Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, March 8, 2001
1:30 PM
Regular
Meeting
PRESENT: Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT
THEOHARIS AT 1:40 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G.
Green, Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; David
Alumbaugh; Pedro Arce; Elizabeth Gordon; Rick Crawford; Kelley LeBlanc; Sailesh
Mehra; Glenn Cabreros; Michael Smith; Nora Priego, Transcription Secretary;
Linda Avery, Commission Secretary
A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1. 2000.739E (BLOMGREN:
558-5979)
298 Shipley Street
- northeast corner of Shipley and Sixth Street, Assessor's
Block 3753, Lots 122. The proposal is
an Appeal of a Preliminary Negative
Declaration to construct a three‑story building containing a total of
32 live/work units and 32 off‑street parking spaces. The site currently has a vacant one‑story
auto sales building, which would be demolished. The new building would reach a maximum height of 45 feet in a 40‑X
height/bulk district. The site is with
a South of Market RSD (Residential/Service) Mixed-Use District, an MUHZ
(Mixed-Use Housing Zone) interim zoning district, and a 40‑X Height and
Bulk District.
(Proposed for Indefinite
Continuance)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued
Indefinitely
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
2. 2000.677C (CHIN: 575-6897)
373
BROADWAY STREET - southeast corner of Broadway Street and Bartol Street;
Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 0164.
Request for Conditional-Use Authorization pursuant to Section 714.83 of
the Planning Code to install a total of twelve antennas and a base transceiver
station on an existing four-story over basement building, as part of AT&T's
wireless cellular network in the Broadway (Neighborhood Commercial) District
and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with
Conditions
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of February 8, 2001)
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued
Indefinitely
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
3a. 2000.190BX (LeBLANC:
558-6351)
201
SECOND STREET - southeast corner of Second Street and Howard Street, Lot 97
in Assessor’s Block 3736. Request under Planning Code Sections 320-325 for
authorization to deduct up to 44,500 square feet of office space from the
City’s Office Development Annual Limit. The proposal is for the construction of a 12-story, 160-foot-tall
building with a total of approximately 60,000 gross square feet including up to
44,500 square feet of office space and approximately 7,700 square feet of
retail and/or restaurant space. The
project also includes a minimum of 1,020 square feet of open space. This project lies within a C-3-O(SD)
(Downtown Office, Special Development) District and within the 350-S Height and
Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Pending
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of February 8, 2001 and re-noticed for March 15, 2001,
because of change in project description- project added 2 stories and 9,500
square feet of office space by request of applicant)
(Proposed for
continuance to March 15, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued
to March 15, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
3b. 2000.190BX (LeBLANC:
558-6351)
201
SECOND STREET - southeast corner of Second Street and Howard Street, Lot 97
in Assessor’s Block 3736. Request under
Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Code) for Determinations of Compliance and
Exceptions, including an exception to the setback requirements of Section 132.1
of the Code for the construction of a 12-story, 160-foot-tall building with a
total of approximately 60,000 gross square feet including up to 44,500 square
feet of office space and approximately 7,700 square feet of retail and/or
restaurant space. The project also
includes a minimum of 1,020 square feet of open space. This project lies within a C-3-O(SD)
(Downtown Office, Special Development) District and within the 350-S Height and
Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Pending
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of February 8, 2001, and Re-noticed for March 15, 2001, because
of change in project description- project added 2 stories and 9,500 square feet
of office space by request of applicant)
(Proposed for
continuance to March 15, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued
March 15, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
4. 2000.1061E
(WYCKO: 558-5972)
400 Paul Avenue - bounded by
Paul Avenue, Third Street, Bayshore Boulevard and railroad spur track, lot 14
of Assessor's Block 5431A. The proposal
is an Appeal of a Preliminary Negative
Declaration for the demolition of an existing, 40-foot-high
warehouse/distribution building which totals approximately 89,400
gross-square-feet to be replaced by a newly constructed 65-foot-high structure
with 339,300 gross-square-feet of space for Internet and telecommunication
equipment and 155 off-street parking spaces. The proposed facilities would be
warehouses for telecommunication switches and operational equipment that
provides data services to Internet users. The proposed project is an allowed
use within M-1 District and is situated within an Industrial Protection Zone.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Proposed for continuance to March 22,
2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued
to March 22, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
5. 1999.563D (WILSON:
558-6602)
806-808
HAIGHT STREET - north side between Scott and Divisadero Streets, Lot 008 in
Assessor's Block 1238, proposing to merge Units 806 and 806A in order to reduce
the number of dwelling units in the building from three to two in an RH-3
(Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for
continuance to April 5, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued
to April 5, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
6. 2000.1047D (SMITH:
558-6322)
4023
– 25TH STREET - south side of the street between Noe and Sanchez
Streets, Lot 040 in Assessor's Block 6548, request
for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/11/08/5161 proposing to merge Units 4023 and 4025 in order to
reduce the number of dwelling units in the building from two to one 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
submitted.
(Proposed for continuance to April 5, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued
to April 5, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
7. Commission Matters
President Theoharis requested a status
report on the scheduling conflict between the regularly scheduled time for the
weekly Planning Commission hearings and the new scheduled time for the weekly
meetings of the Board of Supervisor's Housing, Land Use and Transportation
Committee.
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
8. Director's Announcements
The Director reported that Supervisor
McGoldrick was looking into the matter of the scheduling conflict that exists
between the meeting times of the Planning Commission and the Board's Housing,
Land Use and Transportation Committee.
9. Review of Past Week's Events at the
Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS
– None
BOA – None
10. 2844 Greenwich Street -Status Report (CHIN: 575-6897)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without
hearing, continued until staff brings this back to the
Commission.
11. 1298 Ocean Avenue (Sunset Garage) –
Status Report
SPEAKER(S):
Don Swietzer
-
He wanted to thank the Commission for their sensitivity to this issue and the
continuing work the Planning Department is doing. This business represents a blight on this neighborhood.
-
He encourages the Commission and the Planning Department to continue working on
this matter.
