June 13, 2002
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, June 13, 2002
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla, Lim
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT FAY AT 1:45 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green – Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Jean-Paul Samaha; Petterson Vollmann; Jeff Tully; Moses Corette; Jonas Ionin; Kate McGee; Randall Dean; Paul Maltzer; Tina Tam; Leigh Kienker; Dan Sirois; Matt Snyder; Thomas Wang; Kate Simonson; 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. 2002.1051D (D. SIDER: 415-558- 6697)
480 POTRERO AVENUE - northwest corner of Mariposa Street, Lot 002C in Assessor's Block 3973 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Number 2001.11.27.3854, proposing to (1) change the use of an existing industrial building to a 55 unit residential care facility, (2) construct a vertical addition, and (3) perform interior and exterior alterations in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, a 65-B Height and Bulk District, and an Industrial Protection Zone as set forth by Planning Commission Policy expressed in Resolution Number 16202. Mandatory Discretionary Review is required by Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 518-01 (Mission District Interim Controls) for any permit proposing to change the use of a property within the Mission District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to June 20, 2002)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as Proposed
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
2a. 2000.0413DD (M. WOODS: 415-558-6315)
226 – 17TH AVENUE - east side between California and Clement Streets, Lot 29A in Assessor’s Block 1417 - Staff-initiated request for Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 9914684, proposing to demolish a two-story, single-family dwelling. The subject property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed replacement building is also the subject of a Request for Discretionary Review.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition.
(Proposed for Continuance to September 5, 2002)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as Proposed
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
2b. 2000.0413DD (M. WOODS: 415-558-6315)
226 – 17TH AVENUE - east side between California and Clement Streets, Lot 29A in Assessor's Block 1417 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9114683S, proposing to construct a new three-story building containing two dwelling units. The subject property is 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 project as revised.
(Proposed for Continuance to September 5, 2002)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as Proposed
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
3. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of May 23, 2002.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved with various typographical corrections
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
4. Commission Matters
Commission Secretary: On June 20, 2002 there will be a joint hearing with the Park and Rec Commission. This special hearing will begin at 1:30 p.m. and the regular Planning Commission hearing will start at 2:30 p.m.
Commissioner Theoharis: There was a case heard last week regarding 366 Pennsylvania Street. She has become extremely concerned about units being rented out as a hotel and not being used properly. She has discovered that not only is there a Pink Pelican but also a Brass Pelican at 26 Teresa Street and that is zoned R-1 and a Green Pelican located at 41 Parsons Street. These are advertised on the Internet at pelicanrentals.com, which are also advertised in Europe.
If this information is correct, then there are several units, which have been taken off the market. These units are violating the unit density and the Planning Code. She would like to know: 1) if these people are paying hotel tax; 2) do they have a business license; 3) are they subject to the City's payroll tax; 4) is San Francisco entitled to a portion of the sales tax; 5) have they paid sales tax to the Franchise Tax Board; and 6) check with the water department to see if they pay a different rate.
She would also like to have the audit available on the website since it is such a large document.
The Planning Director responded that the audit is available at: www.sfgov.org/planning.
Copies will also be available at the Planning Department. Hearings on the audit will be scheduled in the future.
Commissioner Salinas: He would like to know whose jurisdiction is it to follow through on the issue of the pelican rentals. What laws have been broken?
Commissioner Baltimore: Review the codes related to the height of penthouses. In order for open space to be allowed/legal on the roof or upper levels, it has to be accessible to the disabled. Our codes should be consistent with the building codes in terms of the number of feet necessary. She would like to have staff outline the necessary changes in order to go through the appropriate Commissions for code change.
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
5. Director's Announcements
1) The Director announced that today he is also the Acting Zoning Administrator while Mr. Badiner is on vacation.
2) He responded to the question Commissioner Salinas asked.
The property has to be in compliance with the Planning Code as well as the Municipal Code. The jurisdiction is of the Planning Department when it has to do with use and how a dwelling unit is being used. The Planning Department will be looking into this. If there are issues related to the Building Code, this matter will also be referred to the appropriate departments.
6. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS –
Re: 3224-3252 Pierce Street – Conditional Use Application for an antenna
– This item was continued without hearing to June 17, 2002.
