October 10, 2002
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION
SAN FRANCISCO
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
and
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, October 10, 2002
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Gerald Green, Director of Planning; Lawrence B. Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney
ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY DIRECTOR GREEN AT 1: 36 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Tina Tam; Dan Sirois; Dan Dibartolo; Sara Vellve; Mary Woods; Dario Jones; Nora Priego – Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary
A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
The Commission or Director of Planning or the Zoning Administrator will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission or Director of Planning or the Zoning Administrator 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.
B. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
1. Director's Announcements
Re: Emergency Ordinance Legislation
The Director explained how the emergency ordinance legislation allows Discretionary Review cases to be heard by the Director of Planning and that Conditional Uses are brought forward by request of the applicant. The applicant, therefore, submits a letter addressed to the Director, waiving their rights to be heard by the Planning Commission.
Re: No Hearing of October 31, 2002 and November 7, 2002
October 31, 2002 is a fifth Thursday and pursuant to Planning Commission Rules and Regulations that hearing is canceled. To schedule a Special Hearing on this date the Department would need to meet the required time constraints for legal notices and postings. Unfortunately we cannot do so. Therefore, the meeting for October 31, 2002 remains canceled. Also, unless a full Planning Commission is assembled, the hearing scheduled for November 7, 2002 is also canceled.
2. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors
Re: Planning Commission Nominations
The Board of Supervisors did not confirm all of the nominations from the Mayor for the Planning Commission.
Re: Extending Emergency Legislation
The Rules Committee will be holding a hearing to extend this emergency legislation.
3. Consideration of Adoption – draft minute of Planning Director and Zoning Administrator's Meeting of September 26, 2002.
ACTION: Director approved the minutes as drafted.
C. COMMISSION MATTERS
4. Election of Officers
ACTION: Not applicable for this hearing.
5. Commission Comments
ACTION: Not applicable for this hearing.
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 or Director and Zoning Administrator on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, they must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission or Director and Zoning Administrator for up to three minutes.
Re: 965-985 Geneva Street and 852 Paris Street (AKA Apollo Theatre)
(+) Joseph Breall
- The site for this project has been vacant for many years.
- He hopes that this project is not tainted by negativity from the pervious Commission. This is a very fair and good project.
- The anchor tenant does not agree with the Department's proposal.
(+) Lawrence Lee
- They are prepared to retain one small storefront.
- The anchor tenant will improve the area by providing jobs and aesthetically improving the neighborhood.
- One of the reasons that many small stores have gone out of business is because the vacant location is an eyesore. Bringing an anchor tenant will allow for a livelier neighborhood.
(+) Michael Yamauchi
- The neighborhood has used a lot of scare tactics to keep away the anchor tenant.
- Many small pharmacies have survived with a Walgreen's near by.
(+) Calvin Yee
- Please approve the project as proposed because if the project is revised, the anchor tenant will withdraw it's application.
(+) Catherine Pacheco
- She has lived in this area her entire life.
- She works in the neighborhood and is a member of the Outer Mission Neighborhood Association.
- There are a lot of storefront vacancies.
- This project is trying to revitalize this area.
(+) Stephen Currier
- The Outer Mission Neighborhood Association has met and voted that it still supports this project.
- He did a neighborhood walk with Supervisor Hall and they noticed that there were two other stores that have closed since the Commission last met.
(+) Robert Grecco
- He was born and raised in this area.
- All around the block there is metered parking with a two-hour maximum. Parking will not be an issue.
- The loading dock will not be on the Geneva side so that won't be a problem either.
(+) Sheila Pacheco
- She is in favor of the project.
- She has seen the Apollo Theater come up and come down. She used to take her daughter there when there was something to see do.
- Walgreen's will bring other services to this neighborhood.
(+) Dennis Chu
- He submitted new evidence that pharmacies have coexisted with larger chain pharmacies.
(+) Karen Hemer
- This building really needs to be developed.
- There are many businesses duplicated in the area.
- There are also a lot of empty storefronts.
