- He is one of the tenants of the proposed project.
- He was interested in the portion of the EIR related
to jobs and displacement.
- He would like to have these concerns addressed.
- The EIR states that there are about 100 tenants when
there are actually about 300.
- The project has low proposed employment.
- Displacement of jobs in downtown is very significant.
(-) Roger
Brandon
- This is across the street from a popular hotel as
well as another hotel about a block away.
- There is no
point in this project since there are quality hotels close by.
ACTION: Meeting held. No Action Required
12.
1997.478E
(WYCKO: 558-5972)
525 Golden Gate Avenue - City Administration Building -
Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The project involves
the demolition of an existing, vacant State of California office building
and construction of a new building for City offices on City-owned property
at the southwest corner of Polk Street and Golden Gate Avenue on Lot 1
of Assessor’s Block 766 in the San Francisco Civic Center area. Two options are under consideration: Option
A would entail construction of a 14-story, 181-foot-tall building containing
about 255,500 square feet of office space, while Option B would consist
of a 12-story, 156-foot-tall building containing about 215,000 square
feet of office space. Each option
would include two basement parking levels containing about 100 spaces
(corresponding to about 140 spaces with valet operations).
The project would require a height reclassification (amendment
of the height and bulk designations in the zoning maps and General Plan
maps) of the site to accommodate the proposed building and will also seek
a Variance from the Planning Code for on-site parking and loading.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Certification of FEIR
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Diane Cramton
- There is an environmental impact
in regards to shadows on the learning center close by.
- Children need to have sunlight.
(-) Brother Cohen
- The zoning for this area does not
allow such a tall building.
- This will cause an environmental
impact on the learning center.
- The building should not be so tall.
(-) Michael Levin
- He does not have problems with
the project except that any City building ought to set an example to all
the developers.
- If there is any significant change
to the building from the photo on the report, there should be a supplemental
EIR written.
- This is an important building in
an important location.
(-) Roger Brandon
- This building is located behind
the courthouse.
- He does not see the purpose of
developing another government building.
- This building is not good for the
City and people should be against this project.
ACTION: EIR Certified
AYES: Baltimore, Fay,
Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION: 16092
13.
1999.377E
(BUFORD: 558-5973)
SAN FRANCISCO SOUTHERN
WATERFRONT - Certification of Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (FSEIR). All
of these proposed uses and future development assumptions, as summarized
below, constitute the project analyzed in the Supplemental EIR: Coach USA (bus storage and repair) at a Pier
94-96 location; British Pacific Aggregates (bulk cargo and concrete and
asphalt batching plant uses) at a Pier 94-96 location; Kaiser Bode/Mission
Rock (concrete ready-mix facility and bulk cargo use) proposed for relocation
from Mission Bay to Pier 92; ISG Resources (import, storage, and transloading
of fly ash, slag, and other constituent elements for concrete) proposed
at the Pier 90 grain silos; USA Waste (construction material recycling)
proposed for relocation from Candlestick Point; RMC Lonestar (concrete
ready-mix facility, including bulk cargo barge and rail transport), proposed
for relocation from Mission Bay to a Pier 80 location; construction of
a lift-segment Illinois Street bridge between Piers 80 and 90-92 to allow
rail and truck transport between Port facilities on either side of Islais
Creek; cargo shipping contracts (containerized and non-containerized cargo
shipping) on Piers 80 and 94-96; unspecified development of approximately
50 acres of Pier 90-94 Backlands for mixed light industrial and commercial
uses; Pier 70 Maritime Reserve (unspecified general industrial and maritime
industrial uses on approximately 55 acres); and Pier 70 Opportunity Area
(unspecified development of about 16 acres for mixed-use commercial, public
access and recreational maritime uses).
