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 27, 2006

April 27, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, April 27, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Shelley Bradford-Bell and Kevin Hughes

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:33 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Kate Conner; Dan DiBartolo; Cecilla Jaroslawsky; Craig Nikitas; Sara Vellve; Glen Cabreros; Michelle Glueckert; Jim Miller; Rick Cooper; 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. 2006.0450T (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

C-3 District Parking Modifications - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending Sections 102.9, 151, 151.1, 154, 155, 155.5, 166, 167, and 309 to modify controls in C-3 Zoning Districts regarding required and permitted off-street parking and loading, design of access to off-street parking and loading, separating parking costs from housing costs, and Floor Area Ratio as related to accessory off-street parking, and to modify controls in all districts regarding bicycle parking and car sharing, and adopting environmental findings and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

(Proposed for continuance to May 11, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, S Lee, Olague and W Lee

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Antonini and Hughes

2a. 2006.0358X (M. SNYDER (415) 558-6891)

399 FREMONT STREET, northeast corner of Fremont Street and Harrison Street, Lots 001E, 002, and 006 of Assessor's Block 3747 -- Request under proposed Planning Code Section 309.1 (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District) for Determinations of Compliance, and an exception to allow greater than one parking space for every two units (Planning Code sections 151.2 and 309.1(b)(1)(B), dwelling units exposure (Planning Code Sections 140 and 309.1(b)(1)(D), and to allow a portion of the parking garage above grade (Planning Code Section 827(7)(A) and 309.1(a)(a)(D)). The project is to demolish the existing three buildings (375 Fremont Street, 385 Fremont Street and 399 Fremont Street) and construct a residential project that would consist of a tower reaching 400-feet (exclusive of mechanical penthouse and screening) that would be sited at the corner of Fremont Street and Harrison Street; the project would also consist of a podium structure that would align Fremont Street and Harrison Street and would feature townhouse units. The project would include approximately 432 dwelling units and up to 432 parking spaces (one half of which would be independently accessible). The subject property is located in the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and an 85/400-R Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for continuance to May 18, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, S Lee, Olague and W Lee

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Antonini and Hughes

2b. 2006.0358V (M. SNYDER (415) 558-6891) 399 FREMONT STREET, northeast corner of Fremont Street and Harrison Street, Lots 001E, 002, and 006 of Assessor's Block 3747 --Request for a Variance to vary the specification for front entry stoops; Planning Code Section 827(d)(5)(C) requires that along the subject portion of Fremont Street, residential entries have front stoops that have a height of at least three-feet on average. As proposed, the required townhouse units would feature ramps that would lead to stoops that would be less than three-feet above grade on average. The subject property is located in the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and an 85/400-R Height and Bulk District. (Proposed for continuance to May 18, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, S Lee, Olague and W Lee

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Antonini and Hughes

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

3. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Olague

  • For clarity sake, would you explain the variance for 209 9th Street?

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded

  • This was an item on my monthly Variance meeting held yesterday. This was a request for a rear yard variance. I believe this was for a conversion of an existing building to SRO units. Right before the hearing there was a claim that there were at least two PDR uses on the site. One was either a window manufacturer and glass – something to do with windows and glass. And there was a typesetter on the second floor. I talked to Paul Maltzer [The Department's Environmental Review Officer] thinking this might affect the Cat Ex we issued in October on it as a categorical exemption to get his thoughts on what we would do, because that could potentially have been affected by the 2660 Harrison project. In discussion with Paul – and I did mention it to Mr. Macris – we essentially said we're not going to withdraw a Cat Ex that was issued before 2660 Harrison. If the issue comes up again, if it's appealed or whatever, then we'll make a decision on how we respond to it. We didn't think it was appropriate to pull a finalized categorical exemption that was six or eight moths old. At the hearing, I did not make a determination. I took it under advisement. I recommended the project sponsor ought to go talk to the Western SOMA Task Force and get their input on it. I believe that Mr. Meko was there along with Ms. Hester who talked about it. That's where it is right now. [With the reminder that this item is not on this calendar, Mr. Badiner suggested that he speak with Commissioner Olague off line regarding this matter.]

Commissioner Olague

  • Will we get a briefing on Western SOMA, an update or something? Has that been calendared yet?

Commission President Sue Lee

  • It will be calendared

Commissioner Olague

  • One last thing. A couple of weeks ago, I asked about 2660 Harrison and how that would impact 100% affordable housing projects. Have we come to anything on that yet?

