To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco

July 21, 2005

July 21, 2005

 

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, July 21, 2005

1:30 PM

REGULAR MEETING

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:  Sue Lee; Dwight Alexander; Michael Antonini; Shelley Bradford-Bell; Christina Olague; William Lee

 

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:     Kevin Hughes

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:45 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Dan Sider; Jonathan Purvis; Sara Vellve; Rick Crawford; Mathew Snyder; Mary Woods; Bill Wycko; 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.  

 

1.          2005.0527D                                                               (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

1847 SCOTT STREET   - west side between Pine and Bush Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 1050 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.17.5059, proposing to add two stories to an existing two-story, single-family residence in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X  Height and Bulk District.

            (Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

             (Proposed for Continuance to August 11, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:      None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

            AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Alexander and Hughes

 

  2.        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.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

 

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 7, 2005)

            (Proposed for Continuance to August 11, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:      None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

            AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Alexander and Hughes

 

3.         2002.0449E                                                                        (T. Chan:  (415) 558-5982)

375 Fremont Street - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report:  Subsequent to the publication of the Draft EIR, the project sponsor identified a new preferred alternative similar to Alternative B presented in the Draft EIR.  The preferred project, called Alternative D, is a 250-foot-tall, 28-story residential building of approximately 349,071 gross square feet (gsf) consisting of 225 dwelling units and about 217 underground parking spaces. One existing two-story building on the site, which totals approximately 46,500 gross square feet, would be demolished.  The 375 Fremont Street Hjul. Building, constructed in 1929, is a listed in four local surveys containing buildings that could be considered historic resources.  The project site is located about mid-block on the eastern side of Fremont Street in the block bounded by Folsom, Fremont, Harrison, and Beale Streets.  Vehicular access to the parking garage would be from Fremont Street on the northern side of the building.  Pedestrian access would be from a lobby facing Fremont Street.  The site is within the RC-4 (Residential/Commercial High-Density) district, and a 250-R height/bulk district. This site is within the newly adopted Rincon Hill Downtown Residential (DTR) District, which is awaiting final adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Should the Board of Supervisor adopt the propose Rincon Hill DTR, the proposed project would be in the new 85/400-R height and bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.  Note: The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended at 5:00 pm, January 6, 2005.  The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

(Proposed for Continuance to September 1, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:      None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

            AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT:          Alexander and Hughes

 

4.         2004.1078D                                                                        (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

2417 BRYANT STREET- east side south of 22nd Street; Lot 023 in Assessor’s Block 4151 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.02.27.7308 proposing the addition of two full floors for two additional dwelling units to an existing single-family dwelling in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  

             Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with Revisions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 16, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to September 1, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:      None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

            AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT:          Alexander and Hughes

 

            5a.        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 also sought and will be heard by the Zoning Administrator following the hearing on the Conditional Use.  The site is within the C-M District, and a 105-E Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 23, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to September 1, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:      None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

            AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

                       ABSENT:           Alexander and Hughes

 

            5b.        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 a Rear Yard Variance under Section 134(a) of the Planning Code to provide rear yard open space within an inner court and a rear setback as part of the construction of a four-story, five-unit residential building on a vacant lot within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) District and a 105-E Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to September 1, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:      None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

            AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT:          Alexander and Hughes

 

SPEAKERS ON A REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE FOR ITEM 10a-c at 1140 POTRERO AVENUE:

 

                        SPEAKERS:     

                        Sue Hestor

  1. Does not support the continuance at all and is prepared to go forward.

C.J. Hugley

  1. Just brought on board with this case.  They just learned that there is an inaccuracy in the soundness report for this project.
  2.   In order to allow us time to correct these inaccuracies, we respectfully request a continuance.

Pat Baschowitch

  1. The soundness report is inaccurate.
  2. He asked the Commission to allow additional time to do a detailed soundness report.

Jesus Gomez

  1. Against granting the continuance.

Nick Pagolaro

  1. Opposed the continuance

                        David Streinberg, Project Architect

-     Supports continuance

B.          COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

6.         Commission Comments/Questions

 

Commissioner Antonini:

Re: Mentioned he received a copy of the Housing Inventory Study that was produced by the Mayor’s Office of Housing.