Transportation and Commerce Committees
Re: Performance audit of the Planning Department and Planning Commission
- This morning he (the Director) attended the hearing regarding the performance audit.
- Supervisor McGoldrick is calling for a working group and has acknowledged that this would be the first of many hearings.
- Many people who spoke at that hearing showed their support for the Planning Department.
BOA
- Jonas Ionin represented the Zoning Administrator at this hearing.
Re: Edgehill Way and 2518 Union Street
- Only the final language and findings was before the Board on these cases.
Re: 51-55 Vicksburg
- This was a staff-initiated Discretionary Review for a dwelling unit merger from 3 units to 1. The Commission approved this merger. It was appealed and the Board voted +5 -0 to overrule the Commission's action.
7. Informational presentation on building height and the review of code provisions regarding measurements.
(+) Joe Cassidy
- He is in favor of a height increase.
(+) Alice Barkley
- She is in favor of a height increase.
- She would like the Commission to act on this very quickly.
- She would like to have legislation written right away.
- Many projects are stopped because of this situation.
(+) Joe O'Donaghue – Residential Builders
- He is in favor of a height increase.
(+) Shawn Gorman
- He is in favor of an elevator penthouse and/or access to the roof.
- He encourages the Commission to act on this issue as soon as possible.
ACTION: Informational only. No Action Required.
D. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS 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.
Re: 292 Ivy Street
(+) Charles Olson – Sanger and Olson – Representing Project Sponsor
- He submitted additional language for this project.
- He requests that the modified approval language allows slightly more time than the staff recommendation to commence construction of the residential units.
- Max Limited has every intention of providing the residential units.
- He requests consideration of modified language and if the Commission cannot agree on a decision due to absences, that this case be continued to next week's hearing.
(+) Peter Hadiaris – Representing Discretionary Review Requestor
- The only new development was that his client was locked out of his premises and they (the sponsors) were ordered by the bankruptcy court to let him back into his premises.
(-) Larry Roberts – Office of Matt Gonzalez
- He would like to point out that this district has special zoning. There is a need for housing here.
- It may be appropriate to ask for a continuance since the full Commission is not here.
(-) Pam Pester – Senn, Palumbo, Meulemans, LLP - Representing Max Limited
- There are about 20 banker's boxes full of litigation material on this case.
- There has always been an intention to build residential units.
- There is no fraud going on.
(-) Deborah Cholrty – One of the Principals of Max Limited
- Regarding the statements made that they had tried to lock out Mr. Elder. This is not true.
- They had three break-ins and were trying to reduce the amount of break-ins to the property.
(+) Leslie Katz
- She is quite familiar with the building.
- There is every intent that the housing will be built.
- She hopes that the Commission will allow this project to go forward.
(-) Muldooh Elder – Vorpal Gallery
- There have been many misconceptions spoken.
- He would like the case to be continued until there is a full Commission.
(-) Joe O'Donaghue – Residential Builders
- The art gallery of Mr. Elder is a prime gallery.
- He is very familiar with this building.
- He hopes that the Commission will not approve this project.
E. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION -- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
8. 2002.0191D (P. VOLLMANN: 415-558-6405)
292 IVY STREET - at the southeast corner of the intersection at Gough and Grove Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 0809 - Discretionary review request of Building Permit Application number 2001/12/28/6038, to legalize a seven stall parking garage on Ivy Street, in the Hayes Gough NCD, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve parking with requirement to build dwelling units.
