January 27, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, January 27, 2005
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dwight Alexander; Michael J. Antonini,Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee;
William L. Lee, Christina Olague
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bradford Bell
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 3:00 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Judy Boyajian – Deputy City Attorney; Amit Ghosh; Marshall Foster; Joshua Switzky; Michael Smith; Carol Roos; Ben Fu; Dan DiBartolo; Mary Woods; Michael Li; Nora Priego – Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery – Commission Secretary
- 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.
1a. 2004.0885D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)
1517 IRVING STREET - south side between 16th and 17th Avenues; lot 047 in Assessor’s Block 1771 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.04.13.1125, proposing to construct a four-story, three-family residential structure with three off-street parking spaces in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There is a related proposal (2004.0884D) to demolish the single-family dwelling at the rear of the lot.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to February 3, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 3, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
1b. 2004.0884D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
1517 IRVING STREET - south side between 16th and 17th Avenues; lot 047 in Assessor’s Block 1771 – Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.04.13.1124, proposing to demolish a one-story (over uninhabitable ground floor), single-family dwelling in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The two-family dwelling is located at the front of the lot. There is a related proposal (2004.0855D) to construct a four-story, three-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to February 3, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 3, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
2a. 2003.0253D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
5126-5130 ANZA STREET - north side between 42nd and 43rd Avenues; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1502 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2001.03.07.3680 to demolish an existing two-story two-family dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of a new two-family dwelling) in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the application.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 13, 2005)
(Proposed for Continuance to February 17, 2005) February 24, 2005
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 24, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
2b. 2004.0682D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
5126-5130 ANZA STREET - north side between 42nd and 43rd Avenues; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1502. Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new construction to replace demolished housing, of Building Permit Application No. 2001.03.07.3684 for the new construction of a three-story, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed new building will contain two off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the application.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 13, 2005)
(Proposed for Continuance to February 17, 2005) February 24, 2005
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 24, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
3. 2003.1185C (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
3537 19th Street - south side of 19th Street between San Carlos and Lexington Streets, Lot 104, Assessor’s Block 3596 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three (3) panel antennas and related equipment on an existing publicly-used structure as part of Cingular Wireless’ wireless telecommunications network on a Location Preference 1 (Preferred Location – Publicly-Used Structure) within a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to March 24, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
Re: Merits of Project
(-) Todd Curtis – 19th Street Neighborhood Association
- He is opposed to this project. There was a similar proposal brought before the Commission a few months ago.
- There is no necessity or desirability and it is not compatible with the neighborhood.
- The applicant is required to put a poster on the site about 30 days before the hearing date. The poster was actually put a few weeks ago in the rain and it was washed off.
(-) George Repel
- He is opposed to the continuance.
- He is not in support of this continuance because he as well as many other people here took the day off to be here for this hearing.
(-) Amber Pique
- She supports the continuance but only until March 3, 2005.
- There is a lot of work to be done.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 24, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
4. 2004.0800D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
1690 FOLSOM STREET- northwest corner of Folsom and 13th Streets; Lot 040 in Assessor’s Block 3515 - Request of Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.18.5167 proposing to change the use of existing building from wholesale to retail in a M-1 (Light Industrial) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn
5. 2004.1258D (S. VELLVE: (415)-558-6263)
9 SEAL ROCK DRIVE - south side between 45th Avenue and Alta Mar Way; Lot 034 in Assessor's Block 1482 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2004.08.17.1796 proposing to construct a deck (less than three feet from grade) and a balcony at the second floor at the rear of the structure within a RH-1 (House, One-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.
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn
B. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
6. Consideration of Adoption – Draft Minutes of December 2, 2004.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
7. Commission Comments/Questions
Commissioner Antonini:
Re: Planning Commission Hearings not being televised
- It is important to get some funding to televise the Planning Commission hearings.
- This is a service that is very commendable to continue.
Commissioner W. Lee
Re: Chinatown Economic Development Group
- There is a sense that Commissioners make decisions that involve fees but there are no resources to follow up that these fees are actually paid.
Interim Director Macris responded:
- This is more of an auditing effort than of enforcement if the Commission wants to allow a city agency to be assigned to do auditing.