 

Commissioner Olague:

  1. Asked Director Macris about having an opportunity to talk with Sup. McGoldrick, regarding the scheduling of Better Neighborhoods.

 

Director Macris responded:

      -  He spoke to Sup. McGoldrick.  We will be scheduling a hearing on Better Neighborhoods on July 28, 2005

Commissioner S. Lee:

  1. Commented on the scheduling of Better Neighborhoods on 7/28/05.  She reminded everyone that the calendar is very full.  We have 3 Discretionary Reviews, Market-Octavia; 1880 Mission and Home Depot. 

                       Director Macris

Re:  He made a clarification that the Housing Inventory Study is a publication done by the Planning Department not the Mayor’s Office.

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

7.         Director’s Announcements

  1. The Department and the City are through with the budget process, and we’re very happy with the outcome.  This will put us on the road to rebuilding our Department.

8.         Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

            BOS:

There were two basics additions that were put into the budget on the first reading by the full Board:  The first is an additional 5 positions for hospital management; the other one is two positions to coordinate and extend our historic preservation resource survey.

 

  BOA:

  1. 111 Manchester Street – This was a demolition on Bernal Heights before the Commission about two years ago.  Planning Department recommended approval of the demolition and to allow the new construction.  The Planning Commission, in fact, took Discretionary Review and disapproved the project.  The Board of Appeals overturned the Planning Commission decision. They did so apparently without findings.

 

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.

 

            SPEAKERS:

Patricia Vaughey

  1. She has not seen the Better Neighborhoods Plus document(s).
  2. Just received a list of the working groups.
  3. She has not seen anything in the newspaper about the working group meetings.
  4. Would like to know if the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance were followed.

Judy Berkowitz

  1. In its regular meeting on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, passed the following resolution: The Coalition respectfully urged the Planning Commission to request immediately that the Board of Supervisors extend 60 days--until September 28--the prescribed time within which the Planning Commission may render its decision on the proposed Better Neighborhoods Ordinance.

John Bardis

  1. Asked the Planning Commission to request from the Board of Supervisors a 60 day extension on the Better Neighborhoods Ordinance.

Marilyn Amini

  1. This legislation needs ample time for everyone to have input into the process.

 

E.         CONSENT CALENDAR

 

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission.  There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

 

PULLED OFF CONSENT CALENDAR AND HEARD AS AN ITEM UNDER THE REGULAR CALENDAR.

 

9.         2005.0524T                                                                         (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

Consideration of an Ordinance [Board of Supervisors File Number 050829] which would amend the Planning Code by adding Section 166 to require that new public-serving establishments and substantially renovated public-serving establishments install baby diaper-changing accommodations and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

 

            SPEAKERS:     

            Pat Bascowitz

  1. Disabled community needs to have some input on this, before this goes in.

 

            ACTION:           Public hearing closed.  The Commission decided to forward the proposed ordinance back to the Board of Supervisors without a Commission recommendation.

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Hughes

                        RESOLUTION:  17064

 

  • REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

10a.      2004.1234D                                                                        (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

1140 POTRERO AVENUE - west side north of 24th Street; Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 4211 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.07.23.9615, proposing the demolition of a one-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Use District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.  

                        Preliminary Recommendation:  Take DR and Disapprove the Demolition.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 9, 2005)

            SPEAKERS:     

            Jesus Gomez, Property owner

  1. There has been a systematic attempt to diminish the property since I purchased it.
  2. He respectfully requested that the Commission deny the proposed project.

Judy Berkowitz

  1. It is obvious that this property has been neglected.
  2. There is graffiti in the front of it.
  3. This does look to be a sound building.
  4. Asked the Commission to disapprove the demolition

Diana Gomez

  1. Outrageous over the proposed demolition of 1140 Potrero Avenue, and the construction of a 44-foot high replacement structure the owner has applied for.
  2. Asked the Commission to deny Mr. McDonald’s proposal.
  3. This project will change the nature of the neighborhood.

Nick Pabolaro

  1. In support of the neighbors around 1140 Potrero Avenue.

Ruby Harris

  1. Asked the Commission to deny the demolition.

Andrew Carter

  1. Against the demolition.
  2. It would be nice if another family gets the chance to live there and enjoy the American dream.

Marvin Lopez

  1. Against the demolition.

Bertha Lopez

  1. Against the demolition.
  2. This building will be like a giant in the middle of our neighborhood.
  3. This construction will affect us directly.

Sonia Gomez

  1. Everything that has to do with the demolition will affect my parents possibly to the point that they would have to be relocated.

Kathy Ramashadi

  1. Asked the Commission to please stop the demolition.

Philip (unclear last name)

  1. It will be unwise to allow this owner to do what he wants to this property.

Joe Buttler

Asked the Commission to deny the demolition permit based on the fact that soundness is both incomplete and does not demonstrate the 50 or 75 percent ratios.

Miriam Zamora

  1. Against the demolition.

Sue Hestor

  1. All these families bought a house that they could afford.  Some houses needed lots work, but they could afford it and they raised a family.
  2. This is the most precious stock of housing in the City.
  3. She asked the Commission to seriously enforce the policies that they have in place in the Resident Element, to look at the staff analysis, and to look at the experience of waste that has been promoted by this owner.

            C.J. Higley

  1. This is a dilapidated property that needs to be demolished.

David Steinberg

Pat Bascowitz

  1. Soundness report is unacceptable.

            ACTION:           Took Discretionary Review and disapproved

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT:          Hughes

 

            10b.      2005.0148DDV                                                                    (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

1140 POTRERO AVENUE - west side north of 24th Street; Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 4211 - Neighbor-Initiated Discretionary Review and Mandatory Discretionary Review under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.23.9619 proposing the construction of a three-story-over-garage, three-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Use District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.   

Preliminary Recommendation:  Take DR and Disapprove the Replacement Building.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 9, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:     Same as the speakers for 10a.

            ACTION:           Closed public hearing and continued to December 1, 2005

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Hughes

 

            10c.      2005.0148DDV                                                                   (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

1140 POTRERO AVENUE - west side north of 24th Street; Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 4211 - Front Setback Variance under Seciton 132 of the Planning Code to construct a three-story-over-garage, three-family dwelling within 6.5 feet of the front property line, whereas a 15-foot setback would be required under Section 132.  The property is within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Use District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.  

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 9, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:     Same as the speakers for 10a.

            ACTION:           The ZA closed the public hearing and continued to December 1, 2005

           

11a.      2004.1064D                                                                         (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

3011 20TH STREET - south side between Alabama and Florida Streets; Lot 038 in Assessor’s Block 4085 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.11.04.8582, proposing the demolition of a one-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary review and Approve the Demolition.

 

            SPEAKERS:     

            John Sanger, representing Project Sponsor

  1. This project would be a gain for the neighborhood, for the project sponsor, and for the City.

Katherine (unclear last name)

  1. Concerned about the creek that runs underneath this land.  Whenever they do a building it seems to transfer water.
  2. He is worried that if this building is demolished and a larger building is put it in that there is not much dirt to suck up the water.

Mark Liiz

  1. The character of the neighborhood is changing and people getting priced up and out.  These units should have a consideration in terms of low income tax residents in the neighborhood.

Sue Hestor

  1. This is not going to be affordable housing.
  2. This is not appropriate for the neighborhood.  It does not even fit.

Robert Pender

  1. Objects to the loss of more rent controlled housing.

Paul (unclear last name)

  1. Supports the demolition

Unclear name

  1. Supports the demolition of the property to improve the neighborhood and the small businesses that have started to be developed in the area.

Hans Lee

  1. Supports the demolition.

Andrew Wilkinson

  1. Supports the demolition of this house to create more family housing that could be affordable for low-income people.

Denise LaPointe

  1. This project will improve the neighborhood, and it is consistent within the neighborhood.

Gabriel Ng – Project Architect

  1. Gave an overall description of the project.

Dave  (unclear last name)

  1. Supports the demolition.

Alex Holmer

  1. It will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.

           

            ACTION:           Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition.

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Hughes

 

11b.      2005.0271D                                                                        (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

3011 20TH STREET - south side between Alabama and Florida Streets; Lot 038 in Assessor’s Block 4085 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.11.04.8587 proposing the construction of a three-story-over-garage, three-family dwelling in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve the Replacement Building.

 

            SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed in Item 11a.

            ACTION:           Did not take Discretionary Review and approved.

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Hughes

 

12.        2005.0380D                                                                   (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)
2733 LOMBARD STREET - south side between Baker and Lyon Streets, Lot 024 in Assessor’s Block 0940 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.07.2807 to change the ground-floor use of a mixed-use building from personal service (Super Hair), to a full-service restaurant (Sho) located in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve the Proposal as submitted.    

 

            SPEAKERS:     

            Patricia Vaughey

  1. Concerned about the parking and traffic that is becoming very difficult.

Doug Wong, Property owner

  1. We are happy to comply.  We want to be good neighbors.

Eduardo Rodriguez-Decastro

-  Concerned about parking and noise.

           

            ACTION:           Took Discretionary Review and approve as amended:

  • The last seating for dinner service shall be not later than 10:00 p.m.
  • The last call for alcohol shall be not later than 10:00 p.m.
  • Valid valet parking shall be provided.

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell

            ABSENT:          Hughes, Olague, and W. Lee

 

            13.        2002.0532DDDD                                                      (R. CRAWFORD: (415)  558-6358)

567 Sanchez Street - east side between 19th and Hancock Streets.  Assessor's Block 3585 Lot 032 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005 0418 0216, for revisions to  previously approved plans and permit for a new 4-story (three over garage) one-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential House, 3 Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.   

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove the Permit.

 

            SPEAKERS:

            Jerrad Chan, first Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. This is a matter of law, not a popularity contest.
  2. Asked the Commission to think very careful about their decision because it might have legal repricautions.

Frederick Bullick,second Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. Removal of the setback would have a negative impact on the air and light in three rooms of my house.

Roger Lott, third Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. Concerned about his privacy and asked the Commission to uphold the staff recommendations and deny the request for permit changes.

Steve Nicholson

  1. Deny the request for permit changes.

Paul (unclear last name)

  1. Uphold Planning Department’s staff recommendations.

Carol Mckinny

  1. Deny the request for permit changes.

Sue Hestor

  1. Asked Commission to disapprove all new changes.

Ken Bass

  1. Concerned about this new building affecting his quality of life.

Eva Del Campo

  1. Asked the Commission to uphold the comprise agreement by denying the request for this permit and modifications.

David Cincotta, representing Project Sponsor

  1. Asked Commission to approve the permit

Ed Hardy, Project Sponsor

  1. I have tried to work out a compromise deal for the last three years with my neighbors.
  2. This is going to be my home.  There is no speculation.  I had to put my heart and soul into it.
  3. It will enhance the neighborhood.

Ron Cranston, supporting the Project Sponsor

  1. The objections to Mr. Hardy’s proposal, has much more to do with the un-comprehensible ulterior motives of the Discretionary Review Requestor.

 

Jerry Buberka, Architect for the Project

  1. Gave a demonstration of the new changes to the project.

Unclear name

  1. In favor of project.

Steve Clark

  1. Mr. Hardy is building a very beautiful building for our neighborhood.
  2. This building will enhance our neighborhood.

John Morato

  1. He fully supports Mr. Hardy’s project.

Bob Nelson

  1. Mr. Hardy’s design is very appealing.
  2. Objections of the neighbors are very un-reasonable.

Joann Nelson

  1. Mr. Hardy’s house reflects every aspect of a Mediterranean style.
  2. The modifications that Mr. Hardy is requesting are not only reasonable but have also been very pleasingly designed.

Ed  (unclear last name)

  1. The proposed design meets San Francisco Building Codes and fits the neighborhood character.

            ACTION:           Took Discretionary Review and disapproved.

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Olague

            NAYES:            Antonini

            ABSENT:          Hughes

            EXCUSED:        W. Lee (He was absent for more than 90% of public testimony)

           

  14a.     2005.0220CD                                                                  (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

748 INNES AVENUE - east side of Innes Avenue between Fitch and Earl, Lot 005A in Assessor’s Block 4644 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow a message establishment under Planning Code Sections 711.54 and 790.60, in a tenant space of a mixed-use building that is currently being proposed for the vacant site.  The project also requires Conditional Use for another of the building’s proposed uses, a health spa (defined as personal service per Planning Cod Section 790.116) that would be approximately 5,400 gross square feet; it requires Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 711.21 and 790.130 for being larger than 4,000 square feet.  The subject property is within an NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-Scale) District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approve with Conditions.

 

            SPEAKERS:    

            Alex Roshad, representing Project Sponsor

  1. Asked the Commission to approve the project.

John Cybill

  1. Spoke in favor of the project.

                        Wendy (unclear last name)

  1. The entire neighborhood supports this project.

Pauline Peel

  1. Is in favor of the project.

                        Michael (unclear last name)

Asked the Commission to support the project.

 

            ACTION:           Approved

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Hughes

             MOTION:           17065

 

 

  14b.     2005.0220CD                                                                    (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

748 Innes Avenue- east side of Innes Avenue between Fitch and Earl, Lot 005A in Assessor’s Block 4644 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.12.23.2066 proposing to make design changes for a previously approved permit that would include extending the second and third floors out further to the rear, establishing three additional dwelling units for a total of six dwelling units, and reconfiguring the proposed uses on the second floor and the basement floor.  The property is within an NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-scale) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Project as proposed.

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Discretionary Review was withdrawn prior to the hearing.

 

15a.      2002.1263CV                                                                 (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

333 FREMONT STREET (a.k.a. 329-349 FREMONT STREET) - east side between Folsom Street and Harrison Street, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3747 - Informational Presentation to the Planning Commission of the final design for the proposed project approved under Case No. 2002.1263C and Planning Commission Motion No. 17044.  Pursuant to Condition No. 5 on the Conditions of Approval, the final design is not to be approved until an informational presentation is made to the Planning Commission.   The subject property is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combine, High Density) District, a Rincon Hill Residential Special Use Sub-district, and a 200-R Height and Bulk District.

 

            SPEAKERS:    

            Steve Walker, Project Architect.

  1. Gave an overall description and review of the project.

 

            ACTION:           Informational Only.  No Action Required.

 

 

15b.      2002.1263CV                                                                  (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

333 FREMONT STREET (a.k.a. 329-349 Fremont Street) - east side between Folsom Street and Harrison Street, Lot 019 in Assessor’s Block 3747 - Request for Variances from the Planning Code requirements for dwelling unit exposure (Planning Code Section 140), upper story setback  (Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(3)), and open space (Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(4)(A)). The subject property is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined High Density) District, a Rincon Hill Residential Special Use Sub-district, and a 200-R Height and Bulk District.  This site is within the newly adopted Rincon Hill Downtown Residential (DTR) District and is awaiting final adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Should the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed Rincon Hill DTR, the proposed project would be in the new 85/250-R height and bulk district.

 

            SPEAKERS:    

            Steve Walker, Project Architect.

  1. Gave an overall description and review of the project.

                        ACTION:           ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING AND GRANTED THE VARIANCES.

 

 

16a.      2005.0129CV                                                                  (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

3640 SACRAMENTO STREET - north side between Locust and Spruce Streets; Lot 010, in Assessor’s Block 1011  -  Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.2, 178, 303, 724.21 and 724.42 to allow a use size that exceeds 2,499 square feet by legalizing the expanded use size of an existing full-service restaurant (most recently occupied by La Table) and allowing the further expansion of the full-service restaurant space into an adjacent retail space (currently occupied by Kimberly Bragg Interior Design) for a total use size of approximately 6,300 square feet.  The site is within the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 7, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:    

            Tim Tannan, Project Sponsor

  1. Asked the Commission to approve his application

Gregg Clasasky, Project Architect

-  Gave an overall description of the project.

            ACTION:           Approved:

            AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

            NAYES:            Alexander

            ABSENT:          Hughes

            MOTION:         17066

                         

16b.      2005.0129CV                                                                   (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

3640 SACRAMENTO STREET - north side between Locust and Spruce Streets; Lot 010, in Assessor’s Block 1011  -  Request forOff-Street Parking Variance. Planning Code Section 151 requires one off-street parking space per 200 square feet of occupied floor area, when the occupied floor area exceeds 5,000 square feet. The parking requirement for the proposed project is 31 spaces.  However,  based on a parking credit of 20 spaces for the existing building, the Variance application is for the 11-space deficit.  The project is proposing zero spaces.  The application for Variance will be considered by the Zoning Administrator, following the Conditional Use hearing described above.

