June 3, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 3, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Edgar E. Boyd, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:34 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Jim Nixon - Acting Zoning Administrator; Susan Cleveland-Knowles - Deputy City Attorney; Costolino Hogan; Diane Lim; Yvonne Ko; Glenn Cabreros; Adam Light; Matt Snyder; Geoffrey Nelson; Kate McGee; Dario Jones; 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. 2003.1164D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

6725 CALIFORNIA STREET - south side between 29^th and 30^th Avenues, Lot 47 in Assessor's Block 1404 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.03.13.9612 proposing to alter the existing two-story, single-family dwelling by raising the building approximately eight feet in order to create a new ground floor to contain a two-car garage, with a new dwelling unit behind, and expanding the building to the front, rear and sides. The subject property is located in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

NOTE: On January 22, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing. The Commission expressed concerns that statements about preserving this structure or the essence of it are not reflected in the plans submitted. Item continued to March 25, 2004. Public hearing will remain open on any new information presented.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 22, 2004)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 24, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 24, 2004

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd

2. 2003.1208C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

2601 MISSION STREET - southeast corner at 22^nd Street, Lot 69 in Assessor's Block 3637 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 712.83 and 790.80 to replace nine antennas that are now on the southern and western walls at the roofline with nine antennas that would be located on the middle portions of western, southern, and eastern walls approximately 77-feet above grade. These antennas are part of an existing Wireless Telecommunications Services facility operated by AT&T Wireless. The site is within an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate-Scale) District and a 50-X / 65-B Height and Bulk District. Pursuant to the WTS Facilities Guidelines, the project is a Preference 2 Location Site, an existing site on which a legal wireless telecommunications facility is currently located.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 15, 2004)

NOTE: On April 15, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to June 3, 2004 in order for Project Sponsor to provide better coverage maps by a vote +5 -0. Commissioners Feldstein and Hughes were absent.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 1, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 1, 2004

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

3. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of May 6, 2004.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Hughes, W. Lee

EXCUSED: Bradford Bell and Sue Lee

4. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Sue Lee:

Re: Eastern Neighborhoods

- It was reported to them that money is being released for staff to begin the EIR.

- She would like to receive periodic updates on the status of the EIR effort and receive a work plan and a timetable.

- The Commission needs to be informed.

- When the policies were adopted in February, the maps were not that legible. It would be helpful to her to have a large format map of the zoning so that she knows what parcels and what blocks are being referenced. The large format would be at least 11 x 17 and in color.

- She would like to see a list of projects that are pending since the policies were adopted.

Re: Status of Budget

- She hopes that the Acting Director will speak on this.

- Also, she would like to see the status of the search for the new Planning Director since we allocated moneys in the budget for this purpose.

Commissioner Antonini:

Re: Eastern Neighborhoods

- He that staff do exit interviews with PDR firms that have left San Francisco.

- He has a list if staff needs the information.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

5. Director's Announcements

Re: Budget

- The budget was released officially by the Mayor.

- It is a mixed budget for the Planning Department. It calls for new money to finish environmental reviews that have been lagging.

- It calls for $300,000 for computer operations/equipment.

- It adds five positions to the Planning Department (two new Environmental, two Citywide Planners, and one graphic artist).

- It gives money to hire consultants to do another Better Neighborhoods Program.

- The Mayor requested a 20% cut in support/administrative staff in order to put money into direct services positions opposed to administrative support. As a result, seven positions have been lost.

- It was one of the hardest things he has had to do as Acting Planning Director.

- Money will be contributed to the support of the City Attorney.

- It calls for about a 14% increase in revenues.

- Regarding the money that was allocated for the Director's search, this was eliminated from the budget.

Commissioner Sue Lee:

- She realizes that Planning is being more appreciated yet there is a lack of understanding that the department needs to be lead.

- She is concerned that there are various projects pending right now for Planning; the Commission is short one member; etc.