ACTION: Meeting
held. No action required
12. (ALUMBAUGH:
558-6601)
BETTER
NEIGHBORHOODS 2002 – Informational Presentation Regarding Balboa Park
Station Area Plan.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of February 22, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Tim Radulovich – Elected Bart Director
-
He is not always a fan of the Planning Department yet he had to come to speak
on this matter because he really agrees with the plan.
-
Neighborhood planning hasn't been very popular, yet right now there are very
good planning staff working on this project.
-
The Department is really letting this plan go where it should be going.
-
This plan has been stimulating a lot of investments.
-
This project helps to bring forward many plans for MUNI.
-
Through this plan, City College to gotten involved with the community.
-
The only concern or issue he has is that he would hope that this plan moves a
little faster.
(+) Steven Currier – President of the Outer
Mission Residents Association
-
He is very excited about this project.
-
A while ago he brought concerns about this area to the Commission and he is
happy to see everything moving in the right direction.
-
The area of the Geneva Office Building is a gem of an architectural dream for
students to participate in and find ways to fix it up.
-
He is very happy with the Planning staff that is working on this project and
hopes that the Commission approves this plan.
(+) Rebecca Silverberg – Ocean Avenue Neighborhood
Association
-
This plan would bring the district together since the freeway divides it.
-
This plan is very important to the community.
She would love to make this move faster but she is happy anyway.
(+) Bette Landis – District 7 – Ingleside
Terrace Homes Association
-
This area hasn't always received the kind of attention it is receiving
now. The Department has done a
tremendous job.
-
We have come a long way to improve transit and planning in various areas.
-
Thank you so much for all the hard work.
(+) Regina Blosser – OMI Neighbors in
Action
-
It is great how the Planning Department has done outreach to the neighbors by
mailing out postcards with information on this plan to every neighbor in the
community.
-
The Community meetings have been very successful, bringing neighbors out to
express their concerns and ideas.
-
Just the postcard is nice by making it attractive and getting people
interested.
-
They are very grateful that the Planning Department has come in like the
United Nations Peace Keeping Organization to make all the neighborhood
associations work together.
(+) Dan Weaver – Ocean Avenue Renaissance
Committee
-
The last 50 years has not been good to Ocean Avenue. Their idea is to turn back the clock and improve the area.
-
They would like the Department to design some guidelines to continue giving
this area an improvement.
-
They would also like to encourage the Commission to continue working on the
Phelan Loop.
(+) Bob Swietzer – Ocean Avenue Renaissance
Committee
-
This is an important project. They have
invited and encouraged the Planning Department to be involved in this area.
-
He would like for this plan to move a little faster.
-
The Phelan Loop is an important part of this process.
-
He expressed his thanks also.
ACTION: No
Action Required – Informational Presentation Only
E. REGULAR CALENDAR
13a. 2000.1293B (ARCE:
558-6332)
Mission Bay South
(MBS) Block 28 - Request under Planning Code Section 321 (Office
Development Annual Limit) for a determination of design consistency and Project
Authorization of the proposed office development for a five- and six-story
building, including 285,150 square feet of office space, and 23,040 square feet
of areas for service, mechanical equipment, and common areas, for a total of
308,290 gross square feet. On May 11, 2000, the Planning Commission by
Resolution No. 15055 authorized the design of a building of approximately
302,000 gross square feet on MBS Block 28 and granted a Project Authorization
for 225,004 square feet of office space within that building, (Case No.
2000.329B). This application is for the Planning Commission to consider a
Project Authorization that would increase the approved office area by approximately
60,150 square feet, for a total of 285,150 square feet. It would not result in
any design changes.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Amy Neches – Project Manager –
Redevelopment Agency
-
This project involves one full office building and one smaller office building
for consideration. Mission Bay
encompasses 303 acres; it is divided into two redevelopment areas. The two projects consist of 6,000 housing
units, over 6 million sf of office, research and industrial space; nearly 1
million sf of retail as well as a 500 room hotel. This surrounds a 43-acre UCSF campus, which is under development.
-
Over 31, 000 permanent jobs will be created as well as 40 acres of new public
parks. The parks will be maintained by
special taxes paid by Catellus Corporation.
-
The 6,000 housing units will include 1,700 affordable units. Some of them will be developed by Catellus,
yet most of them will be developed in parcels which are contributed to the
Redevelopment Agency by Catellus for the development of low income housing by
non profit development corporations based in San Francisco.
-
The first housing development is already underway.
-
Planning is underway for the second development, which will be focused for
senior citizens.
-
This project, like all the other Mission Bay projects, has been extensively
reviewed and analyzed.
-
The Redevelopment hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
(+) Doug Gardner – President of Catellus
Urban Development Group
-
They have recently received approval of building permits for these
buildings. The first hundred units have
already begun.
-
Mission Bay is a Redevelopment project.
The Redevelopment Commission has taken over 25 actions on Mission Bay
since last Spring. Although they are
here before the Planning Commission because of Prop M authorization, the
decision the Commission makes is quite critical.
-
The Gap has already signed a lease for office space.
(+) Alison Williams – Partner with AR
Architects
-
The primary idea of the building is that it sits in a mid-block
-
The building is a horizontal building
-
This building is the only building that has that frontage block. The building has a very simple idea for a
design.
-
To the north, the building is very glassy responding to its sunlight
requirement.
-
The central bar is of precast concrete with a neutral color.
-
The glass is all double-glazed clear or double-glazed clear with a horizontal
pattern to help cut down on the glare.
-
One of the key features on the building is a very impressive canopy. This provides a daylight illumination. It also helps to soften the parapet line.
-
The image of the building is capable of providing night lighting.
(+) Stan Smith – Chairperson of the Mission
Bay Citizen's Advisory Committee
-
These projects of Mission Bay have gone through many public hearings. There have been many comments – some good
and some bad.
-
The majority of the comments have been positive and he hopes that the
Commission will approve the projects.