Commissioner Hughes:
Re: President Kathleen Harrington
- He recommended that the meeting be adjourned in the name of Kathleen Harrington.
C. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
8. Director’s Announcements
Interim Director Macris Reported:
Re: Not Televising Hearings
- It is actually not a matter of funding but a matter of policy.
- The Mayor has asked that no Commission be televised.
9. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS – None
BOA – None
From Addendum No. 2:
(A.GHOSH: (415) 558-6282)
DELEGATION AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - Consideration of a motion to authorize the Director of Planning to enter into an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency establishing delegation of authority between the two agencies regarding Regulation of Land Use and Urban Design within the Transbay Redevelopment Project.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Marcia Rosen – Director of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
- This agreement represents a historic collaboration between two very important departments.
- There is a delegation agreement that epitomizes the strengths and talents of both agencies so that they can work together.
- The actual work on the substance of the plans and the proposals is the most important thing here.
- The plan is greatly enhanced from the collective ownership of crafting it.
(+) George Williams - SPUR
- He commended both agencies for doing what should have been done a long time ago.
- It is important that both agencies specify what each agency will be responsible for so that in particular, the Planning Commission will not loose jurisdiction.
(+) Clark Mannus – Transbay CAC
- They talked a lot about the delegation agreement.
- It is really important to address the issues that projects might bring up.
- The delegation agreement is a good thing but it needs to be very clear.
(+) Bob Meyers – Citizen’s Advisory Committee for Transbay
- This is a great plan and has been worked on for about 12 years.
- He would like to know which project would be only under the jurisdiction of the Redevelopment Agency.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee
NAYES: Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
RESOLUTION: 16934
10. (M. FOSTER (415) 558 - 6362)
THE RINCON HILL PLAN: INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION - Informational presentation to review the draft Rincon Hill Plan. Staff will brief the Commission on the community planning process, key plan proposals (including recent revisions), and outline a schedule for further Planning Commission review.
Preliminary Recommendation: No Action
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Lisbet Sunshine – San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
- They support this plan because it involves smart planning, jobs, and public transportation options.
- The plan should require affordable housing.
- This would allow for diversity living.
- It is important to retain and promote workers in the City.
(+) Julie Cummins – Education Program Coordinator for Greenbelt Alliance
- They support this plan because it will make this area a vibrant livable area.
- It would increase much of the market rate and affordable housing in the City.
- It allows for infill housing.
- The density allowed in the plan is good.
- The plan is exemplary for promoting public transportation and reduces the number of cars.
- It will also allow for pedestrian friendly streets.
(+) Tamar Cooper – San Francisco Beautiful
- They support this plan.
- They are glad that the Planning Department included San Francisco Beautify in the planning of this.
- They support the urban forum and land use, the tower separation, the slimmer more beautiful towers, parking spaces for car share programs, and public amenities.
- The only concerns that they have are the park location because it will be next to the Bay Bridge and the proper enforcement of the plan.
(+) Kate White – Housing Action Coalition
- They support the plan concepts but would like to see the specific code language.
- They thanked staff for their hard work.
- They are anxious to see this plan move forward.
- It is important that both project sponsors agree to combine one tower, which would be an exception to the 150-foot tower separation.
(+) William Wilson – Open Park Committee
- They have listened to various presentations by staff.
- This has been a very open process.
- He thanked staff for their hard work with transmitting all the information on the plan.
- The park location would not have been their first choice but he realizes that it is the most available location.
(+) Daniel Laforte – Recreation and Park Department
- They support the opportunity for open space.
(+) Michael Kriozere – Urban West
- One Rincon Hill provides about 700 units on the site of the old Bank of America building.
- He is very supportive of the plan and is glad that his project will be part of the plan.
- He looks forward to coming back before the Commission once the EIR is completed.
(+) Aaron Zerbst – CB Richard Ellis Investors
- They are delighted to be part of this plan.
- This plan will serve the San Francisco housing market.
- The project is quite a reality. They are providing 70 million dollars to this project.
(+) Peter Cohen – Urban Solutions
- This plan has very beautiful streets and boulevards.
- There are key points to the plan that need attention: 1) affordable housing; 2) the area should not become exclusive of the area and should provide amenities for all San Franciscans, etc.
