May 26, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, May 26, 2005
1:30 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 1:40 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Kate Stacey – Deputy City Attorney; Paul Lord; Sara Vellve; Geoffrey Nelson; Dan DiBartolo; Jonathan Purvis; Jonas Ionin – Acting Commission Secretary
A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.
1. 2003.1210CK (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)
5600 - Third Street- the block bounded by Third Street, Bancroft Avenue, Mendell Street, and Armstrong Avenue, Lots 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 in Assessor’s Block 5421. Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow residential dwelling units in an M-1 (Light Industrial) District pursuant to Planning Code Section 215, and to allow a Planned Unit Development pursuant to Planning Code Section 304, which would include exceptions to configuration of the rear yard (Planning Code Section 134), dwelling unit density (Planning Code Section 215), and for commercial parking (Planning Code Section 151). The subject property is within an M-1 ( Light Industrial) District, a Third Street Special Use District (lot 11 only), and a 65-B Height and Bulk District.
(Proposed for Continuance to June 2, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 2, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
2. 2005.0375D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)
1122 GREEN STREET - north side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets, lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0122 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.28.9990, proposing to 1) enlarge the garage (previously approved but not yet constructed) internally to accommodate three cars, 2) remove and reconfigure (replace) the exterior front stairs, 3) make several minor modifications to portions of the front and side facades, and 4) remodel portions of the interior of the building, primarily the lower floor apartment, of a three-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal would result in the creation of three off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to June 9, 2005) June 16, 2005
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 16, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
3. 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 existing three-story plus an occupied attic 99,921-gross-square-foot (gsf) building would be retained, and the first floor courtyard enclosed in 1973 for offices would be removed, (a deduction of 4,336 gsf), and additional circulation bridges, stairs and an elevator (addition of 2,642 gsf) would be added within the existing 4-story courtyard. The existing attic would be expanded on the roof along the south side of the courtyard to create a museum gallery (an addition of 1,554 gsf) with a view of the city skyline to the south. The courtyard removal and additions of bridges and roof gallery would result in an overall reduction of gsf, for a total floor area of 99,788 gsf. The building would include 79,957 square feet if usable space total including: 36,326 sf of City History Museum space, 2,082 sf of Museum office space, 2,045 sf of museum back of house space, 2,044 sf of museum retail, and 3,336 sf of museum theater space. Tenants in the building would be the 8,153 sf Gold Rush and Money Museum, 2,492 sf of small retail lease spaces, and 6,360 gsf of restaurant space and cafe. 3,987 sf would be used for the San Francisco Visitor Center, and the remaining 11,108 sf would be circulation, toilets and support spaces ancillary to the museum use. 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 47,515 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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 19, 2005)
(Proposed for Continuance to June 16, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 16, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
4. 2005.0256T (P. Lord: (415) 558-6311)
Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District Residential Conversion to Other Institution - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 724.1 to allow for conversion of upper floor residential units in the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District as a conditional use, where: the new use will be an Other Institution, Educational Service use, only one dwelling unit in building will be converted, and that unit is the only non-residential use in the building, and no legally residing tenant with be displaced: and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 19, 2005)
(Proposed for Continuance to June 23, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 23, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
5. 2004.1106CV (J. Purvis: (415) 558-6354)
1360-1364 STEVENSON STREET - west side between McCoppin and Duboce Streets; Lot 073 in Assessor’s Block 3513 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 215(a) to construct a four-story, five-unit residential building on a vacant lot within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) District. A Rear Yard Variance is sought under Section 134(a) to provide rear yard open space within an inner court and a rear setback. The Zoning Administrator will hear the Rear Yard Variance immediately following the Planning Commission’s hearing, on the Conditional Use. The site is within the C-M District, and a 105-E Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Proposed for Continuance to June 23, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 23, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
6. 2004.1106CV (J. Purvis: (415) 558-6354)
1360-1364 STEVENSON STREET - west side between McCoppin and Duboce Streets; Lot 073 in Assessor’s Block 3513 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 215(a) to construct a four-story, five-unit residential building on a vacant lot within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) District. A Rear Yard Variance is sought under Section 134(a) to provide rear yard open space within an inner court and a rear setback. The site is within the C-M District, and a 105-E Height and Bulk District.
