679 40TH AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 1583 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9909801, proposing a vertical and horizontal addition to accommodate a second dwelling unit with a second off-street parking space, to an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 25, 2004)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Steve Williams - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor
- He hopes that the Commission had time to read his brief.
- This is about the worst case of "permit shopping" that he has ever seen.
- This project has been delayed more than five years, not because of the Planning Department or the Discretionary Review Requestor, but because the Project Sponsor refused to do what the Planning Department and the Director had requested.
- It is important to enforce the original plans, which had been approved by three previous planners and the Planning Director, and reject this current proposal.
(-) Jim Salinas
- He is here because he supports [the DR requestor].
- It has not changed or modified [the structure] in 40 years.
- He went to Mr. O'Neil's home and looked at the year yard. Mr. O'Neil has created a beautiful garden, which has been very well maintained.
- He asked the Commission to take Discretionary Review and go back to what two previous Planners and what Director Gerald Green had approved to modify.
(-) John O'Neil
- He is the Discretionary Review requestor.
- If this project is approved as it stands, there are going to be disasters at his home.
- If the proposed project goes through, he will have darkness in various rooms.
- His house is going to be ruined.
- About two years ago he went to a community board and they only asked to take out two windows.
- He hopes that the Commission does the right thing and makes modifications.
(-) Sean O'Neil
- His father is the Discretionary Review requestor.
- He and his father went around to 20 neighbors who were not in support of the project.
- He is concerned with the scale of the proposed project because of the scale.
- The garden located at his father's house is very important. Because of his age, he spends a lot of time there.
- His father's good neighbor gestures have been rejected. This is causing a lot of stress to his father.
(-) David Silverman
- He is not for or against the project but would like to speak against the attacks on planners. This is personally offensive to him.
(-) Lisa O'Neil
- She is the daughter of the Discretionary Review requestor.
- She grew up in this house and has always enjoyed the relationship her father and mother have had with the neighbors.
- She hopes that the Commission will realize the monstrosity being proposed.
(-) Hiroshi Fukuda
- The Richmond District has fought against such large developments.
- The Richmond District is not anti-growth either.
- He urged the Commission to take Discretionary Review and pass the proposals previously presented.
(-) Patrick Mulligan
- This is very much irresponsible development.
- It is his understanding that certain areas of the City have been rezoned to accommodate denser populations.
- He would also like to question the planning procedures that have gone on with this proposal.
(+) Min Winchelhaus-Hsu - Project Sponsor
- Is there something called "permit shopping?" She has never heard of this.
- This is the first time that she met Mr. Jonas Ionin, who is the planner.
- She has been discriminated against and harassed by the Discretionary Review requestor's lawyer.
- The objectives of this proposal is to increase living space, to place on the market one rental unit, etc.
- This project is her American dream.
- She has done a very through analysis, which she has presented to the planner.
(+) John Sing - Project Architect
- He has been working on this project since 1999.
- He displayed a photograph of the Discretionary Review requestor's yard, displaying that the proposed project will not have an impact on this yard.
- He displayed photographs of the rear of the DR requestor's and the Project Sponsor's property proving that there will not be a shadow impact on the homes.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved the Project with the following modifications: 1) remove attic storage area; 2) install matching light well, per staff recommendation; 3) reduce rear addition by 6 feet; 4) remove entire bathroom at the garage level; 5) allow an open railing for rear addition deck.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes
14. (J.IONIN: (415) 558-6309)
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW POLICY - Consideration of two options for a 'Simple vs Complex" Discretionary Review Policy and creating a Pre-Application process for new construction and certain alterations in RH and RM districts.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Option 1.
NOTE: On February 19, 2004, a proposal to amend the Planning Code Text to establish an Administrative Discretionary Review Policy failed. At that hearing, the Commission directed the Department to explore criteria for Simple Discretionary Review vs. Complex Discretionary Review. The Commission scheduled the review of this proposal for April 1, 2004.
SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuance
Marilyn Amini
- She would like to have this item continued since this is a complex project and not many neighborhood groups have had an opportunity to review it.
- There have been submitted continuance letters from community groups.
- The pre-application process should be severed from the entire policy.
Francisco Centurion
- He supports a continuance because the report just came out last Thursday and he has not had time to present this to the Board of Directors of the Russian Hill Association.
Penelope Clark
- She found that there was very little notice about this to the public.