(+) Tom Redulovich – Transportation for a Livable City
- It is important that this plan does not become exceptions to the rule.
- He thanks staff for specifying a set of rules that will generate good projects.
- There are a lot of good project that have been constructed without parking.
- This will be the first neighborhood plan in many years.
- These neighborhood projects should be environmentally exemplary projects.
(+) Robert Cummins
- Parking, massing and marketing surveys – these are a few of his concerns.
- Living without a car should be rewarded.
- Unbundling the garage space from the cost of the units sounds great but he does not believe that this will be feasible.
- It is important to keep this a transit first district.
- Surveys should be done on an unbiased basis.
(+) Debra Stein
- She appreciates that the Archdiocese projects will be “grandfathered” into the plan.
- She is concerned with the height of the towers.
- The well-meaning efforts are good but a single tower would be a risk.
- This plan has some errors. For example, there will be 420 units and not 406.
- There are some mistakes of property lines also.
(+) Bob Myers
- The two pipeline projects will blend with the existing urban fabric.
- He is glad that these projects will be “grandfathered” into the plan.
(+) Theodore Brown – 375 Fremont Street
- His project has been changing because of various instructions he has been receiving.
- If Rincon Hill will be the most exclusive, then all 500-foot buildings should be built.
- Rincon Hill is one of the last frontiers for housing so it is important to have a variety of housing types.
- He is glad that his project will be “grandfathered” into the plan.
(+) Reed Bement – Rincon Hill Association
- He is pleased to encourage what staff has stated.
- The draft plan is an excellent piece of work and staff should be commended.
- There is much in the plan that is good, although they do not agree with absolutely everything in the plan.
- No further exceptions to the plan should be made.
- He urged the Commission to stick to the recommendations from staff and not make any exceptions.
(+) April Veneracion – SOMCAN
- She is concerned with the following issues: 1) the proposal is focused to a higher end market; 2) there is a need for low to very low incomes; and 3) jobs.
- She is pleased to hear that the borders of the Rincon Hill plan include her neighborhood.
(+) George Williams – SPUR
- They love this plan because it goes far beyond revising the zoning.
- It allows for comprehensive planning.
- There are more things to be done regarding the public improvements.
- The single tower solution is a good idea.
(+) Ezra Mercey
- He is the project sponsor for two projects that will be located in the Rincon Hill.
- These projects will include various housing units.
- This plan creates affordable housing so he is supportive of it.
- The plan will create a neighborhood with various amenities for San Francisco.
- Investment housing is key and he is not afraid of competition.
(+) Jim Salinas – Carpenter’s Union Local 22
- The project sponsors will be willing to use union workers.
- There are about 19,000 construction workers in the City.
- These projects are a perfect example of what is not working since they have been in the pipeline for about 33 months. This places a “cramp” in progress.
- It is important to keep this project moving.
(+) Barbara Blong – Senior Action Network
- She is representing seniors and other people who need housing in the area.
- It is important for people to know if there will be any plans for the people that are living there now.
- Inclusionary housing offsite can be something mythical.
- She hopes that the people that are displaced by the construction are able to remain in the area.
(-) Chris Durazo – SOMCAN
- She is concerned about the new district that will be created.
- She feels that there is taxation without representation.
- This district will feel like it is separated from the rest of the neighborhood.
- She has spoken to a few developers and they are not planning to put businesses on the first floors.
- She has not seen any plans to have Folsom Street as a business corridor as some people have stated.
- She is concerned about the below market rates.
- She is also concerned about affordable housing.
(+) Stephen Wilson – Archdiocese of San Francisco
- He thanked staff for trying hard to make progress.
- The concerns today are about the production of housing.
- They have been in the pipeline for many years and ask that this plan be moved as quickly as possible.
(-) Sue Hestor
- She asked that staff have available the staff report and the EIR two weeks before the hearing.
- There is nothing discussed in the plan about transit lines and changes to these lines.
- Someone has to say that transit lines will be added.
- Greater heights equal greater value and higher costs.
- It is important to make sure where offsite Inclusionary housing will be located.
- Rental housing is quite important.