NOTE: On May 16, 2002, following public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing and entertained two motions: 1) Take Discretionary Review and approve parking with requirement to build dwelling units. The motion failed to carry by a vote +2 -4. Commissioners Lim, Fay, Baltimore, and Chinchilla voted no. Commissioner Theoharis was absent. 2) Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the excess parking element of the project. The motion failed to carry by a vote +3 -3. Commissioners Salinas, Joe, and Baltimore voted no. Commissioner Theoharis was absent. At the call of the Chair, this matter was continued to June 13, 2002, to allow the absent commissioner to participate in the final action.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing. Continued to June 27, 2002.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
9. (TULLY: 415-558-6372)
CENTRAL WATERFRONT CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY - Public hearing and consideration of adoption of a motion to endorse the Central Waterfront Cultural Resource Survey (California Department of Parks and Recreation Survey Form DPR 523B-evaluative) and resources held out from consideration because of owner objection. The Planning Department re-noticed all property owners within the Central Waterfront Survey boundaries on April 12, 2002 through May 13, 2002. As a result, eight (8) objections were received and heard by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board at two meetings – May 15 and June 5, 2002. The Central Waterfront Cultural Resource Survey documented 140 buildings, structures, sites and objects in Block/Lots: Block 3941; 3942/2, 3; 3943/3; 3944/4; 3992/2; 3994/1B, 1C, 2, 3; 3995/7, 15; 3996/ 4-6, 15, 18; 3997/3; 3998/17-18; 4042/2; 4043/12A, 13, 16; 4044/2A, 2-4; 4045/2; 4046/1; 4052/1; 4058/5, 9-10; 4059/1A, 1B, 1C, 2B, 9; 4105/9; 4108/3, 3A, 3B, 3D, 3F, 3J, 3M, 3N, 3O, 3R; 4109/1; 4111/1; 4172/3-5, 7, 15-16, 18-21; 4173/1; 4227/31; 4228/10; 4229/2-4; 4231/2; 4241/2-4; 4244/3-4; 4245/1-2; 4246/1; 4247/2; 4296/5; 4310/3; 4314/1A; 4316/2; 4352/7; 4353/9; 4355/6; 4357/3; 4358/7, 9; 4377/1; 4378/6; 9900/1, 68, 70, 84. 1155-63 Tennessee, Block 4172/04 was surveyed as part of the Dogpatch Cultural Resource Survey endorsed by the Planning Commission at its December 13, 2001 meeting, but was held out of that endorsement because of owner objection.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a motion to endorse the Central Waterfront Cultural Resource Survey (California Department of Parks and Recreation Survey Form DPR 523B-evaluative) and (California Department of Parks and Recreation Survey Form DPR 523A-descriptive and DPR 523B-evaluative) on the following held out properties: 3201 3rd Street, Bayshore Cutoff Tunnels No. 1 and 2, 1155-1161-1163 Tennessee, 580 and 600 Minnesota Street, 2230 Third Street, 815-825 Tennessee Street, 651 Illinois and Piers 68 and 70 Wharves.
Note: On December 13, 2001, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing, the Commission passed a motion to endorse the Central Waterfront Cultural Resource Survey (California Department of Parks and Recreation Survey Form DPR 523A-descriptive) and Context Statement for all resources contained within the Central Waterfront survey boundaries with the exception of 3201 3rd Street, 651 Illinois, 590 Minnesota, 690-698 Minnesota, 2085 Third Street, and 1155-1163 Tennessee, which were held out because of owner objection to the survey findings. The motion carried +5 -0. Commissioner Baltimore was absent and Commissioner Salinas as excused. At the call of the chair, the Planning Commission directed the Planning Department to re-notice all property owners within the Central Waterfront Survey boundaries and to return to the Planning Commission for consideration of endorsement of (California Department of Parks and Recreation Survey Form DPR 523B-evaluative) for all resources within the Central Waterfront survey boundaries. Per the Chair's instructions, the public hearing for this matter is open.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Tay Via – Coblentz - Patch, Duffy and Bass – Representing the property owner of 600 Minnesota Street
- She would like the Commission to change the designation from 3D to 5S3.
- She does not believe that this should be designated as a district since it is not a district.
(-) Christopher Verplanck – Page and Turnbull
- The designation of 3D is not correct and should be changed to 5S3 since it's more appropriate for 600 Minnesota Street.
(+) Mark Ryser – Board of Directors of San Francisco Beautiful
- This fundamental program is of critical importance and hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
(+) Tim Kelley – President of the Landmark's Board.
- He urges the Commission to bring this survey forward.
(-) Regan Carroll – The Redlands Group, Inc.
- He was the only property owner of the Dogpatch Survey who was re-noticed.
- Dogpatch should have been a separate item number for the Commission's consideration.
- His issues relate to improper notification of this project.
