![]()
June
2000
Presented below are Minutes of the Planning Commission.
The top of the this page lists Commission meeting dates for the month. Click
on the date and you will reach the minutes for that that week. The minutes
present a summary of actions taken at the Planning Commission hearing and
provides a Motion or Resolution number for that action.
With most browsers you will be able to search
for any text item by using the Ctrl-F keys. It is recommended you search by
case number and suffix, if you know it, as that will always be a unique item.
You may search by any identifying phrase, including project addresses.
(Please note, commission minutes generally
are approved and finalized two weeks following the hearing date.)
June 8, 2000
June 15, 2000
June 22, 2000
SAN
FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers -
Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton
B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, June 1, 2000
PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Theoharis,
Richardson, Antenore , Mills , Joe, Martin
ABSENT: Chinchilla
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT
THEOHARIS AT 1:36 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director
of Planning, Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator, Hillary Gitelman, Jana
Beatty, Matthew Snyder, Joy Navarrete, Kelly LaBlanc, Michael Kometani, Nora
Priego - Transcription Secretary, Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary
A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1. 1998.953E (NAVARRETE: 558-5975)
557 FOURTH STREET-- Public Hearing on
Draft Environmental Impact Report. On Assessor?s Block 3776, Lots 119 and
62, the project would demolish an existing building on the southeastern portion
of the 70,400-square-foot project site, subdivide the project site into 12
equal-sized air parcels, and construct a four-story, 55-foot-tall wood frame
live/work building on each air parcel. A total of 188 live/work units,
occupying approximately 227,000 square feet, would be constructed along with
approximately 13,000 square feet of retail space for four to six commercial
tenants, which would be provided on the ground floor of the two buildings with
frontage on Fourth Street. A three-level underground parking garage would
occupy the entire site and would provide 188 private parking spaces (one per
live/work unit), 292 public parking spaces, and 2 off-street loading spaces.
The garage would be accessible on Welsh and Freelon Streets in the middle of
the project block. The project site is in SLI (Service Light Industrial)
District, and is in a 50-X Height and Bulk District. Note: Written comments
will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., on June 8, 2000.
(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2000).
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION:
Continued
to June 8, 2000
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
2. 1999.829C (LeBLANC: 558-6351)
700 JONES STREET, northeast corner at
Post Street; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0298 --Request for Conditional Use
authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 6
panel antennas on the rooftop penthouse and base station equipment in the
basement of a mixed use building in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined)
District, and an 80-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to June 8, 2000
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
3a. 1999.414C (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)
325 FREMONT STREET,east side between
Folsom Street and Harrison Street; Lots 12, 13 and 14 in Assessor's block 3747
- Request for Conditional Use Authorization per Planning Code Section 253
(building exceeding 40 feet in height in an R District) and Section 249(b)(1)
(site coverage exceeding 80 percent) to allow construction of a new 21-story,
200-foot-tall residential building with not more than 54 dwelling units above
four levels of parking (three levels below grade and one level at grade) with
up to 54 spaces, within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined District, High
Density) District and the Rincon Hill Special Use District, and a 200-R Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with
conditions.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to June 8, 2000
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
3b. 1999.414V (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)
325 FREMONT STREET,east side between Folsom
Street and Harrison Street; Lots 12, 13 and 14 in Assessor's block 3747 -The
Zoning Administrator will conduct a joint hearing on a request for a front
setback Variance per Section 249(c)(3) and an open space Variance per Section
249(c)(4)(B).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to June 8, 2000 AYES:
Antenore, Joe, Martin,
Theoharis, Mills, Richardson ABSENT: Chinchilla
4. 2000.147C (LeBLANC 558-6351)
400 McALLISTER STREET AKA 401 POLK STREET, northwest corner at
Polk Street; Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0766 -- Request for Conditional Use
authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of six
panel antennas and base station equipment on the roof of an existing building
in a P (Public) District, the Civic Center Historic District and an 80-X Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with
Conditions
(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2000
June 15, 200)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to June 15, 2000
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
5. 2000.316X (BEATTY: 558-6163)
554 MISSION STREET, north side of Mission
Street between 1st and 2nd Streets, Lots 15, 17 and 18 of Assessor?s Block 3708 -- Request for two
exceptions under Planning Code Section 309: (1) separation of towers
requirements as permitted in Planning Code Section 132.1(c)(1); and (2) on-site
freight-loading service driveway requirements as permitted in Section 155(d).
The project site is within the C-3-0 (Downtown, Office) District and 500-S (Lot
18) and 550-S (Lots 15 and 17) Height and Bulk Districts.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to June 8, 2000
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
6. 2000.209C (MILLER: 558-6344)
1470 PINE STREET, north side between
Polk and Larkin Streets, Lot 7A in Assessor?s Block 645 --Request for
authorization of a CONDITIONAL USE for a FIBER-OPTIC TELEVISION and
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLE EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION in an existing one-story
building, in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and an 80-A
Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(Proposed for Continuance to June 15, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to June 15, 2000
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
7. 2000.078G
(KOMETANI:
558-6478)
580 HOWARD STREET, north side between
First and Second Streets. Lot 91 in Assessor's Block 3721 -- Request for
approval under Planning Code Sections 1106 and 1107 to change the boundaries of
the New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District to include the subject
property and to upgrade its Article 11 designation from Category V, Unrated to
Category IV, Contributory.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance to July 6, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to July 6, 2000
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
B. 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. If it is demonstrated that comments by the
public will exceed 15 minutes, the President or chairperson may continue Public
Comment to another time during the meeting.
?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):
Richard Burke
- He lives in the Polk Street District.
- He is here for an item but apparently he can?t
address it directly.
- When he went out as the ?public? to try to get
support for his cause, he was told by the Planning Department that if he went
to a 3-block area and got 20% or more of the merchants opposed, he would then
be entitled to a conditional zoning hearing. Apparently, this is not true.
- He followed the rules as it was explained to
him to get a zoning hearing, and it never happened.
Norman Rolf - San Francisco Tomorrow
Re: Mission/Steuart Hotel
- He would like the Commission to not certify
the EIR because it has errors and misstatements of facts.
- It?s time to send a message to EIR writers that
they have to produce documents that state the facts fairly and accurately as
well as reports written with the welfare of the public as their first concern
and not that of a private, special interest.
- The Embarcadero Freeway was approved by many
government officials, yet later it was admitted to have been a mistake -- the
Mission/Steuart hotel might be one too.
Patricia Vaughey
- Design guidelines were written for
Telecommunications projects to protect the neighborhood.
- There is a project at Broadway and Van Ness
which is across the street from a school and senior housing. She would like the
Commission to look closely into the design guidelines on this issue because
this breaks all of the guideline principals.
Lloyd Schoegel
RE: 554 Mission Street
- This proposed large building is certain to be
disruptive to all the buildings including Golden Gate University which is
located next door.
- There is another large new building across the
street which is 23 stories high. There is a lot of underutilized office space
in the area. The priority should be to rent this under used space.
- At present, in the square block between
Mission and Market, there are at present 10 buildings, 20 to 40 stories high.
- The proposed project should be rejected.
Sue Hestor
RE: 2601 Mission Street/Bay View Bank Building
- This building is in a zone where you cannot
have a single use/space more than 600 sf (anti-chain store provisions) this
also applies to office space.
- The building is 90,000 sf, the landlord
removed all of the non-profits and Spanish media and rented it out to
Bigfoot.com
-There are pending applications, the only one is
to put more antennas on the roof.
- The organizations who were displaced were real
community-serving organizations and community-serving businesses.
- She would like to have a conditional use
hearing so the ZA can enforce the code on the building.
RE: American Can Company Buildings on Third
Street (American Industrial Complex).
- There was an article about this on the front
page of last week?s Examiner - The Panni Dolce eviction.
- The owner has decided to get rid of all the
tenants that face Illinois Street.
- These buildings are being emptied out. The
landlord is raising the rent as a way to get people out and put Dot.Coms in
there.
- Would like Commission to start regulating
things.
Jake McGoldrick - Richmond Community Association
- There is a problem with defacto demolitions
going on throughout the city.
- 269 Collins Street - This building is
undergoing an addition, yet the building is practically demolished.
- These buildings applied for permits to remodel
yet they are just being demolished.
- These types of things are becoming scandalous.
- There are other buildings that were supposed
to be rehabilitated and they have been demolished (710 10th Avenue).
David Osgood - Rincon Center Association
Regarding the EIR of the Mission/Steuart Hotel
- There are a lot of unresolved issues with the
EIR
- Would like to have Commissioners vote against
this project.
C. COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
8. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of
2/24/00 and 5/18/00.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
9. Commission Matters
Commission Joe:
1) She would like the Department to cooperate and
provide information requested by Mr. Joe LaTorre of the Mayor?s Office of
Housing so he can respond in 10 days.
Gerald Green (responded to Commissioner Joe?s
request):
The Commission took an action on 5/25/00 with a
+3-1 vote which meant that the motion to not take DR and not add any fee or not
require any action as suggested by the guidelines. The Commission opted not to
do so. Therefore, there is a +3-1 decision on a motion that did not include
referring this to the Mayor?s Office of Housing for a fee to be calculated. On
July 13, 2000 this case will come back to a full Commission to make a decision.
2) She would like a copy of the letter sent by
Mr. Joe Latorre of the Mayor?s Office of Housing.
3) She would like Department to look into the
impact of the relocation of the non-profits at the 2601 Mission Street Building
and the American Can Company.
D. DIRECTOR?S REPORT
10. Director?s Announcements.
None
11. Review of Past Week?s Events at the Board of
Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
BOS
None
BOA
None
E. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION
- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
12. 2000.235D (M.SNYDER: 575-6891)
175 BREWSTER STREET,east side between
Esmeralda Avenue and Joy Street, Lot 12 in Assessor's Block 5577 -- Request for
Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9924021 proposing to construct a single-family
house on a vacant lot within an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District, a 40-X
Height and Bulk District, and the Bernal Heights Special Use District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and
approve the Building Permit application as submitted.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2000)
Note: On May 11, 2000, the Commission passed a
motion of intent to take Discretionary Review and have the proposed design
modified by removing the top floor. Staff was instructed to verify the correct
property survey. The vote was +6 -0. Commissioner Mills absent.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Take DR. Approved as modified by
removing the top floor.
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
13. 1999.243D (BANALES: 558-6339)
1247 HARRISON STREET AND 428-8TH STREET, south side of Harrison
between 8th and 9th Streets, Lot(s) 063, 065, 066 in Assessor?s Block 3757 --
Request for discretionary review on an application that is proposing to
demolish the existing building on site and construct three new live/work
buildings containing a total of 64 units. The proposed project is in an
Industrial Protection Zone, a Service/Light Industrial (SLI), District, and a
40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take
Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
Note: On May 4, 2000, following public
testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing. A motion to not take
discretionary review and approve the proposal failed to carry by a vote of +3
-2. Commissioners Antenore and Joe voted no. Commissioners Mills and Martin
were absent.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, case continued to
July 13, 2000
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
14. 2000.113D (MILLER: 558-6344)
1552 POLK STREET, southeast corner at
Sacramento Street, Lot 1 in Assessor?s Block 644 -- Request for Discretionary Review
of BPA 9925357 for tenant improvements to a portion of a building
(approximately 1,700 square feet of floor area) for use as a ?Blockbuster?
video rental establishment.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary
Review and approve with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
Note: On May 4, 2000, following public testimony
the Commission closed the public hearing. A motion to take discretionary review
and approve with conditions failed to carry by a vote of +3 -2. Commissioners
Antenore and Joe voted no. Commissioners Mills and Martin were absent.
Note: On May 11, 2000, a motion to approve
failed to carry by a vote of +3 -3. Commissioners Joe, Martin and Antenore
voted no. Commissioner Mills absent. Continued to June 1, 2000.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Motion of intent to disapprove with a
report of final findings to be presented on June 8, 2000.
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Mills
NAYES:
Richardson,
Theoharis
ABSENT: Chinchilla
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
15. 1998.604E (NAVARRETE:
558-6163)
Mission/Steuart Hotel, Northeast corner of
Mission and Steuart Streets, Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 in Assessor?s Block
3714--Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the
proposed Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as
accurate and complete. The Project consists of General Plan and Zoning Map
amendments, a finding of consistency with the General Plan, as it is proposed
to be amended, for a change of use on the Project Site (a City-owned property)
from a public use (MUNI bus layover) to a private use (hotel, retail and
restaurant); a Conditional Use authorization for a hotel use, a granting of a
Parking Variance, and other authorizations to facilitate the construction of
the hotel project.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Certification.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
Note: On December 16, 1999, public hearing was
closed.
Point of Order:
Sue Hestor
- Does not agree that public comment was closed
on this item.
- The public only had access to the Draft EIR
and they never saw the responses.
- This item is on the calendar, therefore should
be able to have public comments.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Certified
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills,
Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION NO: 15074
16. 1998.604E
(NAVARRETE:
558-6163)
Mission/Steuart Hotel, Northeast corner of
Mission and Steuart Streets, Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 in Assessor?s Block
3714--Consideration of adoption of findings pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): See list under item 17a.
ACTION: Public Hearing Closed. Approved.
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION NO: 15075
17a. 1998.604EKMZCRV
(BEATTY:
558-6163)
Mission/Steuart Hotel, Northeast corner of Mission
and Steuart Streets, Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 in Assessor?s Block
3714--Consideration of the authorizations listed below in order to allow the
construction of a hotel ranging in height from 40 feet to approximately 84
feet, with approximately 200 to 210 rooms, and with accessory retail,
restaurant and meeting room space on City-owned property currently used as a
lay-over yard for San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) buses and proposed to
be leased my MUNI to the hotel developer who will lease the hotel to a hotel
operator.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
Michael Burns - General Manager of MUNI
- He is very please to present MUNI?s first
joint development project.
- This project grew out of a 1996 directive from
the Public Transportation Commission to explore opportunities for better
utilization of MUNI assets.
- This project has the potential for a very
attractive use of the project by being consistent with the mid-Embarcadero development
and the General Plan. This project has the potential to dramatically improve
the transit friendliness of the area and most importantly it will increase
transit usage to this part of the City.
- Issues that needed to be considered 1) What
are the MUNI transit impacts on employees and customers? 2) What are the
financial aspects of the deal? 3) What are the operational impacts?
- There will be 6 lines that will be relocated.
Three of the lines (21, 71, 7) are planned to layover on the eastern side of
Steuart Street.
- Two additional lines (9 - will layover on Main
Street and the 31 will layover on Mission Street just east of Main Street).
Just two blocks from the existing layover facility.
- Other lines (6 and 2) will be relocated to the
Transbay Terminal.
- There is consideration of a swap between the
21 with the 2 to provide a transit connection to the Sutter Street corridor
from the Embarcadero area.
- There will be no major impact on all the
lines.
- MUNI has about 2,700 customers serviced in
this area.
- There are very few people that use the layover
site as an origin or a destination.
- Most passengers access MUNI on Market Street.
- 82% of ferry passengers walk to and from their
destination.
- Improved connection to Market Street with the
F-line stop at the Ferry Building.
- Four Muni lines remain on Stuart Street.
- BART and MUNI Metro are easily accessible at
Embarcadero Station.
- Maintenances is light at the layover facility.
- The 14 Mission line was relocated out of the layout
facility about 7 or 8 years ago.
- There is no apparent difference in regards to
on-time buses.
- The operational impacts are minimal.
- Firmly believe that the development of this
project will generate income to the city.
- Significantly, under Proposition E, these
revenues are dedicated to MUNI.
- The developer will provide 1.5 Million dollars
for capital improvements for the area.
- This project provides many significant
long-term financial benefits for MUNI and the City.
(+) Chip Conley - Founder of Joie de Vivre
Hospitality
- The company has been in San Francisco for 13
years and they specialize in small, boutique hotels.
- They were selected about 2 years ago for the
project.
- They will provide many amenities for the
neighborhood : 1) a design concept which is complementary to all the variety of
the mid-Embarcadero projects that are occurring including the adaptive re-use
of the Ferry Building which allows for more weekend and nighttime activities.
2) Easy access to the new trolley ?F? line stop. They are funding the cost of
the trolley stop and free retail space to the non-profit Market Street Railway
Company for a trolley memorabilia retail shop. 3) Bathrooms (including
janitorial staff) for the MUNI drivers. 4) Enhancement of the art piece of the
ILWU. 5) Hotel will be union built and union operated. 6) A teen mentor ship
program and job training program for youth. and 7) a sidewalk cafe.
- This will be a transit-friendly hotel by
providing MUNI fast passes to employees, and BART tickets for guests from the
hotel to SFO.
(+) Clark Manus - Project Architect
- Site constraints include: Proposition K shadow
plane at Justin Herman Plaza South, MUNI vent shaft at northeast section of the
site, turn back tunnel structure which is underneath the site, the ?F? line,
the ILWU commemorative piece, and a piece of land that?s on the Embarcadero
side.
(+) Roberta Acktenburg
- She is here on her behalf and on behalf of the
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
- This project is a win for the City, MUNI, the hospitality
industry, numerous increases in jobs for San Franciscans, youth, the
Waterfront, and the quality of life in San Francisco.
- She will love to get on a MUNI line at her
home in Noe Valley and travel to the Embarcadero and enjoy the benefits that
these developers will provide.
(+) Ray Patlan - Local Artist
- He and 9 other artists were commissioned to
design a commemorative piece that stands on the corner of Mission and Steuart
Streets.
- This project will enhance the area not only
for the art peace but also with the other benefits.
Cathy Riggins - Embarcadero YMCA
- There will be adequate parking after the
construction of the hotel, which was a concern for the YMCA.
- She was happy to hear that passes would be
given to employees.
(+) Michael Dellar - Co-proprietor of One Market
Restaurant
- They have taken an active interest with MUNI.
They have had many meetings with MUNI and their consultants.
- As a neighborhood retailer, he is excited
about this project.
- All of the other food service establishments
are in agreement with the construction.
(+) Tho Do - Secretary/Treasurer of Local 2
Union
- The union supports the project because the
developer has respected the needs of union members, the new hotel development
will create many union jobs with many benefits to the members; they respect the
union to organize, etc.
- The ILWU sculpture will be permanently
displayed.
- Would like Commission to approve this project.
(+) Kelly Cullen - Executive Director of Tendorloin
Neighborhood Development Organization
- The neighborhood was amazed and delighted when
they opened a hotel in the tenderloin area.
- He has known the developer for many years and
knows that they have worked with the community.
- This project is a transit -friendly project.
(+) Jim Haas - Chair, Committee for Waterfront
Organ Pavilion
- Has been involved in the neighborhood for more
than a decade.
- Before the area was a layover for MUNI, it was
just a wasteland created from the 1958 freeway. The area was not very
attractive, therefore constructing a beautifully-designed hotel will improve
the area.
- The architect designed the hotel to be
compatible with the organ project.
- An EIR for the organ pavilion project will be
applied for right away.
- Would like Commissioners to support the
project.
(+) Sue Backman
- She has the largest retail tenant of the
Rincon Center which is directly across the street of the project. She is in
support of the project.
- In 1993, they were approached by the owners of
the Rincon Center to create a nighttime and weekend destination venue in a
neighborhood which closed early in the evening. Therefore, Chaulker?s was
created.
- There is much more activity and the
neighborhood is increasingly more dynamic.
- The hotel developers have address the parking
issues.
- MUNI can use the revenue which it will
receive.
(+) Jim Mathias
- Read a letter from Tom Redulevitch, BART
Director from District 9, which is in support of the project.
- Many joggers have plenty of room now to
peacefully jog and have a nicer view than a lot filled with buses.
(+) Ellen Kwan - Representing Chinatown
Transportation Research and Improvement Project.
- This project has been around for about 25
years. It was formed since the 1976 MUNI bus strike. TRIP has always been
concerned about transportation, with transit as number 1.
- This project is truly needed for MUNI to
increase their service and make service better.
- Although MUNI has to redirect their buses, the
benefits for MUNI are much greater than re-directing traffic.
(+) Jim Chapel - SPUR
- They have been involved in the redesign of
this neighborhood for about 20 years.
- They have wanted to get rid of that bus yard
and replace with something better and nicer.
- This is a way for MUNI to turn an underutilized
resource into income.
- Having private/public partnerships is the way
of the future.
- Hotel is the ideal use. It is the most public
of all public uses and requires very little parking.
- This is an ideal project all the way around.
(+) Charles Hardy
- He works at Boulevard Restaurant.
- He takes MUNI to work.
- The windows of the restaurant will show a
nicer view than the present lot.
(+) Frederick Hobson
- This project is in District 6 -
Tenderloin/Civic Center.
- Founder of an organization called People that
Care about San Francisco.
- His concerns have been answered.
- This project will have art growth,
- This project will replace an ugly-looking
site.
- This project is union friendly and that?s nice
to see in the corporate world.
(+) Rick Laubscher - Small Business Owner,
member of the Board of the Market Street Railway
- They support MUNI?s operation of historic
transit in San Francisco.
- This project will generously provide income to
MUNI for improvements.
- They will have a location in the building to
serve as a Transit Museum.
- The relocation of the current bus lines will
serve public better.
- This development will be the most
transit-oriented project ever.
(+) Paul Zeiger - President of the local
marketing
- This is a wonderful proposed project.
- They are constantly frustrated with the lack
of hotels in San Francisco.
- This will also be a visual benefit to the
area.
- This project will provide much needed income
to transit.
(+) Nancy Ellen - Lives at Rincon Center and owns
a retail store there.
- The busses provide odors and sloppiness to the
area.
- The structure will not block anybody?s views.
- Welcomes this addition to the neighborhood.
- Even though there are 2 other hotels in the
area, there is still much needed space for hotel guests.
(+) Doug Wright -
- Read a letter of Rudy Nothemberg who served as
the City?s Chief Administrative Officer, General Manager of the PUC, and most
recently as the president of the Transportation Commission.
- Urges Commission to move forward on this
project.
(+) Kim Martinson - Executive Director of the
Transportation Management Association
- Confirms the commitment of the project sponsor
to become a member of their organization.
- She commends the developer for the effort to
offer MUNI passes to employees and BART tickets for guest.
(+) Ray Antonio - President of Transport Local
Union
- Represents MUNI operators.
- The issues brought up during construction and
post construction have been addressed.
(+) Ken Maylee - Long time user of the
Embarcadero
- Supports the project as it is, as well as the
project developer.
(-) Norman Rolf - San Francisco Tomorrow
- A previous speaker mentioned that they have
concerns on this project but in reality they are totally opposed. Citizens for
a Better District 6 are opposed to this project as well.
- Transit first is the city policy and is
established in the City Charter.
- This project will make MUNI operations more
expensive and more difficult, less in service reliability, and degrade
passenger ambiance.
- The lay over terminal should be improved
properly in accordance with the mid-Embarcadero plan.
(-) Michael Levin -
- He is a 7 day a week MUNI rider, he is very
concerned about what happens with MUNI.
- He is not totally opposed to constructing a hotel
on this site yet he wants to be persuaded that this is a good project.
- He has great respect for the developer.
- The current design does not complement the
buildings in the area.
- There have been very poorly designed buildings
in the City.
(-) Dave Osgood - Representing Rincon Center
Tenants Association
- There is no information provided to back up
the data on transit.
- MUNI has neglected this site.
- There have been a lot of letters written to
newspapers regarding concerns about traffic.
- There are many articles regarding transit in
the newspapers recently.
(-) Gerald Cauthen - Transportation Engineer
- He came to San Francisco about 30 years ago.
- He is worried about the infrastructure and
it?s ability to keep up with what is happening to the City.
- It is obvious that MUNI is barely keeping up
with the status quo.
- The key issue is the way the streets are
formed in San Francsico.
- It is advantageous to have an off street
facility.
- It is impossible to compare an ugly facility
to a beautiful hotel.
(-) Garret Jenkins - President of the North
Market Planning Coalition
- The traffic impact will increase.
- One of the reasons the Embarcadero Freeway
came down was to get a better view of the bay. There are 20 other projects that
are being planned on the waterfront which means that the open space will be
lost. There are restaurants being planned even closer to the bay which will
block the view even more.
- The proposed hotel project will bring MUNI a
lot of money, yet if the corporate citizens really wanted to improve MUNI
service, they would accept a transit assessment.
(-) Lloyd Schloegel
- The most important aspect of this site is the
transit use.
- This project is located in front of the Ferry
Building.
- The are many more hotels located around this
location therefore there is enough hotel space.
- MUNI should not be in the hotel business, it
should take care of its transit problems.
- This project should be rejected.
(-) Ron Mitchel - GLNB Worksite Committee Member
at Potrero Division for MUNI
- He is not here to talk about ?up? the hotel or
?down? the hotel. He is concerned about the planning of where the buses are
being parked.
- This issue has been talked about in various
GLNB Worksite Committee meetings he has been to.
- The 31 and 9 lines will be put on Main and
Mission. These lines are brutally heavy traveled lines. There is already a lot
of traffic at this location therefore would like to have these lines layover at
another location.
- One idea that came out of these Committee meetings
was having all the downtown trolleys go to the Transbay terminal and maybe
putting the motor coaches in another spot. Having the trolleys in one spot is
better for maintenance and switch trolleys if necessary.
ACTION: NONE. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
FOR ITEMS 16 &
17b-f
17b. 1998.604K
(BEATTY:
558-6163)
Determination, pursuant to Planning Code Section 295, of whether the proposed
project?s shadow would result in any adverse impact on the use of the adjacent
property known as Embarcadero Plaza II-South (Justin Herman Plaza South) under
the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 17a.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION NO. 15076
17c. 1998.604M
(BEATTY:
558-6163)
Application under Planning Code Section 340 to
amend Map 2 (Height and Bulk Plan) of the Northeastern Waterfront Element of
the General Plan to change the designation of the subject site (Lots 6, 7, 8, 9
and 17 of Assessor?s Block 3714) from O.S. (Open Space) to 84-E designation.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 17a.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION NO. 15077
17d. 1998.604Z
(BEATTY:
558-6163)
Application under Planning Code Section 302 to
amend the official zoning maps of the City and County of San Francisco to
change the height and bulk district classification of Lot 17 of Assessor?s
Block 3714 from O.S. (Open Space) to 84-E and to change the use district
classification for the subject site (Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 of Assessor?s Block
3714) from a P (Public) district to a C-2 (Community Business) district.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 17a.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION NO. 15078
17e. 1998.604CR
(BEATTY:
558-6163)
Application for a conditional use authorization
under Planning Code Section 303 , which provides procedures and required
findings for conditional use authorization, and under Planning Code Section
216(c), which requires a conditional use authorization for hotels in the new
C-2" district, with exceptions from the bulk limitations of the 84-E
height/bulk district pursuant to Planning Code Section 271. Also, consideration
of a Finding of Consistency with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be
amended, for the change of use of the above-referenced City-owned properties
from public use for MUNI to a private hotel use on property to be leased to the
hotel developer and operator.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 17a.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION NO. 15079
Concurrent with the Planning Commission hearing
on the authorizations listed above, testimony will be heard by the Zoning
Administrator on the following variance application:
17f. 1998.604V (BEATTY: 558-6163)
Application under Planning Code Section 305 for
an off-street parking variance for the proposed approximately 200 to 210 room hotel
project described above. Planning Code Section 151 requires 30 to 34
independently-accessible off-street parking spaces for the proposed hotel,
restaurant and retail uses in the proposed C-2 zoning district. The applicant
proposes to provide nine independently-accessible parking spaces on the project
site, which can accommodate up to 17 vehicles through a valet operation.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
Larry Badiner - Public hearing closed.
This project has had significant review over a number of years. Staff believes
that this project follows the master plan as well as MUNI?s plan to provide a
funding facility for them. Recommends approval.
18. 2000.023C
(LeBLANC:
558-6351)
1731 - 1741 POWELL STREET, on the west side at
Columbus Avenue; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 0101 -- Request for Conditional
Use authorization to:(1) operate a live theater, (2) a bar and (3) a use
exceeding 2,000 square feet in the building previously known as the Pagoda
Theater in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40X Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with
conditions.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 25, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jim Reuben - Reuben & Alter assisting
Lerum Corporation
- This project will provide a state-of-the-art
live theater in a now vacant structure on a prominent corner in the middle of
the North Beach Commercial District.
- Theater goers will definitely patronize the
surrounding restaurants and bars.
(+) Doug Alles - CEO of Lerum Corporation
- The project is to renovate the now vacant
Pagoda Palace Movie Theatre into a live theatre. The building was originally
built in 1908 as a live theatre and converted into a movie theatre in 1937.
- The original tall plate sign will be kept
since it is the last remaining piece of history and an important symbol to the
neighborhood.
- The original balcony will be restored.
(+) Ken Maley - Resident of North Beach
- This is a return to live theatre.
- Strongly supports bringing cultural activity
to the City and to North Beach in particular.
- Encourages the Commission to approve this
project.
(+) Brad Kelly - Partner and General Manager of
Little City Restaurant
- He supports the project since the location of
the theatre can contribute to the survival of the surrounding business owners.
- The proposed theatre project is the perfect
liaison between the cultural experience and economic growth of the
neighborhood.
- A lot of the businesses and restaurants and
bars are very committed to solving problems they might have.
(+) Marshall Garland - Executive Director of the
North Beach Chamber of Commerce
- After the fight with Right Aide, the community
was afraid of what would be proposed for this site.
- She is truly grateful with Lerum Corporation
for proposing such an wonderful idea to bring back more theatre and doing it in
a way that is contemporary.
- 50 years ago, theatre went into a slump because
of television, it is now time to bring back
(+) Julie Christensen - She has either lived or
worked in North Bach for 21 years.
- She has appeared before the Commission many
times to oppose, yet this proposal is a wonderful idea.
- She is for rational, reasoned, sensible,
progressive change.
(+) Gerrie Crowly - Immediate Past President of
Telegraph Hill Dwellers.
- The dwellers support this project quite
strongly.
- Their concerns have either been resolved or
are in the process of being resolved.
- She is happy that the building will remain as
it?s original purpose: a theatre.
- Urges the Commission to approve this project.
(+) Ann McGuire - Lives a few blocks from the
proposed theatre
- It?s very nice to have someone to come into the
community and give that much time and energy.
(+) June Osterberg - Long time North
Beach Resident
- She represents the near neighbors to the
theatre.
- She has lived just across the street from the
proposed project for over 30 years.
- There have been many proposals for this site,
but the neighbors have opposed all of the them.
- She believes that the live theatre proposal
will enhance the neighborhood.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION NO. 15088
19. 2000.113C (CHIN: 575-6897)
2000 VAN NESS AVENUE, northeast corner at
Jackson Street; Lot 005 in Assessor?s Block 0595 - Request for Conditional Use
authorization pursuant to Section 209.6 of the Planning Code to install a total
of sixteen Antennas and a base transceiver station on an existing eight-story
over basement building as part of Metricom?s wireless Internet network in an
RC-4 ( Residential/Commercial, High Density) District and a 80-D Height and
Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with
conditions
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION:
Approved with Staff
Conditions
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:
Chinchilla
MOTION NO. 15080
(+) Robert McCarthy - McCarthy and Schwartz
- The antennas will be flush-mounted each of
which only generate 10 watts of power.
- Mr. Hammet read the EIR report to state that
one sector was moved away from anybody.
20. 2000.289L (KOMETANI: 558-6478)
700 MONTGOMERY STREET, THE COLUMBUS SAVINGS BANK
BUILDING,
northeast corner of Montgomery and Washington Streets; that portion of
Assessor's Block 196, Lot 8 occupied by the subject building -- Request for
Planning Commission approval of a proposed landmark designation which was
initiated by the Board of Supervisors. The subject property is a Compatible
building in the Jackson Square Historic District, is zoned C-2 (Community
Business) District and is in a 65-D-2 Height and Bulk District. Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval No Recommendation
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Angela Alioto
- This is a truly historic site and building.
- This building survived the 1906 earthquake.
- This is a jewel of a building for San
Francisco and should be classified as a San Francisco Landmark.
(+) Supervisor Becerril
- This building is an incredible addition to the
Landmarks Board?s list.
- This was a pre- 1906 earthquake and fire
survivor.
(+) Marsha Garland - Executive Director of the
North Beach Chamber of Commerce
- North Beach has shrunk over the years but historically
it really begins at the intersection Ms. Alioto referred to.
- This building should be landmarked.
(+) Gerry Crowley - Immediate Past President of
Telegraph Hill Dwellers
- This building is cherished by the
neighborhood.
ACTION: Approved to become Landmark No. 212
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Martin, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT: Chinchilla
RESOLUTION No: 15089
AT APPROXIMATELY 5:00 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CONVENED INTO A SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW (DR) HEARING.
21. 1999.639D (ARCE: 558-5986)
265 TINGLEY STREET, on the south side of
the intersection of Tingley Street and San Jose Avenue, Lot 048 in Assessor?s
Block 6781 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9505908S, proposing
to construct a new single-family house on a vacant lot in a RH-1 (Residential,
House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: No recommendation at
this time.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18,
2000).
Note: On February 3, 2000, following public
testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this matter
to 2/17/00 with instructions to staff to explore and address traffic concerns.
The vote was +7 -0.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTIONS: Without further hearing, continued
to July 20, 2000
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Theoharis, Mills
ABSENT: Chinchilla, Martin, Richardson
22. 2000.274D
(MARTIN: 558-6616)
1230 - 18TH STREET, north side, between
Texas and Mississippi Streets, Lot 013A in Assessor?s Block 4001 -- Request for
Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9912693S, proposing to add a third floor to an
existing two-story, one-unit building, setting it back approximately sixteen
feet from the existing second story, for a height of approximately 37 feet.
Additionally, the applicant would construct a two-car garage, with two garage
doors, move the existing curb cut, and make interior renovations 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 building permit application as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Steve Williams - Representing the DR
Requestor
- There seems to be some confusion with the
height of the buildings.
- The project property is already larger than
the other homes.
- The staff doesn?t want to talk about the
adjacent buildings.
- There are two lot line windows facing east.
- There is a lot of room for compromise and
reduction.
- The project will cause a loss of a rental
unit.
- There is no additional parking being added.
- Would like Commission to reduce the project in
size.
(-) Gary Shawley - DR Requestor
- He had intruders come into his home twice.
- The proposed structure will be an invasion of
privacy.
- There is a petition from 85 of the neighbors
to reduce the project in size.
(-) Judy Shawley - wife of DR Requestor
- They have had intruders come into their home
twice.
- Why does the proposed construction have to
have a window on the lot line?
- They have tried to compromise to no avail.
- The project is huge and out-of-scale.
(-) Leland Van Winkle - co-DR Requestor
- He has a 6-unit building across the street
from the proposed project.
- He presently enjoys an open space feeling.
- The scale of the project is so great and out
of place. The two adjacent owners would have to build up to protect or maintain
their investments - removing his open space feeling.
-The scale gives the appearance that this
project would be built by a full time developer yet this project is being done
by a first time developer.
- The construction would remove rental units,
therefore, would be decreasing affordable housing in the City.
- He would like to encourage the property owners
to be patient and go back to their first choice and find the ideal house, even
keeping 1230 18th Street as an investment but without the need of this major
construction.
(-) David Luth - Mechanical Engineer
- The guidelines stress consideration on the
impact of adjacent buildings.
- This proposal should be brought down in size.
- There is a problem with the scale of the
building in regards to shadow effect on the neighbor?s house.
(-) Ed Schumer - 13 year resident of Potrero
Hill
- Project is out of scale to the rest of the
neighborhood.
- Would like to have modest modifications to the
proposed unit.
(-) Rebecca de Guzman - Tenant of one of
the studios at 1297 18th Street
- She has been a tenant there since 1994.
- She is also a member of the San Francisco
Tenants Union because she has been concerned about the loss of rental units and
decrease of the quality of life to renters in San Francisco.
- She is against the project because of the loss
of family rentals.
- It has been brought up that MUNI has approved
this but that the garage would interrupt the MUNI bus stop.
- The building addition is out of scale and not
appropriate with the rest of the neighborhood.
- Would like to urge the Commission to consider
renters and the quality of life to residents of Potrero Hill.
(+) Robert May - Project Sponsors
- There was a secret brief that was sent out to
the Commissioners and he wasn?t aware of this. There seems to be many
discrepancies in this brief.
- The DR representative states that there is a
letter from a tenant who was evicted yet he has an e-mail from the same tenant
stating that he wasn?t evicted.
(+) Robert Poyas - Neighbor lives at 1206 18th
Street
- 10 years ago, he went through a similar
process of a neighbor making an addition to his home.
- The property owner came to him for advice on how
to go about doing this because he wanted to be sensitive to the community.
(+) David Teeters - Project Architect
- A lot has been talked about regarding the
residential design guidelines.
- There are buildings that range from 40 to 45
feet in height on both sides of the street.
- Regarding the scale of the building, no one
has suggested what exact scale would be appropriate.
(+) John Sweeney - 10-year resident of Potrero
Hill
- He is familiar with the review process since he
protested a proposed addition - he lost the appeal and none of his concerns
were taken into consideration. After the addition was completed, he realized
that his conception of the project was not correct and his concerns were not
ignored after all.
- A year later he went to apologize to his
neighbor.
(+) Sue Mell - Tenant at 285 Texas Street
- She has lived at this rental unit since 1995.
- Has no objections or reservations regarding
the construction.
- The DR requestors have never come to her to
get her opinion.
(+) Martha Cook -
- She is co-homeowner of proposed project.
- There was a flier that was posted throughout
the neighborhood demanding they stop the construction of their monster home.
(+) Marsha Cook
- She is the mother of Martha Cook.
- She lives in Michigan and she will be moving
into the addition of the proposed project.
- This project has been delayed several times.
ACTION: Take DR to make changes proposed by
ZA: Property line windows to be removed, deck to be moved to the left hand side
of the building, move ladder to the other side of the deck if building code
allows.
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Theoharis, Mills
ABSENT: Chinchilla, Martin, Richardson
Adjournment:
6:23 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2000.
Back to top
SAN
FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
?Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
Place
Thursday, June 8, 2000
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
![]()
PRESENT:?????????????? Mills, Richardson, Antenore ,
Joe,? Martin, Chinchilla
ABSENT:????????????????? Theoharis
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO
ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT MILLS? AT
1:31? P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald
G. Green - Director of Planning, Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator, Paul
Deutsch, Scott Edmondson; John Billovits; Paul Lord; Kelley LeBlanc; Ricardo
Bressanutti; Kenneth Chin; Mary Woods; Sailesh Mehra; Julian Banales; Nora
Priego, Transcribing Secretary, Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary.
A.????????? ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1.??????? 2000.457D????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? (CHIN: 575-6897)
431 - 35TH AVENUE, west side between Geary Boulevard
and Clement Street, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 1467 -- Request for
Discretionary Review of BPA No. 20000108558S/ 20000107526, proposing to
demolish the existing single-family dwelling and construct a new two-family
dwelling in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take
Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.
(Proposed for Continuance to June
22, 2000).
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued to June 22, 2000
AYES:??????????????? Antenore,
Joe, Martin, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis
2.???????? 2000.288E??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (DEUTSCH:
558-5965)
SEAWALL LOT 337 COMMUTER PARKING, Appeal of preliminary negative
declaration for
proposed expansion of use to permit daily general (commuter) parking in the
parking lot on Port property east of Third Street serving Pacific Bell Park,
containing about 1,814 spaces.? The lot
would be open on non-baseball game days from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.? On afternoon game days, general parking
would not be permitted.? On weekday
evening game days, general parking would be permitted with non-game attending
parkers required to exit the lot by 5:00 p.m.?
General parking would be permitted on weekend non-game days.? In addition, the types of temporary uses
permitted on the parking lot would be expanded to be consistent with Section
985 of the Planning Code, including 60-day limits for exhibitions, festivals,
Christmas tree and Halloween pumpkin lots, etc., and 1- to 5-year limits for
temporary uses and structures incidental to construction of a building, rental
or sales office incidental to a new development, etc.
These proposals, by China Basin
Ballpark Company and Imperial Parking, Inc., would require approval by the
Zoning Administrator, the San Francisco Port Commission, and the Port of San
Francisco.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative
Declaration.
(Proposed for Continuance to June 22, 2000).
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued to June 22, 2000
AYES:??????????????? Antenore,
Joe, Martin, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis
3.???????? 1999.151E??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
(MALTZER: 558-6391)
?????????????????????? SANITARY
FILL COMPANY SOLID WASTE FACILITY PERMIT REVISION;? 501 TUNNEL AVENUE; Assessor's Block 4991/Lots 7, 8, 9 and 82
in San Francisco County; and Assessor's Block 152/Lots 030, 340 and 220
(partial) in San Mateo County.? Appeal
of Preliminary Negative Declaration.?
The Sanitary Fill Company seeks to revise its Solid Waste Facility
Permit to allow for: (1) the removal of scheduling restrictions on refuse fleet
hauling; (2) an increase in permitted vehicle trips per day; (3) approval to
stage and handle source-separated organic waste as a separate waste stream; (4)
approval to enclose the construction and demolition debris sort line and
increase the hours of sort line operation; and (5) removal of the Household Hazardous
Waste Collection Facility from the Solid Waste Facility Permit.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative
Declaration
(Proposed for Continuance to July
13, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued to July 13, 2000
AYES:??????????????? Antenore,
Joe, Martin, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis
4.??????? 2000.269D?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ZWIERZYCKI:
558-6263)
585 LAIDLEY STREET, south side between Castro and
Roanoke Streets, Lot 025 in Assessor?s Block 6727 - Request for Discretionary
Review of building permit application No. 9923677 of proposal to construct a
third-story addition on top of an existing two-story single-family residence in
an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take
Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2000)
Note: On May 18, 2000, following
testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of
intent to take Discretionary Review and approve the project with design changes
--? show new peeked roof design, add
dormers to the rear, and setback building on the side of the DR requestor.
(Proposed for Continuance to July
20, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to July 20, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Martin, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
B.?????? 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.? If it is demonstrated that
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President or chairperson may
continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.
AThe 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):
Donald Jans -
- His case involves a hot tub in the
lightwell next to his home which creates noise and is directly outside of his
window.? It is also ruining the garden
in his front room.
- His case came to the Commission
several months ago.
- The perpetrator appealed and took six
months in the appeal.?? He believes that
because the Board of Appeals lacks experience on this subject, the BOA
overturned the Commission?s unanimous decision.? The city has a lawsuit against him for not getting a permit.
- He is asking that the Commission
ask Larry Badiner or the Chief Building Inspector to? rehear this case in front of the Board of Appeals.
Rob Corquita - Little Hollywood
Committee
- His committee submitted 25 pages
of documents and they were never notified that this case would be heard today.
- He would like a broader part of
the community to be notified for the hearing on July 13, 2000.
C.?????? COMMISSIONERS?
QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
5.??????? Consideration
of Adoption - draft minutes of 5/25/00.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Martin, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
6.??????? Commission
Matters
Commissioner Antenore:
He would like some response to Mr.
Jans public comment.
Larry Badiner:
?He has reviewed Mr. Jans? information and all of the information deals
with the building code.? Mr. Jans has
been communicating with Mr. Cornfield of the Building Department.? There is no new planning-related information
that Mr. Jans has presented, it is all building code issues.? The building department does have the opportunity
to request a re-hearing.
D.???????? DIRECTOR?S
REPORT
7.??????? Director?s
Announcements.
Gerald Green
Regarding the Bryant Square
approval: 1) This case has been challenged and appealed to the Board of
Supervisors for hearing in the near future; and
2) There was a hearing before the
Housing and Social Policy Committee.?
The Department participated in this discussion.?? Concerns that many in the neighborhoods
have are about scale and size in development in many of the residential
districts as well as commercial development.?
Staff will continue to work with Supervisor Leno on this issue.
8.??????? Review
of Past Week?s Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
BOA
None
BOS
1) Precidio Hill School
- This case was settled the Friday before
it went to the Board of Appeals.
- There were some minor
modifications in the conditions: 1) confirming that the white zone in front of
the school would not be extended 2) reducing the weekend activities from 6 a
year to 5 a year.
2) Asia SF Restaurant at 9th and
Howard
- The BOS overturned the Commission?s
decision.
- There was public testimony in
support of the restaurant
3) 2301 Third Street/2501 Third
Street and 2601 Mission Street
- Staff is still investigating these
matters and will report to the Commission in the near future.
E.???????? CONSIDERATION
OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
9.??????? 2000.113D?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER:
558-6344)
1552 POLK STREET, southeast corner at Sacramento
Street,? Lot 1 in Assessor?s Block 644
-- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA 9925357 for tenant improvements to a
portion of a building (approximately 1,700 square feet of floor area) for use
as a ABlockbuster@ video rental establishment.
Preliminary Recommendation:?? Take Discretionary Review and approve with
conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
May 11, 2000)
Note: On May 4, 2000, following
public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing.? A motion to take discretionary review and
approve with conditions failed to carry?
by a vote of +3 -2.?
Commissioners Antenore and Joe voted no.? Commissioners Mills and Martin were absent.
Note: On May 11, 2000, a motion to
approve failed to carry by a vote of +3 -3.?
Commissioners Joe, Martin and Antenore voted no.? Commissioner Mills absent.? Continued to June 1, 2000.???????
Note: On June 1, 2000, the
Commission passed a motion of intent to take Discretionary Review and
disapprove? by a vote of +4 -2.? Commissioners Richardson and Theoharis voted
no.? Final language 6/8/00.
Larry Badiner
Read the findings into the record:
The Commission took the action to deny based on 1) the potential for disruption
of transit service; 2) the potential for double parking; 3) there was no
demonstrated need for additional video rental service in the vicinity--an area
already well serviced by several other such establishments; 3) the recent
reduction from 3 to 2 traffic lanes and an the addition of bicycle traffic
mixed in with the vehicular lane would increase traffic congestion; 4)
substantial opposition expressed by neighborhood merchants and residents; 5)
the proposed validated parking would be valet style making it awkward for users
who might otherwise just double park; and 6) Polk Street is trying to establish
it?s character as a neighborhood commercial area of small local business and
there is a strong public sentiment that the proposed establishment would not be
compatible with that character.
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Take Discretionary Review.? Project Disapproved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin
NAYES:??????????? Richardson, Chinchilla
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
F.???????? REGULAR
CALENDAR
10.????? 1998.953E??????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NAVARRETE:
558-5975)
557 FOURTH STREET-- Public Hearing on Draft
Environmental Impact Report. On Assessor?s Block 3776, Lots 119 and 62, the
project would demolish an existing building on the southeastern portion of the
70,400-square-foot project site, subdivide the project site into 12 equal-sized
air parcels, and construct a four-story, 55-foot-tall wood frame live/work
building on each air parcel.? A total of
188 live/work units, occupying approximately 227,000 square feet, would be
constructed along with approximately 13,000 square feet of retail space for
four to six commercial tenants, which would be provided on the ground floor of
the two buildings with frontage on Fourth Street.? A three-level underground parking garage would occupy the entire
site and would provide 188 private parking spaces (one per live/work unit), 292
public parking spaces, and 2 off-street loading spaces.? The garage would be accessible on Welsh and
Freelon Streets in the middle of the project block.? The project site is in SLI?
(Service Light Industrial) District, and is in a 50-X Height and Bulk
District. Note:? Written comments
will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., on June 8, 2000.
Preliminary Recommendation: No
action
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
June 1, 2000).
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Stan Smith - Secretary/Treasurer of the San
Francisco Building Construction Trades Council
- He would like to delay the EIR for
one week.? He has reason to believe that
some of the transportation study is lacking.
(-) Howard Strassner - Speaking for
the Sierra Club
- Read from Proposition E because it
directly affects the work of the Commission and the Planning Department.
- The Planning Department should not
encourage big parking proposals in areas well served by transit because parking
garages draw people off transit and into cars which then impede transit.? Therefore, in two ways you discourage public
transit.
- One of the first directions in the
EIR is to discuss the alternative of a smaller garage--If you have less
parking, less people would drive because there is less places for people to
park.
(-) Lloyd Schloegle
- There is no need for housing here
because it?s not a residential area.
- There are too many proposals for
housing in these areas.
- This project is not necessary and
should be rejected.
(-) Sue Hestor
- This project is in the SLI district
and does not allow housing
- The growing demand for live/work
is the justification for this project.
- Live/work projects are now being
rented out to dot.coms.
- There should be an honest analysis
in this EIR which is the Department?s current version of office and call it
business services and analyze it as being used as dot.coms.
- Was this an arson fire, which
makes this site available?
- The traffic study is the biggest
problem.
- The project seems to incorporate as
a major mitigation measure something that the Commission has no power over
which is changing the street pattern.
-Would like to get another week
because this issue involves working with transportation consultants and 4
levels of transportation summaries have to be analyzed.
(-) Jennifer Clary - Board of
Directors of San Francisco Tomorrow
- She would like additional time to
comment on the EIR.
- She is extremely confused about
the policy of the department since they establish an industrial protection zone
and allow uses in it that are not allowed in it.
- She really would like time to
absorb it.
(+) Alice Barkley - Representing
Project Sponsor
- She would like the EIR to be
modified since the Department of Parking and Transportation is considering
reducing Zoe Street from a two way street to a one way Street southbound at the
request of some of the residents.
