December 06, 2001
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, December 6, 2001
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
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; Joy Navarrete; Paul Maltzer; Joan Kugler; Adam Light; Jeff Tully; Dan Sirois; Jonathan Purvis; Victoria Ryan; Gwen McGee; Dan Sider; Jim Miller; Dario Jones; Rick Crawford; Tom Wang; Nora Priego, Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery, Commission Secretary
A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.
1. 2000.0004E (NAVARRETE 558-5975)
45 MASONIC AVENUE. & 2703-2725 GEARY BOULEVARD - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration - On Assessor's Block 1092, on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 36, the existing site is approximately 31,333 square feet in size and contains seven existing buildings containing eight residential units and seven commercial units. The proposal is to demolish the seven existing buildings and construct one four-story plus basement building containing 57 dwelling units, 2,800 gross square feet (gsf) of restaurant use and 20,200 gsf of retail space. The project would also include approximately 42,000 gsf for 195 underground parking spaces to be used for both residential (76 spaces) and commercial (119 spaces), storage and utility uses. The project site is located in a Neighborhood Commercial (NC-3) (lots 1, 2, and 36) and Residential (RH-3) (lots 3-6) zoning districts, within a 40-X height/bulk district. Conditional Use authorization would be required for residential demolition and a Planned Unit Development.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Proposed for Continuance to February 7, 2002)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to February 7, 2002
AYES: Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay, Chinchilla
2. 2001.0062E (CHAN: 558-5982)
491 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD - Assessor's Block 5598, Lots 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, and 28. Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project would demolish the vacant buildings, totaling 107,372 square feet (sq.ft.) and construct a home improvement store (Home Depot). The main store would be two stories, approximately 129,581 sq.ft. with a 10,088-sq.-ft. enclosed green house. The proposed project also includes an 8,550-sq.-ft. outdoor-garden center. The total project size would be approximately 148,219 sq.ft. The building would be approximately 40 feet in height. A parking garage consisting of three-levels of parking totaling 550 parking spaces would also be constructed on this 5.73-acre site. Vehicular access to the parking garage would be from Bayshore Blvd., where Cortland Ave. dead-ends into Bayshore Blvd. The site is within the Planning Commission's adopted Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ) and is located in a M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district and within a 65-J height and bulk district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to January 24, 2002)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to January 24, 2002
AYES: Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay, Chinchilla
3. 1999.696R (RODGERS: 558-6395)
968 - 978 UNION STREET - Marion Place is a steep, narrow, dead-end alley between Taylor and Jones in Assessor's Block 99. Union Street provides the only access to Marion Place and Marion Place currently accommodates only pedestrians. General Plan Referral of a proposal to change the ROW so vehicles can use Marion Place to enter a private garage. The project would also involve the installation of a walk, landscaping, and a public seating below the garage.
Preliminary Recommendation: Find that proposal is not in conformity with the General Plan
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
4. 2001.0490 (FU: 558-6613)
657 VALENCIA STREET - east side, between Sycamore and 18th Streets, Lot 061 in Assessor's Block 3576: Request for Conditional Use Authorization in the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation to allow: (1) use size greater than 3,000 square feet under Planning Code Sections 726.21 and 121.2; (2) a business or professional service on the second floor per Planning Code Section 726.53 and as defined by Section 790.108; (3) a use size greater than 2,000 square feet, and a business or professional service on the ground level in excess of 2,000 square feet per Mission District Interim Zoning Controls.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(PROPOSED FOR INDEFINITE CONTINUANCE)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued Indefinitely
AYES: Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay, Chinchilla
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
5. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of October 11, 18, and 25, 2001.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved as Corrected or Amended
AYES: Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay, Chinchilla
6. Commission Matters
Commission Secretary – Announced that documents handed out at the Commission hearing should be returned to the Commission Secretary.
Commissioner Joe: She would like to have the Commission Correspondence Folder be a different color than the other folders to help eleminate confussion.
Commissioner Theoharis: She would like an informational presentation regarding the 2002 Better Neighborhoods Program specifically related to the Ocean Avenue/Balboa area. The Chancellor from City College has requested that the various community groups be informed when this presentation will be heard at the Commission. Staff should contact City College to obtain the proper information of names and addresses in order to have everyone involved receive this information in a timely manner. She recommends that this presentation be scheduled in February 2002.
Commissioner Theoharis: She read an article that's in the Chronicle today about the Stonestown project. Does staff know if Supervisor Ammiano would like to have a hearing scheduled related to the inadequacies of the EIR report?