(-) Shawn Gorman – The Redlands Group, Inc. and Gee Architects
- The Department will use this survey for permits on the affected properties.
- This survey has circumvented the public process for the designation of historic places and buildings. It sets a bad precedent for surveys of this nature.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
MOTION: 16431
10. 2002.0408C (J. IONIN: 415-558-6309)
2863 CALIFORNIA STREET - Assessor's Block 1028, Lot 023 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 161(j) for an exemption from the residential parking requirement. The Proposal is to demolish an existing two-story commercial building with approximately 4,450 square feet in total gross floor area and construct a new three-story 40-foot tall building with approximately 8,525 square feet in total gross floor area. There would be approximately 3,500 square feet of ground-floor commercial and four residential units above. Conditional Use Authorization is sought to construct the Project without the required four off-street parking spaces for the residential units. No parking is required for the commercial space. The project lies within a Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial (NC-2) District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
Re: Request for Continuance
Gary Wilson
- He just found out about the continuance yesterday.
- There are a number of people here to testify so he is not in agreement with the continuance.
- He has petitions that are opposed to this project.
- This matter should be heard and decided upon today.
Dan Sullivan – Representing Project Sponsor
- He tried his best to notify as many people as possible regarding the continuance.
- He would like a continuance in order to have a full Commission.
Courtney Clarkson
- She is not in agreement with the continuance since she was under the impression that the matter today was about parking only and not about the entire project.
Sylvia Dworkin
- She is not in agreement with the continuance since she doesn't understand why the other side is asking for this continuance.
Re: Merits of the Case
(-) Carol Molloy
- She lives on California Street.
- The neighborhood is being decimated in regards to parking.
- She does not support this project.
(-) Peter Dworkin
- He lives on Pine Street.
- If this project is approved, there would actually be parking removed.
- He thinks that it is unfair for the Commission to approve projects without parking.
- He supports a new building in the neighborhood but it should be appropriate and reasonable.
(-) Sarah Morse
- She is against the proposed project because she is concerned about parking.
- The parking is really bad in this neighborhood.
(-) Sylvia Raab Dworkin
- The parking in the neighborhood is really bad.
- There are a lot of businesses in the neighborhood that have deliveries during the day–this leads to double parking.
ACTION: Continued to June 20, 2002. Public hearing remains open.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
11. 2002.0350C (K. McGEE: 415-558-6367)
915 FOLSOM STREET - east side, between 5th and 6th Streets; Lot 145 in Assessor’s Block 3753 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization per Planning Code Section 815.73 to remove 1 panel antenna and to install 3 new panel antennas and one new equipment cabinet for Cingular Wireless. The subject property is located in an RSD (Residential/Service Mixed Use District) Zoning District, a 40-X, 85-B Height and Bulk District, and is in the South of Market Earthquake Recovery Special Use District. The subject property is a Preference 5 Location (mixed use buildings in high density districts).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Kelley Pepper – Representing Cingular Wireless
- The purpose of this site is to provide in-building coverage between 3rd and 7th Streets and between Mission and Bryant Streets.
- Users are experiencing dropped calls and call blocking in this area.
- Although this site is a location preference 5, the subject building provides the necessary height since most of the surrounding sites are lower and others are vacant.
-There was a community meeting and no one attended. She is not aware of any opposition.
(-) Doug Loerenger – Representing SNAFU
- There are 340 thousand cell phone users in San Francisco. There are still a few people without cell phones.
- They say that it is impossible for wireless companies to share cell phone antennas. He does not believe this is true. Even though there is an existing antenna, other cell phone carriers have the option of sharing antennas.
- There are people living in this building and this can pose a health threat for them.
MOTION: Disapprove
RESULT: Motion failed because of a lack of a second.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas
NAYES: Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
MOTION No: 16432
12. 2000.1058E (R. DEAN: 415-558-5980)
1598 DOLORES STREET (aka REILLY'S FUNERAL HOME) - located at the northwest corner of Dolores and 29th Streets; Assessor's Block 6618; Lots 7, 9, 38. Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposed construction consists of two, four-story residential buildings with a total of 13 units and demolition of an existing two-story mortuary building. The project would provide 13 off-street parking spaces. The proposed project site is 10,500 sq. ft. and is located in the NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District. The project would require Conditional Use Authorization by the City Planning Commission.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting May 24, 2001.)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to June 20, 2002
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
13. 2000.1058CE (T. TAM: 415-558-6325)
1598 DOLORES STREET (aka REILLY'S FUNERAL HOME) - northwest corner of Dolores and 29th Streets; Lots 7, 9, and 38 in Assessor's Block 6618 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.1 and 710.11 for development on lot size greater than 5,000 square feet in an NC-1 (Neighborhood, Commercial, Cluster) District. The proposal also requires a modification to the rear yard requirement as allowed under Planning Code Section 134(e).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to June 20, 2002
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
14. 2001.1126ECV (L. KIENKER: 415-558-5970)
965-985 GENEVA AVENUE & 852 PARIS STREET (aka APOLLO THEATRE) - north side of Geneva Avenue, between Paris Street and London Street, Lots 5-10 on Assessor's Block 6409. Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposed construction consists of 28,277 gross-square-feet (gsf) of commercial/office/residential uses within the existing building envelope of a vacant theater, with a total of two ground floor retail, two second floor office, and eight third floor residential units. The project would provide one off-street loading space and no other parking. The project site is 15,044 sq. ft. and is located in the NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial Moderate-Scale) District. The project would require Conditional Use Authorization by the San Francisco Planning Commission and a Variance for rear yard requirements.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting May 23, 2002).
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Ead Nasrah – Appellant
- He read the negative declaration and does not agree with it. He has been a business owner on Geneva Street for the past twelve years and has seen how bad the traffic problems area.
- People who come to this neighborhood, come to the businesses and leave. If there is no parking, they will leave and patronize another neighborhood's business.
- People are not going to take public transportation to purchase something at the hardware store. They will drive to the hardware store, make their purchase and leave. Not everyone is going to take public transportation.
(-) Dorothy Ann Jones
- She does not agree with the negative declaration because it does not address the parking problems. She is not against housing.
(-) Carol Rooney
- She has lived in the Excelsior District for 18 years.
- She is not in agreement with constructing housing without parking.
- Something should be built at this location but it should be intelligently done.
(+) David Hooper – New Mission Terrace Improvement Association
- This association does support the development because the economic viability of Mission Street and Geneva Street is very important.
(-) Dexter J. Massoletti – Member of ACORN
- He lives a block away from the Apollo Theatre.
- He is not in agreement with the Negative Declaration because it needs to have a clear study of the traffic problems.
(-) Tom Orzechowski
- The Negative Declaration is not complete and the project is out of scale with the neighborhood.
(+) Lawrence Lee – Project Sponsor
- There are about 2,000 signatures supporting this project.
- There is plenty of parking along the side streets.
- The real concern seems to be about competition with the other businesses.
- He agrees with the recommendation and would like to have the negative declaration upheld.
(+) Steven R. Currier – OMRA
- The Geneva area is one of the most important traffic corridors.
- He believes that the Planning Department has done an exquisite job on this report.
ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
MOTION: 16433
15a. 2001.1126CV (D. SIROIS: 415-558-6313)
965-985 GENEVA AVENUE & 852 PARIS STREET (aka APOLLO THEATRE) - north side of Geneva Avenue, between Paris Street and London Street, Lots 5-10 on Assessor's Block 6409 - Request for conditional use authorization to merge 6 lots into one lot greater than 9,999 square feet pursuant to Planning Code Section 712.11; to allow Walgreen's Pharmacy to occupy commercial space on the ground floor and in a new mezzanine in excess of 5,999 square feet pursuant to Section 712.21; and to allow the construction of 8 residential units without the required off-street parking pursuant to Section 161(j). There is also a request for a rear yard variance pursuant to Section 134. The Project Site is located in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and in a 65-X Height and Bulk District, and in an RH-1 (Residential, One-Family) District in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Lawrence Lee – Project Sponsor
- He is not a developer so would like to thank staff for guiding him throughout this procedure.
- This project will benefit the community and fill a need.
- Most of the neighborhood is in support of this project.
- The project has merit and is consistent to the General Plan.
