Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, May 10, 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 1:35 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G.
Green, Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Rick Cooper;
Elizabeth Gordon; Dan Sider; Ben Fu; Andrea Wong; Scott Sanchez; Sharon
Young; Craig Nikitas; Michael Smith; Tom Wang; Nora Priego, Transcription
Secretary; Isolde Wilson, Acting Commission Secretary
ADDENDUM ITEM:
2001.0253D
(JONES: 558-6477)
3868-96
NORIEGA STREET - northeast
corner of Noriega Street between 46th and 47th Avenues; Lots 53, 54 and
55 in Assessor's Block 2004. Request
for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Applications: 9927325, 9937326,
9937327 for the demolition of a two-story structure and the construction
of three, mixed-use buildings, each containing three residential units (total
9 units) over commercial space in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster
District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.
Note: On April 26, 2001, after public testimony the Commission closed
the public hearing and continued the matter to May 10, 2001 instructed staff
to explore finish materials for each building.
(Proposed for Continuance to May 17, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued
to May 17, 2001
AYES: Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1. 2000.1058E
(DEAN: 558-5980)
1598 DOLORES STREET - located at the northwest corner of Dolores
and 29th Streets; Assessor's Block 6618; Lots 7, 9, 38.
Appeal of a Preliminary Negative
Declaration. The proposed construction consists of two, four-story residential
buildings with a total of 13 units (two of which would be affordable units)
and demolition of an existing two-story mortuary building.
The project would provide 13 off-street parking spaces.
The proposed project site is 10,500 sq. ft. and is located in the
NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District.
The project would require Conditional-Use Authorization by the City
Planning Commission.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold
Negative Declaration
(Proposed for continuance to May 24, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued
to May 24, 2001
AYES: Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
2. 2000.1058C
(TAM: 558-6325)
1598 DOLORES
STREET – (Reilly’s Funeral Home), northwest corner of Dolores and 29th Streets;
Lots 7, 9, and 38 in Assessors Block 6618. Request for Conditional Use to
demolish the existing one and two-story mortuary building and construct
two (2) new four-story, residential buildings with a total of 13 dwelling
units (two of which would be affordable units) and 13 parking spaces on
lots totaling approximately 10,500 square feet.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
(Proposed for continuance to May 24, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued
to May 24, 2001
AYES: Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
3. 2001.0005C
(SIDER: 558-6697)
224 MISSISSIPPI STREET - west side between Mariposa and 18th
Streets; Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 4001. Request for Conditional Use Authorization
to allow the continuation of a nonconforming light industrial use, doing
business as Graphisoft pursuant to Planning Code Section 185(e), in an RH-2
(Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.
The proposal is to allow the continued occupancy of the ground floor of
the subject property by a light industrial use for 20 years. No physical changes are to be made to the structure.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to May 24, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued
to May 24, 2001
AYES: Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
B.
COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
4. Commission Matters
Linda Avery:
A form was given to the Commissioners to fill out with information
on how they can be reached in case they are on vacation and need to be reached
by the Mayor.
Commissioner
Chinchilla: He would like to
see the Commissioners amend the stakeholders as discussed earlier to give
appellate rights in CU cases to business owners and tenants. Expedite appropriate language.
C.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
5. Director's Announcements
Transit Impact Development Fee Analysis and Planning Report:
This report
was given to the Commissioners in anticipation of an informational hearing.
This informational hearing will be held at the discretion of the
Commission.
During the Planning Commission hearing of May 17, 2001, a series of briefings
will be held on the status of the process to replace IPZ interim controls.
These briefings should be held before the August 6, 2001 deadline.
These briefings will be in the form of a status report.
During the
Planning Commission hearing of June 7, 2001, there will be a discussion
on the annual limit program rules.
Finance
Committee Hearing
- He appeared before the Finance Committee to
respond to the Department's request for a supplemental appropriation.
- In February,
the Director spoke to the Commission to endorse the Department's work program.
The Department is actually generating more fee revenue than originally
forecasted. He found a need to allocate those funds specifically
to expand the existing Balboa Park Better Neighborhood's program, fund an
appropriate planning process and community-based planning process to replace
the IPZ Interim Controls, and assure that we had proper funds to carry out
the necessary environmental review for these Interim Controls. It was important to have positions to help
carry out this work. One of these
positions is a liaison to the Board of Supervisors with the new and increased
workload resulting from district representation.
- He asked
for 1.9 million dollars in order to carry the work out and fill these positions.
The Committee recommended to the full board that they do provide the funding
to carry out the consultant driven work, to continue the Better Neighborhoods
program but they did not approve the funds for the 4 positions.
The Committee deferred the funding for the 4 positions to be taken
up as part of the full budget process, which starts in June.
That was the decision of the budget analyst for the Board of Supervisors. The Director opposed since this decision would
delay work.
- An Interim
Acceptance Process was then agreed upon which will allow some of the revenue
from the planning budget in June 2001 to cover these positions. They will make a decision to allow us to proceed
even though they have not authorized these salaries. This will protect the integrity of the full
budget process.
Housing,
Transportation and Land Use Committee Hearing
Larry Badiner,
Ken Chin and Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department, represented the department
regarding wireless communications and antennas.
- There were
representatives from wireless communications companies as well as representatives
from an organization called SNAFOO. There were discussions of implementing a moratorium by neighborhood
groups. Mr. Badiner had to leave
the meeting early so he doesn't know the results of this request. The department will analyze the guidelines
and find out the results of this meeting and report to the Commission on
May 17, 2001.
6. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board
of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
Board
of Appeals
May
2, 2001 Hearing
4616
18th Street – This project was a dwelling unit merger and
the Commission denied the merger. The
BOA overturned the Commission's decision because although the board feels
that the Commission's DR policy is a good policy, the board is making their
decisions on a case-by-case basis. The
board decided that this case was in the pipeline , that it was not a monster
home, and that there would be no loss of rental housing.
The board is not overturning the Commission's DR policy just the
decision on this specific case.
May
9, 2001 Hearing
690
DeHaro Street – The Commission
voted to take DR on this case, then it went to the BOA and the board upheld
the Commission's decision. The subdivision
from DPW went to the BOS and the board denied the subdivision based upon
environmental issues and general planning issues.
The
question came up of rehearing the case on the DR. If there is substantial new information that could affect the project,
the board could allow a rehearing yet the board did not believe that a new
hearing should be held. The board
felt that the new information did not affect their decision.
