Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, April 19, 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 1:36 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G.
Green, Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Rick Crawford;
Elizabeth Gordon; Dan DiBartolo; Michael Li; Tina Tam; Blake Washington;
Nora Priego, Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery, Commission Secretary
A. ITEMS
PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1a. 2000.863BV
(WONG: 558-6381)
2712 MISSION STREET - west side between 23rd and 24th Streets,
Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 3643. The subject property seeks an authorization for a proposed office development
under the smaller building reserve, pursuant to Planning Code Section 321.
The proposal is for a change of use from "Retail" to "Office"
and for the renovation and expansion of an existing 27,831-gross-square-foot
building into a 30,847-gross-square-foot building by enlarging a mezzanine
within the existing structure. The
subject property falls within a NC-3 (Moderate Scale Commercial) Zoning
District and a 50-X/80-B Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval
(Continued from regular
meeting of April 5, 2001)
PROJECT WITHDRAWN
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Project Withdrawn
1b. 2000.863BV
(WONG: 558-6381)
2712 MISSION STREET - west side between 23rd and 24th Streets,
Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 3643. The subject
property seeks a parking variance for the reduction of required off-street
parking, pursuant to Planning Code Section 151. The project proposes to provide five parking
spaces for the conversion of 30,847 gross square feet of office space on
a site, which presently provides no off-street parking spaces. The subject property falls within a NC-3 (Moderate
Scale Commercial) Zoning District and a 50-X/80-B Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from regular meeting of April 5,
2001)
PROJECT WITHDRAWN
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Project Withdrawn
2. 2001.0035E
(BUFORD: 558-5973)
ISSUANCE
OF TAXI MEDALLIONS – CITYWIDE - Appeal
of Preliminary Negative Declaration.
The San Francisco Taxi Commission,
City and County of San Francisco, proposes to issue approximately 500 additional
taxi permits ("medallions"). After implementation of the project,
the number of taxi permits available in the City would increase from 1,381
to 1,881, an increase of approximately 36%. New permits may be issued if supported by a
finding that additional permits are required to meet the public convenience
and necessity. Once issued, the
permits would result in 500 additional taxis in use. Operation of taxis
in the City limits is subject to regulation and review by the San Francisco
Taxi Commission. Proposition K,
a 1978 initiative ordinance governing the operation of taxis in the City,
requires that the permits, once issued, be operated continuously.
Recommendation: Pending
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2001)
(Proposed
for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued Indefinitely
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Salinas, Theoharis
B.
COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
3. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes
of March 15, 2001
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to April 26, 2001
4. Commission Matters
Commissioner Salinas: He
has had the good fortune of participating on two other Commissions: Park and Rec and Police, yet he has been greatly disturbed about
the comments being made about this Commission.
Although he is not asking for appreciation, it is unfortunate, and
it does the public a disservice, to demean the work that this Commission
does.
Commissioner Theoharis: She
has a letter for a continuance for the project located at 4038 17th
Street. This project was granted a continuance last
year. The sponsor waived the streamlining
act for a one-time, 90-day continuance. The City Attorney mentioned that this could be done only once.
This matter is scheduled for May 10th and the sponsor
would like to reschedule for June 7th. Therefore, another continuance cannot be granted
so the project will be heard on May 10th. Staff should notify
sponsor of this rule.
C.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
5. Director's Announcements
Re: The
Housing and Land Use Committee
Currently
this committee has its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursdays at the same
time as the Planning Commission hearing.
The committee will be rescheduling their meeting to an earlier time
on Thursdays.
6. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board
of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS None
BOA None
D. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS
AND FINAL ACTION -- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7. 2001.0194D
(CRAWFORD: 558-6358)
999 GREEN STREET - between Taylor and
Jones Streets, Lot 029 in Assessor's Block 0127, Request for Discretionary
Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/09/15/0634, proposing to
convert a 106-unit building to a 105-unit building in an RM-2 (Residential,
Mixed, Moderate Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Specifically the proposal will merge two dwelling
units into one on the 29th floor. No
exterior alterations are proposed.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary
Review, and approve the project as proposed.
