Minutes
of Meeting
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, June 14, 2001
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
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,
Amith Ghosh; Isolda Wilson; Thomas Wang; Craig Nikitas; Tina Tam; Tim Woloshyn;
Rick Crawford; Alison Borden; Catherine Bauma; Joy Navarrete; Patricia Gerber
– Transcription Secretary; Linda D. Avery – Commission Secretary
A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1. (WILSON:
558-6602)
Planning
Commission consideration of adoption proposed changes to the rules for the
2001-2002 Office Development Annual Limitation Program.
(Proposed
for Continuance to June 21, 2001)
ACTION: Continued
as proposed
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
2. 2000.1267D (WANG:
558-6335)
215 ROOSEVELT WAY - southeast side between Fairbanks
and 15th Streets, Lot 060 in Assessor's Block 2614. Request for Discretionary
Review of Building Demolition Permit No. 2000/04/27/8397 and Building Permit
Application No. 2000/04/27/8394. The proposal is to demolish an existing
one‑story over garage, single‑family dwelling and construct
a new three‑story over garage, two‑family dwelling in an RH‑2
(Residential, House, Two‑Family) District and a 40‑X Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to June
28, 2001)
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
3.
2000.1328E (Chan: 558-5982)
1750 Folsom Street - Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration.
Assessor's Block 3530, Lot 6. The proposed project would include the demolition
of an 8,600-square-foot warehouse building, retention of a portion of the
existing slab foundation and construction of a new 14,280-square-foot, three-story
plus mezzanine, 40-foot-tall structure. The building would contain about
10,210 square feet of restaurant and bar space, and 4,070 square feet catering
facility. Nineteen off-street parking spaces would be provided in the basement-parking
garage. The site is on Folsom Street, bounded by Erie Street, 14th
Street, and South Van Ness, within the Mission neighborhood. The site is
within the Planning Commission's adopted Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ)
buffer and within the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district and a 40-X
height and bulk district. The project
sponsor is seeking a variance from the parking requirement for independently
accessible parking spaces in order to increase available parking from 19
to 34 spaces by providing valet parking.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold
Negative Declaration
(Proposed for Continuance to June 28,
2001)
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
4. 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 28, 2001)
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
5. 2001.0361C (SANCHEZ: 558-6679)
1634-44 PINE STREET - north side between Van
Ness Avenue and Franklin Street; Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 0647. Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant
to Section 712.61 of the Planning Code to allow the conversion of an automobile
repair establishment to an automobile rental establishment within an NC-3
(Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 130-E Height and
Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed
for Continuance to July 12, 2001)
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
6. 2001.0092E (DEAN: 558-5980)
1800–1822
San Jose Avenue -
Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration.
Proposed demolition of existing auto repair business structures,
construction of two, four-story, nine-residential unit buildings, located
on the north side of San Jose Avenue, between Santa Rosa Avenue and Colonial
Way; Assessor's Block 3144A; Lot 31. Each
of the proposed buildings would have 800 sq. ft. of ground-story retail
space. The project would provide 9 to 10 off-street parking spaces in each
building. Parking garage entries would be from each of
the side streets. The proposed project site is approximately 14,360 sq.
ft. and is located in the NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster District)
and the 40-X Height and Bulk District.
The project would require conditional use authorization by the City
Planning Commission and lot split approval by the Department of Public Works
Preliminary
Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary
Negative Declaration
(Proposed
for Continuance to July 12, 2001)
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
7.
Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of April 19 and April 26,
2001.
ACTION: Approved as corrected
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
8.
Commission Matters
Theoharis:
There was an article in the Independent Newspaper on Tuesday,
June 5 regarding a proposal about Supervisor Peskin's desire to legalize
in-law units. Does staff have any information on this?
Lim: There was a point brought up at the Finance
Committee meeting regarding having the different departments work together
and put together a housing strategy. Will
our Department be included?
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
9. Director's Announcements
-
Did not get any information prior to the release of the proposed legislation
by Supervisor Peskin--there is no actual legislation drafted.
-
In response to Commissioner Lim's comment--in January or February when
we started the Work Program discussions we included several items that included
our ongoing efforts to coordinate with other agencies on housing.
-
In terms of receiving notices about the existing efforts toward base
community planning, we notified the Commission about the Better Neighborhood
meetings that have been and are being conducted.
-
Finance Committee Meeting is open to the public on Saturday, June 16,
2001, at 9:00 at City Hall
-
With regard to the Department's budget we have received the draft report
from the Budget Analyst and will be commenting on that their recommendation
to the Finance Committed on June 19.
10. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors
and Board of Appeals
-
BOS: This past Monday the Board of Supervisors
had an appeal of a Conditional Use authorization that was granted for an
antenna at 501 Laguna Street. That
item was continued for two weeks
-
Also, there was a Conditional Use on a unit development on a rather unusual
shaped site, at 19th and Oakwood.
