8. (L. BADINER: (415) 558-6411)
Discussion and possible action on the Director's leave, adoption of the Department's management structure including new temporary job classifications while he is on leave, and a discussion of the Department's priorities in light of the approved 2003-2004 budget.
On Director's Leave:
SPEAKER(S):
Tim Tosta - Steefel, Levitt and Weiss
- He was at a conference last week at Harvard.
- It was a stunning experience for the community of which our common interest bounds together.
- He had a chance to have dinner with Gerald Green and it was an opportunity to see the depth and quality of the people in the program.
- It is an honor to the City that Mr. Green was chosen for this Fellowship.
- It is a wonderful environment where Mr. Green is right now.
- He hopes that the Commission will look at all these aspects of the situation and hopes the City recognizes that.
Jeffrey Heller - Heller and Mannus Architects
- He is part of a task force being put together between the AIA and SPUR, which is looking at how to make the planning process better; what recommendations can be put forth to the Commission in making the process move better.
- The flow of things while the Commission is making the decisions is reassuring knowing that Mr. Badiner is Acting Director.
Nilka Julio - Representing Local 21
- She appreciates the opportunity to speak on this issue.
- Budgetary measures have impacted the Planning Department.
- The membership of Local 21 is contributing
- She does not question the leave of Mr. Green or the ability of Mr. Badiner; she questions the impact to the budget and the department.
Kate White - Housing Action Coalition
- The coalition does not have a stand on this issue so she is speaking for herself.
- Why is Director Green taking a leave if he will not have a job when the new City Administration takes over in January?
- The Planning Department is such a key department in the City and she feels that the Acting Director should have complete control of this.
ACTION: The Commission approved Director Green's leave as an educational leave retroactive to September 1, 2003 up to and including June 30, 2004; consistent with all applicable Civil Service rules [including Federal and State law, pay rules and the Memorandum of Understanding that applies here]; and recognizing that the director may return to duties, for which he will be paid [while in San Francisco only], for short periods of time.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee
NAYES: Feldstein
ABSENT: W. Lee
On Creation of Two Temporary Positions - Acting Director and Acting Zoning Administrator:
ACTION: Approved as amended to make them retroactive to September 1, 2003.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
ABSENT: W. Lee
RESOLUTION: 16666
On the Department's Budget:
SPEAKER(S):
Kate White - Housing Acting Coalition
- She realizes that the public needs to talk to the Supervisors regarding the Planning Department's budget.
- The Planning Department is a key department for the City.
- Planning is needed for housing, neighborhoods and to keep the City livable.
- Without funding, there is a serious problem.
- It is very disconcerting that no money went to the department this year.
- Creative ways to find fees need to be found. Of course, the fees cannot be so high that developers will not want to do anything in San Francisco.
Marilyn Amini
- The material for the work plan was not available until this past Monday.
- The information that was displayed today was not provided to the public.
- She feels that the Department has problems on the budget because of these issues.
- If the community as a whole had been involved in the planning of the Housing Element, there would be fees allocated for the needs.
- Things are being proposed that are not in sync with the community.
Sue Hestor
- She agrees with Ms. White.
- Fee recovery needs to be done for people who use area plans.
- There have been too many spot rezoning in areas that are being considered for rezoning.
- It costs more on staff when projects that could have been done in 6 months is done in three years.
- All the developers are getting their projects and not the residents of San Francisco.
ACTION: On calendar for discussion only. No action taken.
9. 2003.0042T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)
MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION NOTIFICATION - consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 311 and 312 to require expanded public notice for major exterior alteration projects; requiring the Building and Planning Departments to issue implementing regulation within 90 days and report to the Board of Supervisors on the effectiveness of the ordinance no later than nine months thereafter; and adopting findings.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
Bruce Bonacker
- He is an architect and works on remodeling houses.
- He has been a member of the task force that is working on this item for a long time.
- Regarding re-notices on work being done on approved projects, he would like to not have that aspect of the legislation struck as has been recommended by Mr. Lord.
- If this aspect is not struck it would not cause a burden to the department.
- If the Commission feels that it should be struck, then the Acting Zoning Administrator should make the determination of noticing or not.
John Schlesinger
- Mr. Lord has pointed out some of the most important merits of the legislation.
- This legislation provides important information to the appropriate parties.
- He is also a member of the task force.
Pat Buscovich
- He is also on the task force.
- He wanted to expand the notice and create a fuller package so that everyone would understand what is going on.
- The Zoning Administrator should deal with minor changes and interested parties should deal with moderate changes only.
- This is a very critical portion of this legislation.
Jeremy Paul
- He has spent dozens of hours on this legislation.
- The first issue they dealt with was unlawful demolitions.
- He is strongly in favor of increased notification. The more information goes out in advance, is better to solve problems that perhaps will not be able to be undone.
Alice Barkley
- The problem she has with this ordinance is page 15, lines 15 to 19 because this legislation will place a burden on homeowner occupancy.
- When something is already under construction and needs to be changed, it should not require re-notification. That will place an extreme burden on a homeowner.
Sue Hestor
- She has a problem with the change of going to an 18-month period implementation on dealing with the Department of Building Inspection.
- This should not be delayed anymore.
- This is a doable plan.
Marilyn Amini
- This legislation is about expanding notice. The code requires a 300-foot radius on a project.
- The building code gives earlier notice.
- She is glad to hear that the Department is not suggesting 150-foot radius.
- It is important to notice neighbors of changes done to 2/3 of the structure.
- A lot of changes are done one site at projects.
- She has a question on what determines minor or moderate changes.
- The information on this legislation was not available to the public in a timely manor in order to give the public time to respond. Commissioner Feldstein is always announcing that she receives information in a short amount of time before a hearing.
ACTION: Approved with the following language modification:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Commission approves the Planning Code Amendments as presented in the draft ordinance signed by the City Attorney dated April 9, 2003 attached to this resolution as Exhibit A and recommends to the Board of Supervisors that the proposed Ordinance be adopted with minor modifications.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the Commission recommends modifying the re-noticing language contained in Section B on pages 15 and 21 to read as follows:
(B) Proposed modifications, other than those listed in Section (6)(A) above, to the exterior, including but not limited to material and window location, size and type, that does not change the previously-approved building envelope shall require notice to be given only to those interested parties who registered at the time of the initial notification. The Department shall not approve a modified permit until 10 days after the additional notice is given. The length of required waiting period after approval of the modified permit and notification procedures may be reduced at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the Commission further recommends that the Board of Supervisors recognize the need for new staff and budget necessary to implement the requirements of this ordinance.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors modify the language on page 12 line 4 to replace the "and" separators between "demolition," "new construction," and "alteration" with "or" as the separator and modify the new Section 5 on page 23 of the draft ordinance to read as follows:
Section 5. Adoption of Rules and Regulations. Within 90 days of the effective date of this ordinance, the Department of Building Inspection and Department of Planning shall jointly issue administrative regulations implementing the provisions of this ordinance. No later than 18 months thereafter, the two departments shall present to the Board of Supervisors a report on the effectiveness of the ordinance and any recommendations for amendments of its provisions. This ordinance shall apply only to those building permit applications filed after the issuance of administrative regulations or within 90 days of the effective date of this ordinance, which ever is sooner.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors modify the language on page 8, beginning on line 9 to include the additional language provided as underlined text such that the draft ordinance would read as follows:
1. Information showing the relationship of the project to the adjacent properties including showing the outline of the front and rear elevations of adjacent properties and the side elevations of adjacent properties outlined on the side elevations of the subject property.
2. A notification map showing properties to be notified, including a clearly legible, reduced size site plan on an 11" by 17" page, at a measurable scale, to be used as part of the notification package.
2.1 An accurate site plan showing locations of lightwells, side setbacks and dimensions of adjacent buildings, existing grades and features of the subject and adjacent properties including but not limited to street trees, curb cuts and utility lines.
3. Separate plans of all floors (stories) to be provided at the same scale (1/4"=1'), with readable measurements showing:
3.1 existing conditions, in floor plan format, with a clear indication of the areas to be removed (demolitions plans).
3.2 proposed new floor plans.
4. Separate existing and proposed exterior elevations. Exterior elevation shall include diagrams and calculations showing the amount of removal of exterior walls, Each drawing shall be submitted on a clearly legible, reduced on 11" by 17" pages, as a measurable scale, with readable measurements, to be used as par of the notification package.
5. A footprint of the adjacent buildings showing the building heights and location of windows facing the subject property shown as part of the package listed in subparagraphs 1 and 2 above.
