October 04, 2001
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, October 4, 2001
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:40 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green, Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Kelley LeBlanc; Michael Smith; Tina Tam; Dario Jones; Jim Miller; Sara Vellve; Glen Cabreros; Ben Fu; Jonathan Purvis; Nora Priego, Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery, Commission Secretary
A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1. 2001.0336C (FU: 558-6613)
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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 6, 2001)
(Proposed for Continuance to October 25, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to October 25, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, and Theoharis
ABSENT: Lim
2. 2001.0502C (SANCHEZ: 558-667)
4715-4723 GEARY BOULEVARD - southside between 11th and 12th Avenues; Lot 044 in Assessor’s Block 1533 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 712.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of six antennas and related equipment on the rooftop and an equipment shelter on the ground level of an existing six story, mixed-use (residential above commercial) building, as part of Metro PCS's wireless telecommunications network within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. As per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Transmission Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Location Preference 5 (Mixed-Use Building in High Density Districts).
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 16, 2001)
(Proposed for Continuance to November 8, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to November 8, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, and Theoharis
ABSENT: Lim
3. 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 18, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to October 18, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, and Theoharis
ABSENT: Lim
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
4. Commission Matters
Commissioner Salinas: He has had inquiries regarding some of the decisions the commission has made. He would like to address these questions. This Commission makes good, solid decisions. Regarding the IPZ (Bayshore Boulevard), he understands how it is important to move this agenda forward. He doesn't believe that any one in this Commission has lost sight that housing is important.
Commissioner Theoharis: Citing personal reasons, she read a statement indicating her intent to resign in January.
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
5. Director's Announcements
Re: Budget
- Some parts of the Department's budget were not agreed to during the budget process. This has resulted in a shortage of positions and a shortage of revenue. Next week, he (the Director) will speak to the Mayor's budget analyst and the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors. This budget item will again be placed on the calendar in the next few weeks.
Re: Planning Director's Conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts
- He attended this event last week.
- The purpose of this conference was to talk about the emerging issues in various cities.
- There was a very interesting presentation from a professor of the Harvard Design School titled: Regulating the Good you Can't Think Of. He will provide a copy of this presentation to the Commissioners. The subject matter of this presentation is about zoning.
Re: Commissioner Theoharis's intent to leave the Commission
- He will be sorry to see her leave. Ms. Theoharis's contributions and efforts will be missed.
Re: Reason Inclusionary Housing Item was continued:
- There were various questions that need to be dealt with and responded to.
- There has been a request from the Mayor's Office of Housing to consider other amendments that would make the policies of the department more effective.
- Time is required to be able to respond to these issues so a presentation will be scheduled at the hearing of October 18, 2001.
6. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS – Re: Conditional Use at 4501 Irving Street
The Board of Supervisor altered the decision of the Commission by reducing the size of the project in terms of height and therefore reducing the number of units. This project will have the same number of parking spaces but there will be a reduction in the amount of ground floor commercial space, a reduction of floors from four stories to three and therefore a reduction in the number of dwelling units--which would cause a reduction of affordable units.
Housing, Land Use and Transportation Committee
Re: 525 Golden Gate
- The amendment of the height proposal was before the committee. This was moved to the full board by a vote of +2-1.
Re: Dwelling Unit Merger Ordinance
- Paul Lord of department staff attended this hearing.
- They were interested on how this policy had been implemented and what actions had been taken.
BOA – None but the IPZ Special Use District will be before the Board of Appeals very soon.
D. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION -- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7a. 2000.272EXC (LeBLANC: 558-6351)
185 POST STREET - the southeast corner of Post Street and Grant Avenue, Lot 18 in Assessor’s Block 310 - CEQA Findings, and Request under Planning Code Section 309 for Determinations of Compliance for Building Permit Application No. 2001/05/30/0246S 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, an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District, and is within the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter (KMMS) Conservation District. The Project also requires conditional use authorization for office use in a C-3-R Zoning District (see Case No. 2000.272EXC, below).
