June 9, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, June 9, 2005
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dwight Alexander, Michael J. Antonini,Shelley Bradford Bell,
William L. Lee, Christina Olague
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Kevin Hughes and S. Lee
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:45 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Susan Cleveland-Knowles – Deputy City Attorney; Ben Fu; Jonathan Purvis; Sara Vellve; Dan Sirois; Michael Smith; 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. 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: Pending Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 28, 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, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and S. Lee
2. 2003.0672CE (I. NISHIMURA: (415) 558-5967)
5800 Third Street Residential and Commercial Mixed-Use Project - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration - The proposed project would consist of construction of a residential and commercial mixed-use development after demolition of a defunct bottling plant facility at 5800 Third Street (Assessor’s Block 5431A, Lot 001), at the southwest corner of Third Street and Carroll Avenue in the Bayview neighborhood. The project would include 355 multi-family residential units in four buildings, 13,000 gross square feet (gsf) of ground floor retail space in two of the buildings that would be along Third Street, and 379 off-street parking spaces in the four buildings. The four buildings would total 641,920 gsf in size, ranging in height from 50 to 60 feet tall (four to five stories) and would be built around a central plaza and a private driveway with two visitor loading spaces, with access from Carroll Avenue. Sixteen surface parking spaces for the retail uses would be provided on the south side of the project site, with access provided from a right-turn-only driveway on Third Street at the southern boundary of the site. Twenty surface parking spaces for visitors would be provided along the central private driveway. Currently, the 5.75-acre site is occupied by a three-story, 103,000-gsf closed Coca-Cola bottling plant constructed in 1966, which would be demolished. Current use of the site is temporary parking of moving company trucks and charter buses. The site is within an M-1 (Light Industrial) District, the Third Street Special Use District (SUD), a 65-J Height and Bulk District, and the proposed Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Projects and Zoning Health Center Activity Node. The project would require Conditional Use Authorization for a Planned Unit Development and for residential uses in an M-1 District by the Planning Commission, which is a public hearing process.
(Proposed for Continuance to July 21, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 21, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and S. Lee
3. 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: Pending.
(Proposed for Continuance to July 21, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 21, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and S. Lee
4. 2005.0148DD (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 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: Pending.
(Proposed for Continuance to July 21, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 21, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and S. Lee
B. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
5. Commission Comments/Questions
Commissioner Bradford Bell:
Re: Director’s Search
- She wants to know the status of the Director’s Search.
Commissioner Antonini:
Re: Mid-Market
- What are the statistics on the population of residents of this area?
- How much low cost housing and below market rate housing exists in the area?
Commissioner Olague:
Re: Mid-Market
- She is also interested in the demographics of this area.
Zoning Administrator responded:
- He will get this information promptly.
- He will get some kind of radius of the area.
C. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
6. Director’s Announcements
None
7. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS –
Re: 18th and Arkansas
- The Board approved this project.
- The Mayor’s Office of Housing will increase the below market rate housing.
BOA –
Re: 1234 19th Avenue
- The Commission denied the demolition request and was overturned.
- Last night there were findings on the replacement structure.
- There was a request for a rehearing, which was denied.
- The Board determined that they had all the correct information they needed to hear the project.
- The Board overturned the denial of the building permit and made the changes requested by the Commission for the new construction.
Commissioner Alexander:
Re: Rincon Hill
- He would like a status report on the hearing that took place at the Board of Supervisors this week.
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.
Lewis Epstein
Re: 20 Peters Avenue
- This case was heard previously.
- He asked if there was any opposition and the planner said that there wasn’t any.
- When he came to the hearing, he found out that there was a letter opposing the project.
- He requested a rehearing be scheduled so that he can speak to the issues of the person opposing the project.
Debra Bridges
Re: 20 Peters Avenue
- From the hearing on May 12, 2005, no one requested a rehearing;
- It would be equitable to have a rehearing of this matter.
- There were no findings because it was a tie vote[and the status is a result of a non commission action].
Kathleen Courtney – Russian hill Community Association
Re: 1122-1126 Green Street
- The Commission rescheduled this case to 6/16/05, but they were never notified that the hearing date had been changed from June 9, 2005 to June 16, 2005.
- She asked that this case be scheduled to June 23, 2005 or a mutual agreed upon date.
Jamie Cherry – Russian Hill Community Association
Re: 1122-1126 Green Street
- She also requested that this case be scheduled to June 23, 2005.
- The association was not notified about the change of hearing dates.
