Meeting
Minutes
Commission
Chambers - Room 400
City
Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday,
May 24, 2001
1:30
PM
Regular
Meeting
PRESENT:
Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
THE MEETING WAS CALLED
TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:40 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green, Director of Planning;
Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Amit Gosh; Dan Sider; Matt Snyder; Elizabeth
Gordon; Nora Priego, Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery, Commission Secretary
A.
ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1. 2000.1165B
(BRESSANUTTI: 558-6892)
2 HENRY ADAMS STREET - west
side, between Division Street and Alameda Street; Lot 1 in Assessor’s Block
3910. Request under Planning Code Sections 320-322 for project authorization
of an office development consisting of the conversion of up to 49,900 square
feet in an existing building (San Francisco Design Center) from wholesale
design showroom space to office space. This notice shall also set forth an
initial determination of the net addition of gross square feet of office space,
pursuant to Planning Code Section 313.4. The subject property is located
in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District and the Industrial Protection Zone,
and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Continued from Regular Meeting
of April 19, 2001)
(Proposed for Continuance
to June 14, 2001 June 28, 2001)
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: Continued to June 28, 2001
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
2. 2001.0015Z
(WOODS: 558-6315)
1052 OAK STREET
- north side, between Divisadero and Scott Streets, Lot 5 in Assessor's
Block 1216 - Request for reclassification of a portion (approximately 3,136
square feet) of Lot 5 (a part of the Touchless Car Wash site) from NC-2 (Small-Scale
Neighborhood Commercial District) to RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family)
District. Currently, the entire lot area, approximately 4,199 square feet,
of Lot 5 is zoned NC-2. This reclassification is to allow the construction
of three new residential units, in accordance with Planning Commission Motion
No. 16036 relating to a conditional use authorization approved on November
16, 2000 to expand the car wash.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of the
Draft Resolution for Reclassification.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of May 3, 2001)
(Proposed for Continuance to June 21, 2001)
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: Continued to June 21, 2001
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
3. 2000.1190C
(SANCHEZ: 558-6679)
2801-2825
CALIFORNIA STREET - southwest corner at Divisadero Street; Lot 001 in
Assessor’s Block 1028 - Request for Conditional Use authorization
pursuant to Section 711.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of three
antennas and GPS receiver on the roof with related connection to an equipment
shelter within the basement of an existing three-story, mixed-use building,
as part of Sprint PCS’s wireless telecommunications network within an NC-2
(Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk
District. As per the City & County of San Francisco’s Wireless Telecommunications
Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location
Preference 5 as it is a mixed-use building within a high-density district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance
to June 21, 2001)
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: Continued to June 21, 2001
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
4. 2001.0150R
(ASSEFA: 558-6625)
20th STREET VACATION (aka 740 VERMONT
STREET) - Consideration of a proposal to vacate a portion of 20th Street
between Vermont and San Bruno Streets.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Finding proposal not in conformity with the General Plan.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May
17, 2001)
(Proposed for Continuance to June
21, 2001)
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: Continued to June 21, 2001
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
5. 2000.1061C
(MARTIN: 558-6616)
400 PAUL AVENUE - north side between Third Street and Bayshore
Boulevard, Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 5431A. Request for a Conditional-Use
Authorization to demolish an existing industrial building which has not been
vacant for more than fifteen months, in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District
and the Industrial Protection Zone, per Planning Commission Resolution No.
