September 06, 2001
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, September 6, 2001
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT FAY AT 1:40 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green, Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Tina Tam; Elizabeth Gordon; Paul Maltzer; Paul Lord; Catherine Bauman; Joan Kugler; Joy Navarrete Kelley LeBlanc; Dario Jones; Glen Cabreros; Michael Smith; Dan Sider; Tom Wang; Scott Sanchez; Nora Priego, Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery, Commission Secretary
A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1. 2001.0336C (S. SNYDER: 558-6543)
3579 FOLSOM/495 CHAPMAN - at the intersection of Folsom and Chapman Streets. Lot 42 in Assessor's Block 5627 - Request for authorization of a Conditional Use for the creation of one lot with a width of fewer than 25 feet in an RH-1 and an area of less than 1,750 square feet in an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, per Section 121 of the Planning Code, and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval
(Proposed for Continuance to September 13, 2001) October 4, 2001
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to October 4, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
2. 2000.961EZC (TURRELL: 558-5994)
1101 O'FARRELL STREET - Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. Assessor’s Block 713, Lot 33, and Block 720, Lots 28, 35, 36, and 38. The proposed project involves demolition of the existing 15,000-square-foot, three-story Urban Life Center building, which contains social service and office uses, and construction of a 297,000-square-foot, 240-foot-tall structure with 240 units of senior housing. Approximately 86 on-site below-ground parking spaces would be provided. The project also involves the seismic upgrade of St. Mark’s Lutheran Church and relocation of about 5,000 square feet of social services space from the Urban Life Center building to the adjacent Martin Luther Tower. The 80,400-square-foot site is located in an RM-4 (Residential, Mixed: High Density) Zoning District within the Western Addition neighborhood. Lots 28, 35, and 36 of Block 720 are within an 80-B Height and Bulk District; the remainder of the site is within a 240-E Height and Bulk District. The project would require approval of a lot subdivision and merger, a height reclassification, and Conditional Use authorization for a Planned Unit Development. The project would also require a Certificate of Appropriateness for seismic upgrade of St. Mark’s Lutheran Church, City Landmark No. 41.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 12, 2001)
(Proposed for Continuance to September 13, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to September 13, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
3. 2000.961EZC (WOODS: 558-6315)
1101 O'FARRELL STREET - southwest corner of O’Farrell (a.k.a. Starr King Way) and Franklin Streets, Lot 33 in Assessor’s Block 713 and Lots 35 and 36 in Assessor’s Block 720 - Request to reclassify the existing Height and Bulk Districts of Lots 35 and 36 from 80-B to 240-G; and reclassify the existing Bulk District of Lot 33 from 240-E to 240-G in an RM-4 (Residential, Mixed, High Density) Zoning District. The existing Zoning District would not change. The reclassification is being sought to allow the development of a 240-unit senior housing facility (St. Mark’s Square).
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of the Draft Resolution for Reclassification
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 16, 2001)
(Proposed for Continuance to September 13, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to September 13, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
4. 2000.961EZC (WOODS: 558-6315)
1101 O'FARRELL STREET - southwest corner of O’Farrell (a.k.a. Starr King Way) and Franklin Streets, Lot 33 in Assessor’s Block 713, and Lots 35 and 36 in Assessor’s Block 720 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 253, 303 and 304 of the Planning Code to permit a Planned Unit Development for the construction of a 23-story, 240-foot tall, 240-unit senior housing facility in an RM-4 (Residential, Mixed, High Density) Zoning District and a 240-G Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 16, 2001)
(Proposed for Continuance to September 13, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to September 13, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
5. 2001.0522C (SIROIS: 558-6313)
965 GENEVA AVENUE - south side of Geneva Avenue between London and Paris Streets, Lot 010 Assessor’s Block 6409. Request by Metro PCS for Conditional Use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility pursuant to Planning Code Section 712.83 which includes the installation of nine panel antennas, one GPS antenna and equipment cabinets at the Apollo Theater which is located in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The subject site is a Preference Location 4.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 9, 2001)
(Proposed for Continuance to October 4, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to October 4, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
6. 2000.0023D (SIROIS: 558-6313)
1187 NOE STREET - east side of Noe Street, between Jersey and 25th Streets, Lot 028 Assessor’s Block 6537 - Request for Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No.2000/07/10/4707 and Building Permit Application No. 2000/07/10/4705 seeking authorization to demolish an existing two-family dwelling and to construct a new two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, Two Family House) District and a 40-X height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to October 25, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to October 25, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
7. 2001.0146DD (JONES: 558-6477)
626-29th STREET - north side of 29th Street between Castro and Diamond Streets, Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 7536 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/08/10/7566 for the new construction of a three-story, single-family dwelling at the front of the lot. The lot currently contains an existing one story, single-family dwelling at the rear of the property located within an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. This Building Permit is also subject to a front setback variance request.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and modify the project.
(Proposed for Continuance to October 25, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to October 25, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
8. 2001.0290D (SANCHEZ: 558-6679)
750-38TH AVENUE - east side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets; Lot: 019 in Assessor’s Block: 1607 - Staff initiated request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Number 2000/11/16/5873S, proposing to add a fourth floor to a newly constructed three-story, two-unit building, within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the project.
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WITHDRAWN
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
9. Commission Matters
None
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
10. Director's Announcements
Re: Inclusionary Policy
- This item was not on the calendar in order to give the Commissioners enough time to look over the information provided to them. Commissioner Baltimore and Commissioner Salinas have requested further information so this is another reason this item is not on today's calendar.
11. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS – None (The Board is on recess)
BOA – None (The Board is on recess)
Re: Yerba Buena Lofts (855 Folsom Street)
- There was an article in a newspaper stating that the Commission was opposed to this project. This is false information. Mr. Badiner has communicated this information to the newspaper and the newspaper has responded that it was an editing error.
12. Informational Presentation on the Bayview/Hunters Point Community Revitalization Concept Plan by the Bayview Hunters Point Project Area Committee (PAC).
Following a comprehensive presentation of the Area Plan by members of the PAC,
the Commission received public comment:
SPEAKER(S):
Stanley Muraoka – Project Manager for Bay View Hunters Point and San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
- There are three existing redevelopment project areas within or adjacent to the survey area in addition to the Hunters Point survey area: Bay View Industrial Triangle, The India Basin Industrial Park and the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.
- There was an election of a 21-member project area committee. The 34,000 residents of the Bay View Hunters Point community in the 94124 zip code area elected the committee members. The election was conducted by the Department of Elections.
- This committee has been working on a revitalization concept plan.
- He asks the Commission to keep in mind Bay View's community strengths. Bay View Hunter's Point is one of the fastest growing and most ethnically diverse communities in San Francisco.
- The redevelopment plan will work with the Bay View community and the Planning Department to build economic development projects; will work on the creation of affordable and market-rate housing; and will assist with programs to enhance the livability of Bay View Hunters Point.
Dan Dodt
- The concept plan is based on direct community involvement.
- The PAC meets once a month as a full body and is organized with 5 officers and 5 standing committees. There are 4 issue committees and an executive committee. The issues committees include housing, land use planning and transportation; health and environment; education, training, and employment; and economic development.
- Three specific goals have been articulated: 1) future revitalization must be guided by and benefit local residents; 2) its character and spirit must be preserved; 3) the physical and ecological environment will be improved.
- The first goal is job creation. The second goal is to improve education, training and employment opportunities for the residents. The third goal is to focus on coordinated investment in high priority areas. The fourth goal is to encourage civic participation through an interactive public process and foster cultural development. The fifth goal is to preserve existing housing as well as increase housing. The sixth goal is to improve the environmental problems and issues. The seventh goal is to improve the physical and transportation issues.
- They are currently in the process of outreach to receive comments and information from the community.
Mel Washington – Bay View Neighborhood Association
- He grew up in the Bay View district.
- The community that he represents welcomes opportunities to revitalize this area by attracting new business and new opportunities.
- This plan has the support of the community.
- He hopes that the Commission reads the plan carefully and understands what it means.
James Martin
- He has listened through the presentation.
- He was raised in this area and now is raising a family there.
- Many years ago there was no PAC. He has developed his own career and has had an opportunity to come back and help the community he grew up in.
- This area has become multi cultural and he has been helping this area to grow and progress.
Dorice Murphy – Eureka Valley Trails and Art Network
- Many of her family members live in the Bay View district.
- There is an enormous need for housing for teachers, firemen, policemen, staff members of the Planning Department, and even Commissioners themselves.
- This area is a wonderful place to live and would welcome housing.
Anastasia Yovanopolous
- The amount of housing allocated for this area is really not enough.
- Transportation is of great concern.
- Solution to the environmental problems is one of the most important issues.
- People have the right to breath fresh air and have the right to have transportation.
Doris Benson
- She has lived in this area for many years.
- She is asking the Commission to support the presentation they just saw.
David Crosby
- This has been a 20 year process.
- The problems in this area have become larger in the last few years.
- The economic thrust is very important here.
Gary Banks
- He supports the revitalization concept plan.
- He is a homeowner in this area.
- It is very important for the community to have economic growth and development.
- They had an opportunity to review this plan before it was presented to the community.
Robin Chang
- In the past 13 yeas, the PAC really has reached out to the community.
- This PAC has been the voice to various diverse groups.
ACTION: The item is informational only. No action required.
D. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION -- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
13. 2000.1279C (TAM: 558-6325)
522-524 CLIPPER STREET - north side between Diamond and Douglass Streets, Lot 9 in Assessor’s Block 6545 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 121(f) to allow the subject lot to be subdivided into two lots. One of the newly created lots will have a width of 19 feet, which is less than the required 25-foot minimum. The proposal also includes construction of a new four-story, single-family dwelling on the newly created 19-foot wide lot. The property is located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 26, 2001)
Note: On July 26, 2001, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the case to August 9, 2001 to allow the project architect to submit revised architectural drawings and to have a representative from the Building Department attend the hearing. The Vote was +6 –0. Commissioner Theoharis was absent.
Note: On August 23, 2001, the Commission passed a motion of intent to approve project by a vote of +5 –0 (Commissioners Fay and Chinchilla were absent) with the following conditions: 1) eliminate top floor; 2) reduce height of the building; 3) report from a tree expert to understand what trees can be save and what procedures are necessary to do so; 4) require the Certificate of Occupancy for the adjacent Victorian be issued prior to the Certificate of Completion for the project; 5) include parking for adjacent Victorian home. Final language 9/6/01.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved with the following additional modifications: 1. Final plans for the herein-authorized single-family dwelling shall be reviewed and approved by the staff of the Department of City Planning; 2. The proposed single-family dwelling shall not exceed more than 3 stories in height, measured from the front of the property. 3. A Tree Plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the staff of the Department of City Planning; 4. The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Final Completion for Building Permit Number 2001/08/14/5991 to remove all east facing windows and rearrange interior walls; and 5. The Applicant shall record a Notice of Special Restriction to ensure one (1) of the proposed two (2) independently accessible off-street parking spaces on the newly created 19-foot wide lot will be devoted to the existing two-family dwelling at 522-524 Clipper Street.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION: 16221
E. REGULAR CALENDAR
14. 1999.481L (GORDON: 558-6309)
GOLDEN TRIANGLE LIGHT STANDARDS - area bounded by Market, Mason and Sutter Streets. The Golden Triangle Light Standards line the streets, not including alleys, in the area given above. Consideration of landmark designation and adoption of a resolution recommending landmark designation of the Golden Triangle Light Standards as Landmark No. 233.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving landmark designation and recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve the landmark designation.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION: 16222
15. 2001.0602E (MALTZER: 558-5977)
PERMANENT INDUSTRIAL PROTECTION ZONE SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration for a proposed permanent industrial protection zone Special Use District within a multi-block portion of the City’s industrially zoned land, the area generally bounded by the following streets and avenues: Bayshore Boulevard, 26th Street, 25th Street, Iowa, Tubbs, 22nd Street, San Francisco Bay, Islais Creek, Third Street, Evans, Rankin, Phelps, Oakdale, Selby and Helena. Within the Special Use District the provisions of the underlying M-1 and M-2 zoning controls would remain applicable, except that i) no residential or live/work development or conversion to such uses shall be allowed; and ii) no new office development or conversion to office shall be allowed.
Preliminary Recommendation: Reject the appeal and uphold the Department’s decision to publish a Negative Declaration.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 23, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) David Cincotta – 1st Appellant
- He is here to talk about the issue of housing and how the negative declaration affects housing.
- He would like to recommend that housing be allowed along the Third Street Light Rail Project.
- He hopes that the Commission will listen to this recommendation.
- If the Commission and/or the Board of Supervisors adopt this recommendation, housing will remain the same.
- This policy would require conditional use permits for any type of use and this is appropriate.
- He hopes that the Commission doesn't loose site of the policy, which would allow housing in this corridor.
(-) Armon Cooper – 2nd Appellant
- He supports what Mr. Cincotta had to say.
- His interest is as a property owner. He believes that housing should not be prohibited.
(+) Dorice Murphy
- She supports housing in the Bay View District.
- The Bay View is in desperate need of staff to help develop this area.
- She spoke to Ms. Espanola Jackson and she is in full support of this policy.
ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION: 16223
16. 2001.0602TZ (LORD: 558-6311)
INDUSTRIAL PROTECTION ZONE – SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Consideration of adoption a resolution that imposes zoning controls establishing a Special Use District Industrial Protection/Zone where new residential, live/work and office uses would not be permitted in the area generally bounded by Bayshore Boulevard, Islais Creek, Third Street, Evans Avenue, Rankin Street, Phelps Street, Oakdale Avenue, Selby Street and Helena Street.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Resolution adopting Permanent Industrial Protection Zone – Special Use District
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 23, 2001
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Casey Moreno
- He works in the Bay View area.
- He read a letter from Mr. Imperial who was not able to attend the meeting because of disability access.
- He would like the Commission to consider the community outreach that is going on in this area since they will be the ones affected by this decision.
- He would like to have this case continued.
(+) Stanley Muraoka – Redevelopment Agency
- On behalf of the agency he would like to thank the Commission and the department for this legislation. It is entirely consistent with the desires and the focus area plan for this district.
- The issue of Home Depot is not before the Commission. Regardless of whether or not this legislation is approved, the matter of Home Depot will come before the Commission at an appropriate time.
(+) Joseph Smooke – Housing Director of the Bernal Heights Center
- He would like to propose to the Commissioners an amendment to this legislation.
- He displayed a map of the parcels that are affected by the decision of this item.
- He would like the Commission to allow the community to work together and chart the future of the parcels.
(+) Father Ignacio De Goot – Pastor of St. Anthony's Church
- The housing aspect in this area is very critical. They have lost many of their parishioners and many students because these people cannot find homes to live in.
- He urges the Commission to have community input including Bernal Heights.
- Do not limit this to industrial but keep it open to housing.
(+) Larry Cruz
- He would like to request the exception of the Bayshore corridor from the IPZ.
- He urges the Commission to allow more time for community input.
- There are points along the Bayshore corridor, which have opposing views.
- Any decision made on the Bayshore corridor will have an impact on Bernal Heights.
- He has lived in Bernal Heights for 13 years and he has not seen so much community input as now.
(+) Ignacio Nunez
- He is a Bernal Heights resident and a San Francisco native.
- He would like to request a continuance regarding the Goodwill/Whole Earth Access site.
- Bayshore Boulevard offers a perfect opportunity for both communities (Bernal Heights and Bayview) to come together.
- Her is personally against commercial zoning.
(+) Gopal Sarin
- He is an environmental consultant and engineer.
- He assists the Bernal Heights center.
- Bernal Heights Center has done a lot of work regarding the design process, housing and commercial aspects of the area.
- The document that the Bernal Heights Center has prepared is not exciting. It needs a lot of work.
- The area is almost on the shoreline and to protect the shoreline, there should not be too many industrial uses. Housing is needed in the area.
(+) Ed Myrtle
- He lives in the Bernal Heights area and would like to have the Bayshore Boulevard corridor be exempt from this legislation.
- Residents of this area are developing a plan for this neighborhood.
- Not much of San Francisco is flat but this area is.
- Mixed use development can include artists space and space for seniors.
(+) Buck Bagot
- He opposes the inclusion of Bayshore Boulevard in the IPZ.
- He does agree with the work that the department has been doing in this area.
(+) Elizabeth Godoy
- She lives in a one room apartment with her brother and her daughter.
- housing is very expensive in the city.
- She would like to have more housing in this area.
(+) Kingmond Young
- He is a Bernal Heights resident.
- Imposing this IPZ along the Bayshore would limit diversity in the area.
- There is a low percentage of people who can afford housing today.
- Multi use can work especially well in this area.
- There are better ways to help this community.
(+) Silvia Ibarra
- She is a parishioner of St. Antonio Church.
- She thanks the Commission for listening to her at this late hour of the afternoon.
- She has a daughter who is 9 years old and lives in a very small apartment because she cannot afford a bigger one.
- She would like to remain in the Bernal Heights area and would like the Commission to approve more housing.
- The Commissioners have families so they should understand the needs this community has.
- Maybe Home Depot doesn't understand this but she has faith that the Commission will.
- She thanks the Commission for their attention.
(+) Mauricio Vela
- He is a resident of the Bernal Heights area.
- There are many people of this area who are attending this hearing.
- He would like to support the amendment that Mr. Smook recommended to the Commission to continue this proposal or to exempt the Bayshore Corridor from the legislation.
- Bayshore is the zipper of both communities (Bay View and Bernal Heights).
- There could be better uses along Bayshore Boulevard.
(+) Amy Beinart
- She has lived in Bernal Heights for 12 years and works for the Bernal Center as a developer for affordable housing.
- The area has potential for stores, offices and housing as well as for production, distribution and repair businesses that would be covered in an IPZ.
- The closing of Whole Earth Access and Goodman Lumber have left large parcels available for development.
- She would like to have the blocks in the amendment be excluded from the IPZ.
- This would allow the residents of Bernal Heights to discuss important issues with the Bay View Hunter's Point PAC.
(+) Mark Lynch
- He is a Bernal Heights resident
- It is very clear that there is a sincere effort to revitalize this area yet the Bayshore corridor should be excluded from this proposal.
- He doesn't believe that the folks of Bay View don't care about other families. He would like to have just industrial use along Bayshore.
(+) Helvina Duarte
- She lives 4 blocks from St. Anthony's Church.
- She hopes that the Commission will help the residents of this community who are trying to survive because of the high rents.
- She asks the Commission for help for the people who are suffering and are out in the cold because they cannot afford a place to live in.
(+) Imelda (last name unclear)
- She is here in support of all those people who cannot afford a place to live.
- She lives in a one bedroom apartment with her family.
- She hopes that the Commission supports affordable housing in this area.
(+) Sumi Imamoto
- Everything that happens in the Bayshore corridor concerns her because she lives in the area.
- Any type of development in this area will have an impact on her neighborhood.
- She is concerned about the quality of life not only of the residents but also of the businesses.
- She supports the development of this area.
(+) Stanley Unite
- He would like to have the Bayshore area developed for affordable housing.
- He is a World War II Veteran and would like to have a better place to live in.
(+) Oriana Ides
- She lives in District 10.
- She would like to request that the Commission exempt the Bayshore corridor from the IPZ.
- She is the mother of a 3-year-old child. Three fourths of her check goes to rent and child care.
- This community needs more housing, childcare facilities, etc.
- Bayshore is not an isolated strip, there is housing there.
(+) John Daniels
- He is very concerned about the future of the neighborhood.
- He would like to ask, What would improve the planning process?
- The freeways are locked up from the hours of 8 to 10 a.m., and in the afternoons from 2 to 7. It would not be a good thing if a Home Depot is allowed to be there if this area is developed industrial.
(+) Mary Wings
- She lives in the Bernal Heights area.
- There are several great commercial sites in this area.
- This would make it really appropriate for housing.
(+) Rick Gerharter
- He has concerns about the development of the Goodman Lumber site.
- A mixed-use development would serve better in this area.
- Development of Cortland Avenue is of great concern to the residents also.
- His other concern is the confrontation between the two neighborhoods (Bernal Heights and Bay View).
- He supports the suspension of voting on this issue today.
(+) Ana D. Manalac-Beltran
- She opposes this IPZ zone.
- A mixed-use designation for this area is more appropriate and hopes the Commission will support this.
(+) Laura Fosbender
- She is a resident of the Bernal Heights area.
- There is very good public transportation in this area so there is a great need for housing
(+) Jen Laskin
- She would like to have the Bayshore corridor exempt from the IPZ.
(+) Bo Walker
- She supports this amendment since she would like to see the Bayshore corridor more like a Geary Boulevard.
- She hopes that the Commission approves the amendment so there is a mixed use.
(+) Mary Dorst
- She would like to have the Bayshore corridor taken out of this policy.
- Bayshore currently has a variety of uses but an IPZ would limit the use.
- Bayshore unites two neighborhoods, she would like for the Commission to let both communities have more time for thorough development of this area.
- A permanent IPZ would limit housing and/or other mixed uses.
- Please remove Bayshore from the IPZ.
(+) Karen Garison
- She would like to have the Bayshore area exempt from an IPZ status.
- This will affect the area forever.
- The senior center provides a lot of services for these residents.
- The center also provides assistance to youth.
(+) Dorris M. Vincent
- She is a 41 year resident of the Bay View.
- She has a daughter and her mother living with her.
- She feels that this IPZ needs to be in place for their plan to take affect.
- Third Street is their core center. Although there is a need for housing, there are other pieces of land that can be used for housing.
- There is a need for mixed uses.
(+) Cristina Cañaveral
- She is talking on behalf of many seniors who were not able to attend this hearing.
- She would like for this proposal to be approved but to exclude the Bayshore corridor.
- Or continue this proposal to provide enough time for the community to provide their input and develop a thorough plan for this area.
(+) Rick Harp – Cole Hardware
- He would like to keep Home Depot out of San Francisco.
- He is also representing the small business communities.
- The neighborhood is not asking for anything in particular.
- 90 days is not too much to ask to have this proposal continued.
(+) Eric Corpuz
- He supports the IPZ and that includes Bayshore Boulevard since it should have light industrial and no housing.
(+) Niema Jones
- She is a resident of the Bay View and is in support of this item.
(+) Jim Martin
- He hopes that the Commission and the residents of San Francisco don't believe that the Bay View is opposed to housing.
- There are many areas that can allow housing
(+) Dan Dodt
- He is a 23 year resident of Hunter's Point.
- They are committed to housing along the Third Street corridor and beyond. He welcomes his Bernal Heights neighbors to move to Third Street.
- Establishing a permanent IPZ does not preclude arguments against any particular project.
- The Bay View Hunter's Point PAC has not approved the Home Depot as presently proposed.
- They have invited the Bernal group in the established PAC review process and with their existing outreach process.
(+) Did not state name.
- Housing in the Bayshore corridor would not be appropriate since early in the morning there is the noise of forklifts and pallets being dropped. This area should remain industrial.
(+) Necolious Hooker
- He would like the Bayshore corridor to remain industrial and have the IPZ approved.
ACTION: Approved with Recommended Amendments to the Board of Supervisors.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
RESOLUTION: 16224
17. 1999.178TT (BAUMAN: 558-6287)
JOB HOUSING LINKAGE ORDINANCE - The Jobs Housing Linkage Program, Section 313 of the City Planning Code, was enacted by the Board of Supervisors in February 2001. The current proposal is an ordinance amending Section 313.5 to change the formula used in the Jobs Housing Linkage Program to determine the number of affordable housing units a housing developer is required to build if an office developer elects to comply with the Jobs Housing Linkage Program Ordinance by payment of money or land to a housing developer.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Calvin Welsh – Representing Council Community Organizations
- He forwarded to the Commission a document called Attachment C which has a breakdown of the workforce housing demand by land use, office, research and development, medical, cultural, institutional, retail and hotel. The Jobs Housing Linkage program used to only be involved with hotel, retail, research and development and office.
- Office produces the most jobs for the lowest income workforce.
- He urges the Commission to pass this proposal.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
ABSENT: Chinchilla
RESOLUTION: 16225
18. 2000.0790E (KUGLER: 558-5983)
888 HOWARD STREET - HOTEL AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed project would be the construction of a 39-story hotel and residential building of approximately 561,000 sq. ft. with two levels of below-grade parking on the northeast corner of Fifth and Howard Streets (Assessor's Block 3724, Lot 66). The 37,860 sq. ft. site contains an existing surface parking lot with landscaping which is used by the adjacent Wells Fargo Data Center. The hotel portion of the proposed project would contain about 500 rooms along with ancillary support uses such as meeting rooms, restaurants, and retail space. Above the hotel there would be 60 to 70 residential condominiums. The hotel entryway would be on Howard St. while a separate residential entrance would be from Fifth Street. There are two loading docks planned with entrances from Howard Street. The site is located in the South of Market area within the C-3-S (Downtown Commercial Support) District and the 160-F Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required.
Note: Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on September 18, 2001.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Quentin Makee – South of Market Anti Displacement Coalition
- It is hard to imagine that on Page 94 of the report, there is the assumption that there is no negative impact as far as long term growth or the encouragement of growth. There is a level of growth that is not acknowledged in the draft EIR and how it affects local businesses in this surrounding area as well as the low income community on 6th Street.
- Another thing that needs to be addressed is the mitigation of $50,000 to the Department of Parking and Traffic for 7 intersections that have been graded F.
- Without comprehensive planning, the EIR is missing some of the impacts it can have on local businesses and the local community.
(-) Jenny Batallones – South of Market Community Action Network.
- The draft EIR does not address the affects this hotel will have on the surrounding neighborhood.
- She is concerned about the impact this project will have on the low income, people of color, and the Philippino community.
- She urges the Commission to address the community issues.
(-) Patrice Johnson – South of Market Child Care
- A project of this magnitude will have an affect on this community.
- A more thorough investigation of this proposal needs to be made.
- This project should be compared to other projects that would have less of an impact.
- More information is needed.
(-) Richard Marquez – 6th Street Agenda
- They are a low income, SRO organizing advocacy project.
- Everything seems to be blamed on the residents on 6th Street.
- The impact on the neighborhood has not even been examined.
- A planned, community-based, comprehensive planning needs to be established here instead of a parcel-by-parcel planning.
(-) Ron Grosshart – 6th Street Agenda
- This project will affect the traffic in this area.
- The project does not even address the problems with traffic.
- The height of this project is just too large for the area.
- The EIR should address these issues.
ACTION: Public hearing to receive coments from the public and Commissioners. No Action Required.
19a. 2000.1140XE (CHAN: 558-5982)
1 POWELL STREET – Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. Assessor's Block 3530, Lot 6. The proposed project is the seismic upgrading, and expansion of the existing seven-story, Bank of America building, from 90,330 square feet to 101,760 square feet, an increase of 11,430 square feet. The seismic upgrade and expansion would occur within the existing building shell except for filling in the light well on the third through eighth floors. The building, originally the Bank of Italy, was constructed in 1920 and is a Category I building in Article 11 of the san Francisco Planning Code. The building is within the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District and the Downtown Area Plan. The project site is within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District, where office and retail uses are permitted, and is within a 110-X Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 23, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
Mary Murphy
Re: Continuances
- The person who requested the appeal will be calling the planner to officially withdraw the appeal this coming Monday, September 10, 2001.
- This is the reason why they would like to continue this case to September 13, 2001.
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 20, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
19b. 2000.1140XE (LIGHT: 558-6254)
1 POWELL STREET - west side between Eddy and Ellis Streets, Lot 5 in Assessor’s Block 330 - Request under Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Code) for Determination of Compliance to make minor modifications to the ground floor entrance and windows of the subject property to accommodate a retail store, and to seismically retrofit the existing 138-foot tall, seven-story over basement building containing a ground level retail banking office with office uses on the upper floors. The seismic retrofitting will be accomplished by infilling a large light well on the north side of the property with a structural system that will provide proper seismic reinforcement for the building. No Exceptions under Section 309 of the Planning Code are requested by the proposed project. The project is in a C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) zoning district, a 110-X height and bulk district, and in the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District. The building is rated as a Category I building under the Downtown Plan.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 23, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 19a
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 20, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
20. 2000.272ECX (NAVARRETE: 558-5975)
185 POST STREET - Certification of Environmental Impact Report. Assessor's 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 project would involve demolition of a six-story structure on the site and construction of a 10-story, 130-foot-tall building containing approximately 40,000 gross square feet (gsf) including 10,900 square feet of retail space, 6,700 square feet of office and showroom space, approximately 2,170 square feet of publicly-accessible open space, one dwelling unit and 18,500 square feet of other space including mechanical equipment and pedestrian circulation areas. The site is within the C-3-R (Downtown Commercial, Retail) Zoning District and 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.
Note: Public comment and testimony is NOT taken by the Planning Commission hearings for certification of Final Environmental Impact Reports. Public comment on this issue may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify Final Environmental Impact Report.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: EIR Certified
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION: 16226
21a. 2000.272CX (LeBLANC: 558-6351)
185 POST STREET - the southeast corner of Post Street and Grant Avenue, Lot 18 in Assessor’s Block 310 - Request for Conditional Use authorization for office use in a C-3-R Zoning District. The project would demolish a six-story structure on the site and construct a 10-story, 130-foot tall building containing approximately 40,000 gross square feet including 10,900 square feet of retail space, 6,700 square feet of office and showroom space, approximately 2,170 square feet of publicly-accessible open space, one dwelling unit and 18,500 square feet of other space including mechanical equipment and pedestrian circulation areas. The office and showroom space would be on floors seven, eight and nine of the building. The Project also requires a determination of compliance and approval of exceptions pursuant to Section 309. See Case 2000.272CX below.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jim Reuben – Reuben and Alter
- He has been working with PRADA and the design team for over a year.
- This is the first time he has come to the Commission and staff has given a preliminary recommendation of disapproval.
- This project should and could be approved.
- The project sponsor has raised the base since the draft EIR was issued. The base has been raised by 1 ½ feet to total 9 ½ feel at the corner of Post and Grant and about 10 ½ feet at the store entrances--this alters the perspective of the stores from the street.
- The metallic finish is not shiny or reflective. This finish will change colors throughout the day with the change and the angle of sunlight. The metallic finish is also part of the structural system itself. It will be supporting the vertical and lateral loads.
- This building will provide jobs, enhance property values and will promote the area as a place to do business.
(+) Rem Coolhouse – Project Architect
- He is aware of the issues the department has and has tried to address all of them.
- This project is not only compatible with the area but also it will enhance it.
- He displayed photographs of the various buildings of the area to compare the proposed building and explained how this building would be an attractive addition to this area.
(+) Dione Bowers – SFMOMA – Architecture Design Forum
- This is a beautiful building and it would add a lot to downtown San Francisco.
(+) Marcus Rector – Architect and Bookstore owner
- This is an opportunity for a world-class building.
- Union Square and Post Street have fine examples of historical buildings. This building would become a landmark.
- Please approve the project.
(+) Ellen Magnin Newman – Ellen Newman Associates
- She has been working in the Union Square area for more than 70 years. She has seen the square grow throughout the years.
- Many of the buildings in this area as built were not compatible with the existing building.
- Currently Union Square is being updated to match the variety of buildings that now make the area.
(+) Mitchell Schwarzer – California College of Arts and Crafts
- He has been working in the area of architecture for many years.
- He worked in the Planning Department a few years ago.
- They would have been delighted to have this architect
- This building is compatible and harmonious with the area.
(+) Rica Lakamp – SFMOMA – Architecture Design Forum
- It has been a great honor to be asked to give her thoughts regarding this project.
- She hopes that this building will give San Francisco another great looking building.
(+) Richard Parker – American Institute of Architects
- Their board of directors has been discussing this project.
- The entire board of directors approved this project.
- This building will be a wonderful addition to the San Francisco skyline.
- This is a new opportunity to move forward regarding design aesthetics.
(+) David Meckle – College of Arts and Crafts
- This is the best opportunity to build a building which has one of the most precious materials in the world and do it all the way up the building.
- Codes like Article 11 are meant for background buildings.
(+) Andrea Cochran – Arts Commissioner – Civic Design Committee
- She has seen a lot of mediocre buildings just because they fit the Planning Code. These buildings do not bring vitality to the City.
- The proposed building is innovative; it's passionate and full of energy. And that is what San Francisco represents.
(+) Jeff Basinger – Architect student at CCAC
- He recently moved here from Chicago because San Francisco is such an amazing City.
- He has a love of the past and a love of the future.
- He hopes that this building will take us into the 21st Century.
- There is an amazing contrast between the old and the modern.
(+) Toby Levi – Architect
- Design guidelines and contextual guidelines are alive and well on a day-to-day basis.
- She urges the Commission to think of Union Square as something different.
- The mixture of different building designs is possible.
- She hopes that the building will be approved.
(+) Jeannette Etheridge
- She knows nothing about architecture but she was born and raised in San Francisco and recalls how exciting it is to have a City so vibrant. She would like the same for her children.
(+) Keith Plymill – Architect
- He is not here as an architect but as a human being.
- He came to San Francisco because it is such an exciting City.
- There is a sense of experimentation here.
- He hopes that the Commission approves this project.
(+) Stanley Getti
- It is not surprising that every turn of the century something exiting is built in this City.
- We are interested in the future.
- He agrees with everything that everyone has said and hopes that the Commission approves this project.
(-) Frederick P. Furth – The Furth Film
- He is here to give one simple message. He attempted to get the engineering report on their earthquake study and they refused to give it.
- They (his firm) then hired engineers to do this study and they will be ready to provide a report that states that this building is not earthquake safe.
- The proposed building along with 177 Post, will hit each other if there is a major earthquake and will collapse.
- He suggests that staff see the studies they have done.
- He would like to become part of the peer review panel of this building.
(-) Dr. Charles Thiel
- The seismic impact must be resolved.
- The building is unusually high for the support.
- The buildings need to be at last 32 inches apart and not abutted.
- The buildings will collide in an earthquake and will cause a lot of catastrophes.
(-) Bahman Nourafshan – Post Street Associates
- He would like to congratulate the architect for a marvelous design but the building is in the wrong place.
- Union Square is the most successful retail area in the world.
- People are speaking about Union Square as if it were dilapidated.
(-) John Lauer – Grosvenor
- He owns the building at 180 Post Street.
- He agrees with the Planning Department's recommendation.
- He is not arguing the architectural merits of this building but it could be placed in another location.
(-) Charles Chase – San Francisco Architectural Heritage
- He has had an opportunity to review this project.
- They had no conflict with the design but they do have a conflict with the location of the building.
- This project is not appropriate for this district.
(-) Kay Camozzi – Post and Grant Avenue Flower Stand
- No one has come to them to get their opinion on the proposed building.
- She would like to be a good neighbor and right now she is being ignored. This building will have a negative impact on her and her business.
(-) Anthony Hay
- Homeowner on Post Street.
- He agrees with the recommendation from staff.
- Why isn't PRADA doing this in their own backyard?
- This building will be an obsolete building in a few years.
ACTION: Intent to Approve. Final Language: October 4, 2001.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
ABSENT: Chinchilla
21b. 2000.272CX (LeBLANC: 558-6351)
185 POST STREET - the southeast corner of Post Street and Grant Avenue, Lot 18 in Assessor’s Block 310- Request under Planning Code Section 309 for Determinations of Compliance for Building Permit Application No. 2001/05/30/0246S, to construct a building exceeding 75 feet in height, and Request for Exceptions including: (1) an exception to the rear yard requirement as permitted in Code Section 134(d); (2) an exception to ground level wind current standards as permitted in Section 148; (3) an exception to the base height limit in an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District as permitted in Section 263.8, (4) an exception to the required sun access angle (or setback) pursuant to Section 146(b) and (5) an exception to the freight loading requirements as permitted in Section 161(I). This project lies within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District, a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District, and is within the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter (KMMS) Conservation District. Because the project site is within that Conservation District, the new building must be compatible in scale and design with the District as set forth in Appendix E of Article 11 of the Planning Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval (based on noncompliance with Article 11)
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 21a.
ACTION: Intent to Approve. Final Language: October 4, 2001.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
ABSENT: Chinchilla
22a. 2000.1215BEKX (MILLER: 558-6344)
48 TEHAMA STREET - northwest side between First and Second Streets, Assessor's Block 3736, Lots 84 and 85, within a C3O(SD) (Downtown OfficeSpecial Development District) and a 200S Height and Bulk District Request under Planning Code Section 309 for Determination of Compliance for a building exceeding 75 feet in height and for the granting of exceptions to the Planning Code requirements for (1) rearyard area (Section 134) and (2) groundlevel wind currents (Section 148), with respect to a proposal to construct a new building, approximately 194 feet in height (with an additional 21 feet of mechanical equipment for a total height of up to 216 feet), containing a total floor area of 67,750 gross square feet, with a gross floor area under Planning Code Section 102.9 of 59,750 gross square feet. The building would include up to 49,300 square feet of office space and up to 10,500 gross square feet of residential space divided into three dwelling units (on the top three floors). The project would provide approximately seven offstreet parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 13, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
22b. 2000.1215BEKX (MILLER: 558-6344)
48 TEHAMA STREET - northwest side between First and Second Streets, Assessor's Block 3736, Lots 84 and 85, within a C3O(SD) (Downtown OfficeSpecial Development District) and a 200S Height and Bulk District Request for authorization of Office Space in excess of 25,000 square feet but less than 50,000 square feet under Section 321 of the Planning Code to permit construction of new office space, not to exceed 49,300 square feet under Section 321 of the Planning Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 13, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
23. 2001.0598C (JONES: 558-6477)
1844-1850 IRVING STREET - northeast corner of the intersection of Irving Street and 20th Avenue, Lots 025 and 027 in Assessor's Block 1731 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow the installation of nine (9) panel antennas, one (1) GPS antenna, and associated equipment cabinet on the 1st floor of an existing mixed-use building as part of a wireless telecommunication network preference level 2, pursuant to Planning Code Section 711.83, in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 105-A Height and Bulk District. As per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Transmission Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Location Preference 2 (Co-Location Site).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Debra Stein
- She would like to thank the planner for his excellent staff report.
- They are available to answer any questions Commissioners might have.
(-) Rosaleen Adams
- There were 26 people who wanted to attend this hearing who are against this item but were not able to attend.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION: 16227
24. 2001.0329CEK (CABREROS: 558-6169)
2315 VAN NESS AVENUE - west side, between Green and Vallejo Streets in an RC-3 (Residential-Commercial Combined, Moderate Density) District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District, Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 0551 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 253 for construction of a building exceeding a height of 40 feet in an R (Residential) District. The proposed building will contain 8 dwelling units over ground floor parking.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Alice Barkley
- She has submitted a lengthy brief to the Commissioners. She is available for questions.
- In her supplemental letter, she mentioned Mrs. Shena as opposing this project but it is actually Mrs. Ong.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION: 16228
25. 2001.0581C (SMITH: 558-6322)
1633-37 TARAVAL STREET - south side of the street between 26th and 27th Avenues, Lot 041 in Assessor's Block 2399 - Request by Sprint PCS for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 711.83 to install two antennas on the rooftop and five equipment cabinets in the garage of a mixed-use building located in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and 65-A Height and Bulk District. As per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Transmission Services (WTS) Siting Guidelines, the subject site is a Location Preference 5 (Mixed Use Building in High Density District).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jennifer Estes – Representing Sprint PCS
- This application meets all the requirements of the WTS Guidelines, the Code, and the Federal Communications Commission.
- It is visually unobtrusive
- There is a faux vent pipe on the back that will contain 2 sectors as well as 1 parapet antenna.
- They did analyze other sites but were not able to find a better-preference site.
- There were two community meetings and 259 notices were sent out in 3 languages to tenants, owners and community organizations.
- Three people attended the first meeting and no one attended the second meeting.
(-) Robert de Nies
- He and his niece never received a notice regarding this project.
- He is opposed to this project because there is a school in close proximity of where these antennas will be placed.
- Also, he did not agree with the way the notices were sent out.
(-) Yunji de Nies
- There is a pre-school, Lincoln High School and various parks that are close to where this antenna will be installed.
- She read two statements from an art studio and a yoga studio that are against this project.
- She did not receive any notice regarding this project.
(-) Rosaleen Adams
- She has a petition from 30 neighbors who are against this project.
- She is against this project because of health reasons.
ACTION: Continued to October 4, 2001 to allow the Project Sponsor to conduct further neighborhood outreach and conduct at least 2 more neighborhood meetings.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
NAYES: Joe
ABSENT: Chinchilla
26. 2001.0212C (SIDER: 558-6697)
901-933 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD - southeastern corner of Silver Avenue; Lot 062 in Assessor's Block 5402 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow (1) new construction on a parcel with a gross lot area over 4,999 square-feet pursuant to Planning Code Sections 710.11 and 121.1, and (2) establishment of a non-residential use with a gross floor area in excess of 2,999 square-feet pursuant to Planning Code Section 710.21 and 121.2 in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. The project site is a 16,090 square-foot vacant lot. The proposal is to construct a 4-story building providing up to 9,305 square-feet of neighborhood-serving commercial or retail space on the ground level, 40 units of senior housing on the upper three levels, and 28 parking spaces within a below-grade parking garage.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Dan Sullivan – Representing Project Sponsor
- They have worked hard in order to lessen the noise from the freeway and high traffic volumes in the neighborhood.
- The project sponsor is more than willing to provide the 10% requirement for affordability and work with the Mayor's Office of Housing.
ACTION: Approved as amended: there will be no general advertising signs on the building.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION: 16243
F. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 4:30 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.
27. 2001.0123DD (CABREROS: 558-6169)
2252 BEACH STREET - north side between Baker and Broderick Streets, Lot 009C in Assessor’s Block 0915 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/10/20/3640 proposing to add a full third story (approximately 2,000 square feet), a three-story rear addition extending to the required rear yard line, and a one-story extension with deck above projecting into the rear yard as a permitted obstruction to an existing one-story over garage, single-family residence 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 plans with modifications.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 16, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued Without Hearing to September 13, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
ABSENT: Chinchilla
28. 2001.0705DD (NIKITAS: 558-6306)
2258 BEACH STREET - north side between Baker and Broderick Streets, Lot 009D in Assessor’s Block 0915 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/04/25/8211, proposing to add a prefabricated solarium ("greenhouse") on a second-story rear deck. The existing building is two-story over garage and rooms down, single-family residence 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 plans as submitted.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued Without Hearing to September 13, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
ABSENT: Chinchilla
29. 2001.0065D (WANG: 5586335)
2 UPLAND DRIVE - northwest corner of Upland Drive and Darien Way; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 3275A Request of Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/12/14/7910 to construct a third story vertical addition, relocate the current main entrance to the house and create habitable rooms on the ground floor, at the existing onestory over garage, singlefamily dwelling in an RH1(D) (Residential, House, OneFamily, Detached Dwelling) District and a 40X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Art Fung -
- He lives 4 houses away from subject property.
- The DR requestor could not come to the hearing so he will be representing him.
- There is a petition from 26 neighbors who oppose this project.
- He displayed photographs of the streetscape and the homes in the neighborhood in order to show that the homes in the neighborhood are not larger than 4 bedrooms.
- He disagrees with the staff findings.
(-) Alfredo Jordan
- He has a list of neighbors who are opposed to the project.
- He is opposed to this project since he believes that this house will become a rental.
- There will be traffic problems on an already congested street.
(-) Kathy Reichardt
- She is opposed to the project since the neighborhood character will not be preserved.
- She is also concerned about the height of the project.
- She was not given any notification of this project.
(-) Rhoda Singer
- She is against this project because it will block the light coming into her bedroom.
(-) Charles Washington
- He lives in front of the proposed construction.
- He will have the sunlight of his home blocked.
(-) Loren Christensen
- He is opposed to this project since it will block the light from his home and his chimney will no longer work.
(-) Cynthia Mitchell
- She and her husband are opposed to the third story.
- She is also against the 7 bedrooms and 5 baths. A house of this size will have several persons of driving age.
- She is concerned about the safety on the street because of the increase in cars.
(-) Alfred Jordan
- He is opposed to this project because a home of 7 bedrooms and 5 baths is not in accordance with the other homes in the neighborhood.
- This project would block light to adjacent homes.
- There will be more traffic problems on the street.
- He believes that this house will become a rental.
(-) John Madden
- He is opposed to this project because the house will have 7 bedrooms and 5 baths, he has stayed at bed and breakfast inns that have had less rooms.
(-) Daniel Rodriguez
- He will loose another hour or so of sunlight if this project is approved.
- He is against the 3rd Story. He knows that there has been a lot of construction work done without permits on the proposed project.
(-) Noreen Rodriguez
She is opposed to this project. She is concerned about the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
- This project will be incompatible with the rest of the homes.
- A seven bedroom and 5 bath home leads you to believe it will be multi-unit living. This is very suspicious.
(-) Louis F. Reichardt, Ph.D.
- He has lived in the neighborhood for many years. During those years several of his neighbors have made additions and have had construction work done to their homes but they have kept the work within the guidelines of the neighborhood.
- This project will negatively impact the neighborhood.
- He knows that much of the work done to this house was been done without a permit.
(+) Jeremy Paul
- He is finding out a lot of things he did not know.
- There is a lot of misinformation.
- He would like to ask the Commission for time to be able to address the questions and concerns.
- The pictures shown seemed to carefully exclude corner lots.
- There were many changes made to this project.
- The top story was set back. The entrance to the basement from the street has been removed from the plans. The bedroom count is misleading. This is for use as a single family home.
- He believes that there is a problem with the rear stair. He understood that he was here to represent a fully-coded project but it appears that it is not.
- This house--as it is currently--is far more out of character with the surroundings than the house that is being proposed.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Disapproved the Project.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
ABSENT: Chinchilla
30. 2001.0702D (SANCHEZ: 558-6679)
2590 PINE STREET - northeast corner at Scott Street; Lot: 017 in Assessor’s Block: 0656 - Staff initiated request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Number 2001/04/12/6725S, seeking to reduce the number of dwelling units of an existing building from four (4) to two (2) within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as revised.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Cincotta
- He is thankful to the planner for a great report.
- This building is just so cut up and broken up that it cannot be operated.
(+) Christy Mitchum
- This house was originally a single-family home.
- The units they plan to remove were done illegally.
- This project will bring the building up to current code.
- A historic home will be preserved if this project is approved.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review with the following revision: acceptance of the affordable housing unit offered by the sponsor.
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
ABSENT: Chinchilla
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))
NONE
Adjournment: 9:42 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2001.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:13 PM