- All housing is not created equal.
- The Commission should decide where the affordable housing would be located.
(+) Andrew Brooks – Bay Crest
- He thanked staff for their hard work.
- Walking the streets in this area is very dangerous. The infrastructure originally planned was never done.
- The plan before the Commission seeks to remedy this.
(+) Steve Vettel – Morrison and Forrester
- This plan will include high-quality projects.
- There are a lot of projects that are planned after this plan is approved.
- It is important to move this plan expeditiously.
(+) Robert McCarthy
- This is not about abrogating the code; it is about using the code.
- There is a misrepresentation that the Archdiocese is being arrogant.
- The Archdiocese has been working on their project for about three years so they are just anxious to get this project going.
- He hopes that the Commission will allow for the Archdiocese projects to be included into the plan.
(+) Lou Blazej – Archdiocese of San Francisco
- He would like the department to not deny their plan
- Having a locked in location in the plan is great.
- This plan will create a diversified area.
(+) Don Morkel – Local 22
- The issue of the two towers should be included in the plan and the height of the towers should be kept to see if there is a market for it.
(+) Azalia Merrill – Local 22
- Working on a good number of housing projects, she can literally hear construction workers say that they hate to work on housing projects that they cannot live in.
- Various neighborhoods in San Francisco do not have affordable housing any more.
- There are projects that are here now and they should be approved now.
ACTION: Hearing Held. No Action Required by the Commission
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.
Sue Hestor
Re: Staff Reports
- Staff does not release documents until Thursday afternoon for the following Thursday.
- This is a very difficult situation.
- It is the Commission’s responsibility to direct staff to make complicated projects be ready two weeks before.
- The public needs help with this.
- She hopes that staff is consulted and a solution be found about this.
Alice Barkley
Re: Backlog
- Many of her clients are quite upset that no planner will be assigned to their case for at least six months.
- There will be lawsuits soon if this problem is not remedied.
Marilyn Amini
Re: Televising Commission Meeting
- Planning Commission meetings are quite important to the public of San Francisco.
- Funds are legislatively allocated. The reallocation of those funds requires action.
- She hopes that the Commission will lobby for televising the Commission hearings.
Jim Salinas
Re: Communication
- The union crews that he visits are truly reflective of the communities that make up the greater 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: 184 Majestic Avenue
Leal Charonnay – Project Architect
- The Commission directed him to reverse the plan and he did this.
- He displayed diagrams of the architectural aspects of the project.
Ella Turner Gray
- The neighbors met with the project sponsor and the discussion focused on the second floor.
- She tried to get everyone to agree with what the Commission requested.
- The height of the proposed house will set a precedent.
- The neighbors did decide on a few revisions.
- She hopes that the Commission will direct staff to make modifications to this project.
Yvonne Ho – Daughter of Project Sponsor
- She and her parents have made revisions to the plans to deal with the neighbor’s issues.
- Lowering the house four feet would not correlate with the neighborhood.
- CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
11. 2004.0361d (m. smith: (415) 558-6322)
184 majestic avenue - east side between Summit and Lakeview Avenues, Lot 019 in Assessor’s Block 7060 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.07.24.2259, proposing to construct a two-story over garage single-family dwelling on a vacant lot, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) 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 December 2, 2004)
NOTE: On December 2, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to January 27, 2004, allowing the project architect to design a project that is more compatible with the neighborhood. The vote was +5 –0 with Commissioners Alexander and Hughes absent.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved the Project with the following modifications: reduced the height of the building one-foot by decreasing the floor-to-ceiling height by one-foot at the top floor and ensure that the floor-to-ceiling height at the ground floor is only eight feet.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
12. 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 project is within the Housing Mixed Use PDR District and within the Eastern Neighborhood Policies adopted by the Planning Commission. The proposed project requires a conditional use authorization for residential use in the C-M district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 20, 2004)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: This item is on this calendar in error. The item was continued last week to February 17, 2005
13. 1999.0414E (C. ROOS: (415) 558-5981)
325 FREMONT STREET - Residential development with parking - Assessor’s Block 3747, Lots 012, 013, and 014. Substitution of Mitigation Measure and Addendum to a Final Negative Declaration. Re-evaluation of the revised project, detailed in the following agenda items for the project (Case Nos. 2004.0636C and 2004.0636V), led to an Addendum (December 20, 2004) to the prior Negative Declaration (Case No. 1999.0414E, Final Negative Declaration, February 29, 2000). The revisions to the project would increase the number of units from 59 to 70, an increase of 11 units; increase the number of parking spaces from 57 to 70, with use of mechanical lifts; eliminate a proposed roof deck and solarium and reduce the floors of the building by one (from 22 stories to 21 stories); and widen and landscape a portion of the Fremont Street sidewalk as provision of open space. The revised project would maintain the same height and mass of the building analyzed in the final Negative Declaration. The Addendum found that the conclusions of the prior Negative Declaration, with an updated mitigation measure, remain current and valid. In the resource area of archaeology, a modified, more intensive archeological resources mitigation measure, based on more recent information regarding potential archeological resources in the project vicinity is being required. The other mitigation measures remain unchanged and a revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, including the new mitigation measure, has been prepared for project adoption. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15074.1, states that a public hearing be held and findings made when one mitigation measure is deleted from a Negative Declaration for a project and another is substituted and a determination be made that the new mitigation measure is, “[E]quivalent or more effective” in avoiding or reducing the potential adverse effect of the project. This finding will be made during Commission consideration of the project for approval.
Preliminary Recommendation: Hold public hearing on substitution of mitigation measure.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 13, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Hearing Held. No Action Required by the Commission
14a. 2004.0636CV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
325 Fremont Street - northeast side of Fremont Street, Lots 012, 013, and 014 in Assessor's Block 3747 - Request for Conditional Use authorization for: (1) the amendment of previous approval of a residential use exceeding 40 feet in height pursuant to Planning Code Section 253(a); and (2) the amendment of previous approval of a building exceeding 80 percent of site coverage pursuant to Planning Code Section 249.1(b)(1)(B) within the Rincon Hill Special Use District in a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined High Density) District with a 200-R Height and Bulk designation. The amendment would increase the number of units from the previously approved 51 to 70, an increase of 19 units; retain the number of previously provided parking spaces of 51, with additional parking spaces of up to 70 that may be incorporated with mechanical lifts; eliminate a proposed roof deck and solarium; reduce the floors of the building by one; and widen and landscape a portion of the Fremont Street sidewalk as provision of open space. The revised project would maintain the same height and mass of the building analyzed in the previous approval.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 13, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Steve Vettel
- This was a previously approved project.
- The reason they are here again is because the units as designed are not responsive to the market. They are redesigning the project within the same envelope.
- The massing and design are essentially the same.
- The previous concerns were to increase the number of units and this will be done with the redesign of the project.
(+) Jim Salinas – Local 22
- They are working with the project sponsor on this project because they are committed to work with union contractors.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
MOTION: 16935
14b. 2004.0636CV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
325 Fremont Street - northeast side of Fremont Street, Lots 012, 013, and 014 in Assessor's Block 3747 - Request for a Variance to: (1) allow the reduction of the required amount of off-street parking spaces pursuant to Planning Code Section 151; and (2) exceed the percentage permitted for private open space per Planning Code Section 249.1 within the Rincon Hill Special Use District in a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined High Density) District with a 200-R Height and Bulk designation. The amendment would increase the number of units from the previously approved 51 to 70, an increase of 19 units; retain the number of previously provided parking spaces of 51, with additional parking spaces of up to 70 that may be incorporated with mechanical lifts; eliminate a proposed roof deck and solarium; reduce the floors of the building by one; and widen and landscape a portion of the Fremont Street sidewalk as provision of open space. The revised project would maintain the same height and mass of the building analyzed in the previous approval.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 13, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: The acting Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and has taken the matter under advisement
15. 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
SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuance
Laurel Muniz
- She is in support of the continuance.
- It is important for the community to discuss the work so a future date would be more desirable.
