![]()
July
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.)
July 13, 2000
July 20,
2000
July 27,
2000
SAN
FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
?Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
Place
Thursday, July 6, 2000
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
PRESENT:??????????????????? Joe,
Mills, Theoharis, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson,
ABSENT:????????????????????? Antenore
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT
1:45? P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning,
Larry McDonald; Paul Maltzer; John Billovits; Allison Borden; Kenneth Chin;
Tony Kim; Isolde Wilson; Rana Ahmadi; Elizabeth Gordon; Delvin Washington;
Catherine Keylon; Ricardo Bressanutti; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary,
Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary
A.???????? ITEMS
PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1.???????? 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 22, 2000)
APPEAL WITHDRAWN
SPEAKER(S):???????????????????? None
ACTION: Appeal Withdrawn
2.???????? 1999.790C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (CHIN:
575-6897)
1628
BALBOA STREET,
north side between 17th and 18th Avenue; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 1560:
--? Request for Conditional Use
authorization pursuant to Section 710.39 of the Planning Code to demolish the existing
single family dwelling over commercial and construct a new three family
dwelling in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) 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:? ??????????? Joe,
Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
3.???????? 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.
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of June 22, 2000)
(Proposed for
Continuance to July 27, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to July 27, 2000
AYES: Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla,
Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
4.???????? 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.
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of June 22, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance
to July 27, 2000)???
SPEAKER(S):?????????????? None
ACTION:?????????????????????? Continued to July 27,
2000
AYES: Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla,
Richardson
ABSENT:????????????????????? Antenore
5.???????? 1999.817C? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LeBLANC:
558-6351)
??????????? 990
COLUMBUS AVENUE, southeast corner at Chestnut Street; Lot 048 in Assessor's
Block 0065 ‑‑ Request for Conditional Use authorization to install
a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 3 panel antennas on the
roof of an existing 3-story commercial building and base station equipment in
the basement of the building in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Proposed for
Continuance to August 3, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to August 3, 2000
AYES: Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla,
Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
6.???????? 2000.271E???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BLOMGREN:
558-5979)
415 BRYANT STREET, Appeal of a Preliminary
Negative Declaration,?? Lot 97 of
Assessor?s Block 3995. The project would entail the construction of a
four-story, 45-foot high building which would have eight live-work units at 415
Bryant Street, south side of Bryant Street between Second and Third Streets
(Assessor?s Block 3775, Lot 97).?? The
project is within the Mixed Use Housing Zone (MUHZ), a South End Office (SEO)
Interim Control District, Service/Secondary Office (SSO) Zoning District, and a
40-x Height/Bulk District.? The proposed
building would cover the entire 4000 square foot lot which extends from Taber
Place on the south to Bryant Street on the north.?? A one-story, 24-foot high office building at the south end of
the parcel would be demolished.? The
floor area of the proposed building would be 17,800 gross square feet,
excluding parking.? All of the units of
the building would be accessed from stairways and hallways which would have
entrances on Bryant Street and Taber Place.?
The proposed building would provide eight parking spaces in a
ground-level garage with an ingress/egress from Taber Place.? Proposed for continuance to August 3, 2000.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Uphold the Negative Declaration
(Proposed for
Continuance to August 3, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to August 3, 2000
AYES: Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla,
Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
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."
Preliminary
Recommendation:?? Approval with
conditions
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of June 1, 2000)
(Proposed for
Continuance to August 24, 2000)???????????
SPEAKER(S):
Sue Hestor:
- She would like the
hearing date to be accelerated as quickly as possible.
Joel Yodowitz -
Representing Project Sponsor:
- There are 15 tenants who
need to be surveyed to determine what their uses are and to find out if any of
them are residential or office.?
Therefore, time is needed to take care of these surveys.
ACTION:?????????? Amended to be continued to July 20, 2000
AYES:? ??????????? Joe, Martin,
Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
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))
Bonnie
Finegold - Lives
at 540-542 29th Street
Re: 541 and 547 29th Street
- She is asking for this case to be
continued because she was left out of the selection process to decide what is
an appropriate design for the changes that the Commission recommended to the
project sponsor.? She therefore hasn?t
been able to have her say.
John
Sanger - Project Sponsor for 541 and 547 29th Street
Response to Ms. Fingold?s comments
- Ms. Finegold spoke at the public
hearing previously and was aware of the details of the case.? There have not been any secret negotiations.
- There has not been any type of
discrimination either.
C.?????? COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
8.??????? Consideration of Adoption - draft
minutes of June 8, 15, 22, 2000.???????????
.
ACTION:????????? Approved
AYES: Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla,
Richardson
ABSENT:???????? Antenore
9.????? Commission Matters
None
D.????? DIRECTOR?S REPORT
10.???? Director?s Announcements.
None
11.???? Review of Past Week?s Events at the Board
of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
None
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.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2000)
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.
Note: On June 22, 2000, the Commission passed a motion to
approve as indicated in the intent by a vote of +3 -2.? Commissioners Joe and Antenore voted
no.? Commissioners Martin and Theoharis
were absent.
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Approved
the motion of intent taken on 6/15/00
AYES:????????????? Martin,
Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
NAYES:??????????? Joe
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
F.?? REGULAR
CALENDAR??????
13.???? 2000.378T??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BILLOVITS:
558-6390)
Consideration of an amendment to Section 161(j) of the
Planning Code adding compatibility findings to the consideration of conditional
use applications for off-street parking reductions for dwelling units in
Neighborhood Commercial Districts.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve resolution recommending
adoption to the Board of Supervisors.
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Approved
with the following change to Item No. 3: Add Neighborhood Character
AYES:????????????? Joe,
Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
RESOLUTION NO:? 15905
14.???? 2000.379T??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BILLOVITS:
558-6390)
Consideration of an amendment to Section 303(c)(5)A) of the
Planning Code to provide for full consideration by the Planning Commission of
all standard conditional use findings of Section 303(c)(1-4) when making
findings on a conditional use application for movie theaters, adult
entertainment and other entertainment uses in Neighborhood Commercial
Districts.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve resolution recommending
adoption to the Board of Supervisors.
SPEAKER(S):????? None
ACTION:????????????? Approved
AYES:???????????????? Joe,
Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:???????????? Antenore
RESOLUTION NO:? 15906
15.??????? 2000.380T??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BILLOVITS:
558-6390)
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
PERMIT NOTIFICATION,
Consideration of 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 amendments and recommendation of adoption to the Board
of Supervisors. ? ???????????
SPEAKER(S):?
(+) Dick Millet - Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association
- He
supports this code amendment but would rather have a 30-day notification
instead of a 20-day notification.?
Sometimes the Project Sponsors are not very supportive so organizations
and residents have to rely on notices.
- This is going to affect the neighborhoods in the central
waterfront area.? That?s why the 30-day
notice will be even more important.
- There are 3 neighborhood organizations in Potrero Hill:
The Potrero Boosters, Dog patch Neighborhood Association and the Lower Potrero
Hill Neighborhood Association -- all of which support the 30-day notice.
(+) Anastasia Yovanopoulos - Friends of Noe Valley
- She supports the 30-day notification.? It might make staff?s job a lot easer.
- Because of district election and neighborhood based
supervisors; this seems appropriate.
(+) Sue Hestor -
- She supports the 30 day notice and believes it is way
overdue.
- The department doesn?t log the notices that go out.? Would it be possible for the department to
log these 311 notices, live-work notices and 312 notices, so the public may
track them down?
- DBI routinely approves changes of use, yet they don?t go
through the Planning Department which is stated in Proposition M.
- DBI staff does not attend Planning
Department Commission hearings.
- She came to the meeting because
she wanted to hear the Director?s report on American Can Company.? It would be courteous for someone to mention
that he wasn?t going to attend? today?s
meeting since she gathered some people to attend this meeting.
(+) John Bardis -
- There were presentations at the
neighborhood meeting.? About 80% or more
of the people there approve of the 30-day notice.? It was felt that a 30-day notice would provide people with more
time to bring themselves Aup-to-speed@ on what?s going on.
- Neighborhood organizations meet
once a month so the 30-day notice is a good idea, and could eliminate the need
for emergency meetings when trying to address land use issues.
- It would also be a good idea to
reconsider the 300-foot radius policy.
ACTION:?????????? Approved with the following
amendment: a 30-day notice requirement instead of a 20-day notice.
AYES:????????????? Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla,
Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
RESOLUTION NO:? 15907
16.??????? 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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):??
(+)
Eugene Sakai - Project Sponsor - Studio Esquire Architects
- In response to meeting with the
various residents of the neighborhood, their goal has been to design a high
quality project that would enhance the street scape and be a Agood neighbor.@
- He is
trying to design a building that is both compatible and harmonious with the
neighborhood.
(-)
Michael Edelstein
- He read
a letter on behalf of various residents of the neighborhood.
- He
opposes this project because a project like this one removes the character from
the neighborhood.
(+) Jim Harold - Lives across the
street from proposed construction
- He is
not overly happy about the loss of an older building.
- The
proposed design seems to fit well with the neighborhood.
- There
are certain items and issues which could be changed with regards to the design.
ACTION: Motion to approve failed to carry
AYES:????????????? Martin, Mills, Richardson
NAYES: ?????????? Theoharis,
Joe, Chinchilla
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
ACTION: Continued to July 13, 2000 to allow the
Department of Building Inspection to review the current demolition report.
AYES:????????????? Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
17.??????? 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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Tim Tosta - Baker and McKenzie - Attorney for Project
Sponsor
- There are two owners: the undeveloped parcel is one
ownership and 160 Harrison building is another related ownership.
- The 160 Harrison Street building will store computer
servers for Internet content.
- There will be billions of dollars of commerce going
through the computer servers installed in this building.
- This building will provide security and reliable power to
address loss of power, brownouts and power surges.
- The building will also be enhanced for protection from
natural disasters.
(+) Michael Duncan - Skidmore, Owens and Merril
- Equipment needs to be put on the roof for height and
airflow concerns.? Air must go through
where the equipment will be located.?
The equipment must be ventilated vertically and the air then allowed to
flow out.
- If this equipment was placed in the basement there would
be a need to merge the first floor with the basement.? There would also be a need to install ducts for air to ventilate
vertically and another for air to come out.
- The cost to rehab this building would be comparable to the
cost of two 25-story high-rises.
(+) Arnold Townsend
- He has been working with the prospective tenant and the
contractor.? They have been very
proactive and aggressive in terms of their first source hiring
commitments.? They will be working with
training programs through community-based organizations and the City (e.g.
people who are moving from welfare to work).
- One of the opportunities that is about to be missed with
all of these dot.com companies is that they are complaining that there are no
people to hire.? He believes these
companies should hire people of color or disadvantaged and give them
opportunities to work.? The 160 Harrison
project program will do just that.
(+) Debra Stein
- They had an opportunity to speak to about 18 different
organizations and mailed out about 1,000 mailers.? Most everyone was very pleased with this project and are willing
to work with them.? A few concerns
consisted of: lighting, security cameras, paint to reflect character of the
neighborhood, etc.
- They have not come across any opposition to this project.
(-) Sue Hestor
- She is not in agreement with the way staff has handled
this project.? This site needs to be re
zoned for housing when it falls from public use.
- Is this a business service use?? If it is, then it has to pay transportation impact development
fees.
- If the site next door can hold a 600,000 sf building and
500,000 of it will be housing and this is a building of 125,000 sf then the
ratio is 6 to 1 housing to commercial, there should be another 50,000 sf on the
adjacent site.
- Require the developer to initiate rezoning and pay for all
the fees and put some restrictions now on the use next door.
(-) Anastasia Yovanopoulos
- This use is more like an e-commerce thing.? It is also a bit of science fiction.
- Not very much business will go to the average citizen,
therefore driving up the cost of housing.?
This will make the project next door not affordable and not compatible
to the affordable housing needed in this city.
ACTION:?????????? Approved with the following condition:
Progress report to Commission after 6 months on status of the mixed use
development next door.
AYES:????????????? Joe,
Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
MOTION NO:???? 15908
18.??????? 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.
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of June 22, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):??
(+)
Tony Lowe - Project Sponsor representing Sprint PCS
- This is
a preference one under the sighting guidelines.
- Sprint
PCS, in 1999, did a drive test and determined that this particular area
required more antenna coverage.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
MOTION
No.:???? 15909
19.??????? 2000.161C????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BORDEN:
558-6321)
4040-24TH
STREET, north side,
between Castro and Noe Streets; Lot 12?
in Assessor's Block 3656 --Request for a Conditional Use authorization under
Planning Code Section 728.53 to allow the addition of office space at the
second floor of the Zephyr Real Estate offices, Section 728.21 to allow a
nonresidential use in excess of? 2,499
square feet, and Section 728.11 to develop a lot in excess of 5,000 square feet
in area; in the 24th Street-Noe Valley Neighborhood Commercial District and a
40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions????? (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 25,
2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+)
Jonathan Pearlman - Architectural Design Studio - Project Sponsor
- The
existing building was built in the >70s and it was actually a two story
building that did come out to the street facade.? It has been extensively remodeled to the condition it is now.
- The old
bank safe is a major concrete structure.
- The
entire building has different construction from different years.
- The
facade cannot be designed as an older building like the surrounding structures
since it?s a modern building.
(+)
Bill Riffle
- The
actual floor area is set back 5 feet from the property line.
- The
building was built as Gibraltar Savings and Loan, purchased by Security Pacific
Bank.? When Bank of America merged with
Security Pacific Bank it was sold as excess property.
- He purchased
the property and converted it.
-
Although he is a small business owner, he feels that he can compete offering
the same services as the Abig guys.@
(-)
Cliff Lundberg - Lives at 4028 24th Street
- He
lives in the flat on the second floor right next door.
- The
policy against second story commercial use has been a very successful one.? This would be a violation of this
policy.? This project will also impact
parking.
- The
light well in his home will be impacted by the proposed construction.
- The
back yard use, is a bit bothersome to him because it would be a place for
people to ` hang out and smoke so it would be different from regular
residential back yards.
- He did
not receive any notification of the construction.
(-)
Anastasia Yovanopoulos - Member of Noe Valley Tenants
- The
proposed project will take away houses and parking, which will cause traffic
congestion.
- She
believes that it would be a waste of good space to put commercial use
here.? It should be residential.
(-)
Paul Candis - President of the Castro East and West Improvement Club.
- This
club has been in existence since 1904.?
They have always worked for the quality of the neighborhood.? They are concerned that the area is zoned
for residential only above the street floor.?
Although this project is not taking away residential space, maybe some
type of a condition could be place on the property--if Zephyr ever sold the
space, this would come to the Commission for review of any proposed use of the
upstairs space.
- His
organization has reservations about this project.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Joe, Martin, Theoharis, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
MOTION
NO:???? 15910
20.??????? 2000.185C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BRESSANUTTI:
575-6892)
131-135 GOUGH STREET, northwest corner of Lily Street; Lot 004 in Assessor?s
block 0838:? Request for Conditional Use
Authorization to 1) expand an existing tourist hotel per Planning Code Section
720.55 and 2) establish a non-residential use with a gross floor area of 3,000 square
feet or more per Section 720.21.? The
proposal is to expand an existing three-story, nine-room bed-and breakfast
tourist hotel by converting the existing ground floor retail commercial space
(most recently occupied by a restaurant/bar use) with up to four additional
guest rooms, lobby, and office/registration area.? Up to five new parking spaces would be provided at the basement
level with parking access from Lily Street.?
Alterations to the exterior? of
the building would consist of replacing the second building entry at the corner
with a disabled access ramp and windows, and a new garage door and windows on
Lilly Street.? The project is in the
Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Carol Bloomingfeld
- Her family has owned this property since 1907.? Since 1982, it has been a bed and breakfast.
- The building was in a terrible state, (e.g. rodents, pest
infection, etc), total disregard for the beauty of the building.
- The proposed changes would not affect the exterior only
the interior.
- There is a homeless shelter around the corner and she has
had to ask homeless people to go away.?
Tourists are very put off by seeing this.
- She would like to be able to shield the office from the
eastern sunshine that comes in the morning.
- She believes that the presence of an office will
discourage a lot of loitering.? The
office hours would run from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
with revised condition No. 6 which is being amended by staff which states:
Aapproving subject to exhibit B which doesn?t show blocked windows@.
AYES:????????????? Joe,
Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
MOTION NO:???? 15911
21.??????? 1999.580EC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WANG:
558-6335)
600 PORTOLA DRIVE, a triangular-shaped parcel, northwest side of Portola
Drive at Woodside Avenue; Lot 001 in Assessor?s Block 2892 - - Request for
Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 121.1 and 710.11 to
develop a three-story over basement (garage) mixed-use building including three
individual ground floor commercial spaces for a total of approximately 4,060
square feet and fifteen dwelling-units on a lot exceeding 5,000 square feet in
area, within an NC-1 Neighborhood Commercial Cluster District and a 26-X Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Van Li - Project Architect
- The lot is a triangular shape.? They tried very hard to design a functional and attractive
structure.? This project will increase
the City?s housing supply as well as commercial space.
- The design is compatible with the neighborhood.
(+) Dan Liberthsen - Secretary of the Miraloma Park Improvement
Club
- He would like to commend the project sponsor on the
changes made per their requests.
- The difficulty with Woodside Drive, particularly with the
busses during rush hour, is that the traffic can back up solidly in the right
lane for a couple of blocks.? The design
is such that the residents won?t block the sidewalk and street while they are
waiting to enter and exit.
- Would like to have conditions placed on this project that
chain stores will not be allowed and that the spaces for retail should remain
as 3 spaces.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Joe,
Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
MOTION NO:???? 15912
22.??????? 2000.566C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (CHIN:
575-6897)
2500 TURK STREET, the block bordered by Turk, Masonic, Anza and Parker
Streets; Lot 003A in Assessor's Block 1107: --?
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 four-story building at the University of San Francisco
as part of Metricom?s wireless Internet network in an RH-2 (House, Two Family
Dwelling) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Bob McCarthy - McCarthy and Swartz representing Metricom
- This is a wireless Internet installation.
- There were two community meetings -- 2 people attended and
they seemed to be satisfied.? At the second
meeting there were 4 people who raised questions about RF.? Hammot and Edison were there to answer their
questions and concerns.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Joe,
Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
MOTION NO:???? 15913
23.??????? 1999.571C
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ZWIERZYCKI:
558-6263)
1344 OCEAN AVENUE, northeastern corner of Granada Avenue, Lot 16 in
Assessor?s Block 3198 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under
Section 711.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of nine panel antennas
on the roof of a four-story apartment building, and storage and maintenance of
related equipment? in an existing
storage room within the ground-floor garage.?
Storage of equipment on ground-floor will not result in elimination of
parking stalls.? The antennas and
equipment storage are part of a wireless communication network in an NC-2
(Neighborhood-Commercial, Small-Scale) District; Ocean Avenue Fast Food
Subdistrict; and 40-X Height/ Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Bob McCarthy - McCarthy and Swartz - representing
Cellular One
- This is a limited preference site because it?s in an NC-2
district.
- Alternative sites were looked into (15 total); but none
were appropriate.
- Landscaping was proposed to camouflage the antennas.
- The tenants of the building have no objections.
- The RF readings are approximately .00025 of the NC
Standard at ground.
(+) Frank Navarro - Owner
- He and his wife have owned this building for over 20
years.
- His tenants have lived there for many years.
- He was concerned about the health safety of his tenants
and possible litigation.
- He contacted Sergio Marty Vocough of the FCC and this
person assured him that there is no health danger involved.
- He would not feel comfortable if he wasn?t completely
assured that there was no danger.
- This proposal gives him an opportunity to provide instant
fire protection in case phones are ever disabled.
(+) John Scott Walker - Lives at 1167 Plymouth Avenue
- He is a community activist and relies on his cell phone a
lot.
- He endorses this proposal completely.
(+) Vince Noble - Lives on Plymouth Avenue
- He has not been able to get reliable service for his cell
phone and this proposal will provide better service.
- He has elected to rely on his cell phone instead of
installing a land line to his home.
(+) Michael Caniglia - He lives in the Sunset District
- He and his wife use Cellular One service and they love it.
- Their gym is located near this site.? His wife is a counselor for Southwest
Airlines and relies on her cell phone a lot.
(+) Julian Lowery - Lives on Miramar Street
- He eats, shops and washes his clothes on Ocean
Avenue.? He relies on a cell phone to
communicate with his family and currently the services are very bad.
- He supports this proposal because it will provide better
communication.
(-) Jessie Waters - Represents the OMI Business Leage
- He opposes this project because of the height of the
building.? The building is already
oversized for the area.
- The parapet on the roof will make the building even
higher.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Joe,
Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
MOTION No:????? 15914
24.??????? 2000.240C
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ZWIERZYCKI:
558-6263)
1562-1564 WALLER STREET, Lot 8 in Assessor?s Block 1247, north side between
Cole and Belvedere Streets -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under
Section 209.2(d) of the Planning Code to legalize the conversion of? three existing dwelling units into five bed
and breakfast rooms or suites on a lot containing four dwelling units within an
RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and 40-X Height/ Bulk
District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapprove
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Steve Williams -Represents Ted Loewenberg and Leah
Harper
- He supports a conditional use in a residential
neighborhood.
- This project has full support of the neighborhood.
- This is a wonderful example of what a conditional use
should be.? It can fit into the
neighborhood, it can be compatible with a neighborhood and it can serve the
neighborhood.
- He believes that this proposal complies with code section
303:? It is compatible in it?s size,
it?s desirable, and necessary for that neighborhood.? The entire neighborhood supports this project.
- The owners are willing to minimize the impact on housing
by leaving 1 unit in this 3 unit building on the housing market.
- This can be a win-win situation.
- There is no impact on MUNI or parking.
(+) Ted Loewenberg - Project Sponsor
- The hospitality industry is vital to the city of San
Francisco.? There were over 17 million
visitors in our City.
- Spencer House, a bed and breakfast, closed.? It returned 6 bed and breakfast room to the
residential market -- creating a shortage in the bed and breakfast space.
- The Sprekles Mansion also closed several years ago.? Therefore, there is a need for a service
like this.
- More than 70% of our guests coming to this B&B come
there to visit friends and family in the neighborhood.? What they love about being there is the
convenience of being around the corner or on the next block.
- The application for a conditional use permit was filed
with Planning in response to a letter from planning.
- There is an apartment which will be left there.
- Would like Commission to approve project.
(+) David Crommin
- The area needs desperately to provide a place for people
to stay.? Ted and Leah are wonderful
hosts.? They formed the Waller Street
Association which fought drug dealing on that street when no one else cared
about it.
- Would like Commission to approve project.
(+) Melody (did not provide last name)
- Please grant the conditional use permit.
- She has lived in this neighborhood since 1978.
- She lives in a studio, if the building ever shut down, she
would not be able to afford anywhere else.
- Because she lives in a studio, she has no space for
friends and family to stay with her so having the Harper House close by is
wonderful.
(+) David Keller - Lives at 1315? Waller Street
- He is very proud of this neighborhood.
- He has seen the changes in the neighborhood.
- He has a fairly extended family and even though he has a
large house, his family can stay at the Harper House if they wish.
(+) Rosemary Southwood - Resident of the Haight/Ashburry
District for many years.
- The building which is being renovated is very beautiful.
- Ted and Leah are not only exemplary residents of this city
and the neighborhood.
- They have changed the neighborhood in a positive way.
- There are no traffic problems.
(+) Benhard Krevet - Lives in Napa
- He has worked and known Ted for many years.
- It would be a shame to deny him and the City this
opportunity.
(+) Maryann Hesse - She lives across the street
?- There is no noise,
no traffic.? The proposed proposal would
be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood.
- Her neighborhood has lost a bank and a pharmacy.?
(+) Linda Dunn
- She supports the proposal for the Harper House.
- This would be a win-win situation and urges the Commission
to approve the project.
- The B&B contributes socially and economically to the
neighborhood.
(+) Joe Konopka - Lives at?
544 Ashbury Street
- He has been a resident there for 11 years.
- He is very active in the community.? He is president of RAD, one of the largest
neighborhood associations in the Height/Ashbury.? He is also Vice Chairman of the Haight/Ashbury Democratic Club.
- His concern for the neighborhood is very similar to other
neighborhoods.? Loss of neighborhood
serving businesses.
- They lost a copy central, a bank, a pharmacy and
cleaners.? These businesses were replaced
with businesses that do not serve the neighborhood.
- This is a great addition for people in the neighborhood.
(+) Karen Crommin
- Leah and Ted have been very active in the community.? Leah organizes people to wrap Christmas
gifts.? Ted is one of the founding
members of RAD (neighborhood patrol).
- Ted has been the chair of the Waller Street Association.
- Ted was one of the members of the Alliance for a safe
Haight.
- The presence of the Waller House has improved the street.
(+) Khrista Keegan
- Her and her family are 10 year former residents of Waller
Street.? While they were living on the
next block, it was great to be able to have friends and family stay at the
Harper House.
- Please grant the Conditional Use permit for the Harper
House.
(+) Don Smith - Lives at 1642 Waller Street
- He has lived there for 25 years and has watched the change
of the Height.
- This bed and breakfast will not impact that active real
estate or rental market very much.
- This is a service to the neighborhood.
(+) Emelda Toups -
- She has lived in the neighborhood for 36 years.? There has been great improvement to the
neighborhood since the Harper House has been there.
(+) Terry Pinkerton - Lives at 621 Stockton Street
- She has lived there for over 20 years.
- In 1991, the Ritz Carlton hotel opened up directly across
the street from her home.? It has had
catastrophic impacts on the neighborhood.
- There is so much traffic.
- Tour buses in one of those lanes cause traffic jams.
- They have had dignitaries stay there and cause a lot of
noise and congestion.
- The Harper House has done nothing but provide the visitor
the opportunity to experience the charm of a small neighborhood.
- Mayor Willie Brown has stated the need to do more to
expand the hospitality industry.
(+) Bill Steed - Lives next door to the Harper House
- There is no additional noise by having the Harper House
there.
- This B&B has lessened the traffic in the area.
(+) Linda Crist - Lives at 1651 Waller Street
- Lives one block west of the Harper House Bed and Breakfast
- It is a great addition to the neighborhood.? For her parent?s 60th anniversary, she will
have them stay there.
(+) Kate Murphy -
- She would like permit to be approved.
- She has lived in the neighborhood--a block away--for 15
years.
(+) Leah Harper - Project Sponsor
- 11 Years ago they moved to that location.
- They joined with the other neighbors and were able to get
rid of the drug dealing.
- They are committed to the neighborhood.? They love their neighborhood very much.
(+) Virginia Keller - Lives in the Haight/Ashbury Street
- Has lived on Waller Street for 22 years.
- She has cooperated to clean up the neighborhood of drug
dealing.
- Her neighborhood is a tourist spot.
- They don?t have enough place for people to stay in their
neighborhood.? There are no large hotels
there.
- The neighborhood needs more places like the Harper House.
ACTION:?????????? Project
Disapproved
AYES:????????????? Joe,
Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
MOTION No.????? 14915
At Approximately 6:00 P.M. the Planning Commission convened
into a Special Discretionary Review (Dr) Hearing.
25.??????? 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, and approve building permit
application as submitted.