Preliminary Recommendation:
Certification of FSEIR
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: FSEIR
Certified as modified by staff: point out relevant mitigation measures
that address dust.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay,
Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION: 16093
14. 2000.594E
(KUGLER: 558-5983)
150 Powell Street- Assessors Block 327, Lot 22, southeast
corner of Powell and O'Farrell Streets. Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration for the proposed project
that would demolish three existing buildings, one to three stories tall,
fronting on O'Farrell Street (171, 179, 181 O'Farrell St.) and would retain
and renovate the 150 Powell Street building including the construction
of a new seven floor addition to 150 Powell Street structure on the O'Farrell
Street lots. Three floors would
be added to a portion of the 150 Powell building. The proposed project
would be an increase of about 35,900 gsf of retail space and about 19,100
gsf of office space. The renovated and remodeled building would be about
105 feet tall. The Elevated Shops Building is a Category IV
(Contextual Importance) building. The
project site is in the C-3-G zoning district and an 80-130-F Height/Bulk
district.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) (Name unclear) – Representative of appellant
- He would like to request a continuance
since his partner is in India. The
appellant had to travel to India because of family matters. The appellant was scheduled to be here for
the hearing but he has been delayed in India.
ACTION: Do not continue case.
AYES: Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
NAYES: Baltimore
ABSENT: Chinchilla
(-) (Name unclear) – co-appellant
- There is an issue regarding parking and the loading
dock in front of his building.
- There will be 28 windows, which will be completely
blocked by the proposed project.
- He hasn't had time to look completely at the reports.
(+) Steve
Atkinson – Baker and McKenzie - Representing project sponsor
- This negative declaration was prepared by a very experienced
consultant and was reviewed thoroughly by the Department. A firm of great experience prepared the transportation
study. The report totally meets
CEQA standards.
- The appellant owns a vacant building adjacent to the
proposed project. None of the
issues raised in the appeal are meritorious.
- The sponsor is seeking an exception of the off-street
loading requirement but this will be brought to the Commission in a future
hearing.
- Regarding the loading dock, the negative declaration
states that there is no impact on loading with or without an off-street
loading. Much of the loading will
be done in the storefront and with limited hours.
- Regarding the property-line windows, there is no impact
since the code allows for this type of construction.
ACTION: Preliminary Negative Declaration Upheld
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION: 16094
15.
2000.1179C
(BRESSANUTTI: 558-6892)
366-368 SOUTH VAN NESS
AVENUE - west side between 14th Street and 15th Street; Lot 61 in
Assessor’s Block 3616 - Request
for Conditional-Use Authorization to enlarge a two-unit residential building,
requiring Conditional-Use Authorization for dwelling units in a C-M District
per Section 215(a) of the Planning Code.
The proposal is to increase the floor-to-ceiling height of the
ground floor by 6’-6" and to raise the upper stories of the building
to accommodate the taller ground floor.
Although there would still be a total of three stories, the overall
height of the building would be increased from the existing height of
approximately 32’-0" to approximately 38’-6". In addition, the ground floor would be extended
to the rear property line and the facade of the building would be modified.
No change in the number of dwelling units is proposed.
The project is within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District and a Mixed
Use Housing Zone, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval
SPEAKER (S):
(+) Tony Pantaleoni – Project Architect
- He and the owner of the building
are here to answer any questions.
ACTION: Approved with conditions
as drafted
AYES: Baltimore, Fay,
Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION: 16095
16a. 2000.1248C
(CRAWFORD: 558-6358)
2 ROWLAND STREET - Assessor’s Block 0163 Lot 027 Request under Planning Code Sections
714.10 and 253.1 for conditional use approval for a building greater than
40 feet in height in a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District. This project is for the demolition of the existing
one story storage building on the property and construction of a five-story,
52-feet tall building that will contain three residential units with ground
floor parking. This project lies
within the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District and within the 65-A-1
Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with Conditions.
SPEAKER (S):
(+) Bruce Baumann – Rep. of the project sponsor
- The project is exempt from environmental
review and there are no shadow impacts.
- The benefits to the project and
mid-block open space are that the project has a rear yard instead of a
side yard. The project is consistent
with the policies regarding mid-block open space.
(+) Alice Barkley – Attorney for the project sponsor
- The site is unusual and warrants
a waiver.
- This project does not impact any
of the neighbors.
(-) Peter Craggy
- He is one of the owners of 540
Pacific.
- There is a substantial lot between
his property and the proposed property.
- The notice that he received stated
that the property was located at 2 Rowland Street and not 2 Rowland Place.
- He needs to see how this affects
his property related to shadows.
- The people in his building use
the yard to have their lunch.
(-) Francesca Valdez
- Her property is adjacent to the
proposed site.
- She opposes the project since the
proposed property has been in a commercial zone and used as commercial
use. This change will cause disarray
to the existing businesses.