Director Dean Macris responded

  • Mr. Maltzer has been out all week and we have not rescheduled. We have tried three times to meet with Paul and we haven't had that opportunity. I'm sure by next week we will have more to say on that.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

4. Director's Announcements

None

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

Board of Supervisors:

Zoning Administrator Badiner reported

  • There was an appeal of a categorical exemption at 869 North point. You have not seen the project. And because the Cat Ex was appealed, you can't review it until that is resolved. The Board overturned that categorical exemption and sent it back to the Planning Department. It is my understanding that they took that action–not because of any error that the Planning Department did or any disagreement necessarily–but there was some misinformation apparently on the application about the date of construction, and perhaps some other things. I think the Board was quite concerned about the accuracy of submittals to the Planning Department, The Planning Commission, and the Board in terms of accuracy and did not feel that they had an accurate application that they could really consider. Perhaps Mr. Sider wants to add anything to 869 North point or any other actions that have happened at the Board this week.

Dan Sider of Department staff reported

  • The Zoning Administrator has covered the relevant issues with North Point. Our CEQA determination was overturned by a unanimous decision.
  • I'd like to concentrate particularly on the introductions. There were three items introduced by Supervisors that this body may find salient.
  • Supervisor Mirkarimi introduced two items. One was a rezoning on the corner of Baker and McAllister Streets. Two parcels would be rezoned from their current RM-1 classification to a proposed NC-1. This is a change from a residential mixed designation to a neighborhood commercial designation. Mirkarimi also put forward a proposed Lower Haight Street Alcohol Restricted Use Sub-district. This would mirror the Upper Haight Street Alcohol District in which no new or no changed liquor license would be allowed–no new bars, no new or expanded off-sale liquor licensed, et cetera.
  • Also and lastly with respect to introductions, Supervisor Peskin has put forward an ordinance which would modify the controls contained in the Chinatown Visitor Retail District. This amendment would allow other entertainment uses, entertainment permits to be authorized on the first and second levels in this district, but only if authorized in conjunction with a full-service restaurant.

Commission President Sue Lee

  • With respect to 869 North Point: Is the project now dead because of the action of the Board? Or, does it come back to environmental review: What are the next steps?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  • The permits will come back from the Board of Appeals and the Department of Building Inspection to our Department and we'll perform a renewed environmental review process. The project is not dead, but it will be reviewed in greater detail.

Commission President Sue Lee

  • Is it put at the tip of the queue, or does it get in line with everybody else?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  • Mr. Nikitas has advised me in broad terms that we do give preference to projects reviewed by the Board of Appeals [Supervisors]. So the answer, Commission President Lee is this would be handled on an expedited basis.

Commission President Sue Lee

  • So if the basis of the Board of Supervisors' action was that there was misinformation in the application -- not that the Cat Ex was incorrect -- then simply correcting that information &

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  • You point to an interesting dilemma, President Lee. We are awaiting the Board's findings in a formal motion. In conjunction with the Environmental Review Officer, we're going to look at just that. What level of review or what level of increased review might be appropriate at this time.

Board of Appeals:

Zoning Administrator Badiner reported –

  • Mr. Ionin of Department staff represented you and myself at the Board of Appeals.
  • The primary item of interest to you was 3025 to 3029 Sacramento Street. This was a discretionary review. There was a three-unit building with an addition in the rear located in an RH-2 District. Mr. Bill Maher was the appellant [DR requestor]. The Commission, I believe, disapproved the project. One of the reasons was your concern about the moving of the nonconforming unit. (Two units were allowed as of right. It was an existing three-unit building.) They were doing a rear addition and reconstructing the unit in that rear addition. Commissioners were concerned about a provision in the Planning Code that says a nonconforming use shall not be relocated. The Board overturned your decision. They thought it wise to relocate, citing a Zoning Administrator's interpretation dating back a number of years that said that discussion talks about relocation and the Code is meant to say, you can't locate it on another site, but you can move it within the site. So you were overturned 5 to 0 on that point.

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:

Alice Barkley

  • Members of the Commission, I would like the staff to give direction to applicants when they file environmental review. If it is a different date than the construction of the building in the Planning Department information sheet versus the extra permit that we get from research and getting the actual permit, which one do we use?

Jim Meko

  • I am Chair of the Western SOMA Citizens Planning Task Force as well as the SOMA Leadership Council. But I'm appearing here today just on my own behalf.
  • I wanted to point out that yesterday we had an unusual occurrence at the Zoning Administrator's hearing.
  • We thought the 2660 Harrison Street had put a lid on market-rate housing for the time being. And the Western SOMA Task Force, because of that, set aside any further discussion of controlling the heated up development market until a little further along. But we were surprised to see that a market-rate SRO project in South of Market came forward. It kind of slipped through the cracks and apparently the environmental review says that the 2660 would not apply since it got its Cat Ex last fall. But if it were appealed, 2660 would come into play.
  • This whole subject of market-rate SROs needs further discussion.
  • It was a very good idea back in the early  90s to put provisions just in the Planning Code just relating to South of Market to replace housing that was lost due to redevelopment and the 1989 earthquake. That is all we were talking about at the time.
  • It was not an effort to carve out a new niche type of housing for market-rate developers which set aside density requirements, reduced open space and rear yard requirements, cutback on the exposure requirements, and dramatically change the parking requirement.
  • It was intended to make it easier to provide dignified but affordable housing for those who were displaced.
  • This is the next hot thing with developers.
  • I was here supporting 77 Bluxome Street perhaps a year ago because Charles Ridinger was sincere – I still believe he is – in his desire to provide rental housing that is appropriate for students and artists in the area. That is the way his project is moving forward.
  • But every project since then, they don't even pretend about affordability any more.
  • I know the Western SOMA Task Force is going to take this up. It could lead to legislation.
  • But I really think we need to be on the same page as far as this goes.
  • Your staff prepared a report more than a year ago, and you should look at it and consider some interim policies that might ease this.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

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

6a. 2005.1203CV (K. Conner: (415) 575-6914)

427472 Diamond Street - west side between 22nd and 21st Streets; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 2768 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.1 (g) of the Planning Code to allow for a third unit on a 5,784 square foot lot within the RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS:

Casandra Messling Davis – Project Architect

  1. I'd like to request the condition of approval be removed because of the particular circumstances of this property.
  2. The homeowner is a disabled person who uses a wheelchair.
  3. She wanted me to design this lower studio unit with handicapped accessibility for her wheelchair in the case that she was able to live in the downstairs unit and be able to rent the upstairs unit.
  4. Alternatively, if she requires full-time care, she also wanted to have the option of living in the upstairs unit and renting the lower unit to a caregiver.
  5. Then in the worst-case scenario for her, if she has to move to a facility where she is taken care of full time, she wants to be able to rent out both units so that she can afford to stay in a care facility.
  6. This was the goal when we submitted this application so that my client had these options.

Commission President Sue Lee

- Expressed her confusion because the only condition of approval she sees is the requirement that the ground floor studio unit be maintained as an affordable housing unit. She asked the architect if that was the condition she wanted removed?

The Architect responded  yes.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. Recommended that the Commission not include that condition within the Conditions of Approval because it's not directly linked to the action of the removal of parking, which is what is before the Commission.

ACTION: Approved as amended to remove condition number three and require the Zoning Administrator to make it part of the variance approval

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

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

MOTION: 17235

6b. 2005.1203CV (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

427472 DIAMOND STREET - west side between 22nd and 21st Streets; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 2768 - Request for Off-Street Parking Variance pursuant to Section 151 of the Planning Code, which requires one off-street parking space be provided for each proposed dwelling unit. The project is to allow for a third unit without the required on-site parking within the RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 6a

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance with the standard Conditions of Approval and that the unit should be an affordable housing unit. He added some language allowing or recognizing that the property owner is disabled. That if in the future, this poses an undue burden they may seek to eliminate this condition by the filing of a new variance. There are some mitigating circumstances here.