 

            SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 16a.         

ACTION:           ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE WITH STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

 

            17.        2003.0410E                                                                      (B. WYCKO: (415) 558-5972)

3575 Geary Boulevard Institute on Aging Senior Health Services Facility & Affordable Senior Housing Project- Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report - The project site is at 3575 Geary Boulevard between Arguello Boulevard and Stanyan Street in Assessor’s Block 1083, Lot 2 and Assessor’s Block 1084, Lot 4.  The site is zoned NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and is in an 80-A Height and Bulk District.  The project sponsor proposes to develop a senior health services facility and 30 supportive housing units for independent seniors, to be operated by the Institute on Aging (IOA), as well as an additional 120 affordable senior dwelling units, built by BRIDGE Housing.   These uses would operate in a new six-story building totaling 177,600 gross square feet (gsf), with 122,140 gsf used for the senior supportive housing units and affordable senior housing units and 55,450 gsf for IOA senior health services and office space.  On the sloped project site, the new building would be up to 72 feet in height along Geary Boulevard and up to 59.5 feet in height along its frontage at Almaden Court.  The first floor of the building, a portion of the second floor and a portion of one below-grade level of space would be devoted to IOA’s offices, senior health services facilities, and meeting space.  The proposed senior health services facilities would consolidate, replace, and expand similar existing IOA operations in the area.  The upper four stories would provide a total of 120 studio, one- and two-bedroom units affordable to seniors earning up to 50 percent of area median income and 30 group housing/transitional senior housing units.  A one-level, 27,732-gsf, underground parking garage with 67 spaces would be provided for use by IOA staff, service providers, and residents.  The existing single-screen, 33,000 gsf Coronet Theater, and an adjacent surface parking lot with 93 parking spaces, would be demolished to accommodate the project.  The project would require a conditional use authorization, authorization as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and approvals by the Department of Public Works and Department of Parking and Transportation.

 

            SPEAKERS:    

            Daniel (unclear last name), read a letter for Kate White.

  1. The project would be an improvement to the visual quality of the neighborhood.

Tim Mason

  1. Asked the Commission to adopt the EIR.

Jeanne Lynch

  1. She strongly supports the project

Peter Winklestein

-     He is very much in favor of the project.

Mark Fighera

  1. Supports affordable housing for seniors and all residents of San Francisco.

  Katherine Devincenzi

  1. This project as proposed would be a 70-foot structure.  It will have a significant adverse visual effect on the existing environment and a significant adverse impact on neighborhood character.

Greg Hilton

-   The Citizens of Jordan Park are in favor of the use of this project.

            Chris Nelsen

  1. This project would have a visual impact on his street.

Rocky Papale

  1. Asked the Commission not to adopt the EIR

Unclear name

  1. Against the EIR.

Libby Benedict

  1. This project would impact our neighborhood immensely.

Paula Romanosky

  1. Concerned about, air, quality of life, and obstruction of views.

Laury Ronsenthal

  1. We do support senior housing, but this EIR needs to have more studies.

Richard Worner

  1. EIR is inaccurate.

SaraLee Keropian

  1. Against the approval of the EIR.
  2. Concerned about the visual quality impact.

John Stewart

  1. Concerned about the loss of views, wind and the bulk of the building.

Ken Passamaneck

  1. Concerned about the loss of his view.

Katherine Hecht

  1. Concerned about the height, bulk and density, the lack of parking and the negative impact on the environment that we all will have to live with.

Tom Ross

  1. Concerned about the scale of the project.

Gabie Berliner

  1. The massiveness of the building is totally out of character with the neighborhood.

Janet Goodson

  1. Concerned about the height, density and the monster size.

Ryan Crowley

  1. This project would not fit within the neighborhood.

Kathyrin Simmons

  1. There will be a negative visual impact on our neighborhood.
  2. It will be detrimental to the beauty and magnificence of the City.]

Rose Wilson

-   EIR is inaccurate.

            ACTION:           Meeting held.  Public Hearing closed. No Action.

                                     

G.         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:   9:17 P.M.

 

             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

 

 

 

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:17 PM