- The Bernal Alliance was not contacted about this project.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 3, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
16a. 2004.0049ACEV (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)
1338-1348 10th AVENUE - east side between Irving and Judah Streets; Lots 031 and 032 in Assessor's Block 1764 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow an increase in the size of the existing elementary school (Oakes Children Center) from approximately 8,150 square feet to approximately 11,900 square feet per Section 209.3 (g) of the Planning Code. The project would demolish the existing two-story structure at 1338 10th Avenue and then construct a new three-story building with interior connection to the adjacent structure, City Landmark No. 29 ("the Old Firehouse"), contained on the adjacent lot at 1348 10th Avenue, within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
MOTION: 16936
16b. 2004.0049ACEV (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)
1338-1348 10th AVENUE - east side between Irving and Judah Streets; Lots 031 and 032 in Assessor's Block 1764 - Request for Variance. The proposal is to demolish the existing two-story structure at 1338 10th Avenue and then construct a new three-story structure. A rear yard variance is sought under Section 134 of the Planning Code, as the rear wall of the new structure would encroach approximately 19.5 feet into the 54 foot required rear yard, within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator has closed the public hearing and stated that he will grant the variance.
17. 2004.0952C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)
2141 CHESTNUT STREET - south side between Steiner and Pierce Streets; Lot 20 in Assessor’s Block 0490 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 186.1 and 303 of the Planning Code to convert a vacant movie theater (formerly known as Cinema 21) and three small retail storefronts to a single retail use (to be occupied by Walgreens) and two small movie theaters on the second floor/mezzanine, in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Silverman – Ruben and Junius
- Save The Theatre Foundation supports the project.
- There is no opposition to this project.
- He requested an amendment. In Design Condition B1, there is a condition that windows should not be blocked by displays. This is a little bit vague.
- Fifty percent of the ground level glass area will be kept free of displays. This will allow for cashiers to be out of public view.
- Project sponsor can work with Planning staff to determine what displays would be allowed.
(+) Alfonso Felder – San Francisco Neighborhood Theatre Foundation
- They support this project.
- It is important for the theatre foundation to work together with the neighborhood.
- This project will accomplish a lot for the neighbors.
(+) Jim Maxwell – Marina Merchants Association
- He read a letter from the Marina Merchants Association who is in support of the project.
- They have worked with the owner to find a reasonable alternative plan.
- They only have a few conditions: the stage area be part of the final development plan; the conditions previously agreed to by Walgreen’s be part of this proposal; and that the theatre operator meet to review the proposed business plan for the theatre so there will not be liquor use in the future.
(+) Patricia Voughey
- This is a very good compromise.
- Walgreen’s has been very good in giving some conditions to work with.
- Deliveries will not interfere with traffic.
- They will not expand their cosmetics department.
- The only issue she has is to increase parking.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell and W. Lee
MOTION: 16937
18. 2004.0305C (D. JONES: (415) 558-6477)
1111 Junipero Serra Boulevard - southeast corner of the intersection Shields Street and Junipero Serra Boulevard, Lot 024 in Assessor’s Block 7080 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the installation of six (6) panel antennas concealed into the base of the existing church steeple (Temple Methodist Church), and install three outdoor equipment cabinets located on the south side of the church as part of a wireless telecommunication network, pursuant to Planning Code section 209.6(b), in an RH-1 (Residential, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As per the City & County of San Francisco’s Wireless Transmission Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Location Preference 2 (Co-Location Site).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuance
(-) Chi Li Huan
- She is opposed to any antennas being installed in this neighborhood.
- There are students nearby and this could be a health hazard for them.
(-) Tina Wu
- She is opposed to antenna installations. There will be six installed and this is too much.
- She has Cingular and the signal is very good. There is no need for the antennas.
(-) Jerry Wu
- He is opposed to this antenna.
- There is a preschool near the location of the installation. It would be too late if 20 years from now these kids begin to suffer from cancer.
