April 18, 2002
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, April 18, 2002
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT CHINCHILLA AT 1:45 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green – Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Jean Paul Samaha; Dan DiBartolo; Kate McGee; Jeff Tully; Adam Light; Ben Fu; Rick Crawford; Pete Vollman; Geoffrey Nelson; Dan Sirois; Michael Li; Vahram Massehian; Matt Snyder; Mary Woods; 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. 2001.0995CV (D. JONES: 415-558-6477)
3130-3154 NORIEGA STREET - north side of Noriega Street between 39th and 38th Avenues, Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 2011- Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 121.1 and 710.11 to develop a (9) nine-unit, mixed-use building on a lot exceeding 5,000 square feet in area, within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
(Proposed for Continuance to April 25, 2002)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
2. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of March 14 and March 21, 2002.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
3. Commission Matters
None
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
4. Director's Announcements
- He will be appearing before the Budget Committee on April 23, 2002, which will be the first in a series of presentations and discussions regarding the Department's work program, objectives and priorities for the next fiscal year. There will be a series of hearings in June as well. These discussions will relate to how the Department is shaping the work program and how the Department is being impacted by this changes that will occur during this fiscal year and next.
5. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS
Re: Legislation from Supervisor Newson
- This legislations proposes to have a study be conducted by the Planning Department regarding the loss of theatres.
Re: Legislation from Supervisor Peskin
- This legislation proposes that fees, specifically park fund, jobs housing linkage, child care and inclusionary fees, not be collected by the Planning Department but instead be collected by the Treasurer. The second part of this legislation would be to amend the definition of office use in order to exclude certain square footage in certain activities that are now included in the definition.
Both these pieces of legislation will be referred to the Planning Department for both environmental review and for consideration by the Planning Commission.
BOA
Re: 2 Upland
- The Planning Commission took Discretionary Review on September 6, 2001 and disapproved the project.
- The Commission had concerns that it was not a code compliant building since there was some work that was done without a permit. There had been permits for work done on an alternate address.
- The Zoning Administrator reviewed the case file. He realized that the owner had re-designed the building. The Board of Appeals continued the item for three weeks since the project seemed like a different project. The Zoning Administrator will examine this project to see if it needs another 311 notice.
Re: 626 29th Street
- This case was heard by the Commission in November. It also had a variance for a front setback.
- There were three buildings in a row that were in the rear yard. The applicant wanted to build a building in the front and retain the existing single-family development in the rear, remove the kitchen and allow the owner's mother to live there.
- The Commission and the Zoning Administrator felt that there was too much opportunity to be two units in a single-family district.
- The Board heard the discussion and was sensitive to the concerns the Commission expressed and the concerns the Zoning Administrator had about the rear yard building. However, they did want to see that the owner remove the kitchen and make sure that there was no direct access to the rear yard building. They also required a notice-of-special-restriction that would require the building be removed upon the sale of the building or upon death.
- The Board of Appeals continued the matter for three weeks.
6. Review of the Commissioner's policy on the demolition of residential structures (unsound housing)
SPEAKER(S):
Sue Hestor
- There is no staff name on this item.
- She has been trying to get documentation on this item.
- If there is no staff name it is difficult to get information because there is no one to call.
- She is not sure what exactly is being discussed since information is being referenced to items and no one has any documentation.
Joe O'Donaghue
- He would have liked to see more data regarding this item to know if this policy is justified.
- The economic impact needs to be looked at as well.
Alice Barkley
- This policy addresses only those building which already have a demolition request.
- More clarification is needed to make a better analysis.
- She believes that more clear criteria should be provided.
- Staff should go back and write more clear criteria.
ACTION: Meeting Held. No Action Required. Informational Presentation Only
7. 2001.0974C
900 GILLMAN AVENUE - Lot 017 of Assessor's Block 4436 – Report on compliance with conditions of approval.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Chaplain Earl Rogers – San Francisco Rescue Mission
- He is here in support of this project.
- This is going to be a keystone since it sets a precedent not only for San Francisco but also for other communities on how to deal with increasing the housing stock.
(+) Dr. Aurelius Walker – Project Owner
- He would like to thank the Planning Department for this project.
- This Commission has given him a Christmas present that will not be given back.
ACTION: No action taken.
D. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED
At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have 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 must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
SPEAKER(S): None
E. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION -- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
8. 2002.0105C (D. DiBARTOLO: 415-558-6291)
232 JOICE STREET - east side, bounded by Sacramento, Clay, Stockton and Powell Streets; Lot 030 in Assessor’s Block 0224 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 209.7 and 812.56 of the Planning Code to convert a vacant paved lot approximately 3,000 square-foot in area to a non-commercial Surface Parking Lot for the use of adjacent buildings within an RM-4 (Residential, Mixed, High-Density) District and a CR-NC (Chinatown Residential Neighborhood Commercial) District and 65-A and 65-85-N Height and Bulk Districts.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Note: On April 11, 2002, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to disapprove by a vote of +6-0; Commissioner Theoharis was absent. The matter was continued to April 18, 2002 for final action.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Project Disapproved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16376
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
9. 2002.0012C (K. McGEE: 415-558-6367)
434 HARRISON STREET - west side, between 1st and Fremont Streets; Lot 12 in Assessor's Block 3748 – Request for Conditional Use authorization per Planning Code Section 209.6(b) to replace one (1) panel antenna with four (4) panel antennas on the subject building's east side and to install two (2) new panel antennas on the building's west side in an RC-4 Zoning District, a 250-R Height and Bulk District, and the Rincon Hill Special Use District. The site is a Preference 2 Location, a co-location site on which other WTS facilities currently exist.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(+) Kelley Pepper – Representing Cingular Wireless
- This location is a Preference 2.
- This site is a preferred site since it sits at the top of a hill and will provide a large area of coverage.
- Community notices were sent in three languages. No responses were received.
- She hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
(+/-) Bruce Bonacker – Representing San Francisco Architectural Heritage
- He is seeing more and more antennas being installed on building and we should start being concerned about how many antennas are being installed.
- He did not come to speak on this item but would like to make the Commission aware of the impact these antennas are creating.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16377
10. 2002.0092U (J. TULLY: 415-558-6372)
460 BUSH STREET – North side between Grant and Kearny, Lot 41 in Assessor's Block 270 - Consideration of adoption of a resolution recommending approval of a Mills Act historical property contract for Old S.F.F.D. Engine Co. No. 2, San Francisco Landmark No. 143. The Mills Act authorizes local governments to enter into contracts with owners of private historical property who, through the historical property contract, assure the rehabilitation, restoration, preservation and maintenance of a qualified historical property. In return, the property owner enjoys a reduction in property taxes for a given period. The subject property is zoned C-3-R (Downtown Retail), and is in an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(+) Alice Carey – Historic Preservation Architect
- Passing this act encourages historical ambiance for tourism.
- This also creates an incentive to create landmark status.
- It also creates maintenance to historical buildings.
- Reinforces the importance of preservation.
- Encourages vitality in community as well as improves the quality of life to San Franciscans.
(+) Bruce Bonacker
- He read a letter from Charles Evan Chase who is in support of this project.
- Mr. Bonacker believes that there are many incentives to approving this contract. As more contracts get approved there will be more of a momentum on this.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16378
11. 2001.1098H (A. LIGHT: 415-558-6254)
216 STOCKTON STREET - east side between Geary and Posts Streets, in Assessor’s Block 309, Lot 13 - Request for a Permit to Alter under Article 11 of the Planning Code to permit an alteration to the front facade of a three-story limestone and black granite-clad Category IV retail building ("Christian Dior") in the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District, the C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) Zoning District, and a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 11, 2002)
(+) Joel Yodowitz – Reuben & Alter – Representing Christian Dior, Project Sponsor
- They finally have a solution that has made everyone happy.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16379
12a. 2002.0069CV (B. FU: 415-558-6613)
2559, 2563-2567 SAN BRUNO AVENUE - west side between Felton and Burrows Streets, Lots 027, 028, and 029 in Assessor’s Block 5438: Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.1 and 711.21 and pursuant to Planning Code Section 303, to allow a non-residential use as defined in Code Sections 711.81 and 790.50 occupying more than 4,000 square feet in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation. The proposal would allow a 7,200 square foot community service use, doing business as "Portola Family Connections".
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(+) Maryann Fleming – Portola Family Connections
- They have experienced financial growth and were able to buy the building in 2000.
- This approval will benefit them from various levels.
- She hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
- She submitted 150 signatures from neighbors who support this project.
(+) Susannah Meek – Portola Family Connections - Project Architect
- She described the project.
- She hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
(+) Teddy Gray – Board of Directors – Family Connections
- She hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
(+) Mollie Ward Brown – Portola Family Connections
- They have a tremendous amount of capital to fund this project.
- There is no social services agency serving children younger than 18 years old in the area.
(+) Chet Roaman – CCSF – ESL Department
- He is a teacher at Family Connections.
- If this is approved, there will be more space to have more students and increase their programs as well as have different levels of classes.
- The community is wonderful and he hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16380
12b. 2002.0069CV (B. FU: 415-558-6613)
2559, 2563-2567 SAN BRUNO AVENUE - west side between Felton and Burrows Streets, Lots 027, 028, and 029 in Assessor’s Block 5438: Request for an off-street parking Variance, pursuant to Section 151 of the Planning Code, will be considered by the Zoning Administrator in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. Ten (10) total off-street parking spaces are required as a result of the project. The proposal is to provide no off-street parking spaces.
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 12a.
ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance.
13. 2002.0090C (R. CRAWFORD: 415-558-6358)
1525 OCEAN AVENUE – between Capitol and Miramar, Assessor’s Block 6936 Lot 014. Request under Planning Code Section 161(j) for Conditional Use approval for a reduction of 3 off street parking spaces required for dwellings for a project with ground floor commercial and 3 dwelling units. This project lies within an NC-2 Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
(+) Jack Chiu – Representing Project Sponsor
- He is available for questions.
- This project lies within a transit corridor.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve the project.
ACTION: Intent to Disapprove. Final Action: May 2, 2002
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
14. 2002.0194C (P. VOLLMAN: 415- 558-6405)
464 BROADWAY - north side between Montgomery and Kearny Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0144; Request under Planning Code Section 714.27 for Conditional Use approval to extend the hours of operation of an existing full-service restaurant (Cable Car Pizza) from 2 A.M. until 4 A.M., within the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(+) Seg Amit – Project Sponsor
- They serve good food, no beer or wine.
- This restaurant is good for the community.
- He hopes that the Commission will extend the hours of operation.
(+) Marcia Garland – Director of the North Beach Chamber of Commerce
- The Chamber supports the extension of hours of operation.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16381
15. 2002.0057C (G. NELSON: 415-558-6257)
5200 GEARY BOULEVARD - (Geary Mall Parking Garage), north side between 16th and 17th Avenues; Lot 045 in Assessor's Block 1448: Request for Conditional Use authorization under Section 712.83 of the Planning Code to mount a total of six (6) panel antennas to an existing light pole on the upper deck of an approximately forty-foot tall, three level parking garage with ground floor commercial spaces. The project site is within a Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial (NC-3) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 4 as it is a wholly commercial structure within an NC-3 Zoning District. The proposed site would be operated as part of Metro PCS' wireless telecommunications network.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(+) Debra Stein – Representing Project Sponsor – Metro PCS
- She would like to thank staff for an excellent case report.
- Metro PCS looked at 14 different sites and only 4 of them were not tall enough.
- Three of the 4 sites were not acceptable.
- This site did not have any opposition.
- Metro PCS met with the Richmond Neighborhood Association who took no position on this site.
- Notice was sent to more than 300 residents and there were only 4 residents who attended [a community meeting].
- She hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
(-) David Ferrantes
- He lives within the 300-foot radius of this installation.
- The last thing needed are more antennas.
- There are already 2400 antennas.
- He has never been contacted by anybody. He found out about this hearing from someone who was going around asking for signatures in opposition.
- He hopes that the Commission will not approve this project.
(-) Terry Lam
- She lives right behind the building where the antenna will be installed.
- They were never notified.
- She opposes the installation of this antenna.
- This antenna will drive people away.
- There are very strong winds in her neighborhood so it could be dangerous.
- She does not know of anyone who has bad reception on their cell phones.
- She urges the Commission not to approve this project.
(-) Bernice Lam
- She is the sister of the previous speaker and she only found out about this from her sister.
- Recent studies show that antennas cause cancer.
- She is concerned about the safety and health of the neighbors. She is also concerned that people will want to move out and the property values will drop.
(-) Stella Cheng
- She is concerned about her health and her neighbors' health.
- The quality of life will be jeopardized.
- She received a flyer with information on this hearing.
- She hopes that the Commission will not approve this project.
- There are plenty of antennas already.
(-) Robert Blum
- He lives next door to the Geary Mall.
- He is opposed to this antenna since it is not compatible with the neighborhood. Although the building is commercial, it is still dangerous.
- Adequate cellular phone coverage already exists in the neighborhood.
- This is primarily a single-family neighborhood.
- This antenna will keep new neighbors away and lower the property values.
- He hopes that the Commission does not approve this project.
(-) Kang Chan
- He is opposed to this installation.
- There are a lot of schools in the neighborhood.
- Metro PCS should look for another location.
- He hopes that the Commission will reject this application.
(-) Benny Lew
- He lives in the neighborhood.
- He opposes the installation of this antenna.
- Metro PCS has not been honest with the neighbors.
(-) Grace Jeung
- She is here representing a group of people who live in the neighborhood and are against this installation.
- There is a letter from Ms. Debra Stein, which was directed to Commissioner Chinchilla. It lists a lot of false statements.
- She has sent several letters and faxes to Ms. Stein and she has never received a response.
(-) Megan Sullivan
- She is against the installation of this antenna.
- She is submitting over 400 signatures of residents and business owners who are against the installation for a variety of reasons.
- The Richmond district is almost entirely zoned residential.
- She hopes that the Commission will not approve this installation.
(-) Nicholas Cosmo Blum
- He lives next door to the proposed site.
- He is concerned about the health to him and to his family.
- He hopes that the Commission will not approve this installation.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16382
16a. 2001.0244CV (G. NELSON: 415-558-6257)
321 JUDAH STREET - south side between 8th and 9th Avenues; Lot 051 in Assessor’s Block 1845 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 161(j) and 730.39 of the Planning Code to demolish an existing two-story building containing a commercial space on the ground floor and a dwelling unit on the second floor and construct a new four-story building to contain a commercial space on the ground floor with two dwelling units above. The project seeks a reduction in the off-street parking requirement from two (2) spaces to none (0). The proposed project is within the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. This project also seeks a rear yard variance to allow for a fire escape stair.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(+)Jeremy Paul of Quickdraw Consulting – Representing Project Sponsor
- This [current] building is not practical and does not provide many utilities to the neighborhood.
- This building is located in a very busy transit intersection.
- Displayed photos of the frontage and the streetscape.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve this project and that the Zoning Administrator approves the variance.
ACTION: Intent to Disapprove. Final Language: May 2, 2002
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
NAYES: Lim
ABSENT: Fay
16b. 2001.0244CV (G. NELSON: 415-558-6257)
321 JUDAH STREET - south side between 8th and 9th Avenues; Lot 051 in Assessor’s Block 1845 - Request for a variance from Planning Code Section 134 to allow a fire escape stair, extending to grade, to project three feet into the 25-foot deep required rear yard of a new four-story building proposed to contain a commercial space on the ground floor with two dwelling units above. The proposed project is within the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKER(S): See Previous Item.
ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and has taken this matter under advisement.
G. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 5:30 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.
17. 2002.0141D (G. NELSON: 415-558-6257)
2130-2140 JEFFERSON STREET - south side between Lyon and Baker Streets; Lots 005 and 005A in Assessor’s Block 0909. Staff-initiated request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2001/1121/3631 to merge two existing single-family homes into one single-family home. The proposal involves substantial interior and exterior alterations, and would also result in the merger of the two lots into a single lot. The property is located within an RH-1 (Residential House, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the Building Permit.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without Hearing, continued to May 16, 2002
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
18. 2001.1167D (D. SIROIS: 415-558-6313)
919 ELIZABETH STREET -south side of Elizabeth Street, between Grandview Avenue and Hoffman Avenue, Lot 038, Assessor’s Block 2828. Request for Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2001/1015/0826 & Building Permit Application No. 2001/1015/0828 to demolish a single-family dwelling and to construct a two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two- Family) District and a 40-X height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve project with modifications.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) John Sheets – Dr Requestor
- There are 64 signers that represent 44 households who are opposed to this project.
- The neighborhood has three concerns: they are not in support of demolishing the cottage since they want to preserve neighborhood jewels. This will change the character of the neighborhood.
- The new construction does not meet the Planning Code or the Neighborhood Design Guidelines.
- The proposed project will contain a variety of designs, which do not match any of the designs of the homes in the neighborhood.
- There have been a number of meetings held with the project sponsor in order to solve the issues the neighborhood has.
- He hopes that the Commission will take DR and modify this project.
(-) Eric Maltman - Architect
- Many aspects of the lot are drawn incorrectly.
- He is against this project since it's too large for the neighborhood. The project sponsor could reduce the size of the project.
- He would like to save the cottage but if it's not possible he hopes that the Commission will approve the neighborhood design concept.
(-) Sandy Kawano
- She lives on Elizabeth Street.
- This proposal is suggesting replacing one of the smallest homes on the block and replacing it with the largest.
- She is against this project since there will be a tremendous shadow impact to her home and yard.
(-) Steve Schrader
- He lives on Hoffman Avenue, which is behind the proposed development.
- He is against this project since he would like to preserve the cottage.
- He has looked at many of the documents regarding demolition and he has found mistakes.
(-) Lynn Watson
- She lives on Elizabeth Street.
- She is only the 4th family to live in her home and her home was built about 100 years ago.
- She is against this project since the new building is just too large. It would be fine in any other neighborhood in San Francisco.
- She hopes that the Commission will disapprove the project and accept the neighborhood design concept.
(-) Steve Roseman
- He lives on 24th Street, which is not far from the proposed development.
- He used to be President of the Friends of Noe Valley in the 90s and has never seen such a large development in the area.
- The only people who are in support of this project are people who have put money to develop this project.
- This project will not enhance the neighborhood.
- The demolition is not legal. If the demolition were legal, there would have been neighborhood meetings held.
- The proposed design should be revised.
(-) Peter Remedios
- He has lived on Elizabeth Street for over 40 years.
- The proposed project is disruptive to the neighbors.
- He hopes that the Commission will disapprove this project.
(-) Don Huie
- He has lived on 24th Street for many years.
- He is concerned about privacy to his home since the development would look down onto his home.
- This building will be prominent to all the surrounding neighbors.
- He is in support of the neighborhood concept.
(-) David Burness
- He has lived on Elizabeth for over 30 years.
- He is against this project since the proposed development will not be in conformity with the other homes in the neighborhood.
- This construction is too intrusive and too massive.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve a concept to save the cottage.
(-) Don Watson
- He has lived on Elizabeth for 32 years.
- He is against this project since most of the houses are not that large.
- All the houses are small, bungalow style on short lots.
- The proposed construction does not take into account the height of the adjacent homes.
- He hopes that the Commission will disapprove this project and save the cottage, or build a single–family home. And if that is not possible, accept the neighborhood concept.
(-) John Bird
- He lives 4 homes down the hill from the proposed construction.
- Most of the homes were built in the 30s.
- The proposed construction will be very tall and very prominent.
- The new building will dwarf the other buildings on the street.
- He hopes that the Commission will adopt the neighborhood design concept.
(-) Chris Remedios
- She has lived on Elizabeth Street for over 4 years.
- She is asking the project sponsor to revise the drawings.
- She is against this project.
(-) Larissa Robinson
- She lives on Elizabeth Street.
- This project will construct condominiums, which will not be affordable.
- She would like to have the cottage preserved and keep it as a single-family home. If this is not possible, she hopes that the Commission will approve the neighborhood design concept.
(-) Stephanie Scarpulla
- She read a letter from a neighbor who is against this project.
- She is also against this project because of its mass.
(-) Vicki Rosen – President of Upper Noe Neighbors
- The association is opposed to this project since it is one of the worst she has ever seen.
- The project is too large and out of scale.
- If she lived next door to the development she would have to move away.
- If the cottage has to be demolished, she hopes that the Commission will respect the neighbor's wishes.
(-) Dave Monks – President of Friends of Noe Valley
- There have been two board meetings on this project and they unanimously voted to have the project sponsor revise the drawings.
- Minor changes were made but nothing significant. They still voted unanimously against this project.
- This project is too large, out of scale and out of context.
- He hopes that the Commission will support the neighbors.
(-) Jeanine Przyblyski – Collingwood Hill Neighborhood Association
- The association is not in support of this project.
- Would like to have the Commission accept the neighborhood design concept and take a very hard look at this project.
(-) Jacob Glickman
- He would like the Commission to be aware that the documents submitted by the project sponsor has many errors.
- These errors could be written off as an inexperienced developer.
- The neighborhood is very concerned that the project sponsor has submitted misleading exhibits and would like the Commission to disregard these exhibits.
(-) B.A. Laris
- She thinks that her neighbors have spoken quite eloquently.
- She is very concerned about this structure since it will impact the light, space and privacy to her home.
- She hopes that the Commission will take into consideration all the comments the neighbors have stated.
(-) Alexandra Edwards
- She supports the Discretionary Review.
- This construction is out of scale with the neighborhood.
- It is not respectful to the neighbors since they will be dwarfed with construction.
- The main objective to this is money and not family.
- Please consider the design proposed by the neighbors.
(-) Ron Pacheco
- He has lived in the neighborhood for 29 years.
- The project sponsor is an architect but also a developer.
- The drawings showing his property have errors.
- If the cottage cannot be saved, he hopes that the Commission will approve the neighbors design concept.
(-) Carol Robinson
- She has lived on Elizabeth for 32 years.
- The proposed development does not respect the values of the neighbors.
- There will be an enormous loss to quality design of the cottage.
- She hopes that the project sponsor will revise the project or the Commission will approve the neighbors design concept.
(-) Joan Benjamin
- She has lived in the neighborhood for many years.
- This project is totally out of scale with the surrounding building.
- She hopes that the cottage can be saved but if it can't, she would like to see approved the neighborhood design concept.
(-) Kurt Lunz
- He is here in support of the neighbors.
- He read a letter from the East and West Castro Street Improvement Club who is against this project.
(+) David Cincotta – Representing the Project Sponsor
- This will be a two unit building and each unit will have three bedrooms.
- The demolition report should actually show larger amounts of costs to repairs to the cottage.
- The property is in terrible condition so it makes no sense to remodel the existing property.
- The design will allow more open space.
(+) Joe O'Donaghue – Residential Builders
- This project sponsor is not a member and not a developer.
- Family housing needs to be provided somewhere.
- This is a reasonable home and not a monster home.
- He hopes that the project sponsor is allowed to stay in the neighborhood and have his project approved.
(+) Harold Ginsberg
- He is in favor of this proposed development.
- He lives next door of the proposed development.
- He and his wife have lived in this neighborhood for 13 years.
- The homes are all of mixed character.
- The cottage was in extremely poor condition.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve the project.
(+) Bob Becker
- He has lived in Noe Valley for 10 years.
- The project sponsor showed the plans to him and he didn't find anything wrong with it.
(+) Janice Stone
- She has lived on Elizabeth Street for many years.
- There is a need in San Francisco to build family housing.
- She doesn't agree with the design but she believes it's not her right to give her opinion to someone on how to build the building.
- She believes that people have the right to build anything that falls within guidelines.
(+) Toby Morris - Architect
- He and his wife have made many revisions to the design of the project after discussions with the neighbors.
- Displayed photographs of the streetscape of Elizabeth Street.
ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project per staff recommendation.
AYES: Lim, Baltimore, Chinchilla
NAYES: Theoharis, Salinas, Joe
RESULT: The motion failed to carry.
ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve with staff modifications and: 1) eliminate two story rear yard protrusion 2) eliminate the 4th story loft.
AYES: Theoharis, Chinchilla, Salinas, Joe
NAYES: Baltimore, Lim
ABSENT: Fay
19. 2002.0183D (M. LI: 415-558-6396)
201 CHESTNUT STREET - southwest corner at Kearny Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 0061 - Staff-initiated request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Applications 2002 0128 7866 (demolition) and 2002 0128 7864 (new construction) proposing the demolition of a four-story, six-unit building and the construction of a four-story, two-unit building. The subject property is located in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate-Density) District, the Northern Waterfront Special Use District No. 3, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Alice Barkley
- Even if this building were retrofitted, units would still be lost.
- This building meets all of the criteria.
- The new design will be compatible with the other buildings in the neighborhood.
- She hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
(+) Lou Sarto
- The existing building is an eyesore and is not occupied so it should be demolished.
- The proposed building will greatly enhance the neighborhood.
(+) Kaye Woods
- She is in full support of this project since it will be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood.
- The current building is an eyesore.
(+) Michael McGuire
- The current building is in very poor shape and should even be considered a hazard.
- The new building will be a visual improvement to the area.
(+) Michael Penner
- He has lived in the neighborhood for over 10 years.
- The proposed construction will be a significant improvement to the neighborhood.
- He supports this project strongly.
(+) Frederick Allardyce
- He lives on Chestnut Street and has lived on Telegraph hill for over 30 years.
- The current building is not up to code.
- The project sponsor has invested a lot of time and money to design a project that is good for the neighborhood.
- Both project sponsors are architects and they have designed a great building.
(+) Joe O'Donaghue – Residential Builders
- The architectural drawings are superb.
- There is a lot of neighborhood support.
- This project should be approved.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as proposed.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
20. 2002.0094D (V. MASSEHIAN: 415-558-6363)
224-230 PRESIDIO AVENUE - east side between Washington and Clay Streets, Lot 015 in Assessor’s Block 0998 - Staff-initiated request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/0919/8664, proposing to merge four dwelling units into two dwelling units in an existing four-unit building. The subject property is located in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) John Sanger – Sanger and Olson – Representing Project Sponsor
- The building started as a single-family home and then became a two family home.
- It was at one time illegally converted to a 4 unit building but later was returned to three units.
- It has been that way for a number of years.
- The project sponsor would like to convert this building to a two unit building and will keep the other unit.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve the merger since all the relevant criteria are met.
(+) Hiedeh Honari Saghi – Project Sponsor
- There were some neighbors who were here in support of the merger but had to leave.
- They have had many tenants and have been good landlords.
- Their last tenant purchased a home and that is why the tenant left.
(+) Sia Honari
- He has lived on Green Street since 1980. He has lived in San Francisco since 1979.
- He hopes that the Commission approves this project since his daughter and son in law, who are the project sponsors, live only 10 minutes away.
(+) James Saghi
- He and his wife live about 10 minutes away from his son and daughter in law, who are the project sponsors.
- He also hopes that the Commission will approve the project since it will keep his family together.
(+) Elizabeth Saghi
- She lives in Noe Valley and her brother is one of the project sponsors.
- She hopes that the Commission will approve this project since it is important for her mother to walk and see her grandchildren.
(+) Joe O'Donaghue
- There is no loss of units here.
- The fact that the relatives live in the neighborhood, it is important that this merger be approved.
ACTION: Did not take DR and approved the merger
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
21. 2000.1170D (M. SNYDER: 415-575-6891)
2637–2639 24th STREET - south side between Potrero Avenue and Utah Street, Lot 25 in Assessor’s Block 4264 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/03/07/3664 proposing to construct a new building that would contain six new dwelling units, six parking spaces, and a small commercial unit, on a lot that currently contains a single-story commercial building. The property is within the 24th Street - Mission Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) James P. Green – DR Requestor
- He would like to point out that the application falsely states that the lot is vacant.
- The correct address for this project is 2639 not 2637 and the application is for lot 25 and in reality it is for lot 26.
ACTION: At the call of the Chair, this item was continued to April 25, 2002 so staff can confirm the address and lot number.
22. 2001.1112DD ( M. WOODS: 415-558-6315 )
2141 CHESTNUT STREET - south side between Steiner and Pierce Streets, Lots 20 and 21 in Assessor’s Block 490 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/1011/0487S, proposing to convert a movie theatre use, formerly Cinema 21, to a retail sales and services use for Walgreens in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Jim Maxwell – President of the Marina Merchants Association
- He had requested to the project sponsor that he consider lending the space to another theatre operator and to consider the impact that the loss of the theatre would have to their community.
- Although the theatre has closed, they decided to file a Discretionary Review because of their concerns: added traffic congestion, the demise of other small businesses, the relocation or eviction of three small businesses from the property.
- He hopes that the Commission takes into consideration their issues, take Discretionary Review and disapprove the site permit application as submitted.
(-) Patricia Vaughey – Marina/Cow Hollow Neighbors and Merchants Association
- They put out two questionnaires to various neighborhood stores basically asking them what they wanted at this location.
- Although there are a large number of people who want to keep the theatre use, there are other neighbors who are ok with having Walgreen's in the neighborhood.
- If the Commission were to approve Walgreen's, the association would like to state a few conditions: 1) hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; 2) deliveries would be scheduled from 5:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.; 3) there is a yellow zone to 9:00 a.m.; 4) keep existing façade as much as possible; 5) building envelope shall not be expanded; 6) façade may not be tiled; 7) exterior doors and windows shall be wood framed; 8) windows at the upper portion shall remain; 9) Walgreen's shall increase their hardware, toys and five-and-dime products; 10) the magazine rack shall not exceed 6 feet in length and the paper rack shall not exceed 3 feet in length; 11) sidewalks adjacent to the building will be steam cleaned once a month; 12) doors and windows will be kept clean at all times; 13) landscaping shall be installed per Walgreen's discretion; 14) shall encourage public transit; 15) Walgreen's shall use it's best efforts to hire from residents of the Marina/Cow Hollow neighborhood.