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
7. Director's Announcements
Regarding Commissioner Theoharis's items:
1) Stonestown Project - It is premature to be critical on where we are on this project since staff is still in the evaluation period.
Paul Maltzer responded that:
- The initial study has been published.
- Perhaps this is what has caused all the commotion.
- There is still a lot of work to be done on this document.
Regarding the 2002 Better Neighborhoods Informational Presentation – Ocean Avenue/Balboa Area
- Informational presentations are done from time to time.
- Staff will follow through on this. There is no specific date for this informational presentation.
Re: Last Week's Hearing on 4040 24th Street
- There was a complaint from Anastasia Yovanopolis.
- She expressed concern that Zephyr Real Estate expansion was not in compliance with the Commission's action and the approved plans and permits.
- Mark Sprick, who is on our Enforcement Team, spoke to Ms. Yovanopolis, looked at the plans, did a site visit and spoke to the adjacent tenants.
- It is the Department's impression that this is within compliance of the plans.
- Staff has spoken to Ms. Yovanopolis and her issues have been resolved.
Regarding New Board of Supervisors Liaison:
- The Director welcomed Jean-Paul Samaha who will be the liaison to the Board of Supervisors.
8. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS
RE: 1101 O'Farrell Street
- This case was approved by the Commission for an amendment to allow a greater height and an amendment to the zoning map for bulk limitation as well as granting a conditional use application.
- This matter was brought to the Board of Supervisors as an appeal several weeks ago--they continued the matter. The Project Sponsor worked with Supervisors McGoldrick and Peskin and developed some significant amendments. This was brought back for consideration to the Board of Supervisors.
- The Board overturned the Commission's decision by a vote of +9 -2, then amendments were added and the Board approved the project.
- These amendments involve the number of units and other items that the Project Sponsor is to provide to adjoining property owners. The height of the building, the design and the amendment to the Planning Code were left intact as the Commission approved them.
BOA of November 28, 2001 and December 5, 2001
November 28, 2001
Re: 2158-2160 Filbert Street–a project that was heard on June 14, 2001.
- This case consisted of two small, one-bedroom units that were already occupied by the tenant who wanted to expand her family.
- The Board decided that the market conditions had changed dramatically and that there were a number of vacancies on the market.
- The Board was concerned that these units were quite small and this family needed space.
- Also, this project would create family housing. These were the main reasons the Board overruled the Commission's decision.
Re: 2935 Pacific Avenue
- The Commission took Discretionary Review on June 21, 2001.
- This project went through various changes after the Commission heard this case.
- What the Commission heard was a 3 to 2 dwelling unit merger with the second unit being a very tiny unit.
- What the Board saw was a much more equal division of the units.
- The Board felt that the preservation of a very expensive unit was not necessary and because the project had been modified so significantly since the Commission last saw it - the Board approved this merger
December 5, 2001
Re: 740 Vermont Avenue
- The Board denied the request for a rehearing.
Re: 2836 Washington Street
- The Commission heard this case a number of times.
- The second time the Commission denied the request to put decks at the rear yard.
- The Board upheld the Commission's decision with minor changes to the conditions of approval and will be coming back to the Board for final NSR.
Re: 1750 Folsom Street
– This was a Discretionary Review case heard on June 4, 2001.
- The Commission took Discretionary Review and denied the permit.
- The Board overturned the Commission's decision because the Project Sponsor argued that the project had been modified to include wine warehousing for the entire 4 restaurants that Lulu's operates. The second point made was that the existing building was in bad shape. The Board decided that the building was not suitable for PDR.
- The Project Sponsor agreed to have Arriba Juntos and Mission Language and Vocational Training as outreach to the community.
9. Informational Presentation and Discussion on Unsound Building Reports.
SPEAKER(S):
Daniela Kirshenbaum – Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods
- She is representing the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods.
- She would like to applaud any and all efforts to examine this problem.
Joe O'Donaghue – Residential Builders
- He would like to correct some information.
- The demolition ordinance was put there in error.
- The issue of sound affordable housing has nothing to do with the demolition ordinance.
- The history and the facts need to be straightened out in order to make good decisions.
David Silverman – Reuben and Alter
- The purpose of this policy is to preserve affordable housing.
- This policy has not been applied across the board.
- He urges the Commission that when the new policy is decided upon, to separate TAPE
- Inquired if there was a way to deal with the cases that are in the pipeline first since they are being held up while this policy is being considered?