NOTE: On September 6, 2001, after public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing. A motion of intent to approve passed by a vote of +6 –0. Commissioner Chinchilla was absent. The Commission requested that Department staff draft a Motion with CEQA Findings and Findings for Approval of the Section 309 Review to be considered on October 4, 2001. (See also conditional use authorization, item b. below).
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, and Theoharis
MOTION: 16245
7b. 2000.272EXC (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 2000.272EXC above.
NOTE: On September 6, 2001, after public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing. A motion of intent to approve passed by a vote of +6 –0. Commissioner Chinchilla was absent. The approval of the Conditional Use authorization is subject to the project’s Section 309 application also being considered (see item a. above).
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, and Theoharis
MOTION: 16246
8. 2000.581C (SMITH: 558-6322)
455 & 457 BUENA VISTA AVENUE EAST - east side of the street between Upper Terrace and Park Hill Avenue, Lot 270 (formerly Lots 059 & 060) in Assessor’s Block 2607- Request for Conditional Use Authorization for dwelling unit density at a density ratio of one dwelling unit per 1,000 square feet of lot area per Planning Code Section 209.1(h) to construct one four unit building in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 13, 2001)
NOTE: On August 16, 2001, the Commission continued this matter to August 16, 2001 in order to request the attendance of a DBI representative and the engineer who prepared the demolition report by a vote +6 –0. Public hearing remained open. Commissioner Theoharis was absent.
NOTE: On September 20, 2001, following public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing. A motion of intent to disapprove passed by a vote of +5 –2. Commissioners Joe and Lim voted no. Final language 10/04/01
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Conditional Use Authorization was disapproved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Salinas, and Theoharis
NAYES: Joe and Lim
MOTION: 16247
REGULAR CALENDAR
9. (GREEN: 558-6411)
Discussion and consideration of proposed amendments to the Planning Commission's Inclusionary Housing Policy.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 20, 2001)
ACTION: On calendar in error. No action required
10. 2001.0583C (TAM: 558-6325)
557 CASTRO STREET - east side of Castro Street, between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 63 in Assessor's Block 3583 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization to allow the establishment of a financial service use (Wells Fargo Bank), approximately 3,800 square feet, on the ground floor of an existing two-story building, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 715.49 and 715.21, in the Castro Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 27, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Gary Bell – Project Sponsor
- The space is vacant so there will be no displacement.
- The Eureka Valley Promotions Association strongly supports this application.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, and Theoharis
MOTION: 16248
11. 2001.0749C (JONES: 558-6477)
103 BROAD STREET - south side of Broad Street between Plymouth and Capitol Avenues, Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 7113 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the establishment of a community service facility operated by the San Francisco Police Department in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District pursuant to Planning Code section 710.83. The proposal will not alter the existing structure. The Community Service Center is proposed to be operated on City leased property.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 27, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Captain Mike Kailon – Taraval Police Station
- They came up with the idea to turn a vacant parcel into a community service center.
- The Supervisors and the Department of Public Works are supporting this project.
- There are various people from the community here in support of this project.
- There is no opposition to this project.
(+) Annette Sheldon
- She has been a licensed cosmetologist for many years.
- She has seen how this area is very dangerous.
- She supports this project because she feels that this community service center will benefit the community.
- Her only concern is that the hours of the center are very limited. The drug dealings are done at night.
(+) Bronwen Trice - Supervisor Sandoval's Office
- Supervisor Sandoval is in full support for this project.
- This project will benefit this long neglected neighborhood.
(+) Reginal Blosser – OMI - NIA
- She agrees that the hours of operation are limited.
- She supports the project.
(+) Ceasar B. Henr – OMI - NIA
- He lives in the area and is afraid to walk outside his door.
- He hopes that the Commission approves this project and be able to let people in the neighborhood sleep better at night.
(+) Helen Williams – OMI- NIA
- This center is very important and she hopes that the Commission does not delay approving this project.
(+) Al Harris – OMI Neighbors in Action
- He has seen the changes taken place in this area.
- He hopes that the Commission approves this project.
ACTION: Approved with the following modification: the center will not have limited hours of operation.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, and Theoharis
MOTION: 16249
12. 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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 6, 2001)
Note: On September 6, 2001, the Commission continued this matter to October 4, 2001 to allow the project sponsor to conduct further neighborhood outreach and conduct at least two more neighborhood meetings by a vote of +5 -1. Commissioner Joe voted no. Commissioner Chinchilla was absent.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jenny Estes – Representing Spring PCS
- They held the additional community meetings--one on Saturday and one on a weekday night.
- No one attended these meetings.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, and Theoharis
MOTION: 16250
13. 2001.0471C (SMITH: 558-6322)
2276-2282 MARKET STREET - north side of the street between Noe and 15th Streets, Lot 013 in Assessor’s Block 3560 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 721.21 for use size expansion of an existing Tower Records retail store into the adjacent vacant storefront at the ground level previously occupied by NaNas and increase the occupied floor area of the use from 11,068 square feet to 14,439 square feet, located in the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District and 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Wayne (last name not clear)
- He is available to answer any questions.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, and Theoharis
ABSENT: Salinas
MOTION: 16251
14. 2000.0173C (MILLER: 558-6344)
500 FRANCISCO STREET (A.K.A. 401-499 BAY STREET & 501-599 BAY STREET) - north side between Mason Street and Columbus Avenue, Lot 1 in both Assessor’s Blocks 42 and 43 -- Request for authorization of a CONDITIONAL USE for a PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT to construct up to 341 units of affordable multi-family and senior housing (after demolition of an existing 229-unit public housing project) with related support services including a child-care facility, community space with a computer learning center for residents, and ancillary commercial space, requiring modifications of Planning Code standards for rear yards, off-street parking and off-street loading, in an RM-3 (Mixed Residential, Medium Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Hearing of August 16, 2001)
THIS ITEM WAS TAKEN OUR OR ORDER AND FOLLOWED ITEM 15.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Greg Fortham – Acting Executive Director of the San Francisco Housing Authority
- This proposal fits into the housing strategies for San Francisco.
- This project will replace 229 dilapidated units and add 112 affordable units to the affordable housing stock.
- There has been a lot of concern regarding the relocation of some of the residents.
- People who lived in 129 of these units have been relocated. Of these, 93% were relocated within San Francisco. Ninety-one people were moved to their (the Housing Authority's) public housing stock and an additional 20 moved into private units run by Section 8 landlords in the City.
- This is an opportunity to use funds provided by HUD. If these funds sit around too long, they could loose the money.
(+) Carol Galante – President of Rich Housing Corporation and Lead Developer for North Beach Development Associates
- They are very excited to work with the San Francisco Housing Authority.
- This permit is the last critical planning element to keep them on schedule to submit for the tax credit financing that they need to do.
- This tax credit leverages over $42 million of private tax credit equity, $25 million dollars of private financing and serves as the foundation for leveraging the hope six dollars which otherwise would be lost.
- The project also enables the City of San Francisco to make a commitment of close to $11 million dollars of local funding and reserve a tax credit for other affordable housing projects that are in the pipeline.
(+) Mike Johnson – M. Johnson Interests
- He has been working closely with the architects.
- He displayed photographs and diagrams describing the project.
(-) David Hesbett
- He is not opposed to the project. He is just opposed to the way the Housing Authority has been dealing with the current residents.
- At first they said it would be done in phases and they keep changing the plans. Now the plan is to do it in one phase so they will have to evict everyone at the same time.
(+) Waymond Nichols
- Potrero Hill was one of the first developments that had an opportunity to receive the Hope 6 funds, but they (the residents) were misguided.