696
Pennsylvania Street – This is a live/work project, the Commission took
mandatory DR. The Zoning Administrator
issued a notice of violation and the BOA overturned his decision.
1800
Mission Street (Armory) – This was an appeal of a negative declaration
for a server farm . The Commission
upheld the negative declaration and a DR was filed, this DR did not come
to the attention of the department, the ZA issued a suspension of the work
order. The BOA decided to continue the suspension
until after the hearing at the Commission.
Whatever the decision the Commission makes, the board will consider
it.
7.
(ALUMBAUGH: 558-6601)
BETTER
NEIGHBORHOODS 2002 – Informational presentation regarding Market and
Octavia Neighborhood Plan.
SPEAKER(S):
(+)
Patricia Walkin
-
She wants to express
the enthusiasm that the community has shown.
-
All presentations have been well attended.
People have been very pleased with the planning.
-
This plan accommodates their goals by providing housing that fits criteria
for affordable housing.
-
They are happy to increase the density of the neighborhood without increasing
congestion.
-
Many parts of this neighborhood are crime-ridden. When there are a lot of shops and good pedestrian traffic this can
deter crime.
-
They are thankful that they were one of the three neighborhoods chosen.
-
They are happy to build the Octavia Boulevard.
-
This plan will be great for the neighborhood as well as the whole city.
-
This will become an interesting and diverse community.
(+)
Rob Levit – Member of the Board of the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Organization
-
He is not going to repeat the comments from the previous speaker yet he
agrees with everything she said.
-
He will say that everyone is very enthusiastic about the planning process.
-
This planning process opens up an opportunity for improvement in the neighborhood.
-
He just wants to say thank you!
-
They have been talking about the neighborhood as being a pedestrian neighborhood
and being transit friendly. They
have been pushing to reduce the parking requirements and build affordable
housing and having more pedestrian traffic.
(+)
Joe Curtin - President of the Castro
Area Planning In Action
-
He agrees with the previous speakers.
-
The workshops have been very successful.
-
They are anxious to work with planning staff.
-
The development of the Market Street plan will connect various areas of
the City to the subject area.
-
This street is the most important street of the City.
-
He hopes this program continues for many years.
D. REGULAR CALENDAR
8. 1999.423E
(COOPER: 558-5974)
639-699 – 2ND STREET - on the northeast
corner of Townsend and Second Streets, Assessors
Block 3789, Lots 4 and 5. Public Hearing on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed project would include the conversion of the existing two-story-over-basement
building at 699 Second Street, which has been determined to be eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places and is a contributory
element to the South End Historic District, from its industrial/warehouse
designation, to office and retail/restaurant use, and construction of a
three-story addition with two levels of underground parking. The resulting
building would contain about 49,950 square feet of office space, about 6,550
square feet of retail/restaurant space and about 100 off-street parking
spaces. On the adjacent parcel to the north with an existing surface parking
lot, at 639 Second Street, a separate six-story building would be constructed
that would include about 49,950 square feet of office space, nine residential
units and 112 off-street parking spaces. The project site is located in
an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) zoning district, and a 50-X Height and
Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required
Note: Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices
until the close of business on May 29, 2001.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: No Action Required by the Commission
9. 2000.507L
(LIGHT: 558-6254)
261-271 COLUMBUS AVENUE (CITY LIGHTS BOOKSTORE)
- south side of street between Jack Kerouac Street and Broadway.
Assessor's Block 162, Lot 18. The
subject property is zoned Broadway NCD (Neighborhood Commercial District)
and is in a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.
This hearing is for the consideration of approval of the proposed
Landmark Designation of the City Lights Bookstore as Landmark No. 228.
Approval of the proposed Landmark Designation was recommended by
the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board to the Planning Commission at
the Board's public hearing on March 21, 2001.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Daniel Reidy – Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
- He is honored to bring this designation to the Commission.
- It has been one of the most personally satisfying projects that
he has worked on since being appointed by the Mayor to serve on the Landmarks
Advisory Board about 5 years ago.
- They developed a case report with a combination of work with staff
and their board and Tim Kelley, who is a historian, actually did the major
work on the drafting of the original case report.
- There was universal support. In
Paris, they believe that the building has already received a landmark designation.
- A number of people thought that they could take the case report
and add new material. People who
had access to the North Beach Survey, the owners themselves thought that
there could be corrections and augmentation of the material.
There were two distinguished published writers: Lorence Furlingetti and Nancy Petters who contributed
information.
- GG Platt and other preservation people felt that there had to be
more architectural attention to the building and the architect. Although he was not well known, a lot of his
work was destroyed in the 1906 earthquake.
The architect was really a master.
- He recommends that this building be dedicated as an architectural
landmark.
(+) Gerry Crowley – President of Telegraph Hill Dwellers Association
- There are about 791 members and were founded in 1954, just one
year after Lawrence Furlingetti and his partner found the City Lights Books
Store.
- The historical significance of its place and the literary culture
of this nation are well documented.
- Since their inception, Telegraph Hill Dwellers mission has been
to protect and preserve neighborhood character.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION No. 16156
10. 2001.0203C
(SIDER: 558-6697)
1192 FOLSOM STREET - northeast corner of 8th Street, Lot 28 in Assessor’s Block
3730. Request for Conditional Use
Authorization to allow the intensification of a nonconforming night time
entertainment use, pursuant to Planning Code Section 181(f), in an SLR (Service,
Light Industrial, Residential) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation.
The proposal is to intensify the existing ground floor bar and place of
entertainment (Border Café & Cantina) by allowing dancing and amplified
entertainment until 2 a.m. Tuesday through Thursday mornings, until 4 a.m.
Friday morning, and until 6 a.m. Saturday through Monday mornings. No physical
changes are to be made to the structure.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
for dancing and entertainment/Disapproval for extended hours
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of May 3, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) John Luna – Project Sponsor
- He is here to represent his family's business,
the Border Café and Cantina.
-
The Border Café and Cantina has a long history in the South of Market area
and so does his family.
-
Ignacio Luna Sr. came to this country as a bracero a Mexican immigrant
contract worker. Ten years after
his arrival he opened a delicatessen business in the South of Market area. He was the only Mexican business owner in the
area. An accomplishment he is very
proud of.
-
In 1964, he expanded and opened a business on Folsom and 8th
Street, the project site. The business
was a delicatessen, La Ideal Deli . However,
when his father, Ignacio Luna, Jr., took over, he diversified the deli's
business by incorporating a Mexican restaurant, entertainment and comedy.
-
As a third generation business owner, his father has given him the opportunity
his father gave him; the opportunity to continue to run the family business.
-
Obtaining the proper permits are very important to him.
-
The restrictions for entertainment hours are very restrictive.
-
Originally they had requested to operate entertainment 24 hours a day, 7
days a week.
-
After community meetings, Officer Rose Meyer made some suggestions, which
he agreed to regarding the hours of operation:
dancing after hours on Friday and Saturday until 4:00 a.m. only. He agreed if she would agree to endorse all
night dance if they operate the nightclub responsibly.
-
He has gone around and explained to several neighbors of what he intends
to do. He has assured them that
he will operate responsibly. He
has given several neighbors his phone number so that they can call him in
case there are any problems or complaints.
-
He plans to keep a cordial relationship with the neighbors.
- He is asking for unrestricted hours 6:00 a.m.
to 2:00 a.m. on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays. 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
(+) Officer Rose Meyer – Permit Officer, San Francisco Police
Department
- She is not here representing the chief or
the police department. She is here
representing Captain O'Hara.
- She is not here to advocate the nightclub.
- Mr. Luna has not yet applied for a police
permit, just an amendment to the change of hours. He wanted to come to the Commission first.
(+) Jim Meko – SOMA Leadership Council
- He read the 7 angry letters, which are attached
to the file of this project. He contacted l the people who wrote these letters.
He spoke to the angriest and the saddest.
- Sleep deprivation can kill you.
- John Luna keeps his promises. He has known the Luna's for about 20 years.
This family has run a business for about 36 years.
John will show others what it means to respect your neighborhood. The Late Night Coalition is here to support this club.
(+) Tarrance Allen- San Francisco Late Night
Coalition
- History is in front of the Commissioners eyes.
They were formed to control and make sure that not all of the clubs
be closed.
- He urges the Commission to approve this proposal
and consider that economic vitality is very important in the City.
- He knows that when businesses are shut down
and landlords are not allowed to open their businesses, the neighborhood
becomes blighted.
(+) John Ward – San Francisco Late Night
Coalition
- They are putting themselves on the line to
stay with this situation.
- They have stressed to John Luna for his business
to be a model business.
(+) Leslie Ayres – San Francisco Late Night
Coalition
- What they have been dealing with over
the last years is a loss of business permits where people can go dance late
at night
- There are visitors who come to the City to
dance.
- This business has been around for 36 years
and is responsible operator.
(+) Fareka – neighbor
- She is here to show her support to John Luna.
(+) Darek Boyle
- In the 4 years he has been working in the
South of Market area he has not had any problems with the club.
(+) Kevin – neighbor
- In the South of Market, socializing is done mostly in clubs.
- He supports this project.
(-) Daniel Dabcosky
- He is a native San Franciscan and is faced
with a situation. He has worked
hard his entire life to pursue the American dream and acquire a piece of
property about 3 years ago. He purchased
a 4-unit building with his entire life savings.
This property is located right across from the Border Cantina.
- He knows that the area is zoned mixed use
yet he opposes this proposal.
- When he purchased his property the noise level
in the area was tolerable.
- Several new clubs have opened so the noise
has become intolerable.
- He has called the police about 10 to 12 times.
- The livelihood of all the residents has become
quite difficult.
- There are times when he has not been able
to sleep until about 3:00 a.m. This
makes it quite difficult for a person to function if they have to get up
the next day to go to work.
ACTION: Approved with amended hours: allow dancing and amplified entertainment from
Sunday through Thursday until 2:00 a.m. and from Friday and Saturday until
4:00 a.m.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Fay,
Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION No. 16157
11. 2001.0252C
(FU: 558-6613)
1218
SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - west side between 23rd and 24th Streets, Lot
67 in Assessor's Block 3642. Request
for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.3(g),
and 209.3(h) and pursuant to Planning Code Section 303, to allow the conversion
of a convalescent home into an elementary and secondary school in an RM-2
(Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk
designation.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of May 3, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Charles Bloszies
– Project Architect/Sponsor
- The most recent use of
this facility was its original and only use since 1965.
- The proposed use is less
intensive.
- The physical building
is perfect for the school. There
will be no major changes done to the building.
No changes to the exterior.
- The conditions of approval
are fine with the project sponsor.
- Both the building and
the location are ideal for the school.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Fay,
Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION NO. 16158
12. 1998.927C
(WONG: 558-6381)
40 Woodward Street - west side between Dubose and 14th Streets,
Lot 048 in Assessor’s Block 3532. Request for Conditional Use Authorization
to renew a nonconforming use (storage warehouse) under Planning Code Section
185 in a RM-1 (Residential, Mixed) Zoning and a 50-X Height/Bulk District.
No construction, alteration, expansion of the existing building or
use is proposed.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Disapproval
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Mark Deong - Project Sponsor
- He wrote a letter and
wanted to make sure that the Commission received the letter.
- He could not do anything
to the property right now, just use it as it has been used.
- The garage door doesn't
even work.
- He hopes that the Commission
considers his situation.
- If he is not able to
use the property for what he intends to do, it will not be beneficial for
the City.
- He would like to develop
this property for housing.
ACTION: Project Disapproved
EXCUSED: Chinchilla
AYES: Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
NAYES: Baltimore
MOTION
NO. 16159
13.
2001.0363C
(WONG: 558-6381)
1212 THOMAS
AVENUE - north side between Ingalls and Hawes Avenues; Lot 029 in Assessor’s
block 4792. Request for Conditional
Use Authorization to demolish a 14,000 square foot industrial building which
involves the displacement of a production, distribution or repair business
in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk
District, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 14861. The subject property falls within the IPZ (Industrial
Protection Zone) buffer of the interim zoning controls for industrially
zoned lands. The State of California
has issued an abatement order to demolish the building in order to remediate
contaminated soil on both the subject and adjacent properties.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Barbara Cook – California
Department of Toxic Substance Control
- Her department has approved
two plans, which require the excavation of contaminated soil from the 1212
Thomas Avenue as well as the residential properties and a vacant lot.
- The plans ask for all
contaminated soil to be removed.
- The building must be
demolished because the excavation of the soil must be of varying depths
and she wants to be sure that it's done safely, effectively and quickly.
- This demolition permit
and conditional use permit must be issued quickly in order to begin the
work.
- The requirement is that
no heavy equipment be used. Their
intent was that the project sponsor not come out with a big bulldozer since
it's near other structures and fences separating residential structures.
(+) Nicholas van Aelstyn
- Attorney
- He is representing the
Bay Area Drum Ad Hoc PRP Group
- As Ms. Cook indicated
that group has entered into an agreement to implement the cleanup of the
property as well as the eight adjoining residential properties.
- The buildings and the lot next to it contain piles of drums. Behind the pile of drums are the eight residential
properties.
- The community has been
demanding this clean up for many years.
- There has been thorough
public comment and communication. There
have been countless meetings with neighbors, public organizations, etc.
- They seek approval in
order to implement the plans. It
is critical; otherwise, the work will not be done before the rains come.
(+) Jim Cantrell
- He is here to support
the demolitions. He is one of the
residents that abut this particular property.
His biggest concern is that he is the grandfather of 8 children and
they cannot play in his back yard.
- There have been some
obstacles but he hopes that the Commission will approve the project.
(+) Gladys Madison
- She is a resident near
this site. There are 8 families
in the back of the project site. She
was able to see all the undesirable things that went on. Her late husband used to ask the owner of the property to cover
all the barrels because there were children near by.
- The time is up and something
needs to be done.
- Now the responsible people
want to do the cleanup.
- The job needs to go on
because no one wants to live around these chemicals.
(+) Maverick H. Madison
- He would like to show
support of demolition to this building.
- It is time to do the
clean up. They have been poisoned
for many years.
- They had no idea what
the various types of chemicals were on the site.
- The building needs to
come down in order to do thorough cleanup.
- He asks the Commission
to use their good judgment and show concern to the residents of this area.
- This clean up is absolutely
necessary.
- There are a number of
cases of asthma and breast cancer among the residents of this area.
(+) Raymond Jack, Jr.
- His father purchased
a property in this area.
- He grew up playing in
toxic substances and didn't even know it.
- He hopes that the Commission
supports the demolition of this building so that there can be toxic clean
up.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Salinas, Theoahris
MOTION
NO. 16160
14. 2000.1244C
(SANCHEZ: 558-6679)
2489-2491 WASHINGTON STREET - southeast
corner at Fillmore Street; Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 0612. Request for Conditional Use Authorization
pursuant to Section 718.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of three
antennas within one 6.25 inch wide by 57 inch high cylinder flagpole and
an equipment shelter within the basement of an existing two-story, wholly
commercial building, as part of Sprint PCS's wireless telecommunications
network within the Upper Fillmore Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD)
and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As
per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Transmission Services
(WTS) Facilities Sitting Guidelines the proposal is a Preference 6.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Robert Krebs – Representing Project Sponsor – Sprint PCS
- The building is entirely commercial and is located in the Upper
Fillmore district.
- Licensed professional engineer, Dane Erickson from Hammet and Erickson,
is here to answer any questions.
- The conditional use petition for this location complies with the
WTS Guidelines, the San Francisco Municipal Code and the Federal Communication's
Commission Radio Frequency Emissions Standards.
- Under the WTS Guidelines, the design is visually unobtrusive since
the antennas will be located inside a flagpole and the equipment will be
located in the basement.
- All sites of a high preference were considered but they were not
technologically feasible or were not available for lease.
- This installation will ensure emergency communications when LAN
lines are not working. Will increase
the safety for visitors and residents of San Francisco.
- Two community outreach meetings were held.
532 owners and tenants and 6 neighborhood organizations were contacted
in 3 languages. No one attended
the first meeting and 3 members of the community attended the 2nd
meeting.
(-) Kate Jones – Body/Mind Movement
- She lives at ground zero!
- The announcement for the installation of these antennas comes in
the most un-descriptive envelope. Only
someone is very diligent about opening their mail would be able to notice
these communications.
- She is a health care practitioner and is very concerned about the
health hazards of these waves transmitted by these antennas.
- There are more and more reports being published about complaints
by people who have been exposed to these antennas.
(+) Sue Hestor
- Is the area of coverage Sacramento to Broadway to Steiner to Buchanan
– that's 15 blocks?
- When the first hearings were held regarding antennas and the amount
of antennas that would be needed to cover the city, people were saying that
there would be thousands of antennas.
- If the areas of coverage of one of these antennas are 15 blocks,
the density of antennas would be a lot.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION No. 16161
15. 2001.0164T
(YOUNG: 558-6346)
ORDINANCE ADDING AN ALTERNATIVE
PROCEDURE FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPEALS - Consideration of an amendment to Planning Code Section
308.1 to authorize an additional conditional use appeal procedure wherein
four members of the Board of Supervisors may subscribe to a conditional
use appeal. Testimony and Commission
considerations could result in recommendations of modifications to the proposed
legislation.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Supervisor Peskin
- He appreciates the opportunity to address the Commission on this
important legislation.
- He is here to explain the legislation introduced in early February.
- He would like to thank the Department and staff for all the help
on the number of issues.
- This ordinance would expand the way conditional uses are appealed
to the Board of Supervisors. As
staff described, it would allow 4 Supervisors to bring a conditional use
appeal to bring it to the Board of Supervisors.
- He has always found that as neighborhood leader and a supervisor
that the code is problematic since tenants and business owners have no recourse
to appeal a conditional use under the current code.
- Opponents of this legislation have raised various questions.
- He is prepared to introduce an amendment to the Board of Supervisors
that would provide a sunset clause to the legislation.
- It is important to know that he is not trying to change the super
majority of the Board.
- His office is well aware of how long it takes for this legislation
to become law.
- He is happy to make all of this clear so that there are no misunderstandings.
(-) Ken Cleveland – Building Owners and Managers Association
- This is an issue that is very big to property owners across the
city.
- He agrees with President Theoharis that there is an adequate procedure
going on right now. If there needs
to be some tweaking of this process that's fine.
But to add the ability of 4 supervisors to appeal a conditional use
decision adds incredible uncertainty to a process that is already uncertain.
We don't need to raise costs we need to lower costs.
- It is outrageous. The current
conditional use process works. It
allows input from all the residents of San Francisco.
- Enacting this would devalue the real estate.
(+) Ann Ronce
- She urges the Commission to support Supervisor Peskin's legislation.
- In her neighborhood, Nob Hill, thousands of people opposed a very
controversial conditional use permit. Virtually
none of those people were able to appeal the Commission's decision.
- Some of the abuses that the Commission is worried about exist under
the current regulations.
- She is surprised to know that the Commission thinks that there
is a lack of evidence.
- She would like the Commission to reconsider and approve this legislation.
(+) Tho Do – Secretary/Treasurer of Local 2 Union
- She is here to speak on behalf of the union and to speak on behalf
of Supervisor Peskin.
- She and the Union believe that the procedure that shut out the
renters and the workers who live in different areas.
The union believes that they are empowering workers in the workplace
to have a voice and make changes in their working conditions. They encourage that same right in their neighborhoods
and where they live.
- They encourage the Commission to acknowledge this and to pass this
legislation.
(-) Frank Notu – Golden Gate Heights Neighborhood Association
- They have 500 dues-paying members.
They are concerned that this legislation will put more power to the
BOS at the expense of neighbors. They
have some serious objections. Although
the Supervisors might have good intentions, there are some real problems
here. This legislation applies to both approvals
and disapprovals.
- There was a question if this legislation was a power-grab. He doesn't see any reason for taking power
from neighborhood property owners and giving it to 4 supervisors.
- A developer can come to 4 supervisors to appeal a decision. There is nothing in the legislation, which
prevents this.
- He has no problems with renters and appeals.
- Neighborhood homeowners have few rights when it comes to land use
decisions. He doesn't think that
it's right to dilute these rights and give it to the BOS.
(+) Jerry Crowley – President of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers Association
- This organization has just fewer than 800 members. There are tenants, owners and business owners in the membership.
- She is here representing the entire membership.
- When conditional use authorizations
are considered the code requires that it be beneficial to businesses nearby,
tenants and owners. When it comes
to an appeal only property owners have that option.
- She urges the Commission to consider that there must be a democratic
process and have the ability to appeal.
(+) Robert McCarthy – McCarthy and Swartz – on behalf of 450 Sutter
Partners
- Although this might come as a shock to the Commissioners but he
agrees with Supervisor Peskin.
- This is an issue about due process and this is an issue about fairness.
- There are only 34 projects involved in the retroactivity.
- There should absolutely be fairness.
- Ms. Crowly mentioned it – we need democracy.
- There are projects on the list that are involved in this retroactivity
that have no opposition at all.
- This is about the confidence of people.
(+) Peter Sotos – Vice President Harsch Investments
- They are the owners of 450 Sutter Street.
- Turner Construction is a 100-year firm, all union shop. He is very troubled about the retroactivity
of the legislation.
- He was outraged about this legislation.
(-) Joel Yodowitz – Reuben and Alter
- San Francisco's existing conditional use process is geared to allow
those most affected by conditional use authorizations those within 300 feet
of a project to appeal the Commission's decision weather pro or con to the
BOS.
- The proposed amendment will undercut this fundamental aspect of
conditional uses, which gives the largest voice to the subject property's
neighbors.
- The proposed amendment will undercut the authority of the Planning
Department to consider land use and zoning matters.
- It would allow delays and uncertainties to the planning process. This would discourage development and economic
growth.
- He urges the Commission to disapprove this legislation.
(+) Alice Barkley
- She is a renter so she has no right to sign a petition.
- She recommends that 20% of the tenants within 300 degree radius.
- Right now, an applicant who is denied by this Commission cannot
go to the BOS, he has to go out and get 20%.
This should be corrected so that all stakeholders have a right to
it.
- She believes that the problems regarding time and energy are that
it takes a lot of energy to organize something.
- Because staff and Supervisor Peskin stated that there is an amendment,
the language is not before the public, a due process requires that this
language be communicated.
(+) Sue Hestor
- It is hard to represent low-income tenants and tell them they can't
appeal a decision that goes against them at the Commission. She has been telling them that for the past 20 years.
- Every one of the Commissioners lives in an RH-1 and RH-2 zones. People in these zones have multiple rights.
- It is justice for people who live in renter dense areas. They can't get to the BOS.
- The policies of prop M are also in the General Plan.
- Right now it only takes one person to appeal those projects. One person with a $100.00 fee can appeal a
case to the Board of Appeals.
- She has not been able to take anything downtown to the BOS.
- She thinks it's grossly unfair.
(+) John Bartis
- He has seen this process over the last 30 years and sees that it
works.
- Someone who is a property owner and happens to do something with
his or her property can get it done.
- Who has the super right? The
person who files the application?
- The Commission can make changes to the legislation form Supervisor
Peskin. But he recommends that the BOS rewrite the
legislation.
- He urges the Commission not to reject this.
(+) John Barbey
- He recently filed a conditional use that they had to gather signatures
for. Though the area has a lot of
absentee landlords, they almost miraculously got unanimous signatures from
the owners.
- It seems appropriate to him that the tenants and the business owners
have a say in the same way. He commends
this legislation.
ACTION: Legislation Disapproved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla,
Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
RESOLUTION NO. 16162
16. 2001.0175T
(YOUNG: 558-6346)
ORDINANCE ADDING REGULATIONS GOVERNING MERGER
OF DWELLING UNITS Consideration of Amendments to the Planning Code to
add a new Section 303(h), requiring conditional use approval for the merger
of dwelling units. Testimony and Commission considerations could result
in recommendations of modifications to the proposed legislation.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
(+) John Henry Cruz – Office of Supervisor Gonzalez
- This legislation is something that they have taken a lead on from
the Commission.
- These are things that this body usually considers: how the removal of the unit would affect the housing stock; how
hardship on displacement are minimized; if replacement of the units is proposed;
if the removal of the unit would bring a building to a closer conformity
of the prevailing unit density; if removal of the unit is necessary to correct
design or functional deficiencies; if removal of the unit is necessary to
preserve or rehabilitate the structure; whether that unit is intended for
the occupancy of the actual owner and/or any other criteria deemed appropriate.
(-) Robert McCarthy
- This caught his attention because he was here for another reason.
- He is a father of 5 children.
He was able to purchase a house to accommodate his large family.
- It is very difficult to justify the proposal as currently drafted
on the basis that it doesn't amount to consistency with the general plan.
- This discourages families from being able to stay in San Francisco.
- This needs to be studied further.
San Francisco is a very wonderful and diverse city with many immigrant
families.
- The real issue is that it's an expensive process.
- This needs a little bit more work and needs some fine-tuning.
(-) Patricia Vaughey
- The dialogue
should be kept open on this.
- She has seen both sides of the story.
She has seen someone with a lot of money Ellis Act a building and
the case gets scheduled three weeks later.
If a young family comes to the department to get their case before
the Commission, it gets scheduled months later.
- The average cost of a house in San Francisco is $420,000. She is very sad about this because there are
a lot of people who cannot afford this.
- She has to look at both sides.
- There is an inequity with the current legislation and there is
an inequity with this legislation.
(-) Jim Cassio
- He was introduced to the Commission in December when there was
a decision made for an mandatory Discretionary Review on a dwelling unit
merger. Last Monday, he was watching a Board of Supervisor's
meeting and Supervisor Gonzalez spoke about dwelling unit mergers.
- What the Commission is doing about Discretionary Reviews for dwelling
unit mergers is a bad idea.
- But then he thought that the Commission needs to know when units
are taken off the market because of dwelling unit mergers.
- Please vote no on this legislation since he believes that the Commission
has this under control.
(-) Alice Barkley
- She is glad that the office of Supervisor Gonzalez seems to be
willing to continue this issue to study it further.
- She has a problem with this legislation since filling out conditional
use applications takes an enormous amount of time.
- Homeowners should not have to hire a lawyer to come before the
Commission because they have a family need.
- Most applicants that come before the Commission have a real need
as far as quality of life.
- There are many items in this legislation that she needs to have
explained.
- There are another criteria that are so vague that it needs to be
thought about further.
- She hopes that the office of the Supervisor gives some clarification.
(-) Brett Gladstone
- It is interesting that he is the third permit attorney that is
opposed to this legislation.
- He doesn't think that the Board of Supervisor's staff can spend
the amount of time necessary for each case like Planning Department staff.
ACTION: Legislation Disapproved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION NO. 16163
E. SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 7:20 PM the Planning Commission convened
into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.
17. 2001.0198D
(NIKITAS: 558-6306)
25 RICO WAY - between Avila Street and
Retiro Way, Lot 0439A in Assessor's Block 052. Request for Discretionary
Review of Building Permit Application
No. 2000/11/03/4794. The proposal
is to demolish an existing two-story residence and construct a new three-story
single-family home in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District
and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve project as revised
by the project sponsor.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 26, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) James Meyers
- He lives on Rico Way.
- Rico Way is a street scape of 1920s Mediterranean style home.
- In Ms. Barkley's letter she included on the last page a 3-dimensional
diagram, which shows the project as smaller than the other buildings. This diagram is quite misleading.
- He displayed the same diagram but drew the proposed project to scale.
- This project is a poster child for disruptive design.
- He displayed a map of Rico Way, which shared the homes which signed a
statement of opposition or submitted statements where it stated that they
were mislead by being told that the DR requestors were in agreement with
the project.
(-) Richard Dike
- He is not here to oppose the construction but to look for a compromise
on the elevator shaft.
- It is not only that it greatly obstructs their view of the Golden Gate
Bridge and the Marin Headlands but it also obstructs their sunlight from
the west that hits the back of the house and their yard where their children
play.
- He understands about expansion since he just had some expansion done
to his house.
- He would just like the elevator shaft removed.
(-) Kelley (last name unclear)
- She is the other neighbor mentioned in Ms. Barkley's letter.
- She doesn't believe that this construction belongs in the Marina.
- During a community meeting, the planner stated that the elevator shaft
was not in contention.
- At the time the request was made, the elevator shaft had been taken out.
It is her impression that the elevator shaft is an issue with all
the neighbors.
- She had requested story poles so that they can prove that the elevator
shaft would be an obstruction to the neighbors.
- She is a big believer that everyone should cooperate with one another
since all the homes in the Marina are so close together.
(-) Barbara Rogers
- She is here in opposition of the proposed structure.
- She is a 25 year resident of San Francisco. Although she does not live in the Marina she works there taking
care of children. Even though they are very young children, they do know
that the Marina is a beautiful district.
- The design is not keeping with the guidelines.
- If this project is approved, there will be other houses that will want
to follow.
- She read a letter from a neighbor who is opposed to the project and was
not able to attend the hearing.
(-) Carolyn Ganini
- Her opposition of this construction stems from the fact that she feels
in recent year much has been done to diminish the look of the Marina Gardens.
It has taken away from the character of the neighborhood.
- She has seen a change in the homes, which have been allowed to go up.
- After the Loma Prieta earthquake, she had to do many alternations to
her home.
- Many changes have been good since many homes have kept the façade.
- This construction is not architecturally or aesthetically acceptable.
- She would like to keep the look of Rico Way.
- The City has taken upon a project to keep the architectural heritage
of the libraries.
(-) Lois Beldochi
- She is interested in neighborhood preservation.
- She is involved in maintaining historic sites and belongs to a preservation
organization.
- She has two units on 18th Street, which runs into Market.
- She received notice that right next to that unit on 18th Street
there was a large unit being built. She
became tired of fighting it and the large unit went up.
- She bolted down her façade on her house in the Marina. She dreads another earthquake.
- In Spain, when you want to add to your house you must keep the façade.
(-) Joe O'Donahue
- Residential builders rebuilt many of the homes in the Marina.
- He has lived in the Marina and knows the sensitivity of the residents.
- This design should really be brought back to the drawing board.
- He does not mean that it needs to be exactly the way it was but it should
be similar to the character of the neighborhood.
(-) Catherine Certavitch
- She read a letter from a neighbor who is against the project and could
not attend the hearing.
(+) Alice Barkley – Representing Project Sponsor
- There is a photo in the case packet, which shows the whole bock face.
It is quite obvious that there are very diverse buildings and façades
on the street.
- The design, which was revised and recommended by staff, has an additional
detail. She has asked the homeowner
to add another cornice line. This
will be an improvement and an additional detail.
- There are two issues here; one is whether the façade is appropriate.
The other issue is the penthouse.
- They chose the elevator shaft instead of a stair penthouse since a stair
penthouse would be much larger and much longer. The project sponsor chose to put a circular staircase in the back
even though it will be difficult to move furniture up there.
- The elevator shaft will be an impairment of the view but not a total
blockage.
(+) Louis Butler – Project Architect
- The ceiling heights on the building are 10 feet on the top floor and
over 11 feet on the main floor and 8 feet on the bottom floor.
- The building is 35 feet high. The
elevator shaft is 10 feet high.
- One of the nice things about working with Ms. Barkley is that she covered
all the important points.
- When soil is re-compacted on the site, it needs to be pressure grabbed
and that takes a lot of machinery. It
also takes a lot of machinery to build a three-foot thick floating slab. This is required because it's an unstable location.
- With respect to the façade, they have followed the code and neighborhood
design guidelines to the letter.
- They looked at the buildings in the neighborhood and there was quite
a variety. He feels that the building
will be a nice addition to the block.
- What the Commissioners see on paper is entirely correct.
(+) Rebecca Schumacker – Project Sponsor
- She apologizes for being here today since she hoped she and the DR requestor
could have come to an agreement.
- The so called marina style is not just one particular type of style.
- The Spanish tile that her neighbor is requesting to incorporate to the
new construction, can be found in various neighborhoods of this City.
(+) Patricia Schumacker
- She read a letter from a neighbor who is in support of the construction
but could not attend the hearing because of surgery.
(+) Guido Piccinini
- He came to this country in 1950 from Tuscany with his parents and sister.
He is a retired restaurant owner and he and his wife are trying to
have a home where they will be the rest of their lives.
The idea of the elevator is because as they get older, it will become
more difficult for them to climb up the stairs.
- His mother will come to live with them as well.
- He would like to clear up some misconceptions. He went door to door to
show the original design to all their neighbors.
- There are many facts that have been misrepresented in the petition.
- They have a design that is within code and fits the neighborhood character.
There are people here that want to design their house for them but
he is putting his faith in the system and hopes that the Commission will
approve his case.
ACTION: Continued to June 14, 2001 to revise
design of façade. Public Hearing
is closed but will reopened for comments on revised design only.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas,
Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
18.
2001.0192DD
(SMITH: 558-6322)
240 SAN FERNANDO WAY - west side of the street between Monterey Boulevard and Darien Way, Lot
004A in Assessor's Block 3251 request for Discretionary Review of Building
Permit Application No. 2000/09/25/1401, proposing to construct a one-story
vertical addition, infill portions of the building footprint, and alter
the front facade of an existing single-family dwelling located in a RH-1
(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached)
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary
Review and approve the project as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Stephen Murphy – 1st DR Requestor
- He lives across the street from the subject
house for about 8 years.
- There was list of signatures opposing the
project that was not included in the packet that went to the Commissioners.
This was a grievous error since the planner stated that the neighbors
support this project.
- He displayed a map that shows the block where
the subject property is.
- There have been various neighbors who oppose
the project.
- They take great issue with this project for
several reasons. He is not opposed
to his neighbor constructing an addition to his house. Yet, it is not justifiable to construct an addition and double the
square footage just because there was water in the basement.
- This neighborhood was designed with strict
guidelines and rules.
- There are walking easements, which are wide.
The houses have a variety of styles yet there is consistency.
These styles include the way the entire neighborhood is structured.
- His primary objection with this construction
is that his neighbor fails to take into account the consistent context of
Balboa Terrace. By adding a second
story on a prominent block, he is changing the character of the neighborhood.
- There are neighbors here who live in the vicinity
and the architect will speak today.
(-) Stanley Markel – 2nd DR Requestor
- He lives on San Benito Way. He purchased his home in 1994. Not having an architectural background it is
hard for him to explain things without architectural language.
- If one walks around in the neighborhood, one
can see that there is certain similarity in all the homes in the area.
- It is the character of the neighborhood, which
he would like to preserve.
- The reasons he opposes the project is that:
1) the home breaks with the adjacent homes; 2) It also breaks with the character
of the area.
- There was a project in Santa Ana Street, which
was different from the other homes, and stands out from the rest of the
homes.
- He retained two architects just to be able
to describe how the homes look in Balboa Terrace.
- Adding a second story to a home where the
adjacent homes are only one story, will be an inconsistent volume and mass.
(-) Martin Herrman
- He owns
a home on San Fernando Way. He would
like to state that he has been doing construction on his home by putting
foundation because of water damage. He
is in full support of having construction on their homes.
- Any addition to the project sponsor's home
is fine but that it falls within reason.
- Someone doubling the size of his or her house
is just not right. The square footage
of the home is doubling on a small lot.
- His issue is the size of the house.
(-) Gerald Bernstein
- He lives on San Fernando Way. He has lived at this address for 16 years.
He has made minor renovation to his house with neighbor's compliments
and not complaints.
- His concerns are that the house needs work
but a more compatible design would be more acceptable.
- He hopes that the Commission grants a Discretionary
Review or a continuance so that the design can be revised.
- The uphill houses are two stories or 1½.
The downhill side are the one stories.
- The proposed change in Mr. Lee's house takes
him square footage wise to be the largest house on the block.
(-) Patty Murphy
- She
read a letter from a next-door neighbor to the project sponsor who is against
the project but was not able to attend the hearing because of the short
notice.
(-) Bob Olsen
- He lives
on Balboa Terrace about three blocks away from the subject property. He is past board member of the Balboa Terrace
Association so he is very much in favor of keeping the character of the
neighborhood.
- His house was considered to be a one story
yet the back of the house looks like a two story house.
- He chose to maintain the neighborhood character
and not alienate his neighbors.
(-) Chris McMahon - Architect
- He lives on Eureka Street and is a licensed
architect. He wrote a letter, which
he submitted, to the Commissioners.
- The proposed design is the most insensitive
design since it is not in keeping with the rest of the homes.
(+) David Lee – Project Sponsor
- He just heard all his neighbors speak and
wishes he could have heard them two years ago.
It is very important to him and to his family to build this addition.
He understands that it is important to his neighbors as well.
- Two years ago when he acquired the property,
he was aware that the house was in bad shape and that there was a stream
running below the house.
- He sent letters inviting his neighbors to
come to his house to sit and talk about the plans he had for his house.
- He made a presentation to the CC&R committee
and they gave him an approval.
- The Balboa Terrace community has an annual
meeting; two thirds of the neighbors voted these DR's applicants out of
the board.
- This was difficult for him because he has
gone through numerous revisions.
- Another problem he has had was to conform
to Planning Department requirements. He
argues and protests, because he made many revisions based on neighbor's
comments. Staff mentioned to him
that the design was still not in conformance.
- He does not know when this will end. When he found out all the neighbors who were
opposed, he went to mediation to try to resolve the issues. He wants peace.
(+) Michael Jones – Vice President of the
Balboa Terrace Homeowners Association
- He appreciates the comments made by the Commission
regarding the letter dated January 21. The association has very limited authority over what can be done
in the neighborhood. They are going
to consider having more stringent authority.
The letter was issued only to inform the owner that the project doesn't
violate any of the deed restrictions.
- Very recently there was an effort made by
a board member to mediate between the neighbors and Mr. Lee but it was not
successful.
- There are homes in the neighborhood that were
built in the 50s and 40s. They do
want to preserve the character of the neighborhood.
- Mr. Lee has made an effort to keep the design
compatible with neighboring buildings.
(+) Yevgeniy Bogodist
- He is a resident of San Fernando Way. His home was built in 1927. This is a very old style. He supports Mr. Lee's proposed design because
old style is old style. It's ok
to renovate buildings.
- Mr. Lee's house has many damaged areas.
- The neighborhood is supposed to be better.
If no one improves his or her homes, it will not become a better
neighborhood.
- He will also want to improve his home eventually.
- San Leandro Street has many similar buildings.
(+) Robert Lin
- He lives on Santa Ana Street. He is here to support Mr. Lee's project.
He didn't know that everyone pointed the finger at him.
When he came to this country with 3 family members.
Now his family has grown so he expanded his home.
- After he built his expansion, his neighbors
did not complain.
- It is a good thing to upgrade your house since
we are living in an earthquake zone.
- This is a free country and everyone has to
compromise. There are many large
families here.
(+) Shao Lin Kao
- An interpreter read her letter to the Commission.
She is in support of the project.
(+) Alex Lee
- His father is the project sponsor.
- They sent out 3 notifications to the neighbors
surrounding their house.
- They have gone through 30 revisions.
- The current design of the proposed construction
will not block any sunlight from their neighbors.
(+) Eddie Chen
- He has lived in San Francisco for about 8
years. He hears a lot of stories
and finally he heard a story
- He is very angry about all the problems going
on.
1st ACTION: Do not take DR and approve project with a
requirement of Special Restrictions.
2nd ACTION: Action was rescinded: Take DR to revise design of building and require
a Notice of Special Restrictions.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas
NAYES: Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
19a. 2000.138DV
(WANG: 558-6335)
4038 17TH STREET
- north side
between Castro and Douglass Streets, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block
2623. Request of Discretionary Review
of Building Demolition Permit Application No. 9814005 and Building Permit
Application No. 9814006, to demolish an existing one‑story over garage,
single‑family dwelling and construct a new three‑story over
garage, three‑family dwelling in an RH‑3 (Residential, House,
Three‑Family) District and a 40‑X Height and Bulk District.
Note: This project was previously heard by the Commission on April 6, 2000. Following public testimony, the Commission moved to continue the
hearing indefinitely, so the Project Sponsor could develop a design that
(1) does not require demolition of the existing structure; (2) retains
a substantial portion of the front part of the Victorian house; and (3)
allows three dwelling units to be
constructed on the site. The revised project proposes to relocate the
existing building facade both forward and at a lower elevation than the
existing location, demolish the remaining structure behind the facade and
construct a three‑story over garage, three‑family dwelling addition
behind the preserved facade. The revised project would also require the
justification of a rear yard variance, which will be heard by the Zoning
Administrator concurrently with the discretionary review.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Because the revised project has been determined to be a demolition by the
Department of Building Inspection under the Building Code, it is, therefore,
inconsistent with the Commission's instructions as communicated on April
6, 2000.
SPEAKER(S):
Regarding
Request for Continuance:
(+) Amanda
C. Leuis - Attorney
- She
is requesting that the Commission grant a continuance so that she can become
familiar with this case since she was just recently hired.
- She
believes that as she becomes familiar with this case, she will be able to
resolve it favorably.
- She
agrees with the continuance date of June 7, 2001.
(-) Judith
Hoyem – DR Requestor
- She
would like to say that under normal circumstances the Commissioners would
grant a continuance with no problem. But
this is not normal circumstance since firing an attorney at the last meeting
before a hearing is not a good-faith gesture.
- There
is no evidence that the project sponsor has any good faith intentions.
- The
new attorney has indicated to her that the project sponsor now wants to
sit down and try to resolve the issues.
This is something that she has wanted to do since the beginning.
- She
would like for the project sponsor to talk to her and meet with her.
(-) Andrew
Laws
- He
came from southern Arizona for this hearing.
- He
feels that this is an incredible stressful ordeal for his mother to go through.
- He
would like some sort of guidelines and be done with project that does not
conform.
(-) Gustavo
Cerena – Corresponding Secretary – Eureka Valley Promotion Association
- He
supports Judith Hoyem's concern that a continuance will not show any more
good faith from the project sponsor.
- Many
people have taken time off to come and speak today and their time should
be honored.
(-) Mark
Riser – Twin Peaks East Neighborhood Association
- He
supports the request for continuance as articulated by Ms. Hoyem.
- They
have been incredulous from the beginning.
(-) Ann
Ferrar
- She
just rushed here to be involved at the hearing.
- A little
less than a year ago there was a hearing for the project and the Commission
made a decision yet the project sponsor did not honor that decision.
- This
does not seem like a very democratic process.
It is hard to bring all these people again to testify.
- This
is just not right.
(-) Steve
Bartoletti
- He
did not come prepared to speak.
- All
of the people here have taken time out of their busy lives to come here.
- The
old attorney is standing just outside of the hearing room and he is very
much able to come inside and have the hearing.
- The
new plans have nothing to do with what the Commission's decision was.
ACTION: Without Hearing. Continued to June 7, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Salinas, Theoharis
19b. 2000.0138DV
(WANG: 558-6335)
4038 17TH STREET - north side between Castro and Douglass
Streets; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 2623 in an RH‑3 (Residential,
House, Three‑Family) District and a 40‑X Height and Bulk District. REAR YARD VARIANCE SOUGHT: Subject to Discretionary Review by the
Planning Commission, the current proposal is to relocate the existing building
facade both forward and at a lower elevation than the existing sitting,
demolish the existing one‑story over garage, single‑family dwelling
behind the facade and construct a new three‑story over garage, three‑family
dwelling behind the preserved facade of the existing building.
SPEAKER(S): See previous item.
ACTION: See previous item.
G. 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))
Patricia Vaughey
Creative Graphics from the Department
- She has seen something in the last few weeks that has her disturbed –
it's called creative graphics to the Department. She has montages, tiles, new roofs; she has seen a whole streetscape.
With computer graphics, be careful.
With computer graphics, be careful, because they are extremely creative.
She feels very sorry because it's going to be hard to catch any differences.
(did not state name)
Wawona Street
- She owns a home on Block 2482. There
was an application for a permit on a home which is touching her property
and visible by her property. She has a utility pole, which is located in
her property.
- There were no 311 notices. The
reasoning was that the addition was within the envelope of the home.
- She believes that this construction is not permitted. In 1978 there was a permit taken out for the
lower story of this home. PG&E
had to reroute their lines.
- She displayed a picture of how close the utility lines are to her house.
- She has a 3R report.
Adjournment: 10:15 p.m.
THE DRAFT
MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2001.
