February 07, 2002
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, February 7, 2002
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT CHINCHILLA AT 1:35 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Tina Tam; Paul Lord; Victoria Ryan; Scott Sanchez; Sharon Young; Matt Snyder; Tammy Chan; Dan Sider; Michael Smith; Dario Jones; Nora Priego – Transcription Secretary; 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. 1999.598D (CHIN: 575-6897)
135 JORDAN AVENUE - west side of the street between Geary Blvd. and Euclid Street, Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 1062 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9905431, proposing to add a new story and approximately 75 square feet to the basement and second floor at the rear side of the building on a single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1 (D) (Residential, Detached, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to February 21, 2002)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to February 21, 2002
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore
2. 2001.0982D (RYAN: 575-6812)
2887 WASHINGTON STREET, #9 - south side of Washington Street, between Scott and Divisadero Streets, Lot 027 in Assessor’s Block 1002 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/07/05/2976S, proposing to legalize a 2 foot by 4 foot kitchen counter-top extension into an existing light well at the third floor of a three-story over basement nine-family apartment building in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.
(Proposed for continuance to April 11, 2002)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to April 11, 2002
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore
3. 2000.585E (TURRELL: 558-5994)
438-8th STREET - Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. The property is on Lot 002 of Assessor's Block 3757, located on the west side of 8th Street. The proposal includes the demolition of five existing structures on the project site and the construction of a three-story, 105,500 square foot structure to contain business service uses, which is a permitted use within the district. The project site is on 8th Street with frontage on both 8th and Converse Streets. The subject site is within an SLI (Service/Light Industrial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District within the South of Market District of the City of San Francisco. Two of the existing structures on the site are utilized as storage sheds and the remaining three structures are vacant. The proposed new structure would entirely encompass the subject site, be a maximum of 40 feet in height, and contain three stories. The project would include an open courtyard and 100 belowground parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Proposed for continuance to May 2, 2002)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to May 2, 2002
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
4. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of January 17 and 24, 2002.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: 1/17 approved as drafted. 1/24 approved with corrections to the spelling of two names.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
5. Commission Matters
Commissioner Baltimore: She requested that there be a calendared a discussion on parking policies in the City.
Commissioner Theoharis: She received a copy of SPUR's publication, A Guide to San Francisco General Plan – A Vision of a Place. She was impressed with the clarity. It was interesting and clear. She also mentioned the hard work of former Commissioner Beverly Mills for working long and hard on this project.
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
6. Director's Announcements
Re: Community Planning Workshops
- The 2nd in the series of community planning workshops will be held on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. at the ODC theatre that is located at 3153 17th Street, at the intersection of Shotwell. This will be for the Mission Community Plan Area.
On the 2nd of February was the first introductory workshop for the showplace square/potrero hill community plan area. This meeting was held from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The meeting was very successful in providing a starting place. There is still a lot of work to do since there will still be three more of these workshops to be held this month.
7. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS – None
BOA
January 30, 2002 Hearing:
Re: 760 El Camino Del Mar
- The Board upheld the Commission's decision but made one minor change.
- The Commission had originally voted to design a setback on the upper floor to allow more light to the adjacent property's rear yard. The Board decided that this was not necessary.
- The Board basically modified the material selection.
February 6, 2002 Hearing:
Re: 1209 Vicente Street
- This was a conditional use that was before the Commission on January 22, 1998 for the modification of a building; reduce the parking on the site; and to keep more of a retail frontage.
- A series of permits were issued, but the Building Department decided that keeping the existing building was not appropriate. The Planning Department issued a building permit that, in general, complied with the decision of the Commission, but was new construction. Unfortunately, the Planning Department in error issued another building permit that was 4 feet higher. The neighbors appealed the demolition, the project sponsor, who had a new representative, recognized that this 4 foot addition was inappropriate, the Board of Appeals understood that, they upheld the demolition permit but stayed the demolition permit until a new building permit was issued. In affect, the neighbors get the opportunity to look at the new building again.
8. Consideration of amending the existing Planning Commission Inclusionary Housing Policies
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Commissioner Linda Richardson
- She supports the Director and Staff on this item.
- There are many elements that constrains housing in San Francisco.
- Incentives need to be provided to private developers as well as encourage non-profits.
- She also supports the True Hope project.
(+) Chris Cunnie – Representing the Police Officers Association
- He is working closely with the coalition, the community leaders and ministers of the City to represent 2,100 of his members.
- He is here to ask the Commission to support the off site exclusionary housing.
- Affordable housing for his members takes community policing to a new level.
(+/-) Jamie Rossi – San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and Housing Action Coalition
- He commended the Commission for having done a great job on this policy.
- Yet he believes that it should help to influence the legislation that is going forward at the Board of Supervisors by Supervisor Leno.
- The inclusionary requirement should be a law not just a guideline.
- He also supports the True Hope Church of God and Union Property Capital. This is a great example of what you can do when you put private capital with the current needs of San Francisco.
(+/-) Lynn Sedway – Sedway Group
- She has been engaged to analyze the feasibility of the inclusionary requirements.
- A lot of the scope was augmented to address the concerns and issues raised by the Planning Department.
- She does not agree with all the conclusions of this policy especially those that state that the inclusionary policy is feasible. Although there are other conclusions she does agree with.
(+/-) Jim Chappell – President of SPUR
- For 5 years, their major program has been housing production and looking for ways to fund housing in the City. He is also a member of the Housing Action Coalition, where 15 to 20 groups have been working for 2 years for inclusionary legislation. This has resulted in legislation that is before the Board of Supervisor where there is wide-spread agreement by housing organizations.
- Although the Planning Department has been working hard on this, it is still policy and not legislation.
- He would like the Commission and the Planning Department to endorse the legislation that is before the Board of Supervisors.
(+/-) Rev. Arnold Townsend
- He realizes that there have been a lot of numbers being discussed but he is concerned with the real human effect on people who cannot afford to live here and have to leave.
- The Department has to be careful to not make requirements so high that developers don't build anything. Then there will not be any inclusionary housing or market rate or any other kind.
- It was a good idea to bring this policy forward but more detail needs to be dedicated to it.
(+) Walter L. Johnson – San Francisco Labor Council
- He would like the Commission to please consider the proposal of Bay View Hope Housing. It would be wrong to delay this project.
- He appreciates all the time and work dedicated by the department but there are special cases that require special attention.
(+) Rev. Ted Frazier – Voice of Pentecost Church
- He is encouraged with the progress that is being made in this area.
- There is a tremendous crisis in housing and we need creative approaches to solve the problem.
- He supports the project in Bay View Hunters Point.
(+) Tyrone Netters – Bay View Hope Project
- He is here to support the Bay View housing project.
- He also supports the Planning Department's policy
- He read a letter from a friend who would like to keep the inclusionary housing requirement for developers at 10 percent.
(+/-) Hazel Walker – Care and Restoration Inc.
- She appreciates the staff of the Planning Department and all the hard work related to this policy.
- Affordable housing is very much needed in this City and the Planning Commission has the power to do a better job and a more outstanding job in this City.
- She is concerned that the Bay View Housing Project will be delayed for another year. She hopes that the Commission will not do that.
(-) Rev. Arelious Walker – Caring and Restoration Home
- He received faxes, e-mails, etc. from people who had seen the hearing held on the Bay View Housing Project and were very excited about it.
- Recently he has been receiving information that this project will be delayed.
- The Commission has the authority today to make this decision and hopes that the Commission will not delay this project.
(-/+) Steve Atkinson – Steefel, Levitt and Weiss
- He will be speaking mostly about the policy's off site housing.
- There are several aspects of the policy that will limit off site housing.
- This will cause many projects to not be able to be built.
- Another issue in the policy is that it states delaying for at least a year to develop a housing credit transfer program.
- He urges the Commission to direct staff to work on the housing credit transfer program immediately.
(-/+) Tracy Dearman – Haight Street Mortgage Co.
- She knows that affordable housing is needed.
- She urges the Commission to allow the developers to meet their affordability requirement offsite and not stop developments.
(-) Marty Dalton – UDC
- He believes that part of the confusion is that recommendation 7 suggests they wait a year before they come up with policies to make affordable transferable credits available in the market.
- He hopes the Department will come up with some solutions to make these transferable credits happen.
(-) Gregory Richardson
- This is black history month and this will be an opportunity to show that the African-American community should stay alive.
(-) Rev. Larry D. James – New Liberation Church
- Even though there are so many numbers being discussed today, the bottom line here is people--people and people's lives.
(-) Bill Poland – Bay West Group
- He believes that the goals from the Planning Department are to retain the vibrant blend in San Francisco. In order to retain this blend, affordable housing needs to be built.
- He believes that a different percentage needs to be decided upon in order to make this policy work.
(-) Gia Daniller – Jewish Community Relations Council
- She hopes that the Commission will not do anything that will have a detrimental effect on the 900 Gillman project.
- She thanks the Department for their efforts with the hope that the Commission will not diminish but increase an already shortage of housing in the City.
(-) Calvin Welch
- He supports the Department's recommendation on the Leno Legislation and the draft resolution except for the language of Exhibit B which calls for amendments to the Leno Legislation by increasing the amount of affordability level from 60 -- 100 percent to 80 -- 120 percent which are both in the proposed policies that Department staff is recommending to the Commission.
(-) Douglas Shoemaker – Non-Profit Housing Association
- He has been studying and looking at inclusionary housing policies in about 35 different cities in the Bay Area.
- The notion that San Francisco's inclusionary housing has produced so little housing units because the policy is so stringent is not really so because actually the policy is applied to so few projects. He believes that the goal is to have a project go through the Planning Department as a permitted use with no Conditional Use requirement at all. But with the security that the Commission will apply appropriate affordability standards to it.
(-) Jeffrey Heller – President, AIA
- He is here representing the AIA.
- He has a few cautions regarding this policy: They have only achieved about 53 percent of the production of housing that is the target goal set by ABAG and others--and this is in the best of development times.
- There cannot have been excess unreasonable profits if we can't even meet the housing goals in developing housing in the best of times. Development of housing is extremely difficult and the margins are extremely narrow and the production of housing projects is very difficult indeed.
- The AIA will be considering what has been put out today but he believes that they will be in agreement with SPUR and Calvin Welch.
(-) Peter Cohen – Board Member with the Green Belt Alliance and Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association
- Their mission is to advocate for more housing in San Francisco.
- They believe that San Francisco needs to increase its housing supply as well. That the increased supply needs to be distributed to San Franciscans at various income levels.
- He encourages the Commission to approve the ordinance that is being sponsored by the Board of Supervisors.
- The Planning Department's analysis is very helpful and thorough and it is important to know that there is a collective will to address this need.
(-) Kim Grose – San Francisco Organizing Project
- She represents various churches that want to increase affordable housing in San Francisco.
- Housing needs to be as affordable as possible and that is why they support the Leno legislation.
(-) Gloria Hasbun – San Francisco Organizing Project - St. Charles Borromeo Church
- Spoke in Spanish.
- She has a problem at the apartment complex where she lives.
- The owner does not want to make any repairs to the apartment--both inside and out.
- Now the owner is selling the building and many of the tenants cannot find an affordable place to live.
- She hopes that the Commission will support them by supporting the Leno legislation.
(-) Antonia Carreno – San Francisco Organizing Project - St. Anthony's Church
- She hopes that the Commission will consider the Senior Citizens that have trouble finding a place to live.
- She is supporting Mark Leno's proposal.
(-/+) Supervisor Mark Leno
- He has been working closely with the Housing Coalition.
- There are for-profit developers, non-profit developers, affordable housing developers, advocates for transit, for the environment, for seniors, for the neighborhoods, bicycle coalition, chambers of commerce, etc.
- If we are going to double the amount of housing, let's make sure that we double the affordable part of it.
- He knows that the numbers are absolutes but there have been people who have provided good information.
- He would like to recognize the Coalition for having done most of the work for his legislation; his office has mostly been a facilitator.
(-) Tim Tosta – Steefel, Levitt and Weiss
- He would like to strike from today's conversation the notion of extraordinary profit.
- The other notion is that the money that could come here to be invested in San Francisco could go to another product type or another location.
(-) Robert Meyers – City Planning Consultant
- He surveyed inclusionary housing in other bay area cities.
- Most cities that have requirements only have a 10 percent maximum.
- Building housing in San Francisco is already difficult.
- Raising the requirements will make them out of step with their neighbors and will make it harder for them to meet the housing needs of the residents.
(-) Carlos Romero – Mission Housing Development Corporation
- He is concerned with the people who have been the most affected with displacement are the people that live in the southeastern section of the city; people in the Bayview, in the Mission and in SOMA.
- This policy will not help these folks.
- He urges the Commission to move forward with the Leno legislation.
(-) Clark Manus
- The 7 points of this policy is quite simple and he feels that this Commission and Supervisor Leno can actually put something in place instead of just talking about it. The more they talk about it the more the opportunity is eluded.
(-) Valerie Tulier – Facilitator of the Latino Steering Committee
- She supports public/private ventures such as the True Hope project.
- The community determines it's own needs such as affordable housing and how to achieve it.
- People in the Latino community support the True Hope project.
- Affordable housing needs to be just that – affordable.
(-) Mary Murphy – Farella, Braum and Martel
- The proposal that Dr. Ghosh presented must clear the market and the solid evidence and solid date suggest that this proposal will not clear the market. There are market realities that must be met.
(-) Oz Erickson – Emerald Fund
- He has some issues about this policy, for example: raising the level to 14 percent for the conditional use.
- He recommends that if the Commission is going to consider this, that the affordable component be reduced to 12 percent as opposed to 14 percent.
- He was impressed with the report since there was a lot of work that went into it.
(-) Ezra Mersey – Tishman Speyer
- The proposal today supports new housing and he respects the intent of the Planning Department for making sense of housing economics, he respectfully disagrees with various parts of the report.
- The reality is that it will either delay or halt production of inclusionary or market-rate housing in San Francisco. Ten percent as of right, 12 percent conditional use should be the maximum inclusionary housing that high-rise development can sustain.
- The Leno legislation should be a guideline as policy.
(-) Rom Miguel – Planning Association for the Richmond
- This policy has to be feasible for developers otherwise nothing gets built.
- Create certainty; the code has to be the base. Policies are great in allowing flexibility but this flexibility should be beyond the base.
- There has been a lack of production.
(-) Gabriel Metcaf – Deputy Director of SPUR
- He is here to speak in favor of the Leno housing legislation.
- He is not in total disagreement with the policy the Planning Department is presenting before the Commission.
(-) Sue Hestor
- What is item 8 about?
- There is legislation before the Commission that has gone through all of the reviews and is possible to adopt.
- One can't do anything with this.
(-) Joe O'Donaghue
- He is not in agreement with the policy presented by the Planning Department.
- He is more in agreement with the Leno legislation.
(-) Steve Vettel – Morrison & Forrester
- He urges the Commission to put forward the Leno legislation and support it as it is without corrections.
- Various organizations, left and right, agree with the legislation.
(-) John Bardis
- The housing crisis has put San Francisco on the map.
- Why are constraints put on housing?
- Why don't we deal with the matter directly and build housing directly as a city.
- He urges the Commission to ask staff to come back and report on what happened to the housing policies today and show how those alternatives have failed compared to other alternates, including inclusionary housing policies.
(-) Marshall MacIntire
- He is a homeowner in San Francisco but he has also been a renter.
- Low income in San Francisco will not be done until everyone agrees that they want it and make sure that people living in this type of housing, actually need to live in this housing because of their income.
- This has to be done fairly.
ACTION: Meeting held. The President directed that the matter be brought back to the Commission on February 14, 2002 for action.
D. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION -- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Item #9 was called out of order and heard prior to item #8.
9. 2001.0765D (TAM: 558-6325)
377 & 381 LIBERTY STREET - south side, between Sanchez and Church Streets; Lots 28 and 85 in Assessor’s Block 3605 - Discretionary Review request of Building Permit Application No. 2001/06/21/2122. 2001/06/21/2118, and 2001/06/21/2125s to demolish two single-family dwellings (377 and 381 Liberty Street) and construct one new single-family dwelling on one merged lot. The properties are within an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The properties are also within the Dolores Height Special Use District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as revised.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 10, 2002)
NOTE: On January 10, 2002, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing. The Commission entertained a motion to take Discretionary Review and approve with the request that we accept the sponsor's voluntary $110,000 contribution to the Mayor's Office of Housing. The vote was +3 –3. Commissioners Theoharis, Chinchilla and Fay voted no. Commissioner Salinas was absent. The item was continued to 2/7/02 by the Chair.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the project.
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Salinas, Theoharis
NAYES: Baltimore, Joe, Lim
E. REGULAR CALENDAR
10. 2000.749T (LORD: 558-6311)
Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code to add Section 315 to 315.9 to establish requirements for all residential developments of 10 units or more to provide inclusionary affordable housing units.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Oz Erickson – Emerald Fund
- He supports this ordinance and believes it is reasonable.
(-) Joe O'Donaghue
- There are some good ideas in the legislation but it is not going to work because they haven't followed the equation right through.
(-) Sue Hestor
- She would like to add language to this ordinance regarding sub-divided lots.
- There is no effective monitoring process to deal with subdivision of lots in San Francisco.
- Language needs to be added in the beginning.
(-) Alice Barkley
- There are a lot of drafting problems with this ordinance that have to be sorted out.
(+) Carlos Romero – Mission Housing Development Corporation
- This legislation is a compromise.
- He has learned a lot from the developers who contributed to this legislation.
- The planning Commission should send it forward.
(-) John Bardis
- He believes that this legislation has significant omissions.
ACTION: Meeting held. President Chinchilla deferred the matter to February 14, 2002.
11. 2001.1026C (RYAN: 558-6812)
1239 9TH AVENUE - west side between Lincoln Way and Irving Street; Assessor’s Block 1714, Lot 6 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 730.44 to convert a vacant video store on the ground floor of a two-story building with a dwelling unit above, to a small self-service restaurant (Gordo’s Taqueria) in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The restaurant, which is relocating from 1233 9th Avenue, will occupy approximately 990 square feet at the ground level only.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 24, 2002)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Edward Tanaka – Architect
- This restaurant has been a part of the inner Sunset Neighborhood for 18 years.
- The owner wishes to provide a restaurant similar in character.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
(+) Many Hernandez
- The lease for the old location will be expiring. This is why he would like this proposal approved so he can open the other restaurant.
ACTION: Approved with modifications: 1) delete condition No. 5 related to the NSR (Notice of Special Restrictions); 2) staff to put in a block book notation requiring neighborhood notice on the vacated property; 3) require a staff-initiated Discretionary Review on any building permit for a restaurant at the old location; 4) apply good neighbor policies that requires street cleaning/steam cleaning.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16339
12. 2000.1141C (SANCHEZ: 558-6679)
2346 - 2348 CLEMENT STREET - north side between 24th and 25th Avenues, Lot 025 in Assessor’s Block 1409 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 717.39 to allow the demolition of an existing mixed-use building with a residential unit at the second floor and under Planning Code Section 161(j) to allow the construction of a four-story mixed-use building (four residential units and one commercial unit) without the four required residential parking spaces, within the Outer Clement Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 24, 2002)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Silverman – Reuben and Alter
- The façade will remain the same and commercial space will be reconstructed.
- There have been 3 issues brought up: 1) parking; 2) retention of the 4th floor; 3) retention of the produce market next door.
(-) Spiros Johnson
- He is speaking on behalf of the residents and merchants.
- He has owned the produce market next door for almost 10 years.
- Parking on this street is already bad.
- He has spoken to various residents and none have said that this is a good idea.
(-) Sue Hestor
- The Health Department will close down the produce market if there is any type of dust or dirt on the produce.
- A barrier should be installed to protect the owner of the produce market.
- The project sponsor should deal with all the questions and issues the owner of the produce market has to protect his business.
(+/-) Charles Hoffman
- He is a resident and shops at the local businesses.
- He hopes that this project gets approved but only with three units which would reduce the impact on the local parking.
(-) Janette Koder
- She opposes this project.
ACTION: Approve Project with Conditions: 1) remove the 4th floor; 2) provide construction barriers/screening to protect produce at next-door produce market.
AYES: Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
NAYES: Baltimore and Lim
MOTION: 16340
13. 2002.0051I (YOUNG: 558-6346)
REVISION TO THE INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO LOCATED AT 2130 FULTON STREET - Consideration of revisions amending the Institutional Master Plan for the University of San Francisco. Pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5(d), a public hearing will be held to solicit public comment on any proposed revision to an Institutional Master Plan. The University of San Francisco is proposing revisions to its existing Institutional Master Plan dated July 1993, including to incorporate plans to (1) convert the former Lincoln University Building at 281 Masonic Street to the University of San Francisco College of Professional Studies (This renovation has been completed.); (2) convert and expand the McLaren School of Business, including an addition of approximately 20,000 square feet and conversion of existing dormitory space to new offices and classrooms, and (3) locate childcare facilities within its existing buildings. The purpose of this public hearing is to solicit public comments on the proposed revisions to this Institutional Master Plan only. The Planning Commission will not approve or disapprove any individual construction projects related to these revisions to the Institutional Master Plan at this public hearing.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Father Bob Nehoff
- The purpose of this institutional master plan is to improve the campus environment and improve facilities. The University has greatly improved the central open space of the campus by adding landscaping and relocating parking. It created a new housing opportunity for students and staff, approximately 110 beds of student housing, a rehabilitated leased facility, a new Jesuit residence at Lone mountain and 136 units of faculty and staff housing which will be completed shortly.
- The most important of these improvements is the proposal to improve and expand the School of Business and Management.
ACTION: Meeting held to solicit public comment. No action taken
14a. 2001.1136CD (M.SNYDER: 575-6891)
221 SAN CARLOS STREET - east side between 19th and 20th Street, Lot 34 in Assessor’s Block 3596 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Board of Supervisor’s Resolution 518-01 (the Mission District Interim Controls) to construct a new building containing two market-rate dwelling units on a vacant lot in an RH-2 (House, Two-family) District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed building would be four stories tall and approximately 40-feet tall and 48.5-feet deep. The proposed units would each have two bedrooms and one parking space.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Ron Wallis – Principal of Mark Wallis Architects
- This is a very good project and he hopes that the Commission will approve it.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16341
14b. 2001.1136CD (M.SNYDER: 575-6891)
221 SAN CARLOS STREET - east side between 19th and 20th Street, Lot 34 in Assessor’s Block 3596 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under Board of Supervisor’s Resolution 518-01 (the Mission District Interim Controls) of Building Permit Application No. 2000/08/07/7166, which proposes to change the use of the site from being vacant to having two market-rate units. The property is within an RH-2 (House, Two-family) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 14a.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as proposed.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
15a. 2001.0671ECDK (CHAN: 558-5982)
222 VALENCIA STREET - Block 3533, Lot 4. Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposed project includes the construction of nine residential units, approximately 800 square feet (sq.ft.) of ground floor commercial space, and nine off-street parking spaces within a new five-story structure. The site is a fenced private parking lot for approximately 13 cars. A 780-square-foot warehouse is on this 4,590-square-foot site. The new building would be approximately 50 feet in height. Vehicular access to the site would be from Valencia Street. The project site is located within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) zoning district and within a 50-X Height and Bulk district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Silverman – Reuben & Alter
- This project meets the requirements of CEQA.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
ACTION: Preliminary Negative Declaration is upheld
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16342
15b. 2001.0671ECDK (SIDER: 558-6697)
222 VALENCIA STREET - west side between Duboce Avenue and Clinton Park; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 3533 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow [1] the construction of nine dwelling units pursuant to Planning Code Section 215(a) and [2] the creation of market-rate housing in the Mission District pursuant to Board of Supervisor's Resolution Number 518-01 (Mission District Interim Controls). The proposal is to demolish an existing storage structure and construct a five-story building with ground level commercial space, 9 units of housing, and 9 parking spaces in a ground level garage. The property is within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) Zoning District, a Mixed-Use Housing Zone, the area subject to the Mission District Interim Controls, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Silverman – Reuben and Alter
- The project will preserve the neighborhood character.
- This project is also fully code compliant.
(+) Joe O'Donaghue
- He supports the project but respectfully disagrees with the setback.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16343
15c. 2000.0671ECDK (SIDER: 558-6697)
222 VALENCIA STREET - west side between Duboce Avenue and Clinton Park; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 3533 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of a proposal to change the use of the subject property from that of parking and storage [pursuant to Planning Code Sections 223(l) and 225(a)] to residential and retail uses [pursuant to Planning Code Sections 215(a) and 218(b)]. Discretionary Review is required by Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 518-01 (Mission District Interim Controls) for any change of use within the Mission District. The property is within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) Zoning District, a Mixed-Use Housing Zone, the area subject to the Mission District Interim Controls, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take D.R. and approve the project as proposed.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review. Approved the project as proposed.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
E. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 8:05 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.
16. 2001.0695D (SMITH: 558-6322)
4706 – 25TH STREET -north side of the street between Fountain Street and Grand View Avenue, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 6501 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/09/11/0170, proposing to construct a two-story rear horizontal addition and a one-story vertical addition to a single-family dwelling, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Ruth Marion Anderson
- She is against this construction because it is too massive and it is not in keeping with the neighborhood.
- Her other concern is related to light being diminished.
(-) Paula Olacker
- This structure will affect the sun and light that comes into her unit.
- If this project is approved it will mean that from a window in her house she will be looking into a wall that blocks light into the room.
- It will also affect the value of her property.
- This will change the character of the neighborhood.
- This is a detriment to the neighborhood.
(-) Jeff Iarelo
- He is concerned about the value of his property.
- He is also concerned about the light and air that the neighborhood has.
- He would like the addition to be flush to the back of his house.
(-) Cathy (did not state last name)
- This project will affect her light and space tremendously.
(+) James Woods
- The proposed addition at the back would not affect the sky lights of the neighbors.
- He has always been prepared to solve the issues of his neighbors.
- He has neighbors who have signed documents supporting his project.
- He has a large family that comes to visit frequently and that is why he would like to add a 4th bedroom and because there are already three people living in the house.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve the project.
(+) Ellen Woods
- They purchased this home with the intention of it being their retirement home.
- She hopes that the Commission approves their application.
ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve with the following modifications from staff: 1. The proposed rear addition shall be set back three feet from the east side property line to accommodate the Discretionary Review requestors property line windows. 2. The top of the peak at the rear of the building shall be reduced in height to align with the height of the proposed peak at the front of the building and one 8’ X 8’ dormer shall be allowed at either side of the peak at the rear of the building to increase interior volume. The dormers allowed shall be as described in Planning Department Bulletin 96.2, dated June 1, 1996.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
17. 2001.1053D (JONES: 558-6477)
780-27TH STREET -north side of 27th Street between Douglass and Diamond Streets, Lot 014A in Assessor’s Block 6583 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/06/11/1266, proposing to construct a third story vertical addition to the existing two story, single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit as submitted. Take Discretionary Review and Approve the building with the recommended modifications.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Patrick Richards – Representing DR Requestor
- He hopes that the Commission will look at the compromise and why it is a good idea.
- The proposed home is just too bulky.
- The project sponsor is not a homeowner who wants to make an addition to his home, it is a developer who is making this big project at the cost of his neighbors.
- This project will also block the light and air on an open space that already exists.
(-) Bruce Bonacker – architect for DR requestor
- The project sponsor's building is already large. This addition will make the building the largest in the neighborhood.
- On the first floor, we are proposing an alternative that pulls the rear of the building back 7 feet while maintaining the two bedrooms at the same dimensions.
- At the top floor, we would suggest pulling the master bedroom suite forward or south on the property so that it still maintains the design review guideline recommended 9 foot setback from the street.
- He is available for questions on the alternative proposal.
(-) Stan Padilla
- He and his wife live near the proposed construction.
- One of the issues important to him is that there has usually been a neighborhood spirit of inclusion and involvement that didn't happen here.
- He is concerned that the neighbors did not get an opportunity to discuss issues related to the proposed construction.
- He is also concerned that this project is not to benefit a family who will live there; this is a developer who will expand on this site (and leave).
- He is impacted by the size of this project.
(-) Jed Davies
- He lives on Douglass Street.
- They moved to this house because of the character of the neighborhood.
- This proposed extension of 25 feet is inappropriate and unfair. It goes all the way across his property.
- This project will encase his property.
- He is only asking the Commission to direct the project sponsor to reduce the rear extension and reduce the third story roof.
(-) Vicky Rosen – President of Upper Noe Neighbors
- She does not live near the proposed project yet she is concerned with the huge homes that are being built near smaller homes.
- It is really important to do the right thing and scale down the project a little bit.
(+) John Hood – Project Architect – Hood Architects
- This project is in keeping with the general fabric of the neighborhood.
- His design is to mass the building towards the middle of the house in order to minimize the impact on the rear and from the front.
- Setting back the third floor from the street is meeting the guideline of maintaining scale from pedestrian level.
- He would like to have this project approved with recommendations from staff by reducing the height of the gable by 4 feet.
(+) Randy Cooper
- He has lived in this neighborhood for many years.
- He is not a developer.
- He has fixed up 5 homes in this neighborhood over a 15 year period and has lived in the homes over a period of 3 years each.
- His design will be compatible with the neighborhood.
- He is currently in a rental home.
ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications based on the recommendations offered by the DR requestor’s architect. The Zoning Administrator added to those recommendations by modifying the DR requestor’s proposal as follows: 1) on the first floor a five foot extension behind the east bedroom; 2) on the second floor a five foot extension behind the eastern portion of family room; and 3) a three foot extension on the third floor to the rear. The Planning Commission declined to modify the height of the building from that proposed by the Project Sponsor
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
F. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
None
Adjournment: 9:20 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2002
ACTION: Approved as Corrected
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:07 PM