- There are many people who are interested in the details of this policy.
- There are many non-conforming lots in San Francisco and there are many unusual projects that come before them. There is need for time to deal with these projects.
- This policy should not be moved ahead until the entire process has been analyzed.
Paul Wermer
- He would also agree to a continuance.
- He would actually like to have department staff meet with neighborhood groups as Ms. Fung from staff has done on the economic aspects of the policy.
- This would allow the public to deal with the issues and concerns they have.
Hiroshi Fukuda
- He agrees with a continuance of this item.
- Last Tuesday he was fortunate enough to go to Boston and when he came back, he was surprised to see this item on the calendar.
- Because of the importance of this item, the public needs time to look this over and review it.
- The pre-application process should be separated from the Administrate Review part of the policy.
John Slazenger
- With the window of opportunity provided by the 40 days of continuance, staff should come up with a document of implementation. This would actually save time.
John Bardis
- He supports the idea of a continuance.
- There is need for time to review and for neighborhood organizations to have time for discussion.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 20, 2004. Public Comment remains Open in order to look at the various components like pre-application; simple vs. complex; etc.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes
15. 2003.0167C (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)
42-44 SHOTWELL STREET - west side between 14th and 15th Streets; Assessor's Block 3549, Lot 056 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to expand a residential use in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and in a 50-X Height and Bulk District per Planning Code Section 215(a). The proposal is to construct a four-story addition at the rear of the existing 3-story, two unit building.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Mohamed Hussein
- He is not blocking anyone's view because all the extensions of the homes in the neighborhood are large.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
ACTION: Approved with the following amendment: Conditions of Approval should be acted on within three years.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes
MOTION: 16761
16a. 2002.1198CV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
3184 MISSION STREET - northern intersection of Mission and Valencia Streets, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 6574 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 712.11 and 121.1, to allow the development of a lot greater than 10,000 square feet in a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation. The proposal is to demolish the existing single story restaurant structure and construct a new four-story, 40-foot tall structure that would contain up to 20 dwelling units, 20 off-street parking spaces, and approximately 4,800 square feet of commercial space. The project also includes a request to allow modification of the rear yard requirement in Neighborhood Commercial Districts, pursuant to Planning Code Section 134(e), which will be considered concurrently by the Zoning Administrator.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Silverman - Representing Project Sponsor
- He acknowledged Ben Fu for the hard work on this project.
- There were letters submitted to the Commission related to this project stating that there are windows of egress. However, the photographs that he displayed showed bars on these windows--so they cannot be a means of egress.
- A second means of egress is not even required on the property.
- Most apartment buildings do not have either lot-line windows or setbacks.
- The Planning Code requires that non-conforming structures and non-conforming uses be phased out completely.
(-) Ron Morgan - Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
- They have been involved in a community planning process for the last two years.
- They have great concerns regarding this project.
- He read a letter from a neighbor who requested a condition if this project is approved that would protect light and air.
(+) Drake Gardner - Sponser Group - Project Architect
- He displayed a photograph of how the project looks now and how it is proposed.
- The proposed design is supported by the neighborhood.
- They are willing to accept compromises.
(-) David Levy
- The Dabel's have owned the property since the 1850s.
- This project would block all seven of the property line windows on the Dabel's side.
- The Planning Code is where it states that this project cannot be approved because it violates Section 134.
- The bars on the windows can be opened from the inside so they are a form of egress.
- The Dabel's have tried many ways to negotiate.
(+) William Dabel
- His grandfather purchased the property in 1907. He hopes that the Commission will not block these windows.
(+) Greg Dabel
- He grew up in the building and his only concern is that the residents don't want to lose their light and air.
- He supports the project because he thinks it is a good project.
- One of the residents is 101 years old. All of the residents are minorities but he is able to communicate with them. They all say that they don't want the windows closed so that there is light and air to the apartments.
(+) Jamie Ross
- She represents the North West Bernal Alliance
- They believe that this is a great project.
- Right after the plans were revised, there was a breakdown in communication.
- They do support the project yet urge the project sponsor to get back to the Bernal Alliance and discuss the differences.
ACTION: Approve the Project with the following Conditions: 1) install an adjacent, minimum (4x12 in size) light well to allow the two subject windows (labeled bedroom egress on the photographs) to allow light; 2) 8 full size and 12 compact parking spaces
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes
MOTION: 16762
