371 MISSOURI STREET - east side between 19th and 20th Streets, Lot 17 in Assessor's Block 4037 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit No. 2004.06.10.6121 proposing to add third floor to a two-family dwelling located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and require modification of plans to match adjacent light well.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Rich Diamond - Discretionary Review Requestor
- He displayed two diagrams of the interior of the house showing the locations where he will lose sunlight and showing how, if the project were modified, he would loose less sunlight.
- He displayed pictures of windows in various rooms showing how the project would block the window.
- He is not stopping the project sponsor from building.
(+) Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor
- This is truly a matter of affordable housing.
- The project sponsor was able to purchase the property from a relative.
- The space is needed for the project sponsor.
- The light well is facing north so it would not loose sunlight.
- If the project were modified the project sponsor would loose a lot.
- The loss of the square footage would cause a bathroom to be lost.
- The rear yard scale will not change.
(+) Joe O'Donoghue
- The DR requestor purchased his house recently.
- View is never an issue with the Commission.
- He has never understood why there are some light wells that are matched.
- He can empathized that the great view would be lost.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with a 2-foot light well to match the 10-foot dimension front to back.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
11. 2004.0862D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)
2847-49 WASHINGTON STREET - south side between Divisadero and Scott Streets; Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 1002 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.0414.1288S, proposing to convert the building's authorized use from four dwelling units to two dwelling units, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Building Permit Application as Proposed.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) John Conomis - Project Sponsor
- This application offers a number of benefits. The building will be restored to the building's intended use.
- No tenants will be displaced.
- A parking space will be added.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the merger.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell and W. Lee
12. 2004.1274DD (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
1919 22nd STREET southwest corner of 22nd Street and Carolina Street, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4161 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.06.11.6191 proposing to construct a horizontal and vertical addition to the existing non-complying single-family house and create an additional unit. The property is within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with conditions.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Cris Gardner - Discretionary Review Requestor
- She submitted a letter from the other Discretionary Review requestor since she had to leave.
- The proposed project is higher than allowed so it does not conform to the mid block open space.
They have worked with the project architect and have come to some agreement.
- The project significantly impacts the character of the neighborhood.
- This is bordering on excessive but acceptable to them.
- The expandable building envelope should be contained now and in the future.
- There is quite a bit of open space right now.
- She displayed a photograph of a house showing the type of architecture in the neighborhood.
- She is asking for a continuance to revisit issues that have not been resolved or to take discretionary review and adopt the conditions that they are suggesting.
(-) Bill Canahan
- His family owns a home on Carolina Street.
- He appreciates that the project sponsor has not requested the tallest height allowed, because there are still things that need to be discussed.
- He supports the suggestion of having a Notice of Special Restriction.
(-) Dorothy Larson
- She lives on Carolina Street.
- She displayed a photograph of the street showing the homes on the hill.
- There has always been a yard next to the property.
- Most of the homes are single story. Having a two story would be too tall.
- This project should have a set back of nine feet.
- A yard is important to have in this area.
(-) Pamela Vaulk
- She is not a resident of the area.
- She is shocked to hear that such a project would be allowed with no open space.
- This project would set a precedent.
(+) John Lum - Project Architect
- This house is an opportunity for the project sponsor to live with his family.
- The project would allow a unit in the front on the Carolina Street side.
- If a yard were to be designed, the project would loose a lot of habitable space.
- He knows that the project is appropriately scaled.
- There is a very large park right across the street. The issue of the neighbors not having open space is unfounded.
- The project meets the Planning Code.
- This project is sensibly designed so issuing a Notice of Special Restrictions would restrict the project a lot.
ACTION: Hearing Held. Item continued to March 3, 2005. Revised drawings/plans are to be provided to the Commission for review.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell and W. Lee
13. 2004.0334D (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)
3579 MISSION STREET - east side, between Santa Marina Street and Appleton Avenue; Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 5712 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Number 2002.05.13.6349 proposing to construct a new structure including two dwelling units. The project also involves the demolition of an existing one-story office building under Demolition Permit Application Number 2002.05.13.6344. The property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the Bernal Heights Special Use District.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Miles Bower - Discretionary Review Requestor
- His home is located is on a hill so he does not get too much sunlight anyway.
- He is happy to see that someone wants to do something with the property.
- The neighbor has illegal signage on the property and a lot of weeds.
- He displayed a photograph of his landscaped garden where the project sponsor stated that his garden is not well kept.
- He displayed a diagram of what he suggests the project sponsor should do.
(+) Van Lee - Project Architect
- She has responded to the Discretionary Review requestor already and is available for questions.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell and W. Lee
14. 2004.0915C (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)
1598 DOLORES STREET - northwest corner of 29th Street; Lots 40 through 52, inclusive, in Assessor's Block 6618 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to modify conditions of approval set forth in Planning Commission Motion Number 16445 as modified by Board of Supervisors Motion Number M02-163 and relating to Planning Department Case Number 2000.1058C to allow payment of an in-lieu affordable housing fee rather than provide on-site affordable housing, pursuant to inclusionary housing policies set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Number 16350. In September of 2002, the City authorized construction of two 4-story buildings on the subject property containing a total of 13 units and up to 26 independently accessible off-street parking spaces; both buildings are now complete. Conditions of approval require one of the proposed units to be provided as a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit. This proposal would modify previous conditions of approval to allow the payment of an in-lieu fee to the Mayor's Office of Housing rather than provide the required BMR unit on-site. No physical work is proposed. The property is within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Alice Barkley
- At the time that this project was approved, the Commission did not allow an offsite provision or in lieu fee payment.
- The Board of Supervisors then determined that there would be three options: inclusionary housing, onsite/offsite provisions or in lieu fees.
- The current law should be applied to this project.
- The City is short of funds for affordable projects that are under construction.
(-) Vicky Rosen
- She lives around the corner from the subject property.
- The neighborhood wants to keep the affordable unit.
- The development was approved with great controversy.
- Contributing to the Mayor's Office of housing does not contribute to the affordable unit.
- She requested that the Commission not allow this to happen.
(-) Claudia Be
- She is a new homeowner in this neighborhood.
- She has been authorized by the homeowners association and the residents of the units to speak for them.
- She requested that the Commission deny the variance.
- The plumbing expert stated that when a few of the units were flooded during the rains, it was because there was something wrong with the architecture and the plumbing.
- By approving this project, it would allow construction by a negligent builder.
(-) Sue Hestor
- This was a very controversial project.
- The developer made a statement that the neighborhood did not want a "poor unit".
- The money that is being offered, is money that does not match the affordability of the unit.
- The Commission should allow an Inclusionary unit at this project site.
ACTION: Disapproved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
MOTION: 16948
15. 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.
SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuance
Brett Gladstone
- He is interested in having this item continued.
Re: Merits of the Project
(-) Brett Gladstone
- Planning Staff issued a negative declaration previously on this building.
- In 2004, the revisions to the project were done, the Landmarks Board designated the building as historic.
- A rating of 6L means that it should be on a City and State survey but should not be categorized with a historic rating.
(-) Augustine Faxon
- It has been five years since he started with this project.
- The intent is to have affordable housing and to have community space for the neighbors to meet.
- He will be able to train the youth of the Mission to work on this project.
- It is worth keeping the history but not to designate it as a landmark.
(-) Warner Schmalz - Project Architect
- He displayed various pictures of buildings that are old but would not be designated as a Landmark.
- They are similar to the subject project.
- The project was built with poor quality materials and badly constructed.
- The history of the subject building is in the labor units that met there and not into its architecture.
- The history of the building will be maintained in pictures and statements that will be displayed in the lobby of the building.
- He hopes that the Commission will vote similar to the vote of the 2000 Commission and not designate this site a Landmark.
(-) Roberta Gavino
- She is a member of the Carpenter's Union.
- She hopes that the Commission will allow the developer to construct affordable housing at this location.
- There is nothing historical about this building.
(-) Ruben Santana
- He made an evaluation report on the well being of the project.
- The building is not something that anyone would want to maintain.
- The building should be demolished and a properly engineered structure should be constructed.
- He grew up in the neighborhood and has seen the area not progress at all.
- He would like to have this area progress.
- This is just another "white elephant."
(-) Michael Davos
- This project was not designated a Landmark when the project came before the Commission a few years ago.
- This building should just be demolished.
- He hopes that the Commission votes to not designate it a Landmark.
(-) Carmen Perez - Spoke through a translator
- This project could bring many benefits to the neighbors.
- This project will allow a community space for the residents of the area.
(-) Sofia Ayala - San Francisco Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
- She read a letter from the president of the Chamber requesting that the Commission not give this building with a historic rating.
(-) Phillip Lesser - President of the Mission Merchant's Association
- Everyone in the Mission is at a loss as to why this building would even be considered a landmark.
- There are wonderful buildings in the area. If this building was an attraction he would totally be in agreement with land marking it in order to continue the beauty in the Mission, but it is not.
- The building is only a crime magnet.
(-) Gus Murad
- He lives and works in the Mission District.
- He walked around the building and it is really in a bad shape.
- He cannot see the historic significance for it or setting a high rating value to it.
(-) Nick Aiello - Senior Vice President of the Mission National Bank
- He has been in the banking business in the Mission for 30 years.
- Everyone in the Mission is wanted and needed by the residents of the Mission District.
- It should not take four years to make a decision on this building.
- He has been in the building and there is nothing historical there.
(-) Milton Gaines
- He has been in business for 35 years in the Mission District.
- He feels that this is a judgment call. Many people feel that it is a historic building and many people believe that it is not.
- He feels that this building should not be designated historic.
- This area is an area in the Mission that needs the most improvements.
(-) Fred Snyder
- He appreciates the presentation made by staff.
- He is not sure if this designation is a way to stop construction in the Mission Street.
- The building is rundown and dilapidated and should be demolished.
- The project that is being proposed would clean up the neighborhood tremendously.
(+) Will Smith
- Even if the money was found to restore the building, there is no point in fixing it if it is going to sit empty.
(-) John O'Brian
- He was born in the Mission District.
- He is in favor of the project because it will create affordable housing and jobs for the building trades.
- He is shocked that someone would suggest designating this a Landmark.
(-) Jose Moreno - Housing Action Coalition
- The building has no historical significance as far as he is concerned.
- The project will add much needed housing and tax revenue.
- The Housing Action Coalition voted to [demolish this].
(+) Tim Kelley - Landmark's Board President
- They have gone through a process of evaluation of this building.
- The Board voted unanimously to recommend this building to be designated a Landmark.
- A historic resource is a category under CEQA that represents the quality of a building.
(-) Kate White
- The site has no architectural merit, according to Heritage.
- She appreciates that the owner has improved the project but it is not very well designed.
- The proposed project will improve the area greatly.
(+) Erin Grucz - San Francisco Architectural Heritage
- The Planning Department takes their historic research very seriously.
- This property has been through a lot.
- She urged the Commission to uphold the designation by staff.
(-) Rosario Anaya - Mission Language and Vocational School
- She is here to support Mission Gardens, which is a project that will be a gateway to the Mission District.
- It is very encouraging for the community to see a project that will allow possible homeownership.
- The developer has done his due diligence by seeking community input.
- She asked the Commission to not allow a historical value of this project and allow a developer to improve the building.
(-) Toby Levine
- She has been a resident of the Mission for about 38 years.
- She lives in a Landmark building.
- This building is a very simple, uninteresting, old and rundown building that has no architectural merit.
- It does have its historical merit--but that is all.
- The Landmarks Board is advisory to the Commission where the decision rests.
- It is time to give it the right category and allow the project that everyone wants.
(-) Lamar Baker
- He is a member of the Carpenter's Union.
- This building really needs to be fixed.
- It is important to rebuild areas of San Francisco.
- The developer is a great person that will allow a project that will benefit everyone.
- He recommended that the Commission not designate this a Landmark.
(+) Sue Hestor
- There is a lot of support for a replacement project.
- This item is not about the project but about the process.
- This is not saying that the project cannot be built.
- She appreciates the various staff reports.
- The environmental document should just be done.
(-) Dale Watson
- She is a carpenter.
- The building is only going to be a target for crime.
- This building should just be demolished and allow for an affordable project.
(-) Kinn Sean Webber
- He has not seen the building but can understand everything that is being said.
- When a building is conditioned for housing, it allows for people to live there peacefully.
(-) Azelia Merrill
- She is a native San Franciscan and belongs to the Carpenter's Union.
- This building is not contributing to the culture of the neighborhood.
- The building has acquired a lot of mold.
- She does not see any merit to designate this with architectural value.
ACTION: Passed a Motion of Intent to overturn the Landmarks Board designation of 3CS and designate the project a 6L. Final Language February 24, 2005.
AYES: Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague
NAYES: Alexander and Sue Lee
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