That case was heard by the Board and was continued to allow further
consideration. It will be back before the Board on Monday,
6/18.
B of A:
-
365 – 11th Street:
Was a request for a replacement entertainment permit.
We will work with the Police Department to get a focus on what is
reasonable in allowing background music in bars and restaurants.
- 100
–15th Street: Upheld the Commission's
decision
(GREEN: 558-6411)
11.
INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION ON LAND USE IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS
that are currently subject to interim controls, and review of development
activities, employment and economic trends in those areas.
SPEAKER (s):
(-) Calvin Welch, Counsel
Community Housing Organization
-
The Department is aware of the critical
balance between the creation of jobs and housing--most especially matching
the affordability levels of the jobs we are creating&
-
Lowering housing cost by increasing
housing production is not politicaly correct in this City
- We have to be really careful when we talk about affordable housing
in this City
(-) Jim Miko, SOMA Leadership Counsel
-
We are not anywhere near where the
Mission is in this process, or even Dogpatch or other neighborhoods in the
City
-
Pointed out the schedule for the
beginning of the base community planning efforts. SOMA Anti-Displacement Coalition will
meet this Saturday, June 16, from 10 to Noon, sponsoring a community forum.
It will be held at 65 9th Street.
(-) Sue Hestor
-
Concerned about the continuation
of this on every calendar to give yourself the flexibility to do things
when you are ready. It is a burden
on the public.
-
Concerned about reopening the South
of Market zoning; to undo the controls; we might have more lost jobs.
(-) Joe O'Donoghue
- The Housing crisis is continuing and getting worse instead of
getting better
-
This report is just a fiction and
full of inaccuracies
-
We have to change our methodology
(-) Alice Barkley
-
Concerned about displacement
-
When you change the definition of
what is in the PDR, multimedia will no longer fit–it becomes offices
-
Industrial Use:
mixed use area is not located strictly in the industrial area, it
is located in what has been for a long time a mixed use zone,
-
The Moratorium and the Commission's
policy did not open housing opportunity sites because the interim controls
that this Commission adopted are more restrictive than the moratorium adopted
by the Board of Supervisors. They (the BOS) allowed housing to proceed under Conditional Use--you
wiped it out.
-
As far as displacement of PDR is
concerned, most of them are in vacant lands, therefore, no job displacement.
(-) Quintin Meck,
-
Concerned that a lot of displacement
has taken place in the last few years
ACTION: Meeting held. No action required
PRESENT: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
D. REGULAR CALENDAR
12. (BAUMAN:
558-6287)
HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN - The
Department has released a background report, which will provide information
needed for the upcoming revisions to the Housing (Residence) Element of
the General Plan. This report, Part
I of the Housing Element, contains housing data and an evaluation of housing
needs in San Francisco. It is available
at the Department’s office, and on its web site. (http://www.sfgov.org/planning).
This hearing will allow the Commission and the public to comment
on this information and other housing policy issues.
SPEAKER (s):
(-) Roger Brandon
-
Land should be preserved for industrial
use
- Monthly rent rates should be reasonable
-
There is a need for affordable housing.
It would be better to maintain housing districts in city neighborhoods
that are better designed for that purpose
-
Change the rental policies of several
real estates firms. Rent do not
need to be so high
- San Francisco should remain a small city
- Hold the exisiting zoning controls
-
There is a flaw in this report.
There are too many exaggerated economic forecasts. This forecast came from
the Association of Bay Area Governments.
-
Avoid putting high-density development
in places where you do not have many of them. By doing so, good quality living conditions
in the City are reduced.
(-) Calvin Welch, Counseling Communities
Housing Organization
-
Commended the staff on their presentation
- Increasing housing construction and at the same time there is
an increase in housing cost
-
The goal is to maximize
-
The Planning Codes is to provide
a policy that links job growth, protection of existing neighborhoods, and
natural population growth
-
Housing that could be afforded to
existing San Franciscans and those who would be working here in the future
-
The greatest deficit that we've
faced in the last 11 years has been in affordable housing
-
We actually exceeded the projection
by building 8900 market rates units,
-
We have fallen short in the affordable
sections of our housing elements
-
That reality should motivate the
formation and amendments of the existing residence element.
-
How do we maximize affordable housing
production? Simply approving housing
development does not work in San Francisco if the goal is to maximize affordable
housing for San Franciscans.
(-) Jaime Roth, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
-
Poll showed that most San Franciscans
can not afford to live in this City
-
We need to expedite the approval
process; to encourage infill housing; maximize the construction of housing
units next to transit; and we also need density
- We cannot allow this housing crisis to keep going
-
Home ownership should be more affordable
to San Francisco
-
The San Francisco work force is
in danger of being squeezed out of the City
-
Our great City needs innovative
policies to make housing and homeownership more affordable to all San Franciscan.
