February 24, 2005SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room
400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
Place
Thursday, February 24, 2005
2:00 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dwight Alexander; Michael
J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell,
Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee; William L. Lee, Christina Olague
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE
AT 1:42 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris - Interim Director
of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Art Aguilar; Joy Navarrete;
Geoffrey Nelson; Craig Nikitas; Kelley Amdur; 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. 2004.0458E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)
566 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - Appeal of
Preliminary Negative Declaration - The proposed project would include
demolition of an existing 4,344 gross-square-foot, one-story retail/commercial
building and rear storage building and construction of a five-story,
50-foot-tall mixed-use building which would contain 32 residential units
on the second through fifth floors and retail/commercial use on the
ground floor. The residential use would be 27,491 gross square feet
(gsf) in area, and the retail/commercial space would be 4,344 gsf in
size. The ground floor and basement levels would include 32 parking
spaces designated for the residential use with ingress and egress from
South Van Ness Avenue. The ground floor would contain the commercial
space and residential lobby. The 12,253-square-foot site is located
within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) zoning district and within a 50-X
height and bulk district. The proposed project requires a conditional
use authorization for residential use in the C-M district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative
Declaration
(Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March
3, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
2a. 2004.0458C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
566 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - west side
between 16th Street and 17th Street, Block
3570 in Assessor's Lot 005 - Request for Conditional Use
authorization to allow 32 dwelling units in a C-M District, under
Planning Code Sections 215. The subject property is within an
C-M (Heavy Commercial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District,
and a PDR/ Housing Overlay Zone as designated in the Eastern Neighborhoods
Interim Policies (Planning Commission Resolution 16727).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with
Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 17,
2005)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March
3, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
2b. 2004.0458V (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
566 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - west side
between 16th Street and 17th Street, Block
3570 in Assessor's Lot 005 - Request for an Exposure Variance
to allow eight of the proposed 32 dwelling units to face (or have
exposure to) an open space that does not meet the specification
requirements of Planning Code Section 140. The subject property
is within an C-M (Heavy Commercial) District, a 50-X Height and
Bulk District, and a PDR/ Housing Overlay Zone as designated in
the Eastern Neighborhoods Interim Policies (Planning Commission
Resolution 16727).
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 17, 2005)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March
3, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
3a. 2003.0253D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
5126-5130 ANZA STREET - north side between
42nd and 43rd Avenues; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block
1502 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's
policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit
Application No. 2001.03.07.3680 to demolish an existing two-story two-family
dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of a new two-family
dwelling) in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a
40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 27, 2005)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005)
March 17, 2005
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March
17, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
3b. 2004.0682D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
5126-5130 ANZA STREET - north side between
42nd and 43rd Avenues; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block
1502 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's
policy requiring review of new construction to replace demolished housing,
of Building Permit Application No. 2001.03.07.3684 for the new construction
of a three-story, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House,
Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed
new building will contain two off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 27, 2005)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005)
March 17, 2005
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March
17, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
4. 2004.1158D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
877 CAROLINA STREET - east side between 20th
and 22nd Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 4097 - Requested
Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.16.9070
proposing to construct an one-story vertical addition to the existing
one-story over garage single-family dwelling, within a RH-2 (Residential
House, Two-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to March 10, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March
10, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
5. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of October
14, 2004
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee,
W. Lee, Olague
EXCUSED: Alexander
· Draft Minutes of Planning Director Subcommittee
for October 14, 2004
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Sue Lee
· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of October
21, 2004
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
W. Lee, Olague
EXCUSED: S. Lee
· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of October
28, 2004
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
· Draft Minutes of Planning Director Subcommittee
for October 28, 2004
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee
6. Commission Comments/Questions
Commissioner Antonini:
Re: Article in the Newspaper
- The article raised a very interesting question
about 88 Townsend.
- How much of a building should be preserve and
how should an adjacent property be treated?
- This is a very good question.
Commissioner W. Lee:
Re: Fire Code
- He asked what the status is of an ordinance regarding
the fire code.
- When does the ordinance go into effect because
it will affect projects that the department is currently approving?
Zoning Administrator responded:
- He discussed this issue with the Building Department
and was told that it is an adopted ordinance and it is being implemented
right now.
