March 3, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, March 3, 2005
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dwight Alexander; Michael J. Antonini, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee; William L. Lee, Christina Olague
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Shelley Bradford Bell
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:35 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Amit Ghosh; Alicia Jean-Baptiste; Paul Maltzer; Matt Snyder; Michael Smith; Dan Sirois: Moses Corrette; Sharon Young; Mary Woods; Ben Fu; Paul Lord; 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. 2004.1169C (C. Nikitas: (415) 558-6306)
1251 THOMAS AVENUE - west side between Ingalls and Hawes Streets, Lot 030, in Assessor's Block 4807 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to operate a fenced vehicle storage yard and towing business as defined in Sections 223(t) & (u), pursuant to Section 249.15(b)(2), located on a site in an M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district and the Restricted Light Industrial Special Use District and a 40-X height and bulk district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 20, 2004)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 10, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 10, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
2. 2003.0869E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)
88 Fifth Street - The Old U.S. Mint - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration - The proposed project is the rehabilitation plus seismic upgrade and addition to the United States Old Mint located at 88 Fifth Street in downtown San Francisco (Assessor’s Block 3704, Lot 11). The approximately 86,300-gross-square-foot (gsf) building is proposed for use as a City History Museum (77,300 gsf) with secondary uses being retail (restaurant, bar, and gift shops) and office uses. The project site is located on the northwest corner of Fifth and Mission Streets and bounded by Fifth, Mission, Mint, and Jessie Streets. Additional square footage and an additional story would be added within the interior courtyard with a glass roof over the courtyard, at about 10,000 gsf. The project would include closure of Jessie Street to vehicles, between Mint and Fifth Streets, to be used for outdoor restaurant seating. The project site is approximately 45,515 sq. ft., is zoned P (Public) within a 90-X height and bulk district, and within the Mid-Market St. Revitalization and Conservation District. Transaction document approvals would be required from the Board of Supervisors, and a Certificate of Appropriateness would be required by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Proposed for Continuance to April 7, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 7, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
3. 2004.0389D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)
684 ARKANSAS STREET - west side between 20th and 22nd Streets; Lot 016 in Assessor’s Block 4098 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.05.22.5290 proposing the conversion of a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling with vertical and horizontal extensions. The site is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 20, 2004)
(Proposed for Continuance to April 14, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 14, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
4. 2004.0916L (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
900 INNES AVENUE - northeast side between Griffith and Winters Point Boulevard. Assessor's Block 4646 and Lot 007 - Request for Landmark Designation under Planning Code Sections 1004.1, 1004.2 as City Landmark No. 250. The subject property is within an NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial - Small Scale) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
(Proposed for Continuance to April 21, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 21, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
5a. 2004.0032D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)
43 HAMILTON STREET- east side south of Silver Avenue; Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 5919 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.10.17.9296, proposing the demolition of a one-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 20, 2004)
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
5b. 2004.0033D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)
43 HAMILTON STREET- east side south of Silver Avenue; Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 5919 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review new construction to replace demolished, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.10.17.9298, proposing the construction of a two-story single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 20, 2004)
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
6. 2004.0468DD (M. SMITH:: (415) 575-6322)
346 DUNCAN STREET - north side between Sanchez and Church Streets, Lot 051 in Assessor’s Block 6592 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.25.5699, proposing to construct a vertical and horizontal addition on a single-family dwelling, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project.
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WITHDRAWN
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Discretionary Review Withdrawn
7. 2004.1190D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)
1523 21ST AVENUE - west side, between Kirkham & Lawton Streets, Lot 003, Assessor’s Block 1867 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2004.04.19.1671, to construct a two-story horizontal addition to the rear of the existing single-family dwelling located in an RH-1 (Residential, Single-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve project with modifications.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 10, 2005)
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WITHDRAWN
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Discretionary Review Withdrawn
B. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
8. Commission Comments/Questions
Commissioner Antonini:
Re: San Francisco Historical Museum and Society
- He is a member and receives a magazine called the Argonaut.
- In this month’s issue there was an article on real estate.
- He recommends the article by Patrick Magrue.
- He hopes that the decisions made by the Commission result in a product that is as nice as the kind of decisions made in the early 20th Century without any government intervention at all.
Commissioner W. Lee:
Re: Hiring Staff
- He would like the Director to give a status on this.
Re: Legislative Analist
- He would like to hear comments on Sofie Maxwell’s request from the Legislative Analyst to determine the role of private consultants in doing CEQA.
- He received a copy of a document from the Legislation Analyst.
Commissioner Olague:
RE: EIR in Eastern Neighborhoods
- There was a presentation on this at the Land Use Committee and she would like to see a similar presentation.
C. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
9. Director’s Announcements
Re: Eastern Neighborhoods EIR
- The purpose of the presentation given at the Land Use Committee was to report what the status is.
- The Planning Department is on schedule. The contract is underway and in March there will be three public sessions in the Eastern Neighborhood areas. There will be a public announcement on the locations and dates.
- Everything will be done to get the document completed by December.
- There will be a presentation to the Commission on what the findings are.
Re: Solicitation for Comment
- At the request of the Commission, a request was made to staff to comment on the processes and functions of the Commission in order to understand staff’s point of view.
Re: Board President, Aaron Peskin
- He asked the President of the Board to speak to all the senior staff of the Department.
- This happened this past Monday.
Re: 5th Thursday in March
- He spoke to the President of the Commission and they agreed to use the 5th Thursday in March to have a work session on housing. There could be various speakers coming to give presentations on this matter.
Re: Hiring
- Alicia Jean-Baptist will give a short presentation on this.
Alicia Jean-Baptist Responded:
- There are about 20 vacancies currently at the Department.
- They have been working closely with Human Resources to hiring permanent employees and send out notices.
- They expect to receive applications and letters of interest on various positions within the next three to five weeks.
Commissioner Antonini:
Re: Rincon Hill
- When will this initiation take place?
Dr. Amit Ghosh Responded:
- When the date for the Certification of the EIR is set, there will be more of an idea of when the plan and zoning will be scheduled.
- The time period should be within a month or two.
10. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS –
Re: Appeal of a Categorical Exemption for 3775 21st Street
- This project involved adding about 800 square feet to a 1,400 square foot building. There was some concern from the neighbors during the Variance process. The neighbors were not satisfied with what the project sponsor proposed.
- The Board upheld the decision of the Categorical Exemption. The Board asked that he [the Zoning Administrator] reopen the Discretionary Review hearing. He will be speaking with the various legal advisors on this.
BOA – None
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.
Daniela Kirshenbaum – San Francisco Neighborhood Network
Re: Emporium Project
- A lot of the current issues of Planning relate to historic preservation.
- It does not seem like the developer or the departments have stepped forward to claim responsibility.
- She urged the Commission to support any inquiry on what went wrong.
- There is a very big systemic problem.
Lois Scott – Planners Chapter of Local 21
Re: Hiring Process
- They are concerned about the hiring of professional and qualified staff especially for the Planning Director.
- It is very important to have someone committed to the integrity of the public process; a visionary with coordinative and collaborative skills who is able to work with other departments of the city, and guide decision makers and the public on reaching consensus, etc.
- Skills in working with labor organizations would be very important.
Nilka Julio – Local 21
Re: Hiring Process
- It is important to work collaboratively with DHR in order to hire professional planners.
- The most important thing that the Commission will face is the hiring of a new director.
- This candidate should have the knowledge of professional development, and should champion and support the work that the professional planners do every day.
- San Francisco is a very important place to be.
- A visionary is very important.
Adam Light
Re: Hiring
- He echoed everything that the two previous speakers have spoke about.
- He believes that the most important skill a candidate should have for the Planning Director is: management.
- Someone who comes in with a fresh perspective and a clean streak would be a good candidate.
Jeremy Nelson – Transportation for a Livable City
Re: Hiring and Planners Conference
- The planning Director that the Commission chooses will set the pace for the next years.
- He appreciates that the Commission is not taking this decision lightly.
- He is exited that the Commission will attend the Planners Conference.
- Ongoing professional development is very important for the future of San Francisco.
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: 1919 22nd Street
John Lum – John Lum Architecture
- He has been working with the Discretionary Review applicant for the past five months.
- The issue that has not been resolved is the condition that the DR applicant wanted imposed on the project sponsor--that she could not have any more construction ever. This is not feasible for the project sponsor.
- There were some concerns about neighborhood character as well. He is very familiar with the neighborhood guidelines since he was part of the making of the document. He feels that the design of the building is in conformity with the guidelines.
Crispin Barker
- He asked that the property be kept within the guidelines.
- He asked that the design of the project be of a contemporary design style.
- He met with the neighbors who expressed some concern about the project but he was able to solve their issues.
- He respects the neighbor’s rights about giving their opinion about his project, but he asked the Commission to take consideration about his right to renovate his property.
Kris Gardner
- She presented the material of the Discretionary Review requestor because she is not able to attend the hearing.
- Basically the issue relates to open space.
- She presented another piece of material from a neighbor who is also opposed to the project because of open space.
Dorothy Larson
- She lives next door to the proposed project.
- She is concerned with the setback. This setback should be more in conformity with the other houses.
- She is also concerned with open space, the height of the building, etc.
Re: 1886 Mission Street
Brett Gladstone
- The Commission should have more time to review the findings.
- The public has not had time to review comments either.
- He would like to have some further discussions with the City Attorney.
- He would appreciate a two-week continuance to review and comment on the issues.
Kate White
- This project does not need a full EIR.
- She hopes that the Commission looks at the real issue, the facts, and forget about the politics.
Bart James – Carpenter’s Union
- This project should be torn down. It is a skeleton and could fall at any time.
Azalia Merrill – Carpenter’s Union
- This building is an old building.
- She has done a lot of research on this project.
- There is nothing particularly special about this building.
- This building is corrupting the neighborhood and it is not contributing to it at all.
F. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
11. 2004.1274DD (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
1919 22nd STREET southwest corner of 22nd 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.
NOTE: On February 17, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission closed the Public Hearing and continued the matter to March 3, 2005, by a vote +5 –0, to provide Commission with revised drawings. Commissioners Bradford-Bell and William Lee were absent.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with conditions recommended by staff.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
12. 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 closed the Public Hearing and 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.
NOTE: On February 24, 2005, the Commission continued to matter to March 3, 2005.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Hearing Held. Following Commission deliberation, the item was continued to March 24, 2005.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
G. REGULAR CALENDAR
13. (D. MACRIS: (415) 558-6411)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT’S PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR FY 2005-2006 - Consideration of approval of a draft resolution adopting the Planning Department’s Proposed Work Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 2005-2006.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 10, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
David Pilpel
- He is glad that in the budget there is included a parking and traffic study.
- The Sunshine Ordinance Task force recommended that the Department establish a custodian of records.
- It is important to periodically do a department structure analysis.
Kate White
- She agrees with the priorities and the work plan on the budget.
- However, there is no augmented budget as there was last year.
- She would be happy to advocate for the augmented budget.
- Some of this extra money can be used for the Eastern Neighborhood and the Better Neighborhoods Plan.
Joe O’Donoghue – Residential Builders
- There are huge delays at the department.
- Where the fees have been increased, the productivity should increase as well.
- It is time that the Commission stood up to the Board of Supervisors.
- The Planning Department should charge the Board of Supervisors for services.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
MOTION: 16955
14a. 2004.0364D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)
451 Faxon Avenue - west side between De Montfort & Holloway Avenues, Lot 009, Assessor’s Block 6939 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application 2003.11.24.0975, proposing to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the Demolition Permit.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 17, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Bill Riddle – Project Architect
- He is available for questions.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
14b. 2004.0651D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)
451 Faxon Avenue - west side between De Montfort & Holloway Avenues, Lot 009, Assessor’s Block 6939 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of new construction to replace demolished housing, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.11.24.0979, proposing to construct a three-story, single-family residential building with two off-street parking spaces in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve the New Construction Permit.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 17, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 14a.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
15. 2005.0141D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)
120 Upper Terrace - north side, between Masonic Avenue & Ashbury Terrace, Lot 009, Assessor’s Block 2617A - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2004.10.04.5862, proposing to construct a partial one-story vertical addition on the existing single-family house and to construct new stairs and decks on the east side of the building. The subject property is located in an RH-1(D) (Residential, Single-Family, Detached) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Project.
SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuance
Robert Pentel
- Since the onset of this project, there have been constant negotiations.
- They are within “inches” of coming to a final resolution.
- They had expected to sign all the drawings by last evening.
- Unfortunately the firm that they have is the same as the one the project sponsors have. That would be a conflict of interest.
Jeremy Paul
- He agrees with the previous speaker.
- Unfortunately there have been some delays to get a document stating the withdrawal of the Discretionary Review.
- A one week continuance would be adequate.
Jim Hansen
- The date for this hearing has been set for a while.
- Further delay would cause financial hardship to his family.
- He got a new attorney when he found out about the conflict of interest.
Re: Merits of Project
(-) Jeremy Paul – Representing Discretionary Review Requestor
- There is still a small disagreement.
- The details of the text became muddled and that is why this case is still before the Commission.
- The other neighbors are here to speak also.
(-) Robert Pantell – 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor
- He discovered that the same law firm was representing both parties.
- There have been some changes to the design.
- He has been trying to get the lawyers to finalize the wording on the contracts.
(+) Jim Hansen – Project Sponsor
- The negotiations have been very close.
- He hopes that they come to an agreement as soon as possible.
(+) Jon Felco – Project Architect
- He is available for questions.
(+) Tom Morrow
- He lives on Upper Terrace.
- He is in favor of the project.
- The house is an architectural gem.
- He would like to see the work progress as soon as possible.
(+) Katie Hansen
- They had many of the neighbors come to see the plans for their project.
- No one had ever protested his or her project until recently.
- It is difficult for them since they had made a good effort to communicate with their neighbors.
- They are anxious to move in and have this house be their home.
MOTION: To take Discretionary Review and approve the project with a 1 foot reduction.
AYES: Olague
NAYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
RESULT: Motion failed
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
NAYES: Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
16a. 2004.0516D (D.SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)
4381 26TH Street - south side, between Douglass & Diamond Streets, Lot 021, Assessor’s Block 6561 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application 2004.05.25.4745, proposing to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Demolition.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Mark Raymond – Project Architect
- The project has numerous structural defects that make the property unsound.
- The one room cottage is the only one on the block that does not have a rear yard.
- None of the existing neighbors would like to see this dilapidated structure preserved.
- He displayed a rendering of the proposed new construction.
- If this house is enlarged, it would require various Variances.
(+) Joe O’Donoghue
- This project violates Proposition M.
- The demolition ordinance applies to structures that can be expanded but this structure cannot be expanded.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
16b. 2004.0572D (D.SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)
4381 26TH Street - south side, between Douglass & Diamond Streets, Lot 021, Assessor’s Block 6561 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of new construction to replace demolished housing, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.05.25.4740, proposing to construct a three-story, single-family house with one off-street parking space in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Project.
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 16a.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
17. 2004.0798D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)
2070 30TH AVENUE - east side between Pacheco and Quintara Streets, Lot 003M in Assessor’s Block 2149 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.01.26.4825, proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition at the rear of a single-family dwelling, located in a 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
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Nancy Denney Phelps – Discretionary Review Requestor
- She recommended that the project sponsor just make one floor addition to their project.
- It would have been nice for the project sponsor to come to explain their project to her and at that time they would have been able to discuss the issues they have. This would have saved time and money.
- The rear addition would set a precedent and would alter the character of the neighborhood.
- She is very concerned with the height and bulk of the building.
- There are various neighbors who oppose the project.
(-) Nick Phelps
- He displayed various diagrams showing the height and bulk of the structure; and ones that displayed how the height of the building would block the light and sun from the adjacent neighbors.
(-) Bick Jane Tang Tso
- She lives in the neighborhood and is opposed to the project.
- If sunlight is blocked to the rear of the property it will create a shadow on her garden.
- This will affect her property value. It will decrease it.
(+) C.J. Higley – Representing Project Sponsor
- The project sponsor has lived in the house for 19 years.
- Their children have been growing and their house has been getting smaller and smaller.
- The parents of the project sponsor are getting older and will be moving in with their children and grandchildren.
- These are the reasons for the expansion. They do not want to leave San Francisco.
- He realizes that the project will create some shadow to the adjacent neighbors.
(+) Kwan Lu – Project Sponsor
- He and his family want to stay in San Francisco.
- At one point he thought that there was an agreement with the Discretionary Review requestor but there was no agreement.
- The project will have little affect on the adjacent homes.
- He recently removed tall pines from his back yard because they were hazardous. This has provided a lot of sunlight to their neighbors.
- They just need more space and he hope that the Commission will approve their project.
ACTION: Hearing Held. Item continued to April 21, 2005 in order for Project Sponsor to hire an architect to present alternative designs and to continue to work with the neighborhood trying to reach an agreement on a design. Public Hearing remains open.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
18. 2004.1278D (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)
1288 STANYAN STREET - east side between 17th Street and Belgrave Avenue; Lot 038 in Assessor's Block 1289 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.08.03.0501S, proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition at the rear of the existing two-story over garage, single-family dwelling. The proposal will also include modifications to the front facade of the building with changes to the existing roofline, front entry canopy, windows, and garage door. The property is located in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve project
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Michael Federly – Discretionary Review Requester
- He is not against development.
- He purchased this house in the 70’s.
- The house next to him towers over his house and blocks a lot of sunlight.
- There is information that is inaccurate.
- He does not support the project because it is too large and too invasive.
(+) Steve Mitchell – Project Sponsor
- The purpose of the construction is to increase the living area because they have a growing family.
(+) John Maniscalaco – Project Architect
- He gave a general architectural description of the project.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project
AYES: Alexander, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
NAYES: Antonini
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
19. 2005.0021D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
1 Palo Alto Drive (aka 1 Avanzada aka 250 Palo Alto) - Assessor's Block 2724 Lot 003 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2004.11.05.8607 for installation of an emergency generator and pad with diesel fuel tank for KBHK television; application No. 2004.1220.1816 for installation of an FM antenna for KNGY radio, on the north leg at the third level of Sutro Tower and, application No. 2005.0125.3910 for installation of four receive only satellite dishes for KPIX TV-5. This project lies within the RH-1, (Residential, House, One Family) District and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with Conditions.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
20. 2004.0853C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)
2245-2247 UNION STREET - south side between Fillmore and Steiner Streets; Lot 030, in Assessor’s Block 0539 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.2, 303, 725.21, 725.38, and 725.53 to legalize office use on the second, third, and attic levels of an existing three-story plus attic building, in the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuance
Teresa Ray
- She encouraged the Commission to hear this item today.
- The person who asked for the continuance is out of town.
- This project has been properly noticed.
Margaret Titus
- She is speaking on behalf of Paul Armstrong.
- They submitted a detailed letter about this project.
- She requested that there be a continuance to discuss some of the concerns they still have and were outlined in the letter.
Re: Merits of the Project
(+) Benjamin Bendaire – Project Sponsor
- He knows that there was a letter in opposition and he submitted a response to that letter.
- Maintaining the property within its historical aspects has been very important to he and his wife.
- He was told that an office is not allowed on all floors.
- There has been an illegal use. He has brought this information to the department to try to fix this.
- The use that they propose is a quiet use that will bother no one.
- They are not proposing any addition to the structure. They just want to legalize the use.
(+) Teresa Rae
- She is available for questions.
(-) Margaret Titus
- There were various people who were going to speak but they had to leave.
- They wanted to continue this matter so that the project sponsor could talk to the owners of the building.
(+) Richard Warmer
- He lives on Green Street.
- The person who opposes the project approached him and tried to persuade him to also oppose the project. It seems that this person would like to have a tree removed because it blocks his view.
(+) John Phillips
- He lives next door.
- He supports the project. They are ideal neighbors.
- The use of the building has been commercial for many years.
- He has no objection to the project.
(+) Kate Phillips
- She really likes the neighbors as well as the tree so does not want to have the tree cut down.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
MOTION: 16956
21. 2001.0772C (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
3318 MISSION STREET - west side, between 29th and 30th Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 6635 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 712.38 and 790.84, to allow a residential conversion of the existing dwelling unit on the second level of a two-story building into a banquet hall and to relocate the existing unit to a new proposed third level in a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 3, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Benjamin Felix – Project Designer
- He gave a general description of the project.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
NAYES: Alexander
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
MOTION: 16957
22. 2005.0081T (P. lorD: (415) 558-6311)
Castro Street and Upper Market Street Neighborhood Commercial Districts - Exemption of Certain Entertainment Permits from Conditional Use Process - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 715.48 and Section 721.48 to provide that existing bars in the Castro Street and Upper Market Street Neighborhood Commercial Districts will be allowed to apply for and receive a place of entertainment permit from the Entertainment Commission without obtaining conditional use authorization from the Planning Commission if they can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Entertainment Commission that they have been in regular operation as an entertainment use prior to January 1, 2004; and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Amanda Kohn – Project Sponsor
- This legislation was brought from the Entertainment Commission to Supervisor Dufty’s Office.
(+) Bob Davis
- When the Entertainment Commission came into being they determined what the definition of “entertainment” is.
- They began to define what venues had entertainment.
- The ordinance still requires that the public process will take place.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve this ordinance.
(-) Marilyn Amini
- This is the first hearing of a substantial Planning Code amendment.
- She read part of Section 302(b).
- Once this proposed amendment comes to the Planning Commission, there are steps that need to be followed.
- An issue that is under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission should not fall entirely under the jurisdiction of the Entertainment Commission.
ACTION: Approved with the following amendment: Recommend that a Sunset of six months be included in the Conditions of Approval.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague
NAYES: S. Lee
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
RESOLUTION: 16958
23. 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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 24, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Sue Hestor – Appellant
- She displayed a map of the area involving the NEMIZ.
- The Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition is concerned that there are housing projects being approved without really understanding anything.
- She displayed a summary of every housing live/work project since 1990.
- She displayed a map of the type of uses in the area surrounding the NEMIZ.
(+) Mathew Brennan
- This paint shop will be replaced with housing.
- The building on the site was the subject of a historic preservation report.
- There will be an increase of PDR for the space.
- The appellant seems to have the argument more with the Planning Department than with this project.
(+) Marge Benson
- This project could only have a positive impact on the neighborhood.
- The project is located where there is housing and PDR use.
- The PDR square footage is preserved and there will be 30+ units of median housing.
- The project sponsor has made numerous attempts to speak to the opposition but there has been no progress.
- She urged the Commission to approve this project.
(+) Joe O’Donoghue
- The appellant’s arguments are opposing policies and not necessarily related to the project.
- This is about an EIR and not about policy.
ACTION: The Negative Declaration was upheld.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
MOTION: 16959
24a. 2004.0458C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
566 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - west side between 16th and 17th Street, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 3570 - 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 24, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Matthew Brennan
- He displayed a rendering of the proposed project.
- This project goes beyond the requirements and is very family friendly.
(+) Paul Sauer
- The block where this project is going to be located has gone a long way to make improvements.
- The area is not very good.
- Having more people in the area would improve it.
(+) Gideon Kramer – Safe Clean Green
- He supports the project. It will be a win-win situation.
- The area is not very good and can only be improved with projects that have a steak in the neighborhood.
(+) Philip Lesser – Mission Merchant’s Association
- This area is a mixed-use area.
- The area is finally coming alive.
- This project will greatly improve the area.
(+) Monica Baum
- She strongly supports the project.
- This project would interest people in home ownership.
- More people on the block would benefit the well being of safety.
- The current building has no architectural beauty at all.
(+) Micheal Nedler
- He supports this project as well.
- He is excited about new residents living there.
- There is a lot of prostitution and drug use in the area.
(+) Joe O’Donaghue
- There is a lot of obsolete PDR space.
- The new project will have be mixed use because this is what makes a City viable.
- Maybe some people will say that the units will not be affordable but it is still a good project for the area.
(-) Sue Hestor
- There are a lot of questions that have not been asked.
- The extra PDR space for the project will probably not be a PDR space but someone’s office.
- There are no truck spaces in the building.
- The project has a very strange configuration.
- Paint storage is hazardous material. Special construction has to be done.
- Did Long-Term Planning look at this project?
- An auto paint store needs to be a part of an automotive district.
- Also, there is no [low] income housing at this project.
(+) Richard Johnson
- He has worked here in a commercial business for 15 years.
- There are a lot of problems with the area and it needs this project to revitalize it.
- This area should be made into a place where families want to make it their homes.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
NAYES: Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
MOTION: 16960
24b. 2004.0458V (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
566 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - west side between 16th and 17th Street, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 3570 - 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 24, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 24a.
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the Public Hearing and granted the Variance with the following additional condition: should the project sponsor provide onsite affordable housing, no more than one (1) of the units shall be allowed to be in the units that were granted a Variance and shall not be on the lowest floor.
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))
Sue Hestor
Re: Housing
- There will be a workshop on housing shortly.
- Where is the land for affordable housing that was assigned in the Housing Element going to be built?
- Every time land is used for condos, this is not affordable housing.
- Staff does not track what is produced and what it is sold for so the Commission does not have an idea of what needs are being met.
- Staff needs to tell the Commission the details of housing projects.
- How will the decision that the Commission makes sorted out?
- Low-income people do reverse commutes.
Joe O’Donaghue
- The issue of where the land for housing is has been raised many times.
- The population today is less than in WWII.
- There is land in which to build but it has to be high density.
- It is possible to give more affordability via density bonuses.
Adjournment: 8:31 p.m.
THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2005.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with Corrections Read Into the Record:
1) On cover page, Commissioner Bradford Bell was absent and it states that she was not.
2) The header should show March 3, 2005 and not 2004.
3) Item 18, Project Architect’s name is John Maniscalco.
AYES: Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague
EXCUSED: Bradford Bell
ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee
