Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, June 21, 2001
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Theoharis; Fay;
Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim; Salinas
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT
THEOHARIS AT 1:50 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green – Director
of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Isolda Wilson; David Alumbaugh,
Amith Ghosh; Sam Assefa; Tina Tam; Alison Borden; Scott Sanchez; Michael Kometani;
Paul Maltzer; Patricia Gerber – Transcription Secretary; Linda D. Avery –
Commission Secretary
A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1.
2000.1261EC
(WANG: 558‑6335)
4501 IRVING STREET, southwest
corner of Irving Street and 46th Avenue; Lots 047 and 049 in Assessor's Block
1801 ‑ ‑ Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning
Code Sections 121.1 and 710.11 to develop a new, four‑story, mixed‑use
building, including approximately 1,800 square feet of ground floor commercial
space and ten dwelling units on three upper floors, on two lots totaling approximately
8,250 square feet in area within an NC‑1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster)
District and a 40‑X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Proposed for continuance to June 28, 2001)
ACTION:
Continued as proposed
AYES:
Theoharis; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Fay; Joe; Lim;
Salinas
2. 2001.0234D
(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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 24, 2001)
(Proposed for continuance to August 2, 2001)
ACTION: Continued
as proposed
AYES:
Theoharis; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Fay; Joe; Lim; Salinas
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
3. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of May
10, 2001.
SPEAKER (S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES:
Theoharis; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Fay; Joe; Lim; Salinas
4. Commission Matters
Commissioner Lim: Urged the Finance Committee of the Board
of Supervisors to approve the Planning Department's Proposed Budget
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
5. Director's Announcements
- Gave a status report regarding to the Department's proposed
budget before the Finance Committee
- 19th and Oakwood – 43 residential units – Compromise
proposal was submitted and was continued to Monday June 25, 2001 to allow
the public to comment on the compromise proposal.
- Housing Land Use and Transportation Committee – Legislation
sponsored by Supervisor Tom Ammiano would create Interim Zoning within the
Mission District. Director appeared before the Board Committee on 6/20 to
comment on this legislation and to communicate that the Department carried
out the necessary review.
6.
Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board
of Appeals
- Zoning Administrator represented the Department at the
Building Inspection Commission's Unlawful Demolition Subcommittee on Tuesday
6/19 to address the concern about Unlawful Demolition
B of A: None
7. Presentation on Controller's Office Audit and Department's response.
SPEAKER (s):
(-) Sue Hestor
-
Planning Department should get out of the business of handling
money. This department is not set up as a money handling department
-
Controller's Audit did not identify a problem that she was
able to identify--which is the Planning Department staff does not understand
the provisions of transit impact fees, which covers not only offices but also
business services
- There are no close-out procedures for files. The Department needs
to close them out and notify the appropriate agencies
(-) Alice Barkley
-
We do not need to create another Department to solve these
problems
-
The School District does very well. They do not issue your
site permit or your building permit until you pay the fees
-
Since most impacts do not happened until the building is completed
and people moved in, and since DBI is the collecting agcncy, they [DBI] should
have within their tickler system a way to know whether or not the fees have
been paid before they issue any permits of occupancy or certificate of occupancy
whether it is temporary or permanent.
(-) Phil Donohue
-
Does seem to him that the Controller's Office is doing a good
job, the entire process has been politicized
8. 2001.0609
455 Market Street - Keller Graduate School of
Management- Assessor’s Block 3709 Lot 012. Request under
Planning Code Section 304.5(c) receipt of application for an Abbreviated Institutional
Master Plan, for a graduate level management degree program occupying no more
than 10,000 square feet of space in an existing office building.
Preliminary Recommendation: The Department recommends that the Planning Commission
not hold a public hearing on this request.
SPEAKER (S): None
ACTION: No public
hearing will be held
AYES:
Theoharis; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Fay; Joe; Lim; Salinas
9. (ALUMBAUGH:
558-6601)
San
Francisco Federal Office Building
- Informational presentation on the conceptual design of the proposed
new Federal Office Building at Seventh and Mission Streets.
Preliminary Recommendation: None.
Informational only, with no staff endorsement
(THIS ITEM WAS TAKEN OUT OR
ORDER AND FOLLOWED ITEM #10.)
SPEAKER (S):
(+) Maria Ciprazo, GSA
-
Hopes the Commission will share our enthusiasm for this long
waited project
-
This federal project not only rethinks the office building
prototype, but also creates a new place--a destination within the City's fabric
-
This will become a catalyst for change
-
The creation of community space that is within the complex
is intended to facilitate a critical mass of people to come into the area
to make use of not only of the federal services but the facility in and of
itself. It is to enlighten a San Francisco neighborhood that has been lacking
a public use space for many years
-
In July 2000, GSA gained title to the site on 7th
and Mission. At this location, we were given an opportunity to showcase our
historic 9th Court of Appeals by developing a structure that serves
and frames the beauty of the Court House as well as preserves view corridors
(+) Tom Mayne,
Project Architect
Gave a detail description of the
project
(+) Catherine Dodd, District
Director for Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
-
We are loosing a lot of Federal employees to Oakland and Richmond.
We have lost the Social Security Administration, Drug Administration and several
others. We are soon to loose the National Park Service Office from San Francisco
because of the high cost of office space and the lack of Federal office building
space.
-
This proposal is a very slender building.
-
It will reflect the sky and the historic buildings surrounding
it.
-
It would be a very active plaza
- Embrace this new design
(+) John Anderson, Federal Employee
- Believed this new plaza would
be very nice and very different from United Nations Plaza
- Would be a very safe place
to work
(+/-) Michael Levin-
-
Ever since he first heard about this many years ago, especially
with the jewel building across the street--Old Court of Appeals, and the glorious
City Hall, he felt it might be fair to compare our government buildings with
the best government buildings in Washington D.C.
-
Hoped to see a building that would be complimentary to the
glorious Court of Appeals
-
He is greatly pleased by the large plaza because it affords
one a view to the beauty of the Court of Appeals, and because of the open
space
-
He has a problem with the design. Does not believe it compliments
the Court of Appeals in any way. It is slender from the east-west perspective--that
is certainly a plus, but from north and south it is a huge rectangular mass
that appears not to blend with the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood
(+) Jim Haas
-
This building is essential to the east side of the Civic Center
and Mid-Market area with the 3000 employees and the agencies that are going
to be there
-
The building should try to connect 7th Street to
Civic Center--which has been a goal going back before the 1906 earthquake
when the Court of Appeals was built
- The Federal Government is
giving us an opportunity to try something new for a change
- Have concerns mainly about
the plaza
-
This project will bring thousands of new people to this area.
Although it is in a transit corridor, the building itself virtually won't
have any parking. Parking will become a chaos
(-) Lu Blazej
-
I had seen many projects–private and government projects.
It has been a long standing policy that both the Federal and State government,
even though they are exempt from local laws and ordinances, respect those
law and ordinances.
-
Clearly the massing and the lay out of this project do not
meet the provisions of the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan and the planning
process is for the whole City. The State and Federal government should respect
what is [established to guide development] for San Francisco.
-
Surprised that GSA came before you with a project that so exceeds
what the policy and guidelines are. It is unbelievable.
- This is totally disrespectful
to what the Planning Code stipulates
(-) Robert Meyers
-
Agreed with the former speaker
-
We might as well throw the Urban Design Plan and Larry Badiner's
Downtown Plan out of the window if this project is approved
-
Open space and energy conservations are terrific
-
It is mainly the mass on Market Street. This mass would create
terrible shadows on Market
Street.
ACTION: No Action
Required
AYES:
Theoharis; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Fay; Joe; Lim; Salinas
D.
REGULAR CALENDAR
10. (WILSON: 558-6602)
Planning Commission consideration of adoption proposed changes to the rules
for the
2001-2002 Office Development Annual Limitation Program.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 7, 2001)
(THIS ITEM WAS TAKEN OUT OR
ORDER AND FOLLOWED ITEM #8.)
SPEAKER (S):
(-) Sue Hestor
-
Suggested that the hearing/decision should be continued at
least a week
-
Just got information yesterday and there is a significant change
-
Need to have an integrated list of projects
ACTION: Continued
to 7/12/01
AYES:
Theoharis; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Fay; Joe; Lim; Salinas
11. 2001.0602 E, T, Z
(GREEN: 558-6411)
Permanent Industrial Protection Zone - Proposed initiation of an amendment to create a
Permanent Industrial Protection Zone as a special use district in the industrially-zoned
lands within a multi-block area generally bounded by Bayshore Avenue, 26th
Street,
25th Street, Iowa Street, Tubbs, 22nd Street, San Francisco
Bay, Islais Creek, Third Street, Evans, Rankin, Phelps, Oakdale, Selby, and
Helena; and proposal to hold a public hearing on said proposed amendment no
less than 20 days following initiation of the amendment.
SPEAKER (S):
(+) Alice Barkley
-
Glad to see that the Department is moving forward with this
legislations
-
What the Department has right now, in a way, makes it even
more restrictive in some of the IPZ areas than what is being proposed by the
Board of Supervisors in terms of housing.
-
The Department should really look at this map. Agreed that
there are some areas where there should not be any housing at all. But there
are some pockets that at a minimum, the staff should allow non-profit, totally
affordable housing to go forward. Make it double the density for affordability
(+) Lu Blazej
-
Glad that this is moving forward
(+) Joe O'Donoghue
-
Good that this is getting concrete planning like this, but
unfortunately, this going down the same path.
-
Unlike in the past, when there was more money available to
the Department and the Board of Supervisors had some interest in solving the
housing and job issues, we have now constraints on the Department.
-
One of the problems we have is that the model, which we had
set up, is deficient. We should, as part of the model, when we give the number
of the many possible jobs, we should also put a tax dollar increment as revenue
to these figures, especially in terms of housing. Because the fact is that
job and housing production and property tax revenue is the economy engine
that in fact provides 90% of the revenue to this City.
(-) John Sanger
-
Unfortunately this is moving forward and no analytical foundation
has been establish whatsoever, either on land use analysis or economics for
this proposal
-
It took fifteen years through the 60s and 70s to change the
City's zoning and get rid-off of the provisions on housing and mixed use in
Industrial districts.
-
This is been unfairly presented.
-
This isolated the residents of these areas including the traditional
Dogpatch neighborhood which is located immediately adjacent to the Special
Use district
-
A creative approach might be in the form of some variation
to the existing interim controls that bounces between how to deal with vacant
land, land that is already occupied by industrial uses of various types, and
how to somehow juggle the mixture of uses that have been traditional in San
Francisco Zoning.
(-) Steve Vettel
-
South of Cesar Chavez is perfectly appropriate
-
His concern is the north area of Cesar Chavez. It is a mixed-use
area that is currently undergoing community planning as part of the Better
Neighborhoods 2000-2002 program in the Central Waterfront Plan.
-
It seems little precipitous to impose permanent bans on all
housing in an area that is undergoing studies under Master Plan policies and
the Better Neighborhood 2000-2002 program.
-
Let this Better Neighborhood process go on in that area.
(+) Stanley Marouca, Redevelopment
Agency project manager for the Bayview-Hunters Point
- Supports the proposed
project that has been presented to the Commission
(+) Jim Martin, Economic Development
Chairperson for the Project Area Committee (PAC)
-
Respectfully requested that the Planning Department reconsider
the boundaries of the proposed perminent Industrial Protection
Zone. To exclude from the proposed perminent Industrial Controls the land
within Assessor's blocks 4355, 4356, 4357, 4377, 78, 5217, 5226, 5304 and
5313. These blocks are either directly adjacent to 3rd. Street
or to the pending MUNI 3rd Street Lightrail Line.
-
Focus on capitalizing on the economic development and affordable
housing opportunities provided by the lightrail line
-
Requested that instead of creating a new community plan study
area for the Bayview Hunters Point, that the Planning Department and the Commission
work with the Bayview Hunters Point Project Area Committee (PAC) and the Redevelopment
Agency, because in creating a redevelopment survey in 1995 the Board of Supervisors
granted the PAC future planning jurisdiction for all properties line south
of Cesar Chavez Boulevard and Highway 101
(+) Andrew Junius
-
Supports the proposed project
ACTION: Initiated.
Public hearing 7/19/01
AYES:
Theoharis; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Fay; Joe; Lim; Salinas
MOTION No.
16177
12. 2001.0602 E,
T, Z
(GREEN: 558-6411)
Community Plan Study Areas and Policies and
Procedures in Some Industrial Lands - Proposed resolution establishing
four community plan study areas encompassing the industrially-zoned lands
in the South of Market, Showplace Square/Lower Porter Hill area, Bay view/Hunters
Point, and the area of the Mission District generally bounded by the Central
Freeway, Porter Avenue, Cesar Chavez, and Guerrero; and establishing policies
and procedures for development proposals in some industrially-zoned lands
within the four proposed community plan study areas and the Central Waterfront.
SPEAKER (S):
(-) Alice Barkley
-
I think this needs to be clarified.
-
Secondly, you referred back to resolution 18461, the department
staff under Mr. Ghosh has got to stop referring and putting layers and layers
of resolutions, one on top of another.
(-) Quentin Maeck
-
In the current zoning of South of Market, the SSO is the only
area where office development is allowed.
-
Early this year we requested through Supervisor McGoldrick's
office and Supervisor Daly's office a list of business services in the SOMA.
We received that list and are currently in the process of researching the
available space that now stands vacant and cannot be used for anything else.
Mr. Badiner had indicated that he will not be issuing any more termination
of business services.
(-) Bob Meyers
-
Pointed out that in the SLI district one of the goals presented
today was to encourage and maximize housing in the SOMA. The SLI district
which occupied one half of the entire SOMA has a restriction in it--while
it permits housing by conditional use, the only housing that is permitted
there is low income housing. Since this plan was adopted in 1989, outside
the redevelopment area no low-income housing has been produced. If we want
affordable housing in the SOMA, it has to be associated with market rate housing
-
Urged that market rate housing through conditional use (in
order to generate the desirable affordable housing) be considered through
our planning process for the SLI and other districts.
(-) Jim Martin, Economic Development
Chairperson for the Project Area Committee (PAC
-
Community needs to hear directly from members of the different
agencies involved in this process
-
Urged the Commission to schedule a full presentation
(+) Jim Rico
-
We need to find ways to encourage neighborhood serving, neighborhood
building development in SOMA
(-) Joe O'Donoghue
-
In the past there have been a lot of documents produced by
this Department, and nothing ever happened. For example, the live work. Reports
like this came out; we were supposed to build 10,000 live work units in the
SOMA. That never happened because halfway through the process you get the
protestors. You get the self interest groups. And the protestors this time
came from the outside, not from the people generally around the area, as this
Commission very well knows
ACTION: No action.
This matter will be continued at future hearings.
AYES:
Baltimore; Chinchilla; Fay; Joe; Lim; Salinas
ABSENT:
Theoharis
13. 2000.541E
(KUGLER: 558-5983)
350 BUSH STREET - Office
Development - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report:
Assessor's Block 269, Lots 2, 2a, 3, 22, 24, 25, 26, which is the approximate
middle third of the Block between Bush, Pine, Kearny and Montgomery Streets.
The proposed project which would have frontages on both Bush and Pine Streets
would be a 250-foot-high (19 stories), 400,000 sq.ft. office building that
would incorporate the historical San Francisco Mining Exchange Building (San
Francisco Landmark No. 113). The proposed office tower would be set back
from the Bush Street façade of the Mining Exchange Building. The project
as proposed would contain 360,000 sq.ft. of office use, 7,270 sq.ft. of retail
use and 32,730 sq.ft. of parking as 100 subsurface parking spaces. Four existing
buildings (465-469 Pine, 451-453 Pine, 447 Pine, and 441-443 Pine) would be
demolished. The project site is located in the Financial District of downtown
San Francisco in the C-3-O Zoning District and 250-S Height and Bulk District.
Note: Written comments will be received at
the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on July 5, 2001.
Preliminary Recommendation: No action required.
SPEAKER (S):
(-) Michael Levin
-
Concerned about the mass of the building
-
EIR is lacking in graphics and photographs, this was something
the Landmarks Board members brought up
-
There are not any photos of the interior of the Mining Exchange
Building, and this is a Landmark. The architect expressed various aspects
on what they plan to do to preserve it. This should be part of the EIR.
-
Building has been vacated for many years and glad to see a
proposal that would energize it
-
Photos were very interesting but not useful. For example,
the photos in the EIR showed a drawing of the building that is significantly
different from what the actual building may appear to be.
ACTION: Meeting held. Public hearing closed.
AYES:
Baltimore; Chinchilla; Fay; Joe; Lim; Salinas
ABSENT:
Theoharis
14. 2001.0150R
(ASSEFA:
558-6625)
20th
STREET VACATION - 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 San Francisco General Plan.
(Continued from Regular Meeting
of May 24, 2001)
PROJECT WITHDRAWN
15. 2001.0140C
(TAM:
558-6325)
845
Vienna Street – Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow
expansion of an existing private elementary school at 845 Vienna Street (School
of the Epiphany), under Planning Code Section 209.3(g). The proposal is to
demolish an existing one-story converted church building, which houses the
present gymnasium and construct a new two-story building, approximately 13,800
square feet at the northeast corner of the school site. The property is
located within a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X
Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with conditions.
SPEAKER (S):
Monsignor Bruce Rayer
-
The project before you has been a dream for the last five years
-
The existing school building that we have now it just inadequate
to meet the needs of the 600 students we have right now in our program.
-
We were planning originally to put this building on top of
the school, but we encountered some real problems in developing that because
the roof is wood, we had to put in a concrete floor, and the concrete floor
triggered retrofitting of the entire building
-
Our original church was built in 1911. It has been moved a
coupled of times in our neighborhood. It has been our gymnasium since 1951.
-
Made a reference to Condition #5: This conditions states that
the new two-story building, that is part of the School of the Epiphany should
be used only by the school and should not be rented out for outside events
or used for non-school related events. He believes that this is a very narrow
sentence. First of all, our facilities are not available for rent. We do
not rent to any outside group.
ACTION: Approved
as amended:
The new two-story building
that is part of School of the Epiphany shall be used only by the school and
shall not be rented out for outside events or used for non-school and non-parish
related events.
AYES: Baltimore; Chinchilla; Fay;
Joe; Lim; Salinas
ABSENT:
Theoharis
MOTION No.
16178
16. 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 24, 2001)
SPEAKER (S): None
ACTION: Without
hearing, continued to July 26, 2001
AYES:
Baltimore; Chinchilla; Fay; Joe; Lim; Salinas
ABSENT:
Theoharis
At Approximately 6:07 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary
Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.
17. 2001.0385DD (TAM:
558-6325)
283 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.
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of June 14, 2001)
SPEAKER (S):
(+) John Wurly
-
Lived in the neighborhood for many years
-
Surprised by the size of the project
-
Concerned about the space between the two residences
-
Windows are the only resource of light to the laundry room
and kitchen
-
Will be deprive of light and ventilation
-
Concerned about the noise coming from the other house
-
There is also a fire hazard because of the closeness of the
properties
-
Over all the project is too massive and parking will create
an impact in the neighborhood
(+) Paul Curtis
-
Lives very close to the proposed project
-
This proposal would impact the character of the neighborhood
-
There are no fourth floor buildings on Chennery Street
-
Would block enormously the only sunlight that comes into this
house
-
It is out of context with the rest of the neighborhood
-
Commission should impose the removal of the fourth floor as
one of the conditions of approval.
(+) Mary Ann Wurly-Deignan
-
Has lived in the area for 80 years
-
His mother spends most of her time in the kitchen since she
retired because it is the sunnyest room in the whole house
-
With this new proposed project, his mother will not be able
to enjoy the little bit of sunlight that she has in her house
-
This will be detrimental to his mother's health as well as
the property value of the house
-
The rooftop is unacceptable. It would violate their privacy.
(-) Charles Karl, Architect
- Gave a description of the project
ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve project with modifications:
(1) Obtain demolition clearance
before approving any building permits to demolish and reconstruct a building
on the subject property;
(2) Reduce the 12-foot permitted obstruction at the rear of the property from
three (3) to two (2) stories to comply with the Residential Design Guidelines
to respect rear yards and open space;
(3) Eliminate the proposed fourth story completely to reduce the mass and
scale of the building and to be more consistent with the established two and
three-story development pattern on the block and in the surrounding neighborhood;
(4) Eliminate the roof deck completely to further negate the need for any
additional structures (stair tower and railing) protruding vertically from
the proposed building envelop. However, should the roof deck be allowed and
access to and from the roof area is required, then propose a stair penthouse
of a minimal size instead of a spiral stair tower that is so grandiose in
design. Furthermore, the stair penthouse should be located where it does
not negatively impact the adjacent neighboring property to the west and is
not so visually dominating from the street;
(5) Increase the building separation between the subject and the adjacent
building to the west from three (3) to a minimum of four (4) feet;
(6) Modify or remove all horizontal and vertical projections
located along the west side setback area, including the stair tower and two
(2) chimneys to minimize negative impacts on light, air, and privacy to the
DR requestor’s property line windows
AYES:
Baltimore; Chinchilla; Fay; Joe; Lim; Salinas
ABSENT:
Theoharis
18. 2001.0251DD (BORDEN: 558-6321)
2935 PACIFIC AVENUE
- south side of Pacific between Baker and Broderick Streets, Lot 27in Assessor’s
Block 976. Staff-initiated Discretionary Review of proposal to merge three
dwelling units into two units and neighbors’ request for Discretionary Review
on a proposal for new fourth story and basement additions, including changes
to the roof pitch, under Building Permit Application No. 2000/12/21/8481 in
an RM-2 (Mixed Residential, Moderate Density) District and a 40-X Height and
Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the building permit
application.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 17, 2001)
SPEAKER (S):
(+) James Johnson
-
Project would have a severe impact in the light and air into
the units on the west side
-
Deck would have direct viewing into their home
-
Proposed project is unacceptable and should be disapproved
-
It would change the character of the building
(+) Linda Ramori
- Supports Discretionary Review
(+) Tom
Preskencsky
-
In support for the Discretionary Review
-
Concerned about the light and air
(+) Gail Sheptor
- In support of the Discretionary
Review
- This will be too big
- Would loose sunlight, heat,
and air
(+) Tom Ramori
- The foruth floor is a major
issue. It will block the sunlight
(-) David Silverman, Project
Sponsor
- Building has been vacant for
a long time
- Constructed in 1936 as a two
family dwelling
- DBI performed an inspection
- There is no permit on file
- Application is to return building
to its original occupancy/usage
(-) Ernie Zelander, Project Architect
- Gave a description of the
project
ACTION: Take Discretionary
Review and Disapprove
AYES:
Baltimore; Chinchilla; Lim; Salinas
ABSENT:
Theoharis; Fay; Joe
19. 2001.0042D
(TAM: 558-6325)
176 Clipper Street - Discretionary Review
request on Building Permit No. 2000/11/21/6290s to demolish the existing 10-foot,
two-story over garage extension and construct a new 26’-7", two-story
plus attic over garage extension at the rear of the property. The existing
structure is a single-family dwelling, located in the RH-2 (Residential, House,
Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary
Review and approve the project as revised.
SPEAKER (S):
(+) Jerry McDonald, DR requestor
-
Lived in this house for 32 years
-
This house was built in 1895 and he is the second owner. His
concern is for quality of life. He hopes to live the rest of their life there
-
This has been done fast to avoid any additional process
-
Project would have 52 windows. 32 of those windows would be
looking into every room in our house--into our private airwell, deck and garden.
-
This is a house with no regard to neighborhood context and
neighbors
-
Addition would shaded their garden totally for 8 months of
a year
(+) Dave Montz, President, Friends
of Noe Valley
-
Concerned about how the request for continuance was handled
-
We have to be fair with the neighbors that are going to be
affected by this project
(+) Unknown Speaker
- Read a letter on behalf
of Timothy Fintz
-
Vertical addition of the 4th floor is completely
inconsistent with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood
-
It will create shadows
-
It will negatively impact the properties adjacent to it
(+) Paul Curtis
- It is too intrusive
- This style does not fit in
this neighborhood
(-) Jerome Alton, Architect
-
Scale of the project is consistent with the neighborhood
-
It is not a very large project
-
Prepared several studies that indicate this project would have
very minimal impact on sunlight
(-) Laurie Hersch
- Supports project
(-) Laurie Bell, Owner
-
Needs to enlarge her house to take care of her mother
-
Supports the project
(-) David Bell
- Supports project
(-) Edward Bell, Owner
-
Lived at this property for many years
-
Proposed changes meet the design guidelines and is comparable
with the existing buildings in the neighborhood
-
Cares about maintaining the neighborhood character
(-) Unknown speaker
- No objections to the project.
It is well within the Planning Code.
(-) Francis Hellerim
- Supports the project
(-) Judith Turner
- Presented a petition from
the neighbors
- Do not agree with the DR
- Fully supports the project
ACTION: Take Discretionary
Review and approve as revised:
1. Elimination of the roof deck;
2. Reduction of the proposed floor
height for portions of the master bedroom from 20 to 16 feet;
3. Removal of the roof overhang
adjacent to the D.R requestor’s property; and
4. Usage of obscure rather than
clear glass for all windows, including the portion of the bay window, facing
the D.R. requestor’s property.
AYES:
Baltimore; Chinchilla; Lim; Salinas
ABSENT:
Theoharis; Fay; Joe
20. 2001.0542D
(SANCHEZ: 558-6679)
217 - 219 16TH AVENUE - west side between California and Clement Streets, Lot 002
in
Assessor’s Block 1417. Request for Discretionary
Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/08/25/8970S, proposing to construct
a three-story horizontal addition at the rear of the existing two-unit building
in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and
Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Take Discretionary Review and approve project with revisions.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 7, 2001)
SPEAKER (S):
(+) Denise Brady, Discretionary
Review Requestor
-
Owned this building since 1932
-
Would loose air, light and heat
-
Our concerns are confirmed and supported by your staff recommendations
(-) Dan Lee, Co-Owner
-
Bought it in December 1999
-
Because of the number of members in our families, we decided
to add to the back of our house
-
Provided a light study
-
Compromised by bringing the project back 5 feet
(-) Nancy Leland, Co-Owner
-
Has lived in the house for a year and a half
-
There won't be any shadow impact
(-) Debbie Lee
-
This is not a gigantic addition and is in conformity with the
rest of the neighborhood
ACTION: Approved
staff recommendation
AYES:
Baltimore; Chinchilla; Lim; Salinas
ABSENT:
Theoharis, Fay, Joe
21. 2001.0542D
(KOMETANI: 558-6478)
290 UNION STREET -
north side between Montgomery and Sansome Streets, Lot 15 in Assessor’s Block
106. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos.
200012057228, 9706246S, 9906666, 200004076744, 200004217904, with respect
to a 4th floor balcony/fire escape at the rear, a chimney pipe at the rear
and a roof deck railing at the rear. The subject property is a single family
house in the Telegraph Hill Historic District, is in a RH-3 (Residential,
House, Three-Family) District, and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
SPEAKER (S):
(+) Melvin Seraca, DR requestor
- This is one the oldest residential
buildings in the City
- Project was built contrary
to plans
- Do not authorize the 4th
floor addition
(+) Shirley Bentley
-
Does not support project
-
This is the first demolition in the Telegraph Hill Historic
District since its designation–which was very controversial. The plans which
became part of the approved certificate of appropriateness, memorialized the
specific set of compromises and agreements between the developers, the Telegraph
Hills Dwellers and the adjoining neighbors to resolve substantial controversies
concerning the building envelope and height--specifically including the impact
on the adjacent land locked historic cottages at 1334 Montgomery Street
(-) John Lutrell
-
The balcony has to come off
-
There are a series of maneuvers or actions that the developer
has taken that are not in conformity with the original Cetificate of Apropriateness
-
This can only be interpreted as an intentional departure [from
the agreements]
-
[If the agreements were kept,] the original height would be
exactly what it should be, without going up 2 feet, 3 inches further
(+) Nancy Shanahan
-
Windows and doors, except for the garage and front doors, were
prefabricated vinyl, instead of painted wood. Windiws should be double hung
windows with wood trim that would open onto the balcony
-
Materials were an important element of the plans, and were
agreed upon before becoming a part of the Certificate of Appropriateness
-
As a specific condition of the Certificate of Appropriateness,
it was required that working drawings be prepared. We asked for them on November
22, 2000. We could not find them. They did not exist. The detailed plans
would have shown the materials, the trim and the proper prospective.
(+) Tom Schick
-
This is the largest collection of pre-1870 buildings in the
City of San Francisco
-
Suggested that the Commission review in detail what had been
built on top of this building.
-
This parapet absolutely would destroy the view for other buildings
(+) Larry Habegger
-
Asked the Commission to make this project comply with the original
Certificate of Appropriateness
(+) Alice Barkley
-
Conditions of approval:
(1) Remove the roof
deck
(2) Remove the parapet
(3) Add a Notice of
Special Restriction stating the conditions of approval and also referencing
and attaching to it the original C of A and the conditions that this Commission
imposed. She believes this is reasonable as an amendment to the original
C of A and the final set of plans, so there are no more mistakes from now
on. In the future we will know what is to going to be required and what is
not. There will be clear language that states any additional changes must
come back and get a new C of A
(-) Keith Wilson, Project Sponsor
-
What is being built here from our approved plans is a huge
improvement to the character of the Historic Telegraph Hill community
-
We have done everything from day one by the book on this project--contrary
to what the DR supporters have expressed to this Commission
(-) Steward Kaplan
- Supports the project
(-) Patty Snodovia, Project
Architect
-
Has met with planning staff for about a year trying to submit
5 different sets of plans. Has had several meetings with everybody in the
Building and Planning Departments trying to find a solution that is going
to be agreeable to them
ACTION: Approve
as recommended by Zoning Administrator
- Conditions of approval:
(1) Remove
the roof deck
(2) Remove
the parapet
(3) Add
a Notice of Special Restriction stating the conditions of approval and also
referencing and attaching to it the original C of A and the conditions that
this Commission imposed. She believes this is reasonable as an amendment
to the original C of A and the final set of plans, so there are no more mistakes
from now on. In the future we will know what is to going to be required and
what is not. There will be clear language that states any additional changes
must come back and get a new C of A
AYES:
Baltimore; Chinchilla; Lim; Salinas
ABSENT:
Fay, Joe, Theoharis
F. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the
Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to
agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded
when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda
item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the
public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing,
your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public
Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the
Commission for up to three minutes.
The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action
or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those
items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission
is limited to:
(1) Responding to statements made or questions
posed by members of the public; or
(2) Requesting staff to report back on a matter
at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) Directing staff to place the item on a future
agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
SPEAKER (s): None
Adjournment: 9:15 PM
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JuLY 19, 2001.