(Proposed for Continuance to June 23, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 23, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
B. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
7. Consideration of Adoption
· Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of April 21, 2005
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
EXCUSED: Bradford Bell
· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 28, 2005
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
EXCUSED: Bradford Bell
8. Commission Comments/Questions
Commissioner Bradford Bell
Re: Director’s Search
- She wants to know when there will be an update on the Director’s Search?
Commissioner Sue Lee responded:
- This item should be scheduled in the next week or so to update everyone.
Commissioner William Lee:
Re: Van Ness Issue
- He wants a status on this case.
Commissioner Olague:
Re: 1234 19th Avenue
- She received several requests from the public to request the Zoning Administrator to rehear this case.
- Some of the concerns are the lack of information to interested parties, that the information heard at the Commission was not heard at the Board of Appeals, etc.
Commissioner Antonini:
Re: Procedure
- He requested that Commissioners be informed about high profile projects, like conditional uses, that are in the process of being heard by the Commission.
Commissioner Olague:
Re: Divisadero Formula Retail
- She is concerned that this case will not be heard by the Commission and wants to know how this happened?
Zoning Administrator responded:
- Staff has 90 days to review legislation and sometimes there is a lot of “back and forth” going on between staff, the City Attorney and the Board of Supervisors to try and understand it or to try and refine it.
- Because of all this, staff ran close to the 90 days.
C. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
9. Director’s Announcements
Interim Director Macris reported:
Re: Home Depot
- This project is moving right along.
- In the month of July it will be presented before the Commission.
- There is still some work to be done on the environmental side.
Re: Rincon Hill
- The first major Rincon Hill project will go before the Commission in July based on the notion that the Board of Supervisors will act in July as well.
Re: Trinity Plaza
- Progress is being made on this project also.
- There are negotiations going on at the Board of Supervisors level.
- This project will probably come before the Commission in the Fall.
10. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS –
Amit Ghosh reported:
Re: Bicycle Plan
- This was delayed because of an appeal.
- Last week the Land Use Committee unanimously approved the plan.
- The BOS last Tuesday had it’s first reading.
Re: The Visitation Valley
- The Visitation Valley Strategic Concept Plan for the Schlage Lock site and it’s integration into the community. It was completed a few years ago with the help of the community and other agencies. There was a delay waiting for private interest in actually developing the site.
- Since the site is a toxic site and there are many public improvements to be done, it was felt that the tools of the Redevelopment Agency would be able to bring about the improvements more efficiently and expeditiously.
- At the Land Use Committee they unanimously approved the introduction of a survey area for that plan. So the concept plan can be implemented.
Zoning Administrator reported:
Re: Massage Establishments
- Supervisor Ma’s legislation was also heard at the Land Use Committee.
BOA – None
Zoning Administrator responded to Commissioner W. Lee:
Re: 724 Van Ness Avenue
- The BOA upheld his determination that the inclusionary units needed to be rental but that the market rate units did not need to be rental.
- The BOA has a formal rehearing process.
- Mr. Sanger mentioned to him that he was going to request a formal rehearing.
Commissioner Bradford Bell:
Re: Home Depot
- She was under the impression that there was information that Home Depot was not providing to staff even though they had requested it, that the economic study was not provided either which was also requested by staff (apparently staff has gone out and found a firm that will do this) and finally that staff and Home Depot met with the Mayor’s Office and Home Depot still was not sure what they wanted.
City Attorney Kate Stacey:
- She recommends that Home Depot be scheduled next week to discuss it further.
11. (A. JOHN-BAPTISTE: (415) 558-6547)
UPDATE OF THE DEPARTMENT’S BUDGET
- The mayor is submitting his budget to the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday of next week, so there will be a update next Thursday.
- In February, there will be about 19 positions filled throughout the department. The majority of those being Planning positions.
- As of today, there has been 11 positions filled, six of which were actually internal promotions, and five coming in from the outside.