- Then they began to look at Hayes Valley and then Bernal Heights but it was a bit too late. There was no more money for Potrero Hill.
- No one would want to live at the old North Beach and not want to live at the new North Beach.
- He hopes that the Commission weighs all the evidence and makes the right decisions.
(+) Margarita Medina
- She has lived in the development since 1986.
- She would like to stay there and supports this project.
(+) Kimberly Hill Brown
- She is a Bernal dwelling resident and the residents are very pleased to have moved back.
- Hope 6 is a very stressful process on the residents. She was displaced for 5 years and could have been displaced for less time but outsiders came into the development and caused delays for them.
- People have to be committed to Hope 6 since it's a very good project.
- She hopes that the Housing Authority works through the problems and keeps on schedule.
(-) Beverly Williams
- She lives in the North Beach development.
- The Housing Authority had promised them that the project would be done in two phases. Now they are saying that it will be done in one phase.
- If this project is done in one phase it will be very stressful for the people who will be displaced.
(+) (Did not state his name)
- He supports this project and hopes that the Commission will approve this project and make the dreams of many people come true.
(+) Thomas Toy
- He is a resident of the development.
- He was displaced 2 ½ years ago, yet he still has not seen any construction.
- Although there are many problems he supports the project.
(+) Commissioner Sulu – President of the Housing Authority Commission
- He supports this project and hopes that the Housing Authority will be able to solve the issues people have.
- This project should move forward right away.
(+) Bruno Viscovi
- He is the owner of the restaurant across the street from the proposed project.
- He has managed to operate his establishment for the past 14 years.
- The area is very dangerous because of drug dealings.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve this project and tear down the unsightly units and build brand new and clean affordable units.
(+) Alessandro Baccari – Fisherman's Wharf Association
- They had an opportunity about 12 years ago to tear down the North Beach dwelling units. They opposed this since they resolved that it would be better to have the units rebuilt.
- The association has been working hard to help the residents of these units by helping them paint, offering jobs, etc.
- The residents were promised that this project would be in phases, yet the east block needs to be torn down in order for the residents to start believing that the City wants to go forward with this project.
(+) Sandra Gomez
- She supports the revitalization of North Beach.
- She lives in Bernal but is happy that her mother will be able to move back to North Beach.
- Many residents have been working closely with the Housing Authority.
(+) Daryl Higashi – Acting Director of the Mayor's Office of Housing
- They have been working very closely with the developers and the San Francisco Housing Authority over the last 5 years--from a concept process to a project that has all the elements of community planning and smart growth.
- Their office is very committed to provide a significant amount of financing to this project.
- The concept to move forward in one phase is very critical for low income housing tax credits. These credits are very hard to obtain and they are very competitive.
- Having this project done in one phase will not only help the City but also help other communities receive the same benefits.
- He has high confidence that the residents will receive all the benefits they were promised when relocating temporarily.
(-) Rob Eshelman – Supervisor Gonzalez's Office
- The agreement was that the project would be done in two phases. Then they changed the plans to be done in one phase. This violates the agreement.
- Supervisor Gonzalez hopes that the project will be disapproved or continued until the issues being brought up by the residents are dealt with.
- The supervisor agrees that this is a good project yet it should be done in a matter that will not affect the residents negatively.
(-) Phillip Morgan – Staff Attorney at Bay Area Legal Aid
- These are the main points of the tenants: 1) the written contracts between the tenants and the housing authority say that the project will go forward in two phases; 2) the relocation plan which was developed with consultation with the tenants state that the project would take place in two phases.
- The tenants are hopeful of a new home, yet the problem is that they don't know who to trust or who to believe.
- He has issues with the conditions of approval.
(-) Lorraine Bender
- She has been a resident of North Beach for more than 20 years.
- She is stressed out, she is disappointed and she is sad.
- The plan was to do this construction in two phases and it keeps changing.
- All the residents participated in the plan and it should be respected.
- She hopes that the Commission will approve the project in two phases.
(-) Gen Fujioka – Asian Law Caucus
- The relocation plan document does not really address all the important information it should have required by law.
(-) King Fong
- He is against this development because the residents have been told lies.
- He doesn't believe that this project will go forward.
(-) Duck Nim
- There were about 14 residents who were not able to come today who are against this project.
- The developers of this project have not been honest with any of the residents.
(-) Fong, Yat King
- He is a taxicab driver and has lived in this project complex for 26 years.
- People say that this area is very dangerous yet he goes off of work in the early morning and has never had any problems.
- He does not believe that people need to move in order to have the area reconstructed.
- He believes that the developers are liars.
(-) Duc Nim
- He is a UC Berkley student. He knows of about 14 residents who wanted to come to this hearing and speak against this project but because of different obligations could not make it.
- He and the 14 residents he is representing oppose this project because the Housing Authority lacks respect and duty to the residents.
- There are 5 issues they have which they would like to present to the Commission: 1) Sanitation--sewer pipes have never been repaired since the damage caused by the Loma Prieta Earthquake; 2) Security--residents have never been asked on how to improve security in the complex; 3) Education--thousands of dollars were offered for a computer training center but less than 20 classes were offered; 4) Finances--the residents were never informed about HUD's income disregard policy that began in 1994. Participation and Decisions--they believe that residents should be involved in the Hope 6 redevelopment.
(-) Don Paul
- There are about 20 letters of support that were submitted to the Commission but he believes that these tenants were misinformed.
- He displayed photos of the problems that are visible in the complex.
- Residents never received an appraisal of the property's value in 1996.
- He believes that it is unnecessary to reconstruct the complex in one phase.
(-) Marie Harrison – Housing as a Human Right
- They would not be here had it not been because of a great cry from the remaining tenants and some tenants who have already left.
- They were asked to come in since the tenants believe that the Housing Authority is not being honest.
- The tenants must be full partners and they have not been.
- There were some tenants from other Hope 6 projects who were not allowed to come back and they are fighting for this not to happen again.
- Their office has received various complaints about the Housing Authority.
- It is not fair for the tenants to be brought back to the same size house since families grow and change throughout the years.
(-) Jose Arias
- He has the same problems as the previous tenants have spoken about.
(-) (Did not state name)
- She does not understand what is going on since some people tell them one thing and other people tell them another thing.
(-) Ana Mendoza
- She is opposed because she does not want to move.
- The tenants were promised that they would be able to stay while the construction is going on.
(-) Gloria Blanco
- At first they told the tenants that they did not have to move until they finished the building.
- Now they want them to move and she is confused.
(-) Marilyn Dunman
- She has lived at North Beach Housing for 32 years. She loves the neighborhood and loves to see things built.
- She does not know why the east block was not torn down a long time ago.
- She received various documents from the Housing Authority stating the procedure about the tenants moving out while the construction was going on. Yet various things have been changing.
(-) Mary Berradori
- She was born at North Beach housing.
- She has a hard time seeing and she does not want to move. She loves it there. They promised them a lot of things.
(-) Wendy Tram
- She has lived at North Beach housing for 10 years.
- She would like to see a new North Beach but she would not like to move.
- Everything is so close for her and her family.
(-) Tory Budori
- He is so tired of all the lies and all the promises that they have offered the tenants.
- Housing Authority should just build how they promised.
(-) Alma Larc
- She has lived at North Beach for a number of years.
- There is a law that requires development built near low income housing, to give a certain percentage of funds to that low income housing.
- During the Loma Prieta Earthquake the sewage lines were damaged. The Housing Authority received funds to make this repair but nothing was ever done.
(+) John Stewart – North Beach Development Associates Team
- This project will be an enhancement to the area.
- He believes that the Housing Authority has a specific plan for relocation of the tenants.