NOTE: On April 12, 2001, following testimony the
Commission closed the public hearing. The
matter was continued at the call of the Chair to April 19, 2001.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Project Withdrawn
E. 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 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.)
8a. 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)
NOTE: On
March 8, 2001, after public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing.
The item was continued at the call of the Chair to March 22, 2001.
The item continues to be subject to Commission consideration, deliberation
and action.
On March 22, 2001, the
Commission considered new plans that modified the project to fit within
the remaining square footage for the 2000/01 approval period. Following discussion, the Commission continued
this matter to April 19, 2001, to allow more time to review the revised
plans by both the Commission and the public.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Timothy Tosta – Steefel, Levitt and Weiss
- He believes that the written materials are detailed and sufficient
to achieve the support of the Commission.
- He is available for questions.
(+) Rev. Townsend
- He endorses and supports this project.
- He has worked closely with the developer and a local neighborhood
community based nonprofit corporation who will be negotiating to build housing. The money, which will be allocated to this
housing development, will greatly reduce the cost of this housing.
- There is tremendous support for this project.
- We need to start talking about low-income housing. This is not only a good project but the benefits attained from this
project are wonderful.
- The non-profit corporation, which will develop housing, is called
Agape Outreach Center.
(+) David Zainer – Plant Construction Company
- They are a union based company.
- The developer has mentioned that if this project is approved they
will be able to construct it.
- He would like to see this project go ahead and create more jobs
for people.
(+) Carmen Johnson
- Founder and Executive Director of Agape Outreach Center.
- They are excited that this developer has made a commitment to invest
in a community-based organization and build low-income housing.
- They are excited about the workshops and community meetings they
held.
- They are really excited about what they are doing.
- This project will help many people to stop living on the street
and be able to get jobs, education and training.
- Please support and approve this project.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Salinas, and Theoharis
MOTION No. 16140
8b. 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)
NOTE: On
March 8, 2001, after public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing.
The item was continued at the call of the Chair to March 22, 2001.
The item continues to be subject to Commission consideration, deliberation
and action.
On March 22, 2001, the
Commission considered new plans that modified the project to fit within
the remaining square footage for the 2000/01 approval period. Following discussion, the Commission continued
this matter to April 19, 2001, to allow more time to review the revised
plans by both the Commission and the public.
SPEAKERS: Same
as those listed for item 8a
ACTION: Approved as amended: Jessie Street to remain open during construction.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION No. 16141
8c. 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)
NOTE: On
March 8, 2001, after public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing.
The item was continued at the call of the Chair to March 22, 2001.
The item continues to be subject to Commission consideration, deliberation
and action.
On March 22, 2001, the
Commission considered new plans that modified the project to fit within
the remaining square footage for the 2000/01 approval period. Following discussion, the Commission continued this matter to April
19, 2001, to allow more time to review the revised plans by both the Commission
and the public.
SPEAKERS: Same
as those listed for item 8a
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION No. 16142
9a. 1998.281BC
(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 49,500 gross square feet
of office space from the City’s office development annual limit Reserve
for Smaller Buildings. 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
under the Planning Code. Please
note: This request has been amended. This
amended request for office allocation reduces the total amount requested
from 120,000 gross square feet of office space to 49,500 gross square feet
of office space.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of March 22, 2001)
NOTE: On March 8, 2001, after public testimony, the Commission closed public
hearing. The item was continued
at the call of the Chair to March 22, 2001.
The item continues to be subject to Commission consideration, deliberation
and action.
On March 22, 2001, the Commission considered a revised proposal that
would reduce the total square footage of the project to 49,500 square feet. Following discussion, the Commission continued
this matter to April 19, 2001, to allow the sponsor to submit new plans,
to allow the new project to be properly noticed, and to allow adequate time
for Department staff, the Commission, and the public to review the new plans.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Cincotta – Representing Sponsors:
McCarthy Cook and Payne Weber
- He would like to talk about the residential portion of this project. The first time a residential portion of this
project was considered was many years ago and there was an alternative to
study residential. This was in December
of 1999. In the last month and a
half, there has been more consideration on residential. The most significant reason is seeing the mixed-use reality of Mission
Bay. There has been more construction
for office and residential space.