- There has been three planner II positions, 7 planner III positions and one accounting position so there this leaves a goal of hiring 17 positions more.
- The department is making reasonable progress and would expect to have at least the vast majority of the process completed towards the end of this summer, early fall.
Re: SF STAT
- This information was given to the Mayor’s office and other agencies in April.
- She will excerpt the information since the complete presentation is about 45 minutes.
- The current workload is similar to last fiscal year. There is a larger portion of cases compared to permit applications.
- More staff has been placed to process cases.
- The case volume has increased about 33 percent.
- There has been an increase in the backlog throught all type of cases. A backlog is a case that has not been process in the amount of time targeted.
- One of the most significant factors is that at the beginning of the year there were about 1,000 cases in backlog. The ability to get out of the backlog is impacted.
- Although some of the numbers are overstated (about 15 percent) is related to the tracking system.
- There are efforts to clean up the tracking system in order to get more accurate numbers.
- Regarding timeliness, staff has had a hard time to meet the time requireemnts.
- Brining in more staff will still affect meeting the time requirements of this backlog so meeting the target will still be difficult.
- Timeliness of permit processing is better because there are many cases that are done administratively.
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.
Jeremy Paul
Re: Scraphouse Exhibition
- There is a scrap house being built which is a very innovative design only using scrap materials.
- This will be open to the public starting June 2, 2005.
- On behalf of the Scrap Advisory Board he extend the invitation to the Commissioners and the public.
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.
None
F. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
12. 2005.0212T (P. Lord: (415) 558-6311)
Divisadero Street Formula Retail Controls – Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 703.3 to designate formula retail uses as a conditional use in the NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District along Divisadero Street from Haight to Turk Streets and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications
NOTE: On May 19, 2005, following public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing and entertained a motion to disapprove. The motion failed to carry by a vote of +2-2; Commissioners Olague and Sue Lee voted No; Commissioners Hughes and W. Lee were absent, and Commissioner Alexander was excused. A motion to approve failed to carry for lack of a second. The Commission then continued the matter to May 26, 2005 to allow the absent commissioners the opportunity to participate in any final action.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Not properly before the Commission
G. REGULAR CALENDAR
13. 2005.0219Z (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)
Zoning Map Amendments to Change the Height and Bulk Designations for Assessor’s Block 0139, 0140, and 0141 (bounded by Battery Street, Vallejo Street, Embarcadero and Broadway) - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco, Sheet 1H, to change the height and bulk designation of Assessor’s Block 0139 from 84-E to 40-X and to change the height and bulk designations of Assessor’s Blocks 0140 and 0141 from 84-E to 65-X, and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.
preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 12, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Supervisor Aaron Peskin
- This is not unlike the legislation a few weeks ago on Broadway.
- It is very similar to the reason he initiated that first legislation.
- This is a remnant of historical zoning because of the freeway that had to be torn down a few years ago.
- With this new zoning future developments will be consistent with developments in the area.
- It also brings it to conformance with the Waterfront plan that is being proposed.
(+) Byron Rhett – Planning and Development Director for the Port of San Francisco
- The port is a trustee for the state and manages this land trying to address the mission that was put to the port which is to develop uses for the property that address navigation, fisheries, maritime, natural preservation and public access.
- Hotels is one of the limited uses that this property could be put to that will attract people to the waterfront.
- A developer was searched to develop a hotel at this site. They chose Stanford Hospitality for this site.
- Hotel would be a feasible use for the site.
- There will be a 255 unit hotel with a garage and open space, garden would be at the end of Davis and Vallejo Streets.
- The Commission has just reviewed the present design of the hotel.
(+) Lawrence Louie – President of Stanford Hospitality
- They have been working on this project for about five to six years.
- The project has been revised many times.
- They have met with several government agencies.
- They have heard from the neighbors and have made the appropriate revisions to the project to deal with the issues they mentioned.
- The project will benefit the City and the create jobs.
- He hopes that the Commission will support a 65 foot hotel.
(-) Mark Hornberger – Project Architect
- He also supports 65 feet for this site.
- He displayed diagrams of the buildings in the area as well as images of how the hotel will look like.
- The project is not a high-rise building and will not be out-of-scale.
(-) Teresa Ray – Principal in Planning Strategies for the Port of San Francisco
- This has been going on for more than five years.
- The hotel will be elegant, welcoming and sits comfortable in it’s context.
- Even the condominiums across the street are taller that what this building would be.
- The hotel project came out of the seven year dialogue to get the waterfront plan approved.
- There will also be a lot of streetscape improvements.
(+) Diana Taylor – Waterfront Action Group
- They support the rezoning ordinance without modifications.
- There are only two buildings higher than 40 feet in the area.
- The San Francisco General Plan requires new development to maintain shorter structures near the bay.
- The rezoning of the area would preclude development.
(+) Jonathan Middlebrook
- This whole discussion is being caused by a particular project yet the topic here is rezoning in a historic district.
- Block 139 is the piece of land that directly abuts the Embarcadero.
- This legislation would allow for consistent development in a historic district.
(+) Glen Green
- He lives in the neighborhood.
- What has been done in the past in not a significant reason to continue doing it.
- He urges the Commission to adopt the ordinance without modifications.
(+) Susan Gilbert
- She lives in the neighborhood.
- Broadway is a very attractive boulevard.
- The hotel will be the revitalization of this area.
- Not only should one consider the Embarcadero but also should consider Broadway.
(+) Peter Winklestein – SPUR (Urban Projects Committee)
- SPUR analyzed this project a few month’s ago.
- They looked at a lot of aspects of the project.
- Any lower heights would make developments look “truncated”.
(+) Marvin Kasof
- He is a resident of Telegraph Hill and a member of Renew SF.
- One of his member wrote a memo (which he read) that is in support of the rezoning without modifications.
(+) Ernestine Weiss
- She worked on the waterfront plan.
- A building at the corner of Broadway would destroys the views of the waterfront which is against the waterfront plan.
- It is important to keep with aesthetics.
(+) Joe Butler – Telegraph Hill Dwellers
- For about, the Telegraph Hill Dwellers has worked to create historic neighborhoods in the area, the waterfront being one of them.
- At the time it was created the embarcadero freeway made its way along and ended at Broadway right at the edge of the historic district.
- They support this legislation as it is written since it will restore the compatibility of a potential buildings on this site with the historic district, and amend the height limits for these three lots so that the original height limit which was set in response to a structure which is no longer there, thankfully, will not mar the historic district in the future.
(+) Frederick Allardyce – Waterfront Action Group
- He lives in the neighborhood.
- For many years the height limit has been 40 feet.
- When Stanford Hospitality won the bid, they know the height limit for the area.
- He supports the motion without modifications.
(+) Paul Wermer – Neighborhood Network
- He supports the proposal unmodified.
- He is concerned about the concept of a 50 foot height district. This sounds like target zoning.
- He is concerned about what the port has on record.
(-) Toby Levine – Chair of the Northeast Waterfront Advisory Committee
- They have been hearing about this project for many years.
- The committee has not been able to come to some consensus about height limits.
- The Stanford project has been under review for about five years. There has been many revisions done to the project.
- The 40 foot height limit causes problems since it would not be able to achieve the number of rooms that Stanford needs for the project.
- She feels that that Commission should reject the 40 height limit since it will not allow the plans for that corner.
(+) Alice Picuss – Pacific Heights Residents Association
- They support the rezoning to lower height limits to conform with the neighborhood and opposes the create of a 50 foot special zoning district.
- Lower heights create pedestrian friendly environments.
(-) James Fang – Asian Week Newspaper
- Lowering the height limit is not very fair.
- The revenue from this hotel would help San Francisco’s economy.
(+) Giana Miniace
- She lives in the neighborhood.
- Many people have strong ties to the area and they have deserved the right to express their opinions.
- It would not be fair to “change the rules of the game”.
(-) Ezio Rastelli
- He owns property in the area.
- He does not support the legislation since he feels it would not be fair to the hotel.
(+) Erin Grucz – Preservation Advocate for the San Francisco Architectural Heritage
- They support the zoning amendments.
- The current height and bulk limit threaten the small scale of the district.
- She urges the Commission to approve this ordinance.
(+) Jay Folberg – Member of the Waterfront Action Group
- He lives in the area.
- In the historic district there are 40 feet height buildings consistently.
- For six years many people have participated in a study and when the Request for Proposal went out it specifically stated 40 feet height limit.
- The residents would like the proposed hotel to mirror the other buildings in the area.
(+) Jane Winslow
- She submitted some letters for the record.
- The zoning north of the hotel project allows for 65 feet limit.
- There is no requirement for a maximum of 4 stories or 40 feet in the northeast waterfront historic district.
- It is unfair to change the rules.
- She urged the Commission to push for 65 feet height limit.
(+) Arthur Samuelson
- He lives in the area.
- He supports the amendments without modifications.
- Whatever is built, is going to be there for a very long time.
(+) Arthur Chang
- He has been involved in this case for about six years.
- He urged the Commission to uphold the law, mainly the General Plan.
- The Commission has an obligation to uphold the law.
(+) Sue Hestor
- The building has been redesigned because of three people who had good intentions.
- If there is a policy of 40 feet height limit, it should be respected.
ACTION: Adopted with the following modifications: Page 1 of Resolution add the following paragraph: An Addendum to the Port of San Francisco Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR was prepared May 18, 2005, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15164, and is incorporated herein by this reference.
and
Delete the following sentence on Page 2 of Resolution, last paragraph: The Planning Department staff further recommends approval of the draft ordinance changes for Assessor’s Blocks 0140 and 0141 from 84-E to 65-X.
and
Page 2 of Resolution, paragraph 3 the 84-X should be changed to 84-E.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
NAYES: Olague
RESOLUTION: 17024
14. 2004.1338C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)
2231 PINE STREET - south side between Fillmore and Webster Streets; Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 0660 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.2(d) of the Planning Code to legalize the establishment of a bed and breakfast inn with three guestrooms (Artists’ Inn) within an RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The bed and breakfast inn has been in operation for approximately six years, and expansion of the structures is not proposed.
Preliminary recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
MOTION: 17025
15. 2004.0055R (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)
AMENDMENTS TO THE TRANSBAY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (GENERAL PLAN REFERRAL) - The Planning Commission adopted General Plan conformity findings for the Transbay Redevelopment Plan on December 9, 2004. However the Redevelopment Agency has proposed amendments to the Transbay Redevelopment Plan resulting from Board of Supervisors input on the Plan, requiring new General Plan conformity findings, pursuant to Section 4.105 of the City Charter and Section 2A.53 of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the Draft Motion finding the proposed amendments to the Transbay Redevelopment Plan in conformity with the General Plan.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 19, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 2, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
16. 2004.0150C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
1450 LOMBARD STREET - north side between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street; Lot 029 in Assessor’s Block 0498 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 712.83 of the Planning Code to install five (5) cellular antennas on the roof of the “TraveLodge” hotel, as part of Verizon's wireless telecommunications network, within the NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed antennas would be mounted on two existing roof penthouses. The related equipment would be installed within the building and would not be visible from off-site. Per the City & County of San Francisco’s Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the project site is a Preferred Location Preference 4, as it is a commercial building in an NC-3 District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) James Singleton – Verizon Wireless
- He is available for questions
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
EXCUSED: Antonini
MOTION: 17026
17. 2004.0560D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
251 28TH AVENUE - west side between Lake and California Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1388 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.02.13.6414, proposing to construct a two-story rear addition to an existing two-story, single-family houses in an RH-1(Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 5, 2005)
NOTE: On May 19, 2005, the Commission held a public hearing, took public testimony, closed the public hearing, and passed a motion to take discretionary review and approve the project with amendments. During Public Comment at the end of the May 19, 2005 calendar, new information was introduced to the Commission regarding this case. The Commission President instructed that this item be calendared on May 26, 2005, for possible reconsideration.
SPEAKE(S):
Re: Continuance
Joe O’Donaghue
- He agrees with the continuance.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 2, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
19. 2004.0909D (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)
153 Prentiss Street - east side between Powhattan Avenue and 22nd Street, lot 032 in Assessor’s Block 5654 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.05.21.4489 proposing to construct a rear and north side vertical and horizontal addition. The property is within an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District, the Bernal Heights Special Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District .
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR, to Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 24, 2005)
NOTE: On March 24, 2005, following public testimony and Commission deliberation, the matter was continued to May 26, 2005. The Commission instructed the project sponsor to revise the drawings and to continue working with the neighbors. The vote was +6 –0. Commissioner Alexander was absent.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Discretionary Review Withdrawn
20. 2004.1310DD (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
1260 FUNSTON AVENUE (AKA 1260 13TH AVENUE)- east side between Lincoln Way and Irving Street; Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 1738 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.09.27.5238 proposing to construct a three-story addition at the rear of a two-story single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 12, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) John Malone – 1st Discretionary Review Requestor
- He disapprove of the project since it will block sunlight to his property.
- This issue has been somewhat address since the Planner has requested revisions to the project sponsor.
- The other issue he has is about parking.
- The current owner has two groups of tenants and there are five cars associated with them.
- He hopes that in order to accommodate a place that has five bathrooms and you eliminate one, it would not be a problem.
(-) Armand DiHumfo – 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor
- He requested a side yard setback.
- When the plans were revised, this brought up a new issue.
- There is a security issue at his house so the side setback should go all the way down to the ground on his side of the property.
- He also has an issue with parking.
- If this issues are resolved the way they request, they will be happy to
(-) Selina Wong
- She lives in the neighborhood.
- She is also concerned about security.
- She hopes that the Commission will consider their concerns and modify the plans as they requested.
(-) Jeff Wong
- Communication has not gone the way it should, that is why they are here.
- It is difficult when there is a common wall.
- He echoes the concern about parking.
(+) Spencer Luo – Representing Project Sponsor
- The proposed construction has a three feet setback on the second level.
- He tried to compromise the neighbor’s concerns.
- He will remove any illegal units downstairs.
- The new proposed addition is in compliance with the City codes.
ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove Project (with the request to file notice of violation to the Department of Building Inspection).
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
21a. 2004.0094D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)
522 37TH AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street; lot 015 in Assessor’s Block 1508 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.08.18.2334, proposing to demolish a three-story, two-family dwelling in the RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There is a related proposal (2004.0095D, below) to construct a four-story, two-family dwelling with two off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Kung Kay Chiu
- They filed this application for demolition a few years ago.
- He is available for questions.
- If there are questions on soundness, Mr. Pat Buscovich is here.
ACTION: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Demolition
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
21b. 2004.0095D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
522 37TH AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street; lot 015 in Assessor’s Block 1508 - 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. 2003.08.18.2331, proposing to construct a four-story, two-family structure 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 (2004.0094D, above) to demolish the existing three-story, two-family dwelling.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for item 21a.
ACTION: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve new construction (direct Project Sponsor to continue to work with staff to develop an exterior trim schedule that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood; solid to void ratio and the pattern of bay windows should also be analyzed)
AYES: Alexander, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
NAYES: Antonini and Bradford Bell
22. 2004.1161D (K. MCGEE: (415) 558-6367)
1060 GILMAN AVENUE - north side between Hawes and Griffith Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 4937 - Request for Discretionary Review of Permit Application No. 2004.03.03.7628, proposing to construct a three-story single-family dwelling on the existing vacant lot. The subject property is located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 12, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuances
Sue Hestor – Representing Discretionary Review Requestor
- He is fine with the date of continuance.
Alan Lo – Representing Project Sponsor
- There are still some issues to take care of so he recommends to continue the project to June 30, 2005.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 7, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
23. 2005.0296d (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)
333 GREENWICH STREET - south side between Telegraph Hill Blvd. and Montgomery Street; Lot 010, Assessor’s Block 0086 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy on dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.03.01.6477. The project would merge two dwelling units on the third floor of the structure to reduce the total number of dwellings in the building from six to five. The subject 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 disapprove the application.
speaker(s):
(+)John Ritt – Project Sponsor
- He is a designer.