- She does not think that support will come from the Mayor's office.

- She is very interested in the Commission participating in the process of hiring a new director as per the Charter.

- She does not know how a search process will begin and not have any funds for it.

Commissioner Bradford Bell:

- It is extremely difficult for the department to face layoffs.

- The choices are to do what is needed to save a few jobs or save the City. This is a tough job.

- The situation is actually positive even after the layoffs.

- The Director comes back July 1 and at that time, we will schedule a closed meeting to talk to him. Hopefully, this will happen with what is happening at the Mayor's office.

Commissioner Antonini:

- There is a search underway via the Mayor's office for a Director, but are the funds coming from there rather than from the Planning Department?

- He does not believe that $50,000 is needed for this procedure.

- The openness of the process is more important than the money.

Commissioner Bradford Bell:

- On May 13, the Commission talked about putting a committee of three together to address this. Is this something that she can initiate? This might answer Commissioner Antonini's question.

Deputy City Attorney, Susan Cleveland-Knowles responded:

- The issue of putting the committee together can be scheduled.

Commissioner Boyd:

- It is very important to find a leader for the Planning Department.

- The final choice will be made by the Mayor's office after the Commission chooses candidates.

- The Commission needs to be very cooperative and very firm.

- Everyone wants to see the needs of the public related to land use get solved

Acting Director Badiner reported on another matter

- He met with the senior managers of Citywide and is requesting information on finding a procedure to process the plans. What would the timelines be? What would be the deliverables, etc.?

- When this information comes in there will be frequent updates to the work plan.

SPEAKER(S):

Joe O'Donaghue - Residential Builders

Re: Processing Permits

- He gets enraged that no one is speaking about processing permits.

- It takes about 6 to 10 weeks before a project is assigned to a planner.

- The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors did not give the current Director his due process.

- There will be a lawsuit filed to block any transfer of funds from the Board of Building Inspection.

- The Planning Department needs to come with a plan and decide where the money is going to go.

- Non one has said that the Planning Director is not getting any pay. Yet people who have gone on the same program received a salary. So where is the money that he left?

Commissioner William Lee:

Re: San Francisco Stat

- He suggested that the Planning Department participate in this system.

Acting Director Badiner Responded:

The Planning Department comes on line for participation in this system next month.

6. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

BOS - None

BOA - None

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

(L. BADINER/D. LIM: (415) 558-6411/558-6547)

7. PLANNING CODE FEE AMENDMENT ARTICLE 3.5, ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 31.21. Consideration of Resolution of Intent to initiate an amendment to Article 3.5 of the Planning Code and Section 31.21 of the Administrative Code. The purpose of this hearing is to set a future date to hold a public hearing to consider an adjustment and increase in various application fees consistent with the Department's 2004/2005 Fiscal Year Work Program.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve initiation

SPEAKER(S):

Mary Burns - President of the Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association

- Voting no on raising specific fees for applications for residential character.

- A six-fold increase in the application fee is highly inappropriate and will affect various neighborhoods negatively.

Steve Vettel

- The fee increases proposed is about 316 percent over existing fees.

- The fees that are being proposed for moderate size projects is enormous.

- He does not know where the money is going, the problem is not fees. The problem is that there are not enough employees to fill positions.

- What is being proposed is not even close to reality.

- He requests that these numbers be looked again before next week.

Joe O'Donoghue

- He echoes the previous speakers comments.

- If the document presented came from a CPA it would make no sense.

- Are the planners really functioning at their best level?

- A General Motors type of accounting system should be taken into consideration.

- Staff needs to assure the public that the fees they are paying are well managed.

ACTION: Hearing Held. Public Comment Remains Open.

Item continued to June 17, 2004.

AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

8a. 2004.0090EKCV (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2655 VAN NESS AVENUE - southwest corner of Van Ness Avenue and Greenwich Street, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 0522 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 253 and 271 to allow a building to exceed 40 feet in height in the 65-A Height Bulk District and to exceed the prescribed bulk limit. Above a height of 40 feet, the A Bulk District allows a maximum building length of 100 feet and a maximum diagonal dimension of 125 feet. The proposal is to demolish the existing three-story commercial building (formerly a television station and most recently a tennis club) and to construct a new six-story, mixed-use building up to 65 feet in height and with a maximum length of 128 feet and a maximum diagonal measurement of 146 feet above a height of 40 feet. The new building proposes up to 29 dwelling units, 43 parking spaces in a below-grade garage, and approximately 4,700 square feet of commercial space at street level. A concurrent hearing before the Zoning Administrator will be held for a Variance request. The subject property is within an RC-3 (Residential-Commercial Combined, Medium Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 22, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Bruce Baumann

- This proposal is to demolish the building and replace it with a multistory building.

- There will be two two-bedroom units and one one-bedroom unit that will be below market rate.

- There is a need for family housing so the average size of the units will be very good elements for family housing.

- They have eliminated a driveway so there will only be one curb cut.

- The building will be completely separate on both sides.

- This will be a highly articulated façade.

- There will be a pedestrian based element in order to enhance pedestrian use/environment on the street.

- The adjacent property has a skylight and windows and the proposed project will have setbacks to respect them.

(+) Werner Schmaltz - Project Architect

- He displayed a floor map and explained the general aspects of the project.

(+) Liz Naughton - Project Sponsor

- In August of 2003, they sent letters to all the property owners near the project.

- They met with concerned neighbors and addressed their concerns.

- They also sent information to various community groups. She has not heard of any comments from these organizations.

(+) Joe O'Donaghue

- He supports the project. It is very well designed.

(-) Linda Cummins

- She lives near the proposed building.

- Her home will be dwarfed considerably.

- She disagrees with what has been said regarding the design.

- The parking situation is very difficult in this area.

- She is concerned about the loss of sunlight that will affect her home.

- She understands that the City has to grow, but she does not know how affordable these units will be.

ACTION: Approved as Amended: In the Conditions of Approval, delete item 2. Item 9, on the Affordable Housing, the below market rate units are two, 2 bedroom; one, 3 bedroom and shall be located one on the second floor, one on the third floor and one on the fourth floor. Regarding parking, language should state: "with up to 43 parking spaces and up to 29 dwelling units".

AYES: Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

EXCUSED: Antonini

MOTION: 16802

8b. 2004.0090EKCV (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2655 VAN NESS AVENUE - southwest corner of Van Ness Avenue and Greenwich Street, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 0522 - Request for Rear Yard and Dwelling Unit Exposure Variances under Sections 134 and 140 of the Planning Code. The proposal is to demolish the existing three-story commercial building and to construct a new six-story, mixed-use building up to 65 feet in height with up to 29 dwelling units, 43 parking spaces in a below-grade garage, and approximately 4,700 square feet of commercial space at street level. The proposed building measures 122 feet long and 70 feet deep, a rear yard Variance is requested. A five-foot rear yard is proposed along the western portion of the lot where an 18.75-foot rear yard is required. A Variance from the exposure requirements is also requested. Eight units along the west side of the proposed building would not meet the dwelling unit exposure requirement, which requires all dwelling units to face onto either a street or Code-complying rear yard. The subject property is located in an RC-3 (Residential-Commercial Combined, Medium Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 22, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 8a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator Closed the Public Hearing and Granted the Variances.

9a. 2003.0587EHXLUV: (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

938-942 MARKET STREET, north side between Mason and Cyril Magnin Streets (also fronting on the east side of Mason Street between Market and Eddy Streets, as the lot and structure are L-shaped)), Lot 005, in Assessor's Block 0341 - Request for adoption of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings and a Mitigated Negative Declaration related to a proposal to seismically upgrade the subject seven-story office building (The Garfield Building), rehabilitate the historic building façades, construct a one-story vertical penthouse addition that would be set back from both the Market Street and Mason Street facades, and convert the existing office use to approximately 33 dwelling units for the subject property, which is in the C-3-G (Downtown, General) Zoning District, the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District, and a 110-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of the CEQA findings and the Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 13, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Charles Bloszies - Project Architect

- He gave a general description of the project as well as it's historical merit.

(+) Mary Murphy

- They are here to seek support from the Commission to obtain a Mills Act authorization.

- There are increased costs of various aspects and the Mills Act would help with these costs.

- There is change in the language that she suggested: take out the language from Page 3, Attachment D that stats: ..."as it exists on May 5, 2004". This was recommended language from the Landmarks Board. The deleted language should be replaced with: "the rehabilitated Garfield Building (including the proposed penthouse addition if constructed)." The reason for this change is because they would like the Board of Supervisors to have broadest degree of discretion when authorizing the Mills Act contracts.

ACTION: Adopted CEQA findings and a Mitigated Negative Declaration

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

MOTION: 16803

9b. 2003.0587EHXLUV: (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

938-942 MARKET STREET, north side between Mason and Cyril Magnin Streets (also fronting on the east side of Mason Street between Market and Eddy Streets, as the lot and structure are L-shaped)), Lot 005, in Assessor's Block 0341 - Request for a Permit to Alter under Article 11 for a substantial increase in height as well as the creation of a light well on a Category I Building, The Garfield Building, for the subject property, which is in the C-3-G (Downtown, General) Zoning District, the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District, and a 110-X Height and Bulk District.

The proposal is to:

1) Seismically upgrade the subject seven-story office building (The Garfield Building);

2) Rehabilitate the historic building façades;

3) Construct a one-story vertical penthouse addition that would be set back from both the Market Street and Mason Street facades, and create a light well along the eastern property line;

4) Convert the existing office use to approximately 33 dwelling units;

5) The Project will not provide parking as required by the Planning Code, nor will thirteen of the units meet the technical Planning Code requirements for dwelling unit exposure, and only three of the 33 units will have private open space. No common space will be provided on the project site, which is completely occupied by existing building. Given these factors, variances would need to be granted for parking, dwelling unit exposure, and residential open space requirements.

6) The proposed project would provide its required Below Market Rate (BMR) units on site as well as the off-site BMR units required for a proposed companion project located at 690 Market Street (2003.0584MTZXCKLU).

7) The project sponsors are seeking to avail themselves of the Mills Act, which allows local governments to grant property tax relief benefits in exchange for the guaranteed preservation of a historic property. In order to qualify under the San Francisco Administrative Code, the property must either be designated as a San Francisco Landmark or listed separately on the National Register. As neither condition is the case with the subject property, the project sponsor is seeking conditional San Francisco landmark status. The proposed Landmark Designation would become final upon the completion of the proposed project consistent with the Rehabilitation Program set forth by the proposed Mills Act contract.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 13, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 9a.

ACTION: Approved the Request to Alter Under Article 11

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

MOTION: 16804

9c. 2003.0587EHXLUV: (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

938-942 MARKET STREET, north side between Mason and Cyril Magnin Streets (also fronting on the east side of Mason Street between Market and Eddy Streets, as the lot and structure are L-shaped)), Lot 005, in Assessor's Block 0341 - Request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit an one-story vertical addition, historic façade rehabilitation, and conversion of existing office space to approximately 33 residential dwelling units, with an exception to the Planning Code rear yard requirements for the subject property, which is in the C-3-G (Downtown, General) Zoning District, the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District, and a 110-X Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will hear the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission

(See Item "b" above for detailed project description.)