-
67% of the City's renters expressed
that they would like to buy a home in San Francisco, but feel that homeownership
is out of their reach
-
53% agreed that the City should
create new programs to help middle income workers
-
53% also support increasing the
density of housing along transit lines
-
1/3 of all San Franciscans are so
concerned about the high cost of housing, that they considering leaving
the City altogether
-
Numbers speak for themselves.
San Francisco voters want better housing options and they are frustrated
by the high housing cost
-
We just want the Commission to consider
the needs and aspirations of all San Franciscans
(-) Gabriel Metcalf, SPUR
- Virtually everyone in City agrees that we
need more affordable housing to be produced each year than we currently
do
-
Increasing supplies bring down the costs
-
It is good for the City if we build
enough housing that can meet the City's share of projected population growth
-
Building housing--if it is well planed and well located--is the tool we
need to strengthen the
-
Neighborhoods. It is what allows us to support a transit-oriented City.
It is what allow us to support neighborhood commercial districts
-
Looking forward to see the next phase of the residence element which is
going to talk about strategies--not just targets--but how we are going to
achieve those targets
(-) Alice Barkley
-
There are several factors that have
to be considered. One is neighborhood
politics.
-
Families in San Francisco have dropped
by 12%
-
The City needs an affordable housing program
-
More Middle class families would be living in the City
-
Consider increasing the density where it is appropriate--giving bonuses
for affordable units
-
Encourage the private sector to
come up with the lowest rates
(-) Sue Hestor
- Troubled by the Department's abandonment of
tracking unit sizes--which comes through in repeated places in this report
-
Page 6 talks about the average household
size increased between 1990 and 2000, including doubling up of occupancy
in existing housing units
-
Page 19: the City has not collected informational housing
unit sizes since 1996
-
Page 18: reminded you that Live/work
was 18% of the housing stock that was added from 1991 to 2000
(-)
Joe O'Donohue
-
Housing crisis started in 1986
-
This Commission is not responsible
for the shortage of housing. The shortage was created in 1986--at least that was the second phase
of the shortage of housing--when we came up with the demolition controls
ordinances, RCC, and RCA of the Richmond and the Sunset.
-
At that time the builders pontificated
about the fact that family housing was not being built because you could
not build it. Just like you can't do 2 bedroom live/work units because it
is a prohibited use
-
For this Commission to be berated
because the staff can not control the cost of building is a redundancy.
Need to change the definition of affordable housing.
Affordable housing is subsidized housing
ACTION: Meeting held. No Action Required
PRESENT: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
ITEM 13 CALLED OUT OF ORDER AFTER ITEM #
11
13. 2001.0232L (BORDEN:
558-6321)
1338 FILBERT STREET (aka 1338 FILBERT COTTAGES)
- historically known as the Bush Cottages (1907-1930s) and the School of
Basic Design and Color (1940s), north side of Filbert Street between Polk
and Larkin Streets; Assessor’s Block 524, Lots 31, 32, 33, and 34. Request for Planning Commission recommendation
on the proposed landmark designation of four, two-story wood frame cottages
sited among brick walkways, patios, and mature plantings, which was initiated
by the Board of Supervisors. The subject property is in the RH-2 (Residential,
House, Two-Family) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
SPEAKER
(s): None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 12, 2001
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
14. 2000.272E (NAVARRETE: 558-5975)
185 POST
STREET (PRADA) - Public Hearing
on Draft Environmental Impact Report:
On Assessors
Block 310, Lot 18, the 3,600-square-foot project site, situated within the
Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District, is occupied by a vacant
six-story-plus-basement structure. The
proposed project would consist of demolition of the existing 26,200-square-foot
building and construction of a new ten-story-plus-basement, 130-foot tall
building that would serve as the West Coast headquarters and retail store
of the apparel company Prada USA. The
new structure would contain approximately 39,300 square feet with part of
the basement serving as storage and mechanical equipment space, display
space and a reception area on the ground floor, retail space on the second
through fifth levels, open space on the sixth level, showroom space on the
sixth and seventh levels, office space on the eighth and ninth levels, and
a private residential space on the top floor.
In total, the project would provide approximately 4,400 sq. ft. of
office space, 6,800 sq. ft. of retail space, 1,500 sq. ft. of showroom space,
1,700 sq. ft. of residential space, 2,250 sq. ft. of open space, and 22,650
sq. ft. of storage and other space. The
site is within the C-3-R (Downtown Commercial, Retail) Zoning District and
80-130-F Height and Bulk District. Note: Written
comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., on
June 19, 2001.
Preliminary Recommendations:
No action required.