(+) Jim Chappell – President of SPUR
-
There is a tremendous imbalance of both office space and housing.
-
This is the reason why SPUR has always supported the Mission Bay projects and
is hopeful that the Commission will approve the project and speed the project
underway.
(+) Kevin Beauchamp – Representative of
USCF and Mission Bay Citizen's Advisory Committee
-
UCSF would like to express its support for the project.
-
The development of UCSF's new campus and the successful realization of Mission
Bay is of great importance to UCSF.
(+) Corinne Woods – Vice Chair of the
Mission Bay Citizen's Advisory Committee
-
She also lives in Mission Bay.
-
They are very much in favor of the project and have looked at the design of the
buildings many times.
-
They would really like to have the project approved.
(-) Roger Brandon
-
The project will be located in a zone that is designated light industrial.
-
This area is well suited for industrial and not office.
-
This area carries much industrial traffic.
-
The City does not need to have a biological campus here.
-
This is a poor combination of uses.
-
This area should be planned for industrial uses only.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION: 16110
13b. 2000.
1294B (ARCE:
558-6332)
Mission Bay South
Block 26 (West) - Request under Planning Code Section 321
(Office Development Annual Limit) for a determination of design quality and
Project Authorization of the proposed office development for an 11-story
building, including 262,534 square-feet of office space; 9,991 square-feet of
retail space; 13,025 square-feet of service, mechanical equipment and common
areas; for a total of 285,550 gross square-feet.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: The
sponsor has informed the Department that this project is not yet ready and they
have removed it from consideration at this time.
13c. 2000. 1295B (ARCE:
558-6332)
Mission Bay South
Block 26 (East) - Request under Planning Code Section 321 (Office
Development Annual Limit) for a determination of design consistency and Project
Authorization of the proposed office development for a six-story building,
including 145,728 square-feet of office space; 3,044 square-feet of retail
space; 9,556 square-feet of service, mechanical equipment and common areas; for
a total of 158,328 gross square feet.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S): Same
as the speakers listed for Item 13a.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION: 16111
D. SPECIAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL LIMIT
HEARING
Following
the regular calendar, the Planning Commission will convene into a Special
Office Development Annual Limit Hearing to hear and act on the four large
office projects being considered under Planning Code Sections 320-325 during
the 2000-2001 approval period.
(Individual item language will make clear the action being proposed.) Procedures governing this hearing are as
follows: Department staff will
introduce the annual limit process and the projects under consideration. Project sponsors and their representatives
will then be provided with approximately (10) minutes (or a time limit as
established by the Commission) for a presentation of their projects. All items will be called at the same time,
and Public Comment will follow the presentation of all projects. The Commission may take action at this
hearing or continue these items, in whole or in part, to a later date. Sponsors may withdraw their projects or
request a continuance to a subsequent review period, prior to Commission action
on the project.
Note: Items 14a and b; 15a, b and c; 16a, b and c;
17a and b were called together.
14a. 98.281BC (GORDON:
558-6309)
185 Berry Street - bounded by
Third, Berry and Fourth Streets and China Basin Landing; Lot 5 in Assessor’s
Block 3803. Request under Planning
Code Section 321 for authorization to deduct up to 120,000 square feet of
office space from the City’s office development annual limit. The property is
within a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, the Mixed-Use Area of the IPZ
Industrial Protection Zone), the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special District’s
South End Office District and a 90-X Height and Bulk District. This notice serves as public notification of
the Planning Department’s initial determination of the net addition of gross
square footage of office space per Planning Code Sections 313.4 and 314.4. Please note: Under Case No. 98.281V, an
off-street parking variance for the proposed project was heard before the
Zoning Administrator on August 23, 2000.
This variance decision is currently pending before the Zoning
Administrator. In addition, a rear yard variance, per Planning Code Section
134, for the proposed dwelling units at this site will be heard before the
Zoning Administrator on March 28, 2001 under Case No. 2001.0179V.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Pending
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Tom McCarthy – Co- President of
McCarthy/Cook and Company
-
China Basin is a 689,000 square foot (sf), two building office project located
next to Pac Bell Park.
-
The project consists of a 480,000 sf wharf side building and a 209,000 sf Berry
Street side building.
- The wharf
side building was built in 1922 as a lumber warehouse and was converted to
office space beginning in the 1970s. It
features an 800 foot long, 33,000 sf award-winning wharf in Mission Creek. The Berry Street building was built in 1992
- There
are many very important companies located in this area.
-
In 1998, they filed the initial application for office space under Prop M.
-
In the next two years, they met with various companies, organizations, and
groups regarding the project.
-
During these years, they have received various comments, suggestions and ideas.
-
This facility more than meets the needs of the expansion and provides the
tenants with a convenient parking alternative.
Yet, there are various choices for public transportation. The Third Street Light Rail project is
underway and there is a shuttle service available at China Basin.
-
The project includes 62 residential units including 6 affordable units.
-
The proposed expansion of China Basin Landing is the correct project.
-
China Basin sits at the gateway of Mission Bay.
-
They have secured all construction financing.
(+) Rodney Friedman – Fisher Friedman
Associates
-
He has been in practice since 1956. The
first mixed use project in North America was the Golden Gateway project and his
company worked on it.
-
He has received many awards for his project at the wharf.
-
China Basin is almost 3 blocks long.
-
He made several references to a model displayed at the hearing.
(+) Dan Howard – Fisher Friedman Associates
-
Working with City staff and neighbors such as Mission Housing, they moved to a
mixed-use project by introducing 62 residential units including 6
affordable. This housing is over and
above the in lieu-housing fee for the housing portion.
-
It was a challenge to be able to come up with this design.
-
The streetscape and the landscape will be softer and more pedestrian friendly
because of under grounding of the Berry Street utility lines.
-
This is the basis for the best urban design and the best City living.
-
This is the right project at the right time.
This project provides housing now at the right site.
(+) Terry Fancher – Payne Weber Real Estate
-
Their firm has had hundreds of employees in San Francisco for decades.