- A large majority of the tenants who are relocated will come back.
ACTION: Approved with the following condition: Staff is required to provide the Commission with a 6-month progress report on how relocation is proceeding.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, and Theoharis
MOTION: 16254
15a. 2001.0642CR (VELLVE: 558-6263)
1000 OCEAN (AKA 11 PHELAN - SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT STATION #15) - north side between Phelan and Plymouth Avenues, Lot 001, Assessor's Block 3180 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 234.2 and 711.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of three panel antennas on the tower of an existing two-story, publicly-used structure (a fire station) and related equipment at ground level within a P (Public) and an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District, and within 40-X and 65-A Height and Bulk Districts respectively. The fire station and proposed antennas/related equipment are located within the portion of the lot zoned as a P District. The subject site is a Location Preference 1 (Preferred Location – Publicly-Used Structure).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 13, 2001
ITEMS 15a AND 15b WERE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND HEARD FOLLOWING #13
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Bill Liner – Representing Sprint PCS
- This location will provide low cost, fixed fees to the network.
- The only time that there would be any interference would be when the Sprint PCS equipment would have to be shutdown because of maintenance.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, and Theoharis
MOTION: 16253
15b. 2001.0642CR (VELLVE: 558-6263)
1000 OCEAN (AKA 11 PHELAN – SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT STATION #15) - north side between Phelan and Plymouth Avenues, Lot 001, Assessor’s Block 3180 - General Plan Referral to install a total of three panel antennas on the tower of an existing two-story, publicly-used structure (a fire station) and related equipment at ground level within a P (Public) and an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning Districts, and within 40-X and 65-A Height and Bulk Districts respectively.
Preliminary Recommendation: Finding of consistency with the General Plan
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 13, 2001)
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 15a.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, and Theoharis
MOTION: 16252
16. 2001.0446C (CABREROS: 558-6169)
6901 GEARY BOULEVARD - southwest corner of Geary Boulevard and 33rd Avenue in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 1511 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 710.11 for a lot size exceeding 5,000 square feet within an NC-1 District. The proposal is the construction of a new, 40-foot tall, four-story building with basement consisting of approximately 44,124 gross square feet (gsf) of which 4,452 gsf would be for retail use on the ground floor. The project includes 15 residential units with 16 independently accessible off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
THIS ITEM WAS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND HEARD FOLLOWING ITEM 14.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Lincoln Lew – Lincoln Lew Associates Architects
- This project is aesthetically and appropriately designed and is located on a street that is a major transit thoroughfare.
- This project will provide housing, which is a great need for San Francisco.
- There are 16 residential parking spots.
- The building is compatible with the surrounding buildings.
ACTION: Approved staff recommendation
AYES: Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, and Theoharis
NAYES: Chinchilla and Fay
MOTION: 16255
F. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 6:00 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.
17. 2001.0559D (FU: 558-6613)
337-339 MISSISSIPPI STREET - on the west side of Mississippi Street, north of the intersection of Mississippi and 19th Streets, on Lot 15 of Assessor’s Block 4039 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/04/16/6901 proposing to merge a two-unit dwelling into a one-unit dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution 16078.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and do not approve the project as submitted.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 16, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Jane Cormier
- She is the tenant who lives in the dwelling.
- She will be displaced as a tenant and she hopes that the project is not approved.
- It will be very difficult for her and her roommate to look for another place to live since they have a dog and a cat.
(-) Molly Frankmolster
- She hopes that the Commission will not approve this project since it will be very difficult for her to find another place to live.
- She loves the neighborhood where she lives since it's such a diverse community.
- It would be very expensive for her to move to another apartment.
(-) Rebecca Geppert
- She supports her friends who spoke previously because she would not like to see them displaced.
- She is a property manager for an apartment complex in Nob Hill. She knows how much the rents have gone up in the City. It would be difficult for her friends to find another affordable apartment.
(+) Ranie Tan
- They started their search for a house in 1999.
- They were really desperate to get a house.
- Potrero hill is a family neighborhood and there are various parks where she and her husband can take their children and they would like to stay there.
- The house that they bought is a two unit building. She recently got layed-off so she would like to have one room remodeled as an office and provide more room for their growing family.
- She displayed a photograph from 1892 of her house that shows one door entry to the house. This leads her to believe that the house was a one unit house. She could not find any other information to support this.
(+) Dan Tam
- He and his wife have lived in San Francisco since 1975.
- They have had a difficult time looking for a home.
- Their original plans were not to displace another 2nd tenant. Yet the only reason that this person was displaced was because Ms. Cornier mentioned that there was an illegal unit. They did not want this person to be displaced since the person has a handicap.
ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove Project
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, and Theoharis
NAYES: Lim
ABSENT: Baltimore
18. 2001.0534DDDDDD (WANG: 558-6335)
18-28 MIGUEL STREET - north side between Beacon and Bemis/Fairmont Streets, Lot 048 and 049 in Assessor's Block 7542 Request of Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2000/09/15/0713 and 2000/09/15/0714 to construct one new threestory over garage, singlefamily dwelling on each of the two vacant lots in an RH1 (Residential, House, SingleFamily Dwelling) District and a 40X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 27, 2001)
ACTION: All Discretionary Review Applications Were Withdrawn
19a. 2001.0801DV (PURVIS: 558-6354)
1129 FOLSOM STREET - south side between 7th and 8th Streets; Lot 99 in Assessor’s Block 3755 - Mandatory Discretionary Review (per Resolution No. 16202) by the Planning Commission of Building Permit Application No. 200106252268 for the proposed conversion of approximately 1,600 square feet of business service space into a single residential unit within the Industrial Protection Zone. The owner, who operates a business on the site, would occupy this unit. The unit would require variances or exceptions from rear yard and open space requirements of the Planning Code. One off-street parking space would be provided. The site is within an SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) Zoning District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take D.R. Approve the building permit.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Josh Prior - Owner
- He purchased the building in 1970 and has lived there ever since.
- There have been a lot of changes in the neighborhood. There are neighbors who have supported him to build a unit in the back of this property.
- He hopes that the Commission approves the variances so he can construct a house for himself.
- There are no other housing units in the area.
(+) Carolyn Abst - Architect
- They are not trying to play fast and loose with zoning rules and city of San Francisco's general policy.
- They contacted the Planning Department for their advice but the rules changed.
- They have contacted the Board of Supervisors to try and grandfather this project, but they couldn't do that.
- They are not trying to play any games.
ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove Project.
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, and Theoharis
NAYES: Joe
ABSENT: Baltimore
19b. 2001.0801DV (PURVIS: 558-6354)
1129 FOLSOM STREET - Section 134 of the Planning Code requires a rear yard of 25 percent of the lot depth for all dwelling units within the SLR District. The proposal would provide no rear yard space, but would provide 87 square feet of open space at the rear of the lot. Section 135 requires that open space for dwelling units in the SLR District must be at least 36 sf in size, with at least 30 percent of its perimeter unobstructed, and face onto an open area of at least 15 feet in every horizontal dimension. The proposed unit would have open space obstructed by a security gate and would face onto Decker Alley, which is only 10 feet wide. Section 140 requires that all dwelling units face on an open area of at least 25 feet in width or a Code-complying rear yard. The subject unit would meet this requirement only subject to the Zoning Administrator granting a rear yard variance. Alternatively, the Zoning Administrator has the authority under Section 307(g) to grant exceptions from rear yard and open space requirements in South of Market Districts.
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 19a.
ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and was inclined to grant variance but with the denial of the permit application, the variance decision is on hold until the Commission's decision is appealed and acted upon.
G. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
Adjournment:
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2001.
Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:13 PM