14861 and a 65-J Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April
24, 2001)
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: Continued Indefinitely
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
6. 2000.259KXV
(MILLER: 558-6344)
421 TURK STREET -
south side between Hyde and Larkin Streets, Lot 17 in Assessor’s Block
346 -- Request for Determination of Compliance pursuant to Section 309 with
respect to a proposal to construct an eight-story apartment building with
34 affordable dwelling units, involving an exception to the rear-yard standards
of the Planning Code (Section 134, et seq.) in a C-3-G (Downtown General
Commercial) D istrict and an 80-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed
project is also the subject of a requested Variance (Case No. 2000.259XVKE)
of the Planning Code standards for Dwelling-Unit Exposure (Section 140). Following Advertisement and Notification for this project,
the Sponsor has proposed a reduction in units to 29 total, and a reduction
in off-street parking spaces from 9 to seven, and the addition of accessory
space to be used for job counseling, all within the previously submitted building
envelope.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance
Continuance to June 7, 2001)
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: Continued to June 7, 2001
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
7. 2000.259KXV
(MILLER: 558-6344)
421
TURK STREET - south side between Hyde and Larkin Streets, Lot 17
in Assessor’s Block 346 –dwelling-unit exposure variance sought in conjunction
with the construction of an eight-story apartment building with 34 affordable
dwelling units, also involving a requested exception from the rear-yard standards
of the Planning Code pursuant to Code Sections 134, et seq., and 309,
in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and an 80-X Height and Bulk
District.
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance
Continuance to June 7, 2001)
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: Continued to June 7, 2001
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS
AND MATTERS
8. Commission Matters
Commissioner Theoharis: She would like for staff to contact
Ms. Voughey or the Alamo Association regarding Touchless Car Wash. There
have been several letters sent to her regarding conditions of approval that
have not been met.
C. DIRECTOR'S
REPORT
9. Director's Announcements
Re: Touchless Car Wash
The Director and the Zoning Administrator will look
into this matter and the letters and report to the Commission.
Re: New Environmental Review Officer
Ms. Hillary Gitelman left the Department a few months
ago. The Director is happy to announce that the new Officer of Environmental
Review will be Mr. Paul Maltzer.
10. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board
of Appeals
BOS
Re: Budget/Work Program
- The Department's budget and work program was before the Board's Housing, Land
Use and Transportation Committee.
- The issue was quite important and it required the Director, Zoning Administrator,
Amit Gosh and Ms. Diane Lim who is our fiscal person, to attend to respond
to questions that were raised.
- The Committee felt that it [our budget and work program] was relevant and
important to discuss.
- This process is a public process so there were members of the public that
were there.
- Supervisor McGoldrick had a series of questions and I (as the director) will
sit with him and try to respond to these questions.
- Although it's a little premature to go through all these discussions because
things change, but the amount of money we need to receive is quite important.
- When the Department knows how much revenue
we will actually be granted, we will have a better understanding of whether
or not we will be able to do all that the work program proposes to carry out.
At that point, we can then come to the Commission and try to resolve any conflicts.
- At least 3 hours were spent on this and how the Department implements the
Residential Design Guidelines.
- The hearing was an informational presentation
and no action was taken. There are still people who are dissatisfied with
the outcome of the hearing and expressed their frustrations about their expectations
of the process.
BOA (Isolde Wilson represented Larry Badiner at this hearing).
Re: 673 Clipper Street
The Commission approved this residential project
in Noe Valley in 1997. It was to contain 2 affordable units. Apparently
these units became rental after the project was bought by someone new who
had a different understanding. The original plan was for 60% of median but
the outcome was 120% of median income.
Re: Pier 39
When this project was approved, the areas of
public accessible open space were approved even though the spaces are privately
owned. In 1997 the Zoning Administrator at that time approved, as a temporary
use, a bungee jump concession. This issue came to the Zoning Administrator's
attention as a request for a permanent bungee jump concession. He sought the
advice of BCDC and they both decided that because there is a fee charged for
the activity, it is not public access. Although the Zoning Administrator
disagrees, the BOA decided that this was publicly accessible open space.
11.
(BAUMAN: 558-6287)
The Department is releasing a background
report, which will provide information needed for the upcoming revisions to
the Housing (Residence) Element of the General Plan. The Element is required
by the State of California, and will be completed by December 31, 2001. This
report, Part I of the Housing Element, contains housing data and an evaluation
of housing needs in San Francisco. The Department intends to share and discuss
this information with the public and with those who shape San Francisco’s
housing policy as the drafting of the Element’s objective and policies proceeds.