7a. 2005.0367D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

465 Hoffman Avenue - east side, between 24th & 25th Street, Lot 019, Assessor's Block 6503 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application 2005.08.11.0114, to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, 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: No discretionary review and approved demolition

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

7b. 2005.0761D (D.SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

465 Hoffman Avenue - east side, between 24th & 25th Street, Lot 019, Assessor's Block 6503 - 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. 2005.08.11.0120, proposing to construct a three-story, two unit residential building with two off-street parking in an RH-2 (Residential, 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: No discretionary review and approved new construction

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

8. 2005.0475EKX (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

40 JESSIE STREET, north side between 1st and 2nd Streets; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 3708: -- Request under Planning Code Section 309 for a Determination of Compliance to add two stories to the existing four story building. The entire building, which was previously used as a storage/warehouse space, will house administrative space and student services for Golden Gate University, an institutional use. The gross floor area of the building will increase from approximately 30,000 square feet to approximately 50,000 square feet. The project site is located in a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and a 500-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

MOTION: 17234

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

9. 2006.0218D (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)

33 FARNUM STREET- east side between Addition and Moffitt Streets; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 7545 - Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.09.21.3491, to expand the first level at rear and add a third level onto a single-family structure in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take discretionary review and modify the project.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 6, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Jack Scott – Representing the project owners

  1. The original project was a 950 plus or minus square foot house with tiny little bedrooms.
  2. This building was built in the  40s and has created a neighborhood for families.
  3. What we are attempting to construct here is a two-bedroom, one floor over an existing garage for a master bedroom and a child's room with two bathrooms.
  4. We have met with the neighborhood residents for a very long time.
  5. We have gone through all of the design with the neighborhood.
  6. I have signatures of 22 adjacent neighbors and neighbors within the area, all of which have approved the design drawings/the construction as we have drawn it.
  7. The existing bedroom that is in question is 231 square feet including a study area, closet, and two dormers.
  8. The effective views of that bedroom, given a ten-foot slope, ten-foot back ridgeline of the bedroom, would impede on the floor space as the child gets older.
  9. The Planning Department has suggested that we remove a ten-foot, nine-inch by eight-foot section out of the corner of the room that would be facing south and the street.
  10. There is absolutely no reason, and no essential or compelling argument for that corner to be removed. It makes no sense.
  11. The building will not in any way interfere with the streetscape of the neighborhood.
  12. It will not in any way create any light, shadows, or imposition to its next door neighbors who are very much in favor of the addition.

Peter Petrusi – Project Architect

  1. Gave a detailed description of the design and how it follows the Design Guidelines.
  2. We feel that the Department's recommendation of making a cut out in the corner would actually be an esthetic anomaly to the guidelines and is a style that doesn't follow the topography of the neighborhood site.

MOTION: To not take discretionary review and approve as proposed

AYES: Antonini, W. Lee and S. Lee

NAYES: Olague, and Alexander

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

RESULT: The motion failed

MOTION: To take discretionary review and approve as proposed by staff

AYES: Alexander and Olague

NAYES: Antonini, S. Lee and W. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

RESULT: The motion failed

ACTION: In the absence of a substitute motion--the request for Discretionary Review failed to receive the required four votes–the project is approved as proposed.

10a. 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 April 20, 2006)

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

SPEAKERS:

Joe – Discretionary Review Requester

  1. We are strongly urging the Commission to approve a continuance.
  2. I understand that staff has come up with a new plan for a setback. We did not see these plans.
  3. The parking has not been addressed.
  4. They changed existing floor plans to consider parking.
  5. We do not think the lot should be zoned NC-1.
  6. Most importantly the design of the building does not follow page 6 of the Residential Guidelines. Building patterns and rhythms should be respected.

Allie Gaborski

  1. My husband and I are property owners in the area.
  2. We have meeting with Joe and the other members of the neighborhood.
  3. Look very carefully at the packet that we have prepared for yu with the specifics that we didn't receive a copy of any change of plan and that the existing structure on that site will be going from one story to four stories.
  4. There is no consistency at all with the design of the building with the rest of the neighborhood.

Claire

  1. My husband and I have been residents on Fifth Avenue since 1983.
  2. We are directly across the street from the proposed project.
  3. I agree with everything that has been said.
  4. This block on Fifth Avenue is an important transitional block in terms of zoning.
  5. Our side of the street is RH-2 and Fulton Street directly across the street from this project is RH-1. These are single-family houses.
  6. It's very important of residential design that there be a stepping down.

Roberta – Project Architect and resident

  1. The project is a code-compliant project
  2. We went beyond what was the required notification outreach.
  3. I spoke with Michelle Straton, Vice President of PAR because Ron Miguel, the President was on vacation.
  4. There is nothing inappropriate about this project.
  5. The project is scaled to its residential surroundings.
  6. She gave a detailed description of the project's design.