ACTION: Informational only. No Action Required at this time.
10. 84.448D (BADINER)
Review and confirmation of a Condition of Approval for 1660 Mission Street that required a van-shuttle service and re-authorization of budget allocation for the provision of a van-shuttle service.
ACTION: The Director continued this item to December 13, 2001.
D. REGULAR CALENDAR
11. 1999.455E (NAVARRETE: 558-5975)
NEW DeYOUNG MUSEUM - Certification of Environmental Impact Report. Assessor's Block 1700, Lot 1, bounded to the north and east by John F. Kennedy Drive, to the south by Tea Garden Drive and to the west by the Hagiwara Japanese Tea Garden. The proposed project would demolish and reconstruct the M.H. DeYoung Museum on the site of the existing DeYoung Museum in Golden Gate Park. The project would include demolition of eight existing buildings, totaling approximately 230,000 square feet, which compose the DeYoung Museum and the Asian Art Museum. (The Asian Art Museum will move to the Civic Center.) The new building would include two main levels above grade, one level below grade with a varying roof height ranging from 33 to 48 feet, and a 144foot tower at the northeast corner of the project site. The building would increase current DeYoung Museum gallery and exhibition space at the site from the existing 37,000 sf to total about 75,000 sf. The project would remove the 85 existing paved parking spaces for museum staff, currently on the eastern side of the museum, and would not provide replacement parking. The project site is within the P (Public Use) zoning district and within an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.
Note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. However, the previously certified Final EIR for this project was remanded back to the Planning Commission by the Board of Supervisors, on appeal. While the Planning Commission does not receive public comment on Final EIRs as part of a formal comments and responses process, public comment on the certification of the Revised Final EIR may be presented to the Commission.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify Final Environmental Impact Report.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Elizabeth Goldstein – General Manager of the Recreation and Park Department
- She indicated that she was available to answer any questions the Commission might have.
(-) Joe Fusco – People for a New DeYoung
- It was through their efforts that the Board of Supervisors remanded the EIR back to the Planning Department/Commission to correct errors.
- The revised EIR does not correct these errors.
- The Planning Department did nothing that the Board of Supervisors requested, so he requested that the Planning Commission remand this project back to the Planning Department to have done what the Supervisors asked to have done.
- He would like to also request that Public Comment be opened again, and that the Environmental Impact Report be consolidated into one document.
(+) Ron Miguel - PAR
- Mr. Fusco and he disagree on every point.
- He does not believe that the EIR comment period should be extended.
- There is also no need to combine documents.
- The Planning Department's comments and the comments from the Board of Supervisors have been well addressed.
- He hopes that the Commission approves this so that the project can begin.
(+) Randy Scott – Museum Trustee
- The Board has been very diligent as well as staff.
- He hopes that the Commission will adopt the final report so that there will not be any more delays.
(+) Bill Leddy - Architect
- He supports this project that will become a landmark for San Francisco.
- The work has been very diligent and thorough.
(+) Jim Chappell – SPUR
- This project has made a great building become even better and will have a very exciting tower.
- The new building will be park-friendly and child-friendly as well as be welcoming and opening.
- There are no negative environmental impacts, only positive (ones).
- He hopes that the Commission will certify the document.
(-) Mary Anne Miller – San Francisco Tomorrow
- The revised document still does not deal with issues previously presented.
(-) Pinky Cushner - SPEAK
- She agrees with Ms. Miller's comments.
- She would like to have the EIR done correctly since it still contains errors in various aspects of the project.
- If this is not done, the project will continue to be delayed.
- If the Commission had listened to them the first time, this process would have been faster.
(+) Toby Levine
- She has reviewed the amended version of the original EIR.
- She believes that for this project, the new revised EIR takes adequately into account the issues brought up by the Board of Supervisors and Page and Turnbull.
- The thing that bothers her is the endless effort to derail an extremely important project.
(-) Chris Duderstadt
- He has tried to understand what the new tower will look like.
- He has been through the revised EIR and has found various contradictions.
- The light studies are not exactly right.
- The children's playground, on certain hours of the day, will go completely dark.
(-) Philip D. Carlton – Alliance for Golden Gate Park
- He is happy that the tower has been lowered since he was the first person to oppose this tower.
- The museum has no need for an observation tower.
- He hopes that the Commission will disapprove this EIR since they will be appealing the decision to the BOS.