ACTION: Without hearing on project merits, item continued to February 3, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
19. 2004.1019C (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)
2816 SAN BRUNO AVENUE - west side, between Wayland and Woolsey Streets; Lot 002A in Assessor's Block 6049 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow (1) the establishment of a Large Fast Food Restaurant in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District pursuant to Planning Code Section 711.43 and (2) hours of operation between 2:00am and 6:00am pursuant to Code Section 711.27. The proposal would change the legal use of an existing vacant 1,700 gross square foot retail space into a bakery (DBA “Red House Bakery”), which at the scale proposed, falls within the definition of a Large Fast Food Restaurant as defined by Code Section 790.90. The facility would open in the early morning hours for baking and food preparation only; customer service would not begin until after 6:00am. No work to the exterior of the structure is proposed. The subject property is located within an NC-2 Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Chris Wang – Project Sponsor
- She is available for questions.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, and S. Lee
ABSENT: Bradford Bell, W. Lee and Olague
MOTION: 16938
20 2004.1174C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)
1657 Powell Street - west side between Green and Union Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block 0118 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to establish a retail coffee store (dba “Eguna Basque”) of approximately 1,970 square feet, in a space last legally occupied by a retail business. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space. The site is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Elizabeth Riegel – Project Architect
- She is available for questions.
- She is not aware of any opposition to this project.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee and Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell and W. Lee
MOTION: 16939
21. 2004.0656C (S. SNYDER: (415) 558-6543)
3579 FOLSOM STREET - southeast corner at Chapman Street, Lot 42 in Assessor’s Block 5627 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Section 121 of the Planning Code for the creation of one lot with a width of less than 25 feet in an RH-1 (House, Single Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the Bernal Heights Special Use District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 3, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
22a. 2004.0420MR (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN Consideration of adoption of proposed amendments to the General Plan under the provisions of Sections 340 and 306.3(b)(3) of the Planning Code. The proposed amendments would incorporate the Bicycle Plan in whole by reference into the General Plan and amend sections of the General Plan that are relevant to bicycling, including the Transportation Element and Downtown Area Plan, according to the goals of the Bicycle Plan. The San Francisco Bicycle Plan is the result of a two-year collaborative planning process involving the Department of Parking and Traffic, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and many other agencies and organizations.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the Draft Resolution
SPEAKER(S):
Mariilyn Amini
Re: Continuance
- She requested that this policy be continued because neighborhoods need to have time to review them.
- She submitted documents that identify information that was not included in the language.
- She would like this case to be continued for about 30 to 60 days.
- There are inconsistencies in the case report and the resolution.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 3, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
22b. 2004.0420MR (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN The Commission will consider a resolution to adopt General Plan conformity findings for the San Francisco Bicycle Plan: Policy Framework.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the Draft Resolution finding the San Francisco Bicycle Plan: Policy Framework in conformity with the General Plan, as amended.
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 22a.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 3, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
23. 2004.0875D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
141 PARNASSUS AVENUE - southeast corner of intersection of Parnassus and Shrader Streets, Lot 001G in Assessor’s Block 1277; Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.05.26.4872, proposing to legalize the merger of two dwelling units within a four-unit, three-story apartment building in an RH-3 (Residential, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the merger.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Alice Barkley
- It is important not to forget the human element of families.
- This family is not displacing anyone and their family is growing.
- There is no reason to deny this unit merger.
- It is expensive for this family to go out and buy a larger home.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapprove the merger
AYES: Alexander, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague
NAYES: Antonini
ABSENT: Bradford Bell and W. Lee
24. 2004.1239DDDD (g. cabreros: (415) 558-6169)
2404 broadway - north side between Steiner and Pierce Streets; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 0562 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.04.08.0804 proposing various facade alterations and to construct side and rear horizontal additions to the existing three-story, single-family residence in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 20, 2005)
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with Modifications.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Discretionary Review Applications Withdrawn
25. 2004.1263D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)
146-148 VALLEY STREET - north side, between Dolores & Church, Lot 015, Assessor’s Block 6615 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2004.09.15.4256, to construct a three-story horizontal addition to the east side of the building and a new deck and enclosure off the kitchen on the east side at the second level. The subject property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn
Item 26 is taken from an Addendum
26. 2004.1106d (s. snyder: (415) 558-6543)
252 holyoke street - east side between Felton and Burrows Streets; Lot 6 in Assessor’s Block 5976 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.19.5209, proposing vertical and horizontal front and rear additions to the single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (House, One-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve as proposed.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 6, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 3, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
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 m`1eeting 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: 8:35 p.m. – In Memory of Kathleen Harrington
THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2005.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee
ABSENT: Alexander