Jeffrey Smith

  1. I'm here representing the owners of 2900 Fulton Street
  2. Our goal was to develop three floors of residential housing over commercial space on the ground floor.
  3. In response to the neighbors and commissioners concerns voiced in the DR hearing on February 16, we addressed parking by adding two more spaces for a total of six spaces. The rooftop garden has been eliminated in order to bring down the elevator penthouse. It will also minimize the height of the building.
  4. The top floor unit has been reduced in size by over 100 square feet in order to create a setback on the Fulton Street elevation.

Leslie Swain

  1. I'm a resident of the Richmond and a member of PAR and I'm here to support this project.

Justine Hewitt

  1. I work with Plum Architects and I'm speaking in support of the project.

Sherri

  1. I am a resident of San Francisco
  2. I am here today because I'm strongly in support of this project and specifically the architect's proposed design.

Lou Ann Babson

  1. I'm the potential Tea Shop tenant
  2. Last year, my friend and I targeted 2900 Fulton Street as the ideal spot for our future business, which we plan to open as a Victorian teashop.
  3. We plan on working with the architect to design our future teashop there.

John Cook

  1. I want to speak on the garage space.
  2. We didn't draw them on there quite correct, but my plan is to do a three-car lift in the back so that when people do pull in, there is plenty of space there on the large platform.
  3. There would be room for three cars, but really it's just going to be for two cars per platform

ACTION: Took discretionary review and approved the revised project with the further instruction to work with DPW on the curb cuts and seek to obtain pedestrian friendly neighborhood commercial uses

AYES: Alexander, S Lee, Olague and W Lee

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

10b. 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 20, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 10a

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the open space variance subject to the standard conditions of approval

11a. 2005.1094DV (G. CABREROS (415) 558-6169)

2610 (a.k.a. 2612) JACKSON STREET - north side between Scott and Pierce Streets; Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 0585 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.08.18.0703, proposing to construct front and rear horizontal additions to the existing three-story, single-family residence in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Rooftop stair and mechanical penthouses are also proposed as part of the project.

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

SPEAKERS:

Chris Rider – Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. I'm not surprised that when I came back from an Easter vacation with my family to see that Peter O'Sullivan had engaged legal counsel.
  2. I am surprised that when I asked him to allow continuance on the hearing date, he said no.
  3. My issues are very simple – the impairment of light and view into and from my kitchen window.
  4. The proposed trellis extends the existing roof line over my window and interferes with the natural light.
  5. Morning sunlight is my favorite time of the day.
  6. The proposed roof structure puts my stain glass window in shadows during the morning.
  7. It is a bit disingenuous and maybe even a bit misleading for Ms. Barkley to write that any access to bedroom will not change.
  8. The pictures show that there is emergency access with the current fire escape. But the proposal as submitted assumes there will be new and regular access and use of that roof.
  9. I am concerned about people standing on the roof and looking into my bedroom window and my ten-year-old son's bedroom window.
  10. I'm sure you can support my interest in protecting my family's privacy.

Lydia

  1. I live in the same building as Mr. Ryder
  2. This is a historical building that was built in 1896.
  3. The architect is Julius Kraft.
  4. The stained glass windows are eight feet and 12 feet high. There are three panels. You don't find any like them in the city.
  5. I oppose anything that would impact on this building.

Alice Barkley – Representing the Project Sponsor

  1. She showed pictures of the project site in relation to the DR requestor's building.
  2. From the pictures, she showed where the existing stained glass window is located in relation to the sun as it travels across the sky.
  3. She pointed out that both the proposed staircase penthouse and the chemical penthouse is to the west of the stained class window, which is underneath an overhang of the floor above it. She pointed out that as the sun gets higher, the overhang casts a shadow on the stained glass window.
  4. The roof elevation is not proposed to be raised at all.
  5. Not sure how anything on the eastern portion of the roof is going to impact the light and air.
  6. There will not be frequent use of the roof, only when someone is up there cleaning the drains or the occasional need to repair the equipment.
  7. I think the security issue is really specious.

Peter O'Sullivan – Property Owner

  1. With all do respect to Mr. Ryder, he had well over a month and two weeks to prepare for this meeting.
  2. There are no plans for a roof deck.
  3. The guardrail was in the last set of plans that we reviewed.

MOTION: To not take discretionary review and approve as proposed

AYES: Alexander and Antonini

NAYES: W. Lee, Olague, and S. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

RESULT: The motion failed

ACTION: In the absence of a substitute motion--the request for Discretionary Review failed to receive the required four votes–the project is approved as proposed.

11b. 2005.1094DV (G. CABREROS (415) 558-6169)

2610 (a.k.a. 2612) JACKSON STREET - north side between Scott and Pierce Streets; Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 0585 - Request for front setback and noncomplying structure variances to alter portions of the existing six-foot high brick wall located along the front property line to allow re-positioning of the existing vehicular entry, construction of a new pedestrian entry and the addition of associated gates and decorative posts. The Zoning Administrator will consider the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission's consideration of the request for Discretionary Review.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 11a

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

12. 2006.0143C (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

3692 18th Street - north side between Dolores and Guerrero Streets; Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 3578 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 710.44 of the Planning Code to allow a small self service restaurant less than 1,000 square feet in area (an ice cream parlor) within the NC-1 (Cluster, Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 11, 2006

AYES: Alexander, S Lee, Olague and W Lee

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Antonini and Hughes

13a. 2004.0897CVZ (S.VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1315-1327 - 7TH AVENUE - west side between Irving and Judah Streets, Lots 004, 005, 006 in Assessor's Block 1762 – Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.1, 730.11, 730.39 and 303 to demolish an existing three-story mixed-use building containing two residential units, and to establish one contiguous lot over 5,000 square feet in order to construct a four-story mixed-use building with approximately 2,400 square feet of ground-floor commercial space with eight dwelling units above and 11 below-grade off-street parking spaces. Two existing cottages at the rear of Lots 005 and 006 would be refurbished and one additional structure is proposed at the rear of Lot 004, which requires a rear yard variance. The subject properties are within an RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS:

Rachel Hamilton – Project Architect

- The lot merge allows us to create basement level parking across the entire unit–the entire three properties.

- If we kept three separate properties, we would have to develop them as three separate buildings.

- By merging, we require only one driveway curb cut, which would result in additional space on the street.

  1. The existing property has stood vacant for quite some time and is not considered accessible to anybody with any disabilities.
  2. It is definitely not earthquake safe.
  3. By demolishing these two units, it allows us to build nine new units. The new units range in size from one bedroom to three bedrooms.
  4. The new commercial space is more welcoming and flexible.

Mary Ann Miller – from the Board of SPEAK

  1. We were apparently notified, but it was two years ago and no one on the Board remembers the notice.
  2. This is happening beside a very handsome church -- The 7th Avenue Presbyterian Church to the north.
  3. We are absolutely in support of all the goals of this project.
  4. The lot merger is fine. No problems with the rezoning. No problems with the variance.
  5. We are as happy as can be to see a project sponsor retaining backyard cottages.
  6. However, we think this is a massive project the way it treats the church.
  7. If we could carve away some of that scale at the fourth story by setting back at least ten feet from the roof line of the church on the fourth story–that would be a great boon.
  8. In talking with the developer, he said it is possible we can discuss modifications in the massing at the top level and modifications in the materials. The stone veneer doesn't seem right for the Sunset.

Pinky Cushner

  1. I talked to the people at the church this morning. They were also very upset at the massiveness of this building and wished that the most significant portion of the building could be centered instead of next to the church.
  2. The church serves the community center for the entire neighborhood and it should be accommodated.
  3. We would like to see fewer parking spaces.

C. J. Higley – Rubin and Junius

  1. On the mass closest to the church.
  2. When you look at the proposed project it's really quite consistent with the pattern of development along the rest of the block, save perhaps for the church itself, which has actually a much higher steeple or bell tower.
  3. There is a separation space between the church and the project.
  4. What we are proposing is quite reasonable.
  5. The parking is code complying. But one thing that the project is doing, which is extraordinary is putting that parking underground. That is almost unheard of out in the neighborhoods.

ACTION: Approved with the understanding that the project sponsor will continue to work with SPEAK on design issues including further work on the northern property line window.

