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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us
May 1, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, May 1, 2008

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:34 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Scott Sanchez, Edgar Oropeza, Shelley Perdue, Glenn Cabreros, Rick Crawford, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

A. 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. 2008.0095T (T. Sullivan-Lenane: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments to the Planning Code by adding Section 226.5: Alcohol Reduction and Safer Neighborhoods Act - Permitted Locations on New Liquor Stores and their Conditions of Operation. Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Sandoval amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 226.5 to impose a distance requirement of 500 feet or more between new off-sale liquor stores and existing liquor stores, elementary and secondary schools, public libraries, and recreation centers throughout San Francisco and establishing conditions for operation of liquor stores.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2008)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 22, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 29, 2008

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

2. 2007.0703D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

850 Francisco Street - north side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0045 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.10.18.5416 proposing to revise an issued building permit application for new construction of a four-story, single family residence. The revision consists of construction of two additional basement levels within the footprint of the proposed new construction project. The property is located in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve project

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 20, 2008)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 22, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to June 26, 2008

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

3. 2007.1256C (K. Guy: (415) 558-6163)

401-431 Columbus Avenue -west side between Stockton and Vallejo Streets, Lot 026 of Assessor's Block 0131 - west side between Stockton and Vallejo Streets, Lot 026 of Assessor's Block 0131 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 722.21, 722.41, and 722.42 to expand an existing full-service restaurant and bar (dba Panta Rei Restaurant), and to allow a use size in excess of 2,000 square feet within the North Beach NCD (Neighborhood Commercial District), and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to expand the existing 1,500 square-foot restaurant and bar to occupy the adjacent existing storefront. The expanded restaurant and bar would measure a total of 2,040 square feet.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2008)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 22, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 29, 2008

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

4. 2005.0927E (T. BLOMGREN: (415) 575-9023)

36-38 Downey Street/755 Ashbury - Lots 007, 011, and 065 of Assessor's Block 1254, mid-block on Ashbury and Downey Street between Frederick and Waller Streets Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposed project includes a lot line adjustment between Lot 007 and Lot 065, and the relocation of the existing two-unit residential building at 36-38 Downey Street to Lot 007 (next to 737 Ashbury Street), and four off-street parking spaces from Lot 007 (next to 36-38 Downey Street). The project site is zoned RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family), and RH-3 (Residential House, Three-Family) and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District in the Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood. The proposed project would require approval of a lot line adjustment and the modification of an existing Planned Unit Development.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

(proposed for Continuance to June 26, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Lu Green

- We have agreed to the continuance.

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

5. (L. Avery: (415) 558-6407)

APPENDIX A of COMMISSION'S RULES & REGULATIONS - On April 17, 2008, the Commission amended their Rules & Regulations - separating out requirements for submittals and hearing procedures. Those two topics are to be captured in an appendix to their rules and that discussion was continued to May 1, 2008. The Commission will discuss and consider possible action to adopt, amend, or not adopt proposed Appendix A of Planning Commission Rules and Regulations.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 17, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Marilyn Amini

- Requested continuance because I was unable to obtain a copy of it until last evening.

Hiroshi Fukuda

- Requested continuance because it was not available on-line and it is unclear.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 8, 2008

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

6. Commission Comments/Questions (Tape IA)

· Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).

· Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

SPEAKER(S)

Commissioner Antonini

- In this week's Chronicle, I think it was Sunday, Carol Lloyd did a good job on the inclusionary limits. She sort of looked at how it is working throughout the United States.

- She had some good things to say, at least in my opinion, on the flexibility that San Francisco allows in terms of the ways that the requirements can be satisfied.

- Second item, regarding today's Chronicle. I was not able to attend the hearing on the Transbay area and the discussion that staff had last night in terms of their proposals particularly surrounding the height limits.

- These are proposals at this point and nothing has been done. While they are taking into account the shadow impacts, there are going to be a lot of discussions in terms of the cost and benefits that have to come out from these projects to help fund the Transbay Terminal.

- We are at the beginning of the process and I appreciate staff's presentation.

- Third item, I'd like to thank Amit Ghosh for the pipeline study statistics he gave us.

- Fourth item, I thank Tara Sullivan-Lenane for responding to 900 Innes Avenue. The explanation spells out exactly what happened. But it is still a little troubling.

- I think it is a process problem because I have a big pile of material still sitting on my desk about that project. I was just expecting it to come back sometime.

- I appreciate the report that was given, but I hope that in the future we have a way to be noticed when items we put up for continuance are not coming back; or we are informed about their status, particularly the very significant projects.

Commissioner Moore

- I attended last night's meeting [Transbay] and staff did a very good and comprehensive presentation.

- It was packed with information and I request that this Commission be given more than just that presentation.

- Preferably, we'll have various meetings that are broken down by topics and clustered rather than just one full presentation.

Commissioner Sugaya

- I was surprised with that meeting since we requested this before that presentation. I had the assumption that studies were still in process.

- I missed the Planning Commission meeting last week because I was at the California Preservation Foundation Conference.

- The Planning Commission has received an award. Awards went to a number of different people including legislators and others.

- There was an award to save the San Francisco Flower Mart and that went to Patrick McCann.

- Board President Peskin picked that up the award for the Board of Supervisors. And the award for the Planning Commission, I happened to be in attendance, and I have it here. The other award winner was Sue Hestor for saving the Flower Mart.

Commissioner Miguel

- I was unable to attend last night's meeting but I read the newspapers and have been following some of the comments regarding Transbay.

- The newspapers, PR, and everything else concentrates on the sky. I just want to let everyone know that I am much more concerned with what happens on the ground.

Commissioner Olague

- I have received a couple of phone calls from members of the public and I was not really sure how to respond or if there is any responce to this.

- Apparently DBI voted to increase their fees this week and I was asked whether or not the Planning Department would be doing the same.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- I believe we will be bringing fee adjustments to the Commission in the next couple of months.

Commissioner Olague

- Another thing is the inclusionary zoning and some of the amendments that were passed at the Board. I know that on-site would be required to include 15%.

- I was asked why it is that certain taller buildings are only required to have only 12% inclusionary.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- I would have to look at the Code. I believe there is a differential for tall buildings based upon some financial analysis that was done.

- I do believe that there is some differential for taller buildings but I do not know the details of it. There is probably some basis in fact.

Commissioner Olague

- Requested a special hearing for the Commission on some of what is going on with the Transit Center because it is challenging when we read about it in the newspaper first.

- Maybe information on the skylines and what is being proposed there should be included.

Commissioner Lee

- I share that thought also because it is good for the public and for us to listen to their comments and concerns.

- My question regarding that is how this fits into the rest of the City and what we approved with Rincon Hill and the skylines.

- This is very important because it is a piece of property for future generations and I think educating the public and having their comments now will help us as we deliberate.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

7. Director's Announcements

John Rahaim, Director

- Welcomed Commissioner Miguel to the Planning Commission.

- I attended the American Planning Association Conference these past several days and most of the topics were about climate change and how cities can address that issue.

- Las Vegas is doing some things that are frankly more progressive than I would have expected especially around the issue of water reformation and retention which is an enormous issue in that region.

- It was a successful conference perhaps because of the location with a record number of attendees.

- On another issue, Dr. Ghosh did prepare the memorandum on the pipeline report and if you have further questions about that we can certainly discuss it at a future meeting.

- Next week, Dr. Ghosh is also going to be talking to you about his analysis of the State wide propositions -- 98 and 99.

- Finally, on the Transbay proposal last night: of course we will be happy and have planned to bring it to you. But the question is on what format.

- Perhaps the best way to do it is to have that overview about the issues raised and then have subsequent meetings about some of the details.

- We anticipate having the plan proposal being done by next year. Last night was very successfully with a lot of interesting comments and questions.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- I just want to alert you that in next week's packet, Tina Tam is preparing a brief document on the hospitals and the current status of the seismic upgrades.

- We want you to see that and if you want to calendar a hearing on it, we would be happy to do so. But we thought we should start with some background information.

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

Tara Sullivan-Lenane

Land Use

A- Changes to Hayes Street NCD to allow up to 4 new full service restaurants. It would require a Conditional Use authorization. Recommended approval, forwarded to the Full Board.

B- Ordinance to amend the date for Medical Cannabis Dispensaries to obtain their final permits. Current date was March 4, 2008. Due to the complicated nature of permitting, the Board has recommended moving this date to January 21, 2009. Recommended approval, forwarded to the Full Board.

C- Restoration of Historic Movie Theater signs and marquees. Continued to next Monday.

Full Board

A- Ron Miguel was formally appointed to the Planning Commission.

B- Change to the height and bulk provisions in North Beach. Second read. This is basically fixing a Code provision about the height by bringing it back to 40 feet.

C- Landmark designation for 900 Innes Avenue had its second read and was formally approved.

D- Excelsior Fringe Financial Restricted Use District was overlaid into the Excelsior Alcohol Restricted Use District. Passed.

E- Conditional Use appeal hearing for 1575 South Van Ness Avenue – The project sponsor appealed the Planning Commission disapproval of their application. Continued.

F-Request by Supervisor Dufty that the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Office of Economic and Work Force Development, Planning Department and the Small Businesses Commission provide an outline of information and potential options to create a home improvement district along Bayshore Boulevard that has a green and sustainable overlay in character. These recommendations would include incentives for green building suppliers and contractors to open up new businesses along this corridor and to provide sustainable green employment opportunities and help upgrade this corridor. Cosponsor by Supervisors Maxwell and Ammiano.

Board of Appeals

NONE

(Tape IA) (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

9. UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF AND CHANGES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S LEGISLATION TO CONTROL THE LOSS OF DWELLING UNITS - Informational presentation

SPEAKER(S)

Marilyn Amini

- Right after this legislation was approved I requested it be brought back to you to provide proper public due process. There are irregularities in these substantial amendments.

ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission.

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.

SPEAKER(S)

Hiroshi Fukuda Re: Transbay Center

- Attended last night's meeting and there was no mention of sewer upgrades or seismic enforcement with these high density plans.

Marilyn Amini Re: Changes to Planning Commission's legislation to control loss of dwellings

- This action by the Planning Department is with the Board of Supervisors rather than with the Commission. It is official misconduct.

E. REGULAR CALENDAR

10. 2007.1072C ( Tape IA ; IB) (S. SANCHEZ: (415) 558-6326)

1727 LOMBARD STREET - south side between Laguna and Octavia Streets, Lot 036, in Assessor's Block 0506 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 209.2(c) to legalize the conversion of a tourist hotel ( Star Motel ) to group housing for a post-secondary educational institution ( Academy of Art University ) in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Hold public hearing to allow public comment and continue item to allow for additional neighborhood outreach and completion of environmental review.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2007)

NOTE: On April 24, 2008, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the item to May 1, 2008.

SPEAKER(S)

John Bardis

- We need to keep in mind the overall picture of what the context of this project is because there is a list of violations that have occurred from this institution. They need to be treated as real estate professionals and not as an academic institution.

Bruce Allison

- If they want to provide housing for their students, they can have it in the building on Van Ness Avenue that they use for parking without a proper permit.

Hiroshi Fukuda

- You should consider the Academy of Arts the same as if it is UCSF [San Francisco University of California]

ACTION: After public hearing, continued to August 7th 2008. Public hearing remains open.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, W. Lee, Miguel and Moore

NAYES: Sugaya

11. 2007.1064C (M. Woods: (415) 558-6315)

1860 LOMBARD STREET - north side between Buchanan and Laguna Streets; Lot 023 (formerly Lot 011), in Assessor's Block 0494 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow a  formula retail use that is also a  large fast food restaurant (dba Subway) pursuant to Sections 303(c), 303(i), 703.4 and 712.43 of the Planning Code, in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2007)

NOTE: On April 24, 2008, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the item to May 1, 2008.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 29, 2008

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

12. 2007.1359CE (Tapes IB; IIA) (E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)

1501 15th STREET (AKA 400 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE) - the southwest corner of South Van Ness Avenue and 15th Street; Lot 054 in Assessor's Block 3553 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 223(j) and 303 to allow the construction of a automobile wash, the proposed project is for the construction of a 32-foot tall, two-story commercial building, and under Planning Code Sections 228.3 and 303 to allow the conversion of a gasoline service station to another use, within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District and the proposed Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area.

Preliminary recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting from April 10, 2008)

NOTE: On April 10, 2008, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to May 1, 2008. Public hearing remains open.

SPEAKER(S)

David Silverman, Project Sponsor Representative

- The sponsor is committed to using the lowest noise system that is available on the market. Of course, all the equipment would be located within the car-wash tunnel.

- The property at 501 South Van Ness would continue operation as a car-wash and there would be some overlap with the new car-wash of at least 3 to 4 years. The sponsor is willing to keep it open for an even longer period if the Commission desires.

- The proposed car-wash complies with the existing zoning and with the proposed Eastern Neighborhoods Mission Area Plan.

(-)Eduardo Lucio

- I'm concerned about environmental affects -- causing noise, pollution, waste of potential materials, safety, traffic increase, and this is not a business oriented district.

(-)Marc Glomb

- This is a residential area and the car-wash would increase traffic. [Submitted 170 petitions signed by property owners opposing this project.]

(-)Seth Duncan

- I'm concerned with the potential increase in noise, traffic and safety issues.

(+)Roy Castillo

- Supported this project because being an employee for six years, the owner is very supportive of his employees.