- The parking and traffic situation will be addressed through allowed
valet parking. They meet the demands
for valet parking.
- They have talked to their supporters and they are still in agreement
with the new proposal.
- The voluntary contributions for childcare, etc., are still in place.
- The design conditions were worked out with Mission Housing Development.
- Because of the change of the focus of this project, they felt it
was an opportunity with a fresh design team.
MBH architects are familiar with the area.
(+) Andres Grecci – MBH Architects
- They have been involved with designing Brannan Square, Moma's Restaurant,
177 Townsend Mixed Use project, and they have an understanding of where
the neighborhood is going and what it needs.
- They first looked at PacBell Park as a basis of where they should
start.
- There were a series of elements, which were very important in attaining
the desired design.
- One of these elements was a transitional floor to tie the addition
to the existing building. This floor
occurs in the fourth floor, which would tie the housing and the office elements.
- Another big element was that the towers would break down the long
mass of the building with more vertical elements.
This building was too horizontal and too long.
- The courtyard, which is between two buildings, needs to be revitalized.
- The building now feels like a whole building instead of an existing
building with an addition.
- Linking this building from what it was to what it could be and
the changes in the neighborhood is a very important element, and keeping
the existing curtain wall does it.
(+) Jeffrey Liebovitz
- He is speaking on behalf of the members of the Rincon Point/South
Beach CAC; he would like to thank the project sponsor for considering a
resolution to request removing the gates at the end of the wharf along Mission
Creek and allow more activities along the wharf such as leashed dog walking.
- This public benefit will help address item 3 of the CUA, where
the project sponsor seeks a rear yard exception for residential units. They support the development of the additional
68 residential units.
- This Commission and the developer are giving back to San Franciscans
and the public what BCDC mistakenly gave away many years ago in its infancy
of the Bay Conservation Development Commission Permit Negotiations process. Today BCDC would never allow public improvements
along the waterfront to be closed off with gates.
- This condition will allow for another segment of the continuation
of the bay trail and make a natural connection to the shoreline improvements
in Mission Bay and along Mission Creek.
They are still troubled by the 5-to-8-year time frame in which this
action will occur. He would like
to have an amendment for the removal of the gates with the completion of
the N2 block of Mission Bay or two years after issuance of the CUP whichever
occurs first.
(+) Dick Millet – Potrero Hill
- He has been watching this project for many years and had problems
with the building being too tall and the parking problem but this has been
resolved.
- The whole community in this area is new.
- He hopes that the overhead wires will be removed, since they didn't
show in the renderings, so he assumes that they have taken them out.
(+) Sue Hestor
- This is a really huge improvement.
- The improvements are stunning and are worthy of the Commissioners'
approval.
- The waterfront should be opened up as quickly as possible.
- The nature of China Basin is changing so dramatically.
- This is a much better design.
ACTION: Approved as amended in conditions
of approval regarding design and timeframe of authorization/scheduling.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Salinas, and Theoharis
MOTION No. 16143
9b. 1998.281BC
(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 304 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow: (1)
a Conditional-Use Authorization per Planning Code Section 215(a) and 227(m) for an amendment Case No. 98.281C to
allow up to 125 units of housing in a M-2 (Heavy
Industrial) District; (2) for an off-street parking exception per Planning
Code Section 304(a) to allow valet/attendant parking within the on-site
parking garage in order to provide the 230 off-street spaces required
under Section 151 of the Planning Code for the project, or in the alternative,
allow valet/attendant parking within the on-site parking garage and reduce
the parking requirement for the office use to
191 spaces to be consistent with pending South End Office District legislation
(would apply to the project site once implemented); and (3) for a
rear yard per Planning Code Section 304(a) exception for the residential
units proposed at the site (in this case the interior pedestrian courtyard
and the air space above is where the rear yard for the proposed units would
be located per Planning Code Section 134, there is currently no rear
yard situated within the existing development nor would it be physically
possible to provide one on the site without removing floors of the adjacent
Wharfside building). No rear yard is proposed. 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: this PUD amends and combines into one Case Nos. 98.281C,
98.281V and 2001.0179V.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of March 22, 2001)
NOTE: On March 8, 2001, after public testimony, the Commission closed public
hearing. The item was continued
at the call of the Chair to March 22, 2001.