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of June 15, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: DR Application Withdrawn
26.??????? 2000.372D???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WANG:
558-6335)
96 HOMESTEAD STREET, northwest corner of Homestead and
25th Streets; Lot 014A in Assessor?s Block 6503 -- Request for Discretionary
Review of BPA No. 2000/01/14/108, proposing to demolish an existing first floor
porch and construct a three-story addition at the rear of the existing
two-story over garage, single-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 building permit
application as revised.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Anthony Jiles -
DR Requestor
- Everyone who opposes
this project has a completely reasonable and uniform view on what they are
asking the Commission and that is not to allow this project to go up and above
the roof line of the existing matching 6 Edwardian Houses.
- When people really
understood the design, they were shocked.
- The shadow studies, if
they are correct, would cause a deck to be completely shadowed.
- Noe Valley
neighborhood had singled out single family houses that go up 3 stories above
garage.
- The units which are
comparable are not single housing projects., they are condominiums.
(-) Ken Mancuso -
Lives at 4519 25th Street
- The building is designed
significantly larger than some of the surrounding buildings and homes.? It is out of context and too large for the
block.
(-) Laurence Grunberg
- Lives two houses to
the north of the proposed construction.
- His concern, as it has
been stated by others, is the roofline (the third story height).
- He respects his
neighbors rights to expand their house as they need for more space.? But a corner house really defines the
neighborhood and helps define the street going in both directions.? The roofline will be extremely visible since
it?s 3 stories over garage.? It?s a
precedent that the neighborhood doesn?t want to support.
(-) Ernie Beffel - 70
Homestead Street
- Lives 5 houses to the
north.
- He has been actively
involved in reviewing the last 4 projects on Homestead Street.
- There have been 4
projects located on Homestead Street that came before the Commission.? Three of the projects were 2 stories over
garage.? The 4th project which was
proposed for 3 stories over garage was revised eventually to 2 stories over
garage.
- Given this history, he
opposes 3 stories over garage.? He
recommends that it be sunk somewhat into the ground so it?s 2 1/2 stories over
garage.? Or, that the addition go out
further so the same number of square feet can be accomplished.
- He and the neighbors
are concerned that if this project goes forward someone will want to purchase
three downhill houses that remain underdeveloped and make them three stories.
- Another suggestion
would be to continue the project for mediation purposes.
(-) Al Longfield -
Lives at 4515 AB@ 25th Street
- Most of the people
speaking to support the DR don?t have a problem with the addition.
- The addition causes
problems with the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
- Adding an addition of
70 to 75% of the existing square footage is a very dangerous precedent to
set.? This matter should be
reconsidered.
(-) Carey Perloff -
Lives at 92 Homestead Street
- Most of the houses
which approach the scale of the proposed house are multi unit houses.
- This house is widely
out-of-scale.
- On April 6, she and
her husband looked at the shadow studies and looked at the shadow impact on
their home.? They decided it was totally
unacceptable to them.? Three months later,
nothing has changed with the plans or design.
(-) Ken McNeely -
Lives at 4521 25th Street
- He endorses the
comments by his neighbors.
- His concern is that
the height does affect the light and air on his property.
(+) Audrey Co -
Project Sponsor
- Their growing family is
the cause for the Increased space needs.?
They looked into many design alternatives trying to put them into the
smallest envelope possible.? Building
something in the garage would be impossible because it?s uninhabitable.
????????????????????????? -
Discussions and meetings with the neighbors took place and she is surprised
that there are so many neighbors here since they had not heard from many of the
neighbors even though they had meetings with them.
- Shadow studies show
little added impact from the 2-story vs. the 3-story rear addition.
- Scale and design fits
in with neighborhood.? DR Requestor?s
house is within 15 % of proposed project size.?
- There are more than 20 additional properties in immediate vicinity
that are comparable or larger.
(+) Tony Pantaleoni -
Project Architect
- He was concerned about
blocking the neighbors views.
- He did a study on
possibly constructing the addition in the basement but the car spaces would be
lost.? He looked into the living room
but it became evident that it would not work.?
So he tried to minimize the mass of the addition proposed for the
rear.? He tried to keep it as small and
compact as he possibly could to minimize the view blockage.
- He is not trying to
set precedent here.? This is not a
monster home.
(+) Gayta Bell -
- Their family has
grown.
- They have Abent over
backwards@ to try to fit what they need into the smallest possible space.? They are not developers, but family.
- They have been good
neighbors with the folks at 92 Homestead.?
They are not asking for anything exceptional or unique.
- They have lived there
for 9 years.
- Street parking is very
difficult and they don?t want to be forced to park on the street.
- They would like to
stay in their home, where they have lived for 9 years; and would like to stay
in their neighborhood, where they have lived for 20 years.
ACTION:???????????? Take DR and allow expansion up
to the 2 stories and match the existing roof line.
AYES:? ????????????? Joe,
Martin, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson
NAYES:???????????? Chinchilla
ABSENT:??????????? Antenore
Adjournment: 6:41 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR
ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, July
27, 2000.
Back to top
SAN
FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
?Meeting Minutes
Supervisor?s Chambers - Room 250
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
Place
Thursday, July 13, 2000
1:30 PM
Regular
Meeting
PRESENT:??????????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Theoharis, Chinchilla, Richardson, Martin
ABSENT:????????????????????? None
THE
MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:45? P.M.
STAFF
IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning, Hillary Gitelman; Rana
Ahmadi; Amit Gosh; Isolde Wilson; John Billovits; Paul Lord; Paul Maltzer; Paul
Deutsch; Scott Edmondson; Catherine Keylon; Julian Banales, Greg Nikitas;
Kenneth Chin; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary, Linda D. Avery -
Commission Secretary
A.???????? ITEMS
PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1.???????? 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
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of June 8, 2000)
(Proposed
for Continuance to August 24, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to August 24, 2000
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe,
Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? None
2a.??????? 2000.225CV
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NIKITAS:
558-6306)
3131 WEBSTER STREET, north west corner of Moulton Street, Lot 002 in Assessor's
Block 0509 -? Request for Conditional
Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.2 and 712.21 for use size
exceeding 6,000 square feet.? The
proposal is for a Business or Professional Service Office (McGuire Real Estate)
of 12,160 gross square feet to be achieved by remodeling into offices an existing
former restaurant, The North India, (two structures totaling 4,960 square feet
in area) and connecting those structures to the existing adjacent real estate
offices at 2001 Lombard Street (gross area of 7,200 square feet) via a new
second-story pedestrian bridge between the lots.? The subject properties are within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale
Neighborhood Commercial) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.? Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for
Continuance to August 24, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to August 24, 2000
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore,
Joe, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
NAYES:??????????? None
ABSENT:????????? None
2b.??????? 2000.225CV
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NIKITAS:
558-6306)
3131 WEBSTER STREET, north west corner of Moulton Street,
Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0509 The Zoning Administrator will conduct a joint
hearing on a request for a parking variance per Sections 151 and 712.22 of the Planning
Code, which require eight off-street parking spaces for the proposed use of
subject property, located within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood
Commercial) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. No off-street parking
is proposed.
(Proposed for
Continuance to August 24, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to August 24, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe, Martin,
Chinchilla, Richardson
NAYES:??????????? None
ABSENT:????????? None
3.???????? 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.? Preliminary
Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of June 15, 2000);
(Proposed for
Continuance to September 14, 2000) August 24, 2000
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to August 24, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe, Martin,
Chinchilla, Richardson
NAYES:??????????? None
ABSENT:????????? None
4.???????? 2000.249D
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MARTIN:
558-6616)
1050 IOWA STREET,?
west side between 23rd and 25th Streets, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block
4226 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9907699, BPA No. 9907700,
and BPA No. 9907701, proposing to construct three buildings containing a total
of 26 live/work units: Building A with ten; Building B with six; and Building C
with ten, each building to be four stories and one mezzanine, in an M-1 (Light
Industrial) District (Industrial Protection Zone) and a 40-X Height and Bulk
District.? The site is an odd-shaped
(narrow and long) vacant lot.? The
project is set for a Mandatory Discretionary Review per City Planning
Commission Resolution No. 14861.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove this proposal
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
(Proposed
for Continuance to September 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to September 14, 2000
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore,
Joe, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
NAYES:??????????? None
ABSENT:????????? None
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):
John de Castro - Lives in Potrero Hill
- He has been a resident of Potrero Hill for over 20 years.
- There is a similar problem in the Mission as well as
Potrero Hill --rampant, unplanned office development and business services
being perpetuated throughout the neighborhoods.
- He finds it hard to believe that the ZA authorized the Ron
Kaufman project at 450 Rhode Island as business services.? His marketing people sit right next to this
site and it is definitely not a business service.? It?s an office.
- This is just an attempt to get around prop M.
- Most of the hill is surrounded by land that has either
been zoned commercial or industrial.
- They need money allocated in next year?s budget to expand
the neighborhood planning efforts.?
Similar to what is going on with the Neighborhood 2000, in the Dogpatch
area.
- The planning Commission is addressing that area.? A similar effort needs to be made to the
Mission District.
Patricia Vaughey
- She has problems with information being provided on
computers.
- On item 19, 5 out of 6 associations did not get notified.
Gladys Sandlin - Executive Director of Mission Neighborhood
Health Center
- This health center has been in the neighborhood for 23 1/2
years.? They serve 13,000 patients.
- 40% of the 13,000 patients have been forced to leave the
City.? These are the people that work in
the hotel industry, they serve our food, they do attendant care, they clean our
houses, etc.
- There is an increase in community needs.
- She would like to urge the Commission to form a
community-based coalition and plan appropriately.
- She requests that the Commission takes this seriously
because they are the people that move the City.? The Commissioners are elected officials who have the civic duty
to uphold the social contract to ensure the unique character of San Francisco.
Leroy Moore
- Advocate of minority organization.
- The only family organization for children in the Mission
is located in the Bay View Building which will be closing.
- How can they serve the community if they can?t live in the
community?
Lisa Gray-Garcia? -
Poor Magazine
- The Commission holds the future of non-profits, low-income
and working people.? The Commission has
been systematically approving projects that push them out of the City.
- Poor Magazine exists to get voices heard that are not
heard
- She is proposing as a community, that if the Commission
doesn?t do something soon to help the nonprofits, they will be forced to have
Aoutbursts.@
Ethel Newlin - St. John?s Educational Threshold Center
- The children and youth are the future.? The way things are going now there will be
no future in San Francisco because people with families will not be able to
live here.
- How does building an office complex affect the
children?? The people who work in the
new office complex will need a place to live.
- It doesn?t matter anymore if you are poor, working class,
or middle class.? People with money are
coming into the City and either purchasing or renting, therefore, pushing the
poor out.
- A city with no young people has no future.
- The commission has the responsibility as custodians of the
future to plan for a place for people to live, work and raise their families.
Sergio Canjura
- Current project coordinator of a proposed Mission
Neighborhood Resource Center in the Mission District which will serve the poor
and homeless in the area.
- Due to the decisions that the Commission has made, their
organization hasn?t been able to find a site to run this project.
- He would like for the Commission to respect them, to take
account of what the people really need.
- There are people in the area that need the resources and
space in the area.
Antonio Alcala
- He requested a moment of silence for all the people that
might die on the streets because they have been evicted and have no place to go
since there is no affordable housing in the City.
Carmen Ramirez
- She supports the Latino and Color community in the Mission
District.
- She has been suffering for over 3 years and is afraid of
displacement of her small business.
- It is very difficult to maintain a small business in the
Mission District.
- She asked the Planning Department and the Planning
Commission to put their feelings forward along with the decisions they make.
- There are children and families that are being affected
with these decisions.
- There are no words to describe what families go through when
they are displaced.
- She thanked the for the time the Commission takes to help
the community.
- Please take these words and thoughts into consideration.
Eric Quesada - Member of the Mission Anti-displacement Coalition
- There is a rally outside of City Hall representing those
people who have been displaced.
- The Mission District community and other working class
neighborhoods have not been the same since the evening of June 28.? Before that many have spent countess hours
giving testimony in front of the Commission.?
They have spent countless hours fighting eviction after eviction for the
past 5 years.? The result is that they
feel more and more removed, discounted and dis-empowered.
- The community will act now and speak no matter who it
offends.
- Today they are here as delegates of the Mission
Anti-Displacement Coalition and representing sectors of their community and the
voices outside of City Hall protesting the policies of displacement the
Commission has implemented.?
- He publicly acknowledged the attendance of Director Green,
Commissioner Chinchilla, Commissioner Mills, and Commissioner Richardson at
their June 28 community meeting.
- They would like to give a brief presentation of what was
presented at that meeting.
Matt Brown - St. Peter?s Housing Coalition
- There are over 500 people outside on the Polk Street side
in front of City Hall.
- The Mission District has?
always been the home of poor and working class families.? These families are being driven out of their
homes from this City because of the developments the Commission has been
approving.
- This Coalition counsels and advises low income renters
from all over the City about their rights and responsibilities.? In the 4 years he has worked there, the
numbers have tripled.
- Government officials can do something to protect low
income families by adopting the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition?s temporary
moratorium on new development.
- Since 1994 developers have built 650 new live/work units
in the Mission District alone.? These
units are not meant for families.? These
lofts are displacing businesses and are changing the face of the Mission
District.? About less than 5% of the new
650 units are occupied by artists.? The
vast majority of artists are not able to afford a $500,000 one bedroom
apartment.
- Sheik condos are taking over the middle class, immigrant
and facility-centered neighborhood.
Antonio Dias - Member of PODER and the Mission
Anti-Displacement Coalition
- The demand that was made at the community meeting on June
28, 2000 was about an immediate moratorium covering the entire Mission District
on conversions and new construction of office space, dot.com space, or business
service space or whatever it is being called this week.
- Because of the actions of the Planning Department and the
Planning Commission, there is a proliferation of office space in the
neighborhood.? The price of real estate
has Asky rocketed@ which makes it difficult to develop affordable housing and
maintain small businesses and light industry.?
The proliferation of these dot.com spaces is the reason for the high
rents in the Mission.
- Just a few weeks ago, Bryant Square was approved for
160,000 sf of office space.? 2701 16th
Street is being converted to 100,000 sf of office from apparel
manufacturing.?? At 2300 Harrison
Street, a factory is being converted to 68,000 sf of offices.? The Best Foods Building is being converted
to office space with no hearing at all.
- There has been about 850,000 sf of office space converted
in the past 4 years.
- Smaller industrial buildings throughout the Mission
District have been converted to office use without any notices or hearings.
- Rent levels in the neighborhood have been adjusted to
downtown office rent levels.
- He acknowledges that a day after the community meeting
held on June 28, the Planning Department sent a letter of violation to Mr.
Robert Court, who?s family purchased the Bay View Building.? Yet, it shouldn?t be up to the community to
be notifying the department of doing it?s job.
Gena Castro - Mission Neighborhood Center
- She is here as a delegate of the Mission Anti-Displacement
Coalition.
- Since 1994 the Planning Commission has promised to rezone
the Mission District, protect jobs, and limit live/work lofts.? Instead the Commission has not rezoned the
district, has had no comprehensive community input into land use planning,
approved hundreds of live/work lofts and allowed industrial buildings to be
used as offices.
- Community members have developed an assessment of the
Mission.? Community organizers? are soon to open community process to
include maximum and meaningful participation.?
The community is working on creating a zoning initiative to protect the
neighborhood.
- The community is here to inform the Commission that they
have two demands: 1) the Commission commit to a community-based process to
rezone the Mission and work with them to create a meaningful community
inclusiveness;? 2) The Commission
reprogram funds in the 2000-2001 budget so that rezoning can occur as soon as
possible, including a senior planner to be in communication with them and
assist in the process.
Lisa Pagan
- Project Manager with Mission Housing Development
Corporation
- She is a planner with a masters in City Planning from UC
Berkeley and a member of MAC.
- The demands that they have are to requests a moratorium of
all market-rate housing and multimedia class developments and conversions.
- She read out loud Section 303.7 which talks about interim
zoning controls.
Dr. Concha Saucedo Martinez - Executive Director of
Instituto Familiar de la Raza
- She hears everyday, the cries of the displaced people in
the Mission District.
- Our community may be poor in profit but they are rich in
diversity, in culture and in spirit.
- They ask that the Commission listen carefully and allow
for a moratorium of office conversions and dot.com offices in the Mission, as
well as stopping illegal conversions of light-industrial commercial space into
offices.
- Would like to rezone the Mission District and provide
funds for this.
- She is anxious to hear what Mr. Green will say since he
attended the Community Meeting on June 28, 2000.
Maria Martinez
- She works at the Rent Board.
- The issue of displacement is very important.? Live/work spaces are wonderful but they
don?t house people who service the City and County of San Francisco.? These people cannot afford to move out and
come back to work at restaurants, cleaners, etc.
- Bidding was conducted over the computer Internet to
purchase lofts.? Many low-income
families don?t have computers.
- A moratorium is important in the Mission right now but it
is more important for developers to build homes for the families.
- The Planning Commission needs a report of all the families
that are being evicted from the Mission District.
- One has to look at the lifestyles that are being displaced
in the Mission and in other areas.
Joan Holden
- She is a member of the artist community which was displaced
from North Beach in the >60s and that now is being displaced from the
Mission, after 30 years.
- She is also speaking for the Artists Alliance who got
together to form a list of demands which was presented to Director Green at the
community meeting held on June 28.
- Make the interim zoning controls that say no lofts in
industrial zones permanent.
- Define live/work lofts as housing and treat them as
housing.? Allow office and residential
use in industrial areas only as accessory use to industry including arts.? Define dot.com spaces as what they are --
offices.
Gloria La Riva - International Action Center
- She has lived in the Mission District for 19 years.
- There is truly a crisis that speakers have analyzed, and
as a result, have given the Commission a very important alternative for a
zoning proposal.
- They had a march in the Mission for housing last
October.? Citizens and non citizens came
out to support.
- If after all this testimony today, the Commission does not
take action as needed, she promises a very powerful movement.
- Many of them live and work and struggle.
- She lives in the Mission and believes that the owner will
Ellis Act the building soon--has already sent illegal eviction notices.
- 9 adults live in one apartment to be able to afford $1,000
rent.
- The Redevelopment Agency admitted a number of years ago
that they destroyed the Fillmore and eliminated 98% of African American owned
businesses.? The same is going on in
Hunters Point.
- They cannot allow anymore development in the Mission or
anywhere else.
Rachel Aoanan - Works at the International Action Center
- She works there as a political activists.
- It is very discouraging to know what is going on with the
evictions.
- It is important that people voice their opinions.
Kaira Espinoza
- She was born and raised in the Mission District.? Over the years she has witnessed all the
changes taking place in the City.
- If the goal is to develop a community and give them economic
opportunities, build affordable housing, and computer training centers.? There is always much talk about how poor the
Mission is.? The reason the community is
poor is because of lack of training and support, no lack of high rent, low
wages and discrimination.
- As soon as Valencia Street becomes more developed, there
will be valet parking and cars can park in the middle of the street.? When do residents get to park in the middle?
- There are new palm trees being planted, new parks and
lofts being built.? This is the reason
why there is no money to put into affordable housing, schools and community
programs.? The only people being hurt
are children and future generations.
Sue Hestor -
- Regarding Item 8 - 360 10th Street on the agenda.? The Commission will vote on allowing? an affordable housing building to be
demolished and instead build 6 units of upscale lofts.? This vote will affect the Mission, Chinatown
-- any poor community.? She would like
this project to not be approved.
- Regarding Item 10 - 673 Brannan Street on the agenda.? The Commission will vote on this? wether or not they have adequate information
on the largest live/work development.
- Regarding Item 11 - 1247 Harrision Street - The bus
company is moving out of San Francisco because of 64 live/work units.? Is there a demand or is this more dot.com
offices?
- Item 22 - 1228 25th Street was taken off the calendar
because the developers are changing the two projects, which are next to this
site, to dot.com without any notices or any hearings.
- 580 Howard was taken off the calendar because the
developer withdrew the application.
Lloyd Schloegle
- Regarding 1247 Harrison.?
This site is recently used as Samtrans bus parking.
- This proposal is to move the site to Pier 96.? The alternative site has not been well
thought out.
- This site at Harrison Street is a poor choice for housing
since there is a freeway entrance there.
Ken Fugioka - Attorney at the Asian Law Caucus
- Every day people are being evicted from San Francisco.
- Regarding 360 10th Street.? There will be a demolition of two housing units.
- This is a terrible reversal where in one situation
live/work is considered not housing not required to fulfill other requirements
that other housing is required to make and on the other hand replacing housing
with live/work space.
- The Commission is ready to lift it?s requirement for the
house that is being demolished without fulfilling the requirements of existing
policy.
- These standards were made to protect housing throughout
the city.
- For this commission to approve the demolition and replace
it with live/work space is a real travesty.
- He urges this commission to take a second look at this
development or to reject it as a whole.
Jennifer Freedomback
- She lives on Harrison Street.
- There were 500 people outside protesting in front of City
Hall who wanted to speak but instead sent in delegates of MAC.
- She wants to comment as a resident of the Mission.
- As new developments are coming and new people are moving
in, there has been an increase of desirability and a direct link to Ellis Act
evictions and other evictions that have taken place that have driven up the
rents.
- She would like to reinforce a moratorium on the Mission
District.
C.???????? COMMISSIONERS?
QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
5.???????? Commission
Matters
Commissioner Antenore:??????? This
morning?s Chronicle had an article about the new procedures under CEQA and the
various charges and fees proposed.?
Would like to schedule this issue on the agenda prior to the Board of
Supervisor?s August 1 hearing to discuss this matter.
It would be a good idea to allow written comments to come in
a few days after the oral testimonies following draft EIR hearings.? This would give people an opportunity to hear
the oral testimonies and still have time to submit further written
comments.? This would be important
especially in controversial EIRs.? Ms.
Gitelman mentioned that she had no objection to going back to that procedure.
Commissioner Mills:?? Would like to schedule a hearing on
the Mission District Moratorium to hear from all sides.? For a long time the Mission has been
pleading for jobs which they are now getting yet they come with impacts on
transportation and affordable housing.?
There are millions of dollars in the Mayor?s Office of Housing and it
would be interesting to see how this gets spent. Information needs to be
brought to the Commission that helps frame the issue.? Next week, staff should be prepared with a date when a hearing
will be scheduled.
Would like a recommendation on the definition of
live/work.? She believes that it should
be called housing; this would abolish the interim definition that has created
so much difficulty.? A clarification
should be made on two policies that are conflicting: 1) policies that try to
protect housing from demolition to keep affordable housing; and 2) policies
that ask to increase density along major transit routes and transit hubs.? Changes and/or prioritizing need to be made
in order to avoid any conflicts.
Commissioner Richardson:??? She is inclined to rezone the
mission district.? Rather than looking
at isolated cases, planning the entire district should be the start.? A map should be made of the district.
D.???????? DIRECTOR?S
REPORT
6.???????? Director?s
Announcements
Gerald Green:? Response to
Demands made by the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition:
He complements the Mission Anti-displacement Coalition for a
very well organized and focused meeting held on June 28, where he as well as Commissioners
Richardson, Mills and Chinchilla attended.
- The Commission and the department did hear about the
concerns of the changes going on in the Mission: the impact on rent and lease
increases, the harm that evictions are causing, displacement issues, loss of
affordable housing, and lack of planning.
- He respects the passion that the community has for these
issues but believes that this energy is not being directed in the right
direction.
- San Francisco is experiencing phenomenal growth.? San Francisco and the Mission are not the
only ones being subjected to the demands of the growth and the new technology
coming into the city.
- The challenge of the Commission and the Planning
Department is to harness this economy so that?
San Francisco doesn?t do away with this growth.
- He believes that there is a misconception with regards to
the planning process.? Land use policies
do contribute to change in the City.?
The big picture is that there are other agencies and other members of
government that are a part of this process.?
For example, the rent arbitration board has the ability to affect
illegal rent and lease increases.
- The City Attorney?s office, the Building Department, the
Mayor?s Office of Housing also play a big part in this.
- The Board of Supervisors plays a big part in this issue
since they approve or disapprove the budget.
- In the 80s, the Planning effort was focused on generating
land use policies which would stimulate appropriate growth.
- Today in the 90s, the challenge and the efforts should be
focusing on guiding this growth.
- He takes offence that the department is not being guided
by the General Plan (GP).? The GP is a
guiding light.? It is contained in each
of the recommendations.
- The department is very much aware of the fact that state
law requires that no determination, no approval be made unless it be found to
be in conformity with the general plan.?
The General Plan was developed with a great deal of input by various communities
and neighborhoods of this City.
- A request was made at the June 28 meeting for him to
authorize a moratorium yet he doesn?t have?
the authority to do so.
- He would remind this commission and others that at this
time last year, the Commission was considering the live/work issue as well as
policies and controls.? A moratorium was
discussed yet the Commission was concerned about a moratorium and a decision
was made not to establish one.
- In January the Planning Department will be back before the
public to discuss their work program for the next fiscal year.? Now is the time to discuss what should be
put on that work program.
- If there are illegal conversions, the department will go
after them.
- There is an agreement that there should be more of a
community-based focus in Planning.? The
department will make that happen.?
Discussions should be conducted now regarding this issue.
- He is willing to work with the Mission Anti-Displacement
Coalition along with others throughout the City to do better planning.
Status of the American Can Company (ACC):
- Andrea Wong was assigned to investigate evictions of ACC.
- The department after receiving numerous requests,
conducted a background search, permit history, and site visit.? The site visit was conducted last Friday
(7/6/00) because the property owner? did
not make it easy for the department to access the site.
- There is a tenant, a bakery, who is occupying some space
at this location but there is no conversion going on there [this space].
- The Building Department has stopped permits.
- There has been some conversion of this building to office
use.
- The permit history is very extensive so the Department
will be going into more detail.
Status of the Bay View Bank:
- The department did accelerate the investigation process of
this building.
- This building was originally developed and occupied by Bay
View Bank in 1961.? Bay View Bank sold
the building but leased the entire building back in 1981.? In 1999, the Court Family purchased the
building from the previous owner.? At
that time, the lease for Bay View Bank expired and they left the building in
June of this year.? The new tenant is
BigStep.com.
- The issue of the impact of the non-profits is quite
real.? The Court Family and BigStep.com
are prepared to work with the neighborhood to ensure that there will be space
available for non-profits.? This space
will be offered at an affordable rate.
The Budget Process:
- The Finance Committee did not agree with the Department on
the recommendation of the work program and budget.? Especially in regards to a position requested to meet the demands
of the Sunshine Ordinance.
- He still believes that the position is needed and? is important and will be working with the
Supervisors and try for a reconsideration and re-evaluation.
Lombard Corridor:
- The Department is requesting additional funding to carry
out a study of the Lombard Corridor.?
Approximately $35,000 is being added by Supervisor Newsom to study the
issues of land use control.
- Supervisor Brown is asking for an increase in the budget
by $300,000 to be able to complete the?
Transit Oriented Development Plans for Balboa Park Area.
- Supervisor Becerril and others are interested in adding an
appropriate figure to help the Department carry out the efforts of the Better
Neighborhoods 2002 program.? The study
for the Mission District might be able to be carried out sooner.
Other items which will be discussed next week:
- Permit Processing Procedures requested by Commissioner
Chinchilla
- Status of the Affordable Housing Fund
Hillary Gitelman
- Regarding update to Chapter 31 of the Administrative Code.
- There was to have been a hearing this morning at one of
the Board committees but it has been postponed to August 1.
- The Chapter is severely out-of-date.? It has not been amended for 10 or so
years.? The state law has changed
multiple times.? This has been in the
Department?s to-do list for a very long time--to bring it in conformance with
state laws.
- Supervisor Kaufman has been working her way through the
code trying to streamline the code--take out unnecessary sections and make
improvements where necessary.
- The Legislation will be heard on August 1.? It will have little or no affect with the
way the Department or the Commission treats environmental issues.? With only one exception: a procedure that
EIR?s be appealable by the Board of Supervisors? which is mandated by state law.?
The fee for this would be $1,000.?
Ms. Gitelman believes that this fee is not out-of-line.
7.???????? Review of
Past Week?s Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
None
E.???????? CONSIDERATION
OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ????
8.???????? 1999.746C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
(BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)
360-10TH STREET, west side between Folsom Street and Harrison Street; Lot 9
in Assessor?s Block 3520 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow
the demolition of two dwelling units per Planning Code Section 803.5(b) and
233(a) and to allow construction of six new live/work units in the Industrial
Protection Zone across the street from the Mixed Use Housing Zone per Planning
Commission Resolution No. 14861, in the South of Market Service/Light
Industrial/Residential (SLR)Mixed Use District and a 50-X Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 25, 2000)
Note: On May 25, 2000, following public testimony, the
Commission closed the public hearing.? A
motion of intent to approve with the requirement that the project always have a
live component to it and that it never be allowed to convert to commercial use,
failed to carry by a vote of +3-1; Commissioner Antenore voted no.? Commissioners Mills, Joe and Martin were
Absent.
SPEAKER(S):? None
ACTION:????????? Approved
with condition that the project always have a Alive@ component to it and that
it never be allowed to convert to commercial use.
AYES: Theoharis,
Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
NAYES:????????? Antenore,
Joe, Martin
ABSENT:???????? None
MOTION No.??? 15916
9.???????? 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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2000)
Note: On July 6, 2000, following public testimony, the
Commission closed the public hearing.? A
motion to approve failed to carry by a vote of +3-3. Commissioners Theoharis,
Joe, and Chinchilla voted no.?? A
substitute motion to continue this matter and?
allow the Department of Building Inspection to review the current
demolition report passed by a vote of +6-0.
SPEAKER(S):? None
ACTION:????????? Approved
AYES: Theoharis,
Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
NAYES:????????? Antenore,
Joe, Martin
ABSENT:???????? None
MOTION NO.?? 15917
10.??????? 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 Negative Declaration? (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 8, 2000)
Note: On June 8, 2000, following public testimony, the
Commission closed the public hearing.? A
motion to uphold negative declaration failed to carry by a vote of +3-3 with
Commissioners Antenore, Joe and Martin voted no.? Commissioner Theoharis was absent.
SPEAKER(S):? None
ACTION:???????? Upheld
Negative Declaration
AYES: Theoharis, Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
NAYES:?????????? Antenore,
Joe, Martin
ABSENT:???????? None
MOTION No.?? 15918
11.??????? 1999.243D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BANALES:
558-6339)
1247
HARRISON STREET,
south side of Harrison between? 8th and
9th Streets, Lot(s) 063, 065, 066 in Assessor?s Block 3757 -- Staff-initiated
discretionary review on building permit application nos. 9907688S, 9907689S and
9907690S, 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 a Service/Light
Industrial (SLI) District and the Industrial Protection Zone, 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 1, 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:???????? Approved
as submitted - No Discretionary Review
AYES: Theoharis, Mills,
Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
NAYES:?????????? Antenore,
Joe
ABSENT:???????? None
F.???????? REGULAR CALENDAR
12.??????? 1999.554E
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (AHMADI:
558-5966)
601 KING STREET OFFICE BUILDING- Public Hearing on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report.? The
project site occupies Assessor?s Block 3800, Lots 1 and 2, between King,
Seventh, Deharo and Berry Streets, and is in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) zoning
district and a 50-X height and bulk district.?
The proposed project would involve the demolition of two warehouse
buildings at 830 Seventh Street and 601 King Street and the construction of a
4-story plus mechanical penthouse and basement parking level office structure,
approximately 50 feet tall.? The
proposed new building would contain approximately 238,000 gross square feet of
office space.? The structure would
provide about 321 off-street independently accessible parking spaces? in the basement level and ground-floor
garage.? The project would include two
off-street loading spaces.? Preliminary
Recommendation: No Action Required.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
July 6, 2000)
The public comment period has been
extended to the C.O.B. on July 13, 2000
SPEAKER(S):?????????????????????????? Judy West:? - This project is adjacent to the
Mission Creek Bikeway.
- There is a sewer
easement on the back side of the project where there is outdoor parking.
- She received a grant
from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for a planning study on this
bikeway project.? There will also be
matching funds from the Department of Parking?
and Traffic.
- She hopes to use a
little corner of this sewer easement for a thru bikeway with some green space.
- She would like the
project sponsor to know that they are not required to have parking on that
slot.? Funds will be raised to do
capital improvements along this route.
Lloyd
Schloegel:? - There is no need to erect a new office
building on this site.? This proposal
?is redundant and unnecessary. This project
should be rejected.
Sue Hestor - San
Franciscans for a Reasonable Growth
- She would like to
translate Ms. West?s comments into a request for an alternative that protects
the land for the Mission Creek Bikeway.?
If it?s not in the EIR the City cannot consider it.
- There is no
information in EIRs about offices, dot.coms, business sector, research and
development or whatever the proper name is.
- EIRs are supposed to
be written so that the local person can understand them.
- EIR formulas are
calculated from very old formulas which don?t apply to today?s exploding
growth.
ACTION:?????????? Public Hearing Held - No action
required.
13.??????? 1998.898E ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? DEUTSCH
(558-5965)
HETCH HETCHY WATER
TREATMENT CHLORAMINE CONVERSION PROJECT: Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report.? The project is the proposed conversion of
the disinfectant for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)
drinking water supply from chlorine to chloramine, to improve reliability of
the system to meet water quality requirements of the federal Stage 1
Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Products Rule, promulgated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in 1998.?
The project would involve construction of chlorine and ammonia feed
systems; dechlorination and dechlorination facilities; chemical storage systems;
and ancillary roadways and pipelines, mostly at existing SFPUC facilities in
four locations: Tesla Portal off of Vernalis Road near Tracy in San Joaquin
County; San Antonio Pump Station on Calaveras Road in Sunol Valley, Alameda
County; Pulgas Water Temple vicinity on Ca?ada Road, San Mateo County; and
Harry W. Tracy Water Treatment Plant off of Crystal Springs Road in San Mateo
County.? Preliminary Recommendation:
No Action Required
The public comment
period closes at 5:00 p.m. July 19, 2000.
ACTION:???? Public
Hearing Held - No action required.
14.??????? 1998.770E???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MALTZER:
558-6391)
1738-9TH AVENUE, east side between Moraga and Noriega Streets; Lots 31 and
32 in Assessor's Block 2041 - Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration
for a proposal to demolish an existing one-story building containing a
preschool and community meeting room, and construct a new four-story building
containing eight senior housing units, a preschool and community meeting room.? Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold
Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 6, 2000).
SPEAKER(S):
(-)
Mary Glennon
-
She has been a resident of 9th Avenue for many years.
-
She filed an appeal to the Negative Declaration along with Dr. Deito in July of
1999.
- They
were motivated to file this appeal because they thought that their issues had
not been taken seriously by the project sponsor.
-
The PND memorandum issued in July of 2000, stated that they had not supplied
any evidence that would support the facts on the impact to the environment.
-
Although they don?t have the evidence, they are aware of what the increase in
density, parking and traffic means in an urban area when housing increases.
-
9th Avenue is a particularly busy thoroughfare since it serves as an alternate
route to 7th and 19th Avenue.
-
They were interested in speaking with SHARP yet SHARP was not very interested
about their concerns.
-
The latest plans show a much smaller building.
-
They are not trying to block a development on a property owned by SHARP.? They own the property and are allowed to
develop as they wish.? Yet the new
design of the building still proposes a precedent which will impact future
developments in the neighborhood.
(-)
Marylou Sheridan - Owner of 1737 8th Avenue
-
She has lived there since 1966.? Her
garden back up to the proposed project lot.
-
She has a Monterey pine that she planted 25 years ago.? She will lose the tree if construction is
approved for the proposed development.
-
The height of the proposed building is too large.? This will shut out light from her home.
-
The noise level, loss of privacy, loss of the tree, along with parking problems
will make this less than livable for her.
(+) Patricia Ray
-
She has lived 80 years in San Francisco and 42 years in the Sunset
District.? She believes it?s time to
move out of a large house and move into a small senior apartment.
-
She believes that seniors need something like SHARP.
-
This development is very good for senior citizens.
(+)
Erick McJohn - Project Sponsor
- Is
available for questions
ACTION:???? Upheld
Negative Declaration
AYES:??????? Theoharis,
Mills, Antenore, Joe, Martin, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:??? None
MOTION NO. 15919
15a.????? 1999.040CV ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WILSON:
558-6602)
1738
9TH AVENUE, east
side between Moraga and Noriega Streets; Lots 31 and 32 in Assessor?s Block
2041 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization to allow a child care
facility, community facility and eight units of senior housing under Planning
Code Sections 209.1(m), 209.3(f) and 209.4(a), within an RH-2 (House,
Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. ?Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 6, 2000).
SPEAKER(S):
(+)
Erick McJohn - Lives at 1670 8th Avenue
- He
has lived in the inner sunset for 23 years.
- He
is vice president of SHARP.
-
SHARP is a 91 year old charitable and neighborhood organization.? The boundaries of SHARP are: north is
Lincoln Avenue, west is 19th Avenue, south is Riviera, and border with Forest
Hill.
- In
1947 the organization purchased two buildings.
In
1997 they remodeled in order to accommodate the displaced children from Lone
Mountain College.?
-
SHARP?s revenues are derived from membership fees and from the revenue from the
day care center.
-
For about 10 years, SHARP has been working on a new building concept in order
to:? 1) continue with the Lone Mountain
Day Care Center on the g round floor;?
2) construct a community room where SHARP members can meet; and 3) add a
new element which is 8 senior housing units.?
These units will be below market rates.
-
This area is a transit rich area.
(+)
Beverly Pryer - Project Architect
-
She has been a long term inner sunset resident.? She has also been an active person in the community.
-
The goals of the project are for it to be a mixed-use, neighborhood-serving
facility.
-
The proposal is for a children?s center, parking on the first floor, 8 units of
senior housing on the? second and third
floors, a community room and senior social room on the 4th floor.
-
The architectural goals are that it fit into the community in terms of it?s
massing, be a good neighbor to adjacent properties by minimizing the impact on their
light and air, provide a good quality of life for the seniors, children and
community who use the facility.
(+)
Doris E. Lindfors - Lives at 1734 9th Avenue
-
She and her husband have lived there for 27 years.
- At
first they were against the project because of the lack of parking but after
much thought, they decided to support the project since housing for seniors is
needed.
-
The project is accessible by transit and has a grocery close by.
- It
is very well run, especially the child care center.
(+)
John Barry - President of SHARP
-
Seniors are the most at risk for being able to find housing.
-
This project will provide senior housing with out them worrying about Ellis
Acts or being thrown out.? SHARP has
been around for 91 years.? They?re not
going anywhere.
-
Commissioner Antenore asked about the 4th Floor social room.? This room is necessary because the seniors
need a social center.
-
They don?t have any money coming to them from any federal or state grant.? They are grateful to their forbearers for
the fact that they bought the land--otherwise they couldn?t afford to go
through with this project.
-
The 4th floor space is about 1/3 or the space below.
-
They will be having some sort of methodology to choose people who will be
living there.? They haven?t settled on a
specific method.
(+)
Chooi Eng Grosso
-
She resides on 7th Avenue
-
Her first involvement with SHARP was when she was trying to save the open space
at 7th and Lawton.? The president of
SHARP immediately paid for the rent of the facility and offered the free use of
the SHARP facilities as long as they needed it.
-
Ms. Grosso became interested in SHARP when she realized that elderly people
need to be accompanied with other seniors and people to take care of them in
case of an emergency.? Another reason is
because children should be able to be close to their grandparents.
- As
a member of SHARP, she realizes that it?s difficult to accommodate all of the
neighbor?s needs and issues.? Some of
the issues can be accommodated yet others can?t.
(+)
Jaqueline Shorewal? - Secretary of SHARP
-
During the 1989 earthquake, her and her husband came home and saw how everyone
seemed lost.
-
SHARP provided assistance and helped them with no obligation.
-
SHARP is not some private club, it has an ideal and it works in that direction.
(+)
Brad Paul
- He
does not live in the Sunset but he found out about the project two years
ago.? He was attracted to the idea of
combining affordable senior housing and child care in a location close to a
number of MUNI lines.
-
Many seniors as they get older cannot handle a large home.? So it?s nice to have a place for seniors to
live and not have to maintain a full house.
-
Having a place where people can socialize is an important issue since it gets
harder and harder for seniors to go out.
-
The fact that the project sponsors are trying to meet the inclusionary
condition and make one of the units affordable is admirable.? He volunteered to work with them to go to
some of the foundations and organizations in the City to get some funding for
what is a unique, model project. By doing this SHARP doesn?t have to cover the
loss of income for the inclusionary housing.
(+)
Jake McGoldrick
-
About 7 or 8 months ago, John Barry asked him to come and look at the
site.? SHARP has always been very
generous for allowing members of the community to use their facilities.
(+)
John Bardis
-
Back in the 40s people in the neighborhoods were able to mobilize their
resources and really create a community center with their own resources.
-
The demolition moratorium which was pushed through the Board of Supervisors
back about 12 yeas ago, was? demolition
of sound housing, was actually conceived and implemented through the meetings
at the SHARP club house.
- He
was the president of SHARP back in the early 70s.
(+)
Maryann Miller - member of the board of SPEAK
-
SPEAK is a neighborhood group in the same area as SHARP.
-
The meeting room on the 4th floor is not that big.
-
SPEAK is very interested always in reviewing projects for their design qualities.? Because the project is well design and will
fit into the neighborhood, every square inch that is there is needed.
(+)
Rebecca Silverberg
-
This is a very unique project. It?s a project that contains multi generational
services, community services and senior housing.
-
She would like the Commission to support this project
(+)
Ramona Albright
-
She is a pro bono planning activist and has a good understanding of the
enormity of the responsibilities the Commissioners have.
-
Members of SHARP are sunset heights sensitive people.? She worked with SHARP for years in the city-wide coalition for
San Francisco neighborhoods as a delegate from Twin Peaks.? The CSFM sponsored their current president,
John Barry, to serve on the Commission for San Francisco?s Environment.? Mr. Barry also created the first recycling
program in the City.
-
CSFM members believe that Mr. Barry would not sponsor a project without merit.
-
The project will provide improved child care, community meeting facilities and
urgently-needed senior housing.
-
The current SHARP center has always been community-serving and
City-serving.? The new facility will
serve the residents of this City for generations to come.
-
SHARP has tried for so long with repeatedly altered specifications to get the
approval of the Department.
(-)
Dr. Dai To
-
She is a geriatrics psychology fellow at the Goldman Institute on Aging in San
Francisco.? She and her husband live
next door to the proposed project.
-
She has a lot of interest in this development.?
The development will have tremendous impact on her and her family on
many levels.
-
The subject of older adults is close to her heart.? Not only is she sympathetic to the needs of seniors but also
understands the difficulties and challenges this population faces living and
growing older in San Francisco.
-
Her opposition to the proposed project has never been anti-senior housing.? The scope, the size and the density of the
project is too much.? The project has 8
units of senior housing but also a preschool space, and the addition of a
community room.? There are 3 distinct
uses crammed into the middle of an already congested block.? The scope of the project as a whole is not
compatible with the neighborhood.
-
Please consider their concerns and ask SHARP to downsize their project.
-
There is no doubt that affordable housing is necessary for seniors but is this
what this project will really provide??
The proposed community room is seen as a benefit to the community, but
is it really?
-
Before judgement can be made about how necessary, beneficial, and how
community-oriented this project is, the following must be considered: 1) SHARP
is a neighborhood organization that denied membership to neighbors who tried to
join this group; 2) a board member was excluded from their meetings because
this person lives on the block and shared the concerns of the neighbors who
opposed the project; 3) the same board has also said to concerned neighbors and
to reporters that their members will have first priority to the housing units.
-
SHARP has presented itself as a private club.?
Is this project really beneficial to seniors? Or is this a way to
provide housing and a meeting room to the members of their private club.
(-)
Owen Pittman - Lives at 1734 9th Avenue
- He
agrees with everything Dr. Dai To said.?
He has been here for a long time.
-
There are two things that bothers him: 1) the proposed site will attach itself
to his building, there is an alleyway that will be blocked.? In case of fire or emergency services it
will be blocked.? 2)? the fact that a 4 story unit will block all
of the stair wells from light.? They
will be living in a tomb.
ACTION:????????? Intent
to approve with the following conditions:?
staff to report on July 20, 2000 the following: 1) affordability
component of the project; and 2) use of 4th floor meeting room.
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe, Martin
NAYES:????????? Chinchilla and Richardson
15b.????? 1999.040CV ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WILSON:
558-6602)
1738 9TH AVENUE, east side between Moraga and Noriega Streets; Lots 31 and
32 in Assessor?s Block 2041 - Request for rear yard, off-street parking, and
ground story street frontage variances under Planning Code Sections 136, 151
and 144, for construction of a new child care facility, community facility and
eight unites of senior housing, within an RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and
a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKER(S):?? (same as those listed for item 15a)
ACTION: The Acting Zoning Administrator, Gerald
Green, closed the public hearing
16.????? 2000.426T
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LORD:
558-6311)
LIQUOR
STORE AMENDMENT -
Consideration of a proposal to amend 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: Approval Approve amendments
and recommendation of adoption to the Board of Supervisors.
SPEAKER(S):
(-)
Tod Priest - California Grocers Association
-
This association represents retail grocers
- He
supports the measure of defining Aliquor store@ but he believes the definition
is too broad.
- He
met with Planning staff and their recommendation was for the Commission to go
forward with the definition of a liquor store but try to figure out a way to
craft it so that it is truly a liquor store. (e.g. Safeway is not a liquor
store, they are a full-service grocery?
yet sell liquor).
- If
this is moved forwarded to the BOS as presented, every retailer no matter what
their size or what their business, whether they have a license 20 or 21, would
be deemed a liquor store.
(+)
Ralf Mueller - Member of the Inner Sunset Merchants Association
- He
is in support of this proposal.
(-)
Dick Millet - Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association
-
ABC is not very good about notification and help.
-
When liquor stores have closed, Potrero Boosters have had to keep all the
records because ABC keeps losing documents.
- To
open a liquor store you have to have the police department?s approval.? Unless new owners are told to, they
generally don?t go to the neighborhoods to ask for approval.
-
His neighborhood has very small commercial neighborhood districts -- liquor
stores are located one next to the other.
-
When they come into the neighborhood, there should be a requirement of giving
special notification so that they have time in order to protest them.
-
Maybe a conditional use should be decided on so that the neighborhood can be
notified and? respond.
ACTION: Approved as recommended by staff.
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore,
Joe, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin
RESOLUTION
NO. 15920
17.????? 2000.407ETZ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LORD:
558-6311)
INNER SUNSET NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT - Consideration of a proposal to
amend the Planning Code (Zoning Ordinance) by modifying the current? NC-2 zoning controls? in the vicinity of Irving Street between 5th
Avenue and 19th Avenue to a new Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial
District.? The proposed changes to the
existing NC-2 zoning include;
<
map amendments to reclassify the following Assessor?s Blocks and Lots
from RH-2 zoning and include them as parts of the new Inner Sunset Neighborhood
Commercial district.? Street
Address (Assessor?s Block/Lot) - 723-727 Lincoln Way (1742/039),
719-723 Lincoln Way (1742/040),1315 7th Avenue (1762/004), 1319-1321 7th Avenue
(1762/005), City Property (parking lot just South of Irving between 8th &
9th Avenue) with no address (1763/044), and
<
use controls intended to ameliorate conditions associated with the
proliferation of commercial establishments in and about the Inner Sunset
Neighborhood Commercial District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval Approve amendments and
recommendation of adoption to the Board of Supervisors.
SPEAKER(s):
(-)Chooi
Eng Grosso -
member of SHARP
-
She has heard the Planning staff 3 times.?
The first time at the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods, the second
time at the Land Use Committee Meeting and the third time at the SHARP monthly
meeting.? Staff spent a lot of time with
them going through the changes.
-
Her only problem with this is that the medical services on the first floor has
been changed from permitted to not permitted and on the second floor it has
been changed from permitted to conditional.?
The concern is that they might be overwhelmed with medical services
because they are so close to UCSF.?
-
She would suggest that they retain the first floor as permitted or
conditional..
(-)
John Barry - President of SHARP
- He
lives 3 blocks away from the lots on 10th Avenue.? He concurs that the lots have always bee nothing but residential
and should stay that way.
- He
doesn?t believe that these lots should be allowed to be commercial.
- If
a person needs an ophthalmologist, it would be difficult for them to go up the
stairs.
- He
believes that the conditional use should be based on a case by case basis.
(+)
Rolf Mueller - Inner Sunset Merchants Association
- His
office is in the next block of the three buildings.
- There
is no business going on in those buildings.
- He
supports the proposal but would also like to include allowing a small
self-service restaurant as a conditional use.
(+) Maryann
Miller - Board Member of Speak
- She
recommends that the west part of 19th to 26th Avenue be subject to similar
controls. That area needs attention.
- 9th and
Irving is a wonderful, thriving commercial district.? Hopefully it won?t take another 3 years.? It hasn?t suffered from those out-of-scale
uses.
- One of
the really good things about the proposal is that in the proposed district,
there would be a use size for any use, permitted up to 2,500 or 2,499 square
feet, then after that, it would be a conditional use.? That way the neighbors don?t have to fight everything.
- If
medical services should be on the first floor, then the first floor should be a
conditional use.
- The 3
lots on 10th and Irving, are rightly residential.? They should be removed from the commercial district.? A staff initiated zoning change might have
to be requested.
ACTION:????????? Intent
to Approve with the following amendments:?
1) move the medical services category to a conditional use as opposed to
a not permitted use; 2) move the self service restaurant to conditional use;
and? 3) initiate a proposal to
rezone the three residential parcels on 10th Avenue from NCD to RH-2.
AYES:? ?????????? Theoharis,
Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
ABSENT:???????? Martin
RESOLUTION
NO.? 15921
18.??????? 1999.790C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (CHIN:
575-6897)
1628
BALBOA STREET,
north side between 17th and 18th Avenue; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 1560:
--? Request for Conditional Use
authorization pursuant to Section 710.39 of the Planning Code to demolish the
existing single family dwelling over commercial and construct a new three
family dwelling 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 July 6, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+)
Sherrie Chow - Speaking on Behalf of the Owner
- The
current building does not have adequate provisions for it?s occupant.
- There
is strong support for residential occupancy.
- She has
letters for support from adjacent property owners.
- This
project is going to go through demolition and new construction.
(-)
Chase Staples -
- There
are misstatements of facts.
- The
rental units will be renting higher than they are proposed.
- They
have two types electrical wiring.
- What is
written in the report is not true.
(-)
Peggy - Lives on Balboa Street
- The
current situation is that you can?t park anywhere.
(-)
(name unknown) - Lives on Balboa Street
- He has
just graduated from college and people who are well off find it difficult to
find affordable housing, even in Pacifica.
- His
friend is handicapped and if evicted will have a hard time to find another
place to live.
(-)
Barry?
- He
lives at 1628 AA@ Balboa Street but also uses his home as his office as well as
meeting his clients there.
- There
is not much office space available.
(-)
Jake?
- This is
a conditional use.? The 3 conditions
read that it should be necessary and desirable for a conditional use.?
- The
issue here is affordability.
- Please
deny this project.
ACTION:????????? Intent to Disapprove.? Item Continued to July 20, 2000.
AYES:???????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore,
Richardson
NAYES:????????? Chinchilla, Joe
ABSENT:???????? Martin
19.??????? 2000.582C?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NIKITAS:
558-6306)
1844 BRODERICK STREET (aka 2889 California Street), southeast corner of California
and Broderick Streets; Lot 021, in Assessor's Block 1028: --? 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 the existing Seventh Day Adventist
Church as part of Sprint?s wireless telecommunications network in an RM-1
(Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.? Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with
conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jennifer Estes - Representing Sprint PCS
- Site meets the WTS design guidelines.
(+) Mr. S.F. Patterson
- On behalf of the Patterson foundation and on the behalf of
the 7th Day Adventist Church, they approve of the installation of the antennas.
- He thanks the Commission for allowing him to take this
opportunity.
(-) Romy Cochran
- She feels that they don?t need any antennas there.
- She is against this installation.
(-) Douglas Lorenger
- He received mixed messages on the dateline.
- More time is needed about what is happening in the
neighborhood since many of the people didn?t know about it.
(-) Michael Potter
- Their daughter was diagnosed with cancer.? There are certain people that are more
sensitive to the microwave transmissions of these antennas.
(-) David Berman
- He doesn?t agree with the location chosen for these
antennas.
(-) (first name unclear) Bercei
- He wants to know more about the radiation of these
antennas.
(-) Virginia Harris
- She is very concerned about the health aspects about the
antenna.
(-) Ted Brocus
- Please postpone decision to allow others to speak.
(-) Jannet Potter - Lives on Pine Street
- Her husband spoke earlier about their daughter and the
fight she has with cancer.
- They live right behind the church and will be subjected to
the microwave transmission of these antennas.
- Please consider denying this Conditional Use permit.
(-) Mark Longwood
- He displayed a diagram illustrating the distance and power
of cell phone antennas.
- An article in the Australian Journal of Medicine,
indicated the harmful effects of radiation from antennas.
ACTION:???????????????? Case
continued to August 17, 2000 in order to give Sprint the opportunity to
continue discussions with neighbors.?
Public Comment will be closed.
AYES:??????????????????? Theoharis,
Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson
NAYES:????????????????? None
ABSENT:??????????????? Martin,
Chinchilla
20.??????? 2000.459B?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WILSON:
558-6602)
2801 LEAVENWORTH STREET (The Cannery), west side between Jefferson and Beach
Streets; Lot 001 in Assessor?s Block 0010 ‑Request under Planning Code
Sections 320‑325 (Office Development Limitation Program) for the
conversion of 40,000 gross square feet of retail and restaurant space to office
use, in the C‑2 (Community Business) District and the 40‑X Height
and Bulk District. The project requires interior modifications only, and does
not involve any changes to the building exterior.? Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Chinchilla
MOTION NO.???? 15922
21a.????? 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 set the maximum allowed number of residents at 24 (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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+)
Jim? - Department of Public Health
-
This project was planned by the Department of Public Health.
- It
offers treatment for women.
(+)
Sonia Brewster
-
She has been clean and sober for 8 years.
(+)
Anthony Davenport
- There
is a major commitment to make sure that the building is safe and? clean.
ACTION:???????????? Approved
AYES:??????????????? Theoharis,
Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson
NAYES:???????????? None
ABSENT:??????????? Martin,
Chinchilla
MOTION NO.????? 15923
21b.????? 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.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? (same
as listed for item 21a)
ACTION:???????????? The
acting Zoning Administrator, Gerald Green, closed the public hearing
At
Approximately 4:00 P.M. the Planning Commission convened into a Special
Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.
22.??????? 2000.250D
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MARTIN:
558-6616)
1228 -
25th STREET, north
side between Iowa and Indiana Streets, Lot 013A in Assessor's Block 4227 --
Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9907691 and BPA No. 9907692,
proposing to construct two buildings containing two live-work units each:? Building A to be four stories and Building B
to be three stories, in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District (Industrial
Protection Zone) and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.? The site is an odd-shaped (narrow and long) vacant lot.? The project is set for a Mandatory
Discretionary Review per City Planning Commission Resolution No. 14861.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove this proposal
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Project has been altered, which no
longer requires a DR.
Adjournment: 7:45 p.m.
THE
DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, August 3, 2000.
Back to top
SAN
FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
?Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
Place
Thursday, July 20, 2000
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
![]()
PRESENT:??????????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Theoharis, Richardson
ABSENT:????????????????????? Martin, Chinchilla
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY
PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:33? P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green
- Director of Planning; Hillary Gitelman; Darwin Helmuth; Kenneth Chin; Isolde
Wilson; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary, Linda D. Avery - Commission
Secretary
A.???????? ITEMS
PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1.???????? 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 July 27, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued to
July 27, 2000
AYES:??? ??????????? Antenore, Joe, Theoharis, Mills,
Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Martin,
Chinchilla
2.???????? 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
June 8, 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 peaked roof design, add
dormers to the rear, and setback building on the side of the DR requestor.
(Proposed for Continuance to August
3, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued to August 3, 2000
AYES:??????????????? Antenore, Joe, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Martin, Chinchilla
3.??????? 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.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
June 8, 2000)
Note: On June 8, 2000, following
public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter
to give Staff time to review permit history.
(Proposed for Continuance to August
10, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued to August 10, 2000
AYES:??? ??????????? Antenore,
Joe, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Martin, Chinchilla
4.???????? 2000.052E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (JAROSLAWSKY:
558-5970)
ARCO WAY ‑ Appeal of a Preliminary
Negative Declaration.? The vacant
project site is located on lots 024 through 028, lot 032,? lots 037 through 039 and lot 051 located on
block 3154 within the Outer Mission District of the City of San Francisco.? The proposed project includes the rezoning
of the ten legal lots from Public (P) to Residential House‑One Family (RH‑1)
with a 40‑X Height and Bulk Designation and the construction of one,
single‑family structure on each legal lot.? Each structure would be approximately 2,000 square feet, contain
a two‑car garage and be a maximum of 30 feet in height.? Nine lots would contain 25 feet of frontage
along Arco Way and one lot would be a flag lot.? The lots are along the northern side of Arco Way and range from
1,973 square feet to 9,900 square feet and abut the Bay Area Rapid Transit
tracks to the north.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold
pending
?(Proposed for continuance to August 10, 2000).
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to August 10, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Chinchilla
5.???????? 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
June 1, 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.
(Proposed for Continuance to October
14, 2000)October 12, 2000
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to October 12, 2000
AYES:? ??????????? Antenore, Joe,
Theoharis, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Chinchilla
6.???????? 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
June 1, 2000)
WITHDRAWN
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Project withdrawn
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, 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.
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))
Brett
Gladstone
Re:? Item No. 12 - 1628 Balboa Street
- The case is a bit of mis-justice
since Ms. Ng does not speak English very well and her friend did not represent
her quite well during the hearing.
- His client is willing to provide
$5,000 to the affordable housing fund.
Sue
Hestor
Re:?
580 Howard Street
- This case was withdrawn by the
project sponsor.
- This is a sensitive issue.
- This is a violation of the ADA.
- There has not been any discussion
on how many projects have come through as other than office.
Joe Butler - Architect
Re:?
955 Green Street
- A letter was sent to the Zoning
Administrator and they would appreciate a prompt response from him
Joe
O?Donaughe
Re: Item 11 - Director?s Report on
whether or not the Commission has authority, under the Discretionary Review
(DR) process to impose exactions such as affordable housing and transit impact
fees.
- Exactions need to be revisited,
are they getting their bang for their dollar?
- Superfunds should be started based
on a certain percentage of money imposed.
- District elections are coming up
soon.
- Lake Merced has been totally
neglected.
C.?????? COMMISSIONERS?
QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
7.??????? Consideration
of Adoption - draft minutes of 7/6/00.
ACTION: Continued to July 27, 2000
AYES:??????????????? Antenore, Joe, Theoharis, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Martin, Chinchilla
8.??????? Commission
Matters
Commissioner Antenore:???????? He
had raised an issue about allowing?
written comments to come in a few days after the oral testimonies for
EIRs.? This would give people an
opportunity to hear the oral testimonies and still have time to submit further
written comments.? He was happy to see
that this is actually the case in most instances and would like to see that it
continue.
He would like to request a hearing
to allow public comment on the conversion of live/work units to office
use.? It has an impact on policies to a
great extent.? He would like to have
this issue scheduled on a future hearing but not in August.
Commissioner Theoharis:??????? Re:? 955 Green
Street: She would
like a status report on this. Report on this next week (7/27/00).
D.???????? DIRECTOR?S
REPORT
9.??????? Director?s
Announcements.
Note: Director?s report was given by
Amit Gosh in Mr. Gerald Green?s absence.
- The BOS finalized the budget.? At the end of the hearing there was nothing
new added.?? Mr. Costolino Hogan of
Planning Department staff is here and is available for questions.
- Mr. Larry McDonald was recognized
by the Council of District? Merchants
Association.
Costolino Hogan - Fiscal Officer of
the Planning Department: Nothing new was added to the budget.?
However, the 1430 Transcriber Typist position that was added to address
Prop. G concerns was not retained in our budget. With this change, the budget
was finally passed.
10.????? Review
of Past Week?s Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
BOS:
- The Board upheld the CPC decision
on 3995 Alemany Street by a vote of +7 -4.?
The project can now go ahead.
11.????? Staff
report on whether or not the Commission has authority, under the Discretionary
Review? (DR) process to impose exactions
such as affordable housing and transit impact fees.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
June 22, 2000)
Note: On June 22, 2000 following
testimony, the Commission instructed that this matter be continued to 7/20/00 for further discussion which
would allow the additional contribution of absent Commissioners and could
ultimately lead to an action by the Commission.?? Commissioners Theoharis and Martin were absent.? Staff was instructed to draft a resolution
for the Commission?s review and consideration which sets forth the
Commissioners reasons for considering a policy to exercise their authority
under the DR process and what the actual policy will be.? Staff from Major Environmental Analysis Unit
should be invited.??
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Charles
- What is the commission
trying to accomplish with exactions?
- Builders would build
with a 10 - 15% profit.
(-) Joe Cassidy -
Residential Builders
- The Commission is
picking on one entity.
(-) Gary Gee - Gee
Architects
- He is here to oppose
the exactions
(-) Debra Stein - CGA
- There has not been
sufficient circulation on the staff report.
- Would like for this
matter to be continued.
(-) Lou Bravado -
General Contractor
- Exactions are not
convenient.
(-) Calvin Welch
- There is no
requirement for using the City-wide affordable housing fund.? Mr. O?Donaghue can bid any time he sees
fit.?
- We need a clear
understanding of this.
- Nothing that is being
complained about is being proposed.
(-) Amos McCarthy
- Extractions will be
passed to the homeowner
(-) Dick Millet -
Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association
- The loft builders and
the dot.com builders have to contribute
(-) Alice Barkley
- This should be
postponed to another time.
- All this debate has
turned out to be a debate between contractors and non-profits.
- Exactions are not
necessary
- There are other
avenues which can be taken.
(-) Joe O?Donaghue
- The 1978 EIR
recommended that builders in the South of Market Area be limited.
- Now everyone is
confused.
(-) Matt Burton
- He is for affordable
housing
- There is no reason why
the best cannot compete with the best
(-) Debra Walker
- For the past 5 years,
she has come forward to the Commission to speak about live/work.? There are zero affordable live/work
developments.
- Affordable housing can
be built
- The Commission is
perpetuating profit.
(-) Sue Hestor
- She is glad that
Residential Builders can build for a certain amount per square foot.? - There has been inclusionary policies for
many years
- There is a need for a
nexus study to call live/work housing.
(-) John O?Donaghue
- A lot of the loft
bidders are for rent and are not for sale.
Commissioner Mills:??? Disappointed that staff did not provide the professional
information requested.? Would like to
know if this policy is necessary.
Commissioner Richardson:????? Would like this item to be postponed so that the public can
understand this issue completely, and to allow the Redevelopment Agency and the
Mayor?s Office of Housing to participate.
Commissioner Antenore:???????? From the 80s the department has a long standing history and last
year, this Commission requested a nexus study.
Commissioner Joe:????? Exactions are very conservative.
Commissioner Theoharis:??????? She does not endorse the Commission impossing exactions on a
case by case basis.
Amit Gosh:? Staff will go back to Director to request a
hearing date.
E.?????? CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL
ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
12.???????? 1999.790C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (CHIN:
575-6897)
1628 BALBOA STREET, north side between
17th and 18th Avenue; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 1560: --? Request for Conditional Use authorization
pursuant to Section 710.39 of the Planning Code to demolish the existing single
family dwelling over commercial and construct a new three family dwelling 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 July 13, 2000)
Note: On July 13, 2000,
following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and passed a
motion of intent to disapprove by a vote of +4 -2.? Commissioners Joe and Chinchilla voted no.?? Commissioner Martin was absent.? Final Language 7/20/00.
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Disapproved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Theoharis, Mills,
Richardson
NAYES:??????????? Joe
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Chinchilla
MOTION No.????? 15924
13.??????? 1999.040CV ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WILSON:
558-6602)
1738 9TH AVENUE, east side between
Moraga and Noriega Streets; Lots 31 and 32 in Assessor?s Block 2041 - Request
for a Conditional Use authorization to allow a child care facility, community
facility and eight units of senior housing under Planning Code Sections
209.1(m), 209.3(f) and 209.4(a), within an RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District
and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. ?Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of July 13, 2000).
Note: On July 13, 2000,
following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and passed a
motion of intent to approve with conditions that address the affordability
component and the use of the meeting room by a vote of +4 -2.? Commissioners Chinchilla? and Richardson voted no. ?Commissioner Martin was absent.
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Approved
with the following amendments: 1) strike the limitation of one event per week
in the social room; 2) Child care hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 6:30
p.m.; 3) written pick-up/drop-off program must be submitted prior to occupancy
of the child care facility.
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Chinchilla
MOTION No.????? 15925
F.???????? REGULAR CALENDAR?
14.??????? 97.433E???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (COOPER:
558-5974)
22-30 ALTA STREET, ??? Certification of a Final Environmental
Impact Report. The proposed project would be the construction of a new
residential building at 22‑30 Alta Street, north side, between Sansome
and Montgomery Streets (Assessor?s Block 106, Lot 34A). The project site is
located on a steeply sloped parcel adjacent to the Filbert Steps and Grace
Marchant Garden. Please note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed.
The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on December 22, 1998. The
Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public
Comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission
during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Certify Environmental Impact Report
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Without
Hearing.? Continued to August 10, 2000.
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Chinchilla
15.??????? 1999.401E??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (HELMUTH:
558-5971)
450 RHODE ISLAND STREET
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report.? Assessor's Block 3978, Lot 001, bounded by
17th, Rhode Island, Kansas and Mariposa Streets, and is in an M-1 (Light
Industrial) zoning district, Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ), and in a 40-X
Height and Bulk District.? The proposed
project would involve the demolition of the existing one-story steel frame
automobile repair building and the construction of a four-story building
ranging in height from 16 to 49 feet and containing approximately 314,000
square feet of multimedia space and 567 off-street parking spaces and 26
bicycle spaces.? The project would also
include three off-street freight loading spaces.
Preliminary
Recommendation: No action required
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Debra Walker
- There is no inclusion
of the socio-economic impacts on the surrounding area.
- She works in the
northeast Mission area.
- The affects on the
neighborhood are significant.
- A garment factory and
a Laundromat have been displaced.
- Ask staff to include
the socio-economic affects of this project.
(-) Dick Millet -
Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association
- Mr. Kaufman came for
support.
- Showplace square is
starting to rent to dot.coms.
(-) Joe Bo
- Lives in the dog patch
area of Potrero Hill.
- We have about 1,000
live/works on Potrero Hill.
- The EIR does not
examine the cumulative effect on the entire area.
(-) Babbet Drefkie
- Lives a few blocks
away from this development.
- First the area needs
rat abatement
- She asked on a master
plan of multimedia companies and nothing has been provided to her.? - This project will provide a water shortage
and sewers will be at over capacity.
- Some planning needs to
be done regarding this overload.
- No residential parking
has been provided from the City.?
Parking is out of hand.
(+) Alister McTaggart
- He lives near this
project.
- We need these type of
projects.? We need to renovate older
buildings.
(-) Calvin Welsh -
Council for Community Housing Association
- The information
technology has produced a revolution.
- This EIR is the
thinnest EIR of any project.
- This EIR is
misleading.