- Rowland is a narrow alley.
- The building height will cause
shadows to the adjacent properties.
- Many of the businesses are restaurants
and are open until about 2:00 a.m.
(-) Carl Prescott
- There are three exits that run
into Rowland.
- The garbage under the stairways
will cause problems to the new owners.
- The height of the building will
block his view of the City.
(-) Steve Soriani – Owner of the Bubble Lounge
- The stage in his establishment
will be adjacent to the proposed project.
- They are discussing alternatives
to block out noise.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Fay,
Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION: 16096
16b.
2000.1248V
(CRAWFORD: 558-6358)
2 ROWLAND STREET -
Assessor’s Block 0163 Lot 027 Request under Planning Code Section
134e for a modification of Rear Yard Requirements by the Zoning Administrator
to allow the rear yard to be placed on the south side of the parcel instead
of on the east side. This project
is for the demolition of the existing storage building on the property
and construction of a five-story, 52-feet-tall building that will contain
three residential units with ground floor parking. This project lies within the Broadway Neighborhood
Commercial District and within the 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKER (S): (Same
as those for item 16a)
ACTION: Zoning Administrator
granted the rear yard waiver.
E. SPECIAL
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately
4:10 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary
Review (DR) Hearing.
17a. 2000.964DDDD
(MEHRA: 558-6257)
250 SEA CLIFF AVENUE - north side, west
of 27th Avenue; Lot 1M in Assessor's Block 1307. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application
No. 200006213244 proposing to construct a one‑story addition ‑
391 square feet in size ‑ on the second floor on an existing deck
adjacent to the master bedroom, above the garage on the east side of the
property. The addition will accommodate an exercise room
and a dressing room and will not encroach into the required rear or side
yards. The property is in an RH‑1 (D) (Residential,
House, Single‑Family, Detached) District and a 40‑X Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Do not take discretionary review and approve project as submitted.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting December 14, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Christopher Moscone – Representing one of the DR
requestors
- The project sponsor has worked
in good faith with him and his client and his client's issues have been
resolved.
(-) Sue Hestor – Representing one of the DR requestors
- This project was continued from
December because she discovered that multiple building permits had been
taken out. They had not done what the Department requires them to do--do
one application for all of the improvements.
- She disagrees with the Department's
legal characterization.
- The Planning Department did not
pull up the variance decision.
- The Planning Department did not
apply the Planning Code to this project.
- The developer is adding view rooms
all over the place.
- All the windows have 180o
views.
(-) Byron Litman – DR Requestor
- He and his wife have lived on Sea
Cliff Avenue for 20 years.
- Their house is across the street
from the proposed project.
- He read a passage from the Sea
Cliff magazine published 85 years ago, which states that all houses should
conserve the beautiful sea views.
- When the project was originally
proposed there was no opposition. But
through a series of changes, it has become too massive.
- Trees can be adjusted, a building
cannot.
- If this project is approved, it
will take away the view that his family has enjoyed for many years.
- He urges the Commission to deny
this project.
(-) Marlene Marsai
- She lives on Sea Cliff Avenue across
the street from the proposed project.
- She had asked that the project
be reshaped for less neighborhood impact.
- Sea Cliff was established in a
master plan to allow for view and limit the height of trees.
- Trees should just be allowed to
grow to the level of the rooflines.
- The allowance of light and air
is a character of this neighborhood.
- Whenever the trees became unruly,
they were trimmed.
- The request to lower the trees
has been going on since 1997.
- An arborist has been consulted,
which has said that the trees can be safely trimmed.
- There should be a condition that
requires the trees be lowered to the lowest level allowed.
(-) Mr. Hirsh
- He lives across the street from
the proposed project.
- He was sitting in Mr. Passmore's
office in July of 1999. He asked
if there was going to be any other buildings and the answer was no. All he could recall about the variance was
that there be no construction on Saturday and Sundays.
- The trees grew and began to block
their view.
- Although there is not much to see
from his attic window, there is a feeling of openness.
(-) Tarrance Marsai
- The home in which he lives is across
the street from the proposed project.
Although it's a large home, it is designed in a way for he and
his family to enjoy open space and it does not block his neighbors' views.
- The reason that this has become
such an issue is because the trees have grown just too tall.
- If this project is approved, he
would like to have the project sponsor have conditions to keep an open
space and to keep shrubbery to certain limits.