(+)Kesh Prasan

- The owners are very good employers providing support to co-workers and jobs in the Mission.

(+)Allen Kipper

- I have worked with this family for 8 years. They are very good employers.

(-)Thomas Epley

- I'm concerned with the potential increase in noise, pollution, traffic, and safety because of the heavy pedestrian and bike traffic.

(-)Deanne Berger-Moudgil

- This is a heavy residential area and I would like to see the actual plan for this car-wash have a green objective.

(-)Tolithia Kormueibel

- What I have heard through this process is that I have no reason to believe they would be a good neighbor.

(-)Harry Thomas

- [Submitted a petition signed by neighbors opposing this project]

- The area is mainly residential and there are already six car-wash businesses in the immediate area.

ACTION: Disapproved

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini and Lee

MOTION: 17589

13. 2008.0022L (Tape IIA) (S. PERDUE: (415) 558-6625)

1969 California Street -Tobin House - south side of California Street between Gough and Octavia Streets, on Assessor's Block 0649, Lot 016. The subject property is a Tudor -style, single-family residence, designed by Willis Jefferson Polk and constructed in 1915. The property is zoned RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Consideration to approve, disapprove, or approve with modifications the landmark designation of the 1969 California Street - Tobin House under Article 10 of the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of the Landmark Designation, and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors.

SPEAKER(S)

Alice Carey – Recommending landmark status of subject property

- The owners are motivated to landmark the property for numerous reasons including their desire to preserve the property and to take advantage of some of the few incentives that are offered.

- The Landmark Board did vote unanimously to approve this property as a landmark and granting this landmark status will be a permanent benefit for the City of San Francisco.

Karen McNeill, Architect

- The nomination is not based on any interior features. Therefore any interior alteration is irrelevant to its nomination.

- This house has not gone through any major alteration that significantly compromises its integrity and stability to express its historic significance.

Tony Mayer, Owner

- The home has been mostly restored to a single family dwelling. And since our occupation, we have continued to update various internal systems and static details.

- We initiated the designation of the building as a landmark because we feel it is important to preserve history for ourselves and generations to come.

Brett Gladstone

- Just to make it clear, we are not here seeking a conditional use permit.

- We met with the neighborhood association to tell them, before filing anything, what we were doing.

(-)Greg Scott

- I oppose the landmark of this property because it only became an issue to the owners when they were notified that the use of the building for commercial purpose was an illegal use.

(+)Julian Ray

- The owners have gone through a great deal of trouble to beautify the property. They are very meticulous and excellent neighbors.

(+)Jean Ray

- It is a beautiful building and it is obvious that the owners take great pride in this house.

(+)Tom Christopher

- I support the application because I'd like to see the property preserve its beauty.

(+)Raoul Kennedy

- The home looks like a jewel and it should have been a landmark long ago.

(-)Terry McGuire

- You should look at the significant issue that is going to impact homeowners in the City when this comes back to you in six months for the change by conditional use.

(-)Aleea McGuire

- You should really evaluate why they want the status and what really should be landmarked.

- The use of the building is an art gallery.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel and Moore

EXCUSED: Sugaya

MOTION: 17590

4:00 P.M.

14a. 2007.0179D (Tape IIA; IIB) (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

536 - 40TH AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street; Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 7536 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2006.08.17.9798, proposing to demolish a two-story single-family dwelling 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.

SPEAKER(S)

Sarah Huang, Discretionary Review Requestor

- Concerned that this project would impact natural light and privacy.

- The proposed four story building is out of scale with my own low two story house.

- I have requested that the project sponsor provide a copy of the proposed elevation and they refused.

(-)Paul Chen

- The proposed project would not fit the characteristics of the neighborhood and I request that you review the proposed front elevation because it would block natural light.

(-)Esther Tang

- Concerned on the height and position of the proposed project, being only 3 feet away from our property, would block natural light and air.

(-)Adela Tang

- The proposed project would block natural light and air, affecting our living environment.

, Project Sponsor

- My house is my only and most valuable asset. Developing further brings security and the ability to provide for my children's future, especially their upcoming education.

- To make this project financially affordable, I have to build two units. That gives us the opportunity to provide a new quality housing space for another family in San Francisco.

- It took me more than two years to put everything together and finally be here before you. I feel that my project does not have any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

William Pashelinsky, Architect

- When we met with the requestor, there was no mention of any concern to the loss of light.

- They were worried about the timing of our demolition and asked us to delay our project because they also have a project in process.