- Geneva needs one large business for its revitalization.
(-) Mrs. Blanch Simons
- There are no empty storefronts on Geneva.
- Every store is taken.
- Those two storefronts are needed.
(-) Ed Nazrah
- This project has not been able to move forward in a fair way because of the controversy of the previous Commission.
- There are issues here about Proposition M as well.
(-) George Nazrah
- His concern is about the miscommunication about the empty storefronts.
- There are two Walgreen's within a close proximity.
- There is word on the street that the project is a done deal.
- Walgreen's is not even really that interested in this site. The project sponsors are the ones who would like to have a fancy anchor store for their property.
(-) Dexter Massoletti
- There is a sad political situation here.
- He hopes that this kind of procedural situation does not continue. There are many people in high positions with too much power.
(-) Dorothy Ann Jones
- She agrees that the neighborhood does not need a Walgreen's.
- There will be a problem with parking.
(-) Marion G. Nasrah
- She has lived in the area for the last 37 years.
- There are a lot of Walgreen's in the area. There are enough stores already.
- There is no need for a Walgreen's here.
(-) Jiwanah Nazrah
- This project involves an unneeded Walgreen's that would cause many traffic problems.
- There are many Walgreen's close to this area.
(-) Dan Pierini
- The community does not support this project.
- He has done a lot of research.
(+) Tiffany Nguyen
- All the accusations and controversies are not appropriate for this hearing.
- The issue here is if a Walgreen's is appropriate for this neighborhood.
- With this anchor tenant other smaller businesses will benefit.
- There are many businesses that support this project.
E. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS CATEGORY IS CLOSED.
6. 2002.0452D (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)
75 MIRALOMA DRIVE - southeast side, between Juanita Way and Bengal Alley, Lot 34 in Assessor's Block 2973. Discretionary Review request on Building Permit Application No. 2002.02.23.2627s, proposing to construct a new three-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling on a presently vacant parcel in an RH-1-D (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 12, 2002)
NOTE: On September 26, 2002, following public testimony, the Director of Planning closed the public hearing and continued the matter to October 3, 2002 with instructions to the project sponsor. They are to express their commitment to carry forward their proposed recommendations based on yet to be submitted plans; submit the plans; have your engineers assemble all the recommendations in one form--there are [currently] three or four reports with the recommendations spread throughout. The recommendations should deal with making sure the design is appropriate of the structure and retaining walls; make sure the grading is carried out properly--both during and after construction; explain what steps are going to be taken to protect the topography afterwards. Submit this to the Department separately and as amendments to the building plan. Also, submit a complete formal and professional profile that shows the entire condition including the DR requestor's property. This should be presented to the DR requestor as well as here (at next hearing). The public hearing may be re-opened to allow testimony on any new information presented.
NOTE: On October 3, 2002 the matter was continued to October 10, 2002.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Margo Bradish – Representing Discretionary Review Requestor
- The applicant has reduced the height of the garage by a few feet.
- She would like to request that Mr. Rollo be allowed to review the revised information submitted.
(+) Christopher Moscone
- The geologist, geotechnical engineer and project sponsor are here for questions.
- They submitted the information requested by the Director.
- Regarding the monitoring protocol: the project sponsor will be monitoring the project.
ACTION: The Director took Discretionary Review and approved with the following modifications: 1) reduce scale of garage; 2) require an on-site geologist during construction; 3) include items under 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 4 as conditions of approval.
AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION OR THE DIRECTOR AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEMS 7a & 7b MAY BE REOPENED.
7a. 2001.1126CV (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)
965-985 GENEVA AVENUE & 852 PARIS STREET (AKA APOLLO THEATER), 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 develop a project site 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). 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 for modified version of project.
NOTE: On June 13, 2002, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and entertained a motion to approve the project. The motion failed to carry by a vote of +3 –2. Commissioners Baltimore and Joe voted no. Commissioners Chinchilla and Lim were absent. This matter was continued to June 27, 2002, to allow the absent commissioners to participate in the final action.