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 13, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 9a.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

MOTION: 16805

9d. 2003.0587EHXLUV: (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

938-942 MARKET STREET, north side between Mason and Cyril Magnin Streets (also fronting on the east side of Mason Street between Market and Eddy Streets, as the lot and structure are L-shaped)), Lot 005, in Assessor's Block 0341 - Request for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for conditional landmark designation of the subject property as San Francisco Landmark No. 244, which is in the C-3-G (Downtown, General) Zoning District, the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District, and a 110-X Height and Bulk District.

(See Item "b" above for detailed project description.)

Preliminary Recommendation: Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for the Approval of Landmark Designation

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 13, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 9a.

ACTION: Approved as Amended: On Page 3 of Attachment D, the paragraph after item 14 should read: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby concur with the findings and recommendation of the Landmarks Board and APPROVES the conditional landmark designation of the rehabilitated Garfield Building at 938 Market Street, in Assessor's Block 314, Lot 5, as it existed on May 5, 2004, including the proposed penthouse addition if constructed, as Landmark No. 244...

Add Finding No. 15 which should read: The Planning Commission, after hearing public comment hereby determines that the proposed penthouse addition once constructed would have historic merit under Planning Code Section 1004.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

RESOLUTION: 16806

9e. 2003.0587EHXLUV: (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

938-942 MARKET STREET, north side between Mason and Cyril Magnin Streets (also fronting on the east side of Mason Street between Market and Eddy Streets, as the lot and structure are L-shaped)), Lot 005, in Assessor's Block 0341 - Request for a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for conditional approval of a conditional Mills Act Contract for the subject property, which is in the C-3-G (Downtown, General) Zoning District, the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District, and a 110-X Height and Bulk District.

(See Item "b" above for detailed project description.)

Preliminary Recommendation: Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for the Approval of Mills Act Contract

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 13, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 9a.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

RESOLUTION: 16807

9f. 2003.0587EHXLUV: (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

938-942 MARKET STREET, north side between Mason and Cyril Magnin Streets (also fronting on the east side of Mason Street between Market and Eddy Streets, as the lot and structure are L-shaped)), Lot 005, in Assessor's Block 0341 - Request for the granting of residential open space, dwelling unit exposure, and parking variances for the subject property, which is in the C-3-G (Downtown, General) Zoning District, the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District, and a 110-X Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will consider these variance requests concurrently with the Planning Commission's consideration of the above items.

(See Item "b" above for detailed project description.)

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 13, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 9a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public comment and granted the requested variances.

10. 2003.1267D (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

952 DeHARO STREET - west side between Southern Heights Avenue and 22nd Street, Lot 27 in Assessor's Block 4095 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.05.29.5746 proposing to construct a new three story dwelling at the front of a lot where a single-family dwelling exists at the rear of the lot. The property is within an RH-2 (House, Two-family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project as modified.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 22, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Nick Russo - Discretionary Review Requestor

- This is the third time that he has had to deal with this issue.

- In 1988, a permit was taken out to do the same thing. He filed a Discretionary Review at that time. He received a notice to come to City Hall and his request was upheld and the project did not go further.

- In 1999, another permit was taken out. These plans were rejected.

- The building that exists is not a small cottage. It is a two story building that totals 2,000 square feet.

(-) Dick Millet - Potrero Boosters

- He is an architect and has been involved in various projects in Potrero Hill.

- This project is a way of extending out an older building.

- The project will be affecting two neighbors.

- The project sponsor will get a lot more money if he does not disturb the neighbors.

- Bay windows should not be allowed either.

(+) Reza Hershemizan - Representing Project Sponsor

- This project will not affect the neighbors.

- If the project had been built by today's code, the project would be a lot larger--especially towards the back.

- He spoke to the neighbors at one of the meetings.

- The length of the building is 33 feet. If he takes off the top floor, it will not be worth doing.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with modifications: remove the top floor of the proposed house, in part, to mitigate the effect the new dwelling unit would have on the DR Requestor's building. The Commission finds that this modification is appropriate given the context of the subject block.

The project entails adding an additional unit in an RH-2 District thereby better utilizing the previously underutilized lot.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

11. 2003.1285D (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

3340 BAKER STREET - east side between North Point and Bay Streets, Lot 25 in Assessor's Block 0923 - Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.04.1168s, proposing to construct a new three-story rear horizontal extension with a new roof deck on top to an existing three-story, single-family dwelling. The property is located in the RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 8, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

Re: Continuance

Robert Wong

- He would like to have this case continued to July 15, 2004.

Deby Sito

- She has a group of concerned property owners who have submitted letters with their concerns.

- She supports the continuance.

Joan Girardot

- She supports the continuance.

- She submitted letters regarding the project.

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 17 15*, 2004

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

*July 17 is a Saturday. July 15 would be the correct hearing date.

12. 2004.0163D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

2244 STEINER STREET - east side between Clay and Sacramento Streets; Lot 025 in Assessor's Block 0630 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of Dwelling Unit Mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.01.12.3872, proposing to convert a three-family dwelling to a 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 application as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 13, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) David Silverman - Representing project Sponsor

- The property is a significantly historical Victorian.

- The prior owner illegally added two units before WWII

- The property has been occupied as a single-family dwelling for the last 20 years.

- One of the units is just too small to be considered a habitable dwelling unit.

- No habitants will be displaced.

- The project will be in conformity with the City

- The house will continue to be owner occupied.

- The project will be more in conformity with the Residential Design Guidelines.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the merger

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

NAYES: Boyd

13a. 2003.0746D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

1234 19^th AVENUE - east side between Lincoln Way and Irving Street; Lot 038 in Assessor's Block 1732 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.06.10.8643, proposing to demolish a two-story single-family dwelling 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 demolition.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 15, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Joel Yodowitz

- Regarding the penthouse, they are willing to withdraw it so that there is no problem with the neighbors.

- Staff did mention to him that the penthouse might require notification so he takes full blame for that.

- The project would demolish a significantly damaged by fire single family home.

- Taller buildings surround the existing residence.

- Regarding the design, he is willing to continue working with staff on it.

- Many of the properties on 19^th Avenue go up to the property line. That is his intent on this project.

(-) Eileen Boken - SPEAK

- She is opposed to the demolition of the project.

- She would rather see a remodel or to have the property be purchased by a government agency or non-profit.

- There is a pattern of non-maintenance on this property.

- She does not know why the project was not rented during the 18 months that it was vacant.

- The repair costs are mostly deferred maintenance.

- She is also opposed to the new construction.

MOTION: To not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition

AYES: Antonini and Hughes

NAYES: Bradford Bell, Boyd, S. Lee, W. Lee

RESULT: Motion Failed

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the demolition

AYES: Bradford Bell, Boyd, S. Lee, W. Lee

NAYES: Antonini and Hughes

13b. 2003.0091D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

1234 19^th AVENUE - east side between Lincoln Way and Irving Street; Lot 038 in Assessor's Block 1732 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential buildings in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.06.10.8646, proposing to construct a four-story, three-family residential structure with three off-street parking spaces in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the application with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 15, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 13a.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Disapproved with modifications:

1. a set back on the fourth floor of 15 foot;

2. 9'-0" floor-to floor height to reduce the overall height of the building;

3. Vinyl clad wood or solid wood double-hung windows with a profile set back approx. 3" from the building face;

4. a stair top roof penthouse will not be allowed; and

5. the garage door shall be set back 2' from the building face;

The applicant shall make these modifications and work with staff to further improve the design. to the proposed replacement structure if an appeal is successful and the project is approved.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

14. 2003.0841C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

1950-1960 GREEN STREET - north side between Buchanan and Laguna Streets; Lot 040 in Assessor's Block 0542 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 178(c) and 303 of the Planning Code to allow the enlargement of two dwelling units (which are considered to be a conditional use due to the 6,100 square foot lot size) within an 11-unit residential building. The proposal is also to raise the building approximately four feet to create a new below-grade parking garage for 11 vehicles, and to expand the building toward the rear at the first, second, and third stories. The horizontal expansion will contain, in addition to the two enlarged conditionally-allowed units, two enlarged as-of-right units (the remaining seven non-conforming units are not proposed to be expanded). New entry stairs and a driveway/garage door will be constructed at the front. The subject property is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 22, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) David Silverman

- The proposal will renovate a building constructed in 1875 including an enlargement of two dwelling units.

- The project raises the building four feet to create a below grade garage.

- The building will be reduced the same amount raised so that is does not become taller.

- The density on the block face ranges from 1 to 27 units.

- The structure will maintain the architectural significance of the building.

- The building now has studios and one bedroom units. These will be converted to family units.

- The project satisfies all requirements from the Planning Code and Master Plan.

- The project will preserve and rehabilitate a building built in 1875 as well as provide family units.

- They have been able to reach an agreement with the adjacent neighbors.

(+) Jared Eigerman - Reuben and Junius

- He displayed a floor plan of the project.

- Stating that a light well will be matched with a 5-foot setback.

- Sponsor has agreed that 1) when the project is jacked up, it will be moved forward 5 feet; 2) extension closest to appellant will not extend more than 5 feet six inches; 3) extension in the back will remain as proposed; 4) there will be a five foot setback on the eastern line that will match light well; 5) elimination of deck;

(+) Michael Gaverts - 1944-1948 Green Street Homeowner's Association

- The remaining items are the following: 6) windows on the eastern wall of the rear extension of 1950 and 1958 Green Street at the first living level above the garage will have opaque glass; and 7) on the third floor proposed deck of the eastern most part of the property, a privacy wall will be installed.

(+) John Glare - Engineer

- He supports the project.

- His clients have gone out of their way to support the proposed project and solve common issues.

- There is a long history of problems on the site.

- He has met with the project architect and understands that his suggestions will be included in the site plans.

- Their concerns are 1) proposed design maximize the landscaping to retain existing view of all parties; 2) collect over flow surface water; 3) stop slippage of soil; 4) include a maintenance easement; 5) proposed design attempts to minimize the visual impact of the retaining walls.

(-) Paul Wermer - Pacific Heights Homeowners Association

- He originally came to the hearing to speak on behalf of himself but received a call from the Pacific Heights Homeowners Association to speak on their behalf in opposition of this project.

- This is a wonderful building and is rather unusual.

- This project is historically significant. This modification would destroy it by expanding to the rear.

- Raising the top parapet will add to the bulk appearance.

- This is a high density building with parking that is close to transit.

- These are the reasons why he opposes this project.

(+) Arnie Lerner - Preservation Architect

- He is in support of the Conditional Use.

- There are no five sided bays on this building.

- When one goes inside the building, there is a very nice set of stairs.

- The building modifications suggest maintaining the character of the building.

ACTION: Approved with the agreement between the sponsor and the 1944 - 1948 Green Street Homeowner's Association and the further modification as follows: 1) proposed design maximize the landscaping to retain existing view of all parties; 2) collect over flow surface water; 3) stop slippage of soil; 4) include a maintenance easement.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, S. Lee

ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee

MOTION: 16808

15. 2003.1298C (K. McGEE; (415) 558-6367)

49-51 DUBOCE AVENUE - south side, between Woodward and Valencia Streets, Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 3532 - Request for conditional use authorization to construct five dwelling units in a C-M (Heavy Commercial) Zoning District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and in the Eastern Neighborhoods Interim Policy Core PDR area per Planning Code Section 215. The proposal is to demolish the existing commercial building, a scooter repair shop, and to construct five units with parking.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Valery Lee - Project Sponsor

- This project has been around since 2000. There have been two new condominium projects built recently.

- The lot is very small for PDR use.

- The project does conform to neighborhood use. They will provide housing, add units available for [affordable] housing, etc.

- She hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

(-) Bill Halibah

- He lives on Woodward Street which is near the project.

- He is concerned with the height of the building.

(+) Kevin Lee

- He lives on Mission Street only a few blocks away from the project.

- The City really needs housing.

- This area will become the most affordable to find housing units.

- This project will give him the opportunity to purchase property.

- Every neighborhood should have a balance of commercial and residential.

ACTION: Project disapproved

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, S. Lee

ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee

MOTION: 16809

16. 2003.0846CR (F. JONES: (415) 558-6477)

1298 OCEAN AVENUE - northeast corner of Ocean Avenue, and Plymouth Avenue, Lot 017, Assessor's Block 3199 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization for the new construction of a one-story, 6,100 square foot public library branch (Ingleside Branch Library) on a vacant 11,120 square foot corner lot previously occupied by an auto repair garage Planning Code Section 711.83 requires Conditional Use Authorization for the creation of a publicly owned use, Section 711.11 requires a Conditional Use Authorization for the development of lots in excess of 10,000 square feet, and Section 711.21 states that nonresidential uses in excess of 3,999 square feet are subject to Conditional Use Authorization in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 6, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Susan Holder - City Librarian

- The site is ready to build on and will be a good transition between the two story and the mixed use City College location.

- They have worked on all phases of the project with planning staff.

- There has been a lot of community input. They have worked with the Westwood Park Homeowner's Association.

- The architect selection was done via a design competition.

- They are continuing to work with the design of the building by continuing to obtain comments from the neighbors.

- She has a number of letters for support.

- They are discussing issues on property line matters.

(-) Teng Lee

- They share a common property with the library.

- This issue with the property line will restrict the use of his property.

- They have been negotiating with the City librarian to try to resolve these issues.

- Until they reach an agreement, they will be against the project.

ACTION: Approved with the conditions as amended: conditional use permits must be obtained within three years.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

MOTION: 16801

6:00 P.M

17. (M. CHION: (415) 558-6314)

RE-OPEN CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF INTERIM RULES FOR THE MISSION IN THE EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS: (generally bounded by Potrero Avenue, Cesar Chavez, Guerrero, and Division Streets). Public hearing on the adoption of interim policies or a resolution of intent to adopt interim zoning controls that would establish areas for Housing and Mixed Use, PDR, and Housing/PDR in the Mission. The Housing and Mixed Use zoning overlay will encourage residential development; the PDR zoning overlay will primarily support production, distribution and repair activities; and the Housing/PDR zoning overlay will promote a mix of residential and other uses while preserving existing PDR space. The initiation of interim zoning controls would require the adoption of a resolution of intent to initiate that will enable the publication of a formal notice for a future public hearing at which hearing the Planning Commission would consider the adoption of interim controls.

NOTE: On March 25, 2004, Commission President Bradford Bell re-opened the consideration of interim rules for the Mission area of the Eastern Neighborhoods.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 1, 2004.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

E. 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))

Janett Craine - Smith and Craine Architects

Re: 212 Union Street

- Her clients have asked them to bring to the attention of the Commission the matter of a recently issued Certificate of Compliance.

- The project restores and saves a much altered old cottage in the Telegraph Historic District. The project renovates the cottage and has constructed a new cottage.

- By maintaining the scale of the two buildings, preserving the existing cottage and surrounding the space with landscaping, allows for an unusual significant investment.

- The Planning staff have approved all the details of the project except for one: the treatment of the old cottage's existing front door and access from the Union Street steps.

- The Landmark's Advisory Board approved all the requirements except for the door.

- The Telegraph Hill Homeowner's Association would like to save the door and move it to the level below since the entrance is now from a courtyard. If the door was moved it would create two front doors which would not be agreeable to the owners.

- She requested that the Commission allow this project to be discussed in a Director's Report.

Adjournment:

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, June 17, 2004.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee

EXCUSED: None