SPEAKER (s):
(-) Dr. Charles Thiel
-
This building was constructed after
1906
-
Evaluated safe after the San Andreas
Earthquake
-
177 Post Street was constructed
after the 1906 earthquake
-
It is substantially different from
the City Hall building, in that City Hall is a free standing building with
no adjacent structure with which they could collide
-
We at 177 Post Street are the one
with which the PRADA Building may collide, if the building is not adequately
designed
-
Engineers indicated the separation
between our buildings would be 23 inches, they indicated that this separation
would accommodate the earthquake displacement, assuming that our building
is a 1988 Building Code compliant structure. This assumption is erroneous
-
Our building was constructed over
90 years ago, not within the last 3
-
They estimated that their unrestrained
building would deflect in excess of 42 inches not the 23 inches that they
assumed would be adequate to accommodate the deflection of both buildings
-
It is their assessment that the
buildings would collide during an earthquake, creating catastrophic results--both
to each of the buildings and to the public itself
-
The increase of vulnerability to
our building and the public by the development decision today, is unacceptable
-
Requested that the Draft Environmental
Impact assessment report, be revised, to add mitigation measures to protect
the adjacent buildings and the public.
-
Require the Developer to design
a new building, so the seismic performance does not post an earthquake damage
threat to adjacent buildings
-
Require the Developer to provide
that the adjacent building owners be technical peer reviewers of the proposed
design documents; if the technical peer review has unresolved issues, the
Director of the Building Department should be advised--who then should advise
on how to resolve these issues prior to issuing the building permits
(-) Thomas P. Dove
-
There are current design violations
that are not adequately addressed in the EIR
-
Believed the current design violates
the CEQA, particularly sections 21084.1 and 15064.5 subsection (b)
-
Also believed that current design
violates City Planning Code, Article 11, the project is incomperable with
the requirements of the C-3 District
- Earthquake safety here is very questionable
(+) Jason Duckworth
-
Lives a few blocks away from the site
-
Urge the Commission to approve the EIR
-
Would increase the value of neighborhood buildings
-
Are we destroying something
that is really valuable to the architecture of this great City?
(+) Mark Donohue
-
EIR is clear and meets design guidelines
-
Proposed building would indeed be
different from its neighbor. It would, as the EIR suggests, not meet certain guidelines for the
conservation district in which it is located
-
As an architect feels in this case,
the differences offered by this project are not a bad thing, but rather
a good thing
- The draft EIR identified two areas within
the historical architectural resources category that the PRADA Building
would be different from the guidelines of the district and therefore have
a significant impact in the character of the district.
(+) David Meckel, Dean Architectural
School at CCAS
-
The economic, social and urban vitality
of cities can only be maintained through renewal and regeneration
-
The nature of retail further emphasis
this need, which is recognized in section 5a through the description of
Area of History
-
The evaluation of the map under
the title Progressive Development of KMNS District , dated December 2000,
showed 5 categories. The category
of 1946 - 1980 makes up only 9.6% of the buildings in the district.
It is this category that holds most of the unlisted buildings and
provides the opportunity for increased fatalities
ACTION: Public hearing closed. Meeting
held. No action required
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
15a. 2000.660BX (CRAWFORD: 558-6358)
35 HAWTHORNE STREET - Assessor’s Block 3735 Lot 047, north side of Hawthorne Street between
Howard and Folsom Streets. Planning Code Sections 320-325 (Office Development
Limitation Program) for allocation of up to 40,350 gross square feet
of office space for an 11-story building within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown,
Office, and Special Development) District and within a 150-S Height and
Bulk District. The Project will
demolish an existing one story parking building and construct a 10 story
building including 40,350 gross square feet of office space, 2,800
square feet of retail space and one residential unit.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions
SPEAKER (s):
(+) Jim Webber, Co-Owner
-
Has managed and developed
the property since 1978. Considered
the proposed project to be a logical and appropriate final development phase
on the L shape parcel of the corner of Hawthorne and Howard Street
-
Feel that this proposal will enhance
the City
-
Thanked the Planning staff for the
help and numerous applications in the last year and a half and especially
comments and criticisms that we feel very much enhanced the building
(+) Andrew Lewisky, Project Architect
-
Gave an overall description of the project
(+) Joshua Freewall, Co-Owner
-
This is a meritorious project.
Encouraged Commission to approve it
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Joe; Lim
NAYES: Chinchilla;
ABSENT: Salinas
MOTION No. 16174
15b. 2000.660BX (CRAWFORD: 558-6358)
35 HAWTHORNE STREET - Assessor’s Block 3735 Lot 047, north side of Hawthorne Street between Howard and
Folsom Streets. Request under Planning
Code Section 309 (Downtown Code) for Determinations of Compliance, and for
exceptions as provided under Section 309.a to (1) allow a 5 foot
setback from the interior property line above the 103 foot building base
where 15 feet are required, to
(2) allow no setback from the rear property line at the level of the residential
unit where a 28 foot setback is required
and to (3) allow wind currents to exceed the permitted maximum of 11 miles
per hour at the pedestrian level. The
Project will demolish an existing one story parking building and construct
an 11-story building including 40,350 gross square feet of office space,
2,800 square feet of retail space and one residential unit.
This project lies within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown, Office, Special
Development) District and within a 150-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKERS: Same as thoes listed in item 15a.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Joe; Lim
NAYES: Chinchilla; Baltimore
ABSENT: Salinas
MOTION No. 16175
16a. 2000.863CV (WONG: 558-6381)
2712
MISSION STREET
- west side between 23rd and 24th Streets, lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 3643.
Request for Conditional Use Authorization for a "Public Use",
pursuant to Planning Code Section 712.83.
The proposal is for the renovation and expansion of an existing 27,831
gross-square-foot retail building into a 32,000 gross-square-foot building
by enlarging a mezzanine within the existing structure. The City and County
of San Francisco Public Health Department intends on operating an outpatient
mental health clinic at this location.
The subject property falls within a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Commercial
Zoning) District and a 50-X/80-B Height and Bulk District Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER (s):
(+) Warner Schmall. Project Architect
-
Gave a general description of the
project
(+) Manuel Vasquez
-
Better accessibility to neighbors
-
Would enhance the Mission District
-
This would enhance the accessibility to senior citizens that do not
have access to health care
(+) Sergio Canjura
-
Full support of this project
-
Services provided by this health center would help the neighborhood
-
Encouraged the Commission the approve this project
(+)
Linda Wong
-
Personally involved for the last 6 years to find sites for the adult
city programs in the Mission
-
In this site we would have the three
service program together
-
Transportation is very good in the
area
-
No concerns of whether frail elderly
would be willing to come to this site
-
We have home visiting to our sick/elder
patients
(-) Sara Davis
-
Concerns about the traffic and parking
(-) Bruce Olson, Social Worker
- Putting
a program for the elderly in the basement is very inappropriate.
This basement is 275 feet long. There would be only 2 bathrooms to serve staff
and elderly patients. Other bathrooms
are at the far end
-
There is no parking for the staff nor the patients
ACTION: Approved with conditions
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
MOTION
NO 16176
16b.
2000.863CV (WONG: 558-6381)
2712 MISSION STREET - west
side between 23rd and 24th Streets, lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 3643. The
subject property seeks a parking variance for the reduction of required
off-street parking from 57 to 6 spaces, pursuant to Planning Code Section
151. The project proposes to provide
6 parking spaces (4 independently accessible parking spaces and 2 tandem
spaces) for approximately 15,769 square feet of occupied outpatient clinic
space and approximately 9,864 of administrative space on a site which presently
provides no off-street parking spaces. The total proposed occupied floor
area equals 25,633 square feet. Under
Planning Code Section 151, the proposed uses require a total of 72 off-street
parking spaces, where 1 off-street space is required for every 300 square
feet of occupied clinic space and 1 off-street space is needed for every
500 square feet of occupied administrative space. The project receives a
legal parking credit of 15 spaces for the previous retail use, pursuant
to Planning Code Section 150 (d). After
applying the legal parking credit, 57 off-street spaces are required.
The subject property falls within a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Commercial
Zoning) District and a 50-X/80-B Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed in item 16a.
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed Public Hearing
and granted the variance subject to a condition that the sponsor make a
good faith effort to secure parking in the area and report back on the progress
that is made.
At Approximately 5:40 PM
the Planning Commission conveneD into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing
to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.
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 May 10, 2001)
Note: On May 10, 2001, following public testimony,
the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion to continue
the matter to June 14, 2001, to revise the design facade, by a vote +5 –0.
Commissioner Fay was absent. Public Hearing is closed but will be reopened
for comments on new design only.
SPEAKER (s):
(+) Alice Barkley,
- Gave a description of
the new façade design of the project
(-) Patricia Vaughey
-
Neighbors got these new changes just yesterday
-
Asked
for a two week continuance
-
There
has not been a chance to talk with the new architect regarding the new proposed
changes
(-) James Meyers
-
Elevator shaft would have to go–just
as the Commission asked the last time this item was before you
-
Materials that the Commission considered changing have not been changed.
(-) Kelly Dyke
-
Agreed with Patricia Vaughey that continuing this case is the best
thing. It will be fair
-
They haven't given us any information about the new revision we received
just yesterday
-
Thrilled that there won't be an elevator shaft
-
This will block our view and light
(-) Cathy Sernovich
-
Do not approve this project
(-) Louise
Baldochi
- Proposed project should preserve the marina
architecture
ACTION: Take DR and approve project with modifications shown in Exhibit B'
by
Hank Bruce Architects dated June 6, 2001.