NOTE: On June 27, 2002, the Commission entertained the motion to approve with conditions to allow 2 storefronts instead of the proposed 3. Motion failed to carry by a vote +3 –2. Commissioner Chinchilla was excused. Commissioner Fay was absent. At the call of the Chair the matter was continued to August 1, 2002.
NOTE: On September 12, 2002, this matter was continued indefinitely. It has since been re-noticed and placed on the October 10, 2002 calendar
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 12, 2002)
ACTION: Director recommends Approval with the following conditions:
1) Regarding Conditional Use, allow for the creation of residential housing without the required parking. These findings can be made under Section 161(j). The Director recommends to approve that portion of the Conditional Use request.
2) Regarding the installation of a large retail tenant on the ground floor. The allowable use is 5,900 sf. The project sponsor indicated that their proposal before the Department is to allow Walgreen's to consume the entire space except for the space which is currently occupied by the shoe cobbler. A case has not been made for this type of proposal. He does not believe that the findings are there specifically with regards to the priority policies under Section 101.1. There has been a case made, those spaces are valuable and are capable of being occupied by small retail businesses potentially owned by people who live in the immediate neighborhood or at least the immediate neighborhood could provide employment to those small businesses. The findings from Section 121 have not been made with regard to the need for that space. The Director recommends that the project sponsor's submittal be denied. But, the Director would recommend to the appealing body, if this is necessary, would allow a project that would include the space that staff is proposing except that the Director would be willing to consider after an appropriate period of time (a one year period) after the occupancy established by Walgreen's that store No. 3 mentioned in the applicant's attorney's letter dated October 4, 2002, could ultimately be absorbed into the Walgreen's space. But the design of the space would be controlled by the Planning Department in order to have an interactive frontage and not just the original design which Walgreen's proposed. Store No. 2 and Store No. 1 could continue to exist.
Final Action: Director recommends to accept staff's recommendation and approve the conditional use related to Section 161(j) and that the motion expresses that the project sponsor's proposal to eliminate all of the existing store fronts except Store No. 1 to be occupied by a large retail tenant be denied because the Department is not able to make the findings under Section 1.1 and 121 of the Planning Code but under Conditions of Approval, the Director would grant an amended project and the findings should be made to reflect that. Stores No. 1, 2 and 3 must be created along with Walgreen's. After a 1 year period that Walgreen's has occupied that space if the project sponsor has not been able to find a sufficient tenant for that space, the space could ultimately become usable by Walgreen's with the design be considered by the Planning Department. The Conditional Use authorization for lot size over 10,000 sf is approved as well.
7b. 2001.1126CV (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)
965-985 GENEVA AVENUE & 852 PARIS STREET (AKA APOLLO THEATER), north side of Geneva Avenue, between Paris Street 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.
NOTE: On June 13, 2002, the Acting Zoning Administrator closed public
hearing and continued the matter to June 27, 2002.
NOTE: On September 12, 2002, this matter was continued indefinitely. It has since been re-noticed and placed on the October 10, 2002 calendar
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 12, 2002)
ACTION: Zoning Administrator stated his inclination to grant the variance.
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
8. 2002.0338C (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)
1111 CALIFORNIA STREET - southwest corner of Taylor Street; Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 0253 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.6(b) of the Planning Code to replace one existing antenna and install one new panel antenna on the existing garage structure. Both antennas would be surface-mounted on the façade of the existing parking garage building. This installation would be part of the Cingular Wireless PCS telecommunications network within an RM-4 (Residential Mixed High Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The site is a Preference 2 (Preferred, Co-location site) per the City & County of San Francisco’s Wireless Transmission Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 26, 2002)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Kelley Pepper – Project Sponsor
- This site is a location preference 2.
- The antennas will be flush mounted to the façade so they will be unobtrusive.
- These antennas will provide improved service to this area.
- They mailed thousands of notices to residents of this area in three languages. There was one community meeting and 8 people attended.