- The title of the ordinance states: Self-contained
breathing replenishment systems on high rises where permits had been
issued after March 30, 2004.
Commissioner W. Lee:
- During the permit process, when is one required
to meet the fire code?
Zoning Administrator responded:
- The application should have been submitted after
March 30, 2004.
Interim Director Macris responded:
- There will be a coordination meeting with DBI
next Thursday so they will raise this question and report to the Commission
afterward.
Commissioner W. Lee:
Re: Density Bonuses
- If one builds for low income or very low income
are there higher density bonuses?
- He would like to receive information on this.
Interim Director Macris responded:
- He is inquiring with the City Attorney on the
recently acquired state law.
Commissioner Bradford Bell:
Re: Eastern Neighborhoods
- When this issue was before the Commission she
had some concerns about PDR matters and she knows that these concerns
are being address in a report being prepared.
- She is concerned that projects are being delayed
or that the viewpoint of Commissioners are not being considered.
- The Commission gave comments and direction on
what they wanted and what their concerns are. She feels that some of
the concerns are not being addressed or the information is not getting
a back to the Commission.
- The Commission's opinions should be respected
and both Commission and staff should work together.
Interim Director Macris responded:
- Staff is trying to respond to all the questions
and concerns that the Commission has.
- He welcomed Commissioner Bell to come to the
department for a briefing on the status of projects.
- It would be useful that on more than one occasion,
any member of the Commission can speak with him a few minutes before
the meeting starts to be briefed on any issue they would like to speak
on.
Commissioner Hughes:
Re: Planning Director Search
- He reminded staff to submit their questions regarding
the hiring of the new director.
Commissioner Olague:
Re: Housing Element and Emporium/Capwell
- She wants to know what the status of these issues
are.
Commissioner W. Lee:
Re: Performance of the Commission
- He requested that Interim Director Macris send
to staff a questionnaire on how they feel the Commission has been working
so far and any issue that might be of interest to them regarding the
performance of the Commission.
Commissioner Antonini:
- He agrees with Commissioner W. Lee and encouraged
staff to do that.
Commissioner Bradford Bell:
- She feels the same way as Commissioner W. Lee
and Antonini.
- It is important to work together and communicate.
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
7. Director's Announcements
8. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors
and Board of Appeals
D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT - 15 MINUTES
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. Each member of the public may address
the Commission for up to three minutes.
John McMahan
Re: Newspaper Article
- He has lived in San Francisco for many years.
- He read an article from John King of the San Francisco
Chronicle called "Insulting Historic Preservation" related to
a trend called "facadism" where, in the quest to hold on to the
past, parts of the existing building is retained and a new contraction is
done behind it.
Jim Salinas
Re: Affordable Housing
- He is concerned about the current situation at the
Commission.
- He feels very strongly that the Commission has done
positive things for San Francisco.
- The greatest responsibility that the Commission has
right now is to create housing.
- All of the objectives and goals can be achieved.
Azalia Merrill
Re: Affordable Housing
- She grows weary of San Franciscans being forced out
of the City. There is no housing crisis. There is an affordable housing
crisis.
- There are truly remarkable buildings in San Francisco
that could be preserved.
- The Commission should look at buildings that could
provide affordable housing.
Marilyn Amini
Re: Items on the Calendar
- There are two items on the calendar that involve planning
code amendments.
- Both of these items should have an intent to initiate.
The community needs to be advised and the public available to comment.
- The current procedures in the administrative code
have no provisions for general rule exclusion assignments.
E. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC
HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED
At this time, members of the public who wish to address
the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public
hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public
hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public
may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
Re: 1517 Irving Street
Jeremy Paul
- He is looking forward to hearing the demolition policy.
- He attempted to reach the neighbors involved in this
case but was unsuccessful.
- As much housing as possible on this site should be
allowed.
- He encourages the Commission to support a new building
at this site.
Pat Buscovich
- Staff believes that mold should not be included in
a demolition evaluation.
- There was a fire in the building a few years ago.
- Instead of taking out the walls, particleboards was
glued to the walls. When these particleboards were removed, there were extreme
levels of mold.
- The mold at this house will affect the quality of
living.
Gabriel Ng - Project Architect
- He presented a shadow study to the neighbors.
- He displayed a sketch of the proposed new construction.
- He has tried to keep everyone involved in this project
happy.
Re: 605 Kearny Street
Erin Crucz - S. F. Architectural Heritage
- She was concerned with the height, the setback,
floor plates, etc.
- They have meet with the project sponsor twice and
were very pleased with the outcome of the meetings.
- There has been a new proposal that should eliminate
a setback.
- She asked the Commission to approve the proposal that
includes the setback and the masonry stucco materials.
Re: 1234 Howard Street
Cesar Moreno - San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
- The Housing Coalition endorses this site because it
will provide much needed housing.
- The project also provides a very sensitive way to
complement the surrounding neighborhood.
- He submitted a letter of endorsement regarding the
project.
F. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED
9a. 2004.0884D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
1517 IRVING STREET - south side between
16th and 17th Avenues; lot 047 in Assessor's Block
1771 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's
policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit
Application No. 2004.04.13.1124, proposing to demolish a one-story (over
uninhabitable ground floor), single-family dwelling in the Inner Sunset
Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
The two-family dwelling is located at the front of the lot. There is
a related proposal (2004.0855D) to construct a four-story, three-family
dwelling with three off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary
Review and approve the demolition
NOTE: On February 3, 2005, following public
testimony the Commission entertained a motion to disapprove by
a vote +3 -2, the motion failed to carry. Commissioners
Hughes and W. Lee were absent. The matter was continued to February
24, 2005, by a vote +5 -0, to allow absent commissioners the opportunity
to participate in the final action.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved
the demolition
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee
NAYES: Olague
9b. 2004.0885D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)
1517 IRVING STREET - south side between 16th
and 17th Avenues; lot 047 in Assessor's Block 1771 - Mandatory
Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring
review of new residential building in association with residential demolition,
of Building Permit Application No. 2004.04.13.1125, proposing to construct
a four-story, three-family residential structure with three off-street
parking spaces in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District
and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There is a related proposal (2004.0884D)
to demolish the single-family dwelling at the rear of the lot.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary
Review and approve the new construction
NOTE: On February 3, 2005, following public
testimony the Commission entertained a motion to disapprove by
a vote +3 -2, the motion failed to carry. Commissioners
Hughes and W. Lee were absent. The matter was continued to February
24, 2005, by a vote +5 -0, to allow absent commissioners the opportunity
to participate in the final action.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the
new construction with the following modifications: The proposed stair
penthouse shall be removed and replaced with an open stair requiring
no more enclosure than a safety handrail at the roof level.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
10a. 2001.0249EKCV (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)
605 KEARNY STREET - west side between
Sacramento and Commercial Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block
0226 - Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Request
for a Conditional Use authorization for a building
exceeding 35 feet in height. The proposal is to add one four-story
dwelling unit to an existing one-story commercial building on
a small, approximately 700 square foot, 29.5-foot deep lot. The
commercial unit on the ground floor would remain. The building
would be 50 feet in height with the proposed addition. The addition,
like the existing commercial building, would cover the entire
small site. No parking would be provided. Both parking and a rear
yard/site coverage variances would be required and will be considered
concurrently by the Zoning Administrator. Required open space
would be provided on a rooftop terrace. The site is in the Chinatown
Community Business (CCB) Zoning District and a 50-N Height and
Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption
of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval
of Conditional Use authorization with
Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February
10, 2005)
NOTE: On December 9, 2004, following public testimony,
the Commission continued the matter to February 10, 2005 by a vote of
+6 -0. Commissioner William Lee was absent.
NOTE: On February 10, 2005, this item was continued
to February 24, 2005.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved staff recommendation
AYES: Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
NAYES: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Olague
MOTION: 16949
10b. 2001.0249EKCV (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)
605 KEARNY STREET - west side between
Sacramento and Commercial Streets, Lot 7 in Assessor's Block 226
- Request for a Variances for rear yard/site coverage and
parking for a building. The proposal is to add one four-story
dwelling unit to an existing one-story commercial building on
a small, approximately 700 square foot, 29.5-foot deep lot. The
commercial unit on the ground floor would remain. The addition,
like the existing commercial building, would entirely cover the
small lot, where 75% maximum site coverage is permitted as of
right. No parking is proposed, where one new space is required.
The site is in the Chinatown Community Business (CCB) Zoning District
and a 50-N Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February
10, 2005)
NOTE: On December 9, 2004, following public testimony,
the Zoning Administrator continued the matter to February 10, 2005.
NOTE: On February 10, 2005, this item was continued
to February 24, 2005.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing
and granted the variances.
11. 2005.0128U (M. CORRETTE: (415) 558-6295)
1886 MISSION STREET - west side between 14th
and 15th Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 3547 - Appeal of Inner
Mission North survey findings - Following the Landmarks Boards'
Public Review Process for Cultural Resource Survey findings, the Planning
Commission must review written objections to the Inner Mission North
Cultural Resource Survey Phase II (California Department of Parks and
Recreation Survey Forms - DPR 523A and 523B) survey findings as presented
by property owner. The Commission is requested to evaluate the owner's
objection to the proposed California Historic Resources Status Code
(CHRSC) assigned to the property at 1886 Mission Street. It should consider
and adopt a resolution to either: 1) endorse the evaluation and the
CHRSC rating that found the property to be individually eligible for
the California Register (3CS), or 2) determine, based on historical
evidence and evaluation criteria, an alternate CHRSC status code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a resolution upholding
the evaluation and Status Code of 3CS as recommended by the Landmark's
Board.
NOTE: On February 17, 2005, following testimony,
the Commission passed a motion of intent to not endorse the CHRSC
rating of 3CS and determined an alternate rating of 6L by a vote
+4-2. Commissioners Alexander and Sue Lee voted no. Commissioner
Bradford-Bell was absent.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March
3, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
G. REGULAR CALENDAR
12. (D. MACRIS: (415 558-6411)
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 10, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March
3, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
13. 2005.0155U (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)
BRIEFING ON THE POLICY REQUIRING DISCRETIONARY
REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS - A presentation outlining
the Planning Commission's current "Temporary Policy" for Mandatory
Discretionary Review of Dwellings proposed for demolition, and the criteria
it comprises, a discussion of the efficacy and effects of the policy,
and preliminary recommendations for revised elements to be adopted in
the future as a long term policy, following a two-month period of review
and public comment.
Preliminary Recommendation: Informational presentation
- no action to be taken
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Pat Buscovich
- He made some comments and submitted them to the
Commission regarding this being a good idea to have Discretionary Reviews
that involve demolitions and new constructions.
- The different type of projects should be very
distinct.
- It is very important for the Commission to exercise
their discretion on the quality of the house.
- There are two different types of mold. Sometimes
there is mold because of defective construction.
- Retaining walls should be included since they
are part of the building.
- There should be a demolition impact fee because
there are developers that are demolishing houses and replacing them
with giant houses.
- Staff should hire him as the consultant instead
of individual project applicants.
(+) Jeremy Paul
- It is important for the Commission to study what
this policy has done to the process.
- He does not like it when clients come to him masquerading
projects.
- The impact on the housing stock is not a good
one.
- He congratulated staff on their work, but there
are still some items that need to be analyzed.
(+) Jim Salinas
- He commended staff for this sound and solid report.
- Many demolitions were approved previously.
- He has seen soundness reports that are not very
reliable.
(+) Azalea Merrill
- There should be safeguards that will state when
or how a particular house should be demolished.
- The Commission should keep hold of affordable
housing.
(+) Sue Hestor
- She could tell from the demolition report if there
will be a lot of problems
- Eliminating the engineers/contractors that are
being hired by developers is a good idea.
- There are many projects that are overturned at
the Board of Appeals.
- The Board of Appeals should not undermine the
policy.
(+) Alice Barkley
- The Board of Appeal has on staff two architects
so the Board itself has its on expertise for evaluating buildings and
reports related to demolition.
- There are problems with the policy: it doesn't
address facades. If the facade of a certain building is ugly and the
project sponsor wants it replaced.
- Older buildings should have the garage level raised.
- There are various items that still need to be
looked at related to defacto demolitions.