(+) Joe O?Donahue - Residential
Builders
- Years ago people were against
live/work because it wasn?t providing parking, now people are against live/work
because it is providing parking.
- This project is working for the
future.
- Sue Bierman gave her approval on
this site a few years ago.
- This is a good planning project.
ACTION:?????????? Public Hearing Closed.?
Written comment period extended for two weeks.
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
11.????? 1999.234E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (EDMONDSON:
558-5994)
673-683 BRANNAN STREET/168-178
BLUXOME STREET LIVE/WORK -- Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration:? Assessor's Block 3785/Lots 20 & 21
situated on the south side of Brannan Street between 5th and 6th Streets within
the South of Market neighborhood.? The
proposed project would construct four new buildings containing a total of 177
live/work units and 177 parking spaces at 673-683 Brannan Street/168-178
Bluxome Street.? The project would
demolish an existing 10,000 square foot warehouse structure.? Each new structure would be 55 feet tall,
and would cover the full lot length and width, from Brannan Street to Bluxome
Street.? The project site is within an
SLI (Service/Light Industrial) zoning district and within the Industrial
Protection Zone adopted by the Planning Commission as an interim zoning
control.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold
Preliminary Negative Declaration? ???????????????
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
May 25, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
Sue Hestor:
- There are about 450 units of
live/work in 3 projects.
- Does the commission monitor
occupancy in live/work projects?
- This project is next to the 6th
and Brannan on ramp/off ramp. It is a critical intersection.
- Is there a market need for all
these live/work projects?? It doesn?t
seem to be--not if they are being occupied by dot.com companies.
Gary Moody:
- There are such a massive amount of
live/work projects in the area.
- These live/work projects are not
in compliance with state requirements.
- Things can?t be made up as we go
along.
- He has talked to state officials
and they will look into this and he believes that they will find that San
Francisco is not in Compliance.
- He has talked to HUD, the
inspector general?s office.? These
projects are not in compliance with their guidelines either.
Lloyd Schloegle
- This proposal is in an area which
is zoned for service light industry and contains several active local
businesses.? This is not a residential
area.
- From the security standpoint, it?s
not a good idea to build housing away from residential areas.
- The proposed area is a vacant
lot.? This site would be better used as
a park.
Judy West
- Her project came up previously for
a rear yard variance.
- The issue is that in an industrial
area, people are building live/work because it seems to be the easiest to
build.
- People are not building
traditional housing.
- She thinks that in order to solve
the housing problems that San Francisco has,?
requirements that are placed on real housing in industrial areas need to
be looked at again.
- No one should build residential on
commercial areas until the requirements on residential are looked at.
- There are places more appropriate
to build live/work.
Joe O?Donahue - Residential Builders
- He believes that 3,000 units of
live/work is far short from the 10,000 units that? was authorized in the South of Market area.
- Live/work will house contractors,
plumbers, architects, etc.
- It would be much cheaper for the
builder to build dot.com to begin with than to convert the live/work to
dot.com.
ACTION:?????????? Public Hearing Closed.?
Continued to July 13, 2000
AYES:????????????? Mills, Richardson, Chinchilla
NAYES:??????????? Antenore, Joe and Martin
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
12.??????? 2000.380T????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LORD/BILLOVITS:
558-6311/558-6390)
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
PERMIT NOTIFICATION,
Consideration of a proposal to initiate amendments to the Planning Code (Zoning
Ordinance) to add Section 312 to establish a 20-day mailing and posting
notification requirement for building permit applications proposing demolition,
new construction, alterations expanding the exterior dimensions of a building
or changes of uses in Neighborhood Commercial Districts and various amendments
to Section 311 providing flexibility in the scheduling of discretionary review
hearings and assigning the administration of design guidelines and General Plan
policies to the Director of Planning.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
resolution initiating text amendments and scheduling a public hearing on the
recommendation of adoption to the Board of Supervisors for July 6, 2000.
SPEAKER(S):
Lloyd Schloegle
- The 30-day notice period for large
and significant proposals should be retained.
- A 20-day notice is not sufficient
for significant proposals pertaining to a demolition.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Martin, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
MOTION NO:???? 15081
13.??????? 2000.407 ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LORD/BILLOVITS:
558-6311/558-6390)
NC-2 ZONING DISTRICT IN THE VICINITY
OF 9TH AVENUE AND IRVING STREET, Consideration of a proposal to initiate amendments to the
Planning Code (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map) to create a new Inner Sunset
Neighborhood Commercial District in the vicinity of Irving Street between 5th
Avenue and 19th Avenue.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
resolution initiating map and text amendments and scheduling a public hearing
on the recommendation of adoption to the Board of Supervisors for July 13,
2000.
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
MOTION NO.???? 15082
14.??????? 2000.426 ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LORD/BILLOVITS:
558-6311/558-6390)
LIQUOR STORE DEFINITION AND ADDITION
TO ARTICLE 7 OF THE PLANNING? CODE, Consideration of a proposal to
initiate amendments to the Planning Code (Zoning Ordinance) by amending each of
the Neighborhood Commercial District zoning control tables in Article 7 to add
a use category called ALiquor Store@ and to make such stores either a permitted
use, a conditional use, or not permitted and by adding Section 790.55 to define
ALiquor Store@.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
resolution initiating text amendments and scheduling a public hearing on the
recommendation of adoption to the Board of Supervisors for July 13, 2000
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
MOTION NO.???? 15083
15.??????? 2000.316X???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BEATTY:
558-6163)
554 MISSION STREET, north side of Mission Street
between 1st and 2nd Streets, Lots 15, 17 and 18 of Assessor?s Block 3708 --
Request for two exceptions under Planning Code Section 309: (1) separation of
towers requirements as permitted in Planning Code Section 132.1(c)(1); and (2)
on-site freight-loading service driveway requirements as permitted in Section
155(d).? The project site is within the
C-3-0 (Downtown, Office) District and 500-S (Lot 18) and 550-S (Lots 15 and 17)
Height and Bulk Districts.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
June 1,2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Lloyd Schloegle
- This construction is right next to
Golden Gate University.? There is no
need for more office space.
- The construction of this building
will interfere with the school?s functions.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mill, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
MOTION NO.???? 15084
16.??????? 1999.839C?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LeBLANC:
558-6351)
700 JONES STREET, northeast corner at Post Street;
Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0298 --Request for Conditional Use authorization to
install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 6 panel antennas
on the roof and base station equipment in the basement of a mixed use building
in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined) District, and an 80-A Height and
Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jenny Estes - Project Sponsor
representing Sprint PCS
- This location complies with the
Wireless Telecommunications Services Facility Sighting Guidelines and the SF
Municipal Code.
- The building is
commercial/residential in an RC-4 District therefore a preference 5.
- Sprint took extra care in finding
an appropriate site and notifying the community and making an unintrusive
design.
- There were community meetings held
on January 28, 2000 and May 18, 2000.?
Sprint is required to notify residents within a 25-foot radius and they
notified residents within a 300-foot radius.?
No one attended these meetings.
- The installation of the facility will be unobtrusive to public view.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Antenore,
Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
MOTION NO.???? 15085
17a.????? 1999.414C?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BRESSANUTTI:
575-6892)
325 FREMONT STREET,east side between Folsom Street and
Harrison Street; Lots 12, 13 and 14 in Assessor's block 3747 - Request for
Conditional Use Authorization per Planning Code Section 253 (building exceeding
40 feet in height in an R District) and Section 249(b)(1) (site coverage
exceeding 80 percent) to allow construction of a new 21-story, 200-foot-tall
residential building with not more than 54 dwelling units above four levels of
parking (three levels below grade and one level at grade) with up to 54 spaces,
within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined District, High Density)
District and the Rincon Hill Special Use District, and a 200-R Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
June 1, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Steve Vettel - Gladstone and
Vettel representing Project Sponsor
- This project is a joint venture between
Doug Shaw, Mike Angady, and Jim Reiley of Angady and Reiley Contractors.
- There is a general consensus in
the city that this is an appropriate location for high-density, high-rise
housing.? The Department is looking into
even further upzoning of this area to make it easier to develop high-rise
housing in this area.
- They are proposing that 10% or 12%
of the units be below market value.
(+) Bob Baum - Lead Architect
- The building consists of 20 levels
containing 51 apartments.
- The majority of the units are two
story apartments with views of the Bay.
- There is an 1,800 square foot
terrace which provides exceptional views of the Bay.
- The materials will be simple yet
elegant.
(-) Lloyd Schloegle
- This appears to be improperly identified
in the agenda.
- There is a large 4-story building
across the street where there is a Pacific Bell facility.
- This appears to be an inopportune
site for housing.
- This area should be preserved for
industrial uses.
(+) Joe O?Donahue - Residential Builders
- This project has taken too long to
come before the Commission.
- Projects like these should be
approved because they provide funds for job training programs.
(-) Theo Brown - Owns a property at
355-375 Fremont
- The property line windows might be
a problem for future projects.
- Under the new Rincon Hill Planning
District, this project might be the only tower on the block.
ACTION:????????? Approved with condition that 10% of units be below
market rate housing.
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????? Theoharis
MOTION NO.?? 15086
17b.????? 1999.414V?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BRESSANUTTI:
575-6892)
325 FREMONT STREET,east side between Folsom Street and
Harrison Street; Lots 12, 13 and 14 in Assessor's block 3747 -The Zoning Administrator
will conduct a joint hearing on a request for a front setback Variance per
Section 249(c)(3) and an open space Variance per Section 249(c)(4)(B).
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? (same
as those for item 17a)
ACTION:?????????? ZA
Closed Public Hearing on variance and has taken the matter under advisement.
18.??????? 2000.391C????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (CHIN:
575-6897)
4141 GEARY BOULEVARD, between 5th and 6th Avenues; Lots
002, 003, 004 in Assessor's Block 1539: --?
Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.6 and
712.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of six antennas and a base
transceiver station on an existing four-story building, on Kaiser?s French
Campus, as part of Sprint's wireless telecommunications network in an RM-1/NC-3
(Low Density/Neighborhood Commercial-3) District and a 80-E Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
Jenny Estes - Project Sponsor
representing Sprint PCS
- This location meets the WTS
Sighting Guidelines and the San Francisco Municipal Code.
- The Antennas will be flush mounted
to become unobtrusive on both sides of the building.
ACTION:????????? Approved
AYES:???????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????? Theoharis
MOTION NO.?? 15087
G.?????? SPECIAL
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 4:00 P.M. the Planning Commission Convened
into a Special Discretionary Review (Dr) Hearing.
19.????? 1999.543DD??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WOODS:
558-6315)
338 - 12TH AVENUE, east side between Geary Boulevard
and Clement Streets, Lot 33 in Assessor?s Block 1443 -- Request for
Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9901007S, proposing to add a new fourth floor,
front, side, and rear additions to the existing single-unit building at the
front of the property only in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density)
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not
take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as revised.
SPEAKER(S):?
(-) Stephen Williams - Representing DR
Requestor
- The entire envelope is being
altered.
- No part of the existing envelope
will exist after the proposed project.
- In reality, this alternation is a
demolition.
- An illegal demolition has already
occurred at this site.
- The actual home at the proposed
site used to be a Victorian cottage.? It
has now been rebuilt to a 3-story,? 3
apartment building complex.
- The lot now exceeds the density
for legal units.
- There is a real fire danger
because none of these permits went through Planning or the proper
channels.? There have been two fires at
this property.
(-) Yew Mar - Second DR Requestor
- Lives next door to proposed site.
- Mr. Lam built an illegal window.
- Mr. Lam has already built 3 units.
- There is a real problem of parking
in the neighborhood.
- He hopes the Commission doesn?t
approve this project.
(-) Helen Jue
- She is speaking on behalf of her
husband and daughter.
- The proposed project is already
too large.
- The building will block light and
air to her property.
(-) Joanne Tinloy
- He can understand Mr. Lam wanting
to expand his home since she has a family also.
- The proposed project has changed
from a nice Victorian home with an in-law in the back to a 3 story building.
- Her parents who live near the
proposed site, recently installed new windows in their kitchen to bring more
light into their home.? IF the proposed
project is approved, this sunlight will be blocked.
(-) Mary Jue Loo
- She has lived with her parents
until 1995.? Her parents and Mr. Lam
were friends? until Mr. Lam began
building and demolishing on his property without consideration for the
neighbors.
- Everything Mr. Lam has built is
questionable.
(-) Loretia Yan
- She truly enjoys the light and
sunshine in her home.
- The proposed 4-story building will
definitely block the sunshine and light coming into her home.
(-) Kai Loo
- He grew up in San Francisco.
- He is a frequent visitor to the Yu?s
residence who live next door to Mr. Lam?s house.
- Mr. Lam?s proposal for a 4-story building
will change all the light and air coming into the Yu?s home.
- There has to be some regard to the
quality of life.
- Read a letter from Mr. Sam
Manthrop who is also a neighbor of Mr. Lam who expressed his concerns about
light and air blockage to his home because of the proposed construction.
(-) Galvin Wong
- He would like Mr. Lam not to build
such a large building.
(-) Art Louie
- Mr. Lam proposes to build 6
bathrooms and 2 furnaces.
- He would like the Commission to
reduce the construction in scale.
(-) John Ngau - neighbor
- He has 3 concerns about the
proposed construction:? 1) the project
is already too large;? 2) parking is
already a problem in the neighborhood; and 3) the project will cause a trend in
the neighborhood when later someone else might want to build something similar
in height.
(-) Jayne Loughry - neighbor
- Lives at 348 Funston Street - has
lived there for the last 12 years.
- There is a strong neighborhood
association where she lives.
- She is a gardener and many of the
neighbors have front and back gardens.
- The proposed construction will
cause less light in her garden.
(-) Bill McGuire - has lived in the
Richmond District for 30 years.
- He has seen a lot of changes in
the neighborhood.? He belongs to Heritage,
The Richmond Community Association and the Planning Association of the
Richmond.
- He believes that laws should be
followed.
(-) Jake McGoldrick - Richmond
Community Association
- This project is too large and
should not be allowed.
- If this project is allowed, it
will make neighbors want to build as high.
(+) Alice Barkley - Representing
Project Sponsor
- So far the Commissioners have
heard a lot of allocations about what has happened in the past.
- If DBI required a permit for a
demolition, the law would be abided and the permit would be applied for.
- The project sponsor wanted to live
in the back in-law while the front was being remodeled.
- An encroachment that was talked
about is a trim on top of the roof of the rear building.? This has been removed.
- There is no way that the proposed
construction will impact the neighbors home.
- The scale of the building when you
look at the front facade--you are not going to be able to see the 4th floor.
(+) Doug Engmann
- Mr. Lam is a friend and has been
his electrical contractor for many years.
- From the neighbors description,
one would not want Mr. Lam to come to their home.
- There are no illegal units in the
building.
- The issue before the Commission is
the penthouse.
- Would like for project to be
approved with the conditions imposed by staff.
(+) Nancy Pearlman
- She has lived on 12th Avenue for
about 15 years.
- Mr. Lam has been a great neighbor
for 15 years.
- Mr. Lam has always followed the
rules and has requested permits when needed and has had inspectors come to his
home.
(+) Nancy Lee Smith
- She met Mr. Lam when he was a
bachelor and had recently purchased his home.?
He is now married and has a family.
- There is no better electrician
than Mr. Lam
(+) Fai Wong
- He lives across the street from
Mr. Lam?s house.
- MR. Lam has? a lot of neighbors supporting him.
(+) Weldon Smith
- He would like to point out that
the proposed houses will be a good addition to the neighborhood.
(+) David Lam
- Mr. Lam?s proposed construction will
make the neighborhood better in terms of?
appearance, consistency in architecture and look.
- There are several large homes in
the neighborhood.
ACTION:?????????? Public
Hearing Closed.? Continued to July 20,
2000 to give Staff time to review permit history.
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
20.????? 2000.238DDD???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????? (MEHRA: 558-6257)
117 PARKER AVENUE, west side between Euclid Avenue
and Geary Boulevard, Lot 003 in Assessor?s Block 1064 -- Request for
Discretionary Review of BPA Nos. 9912789 & 9912791, proposing to demolish
the existing single-family dwelling and the construction of a new two-story
over garage two-family dwelling 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 building permit applications as
revised.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) K. Rose Hillson - DR Requestor -
Lives at 115 Parket Street
- The Heritage Foundation sent the Commissioners
correspondence regarding preservation of the proposed site.
- They bought their property because
of the air and the ambiance of light coming into their home.
- If Mrs. Piambo let her cottage
deteriorate, it is no excuse for demolition.
- The new building blocks light to
my home.
- The roof line is not consistent
with the surrounding structures.
- The garage door does not match the
other homes either.
(-) Sylvia Melikian - DR Requestor -
Lives at 503 Euclid Street
- She has spent 25 years in the
institutional real estate market--investing pension plans for Cities, Counties,
and States into commercial real estate.?
Her firm owns many of the building in the City.
- She has worked with many
architects and is aware of the difference in aesthetics which can be applied.
- She would request a redesign of
the proposed construction.
(-) Irene M. Lieberman
- She objects to having more cars in
the neighborhood.
- Her senior citizen friends find it
difficult to visit her since they have to park far away.
- Her light will be cut off.
- If this project goes through,
there are other properties who might want to do the same.
(-) Sarah Jane Gould
- She lives right behind the
proposed structure.
- There is a tree that separates the
two homes and she is concerned about the future of the home.
- There will be increasing noise to
the area.
- This structure is inconsistent
with the design of the other homes.
(-) Steven Hilson - Lives at 115
Parket Street
- The developers know how to make it
look as though they are compromising by asking for far more than they need and
then scaling it down to something that is still unreasonable just so they can
say they compromised.
- The project owner, originally
submitted inaccurate documents.
- Most families have more than one
vehicle.
- This project will impact the
parking in the neighborhood.
(-) Stuart Whitman
- Submitted a letter from Charles
Edwin Chase - Executive Director of the Architectural Heritage Group who is
opposed to the project.
(-) Cliff Liehe - Lives at 144
Parket Avenue
- He has lived there for 23 years.
- He respects the owners of the
proposed project.
- Parking is a major issue for him.
-This proposed construction will
create more parking problems in the neighborhood.
- There are 3 multi-complexes in the
neighborhood.
(-) Grover Wall - Lives at 81 Parket avenue
- He opposes the demolition of the
present structure and the construction of a new structure.
- People take pride in the
appearance of their homes.
- The owners of the building under
consideration initially declared their interest with the neighbors yet in their
final proposal they have abandoned this approach.
(-) Stephanie Wall
- Founding Director of Jordan? Park Association
- This is a single-family, unique neighborhood.
- Her main concern is that the
building is completely out of character with the neighborhood.
- There is a trend in this
neighborhood to destroy some of the neighborhood character.
- She collected 62 signatures of
people who are opposed of this project.
- There are two articles--one from
the San Francisco Chronicle and one from the San Francisco Independent about a
meeting that was held about the buildings being built which are out of
character with the neighborhood.
(-) Rosemary Patten
- She understands people wanting to
build and expand their homes.
- The problem is the character of
the particular design.
- It?s very easy to see that the
particular design far exceeds the height of the houses on either side of the
neighborhood.
(+) Yoel Yodowitz - Reuben &
Alter
- There have been a lot of
hyperbolae.
(+)Tony Pantaleoni
- The estimate of the renovation
from the existing building was done by the contractor.
- There was a termite inspection and
it? was discovered that the whole
foundation would have to be replaced, the house had to be jacked up.
- The cost includes bringing the
construction up to code.? The bathrooms
had dryrot.? Bathroom needed to be
upgraded.
- There are many houses in the
neighborhood that are 3-story homes.
- The proposed house is the smallest
on the block.
(+) Anna Marie Piombo - Lives at 31
Collins Street
- She has lived in Laurel Heights
for 51 years.
- This property is in a trust for
her 5 children.
- She would like to build a pair of
flats to add value to the block.
- She has always been honest about
the construction.
- She has attended 3 meetings with
the neighbors and has reduced and revised the plans many times.
?
ACTION:?????????? Public
hearing closed.*? Will get the input
from DBI to determine if the current structure requires demolition; staff will
work with Mr. Pantalenoi to improve facade in order to make it more appropriate
with the neighborhood.
*(Public testimony will be open only
if a new design is required from the architect).?? Continued to July 27, 2000.
AYES:???????????? Antenore, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????? Joe, Theoharis
21.????? 2000.345D????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? (CHIN: 575-6897)
2823-2825 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, southeast side between Arguello
Boulevard and Willard North, Lot 044 in Assessor?s Block 1167 -- Request for
Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9923086, proposing a 36'-2" rear addition
at the first and second floors, and the installation of a new garage door 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 building permit application as submitted
SPEAKER(S):?
(-) Leona Storm
- Her property is adjacent to the
proposed property.
- There is a problem with limited
open space.
- The proposed construction will
cause lack of sunlight to her property.
- One of the problems is that
gradually the department is allowing for less sensitivity to small houses.
- There have been two additions to
the proposed property already.
- She will lose privacy both in her
back yard and two of the bay windows that face into this yard.
- They are increasing the number of
bedrooms by 4.? It is not unlikely for
these rooms to be rented to students.
- Many of the properties around the
neighborhood rent to students which means that each renter might have a car;
therefore, making parking a bigger problem.
(+) Lisa Wong - Project Architect
- She has designed many residential
projects.
- She believes that this is a very
modest addition.
- The two story extension in the back
is legal.? They are only adding another
13 feet past that.
- The project is only two stories
high.
- She tried to address all the
concerns the neighbors had.
(+) David Lee - Co-owns the property
with his father.
- His father lived in the home for many
years.
- The house is too small for another
live-in nurse to take care of his ailing father.
- When he gets married, he will need
the space for his family.
ACTION:?????????? Take
Discretionary Review and approve a two unit building with the following
revision of conditions: 1) remove door that lead from garage to first
story;? 2) expand bathroom downstairs;
3) put a notice of special restriction on the property;? 3) remove window in walk-in closet; and 4)
glass on window over vanity in the master bath should be obscure.
AYES: Antenore, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Joe, Theoharis
22.????? 1998.864D????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BANALES:
558-6339)
690 - 4TH STREET, west side between Bluxome and
Townsend Streets, Lots 8 and 9 in Assessor?s Block 3786, Staff-Initiated Discretionary
Review of Building Permit Application No. 9824087, proposing new construction
of a mixed-used live/work and retail building, following demolition of existing
structures on the subject property.? The
subject property is in an Industrial Protection Zone Buffer and a SSO (Service
Secondary Office) District and 65-X Height and Bulk District. The project
proposes demolition of two existing structures on the site and new construction
of a mixed-use live/work and retail building.?
54 live/work units and approximately 14,600 square feet of ground floor
retail space is proposed.????
Preliminary recommendation: Do not
take Discretionary Review and approve building permit as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Sue Hestor
- She strongly disputes this last
minute interpretation.
- This project is 85,000 square feet
of live/work in an SSO district.
- This parcel was designated as SSO
- The floor plan is ideally suited
for office use since it has large spaces.
- This is an office site and it
shouldn?t be live/work.
(-)Jake McGoldrick
- If this is an office building,
then it should be approved as an office building.
(-) Gary Moony
- This project is 2 a block from
CalTrain as well as other sources of public transportation and environmental
agencies.
(+) Don Shaw -
- When the owners came to him they
wanted a building that was mixed used with retail on the ground level and
live/work units above.? They wanted the
building? to fit into the existing
neighborhood --which consists of mostly renovated, industrial buildings built
in the early 20th century.? These
buildings were usually either concrete frame or brick with industrial steel
sash windows.
(+) Salish Mahendra
- He read a letter from the 601 4th
Street Residents Association.
- They have had meetings regarding
this project and they agree with the general concept of the project.
- They had some reservation
regarding the aesthetics of the building.?
They felt that the developers and the architects had good intentions to
try to make the building match the character of the neighborhood.?
- They made some suggestions at the
meetings and the owners have made a revised sketch of the building which meets
the suggestions.
(+) Peter Meyer - Project Sponsor
- He lives one block down the street.
- The owner?s across the street have
made a few suggestions but overall supports the construction.
- This is a very substantial, nice
project.
ACTION:????????????? Take Discretionary Review and approve project with
the following recommendations: 1) take the volunteer donation of $100,000
offered by Jim Reuben on behalf of his client for transit impact fees (to be
paid prior to the issuance of the permit); 2) do as Commissioner Chinchilla
recommended and have a Notice of Special Restriction placed on this project
that would put the world on notice that this has been authorized only as
live/work and not as office; and 3) that any conversion to office use would
require going through the office allocation process.
AYES:?????????????????????????? Antenore, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla,
Richardson
ABSENT:?????????? Theoharis, Joe
Adjournment: 7:23 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR
ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JULY 6,
2000
Back to top
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
?Meeting Minutes
Commission Chamber - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
Place
Thursday, June 15, 2000
1:30 P.M.
Regular Meeting
![]()
PRESENT:?????????????????? Mills, Antenore, Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????????????????? Theoharis, Martin
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY
VICE PRESIDENT MILLS AT 1:35 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green
- Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Hillary Gitelman;
Kelley LeBlanc; Matthew Snyder; Isolde Wilson; Catherine Keylon; Allison
Borden; Nora Priego, Transcribing Secretary; Linda D. Avery - Commission
Secretary.
A.???????? ITEMS
PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1995.385E???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KUGLER
558-5983)
444 DIVISADERO STREET, TOUCHLESS CAR
WASH Appeal of a
Preliminary Negative Declaration on Assessor?s Block 1216 - Lots 5, 17, 18,
19, located on the northeast corner of Oak and Divisadero Streets in the
Western Addition.? The proposed project
would demolish two existing buildings at 1060-1062 and 1052 Oak Street and construct
a new two-story mixed-use building with two dwelling units on the second floor
and an auto detailing services and a parking space on the ground floor.? There would be one level of underground
parking with 13 spaces accessed by a commercial automobile elevator.? The underground parking would be covered by
landscaping.? An additional two story
structure would be constructed to serve as an employee lounge and storage
area.? Two shed roofed open sided
structures would be constructed to connect the existing car wash structure and
the two proposed structures.? Minor
modifications in the form of the addition of a covered waiting area and the
enclosure of an existing laundry facilities wold be done to the existing car
wash building.? The car wash vehicular
circulation and queuing area would be expanded and reconfigured.? The proposed site is split between two
zones; lots 5, 17, 18 and the portion of lot 19 that fronts on Oak Street are
zoned NC-2 while the interior remainder of lot 19 is zoned RH-3.? A rezoning of the interior portion of lot 19
from RH-3 to NC-2 is proposed as a part of the project.? The project also has two Height/Bulk
Districts 65-A and 40-X.
(Propose for Continuance to July 13,
2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued as Proposed
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Theoharis
B.???????? 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.? If it is demonstrated that
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President or chairperson may
continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.
AThe 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))
Fran Martin - Visitation Planning
Alliance
- There is a Home Depot being proposed
at the Schlage Lock site in a Visitation Valley residential area.
- The community would rather see a
grocery store, a City College of San Francisco extension, a library, etc.
Linda McKay - Member of the Little
Hollywood Association
- Their community is blocked by
Executive Park, Schlage Lock, and the garbage company.? There is not that much space left for
constructing housing.
Paul Zingary - lives at 999
Tennessee Street
- The BOA overturned the Commission?s
decision on the 993 Tennessee Street case.
- Very disappointed with the whole
situation.
Stephen Williams
- The BOA overturned the decision
the Commission made on 993 Tennessee Street.
- There were lots of mis-information
the BOA had.
- The Commission?s recommendation
was presented with very little detail.
- The BOA is out of control because
the department and the city attorney are not doing their jobs.?
- The BOA has an obligation to
enforce the law, yet it is not being enforced.
Chris Cole
- He was also at the BOA hearing
last evening.
- The BOA made decisions as if the
Planning Commission didn?t exist.
- Staff should pay more attention
with subjective matters.
Mark Gordon -
- wasn?t at all happy with the way
Mr. Badiner represented the Commission.
Rob Anderson - Resident of Dog Patch
- Quite disappointed and shocked at
what happened at the BOA meeting.?
- Felt that the decision had been
made even before they went up to express their points of view.
- What is the purpose of showing up
at these hearings if they?re not going to listen.
- The developer of 993 Tennessee
Street has never worked with this neighborhood.
Sue Hestor -
- There was a promise that there
would be a full report on people being displaced and that has not happened.
Patricia Vaughey
Luis Fernandez - Mission Economic
Development Association
- They were tenants at the 2601
Mission Street Building (Bay View Building)
- About 6 months ago all the tenants
received an eviction notice.? Most of
the tenants are non-profits.? Some of
the businesses moved to Oakland yet others will be going out of business
because they cannot afford the high rents.
- The owner of the building decided
to rent all the floors to a dot.com company.
- He is aware that if a tenant
decides to use the entire floor of the building for just one company, a
conditional use permit should be applied for and it hasn?t.
- There are still some floors which
haven?t been occupied
Anastasia Yovinopolus - Board member
of the Friends of Noe Valley
- She is upset because the Department
did not advertise properly for a New Zoning Administrator.
Joe O?Donahue - Residential Builders
Alice Barkley
- She was at the BOA meeting.
- There is a major disagreement from
the residents and their attorneys.
- She believes that the
characterization of Mr. Badiner in the BOA is grossly misinterpreted.
Sh Koosji - Staff of Mission
Economic Development Association
- Regarding the building at 2601
Mission Street - would like staff to enforce the Conditional Use permit.
- The neighborhood has come out overwhelmingly
to help the people who are being evicted from this building.
C.??? COMMISSIONERS?
QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
1.?????????? Consideration
of Adoption - draft minutes of 6/1/00.
ACTIONS:??????? Approved with corrections.
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????? Theoharis, Martin
2.?????????? Commission
Matters
Commissioner Mills:
1) She would like to have Action Due
dates on the Action List.
2) She would like a report on
whether or not the Commission, under DR authority, can impose exactions such as
affordable housing and transportation fees.
3) She would like a report on the
2601 Mission Street (Bay View Building) case.
Commissioner Antenore:
1) He believes that there are some
items that haven?t been reported to the Commission regarding the Action List.
2) The Commission is being ignored
on certain items.
Commissioner Joe:?
- She would also like to see a
report on the American Can Company.
D.?????? DIRECTOR?S
REPORT
3.?????????? Director?s
Announcements.
- He would like to express
significant confidence in Mr. Larry Badiner?s work since he became ZA a month
ago.?
- It is unfair that he take the
blame and be criticized by decisions made by the BOA.
4.?????????? Review
of Past Week?s Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
Larry Badiner
993 Tennessee Street
- This case was overturned by the
BOA +4-0.? They felt that it was a mixed
neighborhood and that there were a variety of building types, building forms
and building uses.
- He seeks guidance and welcomes any
recommendations from the Commission on how to represent them.
768 El Camino - a Discretionary
Review
- The BOA upheld the Commission?s
decision +5-0.
535 Mission Street
- This item was withdrawn even
before it went to the BOA because the project sponsor upheld the Commission?s
decision.
2601 Mission Street
- The permits which have been
examined at this time are for some base building issues.? Most of them are relatively minor.
- There are no tenant improvements
yet before staff.? However, these
tenants improvements would be making changes to the size of the space or
converting uses.
- Staff will be doing a site visit
in the near future.
Live/Work Status
There are a number of reports
recently on conversion of live/work to offices.? There have been 3 formal complaints from Ms. Sue Hester.? Staff is looking into these.? If they are reported, staff will
investigate.? If they are illegal, or if
they require further permits or further environmental review, staff will pursue
them.
The conditional use abatement Language
This was before the Transportation
Committee and a concern was raised from the Restaurant Association.? I, as Zoning Administrator, responded making
minor recommendations and changes essentially saying that the conditional use
abatement was not intended to extend the grounds for abatement but to clarify
the procedure for abatement.? Also, the
Commission would be focusing on any abatement action on issues that were in
their subject matter jurisdiction only.
E.?????? REGULAR
CALENDAR?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GITELMAN)
5.???????? Resolution
delegating to the Environmental Review Officer (ERO) responsibility for taking
testimony at Draft EIR hearings on Hetch Hetchy Water Treatment Project.
SPEAKER(S):?????????????? None
ACTION:?????????????????????? Approved
AYES:????????????????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla,
Richardson
ABSENT:????????????????????? Theoharis, Martin
RESOLUTION NO.:??????? 15090
6.???????? 2000.147C????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LeBLANC
558-6351)
400 McALLISTER STREET AKA 401
POLK? STREET, northwest corner at Polk Street;
Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0766 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization
to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of six panel
antennas and base station equipment on the roof of an existing building in a P
(Public) District, the Civic Center Historic District and an 80-X Height and
Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with Conditions
?(Continued
from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2000)???????????????????????
SPEAKER(S):?
Jennifer Estes - Representing Sprint PCS
- This site complies with the WTS
Facility Sighting Guidelines as well as the San Francisco Municipal Code.
- This is a preference one location
since it is a publicly used building.
- They have tried to make the site
visually unintrusive.
Lloyd Schloegel
- This antenna system is likely to
be disruptive to City Hall.
- This is unnecessary, therefore,
should not be approved
ACTION:?????????? Approved with Conditions as Drafted
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis, Martin
MOTION NO.???? 15091
7.??????? 1999.323C
2000.323C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LeBLANC:
558-6351)
545 POWELL STREET, Request for Conditional Use
authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 4
panel antennas on the existing rooftop penthouse of a building and base station
equipment inside a new penthouse on the roof of the building in an RC-4
(Residential-Commercial Combined) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions.
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued Without Hearing to June 22, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis, Martin
8.??????? 2000.303C????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (M.SNYDER:
575-6891)
2548 - 24TH STREET- (The San
Francisco General Hospital Parking Garage), the parcel bordered by 24th Street, San Bruno
Avenue, 23rd Street, and Utah Street, Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 4213 -- Request
for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 234.2 to install
three sectors of antennas (four antennas in each sector) on the roof of the
elevator tower located at the 23rd Street and Utah Street corner of the garage,
in a P (Public Use) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.??? As part of the proposal, a stealth screen
would be installed to hide the proposed antennas from view and a base
transceiver station would be installed within the garage.???
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions.
SPEAKER(S):
Molly Kales - Representing Nextel
Communications
- No comments - available for
questions
Cathy Ramashadi - Resident of the
Mission District for many years
- She realizes that these antennas
send off microwave signals.
- The medical issues regarding these
antennas should be dealt with before more are installed.
- The location where these antennas
are proposed is near a school, near a bus stop, and most especially near San
Francisco General Hospital.
Liz Kilian - She lives across the
street from the garage
- She and her husband are against
the installation of these antennas.
- The towers of the garage where
these antennas are proposed already exceed the height limit.
- The residents of the neighborhood,
especially the ones that live directly adjacent to the garage, already
experience diminished light because of the height of the towers.
- Read a letter from Pat Howard who
lives at?? 2635 23rd Street who is
opposed to the installation of these antennas.
Anastasia Yovinopalus
- The antennas are ugly and the
staff should plan better.
- She doesn?t know what the tests
show but these antennas are ugly and residents do not want them.
Joe Kilian - Lives near the proposed
site
- Is it a fact that these antennas
wont affect the sensitive monitoring equipment at SF General since it is a
block from the emergency ward?
- How much is being paid for the
installation of these antennas and where is the money going?
Keith Majar - lives near the
proposed site.
- He would like more information on
the health aspects of these antennas.
Patricia Katanio - Lives on Utah
Street
- She is opposed to the installation
of this antenna since it will have ill affects on her and the neighbors.?
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis, Martin
MOTION NO.:??? 15092
9.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2000.216C
?????????? (KIM: 558-6290)
510- 520 FREDERICK STREET, northwest corner at Frederick and
Stanyan Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor?s Block 1263 - Request for Conditional Use
authorization to allow the installation of two panel antennas and an interior
equipment shelter in the basement of an existing mixed-use building as part of
a wireless telecommunication network, pursuant to Planning Code Section 710.83,
in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster District) and a 40-X Height and
Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
May 25, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued Without Hearing to July 27, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis, Martin
10.???????? 2000.209C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER:
558-6344)
1470 PINE STREET, north side between Polk and Larkin
Streets, Lot 7A in Assessor?s Block 645 ‑‑Request for authorization
of a CONDITIONAL USE for a FIBER‑OPTIC TELEVISION and TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CABLE EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION in an existing one‑story building, in the
Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and an 80‑A Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
June 1, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued Without Hearing to July 20, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis, Martin
F.??
SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 3:00 P.M. the Planning Commission will
convene into a Special Discretionary Review (Dr) Hearing.? Procedures governing Special DR Hearings are
as follow: DR Requestor(s) are provided with up to five? (5) minutes for a presentation and those in
support of the DR Requestor(s) are provided with up to three (3) minutes
each.? The Project Sponsor is then
provided with up to five (5) minutes for a presentation and those in support of
the Project are provided with up to three (3) minutes each.? At the conclusion, each side (not each
person) is provided with 2 minutes for a rebuttal.? Those cases that are scheduled on this calendar prior to 3:00 PM,
but have not been called or heard by 3:00 PM, could be continued to a later
time? or date as determined by the
Commission.
11.??????? 1999.684D???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WILSON:
558-6602)
129 RANDALL STREET, south side between Whitney and
Chenery Streets, Lot 038 in Assessor?s Block 6663 -- Request for Discretionary Review
of BPA No. 9911578, proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a
new two-unit building in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a
40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not
take Discretionary Review, approve project.
Prior Action: Public comment was
closed at the February 17, 2000 hearing.?
The Commission continued the item to allow further discussion between
the project sponsor and neighbors.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
May 25, 2000).
SPEAKER(S):
(+) John Rohosky - Project Architect
- He would like to request that the
Commission not take DR and approve the project.
- This is not a monster home as it
has been characterized and it is in character with the neighborhood.
- This project does not require a
conditional use permit or a variance.
- There have been many changes from
the original design (e.g. dropped the height to line with the adjacent
buildings, etc.)
- Every effort has been made to
respect Proposition M.
(-) Art Bender lives at 127 Randall
Street
- It is true that there have been
revisions made to the design.? Yet, they
would like more substance revision.
- In his view the house still looks
like a monster home.
(-) Paul Curtis - lives at Fairmaunt
Street
- A 4-story building is out of
character in the entire neighborhood.
- The neighbors also have
endorsements from the Upper Noe Valley Association, The Glen Park Association,
The Noe Valley Democratic Club; District 8 Democratic Club.
(-) Andrea Wurland -
- At 158 Randall Street, there was
proposal for a large building yet it stayed within the character of the
neighborhood.
- This project is clearly deserving
of further review and a redesign.
(-) Anastasia Yovinopalus
- This is a good opportunity for the
Commission to set a precedent.? Will the
Commission decide to make buildings higher without considering the neighbors,
the view, the character of the neighborhood, etc?
(-) Patricia Vaughey
- She believes that this project
could be revised more since there is enough space in the back of the house for
a deck instead of on the top floor.
(-) Paul Travis - Lives at 123
Randall Street
- There are other proposed projects
on the same block.
- If the Commission approves the
project, it will set a precedent and the other projects proposed on this block
will want to build as high or higher.
(-) John Murary - Lives on Chenery
Street
- His neighborhood has been in
existence at least 110 years without 4-story buildings.
(-) Jeff Mounce - Lives on Church
Street
- The neighborhood is not against
the construction, they would just like to reach a compromise -- it needs to be
smaller.
(-) Lory Stazacallis - Lives at 140
Randall Street
- She is not against having this
building built.
- The developer has not lived at the
proposed project, therefore, he has no sensitivity about the character of the
building.
- She is opposed to the size and
dimensions of this building.
(-) Mr. Axit - lives on Whitney
Street
- He is aware of two buildings that
were built across from this project about 15 years ago.
- Both houses were considerably
small since at that time they were restricted.
(+) John O?Reily -Project Sponsor
- He has many letters in support of
this project.
- He has not ignored the requests of
the neighbors.
(+) Joe Anzer - He owns Real
Management Company of Noe Valley
- He has worked with the neighbors
and with the architect.? They have
attended community meetings and every time there have been changes, the
architect has come back with revised designs.
- San Francisco needs housing and
new homes should be designed for the modern family.
(+) Jim Zack - neighbor
- He became involved in the project
when the neighbors sent him an invitation to attend one of their community
meetings.? He wasn?t very impressed with
the tone the neighbors had against this project.
-This project is 100% code
compliant.? It doesn?t require any
variances or anything out of the ordinary.
- If anyone wants to build and
develop their property they have the right as granted by the planning code.
- There is such a concern about the
developers who come into the neighborhood.?
Cities need developers since if there were no developers there would be
no housing.
ACTION:????????????? 1st
motion:? Take Discretionary Review with
the following changes: 1) set back 8 feet further on the 4th floor; 2) project
sponsor to continue to work with staff on architectural detailing of the facade
with specific reference to the skylight on the 3rd floor.
AYES:???????????????? Chinchilla, Richardson
NAYES:?????????????? Antenore, Joe
ABSENT:???????????? Theoharis, Martin, Mills
ACTION:????????????? 2nd
Motion: Take Discretionary Review with the following changes: 1) remove 4th
floor 2) modifications of the front facade to fit into the character of the
neighborhood.
AYES:???????????????? Antenore, Joe
NAYES:?????????????? Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????????? Theoharis, Martin, Mills
ACTION:????????????? 3rd
Motion: Continue to July 27, 2000 until there is a full commission - Public
Hearing will be closed.
AYES:? ?????????????? Antenore,
Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????????? Theoharis, Martin, Mills
12.??????? 2000.229D
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WILSON:
558-6602)
1946 - 21ST AVENUE, east side between Ortega and
Pacheco Streets, Lot 032 in Assessor?s Block 2114 - Request for Discretionary
Review of BPA No. 20000121665, proposing to add a third story to the existing
two-story house in an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and
Bulk District.?
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not
take Discretionary Review and approve the building? permit application as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Lisa Fung
- A 3rd story addition would change
the character of the neighborhood since most homes are 2 stories.
- The addition of the 3rd story
would block view and light from the adjacent home.
- There are no good neighbor actions
from the project sponsor.
- The 3rd story should be
denied.?
- The project goes against the
neighborhood character.
- The planner stated that there were
no opposing neighbors and that is not true.
(-) Shirley Grey
- She is speaking on behalf of her
mother who lives next door to the proposed construction.
- The proposed construction will
block sunlight to her mother?s kitchen and breakfast room.
- Her mother?s stairway will be
right under the construction.? It is not
fair for neighbors to deal with the noise of the construction.
- She agrees to all of the
statements from Ms. Fung.
- These homes are more like condos
since they are very close.
(+) Wilson Ng - Project Architect
- He is representing Mr. and Mrs.
Yap.
- He is proposing an addition of 2
bedrooms and 2 baths.
- The construction will be built in accordance
with all codes.
- He had meetings with planning
Staff and he addressed the 3rd story addition.
- There are other houses in the
neighborhood which have 3rd story additions.
(+) Michael Yap - Project Sponsor
- He and his family (5 total) live
in a 2 bedroom/1 bath home.? They have
lived in this house for 16 years.
- He and is wife wanted to move to
another larger home.? However, due to
the housing shortage, houses are priced higher than what he and his family
could afford, therefore, they decided to make an addition to his home.
- The first choice was to build
below but that was not structurally possible, then there was the 2nd
alternative to build behind the house but this was not feasible either because
it would cast a shadow on the neighbor?s home and that would also take away
from their daughters playing outside or weekend barbecues.? So the only alternative was to build above.
- He talked to their neighbors about
the proposed addition, they seemed indifferent or said no without giving any
reasons.
ACTION:????????????? Approved
AYES:???????????????? Antenore, Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????????? Theoharis, Martin, Mills
13.??????? 2000.473D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???? (KEYLON: 558-6613)
82-86 GARDEN STREET/ 2383-2389 &
2393-2399 POST STREET,
southeast corner of Post and Broderick Streets, Lot 013 in Assessor?s Block
1079 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA Nos. 2000/01/19/431,
2000/01/19/426 and 2000/01/19/433, proposing to subdivide a former gas station
site into three code complying lots and construct a four-story, three-unit
building on each of the three lots in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density)
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not
take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Celia Hamilton - DR Requestor -
Lives at 345 Post Street
- She was very happy when Kaiser
Permanente Hospital finished their construction on the addition of the
hospital.
- Now there is a proposal for
another construction.
- She and the neighbors agree that
the noise involved in a construction is nerve wracking.
- She would like for construction to
start not before 7:00 a.m. and no construction work on Saturdays.
(-) Sharyl Laibe - Lives at 2345
Post Street
- She has lived at this location
since 1994.
- Three months after she moved into
this apartment, construction began at the UCSF Medical Health Center.? The construction lasted 2 years and the
workers started at 6:00 am.? After this
construction was completed, Kaiser Permanente Hospital began construction of an
addition.
- Because of the high rent on
apartments, she cannot afford to move.
- She does not object to the
construction, yet she does object of such an early construction start
time.? The project sponsors should be
considered of the neighbors.
(-) Patricia Vaughey
- She has a suggestion: Construction
time from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (Which means that they stop working at 6:00
p.m so construction workers can do their clean up and be out by 7:00 p.m.
(+) Alice Barkley - Representing
Project Sponsor
- This is not a large project like
UCSF or Kaiser.? It will take about 9
months to complete.
- 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Monday
to Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and no work on Sunday.
(+) Joe O?Donahue - Residential
Buildings
- When you limit construction time,
the cost goes up.
- He lived at 25 Garden Street many
years ago and at that time the neighborhood wasn?t very good so he is happy
that the neighborhood is changing and improving.
- The reality is that we all live in
a City and certain areas are more intense in regards to development therefore
there will be noise.
ACTION:????????????? Do
not take DR but provide construction contact information and Building
Department contact information to DR Requestor.? Hours of construction will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday thru
Friday; and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays; no construction on Sundays.
AYES:???????????????? Antenore, Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????????? Theoharis, Mills, Martin
14.??????? 2000.535D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??? ?(KEYLON: 558-6613)
2129 GREENWICH STREET, south side between Webster and
Fillmore Streets, Lot 052 in Assessor?s Block 0516 -- Request for Discretionary
Review of BPA No. 200004187529, proposing to modify the originally approved
building envelope, under Case No. 98.986V, of a four-story, three-unit
building, resulting in a decrease of overall square footage of the project in a
RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not
take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):????? None
ACTION:????????????? Withdrawn
AYES:???????????????? Antenore, Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????????? Theoharis, Mills, Martin
15.??????? 2000.353DD????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BORDEN:
558-6321)
541 & 547? - 29TH STREET, south side between Noe and Castro
Streets, Lot Nos. 038 and 037 in Assessor's Block 6630 -- Request for
Discretionary Review on a proposal to demolish the vacant buildings existing at
541 and 547 29th Street and to construct two new 4-story, 2-unit residential
buildings in an RH-2(Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Take? Discretionary Review and require
that plans be revised per staff's recommendation.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Alan Kronsky - 1st DR Requestor
- lives at 553 29th Street
- He would like modification of the
design of the proposed project.
- He stood in front of the
Commission a few years ago when he wanted to add rooms to his home.? His case was approved because he took into
consideration the opinion of his neighbors and the look of other homes in the
neighborhood.
- The developers will come and do
their construction and then leave.
- Sun and light will be blocked to
his home and the design just does not fit with the neighborhood.
- There were many plans and schemes
brought forward from the architect.?
Yet, every time there was a new scheme items were eliminated and others
were added which made negotiations just stop.
(-) David Zovikian - 2nd DR Requestor
- lives at 538 29th Street
- The design of this construction is
completely out of character to the neighborhood.? He doesn?t oppose the construction or development of the
neighborhood.
- He would like developer to
eliminate the 5th floor penthouse and 12 foot setback into the rear.
- The developer has no interest in
the neighborhood.? As soon as this home
is built, the developer will move on to the next project.
- He has lived in his home for 10
years and has no intention to move.
- Million dollar condos do not make
a neighborhood.
(-) Jim Gordon - Lives next door of the property
- He approves of an RH-2 development
that is in scale with the neighborhood.
- Many people in the neighborhood
have built additions to their homes but nothing like the proposed project.
- The project is not in scale with
the neighborhood.
- The guidelines state that if
nothing helps then reduce the size of the building.
- The construction will block light,
air, and views to the adjacent neighbors.
(-) Amy Gordon
- The developers didn?t start
negotiations until November and they broke off negotiations the second week of
January.
- Their requirements have been the
same since July and they have been very honest and very positive about these
requirements.
- There have been many changes to
the plans, even last minute changes, yet there is still no agreement.
(-) Rob Rufner - lives at 436 Day
Street
- Their situation is different
because they live in the back of the house.?
Their kitchen window will look at the back of the proposed house.? Instead of a blue sky and pitched roof
skyline, they will now be looking at a gigantic edifice.
(-) Howard Levit - Lives at 450 Day
Street
- Have lived at this house for 23
years.
- During these years, he has
witnessed many additions to homes that meet with the character of the
neighborhood.
- The two houses proposed meet all
the characteristics of a monster house.
(-) Anastasia Yopinopolus - Noe
Tenants Association and Friends of Noe Valley
- Where are the fire exits?
- There are fire hazards to the
proposed homes.
- Developers should size their
projects down.
- This project needs a second look.
(-) Peg O?Malley - Lives at 567 29th
Street
- She and her family have added to
their home like many of the neighbors yet they have been respectful to the
neighbors and the neighborhood.
- The proposed houses will bring
incredible income to the developer when sold.
(-) Connie George - Lives 531 29th
Street
- Her concerns are that the house is
out of scale to the neighborhood.
- There will be loss of light to
their neighborhood.
- There will be a loss to the green
belt in the neighborhood.
(-) Robert Thomas - Lives at 546
29th Street
- There were other people who wanted
to come to the hearing but weren?t able to come.
- Would like for project to be
reconsidered by the Planning Department.
(-) Dave Munks -? President of the Noe Valley Democratic Club
- He is concerned with the issues of
community.
- There is incredible anxiety going
on in the neighborhood if this project is approved, more people will want to
build without consulting the neighbors.
(-) Mark Tully - Lives at 610 29th
Street
- He was shocked and aghast to see
the demolition notice at the proposed site.
- All the neighbors have joined to
demand a downsizing of this project.
(-) Mary Arguelles - Lives at Noe
and Day Street
- This is a group of people that
want to work together and prove that they can do that.? Most people have either planned a project,
been through a project and added on to their homes and it works and now they
are all raising their families there.
(-) Vicky Rosen - President of Upper
Noe Valley Neighbors
- This is about respect for people
and where they live.? It?s about
preserving the environmental quality of where people live.
- She feels that it?s really
disrespectful for developers to not try and honestly work with people because
the people are who will remain long after the developers have gone.
- It is very important to keep with
Proposition M.
(-) Celeste West?
- She recommends that plans be
reworked to be compatible with neighborhood buildings.
- Please consider the earth and all
the creatures.? Do not allow for land to
be exploited by massive floor plans.
- Please support humanity?s deep need
for buildings designed with love, imagination, playfulness and humor.
(-) Marilyn Heiss - Lives at 650
29th Street
- She and her family have lived
there for 8 years.
- The housing market at the time
they bought their home, wasn?t as it is now and they had a choice of where to
live.
- They are not against the
development but developers should not be able to overwhelm everything around
them.
(-) Paul Curtis -
- He came to the hearing to oppose
129 Randall Street.? The proposed construction
is a few blocks away from his home so it is still his neighborhood.
- The proposed home will make the
neighborhood be out of character.
(-) Connie Fangled - Lives at 540
29th Street
- She has leukemia and stays at home
a lot.? The thought of going thorough
the construction is overwhelming.
- Her tenant has threatened to move
out because of the hardship the construction will cause.
(-) Rick Berman - Lives at 511 29th
Street
- The name of his wife was listed as supporters of the
project.? The behavior of the developer
in compiling a list of neighbors in support is deceptive.
- Adding buildings that tower over
29th Street is a disservice to them.
- Their experience with this
developer is unwillingness to consider the intent of the Residential Design
Guidelines.
(+) John Sanger - Sanger & Olson - Representing Project Sponsor
- There aren?t any insertions in the
communications to the Commissions with neighborhood support for this
project.? What was presented to the
Commission was a survey of the neighborhood opinions.
- They took very seriously the staff
comments and changes.? Just yesterday
they were able to provide a response to all the neighbor?s comments and staff
recommendations.? He realizes that staff
hasn?t been given enough time to analyze these changes, therefore, would be
willing to propose a continuance.
- 6 schemes have been developed yet
they haven?t been able to satisfy all of the neighbor?s needs.
(+) Joe O?Donahue - Residential
Builders
- This conflict is about the recent
intrusion of AMonster Homes@.
- This is a very modest proposal.
- Cassidy Construction has never
sold any of their buildings for rental.
(+) Shawn Gorman - Project Architect - Gary Gee Architects
- There were many schemes to try to
meet the issues the neighbors brought up.
(+) James Ninemacker - one of the Project Sponsors???????????????????????? -
There are other buildings that are larger with penthouses and lesser setbacks,
only at certain angles can you see the penthouse.
ACTION:?????????? Continue
project to June 22, 2000, with an intent to take Discretionary
Review with the following recommendations:?
to allow the Project Sponsor and both DR requestors to review the most
current floor plan scheme which involve: 1) the penthouse needs to be significantly
reduced as in Scheme AE@ 2) the twelve foot rear extension is to be eliminated
3) Side deck on 541-29th Street eliminated 4) At? 547 29th , allow better access to the light well of adjacent
property.
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis, Mills, Martin
16.??????? 1999.767D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????? (JONES: 558-6477)
374 - 24TH AVENUE, east side between California and
Clement Streets, Lot 023A in Assessor's Block 1410 -- Request for Discretionary
Review of BPA No. 9900945, proposing to demolish the existing two-story, single
family dwelling and construct a four-story, three-unit dwelling in an RM-1
(Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not
take Discretionary Review, approve project.
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued Without Hearing to July 6, 2000
AYES:??????????????? Antenore, Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis, Mills, Martin
Adjournment:? 6:25 P.M.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2000.
Back to top
SAN
FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
?Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
Place
Thursday, June 22, 2000
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
![]()
PRESENT:?????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla,
Richardson
ABSENT:????????????????? Theoharis, Martin
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO
ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:37?
P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald
G. Green - Director of Planning, Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator, Isolde
Wilson, Kenneth Chin, Tony Kim, Joy Navarrete,?
Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary, Linda D. Avery - Commission
Secretary
A.????????? ITEMS
PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1.??????? 2000.211C
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KEYLON:
558-6613)
570- 42ND AVENUE, east side between Geary Boulevard
and Anza Street, Lot 60 in Assessor?s Block 1503- Request for Conditional Use
Authorization under Planning Code Section 209.1(g) to construct a four unit
building on a 6,000 square foot lot in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family)
District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.?
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions
(Proposed for Continuance to July 6,
2000)
SPEAKER(S):????? None
ACTION:????????????? Continued to July 6, 2000
AYES:???????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????????? Theoharis, Martin
2.??????? 1999.827EC
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON:
558-6309)
160 HARRISON STREET, at the northeast corner of Main
and Harrison Streets; Lot 8 in Assessor's Block 3745 --? Request per Planning Code Section 304 for
Conditional Use Authorization under the Planned Unit Development process: (1)
for establishment of a utility use as defined by Planning Code Section
209.6(b), in a P District pursuant to Planning Code Section 234.2, (2) for an
off-street parking exception of 51 spaces under Planning Code Section 151,
where 76 off-street parking spaces are required, (3) for an exception to the
minimum stall dimensions for approximately 14 off-street parking spaces per
Planning Code Section 154(a), and (4) for an exception to minimum dimensions
for 2 freight loading
spaces per Planning Code Section 154(b). The property is in a P (Public) Zoning
District, the Rincon Hill Special Use District - Residential Subdistrict and a
105-R Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Proposed for
Continuance to July 6, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):????? None
ACTION:????????????? Continued to July 6, 2000
AYES:???????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????????? Theoharis, Martin
3.??????? 2000.266C?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KIM:
558-6290)
720 MOSCOW STREET, west side between
France and Italy Streets; Lot 024 in Assessor?s Block 6338 - Request for
Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 234.2(a) of the Planning Code
to install a total of two antennas and a base station on an existing Fire
Station building as part of Sprint?s wireless telecommunications network in a P
(Public Use) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Proposed for
Continuance to July 6, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION:???????????? Continued to July 6, 2000
AYES:??????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis, Martin
4.??????? 2000.288E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (DEUTSCH:
558-5965)
SEAWALL LOT 337 COMMUTER
PARKING,
Appeal of preliminary negative declaration for proposed expansion of use to
permit daily general (commuter) parking in the parking lot on Port property
east of Third Street serving Pacific Bell Park, containing about 1,814
spaces.? The lot would be open on non-baseball
game days from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.?
On afternoon game days, general parking would not be permitted.? On weekday evening game days, general
parking would be permitted with non-game attending parkers required to exit the
lot by 5:00 p.m.? General parking would
be permitted on weekend non-game days.?
In addition, the types of temporary uses permitted on the parking lot
would be expanded to be consistent with Section 985 of the Planning Code,
including 60-day limits for exhibitions, festivals, Christmas tree and
Halloween pumpkin lots, etc., and 1- to 5-year limits for temporary uses and
structures incidental to construction of a building, rental or sales office
incidental to a new development, etc.
These proposals, by
China Basin Ballpark Company and Imperial Parking, Inc., would require approval
by the Zoning Administrator, the San Francisco Port Commission, and the Port of
San Francisco.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration.
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of June 8, 2000)
(Proposed for
Continuance to July 6, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):????? None
ACTION:????????????? Continued to July 6, 2000
AYES:???????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????????? Theoharis, Martin
5a.????? 1999.668BX??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER:
558-6344)
38-44 TEHAMA? STREET (also known as 543 Howard Street), north
side of Howard Street between First and Second Streets, Lot 111 in Assessor?s
Block 3736 -- Request for Determination of Compliance pursuant to Section 309
with respect to a proposal (1) to?
renovate the existing building interior, including remodeling the foyer,
adding three elevators and adding two new stairwells; (2) construct a third and
fourth level atop the building to a new height of 64 feet along Tehama Street;
and (3) convert up to 49,950 square feet on the first, mezzanine, second, third
and fourth floors of the building to office use.? The entrance to the office space would be on Howard street.? Approximately 26,100 square feet of existing
industrial space in the basement and in the rear of the first floor and first
floor mezzanine would remain.? The
entrance to the industrial space will be on Tehama Street.? There is no parking on this site and none is
proposed.? The project lies within a
C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office-Special Development District) and a 350-S Height
and Bulk District.
(Proposed for
Continuance to July 6, 2000 July 27, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION:???????????? Continued to July 27, 2000
AYES:??????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis, Martin
5b.????? 1999.668BX??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER:
558-6344)
38-44 TEHAMA STREET, (also known as 543
Howard Street), north side of Howard Street between First and Second Streets,
Lot 111 in Assessor?s Block 3736 -- Request under Planning Code Sections
320-322 (Office Development Limitation Program) to allow the creation of up to
49,950 square feet of office space in an existing industrially-occupied
building of approximately 49,000 square feet proposed for expansion to
approximately 73,000 square feet.?
Approximately 26,100 square feet of existing industrial space would
remain in industrial use.? The project
lies within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office-Special Development District) and a
350-S Height and Bulk District.
(Proposed for
Continuance to July 6, 2000 July 27, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION:???????????? Continued to July 27, 2000
AYES:??????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis, Martin
6a.????? 2000.063CV ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BRESSANUTTI:
575-6892)
1638 KIRKWOOD AVENUE, north side between
Phelps Street and Newhall Street; Lot 52 in Assessor's block 5279:??? Request for Conditional Use Authorization
to allow a residential care facility for seven or more persons per Planning
Code Section 209.3(c).? The applicant,
Jelani House, Inc., already operates a transitional living program for up to 27
women at this location, with substance abuse treatment services provided
off-site elsewhere in the neighborhood.?
The proposal would add substance abuse treatment services by
State-licensed personnel on-site at this location, and would increase the
allowed number of residents to a maximum of 39 (women and children).? The live-in program would offer treatment
and support for drug/alcohol dependent women and their children in a
residential environment.? Residents
would live in the program for a period of 12 to 18 months.? No building alterations are proposed.? The property is in an RH-2 (Residential,
House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
(Proposed for
Continuance to July 13, 2000.)
SPEAKER(S):????? None
ACTION:????????????? Continued to July 13, 2000
AYES:???????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????????? Theoharis, Martin
6b.????? 2000.063CV ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BRESSANUTTI:
575-6892)
1638 KIRKWOOD AVENUE, north side between Phelps
Street and Newhall Street; Lot 52 in Assessor's block 5279: The Zoning
Administrator will conduct a joint hearing on a request for a Variance from the
off-street parking spaces required for a proposed residential care facility
with up to 39 residents.? Planning Code
Section 151 requires one off-street parking space for each 10 residents, where
the number of residents exceeds nine.?
In this case, four off-street parking spaces would be required.? There is no existing off-street parking at
the property and none is proposed.? The
property is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X
Height and Bulk District.
(Proposed for Continuance to July 13,
2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION:???????????? Continued
to July 13, 2000
AYES:??????????????? Antenore,
Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis,
Martin
7.??????? 1999.738D
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (CHIN:
575-6897)
2131 DIVISADERO STREET, west side between Clay
and Sacramento Streets, Lot 004 in Assessor?s Block 1004 -- Request for
Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9914768, proposing to raise a portion of the
roof to match existing roof at the rear of a three-story, two dwelling unit
building 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 building permit
application as submitted.
(Proposed for Continuance to July 20,
2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION:???????????? Continued
to July 20, 2000
AYES:??????????????? Antenore,
Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis,
Martin
B.?????? ? 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.? If
it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the
President or chairperson may continue Public Comment to another time during the
meeting.
AThe 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))
Mrs. Angela S. Vista-Jaramillo - Lives at 5 Montecito Avenue
- She would like the
Commission to approve her curb permit.
- 53 homes in her
neighborhood have the same problem she has and they all have the same driveway.
Sue Hestor -
- Regarding the
enforcement of illegal conversions in the case of Bay View Bank and American
Can Company.
- Department staff made
a site visit and they were treated poorly.
- She receives many
calls from people being evicted illegally.
- Why hasn?t there been
an abatement proceeding for these two cases?
Ed Caceres - tenant at 2601 Mission Street (Bay View Building)
- It is unreasonable
that nothing has been done on an abatement.
- There are 4 attorneys
who do probono work for the Latin community and they are being kicked out of
this building.
Beatrice Welch - Reporter for Tecolote Newspaper
- She has been put on
the case of the organizations that have been evicted from 2601 Mission Street
(Bay View Building).
- She has learned that
Planning Commission is Arubber stamping@ the displacement of Latinos because
that?s the thing to do to bring dot.coms into the community.
- She can?t understand
why the abatement proceedings are not going on.
C.???????? COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
8.??????? Commission Matters
None
D.???????? DIRECTOR?S REPORT
9.??????? Director?s
Announcements.
5 Montecito Avenue -
Mrs. Jaramillo?s request during Public Comment:
- Staff has spent many
hours with the project sponsor.? The
conclusion is that the permit application before the department is not
permitted under the provisions of the Planning Code.
- The project sponsor
needs to alter the permit or seek a justifiable variance.
2601 Mission Street (Bay View Bank Building)
- A letter has been sent
tot he Building Department that asks that all permits be suspended.? At the same time, a letter has been sent to
the property owner asking additional information.
-????????????????????????????????? -
It is the opinion of the Planning Department that a Conditional Use
Authorization may be required because of physical alterations that resulted in
a greater use size than the Planning Code allows.
10.????? Review of Past Week?s
Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
BOA
None
Finance Committee
- The Mayors office
increased the budget slightly.
- The recommendation
from the budget analyst to the board was to reduce: materials, supplies, fringe
benefits, etc. which are normal recommendations.
- The Department
requested a Transcriber/Typist position which the budget analyst wasn?t too
much in agreement with.? This position
is needed to meet the demands and increase in responsibilities resulting from
Proposition G.? Commission minutes are
to be more detailed and they are to be provided in a much quicker turnaround.
-There are a number of
public members who are willing to stand behind the department in terms of
seeking additional funding for the Transit Oriented Studies that are being
done, especially for the Balboa Park area.?
There is a good chance that there will be support since district
elections are coming up.
11.????? Staff report on
whether or not the Commission has authority, under the Discretionary Review
process to impose exactions such as affordable housing and transportation.
Gerald Green:
- Currently the
Commission has the ability to require projects to mitigate certain impacts in
the following ways: under the conditional use process, the Commission
implements the inclusionary housing policies; under the affordable housing program,
the Commission is able to provide an exaction from office development which
goes to affordable housing fund, transit impact fee, child care and open space
in certain districts.? Currently, this
is not imposed using the Discretionary Review process. Normally, the Commission
has the responsibility of acknowledging that there is a direct relationship or
nexus between the impact of a project and the condition which is imposed.? The Commission does acknowledge that a
certain project does create additional demands on housing, transit, etc.?? Ms. Boyagen of the City Attorney?s office
will expand on this issue.
Judy Boyagen
- The general principal
under Federal and State law, is to impose a monetary fee or other type of
exaction that requires the showing that there is a connection between the
impact of the project and the conditions?
imposed to mitigate that impact.
- Under state law that
is actually codified of the government code starting at Section 6600.? It actually sets forth a nexus requirement
and accounting reporting requirements.
- The funds have to be
segregated, accounted for, reported to the people that contributed and a return
of the money if it is not used for the purpose it was collected.
- There is no major
legal difference between a fee and exactions through legislation or through the
Commission?s discretionary powers..?? It
is still the same requirements.? Through
legislation, you have the opportunity to do the study which will demonstrate
the nexus and set the appropriate fee.
- Under state and
federal laws the fee of the impact has to be proportional to the impact.
- It is difficult for
the Commission to do this on a case by case basis.
- The Commission does
have the authority to impose compliance with future legislation (Russ vs. San
Francisco).
- In Conclusion, I [Judy
Boyagen] believe that legislation is preferred but if the Commission complied
with all the legal requirements, it can be done under the Discretionary Review
power.
Gerald Green:
- There have been some
projects where there has been a nexus study.
- There is a nexus study
being prepared for the expansion of the transit impact fees beyond the C-3
districts.? It will be available to the
Commissioners in the near future.
- The Commission does have
a right to put a Aplace holder@ condition on certain projects.? It should be determined before what kind of
projects and at what scale these projects should have conditions.
- Another option would
be for the Commission to develop a policy in which conditions on a general
basis would be imposed from a project where the relationship of the impact
would require it.
- Staff is preparing a
nexus study to allow for the expansion of the transit impact fees beyond the
C-3 Districts which will be availabe in the near future.
- In July, staff will
begin to brief the Commissioners on the appropriate steps to take? to address the interim controls that have
set up the industrial protection zones.
Sue Hestor:
- One of the things that
is missing from this issue is the role of environmental documents.
- Before these fees were
imposed on projects, environmental documents played a key role in determining
the impact on housing and transit.? This
eventually set the basis for the implementation of these fees.
- The Commission has
more responsibility now.? The Commission
has to demand that the EIR?s generate adequate information.
Joe O?Donahue - Residential Builders
- There is a housing
crisis right now on housing and live/work.
- Live/work is functional
zoning
- Privatizing MUNI would
make the department more efficient.
- They proposed to the
Board Of Supervisors on EIRs--that they include socioeconomic impact analyses
as part of the reports.
John Bovis
- There seems to be a
need to expand the authority of the Commission and try to exact some penalty
from projects.? He suggests that the
Commission come up with clear legislation that describes the authority the
Commission would like to have.
- It is a good idea to
write good environmental impact reports, therefore, there is a good basis from
which to proceed.
Joe Cassidy - Residential Builders
- They have never sued
anybody.
- They do not advocate
or threaten Lawsuits.
ACTION:? Continued to July 20, 2000 - for further discussion
which would allow the additional contribution of absent Commissioners and could
ultimately lead to an action by the Commission.? A resolution should be drafted which sets forth the Commissioners
reasons for considering this policy and what the actual policy will be.
This item will be calendared under Director?s Report.? MEA Staff to be invited.
E.???????? CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL
ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
12.????? 2000.353DD?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BORDEN:
558-6321)
541 & 547? - 29TH STREET, south side between Noe
and Castro Streets, Lot Nos. 038 and 037 in Assessor's Block 6630 -- Request
for Discretionary Review on a proposal to demolish the vacant buildings
existing at 541 and 547 29th Street and to construct two new 4-story, 2-unit
residential buildings in an RH-2(Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a
40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Take? Discretionary
Review and require that plans be revised per staff's recommendation.
Note: On June 15, 2000,
following public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing and passed
a motion of intent to take Discretionary Review and approve with staff
recommendations by a vote of +4 -0.? The
recommendations are to allow the Project Sponsor and both DR requestors to
review the most current floor plan scheme which involve: 1) the penthouse needs
to be significantly reduced as in Scheme AE@ 2) the twelve foot rear extension
is to be eliminated 3) Side deck on 541-29th Street eliminated 4) At? 547 29th , allow better access to the light
well of adjacent property.?
Commissioners Martin, Mills and Theoharis were absent.
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? 1st
Motion:? Approve
AYES:????????????? Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
NAYES:??????????? Antenore,
Joe
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis,
Martin
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continue
to July 6, 2000.? Absent commissioners
to review hearing tapes from 6/15 and 6/22, prior to final action.
AYES:????????????? Antenore,
Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis,
Martin
F.???????? REGULAR CALENDAR
13.????? 1999.310E??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NAVARRETE:
558-5975)
322-6TH STREET, Appeal of
Preliminary Negative Declaration - Assessor?s Block 3754 Lot 3.? The proposal is to demolish one existing
industrial/commercial warehouse building on the site and construct one building
containing 15 live/work units and 15 off-street parking spaces within a 3-story
structure (including mezzanine approximately 50 feet in height.? The project site is located in a
Service/Light Industrial/Residential (SLR) Mixed Use District, within a 50-X
height/bulk district.? The proposed
project site is within a Mixed Use Housing Buffer area, adopted by the Planning
Commission as in interim zoning control.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):????? None
ACTION:????????????? Appeal
withdrawn
14.????? 2000.399C????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KIM:
558-6290)
2001 - 37TH AVENUE, (A.K.A. 2750 Rivera
Street), northwest corner at 37th Avenue between Ortega and Quintara Streets;
Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 2094 - Request for Conditional Use authorization
pursuant to Section 209.6(b) of the Planning Code to install a total of 16
antennas and an equipment cabinet on the existing three-story Saint Ignatius
Preparatory School building as part of a wireless telecommunications network in
an RH-1(Residential House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Robert McCarthy - McCarthy and Swartz
representing Metricom
- The proposal is to
install antennas at Saint Ignatius High School.? In the past there have been successful installations of antennas
for Cellular One.
- The installation has
been endorsed by the school.
- Informational meetings
were held with the Board of Regents.
- The proposed antennas
will allow for students to go into the wireless technology.
- At the community
meeting, there were 3 people who expressed health concerns.
Galinda Wong - lives on
37th Avenue
- She lives near Saint
Ignatius High School.
- She is opposed to the
installation of these antennas because she is concerned about the health
affects these antennas will have with the students and the residents living
near the school.
ACTION:????????????? Approved
AYES:???????????????? Antenore,
Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????????? Theoharis,
Martin
MOTION NO.??????? 15093
15.????? 1999.893C
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (M.
SNYDER:? 575-6891)
114 7TH STREET, southwest corner of
7th and Mission Streets, Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 3727, commonly known as
Hotel Britton - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code
Section 816.73 and 227(h) to install two panel antennas at the base of the roof's
flagpole approximately 66.5-feet above grade, and to install a base transceiver
station on the property, in an SLR District and a 65-X Height and Bulk
District.?? The installation of the
antennas and related equipment would be part of a wireless communication
network operated by Sprint PCS.?
Preliminary
Recommendation:? Approval with
conditions.?
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of May 25, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
Jennifer Estes -
Represents Sprint PCS
- The petition complies with
the WTS Facility Guidelines and the San Francisco Municipal Code
- The antennas will not
be visible from the street.
- The equipment will be
in the basement.
ACTION:? ?????????? Approved
AYES:??????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT: Theoharis, Martin
MOTION NO.????? 15094
16.????? 2000.427C
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (CHIN:
575-6897)
2201 VAN NESS AVENUE, northeast corner at
Broadway; Lot 007, in Assessor's Block 570: --?
Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.6 of
the Planning Code to install a total of three antennas and a base transceiver
station on an existing four-story building (Broadway Manor Motel) as part of
Sprint?s wireless telecommunications network in an RC-3 (Residential
Commercial, Medium Density) District and a 80-A/80-D Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION:???????????? Without hearing, continued to
September 14, 2000
AYES:??????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT: Theoharis, Martin
17.????? 2000.323C ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LeBLANC:? 558‑6351)
?? ??????????? 545
POWELL STREET,? southwest corner at
Bush Street; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 0284 -- Request for Conditional Use
authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 4
panel antennas on 2 sides of the existing rooftop penthouse, and base station
equipment on the roof of the penthouse in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial
Combined) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Without hearing, continued to
August 3, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis, Martin
G.???????? SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
HEARING
At Approximately 3:30
P.M. the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (Dr)
Hearing.
18.???????? 2000.431DD????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????? (LeBLANC: 558-6351)
1329-31 VALLEJO STREET, southwest side between
Larkin and Hyde Streets, Lot 030 in Assessor's Block 0153 -- Request for
Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9922926, proposing to construct a partial
fourth-floor addition and rear decks at the 2nd and 3rd floors.? The addition would be setback 15'-8"
from the front of the existing building in a RH-3 (Residential, House,
Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with one modification.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Heather Donovan -
1st DR Requestor
- Her neighborhood has
an appearance of a small neighborhood.
- The architect never
came forward to show the design of the construction.
- The proposed
construction will affect the sunlight coming into her home.
(-) Noreen Lum - 2nd DR
Requestor
- She is here on behalf
of her parents who live near the proposed construction.
- She would like the
sponsor to move the penthouse north of their light well where it will reduce
the impact on the sunlight coming into the light well.
- The penthouse is
located right in the middle of the building, where the light well is.
- She went to the
PG&E Energy Center to get a light study.?
This is a study of the sun and shading patterns.? It can show how the sun will shadow for a
particular time of the day during the year.
- She showed pictures of
the impact the addition would have on sunlight being blocked onto their light well.
(+) Corey Reed - Project
Sponsor
- This is not an
exceptional case.? There is no
significant harm to the neighborhood nor is it out of character to the
neighborhood.
- The issues the
neighbors seem to have is the sunlight being blocked.
- There is no impact on
anyone?s view.
- In respect to the
character of the neighborhood--there are several buildings that are different
in shape, size and look.
- There are a couple of
improvement projects proposed on this street.
- The size of the immediate
neighbor?s light well is quite large.
- The structural
engineer has determined that the design of the addition could not be revised.
(+) Michael Reed -
Project Sponsor
- The proposed addition
is within the Zoning Requirements of 40 feet.
- The impact on the Lum?s
is minimal.
- There are numerous
buildings in the area that are already 4 stories.
- They were approved by
the Planning Department once already.
(+) Rodrigo Santos -
Structural Engineer for the Project
- Their primary concern
was for safety to the owners and their neighbors so the owners asked for a full
seismic analysis of the structure.
ACTION:???????????? Approved
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis, Martin
19.???????? 2000.457D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? (CHIN: 575-6897)
431 - 35TH AVENUE, west side between
Geary Boulevard and Clement Street, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 1467 -- Request
for Discretionary Review of BPA Nos. 20000108558S/ 20000107526, proposing to
demolish the existing single-family dwelling and construct a new two-family
dwelling 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 building permit
application as submitted.
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of June 8, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Akiko Yamagishi - DR
Requestor
- She and her husband
didn?t approve of the first design
- She would like to have
the 4th floor removed since her sunlight will be blocked and her privacy will
be invaded.
- Her husband?s hobby is
gardening which requires a lot of sunlight.
- 423 and 439 35th
Avenue - They both had a proposal to build a 4th floor and both were denied by
the Commission.
(-) Richard Jow
- Lives south of the
subject property.
- Although this is in an
RH-2 District, there are 8 single-family uses.?
Single- family uses are smaller in scale.
- The neighbors feel
that the 4th story that is proposed is out of scale and out of character to the
neighborhood.
- They would only like
to have the building scaled down since they are not against the addition.
(-) Dennis Kelly - Lives on Geary
Boulevard
- There are no 4 story
buildings in the neighborhood.
- 3 stories seem to fit
into the neighborhood.
- The construction will
do damage to the neighbors and the neighborhood.
(-) Ed Christoph - lives
at 36th Avenue
- His backyard meets the
yard of the proposed construction.? This
construction will block their light as well.
(-) Jay Talkoff - lives
at 419 35th Avenue
- 423 35th Avenue - the
decision before the Planning Commission was held on 1998.? It currently has a stop work order.
- He does not oppose Mr.
McGrath building his home.? But if you
look at the overall scope and scale, it stands beyond what the neighborhood can
sustain at this point.
- Would like Commission
to sustain the feel of the neighborhood and not approve a 4th story addition.
(+) John Sanger - Sanger
and Olson
- He is representing the
project sponsor.
- The sponsor is very
sympathetic of the DR requestor.
- The project sponsor?s
home is the shortest house on the block.
- The project sponsor
and the project architect have accommodated all the requirements and the design
guidelines, therefore, seeks approval.
(+) Joe O?Donahue -
Residential Builders
- The Yamagishi?s house
it is a single family, 2-stories over garage structure.
- The Yamagishi?s house
is larger than the proposed 2 unit buildings.
- This is a 2 unit area
and RH-2 District.
(+) Michael Hickey
- He has seen the
quality of work Mr. McGrawth brings into his buildings.
ACTION:?????????? No Discretionary Review.? Approved as proposed
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis, Martin
20.???????? 98.600D? (M.SNYDER): 558-6891)
391 PENNSYLVANNIA, northeast corner of
Pennsylvania Avenue and 19th Street, Lot 18 in Assessor's Block 4040 -- Request
for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9810040, proposing
to construct a one-story vertical addition to an existing
one-story-over-basement single-family house 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 building permit as submitted.
?
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION:???????????? Withdrawn by DR Requestor
21.????? 2000.135D?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (PURVIS:
558-6354)
1000-16TH STREET &
1400-7TH STREET, all lots within the blocks bounded by 16th Street, 7th Street
and Hubble Street, including Lots 1, 2, and 3 in Assessor's Block 3833 and Lot
1 in Assessor's Block 3834 -- Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of
Demolition Permit Application Nos. 20000508-9360, -9370, -9376, -9383, -9391,
-9395, 20000510-9607, and 20000518-0401, proposing to demolish a complex of
nine industrial buildings, formerly part of The Glidden Company paint
manufacturing facility, and vacant since 1996.?
The site is within the M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, a 50-X Height
and Bulk District, and is within the Industrial Protection Zone where
demolition of industrial buildings is subject to Discretionary Review.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Joan Holden -
Coalition for Jobs, Arts and Housing
- Would like to know how
the Commission will ensure that this site will remain strictly industrial.
- This site is very suitable
for industrial use.
- She would like
Commission to ask more questions about what will be the future of this site.
(+) Ralf Kerstetter -
Attorney for the Glidden Company
- The property has been
used as a paint facility for about 70 years.
- The property is in
need of environmental remediation.
?- Environmental consultants have been hired
to look at the site and are already working with the Department of Public
Health.
- It is necessary for
these buildings to be removed in order to do the environmental remediation.
- There have been
intruders starting fires on the property.
- Fire, Police and
Building Department have asked to have this building demolished.
- They don?t have any
idea of what will be the replacement project.
- The property has
become a safety and health hazard to the area.
(+) Eric Scone - Dames
and Moore
- The Glidden Company
would like to clean up the site from the contamination they caused so that they
mitigate their future liability with the property.
- There are various
contaminants at the site due to other factors.
- The Glidden Company
will only clean up contaminants they caused.
ACTION:???????????? Approved
AYES:??????????????? Antenore, Joe, Martin,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis, Martin
22.??????? 1999.310D ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (PURVIS:
558-6354)
322 - 6TH STREET, west side between
Howard and Folsom Streets, Lot 3 in Assessor's Block 3754 -- Staff Initiated
Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 9907717 and Building
Permit Application No. 9907715, proposing to demolish a two-story industrial building,
(the former location of both Hansan Carpet & Blinds and Advanced Courier),
and to construct a 15-unit live/work project.?
The project site is within the SLR (Service/Light
Industrial/Residential) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and within
the Mixed-Use Housing Buffer Zone where all live/work proposals filed before
April 22, 1999 require Discretionary Review.?
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review.
SPEAKER(S):????
(-) Sue Hestor -
- 575 Harrison Street;
580 Howard Street; 1001 Mariposa Street; 208 Pennsylvania Street; 1488 Harrison
Street; 1209 Indiana Street - These projects were authorized as Live/work
projects but are becoming dot.com projects.
- If this project is
proposed for live/work, then conditions should be placed on this project for it
to remain live/work.
(+) John Sanger - Sanger
and Olson - Representing David O?Keaffe
- The project sponsor is
spending a lot of money to sound proof the walls because of the night club nearby.
- The appeal of the
negative declaration by the nightclub owner was withdrawn earlier today and
taken off the calendar.
(+) Joe O?Donahue -
Residential Builders
- Last year, there was
an issue that live/work projects would drive out projects in the South of
Market.? Now the jobs are coming in and
it?s disrupting the South of Market.
- A builder could
construct dot.coms cheaper than live/work projects.
ACTION:???????????? Approved
AYES:??????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis, Martin
Adjournment: 5:18 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE
PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
THURSDAY, July 6, 2000.
Back to top
Return to the Planning Department's Home Page. Click here.
San
Francisco City and County Links