ACTION: Certified the Final Environmental Impact Report
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16291
12. 2000.0790E (KUGLER: 558-5983)
888 HOWARD STREET - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project, which has been revised, is the proposed construction of a 33-story, 340-foot tall hotel building of approximately 487,900 square feet with one level of below-grade parking on the northeast corner of Fifth and Howard Streets (Assessor's Block 3724, Lot 66). The revisions to the original project and associated environmental effects are set out in the Summary of Comments and Responses – Section B. 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 revised project would contain about 600 hotel rooms along with ancillary support uses such as meeting rooms, restaurants, and retail space (the originally proposed 60 to 70 residential condominiums have been eliminated). The hotel entryway would be on Howard St. There are three loading docks planned with entrances from Fifth 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: Certify Environmental Impact Report.
NOTE: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR closed on September 18, 2001. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs, however, public comment on the certification may be presented to the Commission.
SPEAKER(S) Regarding Continuance:
Stephanie Rosenfeld – Hotel Employees Union Local 2
- She supports the request for continuance.
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 10, 2002
AYES: Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla, Fay
13. 2001.0690L (LIGHT: 558-6254)
88 5TH STREET (OLD SAN FRANCISCO U.S. MINT) - west side between Mission and Jessee Streets, Assessor's Block 3704, Lot 11 - Consideration of landmark designation and adoption of a resolution recommending landmark designation of the Old San Francisco U.S. Mint as Landmark No. 236. The subject property is zoned P (Public), and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving Landmark designation and recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve the landmark designation.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Michael Levin
- He worked at the old mint.
- It is unfortunate that it has been vacant since 1994.
- He is very supportive that this building be landmarked.
- This building is a State Historic Landmark and it should definitely be a City landmark.
- It is also unfortunate that this City does not have a comprehensive history museum.
ACTION: Resolution Adopted to Recommend Landmark Designation
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16292
14. 2001.0073L (TULLY: 558-6372)
MUNICIPAL RAILWAY CAR NUMBER 1 - proposed landmark site is contiguous with the footprint of the Municipal Railway Car Number 1 and does not include the rails or any location or site on which this streetcar sits or travels. Consideration of landmark designation and adoption of a resolution recommending landmark designation of the Municipal Railway Car Number 1 as Landmark No. 230.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving landmark designation and recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve the landmark designation.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Michael Levin
- This is a wonderful idea.
- This is very much historic just as the cable cars.
- He supports landmarking this.
- All of the historic streetcars are worthy of landmarking.
ACTION: Resolution Adopted to Recommend Landmark Designation
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16293
15a. 2001.0613CP (SIROIS: 558-6313)
2700 – 45TH AVENUE - east side of 45th Avenue, between Wawona Street and Sloat Boulevard, Lot 026, Assessor's Block 2513 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization by Metro PCS to install a wireless telecommunications facility at the United Irish Cultural Center pursuant to Planning Code Section 711.83, which includes the installation of four panel antennas, one GPS antenna and associated equipment cabinets in an NC-2 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 100-A Height and Bulk District. The subject site is a preference 1 location (public facility) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Siting Guidelines, 1996.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 1, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Daniel Frattin – GCS Strategies representing Debra Stein
- He thanked staff for all the good work on this case.
- This is a publicly used building therefore it is a preference 1.
- Metro PCS has worked with staff to come up with a non-intrusive design.
- Metro did consider two other sites in the area but those sites did not meet all the criteria required.
(+) Bill Leinert – Representing Metro PCS – Tetra Tech
- Metro PCS is a new service provider that will provide a flat rate for service.
- These antennas will provide expanded service to this area.
- There will be diminished aesthetical impact since the antennas will be installed in faux vent pipes.
(+) Doina Frentesco – Representing Metro PCS.
- Metro PCS participated in a community outreach by providing two meeting and sending out information in Spanish and Chinese.
- There was a translator available at these meetings.
- There were only two attendees at the first meeting and one attendee at the second meeting for a total of three.
- Their team makes every effort to find other locations to install these antennas. These other locations did not meet the technical requirements for these antennas.
(+) Bob Weller – Registered and Professional Engineer – Hammett & Edison
- There are safety standards for antennas.
- The standard in the US is identical to the one used in (other) Western nations.
- Unless you are physically next to the antennas, there will be little radiation exposure.
(+) Tim Colen – President of the Edgehill Way Neighborhood Association
- He supports this project since it will provide better cellular service to the neighborhood.
- As a geologist, he is aware that at some point there will be a devastating earthquake and cellular phones could play a critical role.
(+) Elizabeth Maynard
- She does not believe that Metro PCS is affordable.
- It is important that low-income people be able to afford cell phones.
- She feels confident when she carries a cell phone since it is essential anywhere in the City.
- She is in support of this project.
(+) Joe O'Donaghue – Residential Builders
- He supports this project.
(-) Diana Scott - SPEAK
- She lives 2 ½ blocks from the Irish Cultural Center.
- She is concerned with the waves, which are transmitted from these antennas to the cell phones.
- The Commission does not have to approve all proposals for antennas.
- She submitted a letter from someone who is opposed to this project but could not attend the hearing.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16294
15b. 2001.0613CP (SIROIS: 558-6313)
2700 – 45TH AVENUE - east side of 45th Avenue, between Wawona Street and Sloat Boulevard, Lot 026, Assessor's Block 2513 - Request for a Coastal Zone Permit by Metro PCS to install a wireless telecommunication facility at the Irish Cultural Center pursuant to Planning Code Section 330. The subject site is located within the Coastal Zone Area of San Francisco's Western Shoreline, in an NC-2 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 100-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 15a.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16295
16a. 2001.0137CV (PURVIS: 558-6354)
3294 MISSION STREET - west side between Valencia and 29th Streets, including 2-50 29th Street; Lot 12 in Assessor's Block 6596, a through lot to Tiffany Street - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 121.1 for the development of a lot greater than 10,000 square feet. The project would involve the demolition of three 2-story and two 1-story buildings, and the construction of a 4-story mixed-use building with 33 residential units above ground floor commercial space and two sub-grade parking levels. Up to 16,000 square feet of commercial space and 80 off-street parking spaces would be provided. The project would require a rear yard modification. The site is within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Silverman – Reuben and Alter – Representing Project Sponsor
- The project takes advantaged of a large underutilized lot.
- The project sponsor has met with interested neighbors and neighborhood groups and everyone supports this project.
- He will continue to work with the Department regarding the concerns of Commissioner Chinchilla regarding the materials used on this project.
(+) Don Huntley – Northwest Bernal Alliance Organization
- His concerns related to this project are the following: 1) How the developer will lease or sell commercial spaces; 2) that the developer adhere to the moratoriums already assigned to this neighborhood; 3) that there be a good neighbor policy to provide safety and cleanliness on the street for residents; 4) that commercial delivery traffic be limited to the hours of 8 am to 8 pm. 4) That the existing postal service office in the area be preserved; and 5) that there be regulated hours that assure the neighborhood that this heavy traffic area will not be impeded by the construction.
(+) Terry Milne
- Adjacent buildings on this street have a whole lot of glass.
- He hopes that this design refinement enlarges the window area on this individual space.
- It is definitely a long block
- The apartment entrances on the back part of this project seem like the back doors.
- He is unanimously in support of this project.
(+) Katie Gough – North West Bernal Heights Design Review Board
- She has been involved in three meetings with architects and the project manager.
- A verbal agreement made in a nighttime meeting in an office is not going to carry any weight. That is why anything that is agreed upon is written down and made part of the public record.
- She has spoken to the Post Office and the only way that they will be able to save it is to have the entire community protest.
(+) Joe O'Donaghue
- He agrees that this is a very good project.
(-) Lyn Boltry
- She owns and operates a physical therapy clinic.
- She is concerned with the amount of traffic that will increase because of this project.
- She is concerned about the gentrification of the Mission and if people will be able to afford these condominiums.
- Her other concerns are that she hopes that the tenants who are currently there will be able to afford the rents for the business spaces if they come back.
(-) Jack Shella
- He lives across the street from this building.
- He would like to have the Mission District stay the way it is and keep the small stores and the post office, etc.
ACTION: Approved as amended: 1) require the project sponsor to continue to work with staff to improve design such as improvement to the ground floor; create a greater commercial presence; address material issues; place more openings on the ground floor; landscaping, etc. 2) If developer is not able to meet the established timeline, they are required to explain as much as possible what it is they have and have not been doing to bring about this project.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16296
16b. 2001.0137CV (PURVIS: 558-6354)
3294 MISSION STREET - west side between Valencia and 29th Streets, including 2-50 29th Street; Lot 12 in Assessor's Block 6596, a through lot to Tiffany Street - Request for a rear yard modification for the above mixed-use project. Planning Code Section 134(a)(1) requires a rear yard of 25 percent of the depth of a lot to be provided at the lowest story containing a dwelling unit, and at each succeeding story of a building. The proposed project would provide a rear yard of comparable size but within a courtyard. Section 134(e) allows for modification of the rear yard standard in certain districts subject to a hearing by the Zoning Administrator. The site is within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 16a.
