kind of sad to derail the project that is such a positive part of where San Francisco is going.

Carol

  1. I’ve lived in Bernal for quite a while.
  2. I’m one of the people that are in the other family who are going to be in the second house, we hope.

Toby Long – project architect

  1. From the view of creating exciting energy efficient model for housing for San Francisco moving forward and more specifically Bernal moving forward, we are very excited about the direction this project is taking and look forward to moving to the next steps.

Terry Milne – Member of the East Slope Bernal Heights Design Review Board

  1. We endorse this project.  In general we thought this was a good project for Bernal Heights.  They actually listened and responded to the neighbors.
  2. Our Review Board is not usually in the habit of endorsing demolitions of existing homes because usually there is an opportunity for reuse.
  3. In this case, this house has been sort of a neighborhood burden over the years with illegal additions that happened at various times.  The best answer would be to demolish it and put up these two new modest homes.

Brian O’Sullivan – Project Owner

  1. My wife and I are very interested in living in the neighborhood.  And I would be very excited to be able to take part in the life of the neighborhood.

Robert Pender

  1. I think it’s a good project

Pat Buscovitch

  1. Explained the Soundness Report

ACTION:              Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

17b.      2005.1126D                                                                            (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

64 PRENTISS STREET – west side north of Chapman Street; Lot 17 in Assessor’s Block 5628 – Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.06.23.5948 proposing the construction of a two-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and approve new construction.

 

SPEAKERS:        Same as those listed for item 17a

ACTION:              Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the new construction

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

17c.      2006.0377D                                                                            (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

52 PRENTISS STREET – west side north of Chapman Street; Lot 16 in Assessor’s Block 5628 – Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.06.23.5954 proposing the construction of a two-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and approve new construction.

 

SPEAKERS:        Same as those listed for item 17a

ACTION:              Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the new construction

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

 

18a.      2006.0290XV                                                                       (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

715-719 and 721 Market Street - south side between 3rd and 4th Streets, Lots 063 and 064 in Assessor’s Block 3706 - Request under Planning Code Section 309 for Determinations of Compliance and Request for an Exception to the rear yard requirement as permitted in Code Section 134(d), for the creation of five additional dwelling units, two on the roof of the 715-719 Market Street building, and three within the existing envelope of the 721 Market St. building.  The site contains two existing adjacent buildings, one with 7 stories and one with 2 stories, that were approved by the Commission on May 5, 2005 (Case No. 2004.1431ECVX) for conversion from office to a mix of uses including up to 45 dwelling units, up to 45 parking spaces, three ground floor retail spaces totaling approximately 4,000 sq.ft. and approximately 5,300 sq.ft. of office space in the basement and on the ground floor.  One of the proposed additional dwelling units would be located within the Code-required rear yard area.  The project will be the subject of a concurrent variance hearing before the Zoning Administrator because two of the five additional units would not have Code-required dwelling unit exposure.  The subject property is in a C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) Zoning District and a 120-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:       

Robert Pender – The San Francisco Tenants Network

  1. We support this project

ACTION:              Approved

AYES:                 Alexander, Antonini, S Lee and W Lee

ABSENT:             Bradford-Bell, Hughes and Olague

MOTION:              17233

 

18b.      2006.0290XV                                                                       (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

715-719 and 721 Market Street - south side between 3rd and 4th Streets, Lots 063 and 064 in Assessor’s Block 3706 - Request for a Variance from dwelling unit exposure required under Planning Code Section 140.  As stated in item "a" above, two of the five additional proposed dwelling units will not meet the exposure requirements of Section 140.  The variance application will be heard by the Zoning Administrator concurrently with the Planning Commission.  The subject property is in a C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) Zoning District and a 120-X Height and Bulk District.  See item "a" above for the project description. 

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

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

 

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:     3:23 p.m.

 

 

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2006

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

EXCUSED:        Bradford-Bell and Olague

ABSENT:          Hughes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:20 PM