Part I is now available at the Department. Call 558-6282 to order a copy.
It is also available on the Department’s web site. The Commission will hold
a public hearing on this information and other housing policy issues in June
2001.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: No Action Required
D.
REGULAR CALENDAR
12. 2000.1058E
(DEAN: 558-5980)
1598
DOLORES STREET - (Reilly’s Funeral Home), located at the northwest
corner of Dolores and 29th Streets; Assessor's Block 6618; Lots 7, 9, 38
in Assessors Block 6618. 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 Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of May 10, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued Indefinitely
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim,
Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
13. 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 buildings 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
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of May 10, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued Indefinitely
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim,
Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
14. 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, 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
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of May 10, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Silverman
– Representing the Project Sponsor
- The property was constructed in
1958
- For many years the bottom floor
was used for light industrial.
- The existing use supports and is
compatible with the mixed-use
- There are no windows in the building and there
is no rear yard. Windows cannot be added because it would violate the building
code of property line windows. There are no parking spaces and no open space.
- This warehouse was built to the
lot lines.
- Granting this conditional use would
continue the status quo and promote the General Plan's policy of allowing
a viable, industrial firm to remain in the City.
- He is requesting the 20-year extension
since this building cannot be used for residential use and would have to be
torn down.
(+) Jack Greenwood
- He has been a resident of San Francisco
for 15 years.
- He lives very close to the property
site.
- He fully believes that Graphisoft
should be able to stay in San Francisco.
- The owners are trying to stay in
the City since most of their employees live in San Francisco.
- He hopes that the Commission approves
this project otherwise Graphisoft would have to relocate to another city.
- There are about 15 people employed
there.
(+) Edmundo Vito Cruz
- He has worked for Graphisoft for
over 7 years.
- He started to search for new office space in
February of 2000. His goal was to find something within their budget and
in San Francisco.
- He covered over 3,000 miles in various cities
surrounding San Francisco, and found out that they were up against various
other companies. This was not an easy task.
- They signed the lease agreement
in October on the location of Mississippi Street.
- Being in the same neighborhood,
this allows them to visit the same locations and clients.
(+) Noe Zavala
- He has been working for Graphisoft
for 5 years and is a homeowner in Potrero Hill.
- He rides his bike to work and it
is very advantageous for the company to remain in the neighborhood.
(+) Daniel Kon
- He was just hired by Graphisoft
and is very happy working there.
- He just moved to the City about
4 months ago.
- A lot of people are looking for
financial stability and this company is allowing him to live in the City.
- A lot of people are in similar situations
where they have to move away from the City because the company they work for
is also moving away.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim,
Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
MOTION: 16168
15. 2001.0204C
(SIDER: 558-6697)
832
FOLSOM STREET - northwest side of Folsom
Street between 4th and 5th Streets, being a through
lot to Clementina Street, Lot 17 in Assessor’s Block 3733: Request for Conditional
Use Authorization to allow (1) the establishment of social service space in
an RSD (Residential / Service) Mixed-Use District pursuant to Planning Code
Section 815.21 and 890.50(a), (2) a special height exemption to 85 feet per
Code Section 263.11, and (3) a bulk limit exception per Code Section 271,
in a 40-X / 85-B Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to construct up
to 1,500 new square-feet of social service space for use as administrative
office space by the Salvation Army within an existing 10-story office building.
The additions would enclose 1 existing terrace/deck each on the northeast
and northwest sides of the 5th floor of the structure. The proposed
additions would occur above the 40-foot base height limit and in excess of
the "B" bulk controls.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with Conditions.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Stephen Rajninger
- The report given by staff was very
through.
- He hopes that the Commission will
approve the project.
- He thanks staff for all their help.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim,
Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
MOTION: 16169
E. SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 3:00 PM
the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR)
Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.
16. 2000.375D
(M. SNYDER: 575-6891)
705 UTAH
STREET - a landlocked parcel bordered by parcels facing 19th Street to
its north, and San Bruno Avenue to its east, Lot 14 in Assessor's Block 4076.
Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit No. 2000/02/17/2203, proposing
to construct a two-unit residential building on a vacant lot, in an RH-2 (Residential,
House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of April 12, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Heather Villasenor
- She
would like to thank Commissioners Salinas and Theoharis for coming to a site
visit.
- There are various people here who
are opposed to the project because they will be impacted from this project.
- She believes that this site should
be rezoned.
- Many of these people are homeowners
and all have made large investments in their homes.
- The steep block on Utah Street and
it will make it impossible for people to get in and out of their homes.
- Invasion of privacy is of great
concern.
- The air quality is already terrible
since these homes are located near the freeway.
- They are worried about loosing the
trees on the block.
- Their street has 6 houses and one
large office building that takes over all the parking spaces.
- The loss of sunlight will be devastating.
- She will have a 33-foot wall on
her property line.
- They have a petition of almost 300
residents who are opposed to this project.
- It is not right that the whole neighborhood
will suffer just because of one developer who will not even be living there.
- There will also be an impact from
heavy construction use.
- Already it is difficult for the homeowners
to get to their homes now. With the construction going on, it will be more
difficult.
(-) Mickey Hall
- She considers herself ground zero
from both projects.
- They are going to enclose two windows
and a light well on her property.
- The three original buildings were
built in 1907.
- This project will be devastating
to her and the quality of life to her and her neighbors, all for the sake
of profit.
- She feels that the project has done
nothing to work in conjunction with her property.
- She has pointed out to the project
sponsor that the surrounding buildings are Victorian and the proposed project
is very industrial.
-
The project
is monster construction that will replace a single-family home.
(-) Daniel Reily
- He is a resident and owner on 17th
Street.
- The proposed project will drastically
impact the quality of life to him and his neighbors.
- The current structure is a modest size. The
project sponsor wants to replace it with a building that will be twice that
size. It will be more imposing.
- The wall, which will be constructed,
will cast a shadow to his back yard where his children play.
- The properties on the street are
harmoniously designed and located.
- This building will have decks and
walls that will cause an impact on the neighbors just to maximize profits
from the developer.
- This project is just too excessive.
- A compromise would be to build a
3-story building instead, and more in a Victorian style that will be more
compatible with the neighborhood.
- He is not opposed to construction
on this site so long as it's reasonable.
(-) Betty Reily
- She lives on San Bruno Avenue.
- She has never protested any buildings
of any kind going on around her but this is just above and beyond anything
that could happen.
- Two homes in her back yard with decks looking
into 7 backyards. Seven backyards will be affected.
- She objects to this project just
being for profit.
- There are decks everywhere.
- She opposes this project and hopes
that the Commission will vote to revise these plans.
(-) Dick Millet – Potrero Boosters
Association
- He is also having a problem with
this project.
- The project will just not work in
this neighborhood since it's out of scale and out of character.
- The apartment building on the corner is different
but this building is massive. He would like to have the penthouse removed.
- He recommends that they put up a single story
cottage. The design of this building is for everyone to be up in the air.
- It is a poorly designed project.
(-) name unclear
- She lives on San Bruno Avenue.
- She and her neighbors come before
the Commission to plead regarding this project.
- She, her housemates and neighbors are opposed
to this project since it is out of scale with the neighborhood. The high
buildings will block sunlight from the homes. Is it good to do this just
for financial gain?
- With this building so large next
to their homes, there is no more privacy.
- Would the Commissioners allow this
if the project were being built near their homes?
- 19th Street is also a dead end street.
In a dramatic or life threatening emergency it would be impossible for them
to get through.
(-) Don Kimball
- He wants to be very personal about
this.
- He chose to live in the neighborhood
because of the type of homes and because of the sunlight that he can have.
- This project just does not fit in
this neighborhood because of its strange type of design.
- The condominium will block sunlight from three
windows. He uses this sunlight to warm his home.