-
They made an investment in China Basin recently.
-
They are very pleased and very proud to be able to bring housing along with
office at a wonderful location.
-
They are substantial owners of various properties in the Bay Area. They hope to bring companies from Silicon
Valley to the San Francisco area.
(+) Sue Hestor
-
She was the attorney working with the community organization of the
ballpark. One of the things she noticed
with the community surrounding the ballpark was that they had various issues: access to the waterfront and adding housing.
-
She worked with housing developers and there were a lot of issues with housing
along the bay. Have these issues been
resolved? Yes.
-
The one thing she does not agreement with in the staff report is the zoning of
this area.
-
When the commission has problems with solving problems with parking in this
area it is because of the rezoning. The
parking requirements are out of date.
-
She would like the Commission to step back and look at the parking requirements
and the rezoning of the area.
-
185 Berry is a much better project.
(+) Kim Jackson – Hotel and Restaurant
Employees Union Local 2
-
She urges the Commission to place their award to 185 Berry Street instead of
801 Market Street.
-
Housing is a priority of this commission.
We need housing now.
-
This project will meet the priority of this Commission and this City.
-
This is the kind of development we need in this City.
(+) Pete Goldsmith – President of GCI
-
He has been a tenant of China Basin for 10 years.
-
He believes that China Basin has been at the front of renovating this area.
-
He hopes that the Commission will approve the expansion of this project.
(+) Richard Mulkerrins – Able Maintenance
Company
-
His company has been established in San Francisco since 1926.
-
He supports the expansion of China Basin.
The additional space will create more jobs as well as more housing.
(+) David Snyder –
President of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
-
He has been working with this project for a long time. The project is a good one and is good for
transportation.
-
He agrees with Ms. Hestor that the area needs to be rezoned.
-
The voters spoke on behalf of housing.
-
It is worthwhile for the Commission to approve this project because it includes
housing.
(+) Jim Hornback –
Director of Business Development of AMPCO System Parking
-
There is plenty of parking at this project.
-
Parking is not a problem.
-
He agrees with Ms. Hestor that this area needs to be rezoned.
(+) Jeffrey Leibovitz –
Representing Mr. Rick Dickerson, President of South Beach Rincon Point
Citizen's Advisory Committee
-
He would like the Director of the department to work with Supervisor Daly so
they can call for a hearing in front of the Land Use Committee.
-
They have a resolution drafted to remove the gates. This would be the one and only opportunity to remove the gates.
-
The BCDC permit allows them to have gates there restricting access. With this project this would become open
space for Mission Bay, South Beach and for all San Franciscans. It comes into compliance with the open space
requirements of BCDC. Their permit is
outdated since it was done in 1976.
-
The developer is willing to work with them.
-
This project goes a long way in creating affordable inclusionary units in the
Mission Bay Area, which are desperately needed.
-
This project is located near the China Basin Landing ferry terminal, it is
located a block away from the Cal Train station and a block away from MUNI; the
transportation aspect is excellent.
-
He urges the Commission to approve this project.
(+) Greg Cosko – President of
Hathaway/Dinwiddie Construction Co.
-
His company has a contract to construct this project.
-
The financing is in place.
-
His company has been in San Francisco for 75 years and he lives in San
Francisco.
-
Everyone is ready to begin construction pending the approval of the Commission.
-
His company is 100% union and has been since unions were organized in San
Francisco.
-
This project has certainty of budget and certainty of financing.
-
He hopes that the Commission approves this project.
(+) Bill Barns – Office of Supervisor Daly
-
All of these projects are in District 6.
-
Read a letter from Supervisor Chris Daly in support of the project.
(+) Jacque Keller – Principal of
Keller/Mitchell Landscape Architects
-
She is a member of the design team but she is also a member of BCDC.
-
They have been reviewing the Catellus project and open space.
-
This project will add to the pedestrian liveliness of the
area.
ACTION
No. 1: A motion of intent to approve 185 Berry Street with a reduction of
24,000 square feet, and 555 Mission Street for 499,000 square feet.
AYES: Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas
NAYES: Baltimore,
Fay, Theoharis
ACTION
No. 2: At the call of the Chair, 185 Berry Street was continued to March 22,
2001 with public hearing closed.
14b. 98.281BC (GORDON: 558-6309)
185 Berry Street - bounded
by Third, Berry and Fourth Streets and China Basin Landing; Lot 5 in Assessor’s
Block 3803. Request per Planning Code
Section 215 for Conditional-Use Authorization to allow 62 units of housing
(totaling approximately 73,600 square feet of residential space) in a M-2
(Heavy Industrial) District at the above-referenced address. Approximately six units (or 10%) of this
housing is proposed to be dedicated as affordable. The property is within a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, the
Mixed-Use Area of the IPZ Industrial Protection Zone), the proposed Ballpark
Vicinity Special District’s South End Office District and a 90-X Height and
Bulk District. Please note: Under Case No. 98.281V,
an off-street parking variance for the proposed project was heard before the
Zoning Administrator on August 23, 2000.
This variance decision is currently pending before the Zoning
Administrator. In addition, a rear yard variance, per Planning Code Section
134, for the proposed dwelling units at this site will be heard before the
Zoning Administrator on March 28, 2001 under Case No. 2001.0179V.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): Same
as speakers for item 14a.
ACTION: Same
as action for item 14a.
15a. 99.554BCD (PURVIS:
558-6354)
601
KING STREET - south side between 7th and DeHaro Streets; Lots 1
& 2 in Assessor’s Block 3800.
Request under Planning Code Section 321 for authorization to demolish
two warehouse structures and construct an office building with up to 237,500
gsf (gross square feet), designed as a PUD (Planned Unit Development), pursuant
to Section 304 for exceptions from off-street parking standards under Section
151. This notice is also the initial
determination of the net addition of gross square footage of office space,
pursuant to Sections 313.4 and 314.4. The
subject property is within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District, a 50-X
Height and Bulk District, and is within the interim IPZ (Industrial Protection
Zone).
Preliminary
Recommendation: Pending
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Charmaine Curtis – A.F. Evans
Development
-
She is sorry that the Commission decided not to hear the staff report.
-
Their 321 application was complete.
-
Given a number of factors, she would like to request that their 321 application
be put off with the possibility for future consideration.
-
They are in the process of considering alternatives to the proposal including
the possibility of including housing.
This would be an appropriate alternative.
-
It is their desire to be as flexible as possible.
-
They will be participating in the development of the Show Place Square.
ACTION: Case
was not heard because staff informed the Commission that
the application was not complete.
15b. 99.554BCD (PURVIS:
558-6354)
601
KING STREET - south side between 7th and DeHaro Streets; Lots 1
& 2 in Assessor’s Block 3800.
Request for Conditional-Use Authorization under Planning Code Section
304 to construct an office building with up to 237,500 gsf (gross square feet),
designed as a PUD (Planned Unit Development), with exceptions from off-street
parking standards under Section 151.
The subject property is within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning
District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and is within the interim IPZ
(Industrial Protection Zone).
Preliminary
Recommendation: Pending
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): Same
as those listed for item 15a.
ACTION: Case
was not heard because staff informed the Commission that
the application was not complete.
15c. 99.554BCD (PURVIS:
558-6354)
601
KING STREET - south side between 7th and DeHaro Streets; Lots 1
& 2 in Assessor’s Block 3800.
Request for Staff Initiated Discretionary Review pursuant to Resolution
No. 16079 to demolish two industrial warehouse structures and construct an
office building with up to 237,500 gsf (gross square feet), designed as a PUD
(Planned Unit Development), with exceptions from off-street parking standards
under Section 151. The subject
property is within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District, a 50-X Height and
Bulk District, and is within the interim IPZ (Industrial Protection Zone).
Preliminary
Recommendation: Pending
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): Same
as those listed for item 15a.
ACTION: Case
was not heard because staff informed the Commission that
the application was not complete.
16a. 2000.277BXC (CRAWFORD: 558-6358)
801
MARKET/44 FOURTH STREETS -
Assessor’s Block 3705 Lot 048, north side of Jessie Street between Fourth and
Fifth Streets. Planning Code Sections 320-325 (Office Development Limitation
Program) for allocation of up to 136,600 gross square feet of office space for a 12-story building within a C-3-R (Downtown,
Retail) District and within a 160-S Height and Bulk District. The project will add a third building to the
existing Pacific Place buildings I and II above the existing loading dock on
the north side of Jessie street between Fourth and Fifth Streets.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2001)
SPEAKER
(S):
(+) Tim Tosta – Attorney for Pacific
Resources PCX
-
The Pan family, owners and developers of the property, has owned this property
since 1996.
-
555 Mission Street has received staff approval yet it's been asked to take some
type of modification to taper its tower.
At the full size it's about 100,000 square feet (sf) of additional bulk,
at the reduced 499,000 sf, it's about 63,000 sf of additional bulk. There is room for one of the other buildings
to be approved if there is a tapering to bring them into alignment.
-
These buildings ultimately will be approved because they (project team) have
generally learned to conform over time with the goals and standards of the
Planning Code and General Plan.
-
There is a correction on the report since it states that the building has a
rating of good/excellent on use, yet it should be excellent.
-
In the projects that are competing with one another, is there an advantage of
one over the other with respect to its marketability? Is it a proven product in its current location or is it a
speculative venture in a new location?
-
Is the developer and is the project in a position to be financed immediately?
-
Is the developer establishing a track record or can it provide the bonifides
that it can produce the building on time?
-
This project, with the Pan family, has established a track record of exemplary
development in San Francisco.
-
This building is the only building of the three with no suggested modifications
because the Pan family knows its property so well that they are proposing a
project to the Commission, which is on target, the financing is in place, etc.
-
The cash flow generated from Pacific One and Pacific Two can fund Pacific Three
even if its not occupied.
-
Pacific Three deserved higher ratings.
-
The Pan family has been in the South of Market for the past 6 years. When they developed the project; they did so
considering their specific neighborhood.
This particular project acquires its TDR's from Saint Patrick's Church,
which will allow the seismic retrofit of the church.
-
There is a contribution to childcare, which will go to the SOMA Child Care
facility, which was recently displaced from its location.
-
This project will also assist City College to relocate its Educated Palace
restaurant from the basement to street level.
-
The neighborhood sees this as a welcome addition. The building contributes to the vitality of the new Jesse Street
location.
-
The principal tenant of Pacific Place will be Macy's.
(+) Jeff Lance – Manager of Pacific
Resource PCX
-
The project is in a difficult location.
-
Creating more door entries/doorways would create a more open space look.
-
$1 million of additional moneys for escrow fees. Their housing fees are higher than 185 Berry Street. The 1.5 million will go to the housing fund,
to the traditional non-profit development for low-income housing.
-
There will be no pre-leasing requirements.
(+) Judith Baker – South of Market Child
Care, Inc.
-
The developer has agreed to fees of relocating the childcare to 8th
and Howard Streets.
-
Read a letter from a parent in support of the development since they will
receive assistance for their relocation.
(-) Sue Hestor – San Franciscans for a
Reasonable Growth and Local 2
-
The issues with this project are that the people who surround the project are
against the development.
-
Cole/Fox hardware will go out of business if this office development is
approved.
-
The neighbors of this site will be driven out of business or make it difficult
for them to operate.
-
This development will hurt the neighborhood.
(+) Tom McCann – Local 38 – Plumbers Union
-
He supports the project because it's 100% union. It will create many union jobs.
-
He urges the Commission to support this project.
(+) Bayardo Chamorro – Owner - Pribuss
Engineers, Inc. (minority business)
-
This project will provide jobs for the union labor force.
-
He urges the commission to support this project to keep union construction
labor active in the City.
(+) Anita Hill – Executive Director of the
Yerba Buena Alliance representing the Yerba Buena Gardens neighborhood.
-
She is here to support this project and to endorse it.
-
From the point of view of urban infill, everything is right about this project.
-
One of the delights of the south of Market is the big blocks and the smaller
alleys. These will be improved with
this project.
-
The Union Square Association, the Market Street Association, Monsignor Batanga
and Monsignor Virgil of St. Patrick's Church support and endorse this project.
(+) Peter Roger – Superintendent of Plant
Construction
-
He supports Pacific Resources and this proposal.
-
He is a third generation San Franciscan.
-
They are absolutely committed that their project is the better one.
-
His association with Pacific Resources has been nothing but positive.
-
It is an attractive design and will continue to revitalize the fourth street
corridor.
(+) Steven Glick – Dean of the Downtown
Campus for City College of San Francisco
-
He has worked in this area for over 7 years.
-
This project will allow Pacific Resources to finish the construction of
building 3 and improve the area considerably.
-
This project will also help City College improve their downtown campus and
bring the restaurant that is currently located in the basement up to the first
floor and provide their students with a real world environment. On the space vacated by the restaurant they
will build a center for advanced technology, which would train students in the
jobs of the future.
-
They will also be opening the center on Sundays.
-
For these reasons, he urges the Commission to approve the project.
(+) Jan Casey – Art Advisor for Pacific
Resources
-
She has worked on several large projects in the City.
-
They have gone to the community and have chosen various types of art to be
displayed at this site.
-
Pacific Resources has done a lot to enforce art in the community.
(+) Philip Garcia – Division Manager of
City Park – Teamsters Local 665
-
He recommends that the project be approved.
-
As a parking operator he has seen the improvements of the 4th and
Market streets.
-
Having reviewed the plans of this proposal he is quite impressed with the
project.
-
The seismic retrofitting of St. Patrick's church is great.
(+) Jerry Lowrey – Chief Engineer of
Pacific Place PCX
-
He has been a local 39 Stationary Engineer member since 1986. He was born and raised in San Francisco.
-
This project will be a very needed addition to the area to complete the
renovation between Union Square and Yerba Buena.
-
This would be the last piece to complete this project.
-
Pacific Resources were kind enough to send him to energy classes. They have asked for his opinion on energy
efficient products and systems.
(+) James Hom – Local 22 - Carpenters Union
-
He has been a member of the union for 21 years.
-
He urges the Commission to approve this project.
-
Not only is Pacific Resources union friendly but they are also a very good
developer to work with since they are very friendly and work with the union.
(+) Dave Holguin – Local 22 – Carpenters
Union
-
He has been a member of this union for 23 years.
-
Pacific Resources has been a very good company to work with and would like to
speak on their behalf.
(+) Victor Esposto – Cupertino Electric
-
He has been a member of Local Union 6 for the past 15 years.
-
He has had the privilege to work for Pacific 1 and 2.
-
Pacific Resources has been very good to their employees.
(+) Fred Bianucci – Cupertino Electric
-
He has worked in San Francisco for more than 30 years.
-
He has worked specifically with Pacific Resources in several of their projects.
-
Many of the projects have brought tourist dollars to San Francisco.
(-) Mike Casey – President of Hotel and
Restaurant Workers, Local 2
-
He would advise the community organizations to get the money up front.
-
Four years ago, their union was in front of the Commission because of the
Palomar Hotel. As a result of that the
conditional use language which was ultimately adopted including language that
said: project sponsor agrees that the hotel operations will be subject to any
city card check neutrality legislation which becomes effective on or before
March 17, 1998. This legislation was
passed in January of 1998.
-
When he went to the operator, Mr. Latour and asked him about signing a card
check neutrality agreement, he said he didn't have to do that and that the person
to go to was the developer. He went to
the developer and they denied that there was any such agreement.
-
The language is very clear. They knew
that there would be no proprietary interest.
-
This company has violated their word to the City and to the Hotel and
Restaurant Workers.
-
He would suggest that the other projects be union as well.
-
Because this company has acted dishonorably and should not be rewarded.
(+) Carmen Johnson – Executive Director of
the Agape Outreach Center
-
This center is a community based, non-profit organization, which was organized
specifically for preserving low and moderate-income housing.
-
In discussion with the Redevelopment Agency and a private owner to sell a site
on 3rd Street, Agape is in negotiations to develop low income
housing for ownership.
-
The infusion of an additional $1 million from 801 Market and Pacific Resource
will significantly reduce the per unit costs and enhance the affordability of
these units.
-
Please support and approve this project.
(+) Rev. Arnold Townsend
-
One of the things heard in San Francisco is market rate housing and affordable
housing.
-
Many people have just given up and low-income housing is not heard of anymore.
-
Many people are leaving San Francisco and going to other parts of the bay area.
-
801 Market has agreed to give $1 million to the housing fund and would help out
the Agape center. This would
significantly change what people have to pay to get into this type of housing.
-
It's time for this Commission to approve high-rise housing.
-
This project should be approved quickly and with all speed.
(+) Craig Allison –
Co-Owner of Plant Construction Company
-
They have been in business for 54 years and are a local San Francisco business.
-
He would like to talk about trustworthiness of the developer.
-
His company stared working on the Pacific buildings with just a handshake. He has never had any problems with this
developer.
(-) Jeffrey Leivobitz
-
Regarding public open space, 101 Second is a magnificent building in this
City. It has a grand open space. Yet it's just a lobby. It is not an open space. The proposed construction will have a grand
open space.
-
It is an important issue to stop counting lobbies and start counting open
spaces.
-
He has worked for several contractors in the City.
(-) Bill Barns
-
The Supervisor in District 6 has been working on this open space issue.
-
185 Berry has a lot of open space yet this proposal is for indoor open space.
-
The Park and Rec's priority is to improve parks in the City.
-
This project is not going to provide open space.
ACTION
No. 1: A motion of intent to approve 801 Market Street with a reduction of
square footage, and 555 Mission for 499,000 square feet.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Theoharis
NAYES: Chinchilla,
Joe, Salinas
ACTION
No. 2: At the call of the Chair, the 801 Market Street was continued to March
22, 2001 with public hearing closed.
16b. 2000.277BXC (CRAWFORD: 558-6358)
801
MARKET/44 FOURTH STREETS - Assessor’s
Block 3705 Lot 048, north side of Jessie Street between Fourth and Fifth
Streets. Request under Planning Code
Section 309 (Downtown Code) for Determinations of Compliance, for construction
of a 12-story building including 136,600 gross square feet of office space. This
project lies within a C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) District and within a 160-S
Height and Bulk District. The project
will add a third building to the existing Pacific Place buildings I and II
above the existing loading dock on the north side of Jessie street between
Fourth and Fifth Streets.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): Same
as speakers for Item 16a.
ACTION: See
action for item 16a.
16c. 2000.277BXC (CRAWFORD: 558-6358)
801
MARKET/44 FOURTH STREETS -
Assessor’s Block 3705 Lot 048, north side of Jessie Street between Fourth and
Fifth Streets. Request under Planning
Code Section 219.c for professional or business offices not offering on-site
service to the public in a C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) District. This project lies within a C-3-R (Downtown,
Retail) District and within a 160-S Height and Bulk District. The project will add a third building to the
existing Pacific Place buildings I and II above the existing loading dock on
the north side of Jessie street between Fourth and Fifth Streets.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): See
speakers after Item 16b.
ACTION: See
action for item 16a.
17a. 1999.603BX (LeBLANC:
558-6351)
555
MISSION STREET - south side of Mission Street between First and Second
Streets, with a secondary frontage on Minna Street, Lots 69, 70, 78, 79, 80 and
81 in Assessor’s Block 3721. Request
under Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Project) for Determinations of
Compliance and Request for Exceptions, including an exception to the Separation
of Towers requirement (Section 132.1(c)), exceptions to the Bulk requirements
(Sections 270(d)(2), 270(d)(3)(A), and 270(d)(3)(B)), and an exception to the
Reduction of Ground Level Wind Currents requirement (Section 148) for the
demolition of six vacant buildings and the construction of a 31-story,
approximately 455-foot tall office tower containing up to 557,000 gross square
feet of office space, approximately
8,000 square feet of ground floor retail space, 11,140 square feet of public
open space and 150 parking spaces. The
project lies within a C-3-O (Downtown, Office) District and within 500-S and
550-S Height and Bulk Districts.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
(Continued
from March 1, 2001 Regular Meeting)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Ezra Mercei –
Managing Director of Tishman Speyer Properties
- The best
way to describe this project is in the context of the San Francisco Downtown
Plan, the framework for quality and balanced growth in San Francisco.
-
555 Mission Street fulfills the vision of the downtown plan perfectly.
(+) Jeffrey Heller – Heller and Manus
-
The project is located in the most transit-served area of the City and the best
location for a high-density commercial development.
-
All the vehicles and the buses coming from the East Bay come to this site. The skyline and its heightened scale are
very important for the City image.
-
This is a key landmark element of the city in terms of the approach.
-
The building is part of a network of open space in the City.
-
The checker boarding of space provides light and air. There will always be light and air in all areas of the building.
-
He served on the task force in designing the downtown plan.
-
The square footage can be achieved without any exceptions.
- This
Commission has approved two buildings nearby which are substantially bigger.
-
All of the exceptions are to make it a better building.
-
They have placed the building for the best possible public effect.
-
The open space is more than a quarter of an acre.
-
This project rated 8 out of 12 in excellent and he is very proud of that.
-
This is the right project in the right location and the one that makes the most
sense.
-
The housing they referenced in their January 16, supplemental application is a
project that they plan on developing concurrent with 555 Mission Street. The project at 201 Folsom is a planned 800
unit high rise.
-
There is no pre-leasing requirement.
They are comfortable without extensions to the timeframe. Tishman Properties funds its entire
projects.
(+) Jim Chappell –
President, SPUR
-
SPUR is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational foundation. Like so many other
non-profits in the City, their lease is expiring in 21 months and faces an
uncertain future.
- The SPUR Board of Directors along with
Tishman Speyer have executed a letter of intent for space at the 555 Mission
Street building conditioned on the approval of the Commission.
-
The terms of the lease is considerably lower than market rate rents for 40
years. Assuring their ability to
fulfill their public educational mission of good planning and good government.
-
555 Mission Street will have ground space for public viewing of plans, designs,
models, etc. Various organizations and
community groups will be able to benefit from various programs SPUR provides as
well as be able to use meeting space.
-
SPUR supports 555 Mission Street project.
ACTION: Intent
to approve 499,000 sf. Final Action
will be April 5, 2001.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Fay, Salinas, Theoharis
17b. 1999.603BX (LeBLANC:
558-6351)
555
MISSION STREET - south side of Mission Street between First and Second
Streets, with a secondary frontage on Minna Street, Lots 69, 70, 78, 79, 80 and
81 in Assessor’s Block 3721. Request under Planning Code Sections 320-325 for
authorization to deduct up to 557,000 square feet of office space from the
City’s office development annual limit. The proposal is for the demolition of
six vacant buildings and the construction of a 31-story, approximately 455-foot
tall office tower containing up to 557,000 gross square feet of office space as well as ground
floor retail space, public open space and parking and loading spaces. The project lies within a C-3-O (Downtown,
Office) District and within 500-S and 550-S Height and Bulk Districts.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): See
speakers for item 17a.
ACTION: See
action for item 17a.
E. SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At
Approximately 9:15 p.m. the Planning Commission convened
into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.
18. 2000.1095DDD (TAM: 558-6325)
2424
CASTRO STREET - west side of Castro Street, between Day and 30th Streets;
Lot 14 in Assessor’s Block 7537.
Request for a Discretionary Review action to construct a second story
addition over an existing one-story over garage, single-family dwelling in an
RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve
the proposal pursuant to Planning Department’s recommendation.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of January 25, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: All
Three DR Applications Withdrawn
19. 2001.0071D (MEHRA: 558-6257)
2121 DIVISADERO
STREET - west side between Sacramento and Clay Streets, Lot 005 in
Assessor’s Block 1004. Request for
Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/11/20/6273,
originally proposing to construct a 22-foot horizontal addition at the rear on
all four levels of the four-story, single-family house. The proposal has since been revised to
construct a 19-foot horizontal addition at the rear, with the fourth level to
be set back six feet from the north side property line. The south exterior wall
between the stairs and garage is proposed to be expanded by four feet and the
garage door will be widened to 12 feet 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 application as revised.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
Note: DR requestor was not able to attend the
hearing.
(+) David Tiers – Project Sponsor
-
The presentation and the report don't give a history of how this project came
about.
-
He had previous discussions with the neighbors and was sure he had a green
light on the project. He also felt he
had a green light from the planners at the Planning Department counter and
many of the planners involved in the project.
So he felt confident not to take advantage of a project review.
-
The neighbor to the north side filed a DR.
All of the negotiation attempts failed.
So they sent a response to the DR.
-
At the 11th hour he received an apologetic call that there would
have to be some reductions made to the plans.
-
They were in such a hurry to meet the calendar, that they made some hasty
reductions.
-
He would like to give the DR requestor, a 3-foot setback on the top floor and a
6-foot setback on the side that is 90% of what he wanted but would like to have
back the 3 feet he gave on the main mass.
ACTION: Take
DR and approve plans as modified
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay,
Salinas
20. 2000.1243D (CABREROS:
558-6169)
1955-1959
TURK STREET - between Broderick and Baker Streets, Lot 030 in Assessor's
Block 1152. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application
No.2000/09/22/1305, proposing to construct a second-floor deck, spiral stairway
and firewall at the rear, southwest corner of the existing building. The proposed addition occurs within the
permitted building envelope in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density)
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take
Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) John Flynn – DR Requestor
-
He doesn't agree with staff recommendations.
-
He is concerned with the early and mid-morning blocking of sunlight and air
with the proposed firewall.
-
The analysis states that there will be no sun blockage. It reported afternoon sunlight.
-
He displayed photographs of how the proposed addition would block sunlight to
the interior of his home.
-
He made some proposals. Instead of
having the project on the west side, relocate the door, which is coming out of
their sunroom. This would not block the
sunlight. They have offered the sponsor
$1,000 to have this done. Another
suggestion was to create safety glass for the firewall in order to get sunlight
coming through.
(-) Tomoko Flynn
-
The person to analyze the situation did not come to their home for an
inspection.
-
Their kitchen eating area is the most important part of their house. They really enjoy the light that comes
through.
-
She would like the Commission to reconsider this situation.
(+) Ronda Lyle - Architect
-
She respects the DR requestor's concerns about the light. They have tried to address it.
-
She is concerned that her client be able to fully enjoy his property. Currently he has no access to the rear yard
since there is no direct access. She is
trying to address this.
-
When she started looking at various solutions to this problem, she looked at
various locations. As Glenn mentioned
the east side is not appropriate because of an existing subterranean stair,
which would be very difficult to relocate.
The south side, which Mr. Flynn suggested, poses a lot of problems as
well. The sunroom becomes unusable
since the space becomes transitionary.
It reduces the functionality of the deck area and patio area at grade
level.
-
They have tried various changes: make the deck smaller; use a spiral stair
versus a traditional stair in order to reduce the scale of the project. They were thinking of the neighbors when
designing this.
-
They proposed to relocate the firewall on their property as opposed to putting
it on the property line. This would
give an additional 6 to 8 inches of more light.
-
They would propose that the Commission approve the plans as proposed.
(+) Carie Johnson – Co-owner and Project
Sponsor
-
He owns the property with his brother.
He lives in the upstairs unit.
-
John's proposal that the deck be built on the south side--they never really
considered this because his brother felt it would diminish his light.
-
He suggested that the firewall be painted white to reflect more light.
ACTION: Do
not take DR and approve project as submitted
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay,
Salinas
21. 2001.0008D (SMITH:
558-6322)
614
CASTRO STREET - west side of the street between
19th and 20th Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 2696, request for
Discretionary Review of BPA No. 2000/07/26/6145 proposing to merge units three
and two in order to reduce the number of dwelling units in the building from
three to two, in an RH‑3 (Residential, House, Three‑Family) District
and a 40‑X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the project.
SPEAKER
(S):
(+) Gayle Ng
-
She and her husband have owned and lived at this address since 1987.
-
This project is very important for her and her family.
-
In October 1999 they began a 3-phase project to make a home for her mother with
them. In July of last year they
submitted their third phase. They had
completed neighbor notification without any issues when they were told that new
procedures had been implemented.
-
Coming here to talk about personal issues is very embarrassing for her and her
family.
-
She owes her mother the best care and support since her mother provided for
her.
-
Her request is that the Commission allows for an interior staircase in order to
be closer and provide for her mother's needs and not have to go outside and
then inside her mother's apartment.
-
She would like to have the Commission approve their request.
(+) Michael Vani
-
When the building was created there was no direct access to the downstairs
apartment.
-
An internal stairwell would allow for them to access the back yard as well.
-
If these units were united some how it would allow for Gayle to hear her mother
if she were ever in need for help.
(+) William Pashalinski
-
Their intent is not to merge units.
Their desire is just to have access to the other unit and care for
Gayle's mother's needs.
-
In order to keep the 3-unit building and still construct the staircase, they
would have to keep the kitchen.
(+) Joe Chavez
-
He has lived in the neighborhood for 40 years and agrees with everything that
everyone has said.
-
He would like the Commission to approve this project.
(+) (First name unclear)
Swartz
-
He is a neighbor and likes Gayle and her family.
-
He would also like the Commission to approve this project.
ACTION: Take
Discretionary review and modify project to include staircase and keep the
kitchen.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay,
Salinas
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))
SPEAKER(S): NONE
Adjournment: 10:15
p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2001.