- The loss of light is very minimum.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved demolition.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel and Moore

ABSENT: Sugaya

14b. 2008.0271DD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

536 - 40TH AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street; Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 7536 - 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. 2006.08.17.9803, proposing to construct a new two-unit, four-story building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. A separate, private request for Discretionary Review has also been filed on the new construction project.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve.

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 14a

ACTION: After public hearing, continued the new construction to May 29, 2008 encouraging further discussion on design issues and take into consideration the proposed project of the DR requestor.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel and Moore

ABSENT: Sugaya

15a. 2006.1519DV (Tapes IIB; IIIA) (r. crawford: (415) 558-6358)

1413 noe Street - east side between Duncan and 27th Streets Lot 022A of Assessor's Block 6591 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application 2007.08.312.1530 proposing the demolition of a one and one-half story single-family dwelling 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 Demolition.

SPEAKER(S)

Robin Jay, Discretionary Review Requestor

- Concerned that the upper level deck would have a significant impact on light, air and privacy.

- There were no efforts to talk to me about the potential design plans.

- Another issue for me is that they have a light well matching the light well I have.

(-)Don Bardole

- Concerned with the façade design because it is not considering any consistency and compatibility with the other buildings on the block.

(-)Mike Garavaghia

- Concerned about the impacts to natural light and I request they reduce the mass of the project on the northeast corner.

Ross Levy, Project Architect

- We have proposed several compromises and have attempted to address the concerns about the mass at the rear of the building and the nature of the deck.

- Building contextually does not necessarily mean building in the exact fashion of the neighborhood houses but rather to pick up some of the lines of the structure, mass, form and materials.

(+)Alfonso Rodriguez

- We have met with the neighbors and have done various changes to accommodate their concerns.

(+)Claudia Villena

- We have been very flexible and really tried working reasonably with neighbors.

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

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel and Moore

ABSENT: Sugaya

15b. 2008.0439DD (r. crawford: (415) 558-6358)

1413 Noe Street - east side between Duncan and 27th Streets Lot 022A of Assessor's Block 6591 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application 2007.08.31.1531 proposing to construct a new three-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. A separate, private request for Discretionary Review has also been filed on the new construction project.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project with Modifications

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 15a

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with modifications that reflects the drawing submitted on April 22, 2008 and:

-Allow the roof deck at the rear to align with the chimney on the front.

-Require open non-glass railings.

AYES: Olague, Lee, Miguel and Moore

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: Sugaya

15c. 2006.1519DV (r. crawford: (415) 558-6358)

1413 Noe Street - east side between Duncan and 27th Streets Lot 022A of Assessor's Block 6591 - Request for a Variance from the rear yard requirements of Planning Code Section 134 to maintain a rear yard of 9 feet where 16 feet is required in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to demolish the existing one and one-half story dwelling and construct a new 3-story, single-family dwelling.

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 15a

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

16. 2008.0215d (Tape IIA) (a. starr: (415) 558-6362)

2157 green street (aka 2151 Green Street) - south side between Fillmore Street and Webster St.; Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 0557- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.02.13.4062 proposing to construct a single-family house with six levels stepping up the vacant, up-sloping lot, with a maximum height above grade of 40 feet 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 Project

SPEAKER(S)

David Silverman

- This case has been settled and the extra week continuance is for the purpose of writing it up.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 8, 2008

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel and Moore

ABSENT: Sugaya

H. 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))

SPEAKER(S)

Marilyn Amini

- I just obtained the master report on the lost of dwelling unit legislation and it was signed by the Mayor on April 17.

- This Commission has jurisdiction over this matter until the required 30-days after the Mayor's signature lapses. I request that you have this matter back before you for discussion because of the significant changes.

Adjournment: 6:52 P.M.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, May 29, 2008.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved as amended: Page 4 – Commissioner Sugaya's comments, last bullet should read:  Board President Peskin picked up the award for the Board of Supervisors. Add at the end: The other award winner was Sue Hestor for saving the Flower Mart.

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NOTE: Per Section 67.18 of the Administrative Code for the City and County of San Francisco, Commission minutes contain a description of the item before the Commission for discussion/consideration; a list of the public speakers with names if given, and a summary of their comments including an indication of whether they are in favor of or against the matter; and any action the Commission takes. The minutes are not the official record of a Commission hearing. The audiotape is the official record. Copies of the audiotape may be obtained by calling the Commission office at (415) 558-6415. For those with access to a computer and/or the Internet, Commission hearings are available at www.sfgov.org. Under the heading Explore, the category Government, and the City Resources section, click on SFGTV, then Video on Demand. You may select the hearing date you want and the item of your choice for a replay of the hearing.

 
Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:35 PM