- He received a lot of information when he purchased his property since he wanted to comply with all the rules.
- He has letters form neighbors who are in support of the merger.
- He did an Ellis Act so there will not be any loss of housing.
(+) Gary Bell
- One of the reasons for the merger is to bring the property more in conformance with the neighborhood.
- The removing one unit will benefit the neighborhood by removing one or more cars and not impact traffic and parking.
(+)Lillian M. Ritt
- Her son is very fair.
- Allowing the merger would make the unit more livable.
- She hopes that the Commission will approve this merger.
action: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove Merger
ayes: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague
NAYES: Antonini
ABSENT: W. Lee
24. 2004.1132DV (J. Purvis: (415) 558-6354)
3288 FOLSOM STREET - west side of Folsom Street north of Stoneman Street; Lot 021 in Assessor’s Block 5523 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.04.27.2405, proposing to construct a new second-story family room above an existing one-story-over-garage single-family dwelling, projecting 12 feet into the rear yard and without providing additional off-street parking, subject to rear yard and off-Street parking variances, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with revisions.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Tamara Foster – Discretionary Review Requestor
- She is concerned about the new construction since it will block the light to her property.
- She is also concerned about the process of this project since she had little time to review the material.
- A reduction of the size is what she asks for.
- She submitted plans with some modifications which would reduce the impact on the surrounding neighbors.
(-) Dennis Davenport
- He is opposed to the granting of the rear yard Variance since it is a bit excessive.
(-) Mat Zwerling
- The neighbors are asking for two Variances, one for parking and one to extend 12 feet beyond code into the backyard.
- The project sponsor does not show proof for any justification for these Variances.
(-) Jefferey Kilik
- Parking is a very bad situation in the area.
- The parking on the streets around the neighborhood are already quite complicated.
- There are many houses that don’t have garages.
- He does not believe that a Variance should be granted for parking.
- There is a very beautiful garden that will not receive sunlight if this project is approved.
(-) Mellisa Peabody
- She submitted a letter from a neighbor who is opposed to the project.
(-) Thomas Harding
- The proposed addition will impact the light and air on their garden.
- He does not support the proposed construction because of these reasons.
- The whole process of Variances has been very difficult for him and his wife.
(+) Mark Buccarelli – Project Architect
- The project is willing to make reductions to the addition.
- The project sponsor was in an automobile accident and needs space for rehabilitation equipment for her lower back.
(+) Boaz Mariles – Project Sponsor
- The garage can technically have three cars.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve the project so that his mother will have enough space to put the rehabilitation equipment she requires.
ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and make the following modifications: The proposed addition should be reduced such that no portion of the addition, including roof overhangs, extend into the required rear yard area, except for stairs and landings leading to the ground. Further, the sizes of the addition should be reduced such that the total usable floor area of the dwelling is not more than 2,250 square feet, resulting in an off-street parking requirement of no more than two spaces, which the garage can accommodate in tandem.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
NAYES: Bradford Bell
25. 2004.1132DV (J. Purvis: (415) 558-6354)
3288 FOLSOM STREET - west side of Folsom Street north of Stoneman Street; Lot 021 in Assessor’s Block 5523 - Request for rear yard and off-street parking variances to construct a new second-story family room above an existing one-story-over-garage single-family dwelling, projecting 12 feet into the rear yard and without providing additional off-street parking. The new floor would be set back 12.5 feet from the front property line and would include a new roof deck at the rear with new stairs and landings projecting twelve feet into the required rear yard. The site is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for item 24.
ACTION: Zoning Administrator Closed the Public Hearing and 1) Denied the Variance for the rear yard except for a stair to lead to the third floor design with the minimal amount necessary and the maximum amount of open railings, etc. 2) Variance to allow second parking space to be tandem and second floor addition be no larger than the maximum allowed for two parking spaces.
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))
None
Adjournment: 8:05 p.m.
THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2005.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