- Due to the size and scope of the
project, and the problem of accessibility of the dead end street, it would
be impossible for emergency vehicles to get through.
- In order to understand fully his
concerns, he invites the commissioners to come on a site visit.
-
He is confident
that if the Commissioners came to a site visit they would understand the impact
of this building.
(-) Marcello Bani
- He lives on San Bruno Avenue.
- He thanks Commissioners Salinas
and Theoharis for visiting this site.
- They felt that to promote fair judgment
of the Discretionary Review, the visit was very important.
- The model looks nice but it is not reality.
It is best to come to the site personally.
- There is an existing and very big
house, which is not shown on the model.
- Instead of the yellowish blocks
on the model, there are very nice Victorian houses with real people.
- The proposed project is going to
have a catastrophic impact on the quality of life to him and his family as
well as the community.
- As soon as the staff visited the
site, there were changes done to the plans.
- He hopes that the Commissioners
will vote to take both projects into Discretionary Review.
(-) Ana Tenato
- She lives on San Bruno Avenue
- She is not antidevelopment.
- She feels that she has a social
responsibility to speak on conflicting values.
- She would like to plea for the Commissioners
to reconsider both projects
- The projects impact negatively on
the quality of life of the neighbors especially with light and air, which
are basic ingredients for living.
(-) Stephen Kasey
- He lives on San Bruno Avenue.
- It actually is a little nicer than
the blocks display on the model.
- He has lived on Potrero Hill for
about 15 years.
- He is not opposed to construction. His neighbors
directly across the street are building and trying to stay within the guidelines
of the neighborhood.
- The word that comes to his mind
regarding this project is mass!
- He is not even sure why the project
sponsor can show this model since it doesn't display the correct scale of
the project and the impact it will cause.
(-) Lia Tisey
- She lives on San Bruno Avenue.
- All her neighbors that have spoken
have pretty much said it all.
- She would like to have the penthouse
removed and the building to be more in character with the neighborhood.
(-) Sharon Radich
- She is a house sitter for Mindy Hall who has
been a property owner on 19th Street for the past 11 years. She
considers this her home and her community.
- There are many homes that will be
greatly impacted by this construction.
- She is very passionate about protecting the
integrity of surrounding homes.
- 19th Street is a narrow
dead-end street a half block long that was never intended to accommodate increased
traffic flow from this project.
- She will lose their window access and light
coming into the house and ventilation. Air quality is important in this area
since the freeway surrounds the houses.
- Their quality of life will be reduced.
- It is very difficult already to
bring emergency vehicles into this street.
(-) Ann Chavez
- She believes that the project is
too large.
- It will take away the trees.
- It will be a cause for pollution.
(+) David Silverman – Representing
Project Sponsor
- There has been a lot of testimony,
which is not correct.
- There were 5 meetings, which were
scheduled, and not that many neighbors attended.
- The project sponsor has bent over
backwards to try to meet with the neighbors.
- The Utah building is 60 feet down
the slope from the homes.
- This is not a public park. The land was put
up for sale.
- These are very modest sized buildings.
- The neighbors don't seem to understand that
the project sponsor will own the building. The homes are not at all monster
homes.
(+) Drake – Building Designer
- The Planning process is tiered.
(+) Antonio Gribaski
- This project will be a home for
him and his family.
- Although his neighbors do not approve
to this project, he would like to construct this home since he lives in an
apartment right now with his family.
ACTION: Take Discretionary Review
and approve a one unit building that is not to exceed 20 feet in height.
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim,
Theoharis
NAYES: Salinas
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
17. 2000.360D
(M. SNYDER: 575-6891)
2311
- 19TH STREET - south side between San Bruno Avenue and Highway 101, Lot
18 in Assessor's Block 4076. Request for Discretionary Review of Building
Permit No. 2000/02/29/3109 and Demolition Permit No. 2000/02/29/3108, proposing
to demolish the existing single-family house and construct a new two-unit
building, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X
Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
(Continues from Regular Meeting
of April 12, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item
16
ACTION: Take Discretionary Review
and revise project by reducing the height of the structure not to exceed 20'
in height and to build only one unit.