(-) Mrs. Blanch G. Simons
- She has lived on Geneva Avenue since 1937.
- The parking is bad in the area.
- She is not supportive of having a Walgreens in the neighborhood.
(+) Michael Yamauchi – Project Sponsor
- He is asking the Zoning Administrator to grant the rear yard variance.
(+) Tiffany Nguyen – Project Sponsor
- When they purchased the property, they went around and asked the neighborhood what it was they wanted. The consensus was: housing, office space, and anchor tenants.
- The only response was from Walgreens.
- They also met with the major neighborhood associations of the area.
(+) Dennis Chu – Project Sponsor
- They have over 2,000 signatures of immediate neighbors that support this project.
- He asks the Commission to make a careful decision and work with them by approving this project.
- This locale has been vacant for many years and it needs life.
(+) Calvin Yee – Project Sponsor
- Walgreens will bring customers to nearby businesses.
- Businesses will be more profitable.
- Walgreens will be doing prescriptions in 8 languages.
- The neighborhood really wants this project to happen.
(+) Raymond Lau
- He believes that Walgreens at this location will benefit the neighborhoods.
- This project will revitalize the area.
- Local groups have been working diligently cleaning the area.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve the building.
(+) Robert Greco - OMRA
- He lives about eight houses away and does not have any parking problems
- He is in support of the project.
(+) Karen Hemer
- She lives near the site.
- There are no chain stores in the neighborhood.
- There are a lot of small businesses.
- She is in support of the project.
(+) Sheila Pacheco
- She has been a resident since 1958.
- She has seen many changes in the neighborhood.
- Walgreens will be an asset to the Apollo complex and will bring foot traffic.
(+) Barbara Cannizzo - OMRA
- She has been a resident of this neighborhood for 30 or more years.
- The owners of this property have done a lot of good in this area.
- She supports Walgreens coming into the area.
(+) Catherine Pacheco – Outer Mission Residents Association
- She has lived in this area for her entire life.
- A new Walgreens will bring foot traffic and benefit the smaller businesses.
(+) Wayne Hemer
- He lives near the proposed project site.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
(+) Daniel Woodward – Outer Mission Residents Association
- He lives and owns a business in the area.
- Walgreens is what the neighborhood needs.
(+) Linda Harte - Outer Mission Residents Association
- She lives two blocks away from the proposed project.
- She knows about parking in San Francisco yet parking in this neighborhood is not that bad.
- She supports Walgreens coming to this neighborhood because it will provide a lot to the community.
(+) Victoria Durmeg – Outer Mission Residents Association
- She lives about two blocks from the proposed site.
- She does not see any parking problems and there are 8 MUNI bus lines that run through the neighborhood.
- She supports the Walgreens project.
(+) Steven Currier - OMRA
- His association supports this project completely.
(+) Luz de Leon
- She lives near the project.
- The area is very convenient to shop in.
- She supports this project because Walgreens will be closer to her.
(-) Elsie Tonelli – Central Drug
- She has a business in the Excelsior District.
- There is no parking problem now because there is no Walgreens there now.
- This project will cause problems.
(-) George Nasrah
- There are a number of Walgreens in the surrounding areas.
- They were offered to be bought out before and they refused.
- He is not in support of this project because it will close down the smaller businesses.
(-) Dexter J. Massoletti – Member of ACORN
- He is not in support of Walgreens coming into the neighborhood.
(-) Barbara Bayer
- She lives about 4 blocks from the project.
- It is difficult for her to find parking in the area.
- There are too many Walgreens in the area.
(-) Rosemary De Gregorio
- She has lived in the area for 45 years.
- There are many Walgreens in the surrounding area.
- She feels that the Commission needs to do more homework before they approve this project.
(-) Elias Shamieh
- He is not in support of this project.
(-) Adol Nasrah
- He would like to eventually work in his family's pharmacy.
- He does not support this project.
(-) Ed Nasrah – Daniel's Pharmacy
- Walgreens has almost doubled its stores.
- Small businesses need to remain.
- He does not support this project.
(-) Joanna Nasrah
- Her husband owns Daniel's Pharmacy and works really hard to keep the business going.
- She would not like to have their business threatened because of Walgreens.
(-) Daniel Fierini
- He does not support Walgreens in the neighborhood.
(-) Mandolin Nasrah
- There are 56 Walgreens in San Francisco and this area does not need another one.
(-) Stephen Marin
- It is very difficult to find parking in the area.
- He is not against Walgreens, he is just concerned about the traffic impact the store will have.
(-) George Totah
- He does support the housing of the project.
- He would rather have three other smaller independent businesses open in the place where Walgreens would be.
MOTION: Approve
AYES: Fay, Salinas, Theoharis
NAYES: Baltimore and Joe
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
RESULT: Motion Failed
ACTION: Continued at the Call of the Chair to June 27, 2002 to allow absent commissioners to participate.
15b. 2001.1125CV (D. SIROIS: 415-558-6313)
965-985 GENEVA AVENUE & 852 PARIS STREET (aka APOLLO THEATER) - north side of Geneva Avenue, between Paris and London Street, Lots 5-10 on Assessor's Block 6409 - Request for rear yard variance pursuant to Planning Code Section 134 to allow the new third floor to be occupied by residential units without providing the required rear yard at the residential level. The Project Site is located in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and in a 65-X Height and Bulk District, and in an RH-1 (Residential, One-Family District in a 40-X Height and Bulk District
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 15a.
ACTION: The Acting Zoning Administrator closed the pubic hearing and continued matter to June 27, 2002.
16. 2002.0157C (M. SNYDER: 415-575-6891)
20 HERON STREET - northwest corner of Heron Street and Berwick Street, Lot 44 in Assessor's Block 3755 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to install a total of 12 panel antennas, and associated equipment cabinets, as part of a wireless transmission network operated by Verizon Wireless, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 816.73 and 227(h). The site is within an SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Pursuant to the WTS Facilities Guidelines, the project is a Preference 4 Location Site, a wholly commercial building within a South of Market District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 6, 2002)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Arlon Nichol – Project Sponsor
- The antennas will be non intrusive since they will be painted the same color as the building.
- Community informational meetings were held.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Theoharis
NAYES: Salinas
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
MOTION: 16434
E. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 7:30 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.
17. 2002.0072D (D. SIROIS: 415-558-6313)
1512 LA PLAYA - 1512 La Playa- east side of La Playa, between Kirkham and Lawton, Lot 039A, Assessor’s Block 1894 – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/1128/4105 to construct vertical (1-story) and horizontal (17-feet, 6-inches) extensions, and the addition of a 3rd dwelling unit to the existing 2-unit building. The project site is located in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District within the Coastal Zone Permit Area.
Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Anthony C. Villa
- He knows that this project is allowable by the Planning Department and the Planning Code yet it's not in the best interest of the surrounding neighbors.
- With a model, he described how the proposed construction will impact the light and air coming into his home.
(-) Mary Dunn
- She has been a next-door neighbor for 27 years.
- Her issues relate to open space since there is not much open space in the block.
(-) Alfred Stanley
- His back yard is to the north of the proposed project.
- This project will block sunlight to his home and will cause an impact on the street parking.
- He submitted a letter from a neighbor who could not attend the meeting but is opposed to the project.
(-) Kathleen McKenzie
- She lives two homes down from the proposed project.
- She is not against people making additions to their homes but it should not impact the neighbors or devalue their homes.
- She would like to have this project scaled down.
(+) David Silverman – Representing Project Sponsor
- The project sponsor has offered to install a skylight in the DR requestor's home.
- The home is proposed for rental housing.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with modifications: 1) keep building at 56'--length of existing building and allow an exiting feature; 2) eliminate the 12' pop out on the ground floor.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
18. 2002.0556DD (T. WANG: 415-558-6335)
2670 47TH AVENUE - eastside between Vicente and Wawona Streets; Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 2450 Request of Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002/01/09/6578 to construct a twostory addition at rear of the existing onestory over garage, singlefamily dwelling in an RH1 (Residential, House, OneFamily) District and a 40X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Hanson Lee – 1st Discretionary Review Requestor
- His concerns relate to: sunlight and over population and its affect on parking and traffic.
(-) Ian O'Donnell – 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor
- His concerns are similar to those of the 1st DR requestor.
- He is also concerned that there will be two entries to the house. There is no need for two entries in a single-family house.
(-) Ian Lamay
- He has been living on this block for over 12 years.
- There have been a lot of neighbors who have come into the neighborhood that have really improved the neighborhood.
- His concern is related to over crowdedness.
(-) Elsa Lamay
- She opposes the proposed construction because this will set a precedent for future construction and the congestion and parking problems this will cause.
(-) Teresa Serie
- She is concerned about how many people will be living in this building and the parking problems this may cause.
(-) Eric Lee
- His parents live in the neighborhood.
- He is concerned about the characteristics of the design and the parking and traffic problems this will cause.
(-) Helen Wang
- She lives adjacent to the proposed project.
- She grew up in her house and the proposed project will cause a negative impact on her home.
(-) Yin Chen Tai
- She read a letter from a neighbor who was not able to attend the hearing and is opposed to the project.
(+) Jeremy Paul – Representing Project Sponsor
- He came late to the project in the timeline process.
- The project sponsor has limited English skills so this is one of the reasons he could not communicate with his neighbors.
- Regarding parking, the square footage of the house is being increased to make this house livable--that is why a parking space has been provided in the design.
MOTION 1: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove the Project
AYES: Salinas
NAYES: Theoharis, Fay, Joe, Baltimore
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
RESULT: Motion Failed
ACTION 2: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with Modifications: 1) eliminate a bathroom; 2) construct an additional internal staircase; 3) reducing de depth of the proposed rear story addition to approximately 15 feet at the ground floor and 12 feet at the second floor; 4) 2nd floor addition will be set back 3 feet from the proposed ground floor building wall.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
19. 2002.0495D (G. CABREROS: 415-558-6169)
2606 and 2610 JACKSON STREET - north side of the street between Scott and Pierce Streets, Lots 021 & 022 in Assessor’s Block 0585 - A staff-initiated request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2001/1224/5878 proposing to merge two single-family residences into one single-family home in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The two lots are proposed to be merged under a separate subdivision application.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve merger.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to June 20, 2002
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
20a. 2002.0259DDDDD (K. SIMONSON: 415-558-6321)
536 PRESIDIO AVENUE - east side between California and Pine Streets, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 1031 - Staff-initiated Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2001/1114/3104, proposing to demolish a one-story over garage building containing one dwelling unit. The subject property is in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve demolition as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Elenor Rosenthal – 1st Discretionary Review Requestor
- She is concerned with the shadow that will be cast onto her house and with the design of the proposed construction.
- She did a shadow study that proves this.
(-) Sharon Esker – 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor
- She has lived in this neighborhood for 17 years.
- She opposes the scale of the building.
- The depth and height of the rear extension will cause a shadow on her home.
- She would like to eliminate the bay windows and have the building scaled back.
(-) Leonard Esposto
- The proposed house is big. It extends 12 feet past the back of his yard.
- This new building will create shadows on his home.
(+) John Goldman – Goldman Architects
- He displayed a diagram and described the design of the proposed construction.
- He displayed photos of the architecture of the building.
(+) Victor Kwan – Project Sponsor
- He displayed photos of what the project will look like in comparison to the adjacent homes.
(+) Sharol Owyang – Project Sponsor
- She grew up in this neighborhood and now lives with her husband. Her parents live about five minutes walking distance away.
- They can't decrease the density of the house because they would like to have enough room to start their family.
- They want the bay windows to maximize the light coming into the house.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approve staff recommendation.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
20b. 2002.0259DDDDD (K. SIMONSON: 415-558-6321)
536 PRESIDIO AVENUE - east side between California and Pine Streets, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 1031 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2001/1114/3108S, to construct a new three-story over garage building containing two dwelling units. The subject property is in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 20a.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with Staff Recommendations: -- cosmetic changes to the ground floor especially with regard to the primary entrance and the garage door
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla and Lim
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. 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: 9:32 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2002.
ACTION: Approved with the understanding that this Commission was not sitting at the time of the meeting.
AYES: Antonini; Boyd; Bradford Bell; Feldstein; Hughes; Sue Lee; William Lee
Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:08 PM