- In the new policy there should be some leeway
to look at these types of projects carefully.
(+) Joe Butler
- The City's smallest houses are the most vulnerable.
- People with low or moderate incomes should be
allowed to bid on small homes.
- Promises are made to the Commission that are never
set forward.
ACTION: Informational only. No Action Required by
the Commission
14. 2004.0601C (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)
299 DOLORES STREET - northeast corner of
Dolores and 16th Streets, Lot 25 in Assessor's Block 3556
- Request for a Conditional Use authorization by Holy Family
Day Home pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.3 and 303 to amend a
previously approved Conditional Use authorization. The previously approved
Conditional Use authorization (Case No. 1997.823CE) was for the construction
of a two-story childcare facility serving approximately 150 children.
The new proposal is for the construction of a three-story childcare
facility with the same number of children. The property is in the RM-1
(Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Donna Cahill
- She is honored to work for an organization that
provides early education.
- They provide an array of services to the community.
- The new building is important for the long-term
success of their programs.
- Early education requires enhancement of the environment.
Having a new facility would contribute to this.
(+) Kass Smith - Project Architect
- He gave an architectural review of the site.
(+/-) David Scott - Dolores Plaza Homeowners
Association
- They are adjacent to the proposed site.
- They are pleased to be part of the neighborhood.
- They are concerned that with an increased number
of children, the playground area would be noisier. They would appreciate
it if the project sponsor would find a way to reduce the noise.
- There is a parking issue in the area already.
The planning for this facility should take into account a system for
dropping off children and picking them up.
(+) Sister Gladys Guenther
- They support the proposed project.
- Allowing this permit would ensure a childcare
heritage that has been at the site for over 90 years.
(+) Sister Marianne Smith
- She began working for the center in the 40s.
- She hopes that the Commission will approve this
project.
(+) Pat Buscovich
- He is a member of the Board of Directors.
- This is the best quality childcare in the City.
- Their early education is essential.
- He is willing to get a white zone so that there
is a flow of traffic and not traffic problems.
(+) Les Wisebock - Architect
- When the parking is moved around the corner, this
will alleviate the traffic problems.
ACTION: Approved the project with the following
condition: Project Sponsor shall make best efforts to apply to the Department
of Parking and Traffic to obtain a white zone for pick up and drop off
periods with regular parking to be allowed for the remainder of the
day.
AYES: Antonini, Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
MOTION: 16950
15. 2004.1268C (S.YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)
2118 118 UNION STREET - north side
between Fillmore and Webster
Streets; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block
0533 - Request
for Conditional Use authorization under
Sections 745.45 and 303 of the Planning Code
to convert approximately 1,800 square feet of vacant commercial retail
space located at the basement level of an existing two-story over basement
commercial building, to a retail wine and gift store ("Wine Styles")
in the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X
Height and Bulk District. No exterior modifications will be made to
the existing building envelope.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March
10, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
30 DORE STREET - Appeal of Preliminary
Negative Declaration - The proposed project is the demolition of
an existing one-story, approximately 8,000-gross-square-foot (gsf) industrial
building, and the construction of a 50-foot-tall five-story building
that would contain 42 residential units and a one-level basement garage
with 42 parking spaces. Parking and pedestrian access would be from
Dore Street. The approximately 36,400gsf building would cover about
three-quarters of the 8,500 square-foot site with approximately 2,100
square feet of rear yard. The project site in on Lot 24A in Assessor's
Block 3518, on the west side of Dore Street, which is a street that
bisects north-south the block bounded by Howard, 9th, Folsom and 10th
Streets. The proposed project site is zoned SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential
Mixed Use) in the South of Market neighborhood and is in the 50-X Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative
Declaration
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Preliminary Negative Declaration upheld.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
MOTION: 16951
17. 2002.0954E (A. AGUILAR: (415) 558-5973)
1234 HOWARD STREET - Certification of
a Final Environmental Impact Report: The proposed project would
involve the demolition of a vacant, light-industrial building totaling
8,250 gross square feet (gsf) and construction of a five-story residential
building. The existing building proposed to be demolished is an historical
resource for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
because it is rated as a Category III (Contributory) building under
Article 11 of the San Francisco Planning Code, an adopted local register.