5.1 A completed copy of the Design Review Checklist found in the Residential Design Guidelines......
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
ABSENT: W. Lee
MOTION: 16667
10. 2002.0639D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
604 RHODE ISLAND STREET AND 2005-2007 18TH STREET (aka 2001 18TH STREET; aka 602 RHODE ISLAND STREET) - corner of 18th and Rhode Island Streets, Lots 001 and 002 in Assessor's Block 4030 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Numbers 2002.05.22.7228 and 2002.05.22.7240, which would demolish a single family home and a two-unit home, respectively. Under proposed conditions, the two adjacent properties would be re-subdivided and a new single family home would be built on the resulting corner parcel while a new two-family home would be built on the resulting 18th Street parcel. Mandatory Discretionary Review is required under Planning Commission policy for projects proposing the demolition of housing. The properties are located 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):
Alice Barkley
- She is available for questions.
- In the packet there is a photograph that is missing regarding a staircase that is quite dangerous.
- When one gets to the top of the staircase, there is no landing. This could also be very dangerous.
Pat Buscovich
- He has reviewed the report.
- This report excludes seismic strengthening.
- The Commission should take into consideration that some buildings are unsound because of seismic problems.
- It is important to bolt down structures.
ACTION: The Commission Took No Action. The Demolition is Approved.
11. 2003.0183D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
2477-2479 SUTTER STREET - south side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets; lot 022 in Assessor's Block 1076 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.08.13.3876, proposing the demolition of a two-story two-family dwelling within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There is a related proposal to construct a new, four-story three-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 18, 2003)
SPEAKER(S):
David Silverman - Representing Project Sponsor
- The project satisfies all the requirements for demolition.
- The replacement building will have three off-street parking spaces.
- The project will also improve the neighborhood.
- This project is fully code compliant.
- The structure unit will provide an additional dwelling unit.
Steve Williams
- He is here as a private citizen.
- This house should be preserved since it violates only three of the four priority policies.
- This is a nice little house.
- This is not an unsafe or unsound house.
- He urges the Commission to look closely at the photos he submitted.
ACTION No. 1: Take Discretionary and Disapprove Demolition
AYES: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
NAYES: Boyd, Antonini, Bradford Bell
ABSENT: W. Lee
RESULT: Motion Failed
ACTION No. 2: Public Hearing Closed. Item continued to October 16, 2003 for final action.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
ABSENT: W. Lee
12. 2003.0524D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
535 41ST. AVENUE - west side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 1503 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.12.09.3100, proposing the demolition of a one-story, single-family residence within an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. A four-story two-family residence replacement building with two off-street parking spaces is proposed under a separate application.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jeremy Paul
- There was no indication that there was any maintenance.
- The structural report is quite accurate.
- The proposed design sits fine with the adjacent homes and will complement the block.
(+) Patrick Buscovich - Structural Engineer
- The home was damaged in a previous earthquake.
- There are problems with the foundation.
- The plumbing still works but it is old and obsolete.
- There is mold throughout the house.
- Although the bathroom and kitchen look fine, the rest of the house needs a lot of work.
(+) Napat Chananudech
- In the original proposal, the house was three stories but now it has four stories.
- He has no objection to demolishing the building but the majority of the homes in the neighborhood have two stories and some have three stories.
- He is worried about the property values of the adjacent homes.
ACTION: Do not take Discretionary Review and approved demolition.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
ABSENT: W. Lee
13. 2003.0907D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)
337 LISBON STREET - south side between Persia and Brazil Avenues; Lot 038 in Assessor's Block 6080 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.03.14.9814, proposing to demolish an existing single-family dwelling. A new single-family dwelling unit would be constructed under a separate Building Permit Application, No. 2003.03.14.9819s. The project is located in an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
SPEAKER(S):
Toby Long - Project Architect
- This is one of the soggiest houses he has ever seen.
- The water has damaged most of the structure.
- The new structure will be more consistent with the project sponsor's lifestyle.
- This was originally not intended for a residence.
Isis (did not state last name)
- She is one of the owners of this house.
- When they purchased the house she did not realize how damaged the house was.
- She moved out last winter because the mold and water damage was affecting their health.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved demolition
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
ABSENT: W. Lee
14. 2002.0939D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
727-729 MORAGA STREET - South side between Funston and 14th Avenues. Assessor's Block 2036A Lot 006. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002 0117 7252, to construct a new two family dwelling on the vacant lot. Independently accessible parking spaces will be provided by means of a parking stacker in the RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project with Modifications
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Rachel Lau - Discretionary Review Requestor
- She and several of her neighbors have met with the project sponsor but have been unsuccessful in dealing with her issues.
- She is concerned with the following: the proposed building will block light to their home; it will affect her and her neighbor's privacy, and there are discrepancies in the plans. The height of the building makes it too much taller than the adjacent homes.
- She requests that the building be reduced in height and that there be no roof deck parapet or solid wall.
(-) Martin Bloch
- The proposed building is out of scale and out of character. It towers as much as 24 feet above the neighboring homes and will block sunlight to the surrounding homes.
(-) Dr. Steven Muchnick
- There will be two units and seven bedrooms in the proposed structure, causing more traffic on that street.
- There are no parking spaces available on that block so there is no space for additional parking.
- Blocking the Moraga steps will be an impact because there are many people who use those steps.
(-) Jose Escobar
- He and his family live on Moraga.
- He has lived there for over 40 years.
- The proposed structure will block light, disrupt his privacy and be a negative impact on he and his family.
- He asks that the Commission allow staff's recommendation and modify the project.
(+) Alex Varun - Project Sponsor
- He described various architectural and height aspects of the homes in the neighborhood.
- The proposed building will not affect the adjacent buildings because they are higher.
ACTION: Recused Commissioner Boyd
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
ABSENT: W. Lee
ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project with Modifications:
a) The top floor shall be deleted from the plan.
b) The rear extension into the required rear yard shall be deleted from the plan.
c) The proposed parking stacker shall provide independently accessible parking for two cars.
d) A full bath shall not be permitted on the ground floor of the building. A half bath shall be permitted.
e) The roof parapet on the sides and rear of the building shall not exceed 6 inches in height.
f) A street tree shall be planted along the Moraga Street frontage.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
EXCUSED: Boyd
ABSENT: W. Lee
15. 2003.0863D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
555 VALLEY STREET - South side between Castro and Diamond Streets. Assessor's Block 7536 Lot 023. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003 04.24 3036, to construct a 37 foot long, four story addition to the rear of the existing 25 foot long, three story single family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential House, One Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review, and approve Building Permit Application as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
Dr. Allen Kessler
- He contacted the project sponsor to trim the tree he had in his yard and he agreed.
- The current plan dominates adjacent properties; it will create an intrusion and will block light and air.
(-) Richard E. Peterson
- He owns three lots and lives in a cottage on one of these lots.
- The fact that this structure does not extend into the middle open space is not correct.
- This structure is out of character with the structures on that block.
- The center of the block is open both when looking up on Castro and looking down from Diamond Street.
(+) Steve Johnston - Project Architect
- He submitted a petition with signatures that are in support of his project.
- The project sponsor would like to live on the same floor as their children.
- The building will not be built to the maximum allowed from the Planning Code.
- He has been an architect in Noe Valley and this is the first time he is before the Commission. This is because his clients have done what he recommends.
(+) Ciaran Woods
- He and his wife live in a small two-bedroom apartment.
- The house is located in a nice and quiet cul-de-sac.
- He does not want to have any problems with his neighbors.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve the project.
ACTION: Public hearing closed. Item continued to October 16, 2003 requiring better plans of the surrounding area.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
ABSENT: W. Lee
16. 2003.0965D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
510 BELVEDERE STREET - east side between Alma and Rivoli Streets; Lot 063 in Assessor's Block 1279 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.04.03.1372, proposing the demolition of a two-story, single-family residence within an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. A four-story (three-stories plus a penthouse), single-family residence replacement building is proposed under a separate application.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition.
SPEAKER(S):
David Silverman - Representing Project Sponsor
- None of the neighbors filed a Discretionary Review. Neighbors were invited to view the plans and details of the project and everyone who was invited agreed to the demolition.
- The new single family home will have three bedrooms as opposed to the one bedroom they currently have.
- The design provides for setbacks in all directions.
- The project will enhance the neighborhood.
- The project is fully compliant and satisfies the demolition criteria.
- The project architect and the owner are here if there are any questions.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee
NAYES: Feldstein
ABSENT: W. Lee
17. 2003.0859D (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)
643 GREENWICH STREET - south side, between Powell and Stockton Streets, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 0089 - Discretionary Review request, for a building permit (No. 2002.11.27.2429) to allow the addition of a full third floor and smaller fourth floor to the existing residence. The existing building is a one-story, single-family dwelling over garage, with frontage on Greenwich. A second structure at the rear of the lot is to remain as is and is not part of this project scope. The property is located in the RM-3 (Mixed-Residential, Medium Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the permit application.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to October 16, 2003
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
ABSENT: W. Lee