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
ITEM 18 CALLED OUT OF ORDER AFTER ITEM # 22
18. 2001.0147D (NIKITAS: 558-6306)
2645 BAKER STREET
- west side between Union and Green Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's
Block 0949. Requests for Discretionary
Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2000/10/19/3483 and 2000/10/19/3487
to demolish a three-story residence and build a new four-story, two-family
home in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary recommendation: Do not take Discretionary
Review and approve the project as submitted.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 17, 2001)
SPEAKER (s):
(+) Robert McCarthy
- With the cooperation all of the parties including Mr. Williams, we were
able to reach a resolution, which we think includes most of the good neighbor
policies
(+) Steve Williams
- On behalf of the DR requestor, we have reached a written settlement
agreement.
ACTION: No action taken. The request
for Discretionary Review is Withdrawn
PRESENT: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
19. 2001.0385DD (TAM: 558-6325)
228 CHENERY STREET - Staff initiated and a neighbor’s Discretionary
Review request on building permits 2000/12/28/8738 and 2000/12/28/8823 to
demolish an existing one-story, single-family dwelling, and construct a
new three-story over garage, two-family dwelling, 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.
SPEAKER
(s): None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 6/21/01
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
20. 2001.0487D (WOLOSHYN:
558-6612)
2158-60 FILBERT
STREET - north
side of the street between Fillmore and Webster Streets; Lot 032 in Assessor’s
Block 0516. Staff-initiated Discretionary
Review of Building Permit Application Number 2001/0215/2255S, proposing
to reduce the legal number of dwelling units from 2 to 1, in an RH-2 (Residential
House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the application.
SPEAKER (s):
(+) Mark Thomas, Architect for the
project
-
This project complies with the Department's criteria
-
No occupants should be displaced
-
This project is consistent with
the San Francisco Master plan
- This would give the opportunity to a lot of families to live
and work in the City
(+)
Barbara Anderson, Property Owner
- Lived on her property since 1992
- Would
like to raise her family and provide them with adequate affordable housing
ACTION: Take
Discretionary Review and disapprove
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
21. 2001.0498D (WOLOSHYN: 558-6612)
2339 GREEN
STREET - north
side between Steiner and Pierce Streets; Lot 041 in Assessor’s Block 0559. Request for Discretionary Review of Building
Permit Application Number 2001-0130-0997S, proposing to add a one-story
deck, with a depth of six feet, at the rear of the existing house, 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.
SPEAKER (s):
(+) Judith Branch, Property Owner
- Approve
this project with the tentative compromise agreement of a 4-foot setback
(+) Ellen Wise
- Thanked the Department for being so helpful during this difficult process
ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve with a 4-foot setback on the
side
of the DR requestor
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
22a.
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. The proposal would alter an
existing vacant one‑story over garage, single‑family dwelling
into a 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 and May 10, 2001, respectively. Following public
testimony on April 6, 2000, 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 (the demolition building
permit application will be withdrawn by the project sponsor); (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 retain approximately 42 feet of the front of the existing
building which includes both exterior side walls and some of the interior
walls. The existing facade would be preserved and moved forward by approximately
3 feet 4 inches and lowered by approximately 4 feet. The facade would be
attached to a reinforced and expanded structure constructed between its
new location and the existing portions of the sidewalls, which are to remain
in place. The sidewalls would be extended downward by approximately 4 feet
and the 3‑foot 11‑inch parapet would be removed. The revised
project would further include building additions above and behind the retained
portion of the existing building, resulting in a three‑story over
garage, three‑family dwelling. 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 by the Department of Building Inspection to
not require a demolition permit under the Building Code, the Planning Department
believes that it is consistent with the Commission's instruction to not
demolish the existing house as communicated on April 6, 2000. However, as
to whether or not, the proposal is consisted with the Commission's second
instruction of substantial retention of front part of the building must
be a decision of the current members of the Commission. No specific positions
or instructions were provided on April 6, 2000. In evaluating whether substantial
retention has been achieved, the Commission should consider the removal
of the front facade from the foundation (temporary storage off‑site)
and reattaching a restored facade 3 feet forward and 4 feet lower than the
current location. It is the Department's position that the restored facade
can and should be reattached at the existing location with some minor alteration
at the base to accommodate the modified driveway entrance.
SPEAKER
(s):
(+) Amanda Lewis
-
Urged the Commission to approve this project
-
On 4/6/00, the Commission asked us to come with a new design
-
The Commission did not say that the façade was going to be removed
-
Instructed to keep in character with the neighborhood
-
Moving it forward provides better light
-
Accommodate the driveway
-
Replacement of windows on the second floor
-
Design is as requested by the Commission
-
The façade is kept with the other restrictions
(+) Judith Hoyem – DR Requestor
-
Over 900 people signed a petition to save this house
-
Plan does not show a substantial portion retained
-
How can the façade be preserved?
-
Moving it forward is not keeping the house
-
They will be building two stories on top of the building
-
Asked that the new construction
start 32 feet back
-
Variance on the side they have the stairway right on the rear
-
We ask to approve this 3 units building, but with conditions
(+) Mark Ryser
-
I have followed this project since
November 1998, and wrote to the Commission in April '99, March '00 and most
recently on 6/5 of this year
-
Hope you had chance to look at the
letter of 5/29 sent to Ms. Lewis
-
Commented on the retention of historic
preservation
-
Community will not compromise.