John Bardis
Re: 1122-1126 Green Street
- It is important that the process be followed. There was a change of hearing date and all parties were not notified.
- It would be only fair to pick a mutually agreeable date.
Marilyn Amini
Re: Bicycle Coalition
- She submitted a letter requesting that the Commission call back the CEQA findings regarding the bicycle coalition.
- There are sections in the law that the Commission is obligated to adopt findings before they approve a project.
- She spoke to three supervisors asking that the action of the bike plan be delayed until the Commission has the opportunity to review this request for call back.
Commissioner Alexander:
Re: Bicycle Coalition
- Is there an interest within the Commission to schedule this?
Commission Secretary responded:
- This item is not on the calendar.
- The Commission Chair could direct staff to schedule this for reconsideration.
Zoning Administrator responded:
- This legislation has gone through the Board of Supervisors already and is no longer within the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Commissioner W. Lee
- He feels that Ms. Amini has good arguments.
- He asked the City Attorney to do a written interpretation of Ms. Amini’s arguments.
- REGULAR CALENDAR
8. 2004.1339C (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
1057 Mississippi Street - eastside between 23rd and 25th Streets, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 4224 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 215 and pursuant to Planning Code Section 303, to allow the construction of three (3) dwelling units in a M-1 (Light Industrial) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation, and in a Housing/PDR overlay as designated by Planning Commission Resolution No. 16727.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Silverman – Reuben and Junius – Representing Project Sponsor
- He wasn’t aware that this item and the next were going to be called together.
- The project fully complies with Eastern Neighborhood interim zoning.
- This district does not require any PDR space.
- The project sponsor is going to provide PDR space anyway.
- The project will enhance the neighborhood and establish infill housing in residential neighborhoods.
- The project will contain “green technology.”
(+) Robert Pender
- He supports these projects because they increase housing.
- There is no demolition of rent-controlled housing here.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and S. Lee
MOTION: 17032
9. 2004.1254C (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
1077 Mississippi Street – eastside- between 23rd and 25th Streets, Lot 050 in Assessor's Block 4224 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 215 and pursuant to Planning Code Section 303, to allow the construction of three (3) dwelling units in a M-1 (Light Industrial) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation, and in a Housing/PDR overlay as designated by Planning Commission Resolution No. 16727.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for item 8.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and S. Lee
MOTION: 17033
10a. 2004.0032D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)
43 HAMILTON STREET- east side south of Silver Avenue; Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 5919 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.10.17.9296 proposing the demolition of a one-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the demolition.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 2, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and S. Lee
10b. 2004.0033D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)
43 HAMILTON STREET- east side south of Silver Avenue; Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 5919 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.10.17.9298 proposing the construction of a two-story single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the new construction.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 2, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and S. Lee
11. 2004.1204D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)
1420 HAIGHT STREET - north side between Masonic Avenue and Ashbury Street; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1232 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.12.21.3024 proposing to legalize a stair penthouse and elevator mechanical equipment constructed without permits at the rear of the roof of the subject building, which houses Shoe Biz, in the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.
NOTE: This item was originally heard on Thursday, April 21, 2005 when the Commission held a public hearing, took public testimony, closed the public hearing, and passed a motion to take discretionary review and disapprove the permit. Subsequently, a written request that the Discretionary Review case be re-heard by the Commission was accepted on the basis that new information had become available. The Commission President instructed that this item be scheduled for possible reconsideration. The variance request associated with this permit is not subject to the re-hearing.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Levy – Morrison and Forrester
- He thanked the Commission for hearing them.
- He requests that the Commission reconsider their determination and pass a motion to deny the request for Discretionary Review.
- Neither of the structures are visible to the project and there are no neighbors opposed to the project.
- His client did not intentionally try to deceive anyone.
(+) Paul Virl
- He wasn’t aware that there was any hazard with the elevator.
- He is opposed to taking Discretionary Review.
(+) Jim Siegel
- The business is an asset to the Haight-Ashbury district.
- His building is filled with graffiti and the owner will not do anything about it, but the owner of the proposed project really tries to reduce graffiti and loitering.
- He feels that the person who is against this project is just being vindictive.
(+) Ali Ghambarian – SOMA Magazine
- He has been publishing this magazine for about 20 years.
- He knows that the owners of the proposed project are the best most respected business owners in the neighborhood. They contribute a lot [to the community].
- He feels that they would not be people that would do anything illegal.
(+) Michael Musleh
- He owns a business in the area.
- It is very difficult to survive on Haight Street. It has become very touristy and very expensive to have a business there.
- The project sponsor is one of the oldest businesses in the area.
- The project sponsor has sustained his business and supported the other tenants and business owners of the neighborhood.
(+) Philip Telesco
- He is a business owner in San Francisco.
- He provides hardware and software to small businesses.
- The project sponsor is one of the hardest business owners he has met.
- He knows that the project sponsor is honest and reliable.
(+) Matthew Brasler
- He is in support of the project sponsor
- The project sponsor has always been honest, generous and a hard worker.
(+) John Curtis – East West Bank
- He has been a banker for over five years.
- He has worked with the project sponsor and knows that he has a strong character.
- The street has been cleaner since the project sponsor moved in to the area.
(+) Mehran Esmair – Project Sponsor
- Safety and food compliance lead to the construction of the machine room and roof access.
- He did not intend to hide or deceive anyone.
- The location of the proposed project is the only seismically feasible location.
(+) Noshin Ansarinia
- She is the wife of the project sponsor.
- One does their best when you are not a developer but there are times when one makes mistakes.
- No one wants to go through what she and her husband are going through.
- She asked the Commission to allow them to install the mechanical room where it is proposed.
(-) Mark Brennan
- This project should not be reheard because there is no new information presented.
- If this project is reheard, it will open a “Pandora’s box.”
- It is outrageous that there have been insinuations that the people opposed to this project are being vindictive.
(-) Matthew Brennan
- State law requests that a mechanical room be placed as close to the elevator as possible.
- He has not known any project that has a mechanical room on the roof.
- The request for a rehearing should be done on the same day according to Robert’s Rules of Order.
(-) Andrew Smith
- He does not support the project.
- The project sponsor intended to put the mechanical room on the roof from the beginning.
- The project sponsor should be held accountable if he made a mistake.
- He should also pay for the abuse of the process.
- There should not be a new hearing on this because there is no new information.
(-) Joe O’Donaghue
- This case should not be reheard.
- There was no new evidence heard today.
- Everyone has to abide by the same laws.
- Although the project sponsor is a very nice person, he violated the laws twice.
ACTION: No Motion to Rehear
12. 2005. 0263D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)
387-391 MONTEREY BOULEVARD - south side, between Congo & Detroit, Lot 029, Assessor’s Block 3118 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2004.10.06.6166, to construct a one-story vertical addition on the existing two-family building and to construct a horizontal addition to the rear of the building. The subject property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, 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):
(-) Jared Dargibit
- He submitted a letter from the homeowners association who are not in support of the addition because it will affect the neighborhood.
- This would be the beginning of a major erosion process.
- The property has been for sale for a long time.
(+) Leon Taylor
- In order to rehabilitate the building, there is a need for reinforcement of the foundation.
- The addition would encourage a large family to live there.
- Out of 22 houses located on the south side of the street, 12 are two-story over garage.
- All the neighbors on both sides of the structure are supporting the project.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and S. Lee
13a. 2004.0874D (M. SMITH: (415 558-6322)
332 VALLEY STREET - north side between Sanchez and Noe Streets, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 6613 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.04.01.0271, proposing to demolish a two-story two-family dwelling, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve demolition.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) William Abend – ARA Architects
- He did the soundness report.
- He displayed pictures of the deterioration of the building.
(-) Robert Pender
- He opposes this demolition because it is a rent controlled building.
(-) Maria Galaty
- She has lived on this street for many years.
- She is opposed to the demolition.
(+) Bob Horrowitz
- He lives on Valley Street.
- He supports the demolition and the new construction.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and S. Lee
13b. 2004.1265D (M. SMITH: (415 558-6322)
332 VALLEY STREET - north side between Sanchez and Noe Streets, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 6613 - 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. 2004.04.01.0263, proposing to construct a three-story two-family dwelling, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for 13a.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and S. Lee
14. 2004.1305D (M. SMITH: (415 558-6322)
2678 47TH AVENUE - east side between Vicente and Wawona Streets, Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 2450 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.09.10.3770, proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition at the rear of a single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Tony Mac – Discretionary Review Requestor
- He displayed photographs of the project.
- He is opposed to the project because it will affect the privacy to his home.
(+) John Lau
- He is available for questions.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following amendments: 1) Issue a Notice of Special Restriction; 2) No door between the two apartments; 3) No kitchen on the ground floor.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and S. Lee
F. 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: 4:23 p.m.
THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2005.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee