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

MOTION: 17236

13b. 2004.0897CVZ (S. Vellve: (415) 558-6263)

1315-1327 - 7TH AVENUE - west side between Irving and Judah Streets, Lots 006 in Assessor's Block 1762 - Request for Zoning Reclassification pursuant to Planning Code Section 302 to amend the Zoning Map to reclassify Lot 006 from RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) to the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 13a

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

RESOLUTION: 17237

13c. 2004.0897CVZ (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1315 - 1327 - 7th AVENUE - west side between Irving and Judah Streets, Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 1762 - Request for a Variance from the rear yard requirement under Planning Code Section 134. As stated in item "a" above, one additional structure is proposed to be constructed at the rear of Lot 004. The variance request will be heard by the Zoning Administrator concurrently with the Planning Commission. The subject property is located within the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 13a

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

14. 2005.0740C (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

988-992 Howard Street - at the northwest corner of Howard and Sixth Streets; Lot 025, Assessor's Block 3725 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 815.72 and 890.80 to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three panel antennas and related equipment. The antennas and equipment are proposed in Location Preference 5 (Preferred Location – Mixed Use Buildings in High Density Districts) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Siting Guidelines, as part of Sprint PCS's Wireless telecommunications network within a RSD (Residential/Service Mixed Use) Zoning District, SOMA Quake Recovery District, and an 85-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 6, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, S Lee, Olague and W Lee

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Alexander and Hughes

MOTION: 17238

15. 2005.1071C (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1800 MASON STREET - northeast corner at Union Street, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 0101, in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District ( NCD ) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District - Request for Conditional Use authorization for the addition of a  Bar to an existing  Full-Service Restaurant (dba  Trattoria Contadina ) that serves beer and wine. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 6, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, S Lee, Olague and W Lee

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Alexander and Hughes

MOTION: 17239

THE FOLLOWING ITEM IS FROM THE ADDENDUM

16. 2004.0552E (M. JACINTO (415) 558-5988)

340-350 Fremont Street: mid-block on the west side of Fremont Street between Folsom and Harrison Streets (Assessor's Block 3748; Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9) – Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project would involve demolition of two existing marine labor union halls and construction of a 40-story, 400-foot-tall building containing 380 residential units, with up to 380 off-street parking spaces located on five levels of below-grade parking. The project would provide about 108 bicycle stalls, two off-street loading spaces, approximately 20,400 square feet of onsite open space, and additional publicly accessible open space at an off-site location. The site is within the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential use district and a 400-R height and bulk district. This Draft EIR is tiered from the Final EIR for the Rincon Hill Plan (Case No. 2000.1081E; State Clearinghouse No. 1984061912). Note: written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on April 28, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Hearing held to receiver public comment only. No action.

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

None

Commissioner Olague:

  • I was reviewing the Action List. It notes that Commissioner Lee did request a hearing by the Arts Council and it says that no other commissioner indicated support. I definitely indicated support for that and I believe Commissioner Bell did also.

Commission Secretary Avery responded

  • On that hearing (4/13/06), neither of you&

Commissioner Olague:

  • I actually introduced that.

Commission Secretary Avery responded

  • You actually introduced it at a prior hearing. And I think the three of you talked about it at that time. But still there was not consensus.

Commissioner Olague

  • Right. We can raise it next week.

Commission Secretary Avery

  • Yes you can. But at that hearing (4/13) where we agreed to bring back the Action List, there was no one else mentioning it but Commissioner Lee.

Commissioner Olague

  • Thank you.

Adjournment: 4:55 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2006.

SPEAKERS:

Deputy City Attorney Kate Stacy

  1. Wanted to talk a little about how the Commission adopts its minutes.
  2. Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission.
  3. Even where minutes are being adopted, commissioners may not be automatically excluded from that vote because they did not attend that meeting.
  4. The Commission could follow one of two routes:
  5. The Commissioners could vote on those minutes even though the commissioner was not present at that hearing because a vote on the minutes is different from a vote on a permit. It doesn't have the same adjudicative and due process implications. So a commissioner could vote on minutes for a meeting that you did not attend because you generally are aware of the accuracy of your secretary in transcribing the minutes. You may or may not get public comments on those minutes. You may or may not get commissioners comments on those minutes. Or you could review the file and the tape if you are interested in that meeting. But you can vote on the minutes without going back and reviewing the file and the tapes the way that commissioners are required to do on a permit.
  6. The other option for the Commission is to actually vote to excuse a commissioner from voting on the minutes. That would have to be a separate action taken by the Commission each time the vote is made.
  7. I just wanted to make sure the Commission was aware of that requirement and to think about how you want to vote on the minutes.

- Even if you weren't present at a meeting, I wanted to be sure that the individual commissioners were aware that you could vote on those minutes based on other evidence in the record.

ACTION: Approved

EXCUSED: Hughes

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

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