The proposed building would be 33,340 gsf in building floor area and
would have 18 dwelling units. The proposed project would provide 18
off-street parking spaces for the residential units. The project site
at 1234 Howard Street (Assessor's Block 3728, Lot 014) is approximately
8,250 square feet in size and located about mid-block on the northern
side of Howard Street in the South of Market neighborhood in the block
bounded by Howard, Eighth, Natoma, and Ninth Streets. The project site
is zoned SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) and within a 50-X
height/bulk district
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final
Environmental Impact Report. Please note that the public review
period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended at 5:00 pm, October
19, 2004.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Final Impact Report Certified
AYES: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee,
W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Antonini
MOTION: 16952
18. 2005.0076T (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)
ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR SRO UNITS - Consideration of an Ordinance amending
Planning Code Section 890.88 to define a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) unit
as a unit that is affordable to very low income or extremely low income households
and making findings of consistency with Planning Code Section 101.1 and the
General Plan.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Bruce Allison
- He lives in an SRO and was lucky to get a subsidized
one.
- He supports this legislation.
(+) Steven Chester
- He supports this legislation because it is very
important.
- This legislation would allow units for people
who really need them.
- Until a private-public partnership is developed,
people should be allowed to live in SRO housing.
(+) Juan Blanco Prado
- He supports this legislation.
- Affordability requirements should be established.
- Housing is definitely needed and this is a very
important plan for the City to end homelessness.
(+/-) Anthony Faber
- He has been looking at this for a long time.
- He believes that there should be more of a mix
of income levels.
- He is not in favor of limiting SRO income units
to low and very low income.
- SOMA should not be restricted to affordable housing.
(-) Charles Breniger
- He is opposed to the legislation.
- There is no housing being created for people of
medium income.
- He has some units that have rent restriction.
- It is important to have a stepping-stone.
(-) Alice Barkley
- The question that should be asked by the Commission
to the Supervisors is why haven't more SROs been built?
- A range should be made to include affordable as
well as middle income.
- There are people that keep being ignored when
conversations go on about affordable housing.
- She urged the Commission to reject the legislation
in order to refine it and add a range.
(+/-) Jim Meko
- There is a profound distrust with anything associated
with the RBA.
- The very existence of this Commission is signs
that things have changed.
- There should be refinements done to this. Otherwise,
SOMA will be the looser.
ACTION: Hearing held, Item continued to March 24,
2005. Public Hearing shall remain open.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W.
Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Alexander
19. 2005.0058T (P.
LORD: (415) 558-6311)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
NAYES: Hughes
ABSENT: Alexander
RESOLUTION: 16953
20. 2004.1145C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
2609 JUDAH STREET - south side between
31st and 32nd Avenues Assessor's Block 1822 Lot
034 - Request Conditional Use Approval under Planning Code Section
161.(j) for a reduction of 6 off street parking spaces required for
dwellings for a Project that will replace 6 of 10 existing off street
parking spaces in a building containing 10 dwelling units, with ground
floor commercial space. This project lies within an NC-2 Small Scale
Neighborhood Commercial District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk
District.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee,
W. Lee, Olague
NAYES: Hughes
MOTION: 16954
21. 2004.0904D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
364 WINDING WAY - north side between Drake
and Prague Streets, Assessor's Block 6479 Lot 012. Request for Discretionary
Review of Building Permit Application No.
2004.0308.8029, to construct a three
story addition to the rear of the existing two to three story dwelling,
in an RH-1 (D) (Residential House, One Family, Detached) District, and
a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 20, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Steve Currier - Outer Mission Residents Association
- Representing Discretionary Review Requestor
- The project will block a window of an adjacent
neighbor.
- This would greatly compromise the light and air
to that neighbor.
- They met with the owner to try to come to a compromise
but there was no agreement.
- They are willing and able to try to modify the
project by eliminating the third floor.
(-) Gwendolyn Giblin
- Her house will be affected by the construction.
- Staff has come to a reasonable recommendation.
The only issue here is the third floor.
(-) Mary Tam
- She is concerned with the impact the project will
have on her light and air.
- Her mother does her early morning prayers in an
area that is very sunny and this would impact her.
- She does not oppose the construction, just the
third level.
(+) Peter Pham - Representing Project Sponsor
- It is crucial for the project sponsor to add a
bathroom as it has been designed.
- Any modification would affect the neighbors yet
the neighbors concerns do not rise to any extraordinary impacts.
- The neighbor's house is blocked by existing trees,
which block the views and the light.
(+) Teresita de la Cruz
- She and her husband have spent most of their lives
working and living in San Francisco.
- Her house needs upgrades and modifications.
- As she and her husband get older, it would be
difficult for them to climb up the stairs that is why they need to install
a bathroom near their bedroom.
(+) Eleanor de la Cruz
- Her father is planning to retire.
- Having a bathroom in her parent's bedroom would
be a convenience to her elderly parents.
- They have made various attempts to compromise
with the neighbors.
(+) Mariann Sullivan
- She does not understand why there is a view concern
since there are many tall trees that block the view anyway.
- The building that is proposed is only 8 feet so
there is enough space between the houses.
- There have been concerns about the open space
but there have been neighbors that have constructed additions. She does
not believe that this is a valid argument.
- Many other neighbors are not opposed to the project.
(+) Barbara Driver
- She has lived on Winding Way since 1983.
- She is a member of the Association.
- She does not believe that the Association conducted
any voting on this project.
- Many of the neighbors are not opposed to the project.
- There are streets above her that can look down
on us and we can look down on other houses.
- Some of the homes in the neighborhood have telescopes.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the
project with the following modifications: 1) remove top floor addition;
2) remove proposed bar sink on the second floor; 3) require the recordation
of a Notice of Special Restriction limiting the use of the property
to a single family home.
AYES: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes, W. Lee,
Olague
NAYES: Antonini and S. Lee
MOTION TO RESCIND: Commissioner Bradford Bell requested
to rescind the vote.
AYES: Antonini, Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
MOTION: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the
project with the following condition: 1) do not approve addition to
the top floor; 2) remove proposed bar sink on the second floor; 3) the
recordation of a Notice of Special Restriction limiting the use of the
property to a single family home.
AYES: Hughes, W. Lee, Olague
NAYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee
RESULT: Motion Failed
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the
project with the following modifications: 1) remove proposed bar sink
on the second floor; 2) require the recordation of a Notice of Special
Restriction limiting the use of the property to a single family home.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee
NAYES: Hughes, W. Lee, Olague
22a. 2004.1115D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
1598 SHRADER STREET - east side between Carmel
Street and Belgrave Avenue; lot 021 in Assessor's Block 1294 - Mandatory
Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring
review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.07.06.8059,
proposing to demolish a two-story single-family dwelling in the RH-2
(Residential, Two-Familyl District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
The dwelling is located at the rear of the lot. There is a related proposal
(2004.1120D) to construct a three-story, single-family dwelling with
two off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary
Review and approve the demolition
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved
the demolition.
AYES: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee,
W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Antonini
22b. 2004.1120D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)
1598 SHRADER STREET - east side between Carmel
Street and Belgrave Avenue; lot 021 in Assessor's Block 1294 - Mandatory
Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring
review of new residential building in association with residential demolition,
of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.06.8065, proposing to construct
a three-story, single-family dwelling with two off-street parking spaces
in the RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and
Bulk District. There is a related proposal (2004.1115D) to demolish
the single-family dwelling at the rear of the lot.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary
Review and approve the new construction
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved
the project.
AYES: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee,
W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Antonini
23. 2004.1194 (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)
1056 - 1062 GREENWICH STREET - north
side between Leavenworth and Jones Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor's
Block 0072 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning
Commission policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers,
of Building Permit Application No. 2004.09.20.4619, proposing
to convert the number of residential units in the structure from
five to four units by removing one dwelling at the basement level
of the three-story over basement structure, within
an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X
Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review
And Disapprove The Project.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor
- The owner has been at the property for more than
ten years.
- One has to bend down to use the bathroom and or
use the kitchen.
- The home is listed as a five family dwelling.
- The unit was legalized without the permits being
approved.
- In various city records there is proof that the
unit was not properly presented.
- There is a report of deficiency at the Building
Department.
- This is quite an uninhabitable unit and should
never have been legalized.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved
the merger.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes,
S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
24. 2005.0046D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
1935 PACIFIC AVENUE - south side between
Gough and Octavia Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0592 - Request
for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.28.9982
proposing a rear horizontal addition at the level of the existing partial
third floor and within the footprint of the existing single-family residence
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.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Kurt Kunzel
- He displayed a floor map showing how he will be
impacted with the new construction.
- All of the bedroom windows are two feet from the
property line.
- They have attempted to talk to the architect but
there was no consideration for a setback.
- They would just like to get a compromise so that
the loss of light and air to his condominium would be minimal.
(-) Jill Manten
- She lives on Pacific Avenue with her husband and
children.
- She is here to voice her concern about the quality
of light and air that will be affected with the new construction.
- She tried to discuss her issues with the project
sponsor but there was no agreement.
(-) Elise Rattle
- She displayed photographs of the bedroom windows
that will be impacted by the new construction.
- Already with the first floor construction there
is already an impact.
(+) Lauren Repeta - Project Architect
- She did talk to several of the neighbors.
- The project sponsor has been very ill so that
is why she has not been at her home.
- The first story had already been approved, but
they reduced the dimension of it because they planed to do another addition.
(+) Rob Liss - General Contractor
- They have been working on the city confines of
the codes.
- They would like to get the project moving.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the
project with the following modification: a 5-foot side setback from
the eastern side property line for a depth of 6 feet from the rear wall
(at the upper level of the southeast corner of the subject building).
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, Olague
NAYES: Alexander and Hughes
ABSENT: W. Lee
25. 2004.1192DDDD (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
455 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE - east side between
19th and 20th Streets; Lot 003B in Assessor's Block 4063 - Staff-Initiated
Discretionary Review and three public requested Discretionary
Reviews of Building Permit Application No. 2004.05.12.3718 proposing
to construct a two-story vertical addition to the existing one-story
over garage single-family dwelling, within a RH-2 (Residential House,
Two-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review
and Approve Project with Modifications
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Steven Helium - First Discretionary Review
Requestor
- Through conversation with the owner and the architect
an adjusted proposal was presented to remove the top level with no setback.
- Without the top level, it is still a massive structure.
- There are taller buildings at the end of the block
but are quite a distance away from the proposed project.
- The project will interfere with privacy, block
sunlight, etc from the adjacent neighbors.
(-) Scott Durcanin - Potrero Boosters Neighborhood
Association
- They are concerned about this project.
- They oppose the addition of two floors. Any alteration
plan should be noticed to the community.
(-) Paul Clayman
- He has lived next door to the proposed project
for 25 years.
- He read a letter from other adjacent neighbors
who oppose the project but could not come to the hearing.
(-) Matt Channey
- He has lived across the street from the proposed
project for 21 years.
- He has renovated his house twice.
- He has conducted a light study that doesn't discuss
a 4th story addition but does discuss a 3rd story
addition as well as a setback off the street.
- There is an impact to the homes across the street
as well, not just the adjacent homes.
(-) Laura Spiegleman
- She is the newest member of the neighborhood.
- She shares the concerns of her neighbors about
not being in support of the proposed project.
(+) Vinney Steinberg - Project Sponsor
- He is aware of the neighbor's concerns.
- He does not believe that the project will impact
his neighbors.
- He had various conversations with the neighbors
and the Discretionary Review requestors.
- He has made many revisions to his design but there
are a lot of differences between the homes.
(+) Vera Kunda
- The addition will allow her family to live together.
- She does not know why her family is being put
in a special situation since many neighbors have constructed additions
to their properties.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with
the following modifications: 1) add a 1 hour roof; 2) recess garage
door; 3) eliminate parapet; 4) remove top floor; 5) 15 foot setback
on 3rd floor.
AYES: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee,
Olague
NAYES: Antonini
ABSENT: W. Lee
H. 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))
Patrick (did not state last name)
Re: Item 20 - 2609 Judah Street
- He just walked out for a few minutes and his case
had passed.
- This area of the neighborhood is having parking problems
already.
- If more commercial space is added, there will be less
parking.
Adjournment: 9:17 p.m.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes
