February 28, 2008SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, February 28, 2008
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:46 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Scott Sanchez, David Lindsay, Sarah Jones, Adrian Putra, Corey Teague, Edgar Oropeza, Ericka Jackson, Glenn Cabreros, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.
A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.
1. COMMISSION'S RULES AND REGULATIONS - Discussion and possible action to amend the Commission's Rules and Regulations to address imposing time constraints on submittal of documents and material for review by the Commission and the public; discuss and possibly establish rules or policies that address other areas of interest of the Commission.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 20, 2007)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 6, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued indefinitely
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
2. 2007.1382C (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)
560 GEARY STREET (and 620 Jones Street) - north side between Jones and Shannon Streets, Lots 011 and 036 in Assessor's Block 0305 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 249.5(c)(2) of the Planning Code for second-floor commercial use (restaurant / entertainment -- "Om") in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District and in the North of Market Residential Special Use District, Sub-area 1, and within an 80-130-T Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to March 13, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
3a 2005.0298KECV (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)
1285 SUTTER STREET - southeast corner of Sutter Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0691 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Sections 157, 209.8, 221.1, 253, 253.2 and 303 of the Planning Code to allow off-street parking in excess of the amount permitted as accessory parking, to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages within 1/4 mile of the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District, to demolish a movie theatre, and to allow the construction of a building which exceeds 40 feet in height with an exception to the bulk limits. The project proposes to construct up to 107 dwelling units with approximately 15,800 square feet of ground-floor retail/commercial space (Trader Joe's) and up to 170 below-grade off-street parking spaces. The project site is located in an RC-4 (Residential, Commercial Combined, High Density) and the Van Ness Avenue Special Use District and an 130-V Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 31, 2008)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 6, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
3b. 2005.0298KECV (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)
1285 SUTTER STREET - southeast corner of Sutter Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0691 - Request for Variances, pursuant to Sections 253(c)(6), 307(g), 152, and 140 of the Planning Code to modify the rear yard requirement in the Van Ness Special Use District, to provide one off-street freight loading space where two are required, and for dwelling unit exposure for four dwelling units. The project proposes to construct up to 107 dwelling units with approximately 15,800 square feet of ground-floor retail/commercial space (Trader Joe's) and up to 170 below-grade off-street parking spaces. The project site is located in an RC-4 (Residential, Commercial Combined, High Density) and the Van Ness Avenue Special Use District and an 130-V Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 31 2008)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 6, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
4a. 2007.0172D (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)
626 PARIS STREET - between France and Italy Avenues; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 6345 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolition, Permit Application No. 2006.11.08.7236, to demolish an existing single-family, one-story structure, in an 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 February 7, 2008)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 13, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
4b. 2007.0177D (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)
626 PARIS STREET - between France and Italy Avenues; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 6345 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of Permit Application No. 2006.11.08.7240 , for a replacement structure pursuant to a residential demolition, to construct a new, single-family, one-story-over-garage structure, in an 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 February 7, 2008)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 13, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
5. 2007.1281C (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)
1237 Polk Street - west side between Bush and Sutter Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 0670 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a bar (Type 48 Liquor License) and a restaurant that will exceed 2000 square feet (dba. McTeague's). The tenant space at 1237 Polk Street is approximately 2750 square feet. The business will primarily be a bar that will also serve limited food items including sandwiches and soups. No physical expansion of the existing building is proposed. This site is within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
(Proposed for Continuance to March 13, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS (Tape IA)
6. Commission Comments/Questions
· Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
· Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.
Commission Secretary, Avery
- Reminded the Commissioners about the Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interest) that is due on April 1st, and mandatory Sunshine and Ethics training on Monday March 3rd at 5:30p.m.
Commissioner Antonini
- My comments have to do with Market – Octavia and as many of you know, there were changes to the legislation that have been suggested by the Land Use Committee.
- The question is whether this constitutes material changes under Code Section 302(e)?
- The two changes that are most noted are adding $10 fee for additional affordability and lowering the parking ratio.
- This plan was in the making for many, many years; countless amounts of money, time and input was spent on it.
- The changes that are now being proposed probably blend themselves to one segment rather than the area as a whole.
- My feeling is that did we really have the chance to discuss this issue? If it passes by the Board of Supervisors, it does not have to come back to the Planning Commission.
- I do not remember if we had an option allowing a lower or maximum parking. And on the impact fee, we actually considered that separately after we had voted on the Market – Octavia because we were waiting for an economic study.
- The economic study had some interesting findings to where probably $10 per square foot was all that was possible to charge to make the project viable.
- If there were infrastructure needs in the area in the range of 70 to 80 million, the $10 fee would probably fund 35% of that. These numbers would depend on what is built.
- I do not think that the additional $10 was ever represented as an option. I think we ruled that out at the very beginning because we were told by the study that we can only charge another $10 to make it viable.
- I just would urge the Board to disapprove it because we spent a lot of time on an entire process and things are significantly changed at a different level.
Commissioner W. Lee
- Asked the City Attorney's Office for an interpretation of what the Board finalized on the Market – Octavia Plan. We need some reference and hopefully within the next few weeks we can get that.
- Secondly - Michael Cohen came to this Commission regarding the [San Francisco] Economic Study and I do not know if he provided a copy of it. If not, maybe Commission Secretary Avery can write a letter and request that so that we have it before the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan is before us.
- Maybe the author of it, Ted Eagan, can come to this Commission before the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan. I am not sure but I think that has been requested before and it is in the process to be calendared.
- Also, we asked for the Backstreet report.
Commissioner Olague
- We are going to have that as a special hearing before the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan comes before us.
Commissioner W. Lee
- As a follow up to Director [Rahaim] regarding the Eastern Neighborhoods, I suggest tours of the area to get a fresh look and provide to us your thinking since you are new in town -- and get your perspective.
- Finally, I still want staff to track monthly unemployment rates and give us statistics on how we are doing economically. The newspapers are stating that our housing rates are still going up although we seem to be doing well.
- I also heard form the carpenter's union that they have 200 people being laid off. Other unions are seeing increasing numbers of people being laid off and not being able to find jobs.
- That troubles me somewhat because it is like an early indicator.
- The other question I have is that every year the Department of Finance provides figures on population. My understanding is that San Francisco's population has gone way up for the last seven years.
- Maybe we can get some information on how many people actually live in San Francisco and that could be used as a basis for the new Housing Element and also when we are looking at the need for more housing or density in the City.
Commissioner Sugaya
- I believe that The Presidio Trust made its selection with respect to the site on the particular modern museum and apparently it is under consideration at this point.
- There was just a piece on the Chronicle, I believe it was Michael Hayman, who prompted me to have some kind of contact between the City and The Presidio Trust with respect to that particular facility and the planning for it. An environmental process is going to take place.
- Perhaps, we could get a report back at some point with respect to their plans.
- Secondly – in a recent Business Times article, there was a piece on Van Ness Avenue and they had noted that they were going to be an increasing number of housing units built there. They mentioned 2,000 and it seems high.
- At some point we might want a staff report on how many projects are in the pipeline, have been approved, and are coming in.
Commissioner Moore
- My understanding is that the former Chancellor of UC Berkeley had, together with landscape architect Lawrence, forward their strong concerns about the modern museum proposed for The Presidio Trust.
- I think the discussion has been widely opened and this might be something that requires our consideration. I have heard and hope we will follow up and really get into the source of understanding where it stands.
- I think that last time it was said that doing another cultural district requires a city wide discussion. We want to put our culture on it.
Commissioner W. Lee
- I think that regarding The Presidio Trust, the City Attorney's Office should provide us with the legal issues because the City frankly does not have a lot of jurisdiction over The Presidio Trust.
- I served on the Presidio Restoration Advisory Board three years, twelve years ago. We had debates about Fire, Police and traffic impacts to the neighborhood.
- If we have any involvement in it, we should have an interpretation to see how far we can go.
- Second issue - this fall we are going to have a bond issue with San Francisco General Hospital. I know all hospitals have to seismic upgrade all their buildings shortly.
- Given the issues with Saint Luke's, I am asking staff to provide in writing a sense of how many hospitals we have, patients and some of the issues about planning that we have to deal with.
- A lot of hospitals are beginning to plan for the future and I think we need a frame of reference. The main question is do we need all the hospital's beds? How much of land use do we need to allow for new and rebuilt hospitals?
Commissioner Moore
- Regarding the Presidio Trust, I believe that Planning and the Planning Commission should find its own voice to create a civic dialogue about larger issues affecting the City. That is an invitation to communication.
- I strongly suggest that we speak freely to find our own voice with Planning, to invite them and talk about it because we are not dictating what to do.
John Rahaim, Director
- I had been in contact with the Trust to schedule a tour and I would be happy to find out more information and get that back to the Commission and then decide if we want to have an informational hearing.
- It is true that since it is a federal property we do not have any jurisdiction, but certainly from an informational stand point we can bring the project to you and have that discussion.
Commissioner Sugaya
- It seems that they want to be part of the community and there are going to be on-going demands for transit, automobile movement, and pedestrian and bicycle traffic. All of it eventually comes into the City. I will be seeking something in terms of a dialogue with them.
Commissioner Antonini
- In addition to looking at jurisdictional issues regarding federal properties, I have always wanted to have a hearing on jurisdictional areas involving the Port, Redevelopment and State facilities.
- What is the role of the Planning Commission in these areas? Where are the lines drawn? Who has the authority?
Commissioner Olague
- I ran into Wayne Crowfoot, who is taking charge of the greening of the City. At some point we would like him to come in and give us a presentation on what the plan is.
- He is very open to it and we can work with his office to find a date when he can discuss that.
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Tape IA)
7. Director's Announcements
John Rahaim
- Thanked the Commission and staff for their support in the last week regarding the personal challenges I've had.
- Secondly – I'd like to thank you for taking action last week on the budget. It has been forwarded to the Mayor's Office and they will spend a month or so on it. We will further engaged with them in about three weeks.
- The requests made today regarding the hospitals and the Van Ness corridor seem exactly suited to the types of work that we should be doing and bringing to you. We will calendar those as quickly as possible.
8. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
AnMarie Rodgers
Land Use Committee
A- Administrative Code Amendment for Tourist Hotel Condominium Conversion Ordinance. This Commission recommended five modifications to the Board of Supervisors. At the Land Use hearing a couple of weeks ago, Supervisor Peskin incorporated many of those amendments to include into the legislation. It is still in the process of being amended. Continued
B- Market – Octavia Plan. Plan zoning map amendments and the Planning Code text amendments as well the affordable housing amendments were passed out of Land Use Committee this week to the Full Board. This week's 5 hour hearing focused on amendments drafted by Supervisors Mirkarimi and McGoldrick. Supervisor Peskin introduced amendments that would codify this Commission's interim procedures for historic resources. In the end, the Committee forwarded two versions of Plan Amendments to the Full Board including a new $10 fee for affordable housing; parking controls, which would cap the amount of residential parking at lower levels than approved by the Planning Commission; as well as amendments to the Citizens Advisory Committee and Supervisor Peskin's Historic Resource Amendments.
Full Board
A- Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations to the Board of Supervisor's Legislative Chamber. At the hearing, the discussion was centered not on the historical appropriateness of the alteration but on other topics such as the cost of the project and the length of construction. Continued.
B- Landmark Designation of 451 Jersey Street, also known as the Carnegie/Sally Brunn Branch Library in Noe Valley. Passed.
C- Ballot Initiative that would be put before the voters this summer that would impose a distance requirement of 500 feet or more between new off-sale liquor stores and existing liquor stores, schools, libraries and recreation centers. At the hearing this item was amended to not be a Ballot-Initiative but rather a regular legislative change meaning that this particular item would be before this Commission within about 90 days.
D- Medical Cannabis Dispensary. A resolution was adopted declaring the intent of the City not to take enforcement action against those medical cannabis dispensaries that have properly applied for the necessary permits as there is legislation pending that would extend the deadline for final permitting of these medical cannabis dispensaries.
E- Appeals:
a. 2721 Pierce Street was tabled without hearing
b. 3424 Jackson Street was continued to March 11, 2008
F- Resolution adopted honoring Marge Gambelin for her dedication and her work in the Planning Department.
G- Introductions:
a. Mayor's Legislation appointing Ryan Brooks to the Planning Commission.
b. Ordinance designating 900 Innes Avenue, Hunter's Point School as a landmark building.
c. Ordinance repealing the interim zoning moratorium prohibiting institutions in Western SoMa SUD.
d. Ordinance amending Section 315 introduced by Supervisor Sandoval. Currently of-site units must be within 1 mile of the market rate project. This amendment would allow 25% percent of permits to be built outside of that radius provided that the new units are not located in industrial zone district or within ¼ mile of publicly owned affordable developments of 200 or more units.
e. Incentives for family-sized affordable housing. This item has been pulled as a ballot-initiative but introduced through the normal legislative process. As such, this item will be before the Commission within 90 days.
H- Board President Peskin made some new assignments for Committee members. The Land Use and Economic Development Committee will now be composed of Supervisors Maxwell who remains chair, Sandoval and newly added Supervisor Daly.
Board of Appeals
NONE
SPEAKER(S)
Marilyn Amini
- The Market – Octavia Plan does have substantial amendments. These should be heard by the Planning Commission and be digested.
Hiroshi Fukuda
- The amendments for the Market – Octavia Plan should be reviewed, evaluated and this Commission's recommendations are needed.
Michael Burke
- The matter of the Market – Octavia Plan amendments should come back to the Planning Commission.
John Bardis
- I strongly urge you to ask the Board of Supervisors to have the Market – Octavia Plan's substantial amendments referred to this Commission and to not deny proper public process.
9. (Tape IA; IB) (S. SANCHEZ (415) 558-6326)
575 6TH STREET (FLOWER MART) - Informational item to discuss current status of uses at 575 6th Street (Flower Mart) and the Academy of Art University's future plans for the site.
SPEAKER(S)
Patrick McCann
- Thanked this Commission's efforts for finding a solution to this situation. I will be around to make sure that this institution [Flower Mart] stays in San Francisco for many generations to come.
John Bardis
- The fundamental issue that needs to be addressed is the failure of not having an Institutional Master Plan in place.
- You should have hearings on the Institutional Master Plan and on all the illegal uses of their properties.
ACTION: No action is required of the Commission. Informational only
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.
SPEAKER(S)
Calvin Welch
- I want to bring your attention to a public statement quoted in the newspaper yesterday by Commissioner Antonini that I find deeply distressing and goes to the Commissioner's credibility in terms of functioning in the classic judicial role that is required at the Planning Commission.
- It is in reference of making adjudication in matters of interpretation of the meaning of the Housing Element of the General Plan.
- Yesterday Mr. Robert Celnar, who happens to be in the hearing room today, a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle, quoted Commissioner Antonini in the following context:
- The Supervisors have said that the City should push to make 64% of new housing affordable for low and modern income residents. Some Planning Commissioners said that that figure is more than double with specific quote. This plan is catering to the far left said Michael Antonini – pro development Planning Commissioner. The goal is to set the bars so high on affordable housing that developers cannot build. They are excluding the middle class .
- It is Michael Antonini's right that I defended - the last auditing for free speech. I do not in any way undermine his ability to speak his mind freely.
- What I do raise is the question as to judiciary temperament and applying the Housing Element to matters that come before this Commission on a routine basis for Mr. Antonini makes such a bigoted statement.
- We all know what red baiting is. This is a red baiting statement that is absolutely and completely untrue.
- This plan, if by which you meant the Eastern Neighborhoods or the Housing Element, does not come from the extreme left wing unless Mr. Antonini himself is a secret member of the 70's liberation front.
- Mr. Antonini voted for the 64% quantity of the housing goals. I passed out the resolution because many of you were not present.
- Not only he did vote for the Housing Element, he voted for an amendment that stated to provide new housing, especially permanently affordable housing in appropriate locations, which identify housing needs and takes into account the demands for affordable housing created by employment demands.
- More over, he voted for the Housing Element in '04. I want you to recuse yourself on any further Housing Element referrals.
Patrick Buskovich Re: 2A Quintara Street
- This is on next week's calendar and I'm requesting continuance to March 27 or April 3rd. because the requestor was informed about the hearing only 8 days ago and it is not enough time to review.
Laurie Tucker Re: 2A Quintara Street
- I'm asked for a small continuance to allow sufficient time to prepare for the Discretionary Review.
Sue Hestor Re: Market – Octavia Plan
- The Planning Commission has the responsibility to do deliberation on this plan without an expectation that you can kick it over to someone else.
- I request that you structure hearings to go in details and when something is not ready and needs to be reviewed again, just send it back for review.
Marilyn Amini Re: Market – Octavia Plan
- City Attorney, Susan Knowles, used the word major' when summarizing the Committee's actions and amendments.
- Another problem is that this plan has not been adequately noticed. They should come back.
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.
SPEAKER(S)
Tracy Boxer Zill, Permit holder representative
- The requestor had three opportunities to object to the project or make comments on it and has not done so – at the pre-application meeting, the 311-notice, and with the appeal of the permit.
- Mr. Lee has the right to complete the modified project because he reasonably relied on an erroneous survey and when he was aware of that error, he immediately called for the revision of the project even though the error is not his.
(-)Allene Coffino
- Nothing has changed since the last time we came in December. The neighborhood still feels outraged about this project.
- We feel that we were not given proper notification and we were the ones who brought attention to the building.
(-)Richard Tenaza
- The original permit was illegal. They violated at least five different aspects of the Planning Code and the Residential Design Guidelines.
- In the new plan, those five violations are still there: scale, size, light and air, measurement points, and rear yard - which is the only one that is corrected.
(-)Eva
- We were not notified about any meetings for this project and the measurements are different from the renderings.
F. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
10. 2007.1193D (Tape IB) (D. LINDSAY: (415) 558-6393)
770 18TH AVENUE - east side of 18th Avenue between Fulton and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 1660 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.09.24.3528, proposing to revise previously-approved and issued Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.06.4962 by reducing the depth of the first and second floors by 4 feet. The originally-approved project, which is under construction, included horizontal and vertical additions and the conversion of the building from a single-family house to a two-unit building. The subject property is in an 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 revised.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 20, 2007)
NOTE: On December 20, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to February 28, 2008, requiring 3-D renderings and architect drawn plans by a vote of +7 -0.
ACTION: Although the Commission took Discretionary Review and required the following:
-Open staircase/less direct access at the lower level
-NSR
-Removal of 4th floor and ground floor extension; decrease number of ground floor bathrooms/rooms to consolidate the extra rooms
-They also required this item be brought back to the Commission on March 27, 2008 as a full public hearing
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
G. 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.
11. 2007.1366C (Tape IB) (D. SANCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)
3269 Mission Street - east side, between Fair and Virginia Avenues; lot 039 in Assesor's Block 5615 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 145.2(b), 712.26 and 303 to allow for the installation of a non-recessed walk-up facility (Automated Bank Teller Machine, ATM) for a credit union (dba Mission SF Federal Credit Union) within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
MOTION: 17562
12. 2007.1362X (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)
1145 MARKET STREET - south side between Seventh and Eighth Streets, Lot 044 in Assessor's Block 3702 - Section 309 Determination of Compliance to replace the existing copper cupola roof feature with a glass roof that would increase the height of this element by three feet at the top of this thirteen story office building. The project site is within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Zoning District and a 120-X Height and Bulk district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 21, 2008)
SPEAKER(S)
Tuia Catalano, Project Sponsor Representative
- We are asking for additional time to research some new aspects that just came up.
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to April 17, 2008
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
H. REGULAR CALENDAR
13. 2007.1355T (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)
Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 785 to establish the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict and to amend Section 703.3 to prohibit formula retail uses in the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict [Board File No. 07-1561]. Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Ammiano amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 785 to establish the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict; amending Section 703.3 to prohibit formula retail uses in the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict; amending Sectional Maps SU 07 and SU 11 of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco to establish the boundaries of the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict; adopting finding, including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 14, 2007)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to March 27, 2008
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
14. 2006.0460E (Tape IB; IIA) (S. JONES: (415) 575-9034)
690 STANYAN STREET - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report. The 34,400 square foot (sq.ft.) project site is located in San Francisco's Haight Ashbury neighborhood on the northeast corner of the intersection of Stanyan and Haight Streets (Assessor's Block 1228, Lots 005 and 006). The project site is within the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District (Haight NCD) and the 40-X and 50-X height and bulk districts, which divide the site on the east and west, respectively. The proposed project would remove the existing development (a vacant Cala Foods store and surface parking) and construct a four-story retail/residential building with a ground-floor specialty supermarket (Whole Foods), 62 residential units on the upper three floors, and a three-level, 176-space subterranean garage with 114 parking spaces for supermarket use, 62 parking spaces for residential use, and 47 bicycle parking spaces. The residential unit mix is proposed to include 26 studio units, 20 one-bedroom units, 15 two-bedroom units, and one three-bedroom unit. The new building would contain approximately 115,400 sq.ft., of which 34,400 sq.ft. would be commercial and 81,000 sq.ft. would be residential. The three-level subterranean parking garage would occupy an additional 90,000 sq.ft., for a total building area of 205,400 sq.ft. The Draft EIR was released January 19, 2008.
Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required
Note: Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on March 3, 2008.
SPEAKER(S)
(-)Calvin Welch
- The first and most important deficiency is the traffic analysis done in November/December -- the least most active time of the area.
- The EIR fails to adequately analyze the concept between public transit and 181 parking space garage that enters/exits from one location on Stanyan Street that is a secondary transit preferential street.
(-)Richard Ivanhoe
- The traffic study was done in November/December 2006 when the Cala Foods was already closed which subtracted out twice the traffic and does not discuss increasing Muni delays.
- I'm concerned about the impact on emergency vehicles with Saint Mary's close by.
(+)Philip Lesser
- This project is bringing wonderful things and I commended the project sponsor for it.
(-)Bruce Worfe
- This project is going to remove all of the only sunlight that I get and it is going to increase parking issues when people go grocery shopping and do not want to pay for parking.
(+)Lorraine Lucas, Haight – Ashbury Improvement Association
- Our organization and numerous members have sent letters in support of the EIR and urge the Commissioners to approve the full scope of the proposed mix use project mainly because residents in the neighborhood would be able to walk to a full service grocery store.
(+)Patrick Ryan
- I fully support this project because it would be a tremendous positive impact on the Inner Sunset making our children safer because residents in the Height would not take their cars to go shopping.
(+)Karen Crommie
- I support the project for being a wonderful market and good residential housing and the EIR is correct.
(+)Carole Glosenger
- I support the project because we need a grocery store and housing in the neighborhood.
(+)Doerte Murray
- It would reduce traffic in the neighborhood and it would bring fresh produce.
- It would be a good idea to have the garage on Stanyan [Street] because it does not interfere with Muni.
(+)Susan Strolis
- I fully support the project because the whole area would improve with pedestrians, shoppers, and residents.
(-)Susan Latham
- I'm concerned with the impact on traffic because on Stanyan Street we have emergency rooms, Fire Department, a Library, and Boys and Girls Club.
(-)James Assing
- The EIR is inadequate on the traffic analysis on Page Street and totally disregards residents on that street.
(-)Kathleen Hanrahan
- The project is far denser than what the neighborhood can handle bringing major impact on traffic, sunlight, air and noise pollution with the parking garage exhaust.
(-)Cheryl Bienlinski
- Safety and risks to pedestrians should be the utmost concern and the EIR was done during the winter months, which are the lowest active months in the Height.
- During the summer, there are so many activities and traffic is really congested. This project would increase the traffic and the noise.
(+)Rosemary Southwest
- The project is a great asset to the neighborhood and it would help the community to come together bringing people there.
(-)Martha Hoffman
- The development is to huge. Traffic and parking problems will be disastrous, and it would compound problems with the entrance to Golden Gate Park.
(-)Sue Hestor, Attorney for the Height – Ashbury Council
- If this is a local market, it has to have a lot fewer parking spaces.
- Extend the public comment period because there is a lot that has to be done around Golden Gate Park comments. It was so ignored and so is traffic, buses, pedestrians and bikes.
- There are no discussions on the climate of the open space.
(+)Flip Sarrow
- We are adding a needed neighborhood business and housing. I could forgo some traffic concerns in order to have those things in our neighborhood.
ACTION: No Action required of the Commission. Public comment period extended to
March 10, 2008
15. 2007.1218C (Tape IIA) (A. PUTRA: (415) 575-9079)
955 Geneva Avenue - north side between London and Paris Streets; Assessor's Block 6409 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 712.43, 703.3 & 703.4 to allow a large fast food restaurant (dba "Little Caesars Pizza") and formula retail use, within the NC-3 (Moderate Scale, Neighborhood Commercial) District, and 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 31, 2008)
SPEAKER(S)
David Elliot, Architect
- We postponed this project for one month because there were some concerns from a merchant group because basically they did not understand what this was about.
- We gave a formal presentation and answered all their questions. Included in that meeting was a representative from the Supervisor's Office.
- The outcome was the parking concern for a fast food. Since we are not having any dining facility or deliveries, we are going to apply for special parking spaces in the front.
- Additionally, my clients are very much into public transit and they are not even going to be parking in the area.
- They personally went around to the neighbors for letters of recommendation and many residents do support the project.
(-)Alfredo Rodriguez
- I'm opposed because the neighborhood is growing slowly and we do not want to be known as a fast food area. We need more full service restaurants.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee and Sugaya
NAYES: Olague and Moore
MOTION: 17563
16. 2007.1167D (A. PUTRA: (415) 575-9079)
1843 16TH STREET AVENUE - west side between Noriega Street and Ortega Street; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 2053 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.07.09.6230, proposing construction of a single-story addition with roof deck at the rear of an existing dwelling in a RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to March 6, 2008
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
17. 2007.1211D (Tapes IIA; IIB; IIIA) (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)
1140 POTRERO AVENUE - west side between 23rd Street and 24th Street; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 4211 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application number 2007.05.21.1784, proposing to add a third story with a flat roof, a 3-story horizontal expansion in the rear, and two additional dwelling units to an existing 2-story single-family home in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Zoning District and 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the application
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 14, 2008)
SPEAKER(S)
Patrick Buscovich, Discretionary Review Requestor
- This is a perfect case of de facto demolition policy.
- They are going to make an apartment building with one habitable floor and a substandard garage; they are going to make it three habitable floors calling it an alteration.
- The only thing in this building that is going to be retained in its original function is the redwood siding on the north and south side.
- The walls are going to be reframed for fire; the floor joint is going to be reframed for gravity.
- They are going to demolish out and lower the floor 2 feet and they are calling this an alteration.
- The intent of this de facto demolition is to require some portion of the building to remain.
- Your decision is going to set a huge precedence.
(-)Jesus Gomez, 1136 Potrero Avenue
- In 2005 my neighbors and I successfully proved that 1140 [Potrero Avenue] was sound housing and that it should not be demolished.
- I do not want my foundations to fail and have to relocate my parents or spend my money to help build somebody else's project.
- The walls extend 11 feet beyond the start of our sun porch; it should be set back on the second story because it would block all the sunlight.
- The third story should be eliminated or set back further along the property line.
(-)Diana Gomez, 1136 Potrero Avenue
- Reject the current proposal because by building up, back and down converting a single family home into a three unit building would have a direct negative impact on our home.
- This project would cast us in shadows.
(-)Sonia Gomez-Reyelius
- The proposed project would block sunlight on the porch and that would significantly impact my mother.
- I ask the Commission to help in preserving the beauty of the City: Victorian houses.
(-)Scott Knowles
- With this proposal, the back of the house would be approximately 31 feet from our property line invading our privacy.
(-)Sue Hestor
- Showed photographs of the Gomez's buildings with the setbacks and the sun room.
- Planning Code Section 311 does not say may require but they shall be consistent with the policies of the Residential Design Guidelines.
- This project should have had a setback from the beginning and not have had the third story on the rear.
(-)Dick Millet
- This is a demolition. If they want to do an alteration, they should do a legitimate alteration.
(-)Judith Berkowitz, East Mission Improvement Association
- I urge you to uphold the Discretionary Review and deny the permit as it is now because the property has been neglected for over two and a half years.
Yakuh Askew, Architect
- Planning zoned the neighborhood for a 65 foot height limit.
- This is exactly what the City should be encouraging - larger and higher residential projects that can better serve the rich endeavors, cultural and commercial aspects of the neighborhood.
- It is a modest one in scale that was conceived from the start as a minor vertical addition to minimize impacts on the immediate neighbors and it revised to further protect the light/air enjoyed by the residents of 1136 Potrero.
- We are proposing to convert a two-story single family residence into a three-story three family unit building
- We put a lot of program into a very compact and efficient envelope including a three car stacker to avoid entirely a ground floor garage.
- This project does not meet the criteria for demolition. It is an appropriate solution for parking in an urban environment.
- Working with structural engineers, we could assure the integrity of the neighbor's property through the design of proper foundation systems.
- We have 11 signatures of neighbors on the immediate block supporting the project.
Rodrigo Santos, Structural Engineer
- The requestors made some allegations that the introduction of the car stacker is going to affect his foundation. It would not be affected at all.
- We are coming out with an internal showing system that is going to provide the lateral support. It is going to be consistent with the typical procedure of structural engineering and placing the car stacker 14 feet away from his property.
- The project sponsor is willing to pay the requestor's structural engineer, of his own choice, to review the foundation system.
(+)Luke O'Brian
- Asked the Commission to make the decision on the merits of the case because it is extremely modest in scale and it complies with the Residential Guidelines in terms of setbacks.
(+)Shawn Garmon
- This project makes sense because if we do not build family housing here, where in the neighborhood is it going to be?
(+)Mike
- The project sponsor worked hard to accommodate his neighbors and he has cut the building as much as physically possible to minimize impacts. It is a modest addition.
(+)Shawn O'Rally
- This is a modest expansion of a substandard dwelling to provide much needed housing.
(+)Charles Turner
- I support a project in this location where housing density should be increased. The project sponsor is only proposing three modest units.
(+)John
- This is a RH-3 zone and the project sponsor had justified expectations to be able to build three units at this site. Placing restrictions to make three units impossible is de facto downsizing.
(+)Brandon
- Removing the third story is completely unreasonable because it is only 10 inches higher than the existing building.
(+)Simon Quang
- The project sponsor has done a very sensible design to work around the setback requirements and all the different policies he had to work with.
(+)Kelton
- This request is the classic example of how a well intentioned system is manipulated. The project is extremely modest and the sponsor has tried to accommodate the neighbor's concerns.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with an additional 11.9 foot setback at the rear.
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee and Sugaya
NAYES: Moore
18. 2007.0781D (Tape IIIA) (E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)
14 valencia street - west side between McCoppin and Market Street, in Assessor's Block 3503, Lot 003 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.0615.4005 for the property at 14 Valencia Street (aka 1745-1755 Market Street) to maintain the operation of an existing Medical Cannabis Dispensary, dba Ketama Cooperative. The subject building is a four-story mixed-use building with 51-dwelling units, all within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) District, the Market Street Special Sign District and a 105-E Height/Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation Take Discretionary Review and approve with conditions.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 21, 2008)
SPEAKER(S)
(+)Dr. Ralph Manda
- This is a nice small club where the international community can come in and not be discriminated against.
- It is the only one with the compassion program of giving food to the community.
- The issue with the billboard there is not an issue for the dispensary. It is an outside issue.
(+)Matthew Kumin
- There have been some problems identified by staff and concerns brought up by neighbors.
- We have signs to help with loitering, security cameras, security staff and we are planning to have our staff clean the street.
- We are planning to have a monthly meeting with neighbors at Cafe Trieste where the owner has graciously allowed us to have an off site place to prevent any kind of intimidation. We want to be a positive neighborhood presence.
- Finally, the billboard litigation could go on for years.
- Staff has recommended us because we are a small dispensary.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with conditions as drafted by staff including this as a non smoking/vaporizer site.
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
19. 2007.0434DDD (Tapes IIIA; IIIB) (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)
398 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE - northwest corner of 19th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 4039 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.09.12.2410, proposing to construct a horizontal rear addition on the ground floor and a partial fourth floor to an existing three-story single-family residence in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the Building Permit Application with modifications.
SPEAKER(S)
Alison Heath, 1st Discretionary Review Requestor
- A sense of community comes from proximity and part of our living within proximity to each other is about cooperation - not getting in each other's way, valuing open space, and keeping the scale of our homes modest.
- While we realize that infill is important, we should not abandon what makes us special. It is a matter of balance.
- The temptation to maximize profit and cash out is powerful. There is a danger of houses becoming vertical mansions.
- Proposition M established the conservation and protection of neighborhood character as a priority policy.
- The Residential Design Guidelines, along with section 101.1 of the Planning Code states that existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods.
- Two specific problems not adequately addressed by the Planning Department analysis are: location at the crest of a hill dramatically exaggerates the appearance of height, and exceptional bulk on this lot.
Mary Jane Miduriya, 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor
- I'm concerned about the 77% extension of this building.
- The two stories with an angled bay with brushed aluminum finish would be the first thing you see when you walk down on 19th Street.
- This has been replaced with a rectangular bay in the back of the house with wooden stucco material and opaque windows in keeping with the neighborhood; I appreciate the changes.
- I'm concerned about the tenement fire escape style - there is a requirement for a metal fire escape, stairs and platform.
- The guidelines call for architectural details to be compatible with the surrounding areas and the fire escapes are out of place.
- I'm requesting that the 4th floor be disallowed on this renovation and that the plan with tenement style fire escape no longer be replaced.
Jeremy Paul, 3rd Discretionary Review Requestor Representative
- This is on three lots and it has an architecturally significance rated building.
- The building had a variance and there were specifics requirements in the variance findings which authorizes the construction of this building.
- Those requirements were the things they use where we have more enforceable standards using NSR.
- This was approved to be a two unit building and specifically required light accommodation for Mr. Davis below. We do not know if it complies with what was originally approved, but we know that it does not provide the light intended.
- The structure towers up at the crest of the hill. The criterion is whether it is of an exceptional and extraordinary nature? Does the project comply with the General Plan? I would suggest to you that it is not.
- This project does have significant impact on surrounding properties. Increasing the height of this building is entirely inappropriate for this site.
(-)Mariuccia Iaconi
- According to the Residential Guidelines, it is important that renovations to existing buildings be compatible to nearby buildings in order to preserve neighborhood character. This project is out of scale in height and bulk.
(-)Jo Cangelosi
- This building is already taller than the surrounding buildings. It is out of scale and the 4th story should be eliminated.
(-)Dick Millet
- The only change they have made is widening the bay. These are two TIC units and what is happening next, condominiums conversion?
(-)Jude Deckenback
- This is an existing large building affecting the sunlight. If it is allowed to go even higher, it will tower over the neighbors.
(-)Ruth Johnson
- The way the development of this job has affected the three adjacent properties is appalling. It is already out of character and now they want to make it bigger.
(-)Curtis Davis
- I'm concerned about the impact that this project is going to have on us. It is already blocking natural light and constructing a 4th floor would cast us in shadows.
(-)[No name stated]
- We welcome anybody in our neighborhood but we are fighting because our light is being taken a little bit at a time.
Brett Gladstone, Project Sponsor Representative
- We are adding only 3 feet; it is not a whole floor.
- What is there is a solid railing next to the Davis property line. In fact, that railing will be pushed back because there is going to be a side yard setback.
- A lot of people objecting are not very close to the property. Four properties are the ones that are going to be affected and they support it.
- I did not hear what opposition talks about; no invasion of privacy, sunlight and shadow except for the Davis' (and that is to a light well and not a window), noise, or dust.
- Many people have been misinformed because a flyer went around stating that this project is going to be higher than what is being proposed.
(+)Michelle Hughes
- This project is going to provide the room needed for a family and to work from home.
- All the improvements have been for the inside of the building not the exterior.
- I own a restaurant in the neighborhood and have been involved in community activities.
(+)Anne Windisch
- Justin and Michelle have been active in the neighborhood. [She read a support letter from the Executive Director of Potrero Hill Neighborhood House.]
(+)Richard Hutson
- The proposed design has many architectural merits and it would enhance the character of our neighborhood.
(+)Laurie Erickson, Architect
- My challenge was to add as little height as possible without encroaching into the rear yard, and to minimize shadowing to the closer neighbors.
- We did a shadow study and there are no significant impacts.
(+)Shawn Gorman
- Families, in order to stay in the City, are making additions and this is an opportunity to have that continue besides the proposal is entirely consistent with the neighborhood.
(+)Jill Jarick
- It is scary that a family needing to improve their house is not being allowed to do so even when they have followed the process and are complying with the code.
- [Read letter from a neighbor unable to attend supporting the project.]
(+)Tyler Alves
- I welcome neighbors that are trying to improve the area.
- [Read letter from two neighbors supporting the project.]
(+)Justin Hughes
- There are other 4- story homes that are within one block of our home. We counted 18.
- Our project would have some negative effects to the Davis property receiving 30 minutes less sunlight in the mid-summer to their light well and will impact the downtown view.
- There are some more benefits providing 45 minutes of more morning sunlight.
ACTION: After public hearing, continued to March 20, 2008. Item is to be placed early on the calendar. Instructions were given to both the Project Sponsor and staff to bring final renderings with more architectural expression, reduce the bulk on Davis' family side, and to consider more esthetic stairs.
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
20a. 2007.1372D (Tape IVA) (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
61-63 ALPINE TERRACE - east side of Alpine Terrace between Waller Street and Duboce Avenue, Lot 021 in Assessor's Block 1259 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.02.02.3276 proposing to construct a partial fourth floor to an existing three-story, two-unit building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve.
SPEAKER(S)
Michael Urge, Discretionary Review Requestor
- This proposed vertical extension would deprive us of our morning sunlight, which is important to us because we have no afternoon sunlight. This would cast us in shadow.
- Submitted 8 letters from the adjoining houses and across the street having the same problems with light and air. A shadow study has not been done.
(-)Ed Levitz
- Concerned that sunlight would be blocked and no shadow study has been done.
(-)Gene Choppelas
- This project has irregularities in not meeting the Secretary of Interior Guidelines. They are putting up railings but there is no drawing showing that.
Sam Hunt, Project Sponsor
- We originally proposed a modern façade considering the existing house was in such disrepair. But according to the process, we have changed the plans to incorporate a renovation of the façade and to provide the new addition to be virtually unseen from the street.
- Blockage of natural light and air is not likely to happen. I think the issue is more that the nice view would be blocked.
MOTION: To not take Discretionary Review and approve with instructions that staff continue working with project sponsor on design issues.
AYES: Antonini, S. Lee and W. Lee
NAYES: Olague and Moore
EXCUSED: Sugaya
Motion failed
ACTION: In the absence of a successful substitute motion, the project is approved as proposed.
20b. 2007.0475V (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
61-63 ALPINE TERRACE - east side of Alpine Terrace between Waller Street and Duboce Avenue, Lot 021 in Assessor's Block 1259 - Request for Rear Yard and Noncomplying Structure Variances for a proposal to remove and reconstruct the last three feet of the existing building depth at the three-story, two-unit building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project includes removal of the existing rear wall and angled bay spanning the full lot and reconstruction the rear wall with a narrower rectangular bay, approximately 13 feet wide. The rectangular bay is proposed at the same depth as the existing angled bay.
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 20a.
ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance subject to standard conditions of approval.
21. 2007.1393D (Tape IVA) (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
2655-2657 GREENWICH STREET - south side of Greenwich Street between Divisadero and Broderick Streets, Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 0943 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.07.25.7696 proposing to construct a fourth floor to an existing three-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve.
SPEAKER(S)
Gerald White, Discretionary Review Requestor Representative
- We are not familiar with the procedures and staff assisted us in a lot of different ways but never told us that our submittal needed to be presented to this board eight days prior to this hearing.
- We brought our comments with us and without the Commission having the opportunity to read that, I would like to propose some type of postponement until at least you review what we have to say.
- We question the use of the third floor because we have a privacy issue besides the sunlight blockage.
- This project has been going on for a long time and making noise in the late hours, after 8p.m.
(-)Sue Bauer
- Gardening is one of my hobbies and this huge tower is going to give no privacy at all, blocking the light, and it is out of character.
Erick Lauterbach, Project Sponsor
- This project would give us the third bedroom we need to raise our family.
- I regret that we are here without having the opportunity to talk to Ms. Bauer. We tried to reach out to her once we found out she had concerns.
John, Architect
- The proposed project adds a modest 730 square foot 4th floor master bedroom addition. It provides a necessary third bedroom to make the unit viable family housing.
- The addition was designed to stay as low as possible and it meets the requirements of the Residential Design Guidelines.
- Without the additional bedroom at the upper level, the project is no longer viable family housing and effectively will deny yet another family the opportunity to live/work and educate their family in San Francisco.
- Our proposal is limited in height and setbacks to almost five feet from neighboring property line.
- There are significant numbers of homes with either full or partial fourth story additions.
- We made numerous attempts to communicate directly with the requestor to discuss any concerns about the project but all attempts were denied or unattended.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project requiring obscure glass on the 2 casement windows on the north side of the 4th floor.
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
I. 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))
SPEAKER(S)
None
Adjournment: 9:44 P.M.
THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, April 17, 2008.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee and Sugaya
ABSENT: Moore
NOTE: Per Section 67.18 of the Administrative Code for the City and County of San Francisco, Commission minutes contain a description of the item before the Commission for discussion/consideration; a list of the public speakers with names if given, and a summary of their comments including an indication of whether they are in favor of or against the matter; and any action the Commission takes. The minutes are not the official record of a Commission hearing. The audiotape is the official record. Copies of the audiotape may be obtained by calling the Commission office at (415) 558-6415. For those with access to a computer and/or the Internet, Commission hearings are available at www.sfgov.org. Under the heading Explore, the category Government, and the City Resources section, click on SFGTV, then Video on Demand. You may select the hearing date you want and the item of your choice for a replay of the hearing.