The community did not resist the project sponsor's desire to redevelop
this site; they did not demand the retention of the existing building
-
Project sponsor had conceptions,
and maintained a substantial part of the building
(+) Paul Duchscherer, Architectural
historian
-
Its is important to know in what
context the house was built
-
The façade in the current position
was part of the integrity of the streetscape
(+) Felix Smith
-
This sound like a demolition, it
is a violation of the instruction of this Commission
(+) Lucia Bogatay
- This commission should uphold the decision
of the previous Board, which in her reading required substantial retention of the building, not a substantial
retention of the front of the building
-
They should hire an architectural preservation specialist
(+) Will Prague
-
One of the problems we have with dealing with a lot of projects coming through
Planning and Building is the definition of terms
-
What is a façade? Is it an architectural treatment or is it structuraly
part of the building?
-
This building was hand built literally piece by piece -
(+) Gustavo Serina
-
Supports the former Commission's
decision made on April 6
-
Moving this façade causes enormous
risk
-
Moving this façade is not necessary to accommodate the construction of the
3 expensive condominiums that have been proposed
-
We do not want a demolition
-
Honor the intent as well of the letter of the original ruling
(-) Vicki Rosen. President, Upper
Noe Valley
-
Support the Discretionary Review
applicant
-
Please retain a substantial portion
of the Victorian building,
- Preserve the façade. It is a beautiful streetscape. It is part of
San Francisco's historical architecture
(+) Mark Benjamin
-
Support the Discretionary Review requestor
-
Moving the façade would destroy
the character of the neighborhood
-
Several homes in the area that have
done remodeling have kept totally within the character of the neighborhood.
This particular project does not preserve the character or the architecture
of the rest of the homes in that block
-
Support the original Planning
Commission decision
- Asked the Commission to review the Discretionary Review requestor's
plan for the building
(+) Steve Bartoletti
-
Planning Commission voted unanimously
a year ago, over a thousand people signed petitions
- Sponsor is trying to circumvent the unanimous
ruling of the Commission
-
The Commission and the neighborhood agreed to support a variance that would
benefit the sponsor, allowing him to build deep into the lot.
But this was in exchange for preserving the front half of the 100
year old Victorian
(+) Dennis Richard
-
Urged and reaffirmed the decision
that was made last year
-
We do need housing in the City.
Supported the compromise agreement
(+) Andrew Laws
- Asked the Commission to uphold the previous decision
-
Preserve the front of the house.
There will not be alterations to the front of the house
(+) Scott Larimer
-
This is a demolition, and is not
in the spirit of the original ruling
-
If we follow this ruling, everybody
will be happy
(+) Erin Day
-
Opposed to the current plans proposed by the current owner
-
Uphold Commission decision from last year
(+) Freddie Niem
-
Lived one block south of the proposed project
- A lot of Victorian houses have been demolished
in our neighborhood, especially in recent years.
-
We need to preserve the history of this City
(+) Joe Butler
-
Retain the front portion of the
house. It was built in 1888.
-
Sponsor not only incorporated the
rear addition in square footage, but adds one to two stories to the front
of the building
(+) Bill Kostura
-
In the course of his work he has
to evaluate historic buildings sometimes--deciding whether they have local,
state, or national significance. As he traveles he has gained more prospective about San Francisco
Victorians. There is not another
city made of wood. San Francisco
is very unique in the Country because many of our houses was/is made out
of wood
-
You do not see this kind of housing
in the entire country
-
In Oakland most of the Victorians
are gone. In San Francisco we should
consider our Victorians a national treasure
(+) Courtney Clarkson
-
Retain the building that could never
be replicated
(+) Robert Bregoff
- Support the Discretionary Review applicant
- Saving a substantial part of the project is really important
to the neighborhood
(+) Jannine Przyblyski
-
Please preserve the neighborhood
character
-
This is a demolition.
This will destroy the existing house, destroying the precious example
of our Victorian heritage and disrupt the relation with other Victorian
houses in the neighborhood
-
The community is fighting for the
soul of the neighborhood. Fighting
for a city that cares about its history and honors its past, and understand
that what distinguishes a great city from a mediocre one, are the accumulated
layers of architectural history.
(+) Richard McRree
-
Opposed the response from the developer
-
Retain the façade of the building
-
Needs to be send back to the drawing board
(+) Steve Williams
-
It is against the law for an owner
to let a building deteriorate deliberately
-
Urged the Commission to not reward
deliberate damage to the building in order to obtain a demolition permit.