ACTION: Director Green acting as the Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the rear yard modification.
17a. 2001.0915CV (RYAN: 558-6812)
2836 FRANKLIN STREET - east side between Lombard and Greenwich Streets; Assessor's Block 503, Lot 14 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 161 (j), to allow a reduction in the off-street parking requirements for dwelling units. The proposal is to add a new dwelling unit to the rear of the existing building, which currently contains a retail space on the ground floor with a dwelling unit above. Planning Code Section 151 requires that an independently accessible off-street parking space be provided for the new dwelling unit; none is proposed to be provided. The project site is within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will conduct a joint hearing on a request for a variance from Planning Code Section 136©(2)(A).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Stephen Antenaris – Project Architect
- He submitted a petition of about 80 signatures from people who support the reduction of the parking lot.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
MOTION: 16297
17b. 2001.0915CV (RYAN: 558-6812)
2836 FRANKLIN STREET - east side between Lombard and Greenwich Streets; Assessor's Block 503, Lot 14 - Request for a variance from Planning Code Section 136©(2)(A). Planning Code Section 134(a)(1) requires a rear yard of 25 percent of the lot depth to be provided at the lowest story containing a dwelling unit and at each succeeding story. Section 136(c)(2)(A) allows a bay window as a permitted obstruction into this required rear yard, with a minimum headroom of 7 ½ feet. The proposal is to add a three-story addition to the rear of the existing building. The proposed addition will include a bay window, which encroaches into the required rear yard without providing the required minimum headroom. The property is within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40 X Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 17a.
ACTION: Variance continued to December 12, 2001
18a. 2001.0972CD (McGEE: 558-6367)
522 SHOTWELL - west side, between 19th and 20th Streets; Lot 32 in Assessor's Block 3594 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to legalize an existing illegal dwelling unit. Additional market-rate dwelling units require approval by the Planning Commission, per the Mission District Interim Controls. The property is located in an RM-1 Zoning District and in a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
(+) (did not state name) – Property Owner
- He is available for questions from Commissioners.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: 16297
18b. 2001.0972CD (McGEE: 558-6367)
522 SHOTWELL - west side, between 19th and 20th Streets; Lot 32 in Assessor's Block 3594 - Mandatory Discretionary Review for a change of use per the Mission District Interim Controls. The proposal is to legalize an illegal dwelling unit . The property is located in an RM-1 Zoning District and in a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 18a.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as proposed.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
E. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 6:00 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.
19. 2001.0845D (SIDER: 558-6697)
2551 - 2557 MISSION STREET - east side between 21st and 22nd Streets, Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 3615 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Number 2001/06/13/1442 proposing to (1) change the use of the existing vacant movie theatre (Planning Code Sections 712.46 and 790.64) to a health club and indoor rock climbing facility (a personal service' pursuant to Sections 712.52 and 790.116), (2) perform interior renovations commensurate with the proposed use, and (3) perform exterior modifications including façade improvements, rooftop mechanical expansions, and an exterior fill-in' on the ground level street frontage. Discretionary Review is required by Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 518-01 (Mission District Interim Controls) for any permit proposing to change the use of a property within the Mission District. The subject property is located in an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 65-B Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed, with conditions.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 1, 2001)
NOTE: On November 8, 2001, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing. The Commission continued the matter to 12/6/01 for the sponsor to work with community groups and staff to provide recommended good neighbor conditions of approval by a vote of +6 –0. Commissioner Theoharis was absent.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Ada Chan – Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition
- She requested that the Commission consider the impact this gym will have on the community.
- This gym will have 2, 500 members who are not of the community.
- She does not support this project.
(-) Richard Marquez
- There is definitely opposition to this gym.
- There are also various gyms and fitness centers that provide assistance or low fee memberships.
- He does not support this project.
(-) Valerie Tulliea
- She is very offended and insulted that the proposed business will not benefit everyone in the community.
- She does not support this project.
(-) Rosa Velez-
- She is disappointed that the Department did not do further research on how this project would impact the community.
- She does not support this project.
ACTION: Project Disapproved
AYES: Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas
NAYES: Chinchilla, Theoharis
ABSENT: Fay
20. 2001.0787D (MILLER: 558-6344)
2928 LARKIN STREET - east side between Bay and North Point Streets, Lot 018A in Assessor's Block 0026 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9923712, proposing to construct a new four-story, two-unit residential building with a two-car garage in an RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve project with modifications
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 15, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Roland Sabado – DR Requestor
- He lives on Larkin Street.
- He has spoken to several of his neighbors who agree with him and are against this project
- The issues are that the project will be taller than the buildings on the block, there will be shadow impacts, and it will not meet the characteristics of the neighborhood.
(-) Melina Moberg
- She does not support this project since her concern is that access to light and air will be diminished by the proposed project.
- She is also concerned that the project sponsor will not be living there.
(+) Ignatius Sang – Project Architect
- The proposed building will be smaller than the next-door neighbor's building.
- He displayed a diagram showing how the proposed building will not cause a shadow on the neighbor's home.
- There will be some changes made to a bay window requested by the DR requestor.
- He hopes the Commission will approve the project.
(+) Edward Wong – Project Sponsor
- One of the questions from the DR requestor is what will be the use of this building.
- This building will be ready for rental. He has suffered a loss by keeping it vacant so he wants to get it ready for rental in order to keep undesirables away from the property.
(+) John Lie
- He participated in the design of this structure.
- The DR requestor stated that the building would be larger than his but only by 2 inches.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approve as modified on revised plans by matching the lightwells.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
EXCUSED: Joe
ABSENT: Fay
21. 2001.0680D (JONES: 558-6477)
3707 – 22ND STREET - south side between Noe and Sanchez Streets, Lot 41 in Assessor's Block 3626 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/03/19/4632, proposing to add a new garage, reduce the existing 2nd-story rear deck, and construct a rear extension beneath the reduced deck at the 1st-story in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit as submitted.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 15, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) David Marshall
- He lives on 22nd Street, across the street from the proposed project.
- This project will not maintain the architectural integrity of the neighborhood.
- It will also violate residential design guidelines from the Planning Department.
- He is not against the construction but would like to maintain the architectural integrity and the character of the neighborhood.
(-) Walter Krain
- He has lived in his home for 26 years which is located next door to the proposed construction.
- He does not support this project since it will alter the architectural uniqueness of the three houses in question.
(-) Susan Saperstein
- She lives on 22nd Street.
- She is against this project since it will block sunlight on a small deck she has in the back and because it will destroy the character of the neighborhood.
(-) Anne Beckelheiden
- She does not support this project since the proposed construction will block light to her unit and her garden as well as compromise her foundation.
(-) Edward Davidson
- He has lived on 22nd Street with his wife for 21 years.
- He does not support this project since these houses have unique peaked roofs. If the project is approved it would destroy that uniqueness. Also, the houses have a similarity in height that would be lost. This would have a negative effect on property values. Adding a second garage would cause the neighborhood to loose a street parking spot to a house
(-) Dan Sullivan
- He lives on Liberty Street and feels that this proposal is very disrespectful to the neighborhood.
- He has the economic capacity to raise his house and add a garage but this would change the character of the neighborhood
(-) Jonathan Pearlman – Project Architect
- He would like to address the issues of the DR requestors: This house is almost 100 years old. The proposal to raise the house will not destroy the character of the neighborhood since there are other homes on that street that have flat roofs.
- The homes are not consistent in design.
- These houses are not designated as historically significant.
- The ornamentation of the façade will be kept and he has been careful to keep the character of the house.
- There are many houses that have garages that at some point did not have them.
ACTION: Motion to not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit as submitted.
AYES: Chinchilla, Joe, Lim
NAYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Salinas
RESULT: The motion failed to carry.
ACTION: Continued to December 20, 2001 in order to have Commissioner Fay review tapes and all other hearing material. Public Comment is closed.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
ABSENT: Fay
22. 2001.0688D (SIDER: 558-6697)
77 BLUXOME STREET - south side between Fourth and Fifth Streets, Lot 19 in Assessor's Block 3786 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Number 2001.02.12.1820, proposing to (1) convert the ground level of an existing two story light industrial building to a parking use, (2) convert the second level to an office use, (3) construct two new stories of office space, and (4) perform façade and other alterations. Discretionary Review is required by Planning Commission Motion Number 16202 for projects, which propose office uses within the IPZ (Industrial Protection Zone). The property is within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) Zoning District, the IPZ, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the project.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Dan Sullivan – Representing Project Sponsor
- The project sponsor did an analysis on what was approved on the permit and determined that in today's market place it would not be very appealing to tenants.