(-) Mr. Morgolan
- He lives on Scenic Way, which is
one block away from the proposed project.
- He was not notified of this hearing.
- He has trees in front of his property
yet when these trees become obstructive, they are trimmed.
(+) Alice Barkley – Representing project sponsor
- This project is not by a developer.
It is the project of a homeowner.
- There is a provision that each
home should have a side yard.
- The project is going to be set
back more.
- One of the speakers showed pictures,
which were taken 12 years ago.
- The trees grow 24 inches per year.
- The project sponsor has trimmed
the trees.
- She would like to have the Commission
take Discretionary Review with three conditions: 1) conditions subject to Mr. Badiner's letter;
2) plans be revised; 3) trees to be trimmed annually.
ACTION: Take
Discretionary Review and approve project with the following conditions:
1) that the design of project shall conform to the plans presented today;
2) the BAP affirms the ZA's written determination that the proposed project
will not require a variance application;
3) the project sponsor will retain a licensed arborist to trim the two
New Zealand Christmas trees at the front yard annually, to the maximum
extent feasible without harming the health of the trees.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Salinas, Theoharis
NAYES: Joe
17b.
2000.964V
(MEHRA: 558-6257)
250 SEA CLIFF
AVENUE - north side between El Camino del Mar and 27th Avenue; Lot
001M in Assessor’s Block 1307 in an RH-1(D)
(Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwelling) District and
a 40-X Height and Bulk District. SIDE
AND REAR YARD VARIANCE SOUGHT: The
proposal is to reconstruct the northeast side and rear building walls
at the first floor level that were demolished by a contractor in excess
of the scope of an approved permit. Additional
work includes the addition of a subterranean (completely below grade)
home theater, beneath the existing structure/demolished rear and side
building walls, and within the required rear and side yards.
18.
2000.1124D
(SMITH: 558-6322)
4616-18th Street - Request for Discretionary Review of
Building Permit Application No. 2000/09/11/0100, Case No. 2000.1124D,
Lot No. 007 in Assessor's Block 2658.
Staff-initiated Discretionary Review is requested of Building Permit
proposing to merge two dwelling units into one dwelling unit in
a RH‑2 (House, Two‑Family) District and 40‑X Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the proposal
as it was submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Scott Lamert – Project Sponsor
- The Planning Commission is responsible
for representing the public. This
project does not harm in any way any of the neighbors.
- He purchased the house for his
family since his family is growing.
- They are not changing the footprint
of the home or changing the façade.
-
Before they purchased the house, they did research and found out
that there would be no difficulty to merge the units. Since then the Commission has approved a policy about dwelling unit
mergers.
- There are no complaints regarding
this merger and the neighbors and neighborhood associations support this
merger.
(+) Joe O'Donahue
- Families should be allowed to stay
in this City.
- This family, which is growing and
requires more space, wants to live here.
- There is no protest to this project.
- This is a matter of equity and
mercy rather than justice.
ACTION: Do not take Discretionary
Review and approve project as submitted.
AYES: Baltimore and Joe
NAYES: Chinchilla, Fay,
Salinas, and Theoharis
RESULT: Motion failed to carry.
ACTION: Take Discretionary
Review and deny project.
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay,
Salinas, and Theoharis
NAYES: Baltimore and Joe
19. 2000.1265D
(SMITH: 558-6322)
282 UPPER TERRACE - Request for
Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/09/20/1100,
Case No. 2000.1265D, for the property located at 282 Upper Terrace, Lot
No. 002I in Assessor's Block 2629. Discretionary
Review is requested of Building Permit proposing to construct a two‑story
rear addition with a second-floor roof deck and stairs on a dwelling in
a RH‑2 (House, Two‑Family) District and a 40‑X Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Take discretionary review and approve
the project per staff recommendations.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Dr. Barbara Hennessy – DR Requestor
- She is
the only neighbor who will be affected by the construction.
- The project
sponsor did not show her the plans before submitting them to the Department.
- The most
important aspect is the sunlight being blocked to her home because of
the construction.
- She requests
that the project sponsor make some modifications. She made this proposal to the project sponsor
but the sponsor wasn't in agreement.
- Her second
request is that the project sponsor put siding on the wall on Ms. Hennessy's
side.
- She does
not think that these requests are too much.
- She hopes
that the Commission takes this into consideration.
(-) Gary Gerber – Contractor and Designer
- Ms. Hennessy
has pretty much covered everything.
- He is a
solar engineer and has made an analysis of shadow studies. Because of the proposed construction the sunlight
to the DR requestor will be impacted.
(-) Greg Framlechlin – Architect
- He was
hired to view the plans and try to come up with a possible mediation.
- The hallway
on the upper floor is rather large for the proposed house. He suggests reducing the hallway and office,
which would allow for a window and light to come through.
- He did
some sunlight studies and showed some computer diagrams, which show the
impacts.
(+) Alfred Sanchez – Rep. of Project Sponsor
- He is willing
to take into consideration the suggestions made by staff.
- (He displayed
a model of the proposed construction.)
- There has
been some hill cutting to bring out the deck.
- He does
not want to shove his project into the hill.
- If he were
to bring the construction into the hill it would cause a shadow affect
to the DR requestor.
(+) Carol Cox, Project Sponsor
- The DR
requestor stated that she didn't make an attempt to speak to her when
she did.
- There are
several discrepancies in the review analysis (e.g. that the sunlight to
the DR requestor will be diminished, which is not so).
- She was
born and raised in this neighborhood so she is familiar with the neighborhood.
(+) Darie Saba
- She does
not live in the neighborhood but is a friend of the project sponsor.
- If the
proposed construction is reduced, the addition will look like a closet.
(+) Robert Tarlin
- He lives
a few houses away from the proposed project.
- His house
has an identical floor plan.
- He has
a small open area in his back yard.
- Taking
off three feet will not provide any more sunlight.
- He supports
the construction of this proposal.
(+) Kenneth Gordon
- In general
support of the proposed.
(+) (name unclear)
- She lives
on Upper Terrace
- Her niece
and her niece's mother, who is the project sponsor, grew up in this house.
She should not have to compromise three feet.
- It is very
unfair that her niece's project is not going forth.
ACTION: Take
Discretionary Review and approve project per staff recommendations regarding
finished side material.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, and Theoharis
F. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address
the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity
to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in
the meeting with one exception. When
the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which
members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed
the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be
exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar.
Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to
three minutes.
The Brown Act forbids a Commission from taking
action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including
those items raised at public comment.
In response to public comment, the Commission is limited to:
(1) responding to statements made or questions
posed by members of the public; or
(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter
at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) directing staff to place the item on a future
agenda. (Government Code Section
54954.2(a))
Sue Hestor
Re: 250 Sea
Cliff Avenue
- She feels
very frustrated since she sent a letter to the Planning Department on
December 11, requesting consolidated plans.
Since then she kept calling the Department trying to find out if
the plans had been filed. The
plans were submitted on December 28; but she did not receive a copy even
though she should have received a copy.
- She then
spent the next six weeks trying to find out where the plans were. Various planners were on vacation yet she left
messages. No one could find the
plans.
- The plans
were finally found 10 days ago. Plans
that she should have gotten on December 28, she got in February.
- The first
notice she received of a variance was when she got a copy of the calendar
last Friday.
- The planner
mentioned that there wasn't a variance report and that the only documents
the Commission was going to receive would be what Ms. Barkley would submit.
- She later
discovered by one of the DR requestors that there was a variance set of
plans that she had never seen.
- If she
is involved in a case, there is no excuse for staff not to give her the
same information that the Commission, DR requestors, etc. receive.
Joe O'Donaghue – Residential Builders
Re: Ken Garcia
- He wants
to make it clear that the ideas Mr. Garcia has that Mr. O'Donaghue's company
is moving to Oakland are not true. Mr.
O'Donaghue has been trying to contact Mr. Garcia but has not been able
to do so. Then, Mr. Garcia's attorney
writes a letter to him stating that Mr. O'Donaghue was trespassing.
- Also, last
week at the BOS, Mr. Garcia stated that Mr. O'Donaghue walked out of a
hearing. What happened was that
he was denied access to a hearing, something that has never happened in
the BOS. The Land Use hearings were moved from a bigger
room to a smaller room. Since
he brought a lot of members, they were denied entrance.
- Instead
of denying entrance, they should have reduced the time of the speakers.
Adjournment: 6:30 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR
MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2001.