(-) Rachael Briya
- Preserve the architectural history of this beautiful City
- Approve the project. Project would increase density. The owner has worked to do what this Commission
asked him to do
-
Owner has demonstrated that he is willing to save the integrity and
character of the building
(-) James Cassiol
-
Unbelievable that this project has
gone this far
-
Project sponsor has compromised
- Allow this project to go forward. Do not delay it more. This City needs housing
(-) Margaret Brown
- This is a neighborhood with a mixture of buildings
- This building is not a jewel.
It is a dilapidated building
- Property owner tried to compromise
- It is an attractive design
-
Support the property owner
(-) Taylor Walker
-
The projcet maintains the character of the block
- It maintains the scale and architectural history of the building
-
It would add much needed housing
to a major urban transportation hub
-
It preserve significant parts of
the old building, including all the characteristic defining features
(-) Nolan Griffin
- Permit the proposed improvements to this property
-
We have a tremendous housing shortage
in the City.
-
Urged the Commission to approve
this project
(-) Adele Zierler
-
Housing is so short in the City
and neighbors are not realizing it will enhance their property
- Urged the Commission to approve the project
(-) Joan Bard
-
It will enhance the neighborhood
(-) Robert Roper
- Supports project that is being proposed
- This is a real benefit to the City
- City needs additional housing
- Approve this project
(-) Nancy Stamm
- Plans had gone through a variety of changes
-
Plans before you have been compromised,
and we believe it is a very good compromise
-
Retained a substantial portion
of the old house and the original façade to accommodate many of the concerns
raised of the DR applicant
- Tried very hard to situate the building
on the property site, to preserve the look of the original house in the
neighborhood
The existing building is not a landmark. It is an old structure
(-) David Meisner
-
Supports project
(-) Ken Ralph
-
Supports project
(-) Chip Doyle
-
This is a great project
- Recommends that the Commission accept this
wonderful project
-
Would maintain the charm of the area
(-) Unknown speaker
- Supports project
(-) Robert Walter, Architect for the Project
- The reason
for moving the building down is very essential--the current stairs that
go to the building are very steep and in order to bring them to code but
appear the same, we brought the building forward.
-
There are other reasons why we lowered the building--the windows on the second floor would
be 5 feet high
Trying to do a good project within the constraints we were giving
was a challenge
- There is open space in front of the building
(-) Richard Pirner
- Support the original design of the project
(-) Ed Cramer
-
Supports the project--either the
original project or as proposed today. This is really an eyesore to look at it.
-
In favor of restoring or building
a new structure
ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications:
-
The revised plan shall involve
the retention of at least 25 feet of the existing building measured from
the face of the front bay window. The second and third floors of the new building shall commence at
least 25 feet from the face of the front bay window.
-
The reviewed plan must keep the
retained portion of the house within the original footprint and at the existing
elevation. The retained portion
of the house (shall) be restored to Secretary of the Interior standards
as used by the Planning Department
-
They (the project sponsors) should
retain a preservation specialist to advise them during the process of retention
and construction.
-
The revised plan will include
a five-foot setback along the rear side property line to retain the accommodation
for the property-line windows (of the adjacent house)
AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore;
Chinchilla; Joe; Lim
ABSENT: Salinas
22b. 2000.138DV (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 alter an existing vacant
one‑story over garage, single‑family dwelling by remodeling
it into a 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 and May 10, 2001, respectively. Following
public testimony on April 6, 2000, the Commission adopted a Motion to continue
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 units
to be constructed on the site. The revised project proposes to retain approximately
42 feet of the front of the existing building, which includes both exterior
side walls, and some of the interior walls. The existing facade would be
preserved and moved forward by approximately 3 feet 4 inches and lowered
by approximately 4 feet. The facade would be attached to a reinforced and
expanded structure constructed between its new location and the existing
portions of the sidewalls, which are to remain in place. The sidewalls would
be extended downward by approximately 4 feet and the 3‑foot 11‑inch
parapet would be removed. The revised project would further include building
additions above and behind the retained portion of the existing building,
resulting in a three‑story over garage, three‑family dwelling.
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.
Section 136(c)(25) of the Planning Code allows enclosed and unenclosed
extensions of buildings, as permitted obstructions, to extend no more than
12 feet into the required open area, provided that the structure shall be
limited to a height not exceeding the floor level of the second floor of
occupancy, excluding the ground story, at the rear of the building on the
subject property, in which case the structure shall be no closer than 5
feet to any interior side lot line. Section 134(c) requires a minimum rear
yard of approximately 35 feet, measured from the mid‑point of the
rear property line for the subject lot. The new addition to be constructed
behind the retained portion of the front part of the existing building would
be three stories tall, extending 12 feet into the required rear yard to
be within approximately 33 feet 6 inches of the rear property line and would
encroach entirely into the required 5‑foot separation from the east
side lot line and from the west side lot line, respectively.
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed in item 22a.
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the
Public Hearing and has granted
the Rear Yard Variance
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))
SPEAKERS: None
Adjournment:
8:30 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 2001.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT: Theoharis
