12. 2003.0860D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)
357 HOWTH STREET east side between Mount Vernon Avenue and Ridge Lane; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 7035 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.21.2744, proposing: a one-story (over storage) rear horizontal extension; stairs leading from the new addition to the rear yard; and a 4' high front yard fence, to an existing single family dwelling within an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Christian Ard - Discretionary Review Requestor
- The permit applicant has submitted information that he intends to use the space for a musical group.
- This room is located about 10 feet from his bedroom and he's concerned about the noise.
- The applicant has a history of non-compliant projects.
- He tried to avoid this Discretionary Review. He asked for help from a community board but the applicant did not want to cooperate.
- The Planner has based her recommendation on faulty information.
- There are also discrepancies with the project drawings.
- He has submitted various letters to the Department regarding his concerns for safety but these letters have not been included in the case report.
(+) Mr. Massenkoff
- He is a professional singer. He also has a dance troop.
- His son also might use the extra space for drama rehearsals.
- Regarding the fence in question, he had the fence installed even before the Discretionary Review requester moved into the neighborhood.
- He feels that the improvement that he wants to do in his house is quite simple.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project with a finding on the limited use of the storage shed.
AYES: Antonini, Boyd, S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Hughes and Feldstein
13. 2003.1316DD (F. JONES: (415) 558-6477)
168 29th STREET - south side between Dolores Street and San Jose Avenue; Lot 017 in Assessors Block 6617 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.04.6258 pursuant to the Planning Commission's policy for review of all new residential construction for replacement of structures associated with residential demolition (the demolition was previously approved). The new construction is also subject to a request for Discretionary Review from an adjacent neighbor. The proposal is for the new construction of a four-story, four-unit building in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and modify the replacement structure.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 11, 2004)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Erik Christianson - Discretionary Review Requestor
- None of the neighbors were contacted, especially the ones who would be mostly impacted.
- His attorney had a written confirmation of a continuance, but the project will be heard today.
- He is asking that the light well along with the property line windows be reconfigured to address pollution and privacy concerns.
- The project is totally out of context with the adjacent buildings.
- He questions the heights of the proposed building because there were many factual errors in memos previously submitted.
- Many neighbors are supporting his compromise.
(-) Houssein Safa
- He lives near the project sponsor.
- At the last hearing he felt that the new plans would come back with only a three-floor structure and less windows.
- The current plans have a 3 ½ foot reduction, which is actually an irony since it is not much.
- The project sponsor has not taken any of the recommendations given by the Planning Commission.
(-) Stevan Guevara
- He is concerned that there has not been much done to reduce the impact.
- The small reduction of height is not enough.
- He feels that the project sponsor has not had enough respect for the neighborhood.
- He does appreciate the windows that have been removed and that there is actually a building proposed in that area yet it is just too massive.
(-) Amy Van der Wyk
- She appreciates that the property line windows on the west side have been eliminated and that the building has been sunk down.
- Her concerns are the same regarding the fourth floor.
- Her neighbor was going to attend this hearing but had emergency surgery.
(-) David Bushnell
- He is a friend of the Discretionary Review requestors.
- He lives in Noe Valley.
- At the last meeting, the Planning Commission made significant changes and this has not been done.
- The project sponsor had requested a continuance but then retracted, causing a lot of confusion.
(-) David Bob
- He lives near the project site.
- He was here at the last hearing.
- He is sorry that not all of the Commissioners are here today.
- At the previous hearing, there was a consensus from the Commission to remove the 4th floor.
- He feels insulted that the project sponsor has not taken the Commissions requests into consideration.
(-) Maria Cordero
- She appreciates that many of the windows have been removed but she is still concerned with the height.
- She hopes that the Commission will listen to their request.
(-) Jeremy Paul
- He met with the project sponsor and was clear that this item was going to be continued.
- He just received a phone call about twenty-minutes ago that the item was going to go forward.
- He is very concerned about the lack of communication from the planner.
- He feels that the Commission should continued this case so that there is proper time to analyze this or to just take Discretionary Review and have the Commission revise this project.
(+) Michael Levit - Project Architect
- At the previous hearing, the concerns from the neighbors were building height, scale and privacy.
- He submitted project revision documents on April 6 to the Commission.
- The building height has been reduced four feet. The scale of the building has been reduced as well.
- He displayed renderings of the project displaying the height and bulk dimensions.
- He also displayed the property line windows, which have been removed.
(+) Lou Blazej - Representing Project Sponsor
- He feels that he did all that was needed to request a continuance and to notify the attorney of the Discretionary Review requestor about hearing the case today.
- He displayed a diagram of the project and what changes had been made since the previous hearing.
- The neighbors in the back yard are the ones who are asking to have a floor removed so that the proposed building will be lower than their homes.
- He displayed aerial photographs of the area showing how many of the neighbors have large trees and sheds that cause shadows already.
- He feels that this project is within the neighborhood context.
(+) Ron Berrony - Project Sponsor
- He has a long history with the neighborhood.
- He collected many signatures of neighbors who are in support of the project.
(+) Peter Reily
- He owns a building on 29th Street.
- He hopes that the project will get approved.
- He agrees with the revised plans and feels that this is a very good project.
(+) David Hagel
- He lives in the neighborhood.
- When a person purchases a house with a yard, they are not going to get a whole lot of privacy anyway.
(+) Jessica Abul
- She has lived in the neighborhood for many years.
- This project will allow many people, like her family, to own a home.
- She hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
(+) Phillip Compton - Project Sponsor
- This project has a good design for the neighborhood.
- There are various multi unit buildings in the area.
- He is not a large developer.
- He is just trying to make a living and support his family.
(+) Dennis Francis - Project Sponsor
- They have totally redesigned the top floors to accommodate the neighbors concerns.
- One of the Commissioners mentioned at the previous hearing that loss of light is not a substantial circumstance.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following conditions: 1) railings on the west side elevation would be solid railings; 2) bulk of the penthouse roof would be reduce by sloping half of the roof to follow the downward slope of the stairs and reduce the height on half of it; 3) building length will remain as designed by the Project Sponsor and 4) property line windows on the east side will remain by mutual agreement.
AYES: Antonini, Boyd, S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Feldstein and Hughes
14. 2004.0067DD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
5734-5736 CALIFORNIA STREET - north side between 19th and 20th Avenues, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 1379 -- Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.03.04.0585 proposing a horizontal addition, a new partial fourth floor and the addition of a third dwelling unit to an existing three-story, two-unit building in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Diana Tam - Representing the Discretionary Review Requestor
- The Discretionary Review requestors are concerned that the project will create a significant shadow on their property, tower over their home, and invade their privacy.
- Their property value will also reduce because no one will want to purchase a home where there is no sunlight cast upon it and there is no privacy.
- They are strongly opposed to the new construction.
- She urged the Commission not to grant this approval.
- If this project were to be approved, they ask that a 15 to 20 foot setback from the rear wall be recommended instead of the 10 feet as proposed.
(-) Kun-she Tsuei
- This project will have a negative impact on her home.
- She and her husband are elderly and this project will affect their sunlight, view and air.
- They really enjoy and need the sunlight that comes into their bedrooms and kitchen.
- The higher the project the less she will enjoy the sunlight.
(+) K.Y. Chiu - Project Architect/Engineer
- This house is a very small house.
- It does not matter what angle you look at the house, it is very small.
- He is only requesting to extend 11 feet.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approve the project with the following conditions:
· At the ground floor, eliminate the bath tub and allow only a half bath.
· Move the rear of the garage up against the interior stairs (approximately 3 feet) to provide additional maneuvering space within the garage.
· Provide one tandem parking space within the garage to accommodate a total of three vehicles within the garage.
· Provide landscaping within the front setback area.
· At the rear of the building, relocate the proposed stairs up against the rear building wall.
AYES: Antonini, Boyd, S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Feldstein and Hughes
15. (RODGERS/ALUMBAUGH: (415) 558-6395/558-6601)
DRAFT GLEN PARK COMMUNITY PLAN - (Generally bounded by a quarter mile radius from the Glen Park Bart Station) - Informational presentation on Commission consideration of endorsement of the Draft Glen Park Community Plan, and a summary of community comments to date. The Draft Plan would serve as framework to guide future development and as a tool for the neighborhood to enhance its unique character. In addition, the plan identifies specific public improvements and recommendations for traffic calming measures, on-street parking adjustments, streetscape enhancements, and greenway connections.
More information is available at www.sfgov.org/planning/citywide/glenpark.html
Preliminary Recommendation: Endorse the draft version of the November 2003 Glen Park Community Plan.
- They just saw this plan a few days ago. She actually just saw it today.
- They are very fortunate to have such a gorgeous plan.
- The fact that there is an implementation plan with money attached to it is great.
- She is concerned with the area of San Jose Avenue.
- They would like to bring forward their suggestions, but they have not been tied into the process and have not yet provided their input.
Paul Nixon - San Jose Avenue Coalition
- He and Toby have been involved in this area for about five years.
- They were not part in the Glenn Park process because he did not know that the San Jose area was included.
- They would like to add something to this proposal.
- Having a two way bike lane would eliminate the overcross structure on San Jose Avenue.
Supervisor Dufty
- He commended the Planning Department staff for their hard work on this plan.
- He also thanked the various agencies that provided input to this report.
- He attended neighborhood meetings and invited Ms. Levine to participate in this process.
- There are a lot of good things that this plan will give the neighborhood and it has help him as Supervisor of this district.
Zoanne Nordstrom
- She read a letter from the Glen Park Executive Board who supports this plan and recommendations.
Bruce Bonacker
- He is very excited by this process.
- Supervisor Dufty has been very helpful to his organization.
- He also helped Bill Warn who works at BART and was able to gather money for funding.
Dan Tuttle
- He lives in Glen Park.
- He thanked staff for participating in this plan and making it happen.
- He thanked Congressman Lantos for obtaining funding.
- This community plan has the opportunity to heal a very hurt neighborhood.
- If the plan is supposed to do what it plans to do, it should be implemented with utmost honesty.
Kate Benn
- She participated in the plan last year.
- She urged the Commission to endorse this plan.
- The traffic calming ideas and the multimodal ideas are very good.
- She is in support also of the design guidelines.
- She asked the Commission to continue their decision in order to implement the design guidelines.
Bruce Helmberger
- He lives in the neighborhood and has participated in the process and workshops.
- He encouraged the Commission to implement this process across the City.
- These types of workshops and the attention to detail create the foundation to provide healing to neighborhoods.
- He thanked the focused attention of Dr. Amit Ghosh and Ms. Ann Marie Rodgers.
- The neighborhood resource are extremely under utilized.
Andrea O'Leary
- There has been an attitude regarding this from where she lives. They feel they are being ignored. She lives on Miraloma Street.
- She went to the community process on the very last day.
- It is very important that someone reaches out to them. They mostly drive their cars. The MUNI line that goes through there is not very reliable. Because of the location of where they live, it is hard for people to walk up and down the hill with children.
- There seems to be very little coordination with the Planning Department and Park and Rec regarding parks and open spaces.
Sherry LaPorte
- She requests that the Commission postpone the endorsement of this item. Although, she endorses it, she cannot understand how some specifics are missing from the document.
- Where are the details of this?
- Her question is regarding the process of the development of this document.
Mathew Bittleston
- He lives in Glen Park.
- He is very happy to see this plan and thanked everyone who has worked on it.
- His only concerns are about what the emphasis are on the traffic studies. Pedestrian safety and reduced automobile speeds need to be emphasized in these studies.
- This is a very central public transportation area so reducing parking is good.
- Putting bike lanes on San Jose Avenue is a good idea.
- He seconds the concerns about how comments are being incorporated into this draft plan.
Elise Ravel
- A tremendous amount of work was put into this plan.
- She lives in Glen Park.
- A lot of thought went into it, but she does agree with the previous speakers about how some comments have not been incorporated into the draft plan.
- She uses public transportation and encourages people to do so as well.
- A little bit more information would be good before approving the plan.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, S. Lee, W. Lee
ACTION: Informational Presentation Only. No action.
- In 2001, they identified a lack of coverage in this area.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, S. Lee, W. Lee