The item continues to be subject to Commission consideration, deliberation
and action.
On March 22, 2001, the Commission considered a revised proposal that
would reduce the total square footage of the project to 49,500 square feet. Following discussion, the Commission continued
this matter to April 19, 2001, to allow the sponsor to submit new plans,
to allow the new project to be properly noticed, and to allow adequate time
for Department staff, the Commission, and the public to review the new plans.
SPEAKERS: Same
as those listed in item 9a
ACTION: Approved as amended for conditions
of approval regarding design and timeframe of authorization/scheduling.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Salinas, and Theoharis
MOTION No. 16144
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
10. 2001.0072C
(DiBARTOLO: 558-6291)
501-503
Laguna Street - northwest corner at Fell Street; Lot 035 in Assessor’s Block 0819.
Request for Conditional-Use Authorization pursuant to Section 720.83
of the Planning Code to install a total of three antennas within a single
cylinder on the roof and five equipment cabinets in the basement of the
existing two-story, mixed-use building as part of Sprint’s wireless telecommunications
network within the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and
a 50-X Height and Bulk District. As
per the City & County of San Francisco’s Wireless Transmission Services
(WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the proposal is a preference 6 (limited
preference site).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Robert Crebs – Representing
Project Sponsor
- This petition complies with the San Francisco Municipal Code, the
WTS Sighting Guidelines and the Federal Communication Commissions Radio
Frequency Emissions Standards.
- The design is visually unobtrusive.
- The proposed installation is necessary for this area.
- All sites of a higher preference were considered or pursued yet
they were not technologically feasible or not available for lease.
- A CU is allowed if the proposed structure is necessary or desirable
for and comparable with the neighborhood and the community.
- This facility will ensure communication when LAN lines are not
working and it will increase safety for residents and citizens of San Francisco
from wireless phones.
- Bilingual community meetings were held.
(-) Erick Olsen
- He is here to address the health concerns.
He is a property owner directly around the corner from the proposed
site.
- Although the studies up to date have been inconclusive, there is
a certain amount of evidence that there are health hazards with these antennas.
- His main question is what can he do to try to block this or find
research, which he can present to the Commission, to deny this project?
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Salinas, and Theoharis
MOTION No. 16145
11. 2000.1195C
(LI : 558-6396)
547 HOWARD STREET - south side between 1st
and 2nd Streets; Lot 110 in Assessor's Block 3736. Request for Conditional-Use Authorization pursuant to Section 219(d)
of the Planning Code to establish an office use at the ground floor level
which will not offer on-site services to the general public within the C-3-0(SD)
(Downtown Office Special Development) District and a 350-S Height and Bulk
District. The proposal is to demolish
the existing two-story-over-basement office building and construct a five-story-over-basement
office building containing approximately 11,000 square feet of gross floor
area.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Steve Vettel – Morrison and Forrester
- The only issue in this
CU is if it's appropriate to have the office space extend to the ground
floor and basement. They believe
it is. The site is so small that it is not feasible
for the ground floor to be used for non-office uses.
- The site is only 25 feet
wide.
- Part of the ground floor
is taken by the exit stairway.
- There is no other frontage
for retail or personal use.
- The only option is to
have the office space extend to the basement.
- It is not practical to
have a mixed-use building.
- The open space requirement
on this site is only 230 sf. Because
the site is so small and so constrained it is not feasible to put that on
the ground floor of the site.
- The most feasible thing
to do is to extend the sidewalk and put in some benches and some landscaping.