- The project sponsor recently purchased the building and wanted to do a better job.
- The project sponsor wanted to create 22 off-street parking spaces and add a minor amount of office space to help amortize this investment.
- This project has merit. It is not a situation of taking a vacant lot and making it office. The 7,000 square feet is necessary in order to achieve a reasonable development program and a return on investment.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.
AYES: Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
NAYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla
ABSENT: Fay
23. 2001.0957D (CRAWFORD: 558-6358)
14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 46, 50 & 62 ARCO WAY - northwest side north of Havelock. Assessor's Block 3154 Lots 32,39,38,37,28,27,26, & 24 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Applications 2000/07/19/5580, 2000/07/19/5577, 2000/07/19/5569, 2000/07/19/5563S, 2000/07/19/5571S, 2000/07/19/5581, 2000/07/19/5584, and 2000/07/19/5573 for construction of 8 new single family dwellings two and three stories tall in an RH-1, Residential House, One Family, district and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the permits.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) David Newton
- He hopes that the Commission will approve 6 houses which is what the neighbors have always wanted -- one-story over garage as jointly developed and designed by the neighbors with the developer.
(-) Frank Masterson
- He lives on Arco Way.
- He is not opposed to the houses being built on this street.
- The two houses at the end that are one-story over garage with two parking spaces inside and one on the street would be fine if it would be continued right through. But instead the developer wants three stories, less than 20 feet wide and one parking space inside and none on the street is not only out of character but will also cause a lot of problems.
(-) Ana Artiga
- She supports the houses being built yet she is not in agreement with the homes being three stories.
(-) Mary Pascua
- She read a letter from her aunt who could not attend the hearing and who is not in support of 8 houses being built or the three levels.
(+) David Silverman – Reuben and Alter
- Since this project was before the Commission, the project sponsor has made several changes to the original proposal.
- The project sponsor has met several times with New Mission Terrace Improvement Association.
- He received a letter from Supervisor Sandoval addressed to President Theoharis, which supports the project and describes his success in achieving a settlement between the neighbors and the sponsor.
- This Discretionary Review should be denied and the project approved.
(+) Brian Macovoy – One of the Project Sponsors
- He has been working with the NMTI for 14 months--15 meetings, 7 Wednesdays in a row. Through the Supervisor's office we came to an agreement, signed the agreement, and went to the Land Use Committee.
- Mr. Newton applied for a DR and he said that they were not notified.
- He has been working very hard to have this project approved.
(+) Anthony G. Sacco - President of the New Mission Terrace Improvement Association
- He has been a member of this association for two decades.
- This project has been around for a while and it is time to be put to bed.
- Originally the proposal was for 10 homes. There was tremendous opposition to this and after various meetings everyone agreed to the proposal before the Commission today.
- It has been a lot of work to get to where they are currently.
- The neighborhood had the opportunity to come to their meetings and bring up their issues.
- He supports staff recommendation.
(+) David Hoover
- The meetings were contentious.
- Initially he found the proposal inaccessible and what they have reached is an acceptable compromise.
- He would like to encourage the Commission and staff to work more closely with neighborhood associations in order to reach these conclusions in the future.
ACTION: Motion to not take DR and approve project with modifications that require ground floor accessibility (i.e. widen doorways, remove or alter stairs that lead to the doorways, etc.).
AYES: Baltimore, Salinas, Lim
NAYES: Chinchilla, Joe Theoharis
RESULT: The motion failed to carry.
ACTION: Continued to December 20, 2001 in order for Commissioner Fay to review hearing tapes and all other material. Public Hearing Closed.
AYES: Joe, Lim, Theoharis, Salinas
NAYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla
ABSENT: Fay
24. 2001.0829D (WANG: 5586335)
657 CORBETT AVENUE, northeast corner of Corbett Avenue and Glendale Street; Lot 047 in Assessor 's Block 2717 Request of Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/04/30/8032 and Demolition Permit Application No. 2001/04/30/8029 to construct a new fourstory over garage, fourfamily dwelling after demolition of an existing singlefamily dwelling in an RM1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.
ACTION: Prior to hearing, the Discretionary Review request was withdrawn
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: 9:04 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 2002
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla, Salinas
Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:13 PM