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim,
Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
18. 2000.395D
(GORDON: 558-6309)
1800 MISSION STREET
- at the corner of 14th and Mission
Streets, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 3547, request for Discretionary Review
of Building Permit Application No. 2000/01/05/9659, proposing the rehabilitation
of City Landmark No. 108, the National Armory & Arsenal Building and conversion
of the vacant site to a facility for telecommunications use in a C-M (Heavy
Commercial) District and a 50-X/65-B Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Because the building
permit has already been issued and is final, the Department is recommending
conditions to the Board of Appeals. The Board has pending before it an appeal
of the Zoning Administrator's suspension of the permit pending the Commission's
hearing on the project.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Sue Hestor
- The staff gave a very good explanation of the
status of the project. She would just like to add a few points.
- Everyone has been working with very
good faith.
- At the Board of Appeals, if the
vote had gone against the project sponsor, they would have been put back into
the conditional use process under Supervisor Maxwell's legislation.
- She feels that they could reach
an agreement.
- She has been working on real sensitive
issues regarding server farms and generator issues.
- They have focused on issues
- There are very serious power problems
and energy demands.
- She has been focusing on issues
that staff have stated are not problems.
- She wants to point out that one
of the things that came about from the Board of Supervisors regarding server
farms is that San Francisco is in a unique situation because there is one
central line bringing in power and that line is at full capacity.
(-) Antonio Diaz – PODER and MAC
- Their concern is about power consumption.
- They are very concerned about the
impact on the City of San Francisco and the Mission on how power is utilized.
- There has been talk about dealing
with the fact that the Hunters Point Power plant is very unclean with its
emissions.
- They don't want to have something
come into the Mission which will cause impacts.
- The discussions taking place have
been peaceful
- One of the issues is that the building
should use the best commercially available energy efficient technology.
- There is an energy-offset fund set
aside for the Energy Department
(-/+) Joe Boss
- A server farm is an excellent use
of the Armory.
- They went through a list of issues
and indicated that they have eliminated difficulties with parking.
- How do we offset the incredible
demand for power?
- In order to make this work, they came up with
a scheme. The project would pay a fee after the first 3 megawatts of power
has been used (which is the same amount an office building would consume).
Once it reached that level, they would pay ½ of 1% of their energy bill to
the Department of the Environment to fund programs to reduce energy consumption.
This would end in 10 years.
- Negotiations have been good.
(-) Sheheryar Kaoosji
- Diesel emissions coming out of the
backup generators are another matter of concern.
- The emissions will be similar to
dozens of diesel buses.
- They will run all the time.
- The emissions of this and all following
projects should be controlled by the air quality management guidelines.
- They want the following in order to mitigate
the air quality impacts of the server farm: initial generators should be
run no longer than 10 years; all generators must have traps to control emissions
as much as possible; and these controls must be approved before any server
farms are allowed in the City.
(-) Erik Quesada
- They have learned a great deal of
information, especially from Supervisor Maxwell.
- Given what they have found out,
they believe that their Discretionary Review is justifiable.
- They continue to look for a solution
that guarantees
- At this point, their goal is to
have the best, state of the art, and greenest project in their neighborhood.
- They hope they will come to an agreement.
- Their issues are reasonable.
- They want to share that they will
continue to monitor and be involved in proposed server farms proposing to
come into their neighborhood.
- He really hopes that the Commission
will listen to what they are saying.
(-) Ann Fishman
-
She is a
resident and a worker in the Mission District.
- She is here to represent people
who cannot be here.
- MAC's concerns and issues are very
reasonable.
- Ignoring these issues will be very
neglectful.
- There is no reason not to have clean
air planning.
(-) Chris Zelig
- She appreciates the Commissioners
listening to their proposal.
- The Environmental Offset Fund has
to do with the particulars of being located in San Francisco.
- This project would use 1 percent
of the entire power used for San Francisco.
- The fund would offset the total
consumption of the Mission.
(+) Michael Burk – He represents F&F
Mission Technology Center LLC
- He would like to thank Mr. Quesada,
Mr. Diaz and Ms. Hestor for having had many meetings and dialogues.
- This is a fully permitted project
that has paid a fully permitted price.
- The material submitted to the Commissioners
shows that this project is safe and will not delay or impact the demolition
of the Hunters Point Power Plant.
- Staff has addressed the issues in
the DR request.
- A faulty assumption behind the energy tax proposal
is that the Armory would demand 10 megawatts of power. Its actual demand
would be 6 megawatts.
- Another assumption is that the Armory would
come online during the current energy crisis. Tenants will not be online
until 2003 and not fully until 2009--well after the energy crisis.
- Yet another assumption is that the Armory's
demands would be excessive. Yes, it would be more than an office building
but less than industrial.
(+) Catherine Bizel
- The project sponsor has emphasized
that the installation and operation of the project's standby emergency diesel
generator system would comply with all applicable air quality laws and regulations.
- The project generators must be certified.
- If further mitigation is necessary
to achieve the risk based performance standards, then the district will impose
the requirement on a case-by-case basis.
- The sponsor will voluntarily make
their generator records available to the public.
- These generators should be inspected
so they can be upgraded as required.
(+) Mike Yoshihara
- He doesn't really have much to add,
just that a project engineer is here to answer questions.
(+) Courtney Clarkson
- Her comments have to do with the
architectural preservation aspect of the project.
- The building has been abandoned
for many years.
- She was able to inspect the interior
of the building with the California Heritage Council and was able to see the
incredible amount of space available.
- This building is located in a very sunny part
of San Francisco and no one has mentioned to install solar collectors to offset
the amount of energy used. The roof is vast and would have enough space.
- A lot of effort has gone into this
project.
(+) Warren Kop – California Heritage
Council
- He would like to lift the suspension
on the permit of this project.
- He would like to bring this building
back to something usable.
- The building has passed permit requirements.
(+) Winchel Hayward
- He has been a resident of San Francisco
for about 50 years.
- He has admired the Armory for many
years.
- He is in support of having this
use approved.
- The changes will be very minimal
to that area, it anything, it will help the area.
- This project offers the best that
we could ever have.
(+) James Kieffer
- He has lived in the Mission for
many years.
- The project sponsor has put a lot
of work and money into this project.
- Does this electricity problem impose
a tax on energy consumption?
- He has seen in the Mission that
the real problem is the gentrification of the Mission.
- The project sponsor has already
given a lot.
(+) Al Lopez
- He is happy to see that the Armory
is finally going to come to some conclusion.
- He thanks Sue Hestor for her energy
and trying to come to an agreement.
- The armory is a wonderful building. He is
all for preservation.
- He wants to see harmony between
the developers
(+) Louis Loyal
- He was born in San Francisco and
his family has been here for three generations.
- This project deserves to be restored
for something useful.
(+) Jules Lavagi
- His family has been in San Francisco
for three generations.
- He lives here and pays his taxes
here.
- This is an opportunity to upgrade
the district
(+) Keith Williams
- He has lived in the Mission District
for 11 years.
- He would like to have the suspension
on the Armory lifted.
ACTION: Approved Lifting the Suspension
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim,
Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe
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))
Sue Hestor
Re: Smith-Kettlewell Report
- She would like to know if the Smith-Kettlewell
matter would be reported on next week? She will not be able to attend the
hearing next week.
Courtney Clarkson – Pacific Heights
Board of Directors
Re: Illegal parking on alleyways.
- She has noticed that some people
who have houses that face a major street and back onto an alleyway have been
paving over their yards and are parking their cars illegally.
- She would like to know if it's worth
her while to investigate this further and report to the Zoning Administrator.
- Does the ZA have any examples?
Adjournment: 6:23 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR
ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, July 12, 2001.