(+) Jim Tanner – Tanner Architecture
- One of the things that
happen in the front of the building is that this building does not have
any access anywhere other than through the front of the building. Two exits are required by the Building Department.
One exit is through a corridor.
The second exit is through the back of a stair.
By code this exit is allowed to go through the office space lobby. If there was a retail functions on the ground floor, it would have
to have it's own exit.
- There is less than 20
feet of frontage to do this.
ACTION: Approved as amended: Sec. 309
to be brought before the Commission after it is properly noticed.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, and Theoharis
MOTION No. 16146
12a. 2000.264CD
(MARTIN: 558-6616)
1087
MISSISSIPPI STREET
- east side between 23rd and 25th Streets, Lot 049 in Assessor’s Block 4224.
Request for a Conditional-Use Authorization to allow the construction of
two dwelling units in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and the
Industrial Protection Zone Buffer, per Planning Code Section 215(a) and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 14861, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Silverman – Reuben and Alter
- This application was filed over a year ago and has gone through
many changes.
- The project complies with all the IPZ resolutions, residential
requirements, no variances are required, etc.
- This will be a positive contribution to the neighborhood.
- He, as well as the project architect, is available for any questions.
(+) Bill Minky
- He owns the warehouse at 1050 Mississippi.
- This project will be an improvement all around.
(-) Dick Millet – Potrero Boosters
- Are there any drawings of this building?
- Was a 311 notice ever sent out?
- The building is too large and the parking doesn't work since the
entrance is too narrow.
- He has a problem with the fact that the two lower floors are 100%
lot coverage and the windows are set back for light and air.
- The buildings next door are lower than this project.
- The east side of Mississippi Street is big and brutal.
- There is too much PDR in this project.
It's designed as a loft. The
elevator access doesn't work either. The
units, which will be for sale, will have two cars and this can cause problems
in the parking area.
(-) Elena Myers
- She lives on Mississippi.
- She is also concerned about the height of the building. They look like lofts.
- She would like to have a restriction imposed so there is no overnight
sleeping in the industrial units. This
would protect them from the overuse of size in residential.
- The street is very jammed during the day.
This project should have its own loading dock.
(-) Favian Lanoy
- The 12-foot door is in compliance and is a requirement by the City.
- There is no problem for cars to move in and out of the garage.
ACTION: Public Hearing Closed. Project continued to April 26, 2001. Public hearing will be open to address the
parking problems/solutions.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Salinas, and Theoharis
12b. 2000.264CD
(MARTIN: 558-6616)
1087 MISSISSIPPI
STREET - east side between 23rd and 25th Streets, Lot 049 in Assessor’s
Block 4224. Staff-initiated request
for Discretionary Review for the demolition of an existing, vacant industrial
building and construction of housing and space for production, distribution
and repair businesses in an existing industrial building space in an M-1
(Light Industrial) Zoning District and the Industrial Protection Zone Buffer
per Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 14861 and 16079; and a 40-X Height
and Bulk District. NOTE: This project was previously noticed for hearing on February 22, 2001, and has since been
modified. The previous notice stated
that the ground and second stories would be occupied by office space.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve
the project as proposed.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5,
2001)
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 12a.
ACTION: Public Hearing Closed. Project continued to April 26, 2001. Public hearing will be open to address the
parking problems/solutions.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Salinas, and Theoharis
G.
SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 3:30 p.m. the Planning Commission convened
into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary
Review matters.
13.
2000.1274DD
(TAM: 558-6325)
1851-31st Avenue
- west side of 31st Avenue, between Noriega and Ortega Streets,
Lot 11 in Assessor’s Block 2068. Request
for a Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/07/13/5054S
to demolish an existing 11-foot, one-story horizontal extension and to construct
a two-story horizontal extension approximately 37 feet (including stairs)
at the rear of an existing two-story, 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 project with modifications.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Ambrose Luck – DR Requestor
- He has lived in his home since 1988.