(-) Michael R. Farrah – Legislative Aid to Supervisor Newsome
- On Monday, April 15, 2002, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution asking the Planning Department to conduct a comprehensive study on the impact of loss of neighborhood theatres on the character and economic vitality of neighborhood commercial districts.
- He requested a continuance of this item. If this is not feasible, he would like to ask the Commission to take Discretionary Review and apply recommendations from staff.
(-) Jordanna Thigpen – Marina Merchants Association
- She is a merchant on Chestnut Street
- There are so many reasons to support having a theatre: 1) business services have dropped because of reduced foot traffic; 2) the location will remain vacant which could be a cause for vandalism; 3) Walgreen's already has a presence in the area.
- Parking will be a problem.
- Dinner theatres would be a better use.
(-) Alfonso Felder – San Francisco Neighborhood Theatre Association
- He would like to have this item continued in order to allow further study and further review and further study of the impact of the loss of the theatre.
- He hopes that the Commission will consider the legislation passed by the Board of Supervisors.
(-) Jack Bair – San Francisco Neighborhood Theatre Association
- The loss of the theatre will create less people to shop and eat at the local establishments.
- Theatres should be saved and made viable.
(-) Peter Singh – Marina Merchants Association
- He agrees with everyone who has spoken.
- Please plan properly and stop the process. Have the landlord listen to the neighborhood.
(-) James Slaughter – Marina Resident and Homeowner
- He would like to have this item postponed in order to have more time to see the impact of the loss of theatres in neighborhoods.
- He would like to preserve as many theatres as can be done.
(-) Brian Chaney – Real Cinema
- What is decided upon today will set a precedent to other theatres in the City.
- He would like some time in order to try to find a solution to the closures of theatres.
(+) Jim Reuben – Reuben and Alter – Representing the Project Sponsor
- Everyone from the neighborhood feels that Walgreen's is a good tenant.
- All the speakers seem to be saying is that they want a theater rather than saying that they oppose Walgreen's.
- Even if a Discretionary Review is taken, there will still be no theatre.
- The volume of the building will remain the same. At the conclusion of the Walgreen's tenancy, it is possible that someone might want to reinstall a theatre facility. The exterior façade as well as the marquee will remain.
- Taking Discretionary Review and disapproving the project will not produce results that will please anyone.
(+) Allen Michaan – Renaissance Rialto Theatres
- He has been working for theatres most of his life.
- Either the City subsidizes these theatres to an enormous degree, or close the multiplex theatres.
(+) Ray Kaliski, Sr. – Louis Kaliski, Inc.
- He was born in San Francisco.
- He has been in the theatre business all of his life just like his father.
- Walgreen's would be good tenant for this location.
(+) Nissim Lanyadoo – Body Options
- His business is located on Chestnut Street.
- He supports Walgreen's moving into this location.
(+) Jack Shim – Fireside Camera
- His business is located on Chestnut Street.
- He believes that Walgreen's would be a good use for this location.
(+) Aman Daro
- He was born in San Francisco.
- He read a letter from business owners who are in support of this project.
(+) Rosario Sapienza
- He has lived in the Cow Hollow area for many years. Although he moved to Marin, he visits the Chestnut area frequently.
- He supports the idea to have a Walgreen's come into the neighborhood.
(+) Jerry Moskowitz – Edward Plan Co. Inc.
- He read two letters from two people who could not attend but are in support of the project.
(+) Steve Fuller – Walgreen's
- He is representing Walgreen's. He is a store manager.
- Walgreen's on Chestnut needs more space and have been asking for more space for about 10 years–in order to provide better service to their customers.
- Walgreen's has been on Chestnut for about 37 years.
- Their relationship with Mr. Keliski extends for over four decades.
MOTION: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove project
AYES: Baltimore, Lim, Joe
NAYES: Chinchilla, Salinas, Theoharis
RESULT: The motion failed to carry.
MOTION: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with Staff recommendation
AYES: Chinchilla, Salinas, Theoharis
NAYES: Baltimore, Lim, Joe
RESULT: The motion failed to carry.
ACTION: Continued to a future date at the call of the chair
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. 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: 10:10 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, May 16, 2002
SPEAKER(S): None
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim and Salinas
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Theoharis
Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:07 PM