ACTION: Director accepted staff's recommendation and approved the project.
MOTION: 16469
9. 2002.0613IC (K. SIMONSON: (415) 558-6321)
301 LYON STREET - northwest corner of Lyon and Fell Streets, Assessor's Block 1207, Lot 8 - Report to the Planning Commission on the filing of an Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan (AIMP) for Westmont College, San Francisco Urban Program. The AIMP is for the proposed relocation of the post-secondary institution from 3016 Jackson Street to 301 Lyon Street. Pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5(d), the Planning Commission shall be informed of the filing of the AIMP. The Commission may, at its option, choose to hold or not hold a public hearing on the plan, for the receipt of public testimony only. Such hearing would not be for the purpose of approving or disapproving the AIMP. The property is City Landmark No. 128, and is in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not hold public hearing on Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 26, 2002)
NOTE: To be considered by the Planning Commission Only
ACTION: Not applicable for this Hearing. This item continued indefinitely.
G. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
Procedures governing Discretionary Review Hearings are as follow: Discretionary Review Requestor(s) are provided with up to five (5) minutes for a presentation and those in support of the Discretionary Review Requestor(s) are provided with up to three (3) minutes each. The Project Sponsor is then provided with up to five (5) minutes for a presentation and those in support of the project are provided with up to three (3) minutes each. At the conclusion, each side (not each person) is provided with 2 minutes for a rebuttal.
10. 2002.0469D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)
4118 LAWTON STREET - North side between 47th and 48th Avenues, Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 1893 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Permit Application No. 2001.11.09.2901 for the demolition of an existing one-story single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. A new single-family dwelling is proposed to be constructed on the subject property under a separate Building Permit Application.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the application as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Lisa Melon – Discretionary Review Requestor
- She is opposed to the demolition.
- Se does not understand why her friends need to be evicted.
(-) David Golden
- He is the attorney for the residents who will be displaced if this project goes forward.
- This project will destroy rent-controlled property.
(+) Henry Karnelowicz – Project Sponsor
- They are requesting demolition because the property is unsound.
- He requests that the Director approve this demolition.
(+) Doo Sup Park
- He has invested a tremendous amount of money on this project and hopes that the Director will approve the demolition.
(+) Patty Jung
- She would like to build a new house because the current house is long overdue for an upgrade.
- The new design will be compatible with the other houses in the neighborhood.
- She has letters from supporters of this project.
(+) Moon Jung
- She notified the tenants about the demolition about two years ago.
ACTION: Director recommends to not take Discretionary Review and allow demolition.
11. 2002.0753D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)
3226B 16TH STREET - north side between Guerrero and Dolores Streets, Lot 019 in Assessor’s Block 3556 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.04.19.4483 for a change of use from Office to Personal Service with accessory massage in the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the application as submitted.
SPAKER(S):
(-) Gregory Abrams – Representing Discretionary Review Requestor
- He is concerned with the definition of personal services referred to in the code
- He does not believe that a massage parlor would fit into the definition of personal services
- This permit should be rejected or be very stringent on the applicant.
(-) Kurtiss Tews
- This project is inappropriate for this neighborhood.
(-) John Thomas
- He hopes that the Director will take the most stringent approach to this project.
(-) James Harris
- He is concerned with the parking problems if this project is approved.
- If this project is approved, he would like to have hours of operation limited.
(-) Patrick Fitzgerald
- He is concerned with the use of this project.
- He spoke with various tenants and they share his same concern.
(+) Lee Holpepper
- Their intention is to open a small business of holistic services and astrological and tarot, with massage therapy as a secondary use.
- They are in complete compliance with the laws required for massage therapy.
(+) Tommy Jones
- She is a certified massage therapist.
- All of the services will be completely legitimate and therapeutic.
(+) Jessica Laniado
- They are in agreement with limiting the hours of operation.
- There will only be 1 person per session per hour.
(+) Rosa De Anda
- She has lived in the Mission District all her life.
- This neighborhood has improved.
- This business will allow people to be healthy and be better people.
(+) Dana Pamacal
- If she had any concerns of the legitimacy of this business she would not be here at all.
(+) Ronda Nichols
- She is a neighbor.
- She is also a nurse specializing in pain management.
- She is familiar with one of the women who will open this business and can say that this will be a legitimate business which will help a lot of people not be in pain.
- They will be productive members of the healthcare community.
(+) Kilie Henson
- She is a close friend with one of the women who will open this business.
- This will definitely be a legitimate business and will not attract drug users or prostitutes.
ACTION: Public Hearing Closed. Case continued to October 17, 2002 in order for sponsor to provide a floor plan. Discretionary Review requestor to offer reasons why this is not an appropriate use.
12. 2000.0413DD & 2002.0874DD (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)
226 17th AVENUE - east side between California and Clement Streets, Lot 29A in Assessor’s Block 1417 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Permit Application No. 9914684 for the demolition of a two-story, single-family dwelling and Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9914683S, requested by the public, proposing to construct a three-story, two-unit building. The subject property is located within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve both applications as proposed.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 17, 2002)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Steve Williams
- This project does not have any Building Code violations.
- He would like the Director to look closely at the demolition reports since there seems to be a conflict with the information in these reports.
(-) William Iraqui
- The project sponsor never contacted him before the Discretionary Review was filed and before community boards.
- The project sponsor has provided information that is incorrect and with no input from him.
(-) Mary Iraqui
- She opposes the demolition because she feels that this 1906 home built of redwood is structurally sound.
- The size of the lumber is not up-to-code, but it was in 1906.
- The previous owner maintained the house quite well.
- The previous tenant stated that there were no structural problems with the home.
(-) Juanita Waycox
- Please preserve this house.
(-) Paul Iraqui
- Please save this affordable family home and allow Proposition M.
(-) Norma E. Cook
- There have been various demolitions in this neighborhood since 1985.
- This house survived the 1989 earthquake. It is very strong structurally. There are only 4 single-family homes on this side of the street.
- Proposition M was voted on to keep single-family homes.
- Parking has become impossible.
(-) Hiroshi Zakuda – Richmond Homeowners Association
- tape
(-) Bernice Garcia
- She would not like the project to be demolished.
- The new project is too large and will take most of the sunlight and air of the adjacent homes.
- This lot should remain a single family home as it is.
- She is also concerned with the density of the neighborhood and parking problems.
(+) Joel Jodowitz – Representing Project Sponsor
- This is definitely an unsound structure.
- He has submitted reports from structural engineers, asbestos abatement consultants, and termite inspections
- The basement has a substandard height and is used as living quarters.
- There are also a lot of inadequate aspects to this home.
- This house is not affordable housing.
(+) John Lau – Project Sponsor and Project Engineer
- The project has gone through two owners and four planners and a 311 posting was done twice. During these two posting there were no objections to the project.
- This project has also gone through three demolition policies.
- He meets all the requirements for demolition and hopes that the Director will approve this demolition.
(+) Tom Coin
- He spoke with one of his side neighbors and did not have any problems with the demolition except for property line windows.
ACTION: Public Hearing Closed. Case continued to November 14, 2002 so sponsor can (I) respond to the following questions the Zoning Administrator asked about the Demolition Report, including: 1) Why is there a $53,000 line item for asbestos removal ($15,000 for asbestos removal and $30,000 to replace what is removed); 2) Demolition of existing foundation in order to reduce height of building; 3) What is the condition of furniture in the bathroom and why do they need to be replaced; 4) Conditions of stairs, will they fall apart?; 5) There is no requirement to shear walls; 6) There are a number of other items which need to be addressed; and (II) so the DR applicant’s engineer can review the condition of the building and submit a report.
13. 2002.0054D (D. JONES: (415) 558-6477)
496-498 ALVARADO STREET/947 NOE STREET - northeast corner of the intersection Noe and Alvarado Streets, Lot 0018 in Assessor’s Block 3626 - Pursuant to Resolution 16078 a Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit merger, for the proposed dwelling unit merger of five existing units into three dwelling units located in an RH-2 neighborhood (Residential, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve the proposed dwelling unit merger.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 12, 2002)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) William M. Abend – AIA Architects
- His clients are present and are available for questions.
ACTION: Director recommends that Discretionary Review not be taken and merger approved.
14. 2002.1015DDD & 2002.1016DD (D. JONES: (415) 558-6477)
626 KIRKHAM STREET - north side of Kirkham Street between 10th and 11th Avenues; Lot 021 in Assessors Block 1843 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 9918244 of a one-story, single-family dwelling and Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9918241S, requested by the public, proposing to construct a four-story, two-unit building. The subject property is located within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review on the proposed demolition and take Discretionary Review and modify the proposed new construction.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Homer Mar – Discretionary Review Requestor
- He is opposed to the demolition and the new monstrous construction to be built because it will block his light.
(-) Cynthia Pereira – Discretionary Review Requestor
- It is important to increase parking in the neighborhood.
- She is concerned about the number of occupants that are going to be living there and the parking problems they will cause.
(-) David Clisham
- He believes that the formula used to determine whether a cost of repair exceeds 50% is not correct.
(+) Chu Mar – Project Sponsor
- He is not a developer or a carpetbagger as some of his neighbors have called him.
- He is just a family man who would like to expand his house and have all his family living there.
- He is willing to reduce some floor space but cannot reduce the rear part of the extension because it would eliminate a room.
ACTION: Director recommended to: 1) not take Discretionary Review and approve demolition; 2) Take Discretionary Review on new construction and approve as staff has recommended; revised plans must be submitted to reflect this. Those plans are also to be provided to the Discretionary Review requestor.
THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS FROM AN ADDENDUM TO THE REGULAR CALENDAR:
2002.0366DD (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
879 RHODE ISLAND - east side, between 20th Street and Southern Heights – Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2001.06.27.2467 proposing to demolish the existing two-story, single-family dwelling and Discretionary Review requested by members of the public of Building Permit Application No. 2001.06.27.2466 proposing to construct a new two-family, four-story over garage building in an RH-3 (Residential, Three-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do no take Discretionary Review and approve Building Permit Applications as proposed.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 26, 2002)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) John C. Carney – Discretionary Review Requestor
- He believes that the proposed project is excessively high.
- He would like an entire story removed from the building or remove the staircase that goes to the roof.
(-) Peter Rudolfi
- He lives behind the proposed project.
- There are other people who are opposed to this project but had to leave.
- This house is out of scale.
- The three-foot wall on the roof can be replaced with a metal railing. This would reduce the scale.
(-) Gary Clausner
- This house is out of scale and should be lowered.
(-) Dick Millet
- He supports the demolition but opposes the new construction because it is out of scale for this neighborhood.
- The units will be luxury--so there will be more cars and less people.
(+) Waren Shmalls
- There are no extraordinary circumstances regarding the height of the building.
- He has communicated with all the immediate neighbors to let them know the details of the project.
ACTION: Director recommended to: 1) Do not take Discretionary Review and approve demolition; 2) Take Discretionary Review on new construction and eliminate roof deck, slope roof or allow roof hatch only.
H. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission or Director and Zoning Administrator on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission or Director and Zoning Administrator except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission or Director and Zoning Administrator will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission or Director and Zoning Administrator 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))
Dick Millet
Re: Project on Arkansas
- This project is similar to the one previously heard. He is concerned with the way these projects are being measured. It does not seem correct since monster homes seem to be being built.
- He would like the Department to work a little bit more diligently on this subject so that not so many cases are brought before the Director or the Planning Commission.
(Did not state name)
Re: Section 261
- In an RH-2, an upslope is defined as 20 feet. For RH-3 it is not defined.
- This is difficult to know how to handle. Does RH-2 or does RH-3 apply?
Adjournment:
THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2002 BUT CAME BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ONLY.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Director Approved
Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:08 PM