- The reason he is here is because he received notification that
his neighbor would extend his property in the rear yard.
- He was surprised because when he purchased his property in 1988,
he found out about the zoning in the area and realized that his neighbor's
house had illegal rooms.
- His property suffered a fire and he has lived in it since then.
- His neighbor never uses the garage door to park their cars.
- He found out that the electrical permit hasn't been approved since
the fire.
- With all the space they have their request is not logical since
his neighbor's kids are older now.
- The whole basement in his neighbor's house is illegal.
(-) Sandra Wong – DR Requestor
- Her house is adjacent to the subject property.
- She requested that her neighbor not construct an extension.
- She will agree to an extension only if the recommendations from
the Planner are imposed: 1) reduce
the two-story horizontal extension from 30 feet to 25 feet so that subject
property will not be out of character with the neighborhood; 2) increase
setback from 3 feet to 4 feet in accordance with the residential design
guidelines; 3) eliminate all side facing windows on the proposed extension
to ensure neighbor's privacy; 4) issue a notice of special restrictions
so that proposed extension will not be used as a separate unit.
- She stresses the setback to be important because if the extension
is not set back, the rear yard boundary fence will have to be moved 3 inches
over onto her property. This would
have a big impact on her since it would cause an impact on air, light and
privacy.
- She agrees with the planner's recommendations and if these recommendations
were put forth she would have no problem with the construction of the extension.
(-) Shirley Luck
- She lives at 1847 31st Avenue.
- Her objection is that the neighbors will construct something legal
from an illegal construction.
- In the past, the neighbors have not applied for permits; that's
why there is an illegal construction.
- Her home suffered a fire and her car was burned because of her
neighbor.
- Her neighbor will build a kitchen in the basement because there
is an elderly person living there and this is very dangerous.
(-) Mable Wong – DR
Requestor
- Throughout the years, her neighbors and their contractors and handyman
have done construction without permits.
- Most of the time she is not home but when she comes home her neighbor
and their contractor do construction work yet walk all over her property.
- If the extension is built, this will cause a negative impact on
her property.
- Her neighbor is constantly constructing even on Saturdays.
- Her neighbor's house should be monitored by the Building Department
because there is a lot of illegal construction going on.
(+) Ahmad (last name
unclear) – Representing Project Sponsor
- He has been making many calls, between the planner and the sponsor
and the neighbors.
- Displayed a photograph of the subject property.
- He has been working with the planner and agrees with her recommendations.
- The only issue he is not in agreement with is to have a 4-foot
side reduction, reduce it to 3 feet.
- The project sponsor has paid the penalties for the illegal construction.
- The square footage of the home is quite small.
(+) Sue Wong – Project Sponsor
- Although her neighbors are describing her as a bad person, she
is not.
- She believes that there is bad communication.
- It is impossible for her to move the fence by herself.
- She does admit that she installed an illegal kitchen in the basement
because she is supporting her parents that live there.
- She is a business owner so she is a very responsible person.
- She would like the Commission to approve the plans.
ACTION: Take DR and approve with staff recommendations:
1) reduce the two-story horizontal extension from 30 feet to 25 feet so
that subject property will not be out of character with the neighborhood;
2) increase setback from 3 feet to 4 feet in accordance with the residential
design guidelines; 3) eliminate all side-facing windows on the proposed
extension to ensure neighbor's privacy; 4) issue a notice of special restrictions
so that subject extension will not be used as a separate unit. Add an amendment stated by Commissioner Chinchilla:
Project Sponsor is to complete a site
survey to establish the location of the property lines. The project Sponsor is to share this information
with the adjacent neighbors.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Salinas, and Theoharis
14. 2001.0220D (B.WASHINGTON: 558-6263)
2625 – 23RD AVENUE - west side of 23rd Avenue, between Vicente Street and Wawona
Street; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 2473. Request for a Discretionary Review
of Building Permit Application No. 2000/11/13/5509s, proposing to enclose
an existing lightwell located on the northern side of an existing single-family
dwelling. The proposal also includes an infill under the existing second
floor. The proposed alteration occurs within the permitted building envelope
in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and
Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and
approve the building permit application as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Michael Davis –
Representing DR Requestor
- Staff recommendation is based on many false premises: the significance of the light source, and the planning policy issues
involved.
- The pictures displayed by the planner are misleading.
- In light of the current energy crisis, construction that uses exterior
light source should be encouraged rather than be eliminated.
- Issues that were requested in the DR request have not been dealt
with.
-The Residential Design Guidelines were not followed.
-There are a number of false issues related to permits and non-permitted
construction.
- The project sponsor has implied that this is new construction when
it really is not.
(-) Stan DeBella – Owner of adjacent property
- He displayed photographs, which were displayed by the planner and
explained that the window that is on the lightwell is providing most of
the light in the bathroom.
- The dining room window is brightly lit and that all the other detail
is being washed out. This is the
only significant light source.
- There is a window in the dining room which is facing east but the
next house is blocking it.
- The sponsor proposes to increase his kitchen space at his expense. There are windows that already existed.
(+) Joan Ryan – Project
Sponsors
- They believe that their project is in compliance with all the codes.
- Mr. DeBella's parking concern has been resolved by the adding of
a structural steel beam in their garage level.
This would provide two off-street parking spaces as well as one in
their driveway. This would effectively
create 3 off-street parking spots.
- Professionals have designed the project.
- Accordingly, their family room downstairs is not a defacto 2nd
unit. It has been designed in compliance
with regulations.
- Their lightwell is not in their property grant deed as an easement
for his property line windows or exterior plumbing.
- The dining room window and toilet room window will be affected. Both rooms have other windows, which are larger
and operable.
- There are other windows, which will not be affected by the construction.
- Mr. DeBella's copper piping is only accessible by their light well
and with a ladder. This work was
not done with a permit. Mr. DeBella's
toilet room window, which is a property line window, was done without a
permit as well.
- They have tried to resolve issues with Mr. DeBella and his family
through personal dialogue as well as with the San Francisco Community Board.
- They have also offered compensation for the closing of the dining
room window.
- They enjoy living there but the flat has become quite small for
their growing family.
- With the enlargement of their kitchen, they realize that they will
be impacting their neighbor's house. They
are sensitive to this and are willing to compensate their neighbor for this.
(+) John O'Sullivan – Project Sponsor
- They would like the Commission to approve their project since it's
in conformance with the Planning Code.
- The property line windows at his neighbor's house are redundant.
- Mr. DeBella asked him for permission to go through his light well
and look at the plumbing. He didn't
know that the work did not have a permit.
(+) James DeVoy – Project Architect
- There is a letter that he sent to the Planning Department which
states that there is no way to verify when the lightwells were constructed.
- The property line windows were completed after his client's lightwell
was created.
ACTION: Do not take Discretionary Review
and approve project with staff recommendation that a Notice of Special Restrictions
will be recorded with the property. The NSR will state that the downstairs addition will not be converted
into an illegal separate unit.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Salinas, and Theoharis
H. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address
the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity
to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the
meeting 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))
SPEAKERS:
1. James Meyers
Re: 25 Rio Way
- There is a DR matter next Thursday and he showed a picture of the property.
This project is located at 25 Rico Way in the Marina District.
Many homes have an established Marina home style.
Yet this home does not attempt to keep within the Marina style. It appears to be an ultra modern design.
- He lives at 27 Rico Way. There
are many homeowners that are concerned about this project.
- The owners of 25 Rico Way obtained 15 or 17 homeowners stating that they
were in support of the property. But
unfortunately, the project sponsor mentioned that he (James Meyers) was
in support of the project. So when
the rest of the neighbors knew that he was in agreement, they signed the
support petition.
2. Patricia Vaughey
Re: Orientation Courses are important
to the Department
- She has discovered that many planners have gone through indoctrination
courses yet others have not.
- These orientation courses are very important.
- If a planner has not gone through any orientation courses, they should.
Adjournment: 5:15 p.m.