- There are significant
differences not discussed in any of the issues.
- The EIR is
insufficient because of it?s incompleteness.
(-) Sue Hestor
- There should have been
an analysis made.
- The transportation
analysis doesn?t talk about how the traffic will move around that area.
- This project is
similar to Bryant Square.
(-) Doug Comstock
- The EIR should be
returned for proper corrections.
ACTION:?????????? Public
Hearing Closed.? Meeting Held.? No Action Required.
Note: The comment period
will close - COB, July 25, 2000.
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Chinchilla
16.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????? (BARHAM: 558-6252)
TRANSIT IMPACT
DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM STUDY CONTRACT. Approval of a resolution authorizing the
Director of Planning to enter into a contract with Nelson\Nygaard Consulting
Associates to expend funds not to exceed $100,000 to complete a nexus study to
determine if the current Transit Impact Development Fee should be expanded to
cover land uses in addition to office and geographic areas in addition to
downtown.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Chinchilla
RESOLUTION NO.? 15926
17.??????? 2000.704R??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (RICH:
558-6345)
GENERAL PLAN REFERRAL
FOR MUNI OCEAN AVENUE STREETSCAPE PROJECT, Request for finding of Muni Ocean
Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project, from Junipero Serra Boulevard to I-280,
including replacement of trackway, under grounding of utilities and
implementation of new sidewalk bulbs, decorative streetlights and street trees
in conformity with the General Plan.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Finding of conformity
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Bettie Landis -
Resident of Ingleside
- She supports the
findings for this project.
- The cars speeding
through there is unbelievable.
- This is long overdue
and will help revitalize the area.
(+) Steve Currier
- He supports this
project wholeheartedly.
- He does a lot of
business on Ocean Avenue.
- This will be a real
asset.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Chinchilla
RESOLUTION NO. 15927
18.??????? 2000.295C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LeBLANC:
558-6351)
222 COLUMBUS AVENUE, a triangular lot at
the intersection of Kearny Street and Pacific Avenue; Lot 003 in Assessor's
Block 0162 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to install a wireless
telecommunications facility consisting of eight panel antennas on the roof and
four on the facade of an existing 4-story, approximately 60-foot high
commercial building plus base station equipment in the basement of the building
in the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District, the Washington-Broadway
Special Use District #1 and a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Moley Gills
- The need for this site
is based on the current Nob Hill site which is at capacity and located at 1250
Jones.? There have been a number of
dropped calls and poor system complaints from customers in the North Beach
area.
- This site would solve
this problem and also help increase in-building coverage in the area,
especially along both the Columbus and Broadway corridors.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Theoharis,
Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Chinchilla
MOTION No.????? 15928
19.??????? 2000.576C?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NIKITAS:
558-6306)
389 NINTH AVENUE (A.K.A.
378 TENTH AVENUE), northwest corner of Geary Boulevard and Ninth Avenue; Lot 035,
in Assessor's Block 1441: --? Request
for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 712.83 of the Planning
Code to install a total of sixteen antennas and a base transceiver station
on the existing Pacific Bell Switch Building as part of Metricom's wireless
data transmissions network in an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Scale)
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to face-mount all
sixteen antennas on three walls each of two existing penthouses.? The base transceiver station would be
located on an existing roof pad on the second level of the building, opposite
the on-site parking lot.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
Robert McCarthy -
Representing Project Sponsor - Metricom
- Metricom is the
operator of the ricochet system (wireless Internet service).
- This is a preference 1
site.
- There was a community
outreach meetings and only one person came.?
They believe that they satisfied the concerns of this person.
- There was one call
from Ms. Carmel Tickler at Star of the Sea School who expressed some
concerns.? References were provided to
her.
-? Metricom is a provider of the public
library.? Ms. Wilinsky and others from
the library have sent letters praising Metricom because they provide wireless
Internet connection--they use it in the book mobile which is used to do
outreach to children and seniors.
- This is an important
site.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Mills, Chinchilla, Theoharis
MOTION No.:???? 15929
G.??? SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 4:11
P.M. the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review
(DR) Hearing.
20.??????? 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: Take Discretionary Review and approve building permit
application with conditions.
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of April 27, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Linda Clodine - DR
Requestor
- They are considering
withdrawing the DR.
- She would like the
privacy wall to the west to extend 8 feet (it is currently 3 feet) and the fire
escape to be installed on the opposite side.
(-) Eian Burke - Pacific
Heights Residents Association
- There is an important
issue in this case.? There has been
misrepresentation, either deliberate or inadvertently in regards to the
drawings.? The Commission has never
punished this kind of behavior.
- The building inspector
doesn?t always catch mistakes.
- The commission should
listen to the request for extending this privacy wall 8 feet.
- In regards to the fire
escape, he doesn?t have a position on this.
(+) Mike Gonzalez -
Project Sponsor
- He agrees to the DR
request of extending the privacy wall to 8 feet.
- The location of the
fire escape will have to remain there because there isn?t a more appropriate
location.
ACTION:?????????? Discretionary Review was not
taken.? The project was approved as? submitted.
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Chinchilla, Theoharis
Adjournment: 4:30 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE
PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
THURSDAY, August 10, 2000
Back to top
SAN
FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
?Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
Place
Thursday, July 27, 2000
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
![]()
PRESENT:??????????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????????????????? Martin, Chinchilla, Theoharis
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY
VICE PRESIDENT MILLS AT 1:40? P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green
- Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Isolde Wilson;
Judy Martin; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda D. Avery - Commission
Secretary
A.???????? ITEMS
PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1.???????? 1999.821E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WYCKO:
558-5972)
166-178 TOWNSEND STREET, Lot 12 of Assessor?s Block 3788 on
the north side of Townsend Street between Second and Third Streets at northeast
corner of Townsend Street and Clarence Place - Appeal of Preliminary Negative
Declaration for the proposed renovation and expansion of existing contributory
building in the South End Historic District.?
The proposed project would convert a former auto repair garage to 24,999
square feet of office space and 25,0001 square feet of business
service/multimedia space, with 18 independently accessible or up to 35 valet
parking spaces.? An exception to San
Francisco Planning Ode parking requirements would be sought under sections
161(M and 307(g).? The rear interior of
the existing structure would be new construction and would include replacement
of the existing peaked roof, which has an average height of 42 feet, with a
flat roof at a height of 50 feet.? The
interior of the front portion of the existing structure would be reconfigured
but its exterior dimensions and roof height would be unchanged.? The proposed site is located in a
Service/Light Industrial (SLI) District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to September 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to September 7, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Theoharis, Chinchilla
2.???????? 2000.286E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (JAROSLAWSKY:
558-5970)
925 BRYANT STREET, Appeal of a Preliminary
Negative Declaration. ?The project
site is located on Block 3780, Lot 077, within the western portion of the
block, contains approximately 20,000 square feet and is within an IPZ
(Industrial Protection Zone), a SLI (Service/Light Industrial) District and a
40‑X Height and Bulk District.?
The site contains 75 feet of frontage along Bryant Street to the west
and 265 feet of frontage along Langton Street to the north.? The proposal includes the conversion of
approximately 13,000 square feet of an existing office/retail/warehouse structure
into retail/business service use and the addition of approximately 26,000
square feet of new floor area.? The
footprint of the structure would remain the same.? The addition of two floors would result in a total of three
stories.? The resulting building would
be approximately 40 feet in height, contain approximately 39,000 square feet
and would contain 37 on‑site parking spaces accessed from Langton Street.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold
Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Proposed for Continuance to August
10, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to August 10, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Theoharis, Chinchilla
3.?????????? 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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 20, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance to August
10, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to August 10, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Theoharis, Chinchilla
4.???????? 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 24,000 square feet of existing
non‑office space in the basement and in the rear of the first floor and
first floor mezzanine would be retained.?
The entrance to the non‑office space would be on Tehama
Street.? There is no parking on this
site and none is proposed.? The project
is within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office-Special Development) District and 200‑X
/ 350-S Height and Bulk Districts.
(Continued from
Regular Meeting of July 6, 2000)
(Proposed
for Continuance to August 10, 2000 August 17, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to August 17, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Theoharis, Chinchilla
5.???????? 1999.668B
X???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (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 24,000
square feet of existing non‑office space would be retained.? The project is within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown
Office-Special Development) District and 200‑X /? 350-S Height and Bulk Districts.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
July 6, 2000)???????
(Proposed for Continuance to August
10, 2000? August 17, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to August 17, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Theoharis, Chinchilla
6.???????? 2000.496D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MEHRA:
558-6257)
419-35TH AVENUE, Lot 004 in Assessor?s Block 1467 -
Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application umber
20000127454,? proposing to construct a
19 foot deep, two-story addition at the rear of the existing single-family
dwelling house and to expand the existing garage at the front of the property
to accommodate two vehicles.? A roof
deck is proposed above the expanded garage in a RH-2 (Residential, House,
Two-Family) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to August
24, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):????? None
ACTION:????????????? Continued to August 24, 2000
AYES:???????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:???????????? Martin, Theoharis, 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.
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))
Sue Hestor:
- handed out copies of letters
issued by the ZA that interpret that offices are not offices....
- She would like the Commission to
be informed on these items and requests that the Commission ask staff to give
reports on what is happening.
C.?????? COMMISSIONERS?
QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
7.??????? Consideration
of Adoption - draft minutes of 7/6/00.
ACTION: Approved
AYES:??????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Martin, Theoharis, Chinchilla
8???????? Commission
Matters
Commissioner Richardson: ???? Requested
a joint staff presentation by our staff and Redevelopment Agency staff on
housing.? The presentation should
identify obstacles to producing housing, what are future planning efforts, what
we should be doing, etc.? During this
presentation, she would like to have reconciled the population data and some of
the figures presented today.
D.???????? DIRECTOR?S
REPORT
9.??????? Director?s
Announcements.
Jobs Housing Linkage Legislation
- The department is targeting
September 14 or September 24 for Commissioners to decide on legislation.
There are a few items on the action
list that need to be clarified:
- Commissioner Chinchilla and
Theoharis requested information on the modification of building permits plans
after a decision by the Commission has been made--coordination with the
Building Department and the Planning Department is of issue.?? With the assistance of the Building
Department, an informational presentation will be scheduled for August 3.
- Commissioner Antenore requested
information on the impact of the conversion of live/work.? With the help of the ZA, an informational
presentation will be scheduled for September 7.
- Commissioner Theoharis requested
information on the status report on 955 Green Street.? Staff will be prepared to make a presentation on August 3.? Staff is somewhat limited on the information
because of a lawsuit against the City.
- Ms. Isolda Wilson has been
assigned to assist the ZA and the Director.?
She has already shown her ability to take on this position in special
assignments.
10.????? Review
of Past Week?s Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
BOS:
- Transportation and Land Use
Committee Meeting: 1) Castro Street Neighborhood Commercial District Amendments
were passed; 2) Mechanical parking devices were proposed to accommodate greater
parking on a site for residential areas in order to meet the Planning Code
requirements.? Supervisor Yaki has
sponsored this legislation.
BOA:
- 1363 Palou Avenue - On April 6, 2000, this case was
heard by the Commission.? The Commission
took DR and disapproved the building permit--there was a potential for a second
unit.? The Board also had those concerns
and suggested that the project sponsor redesign the project.? The case will go back to the Board on August
30.
- 309 Mississippi Street - On December 2, 1999, the Commission
did not take DR and approved the project as submitted.? The BOA upheld the Commission?s decision
with a vote of +5-0.
- 2355 Vallejo Street - On December 9, 1999, this case was
heard by the Commission.? The Commission
approved the project.?? The board upheld
the Commission?s decision by a vote of +5-0.
11.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GITELMAN:
558-5977)
Status Report on Proposed
Legislation to Update Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
SPEAKER(S):
Sue Hestor:
- She doesn?t agree with the way
this case was put on the calendar.? Did
not feel that the calendar language was not sufficient to inform those that
might have been interested about the components of the proposed legislation.? Everyone involved with the Planning Commission
were not made aware and therefore could not be involved.
- Proposed $1,000 fee is too much.
- $400 is the fee to appeal a ZA
determination.
- The Commission needs to make
decisions for themselves and not let staff influence it.
Bernard Choden
- He is amazed by the egregious
aspects of the barrier to administrative justice.? This is an illegal process.
Ralph House - Bay View Hill
Neighborhood Association
- He read in the newspaper about the
fee proposed for an environmental report.
- At the same time he read the
article, he was getting ready to file a Negative Declaration.
- The Commission should give serious
consideration to this and realize that the people that will be concerned and
affected by the decisions made by the Commission cannot afford the $1,000 fee.
Eric Quesada - Mission
Anti-Displacement Coalition
- The community does not feel that
they are being heard by the Commission, BOS and City Hall in general.
- This makes the public not believe
in the public officials.
- $1,000 is insulting to the
community.
- The community is aware of this and
is uniting to protest and have their voices heard.
John Bardis
- As commissioners, you are
representatives of people and not the administration in reviewing how policies
are being implemented.
- The last thing that the public
would expect from representatives of the people is what was provided to the
public -- a simple one page notice which does not state anything constructive.
- An appeal is a process by which
the commission has an opportunity to hear from the public on various items.
- The people should not be penalized
by being asked to pay such a high amount of money.
Jake McGoldrick
- The Commission, as public
officials, should have the mentality of Acausing no harm.@
- Allow the public access to those
who make decisions.
- The need from the public to get
public officials to protec them is very important.
- What kind of data is presented
here?? How many cases are heard??
- The case deserves double scrutiny.
- Please do not increase the fee.
Commissioner Antenore: Disappointed with the way this item
was put on the agenda.? He will state
his individual protest and forward it via letter to the Board of Supervisors
Committee and urges fellow Commissioners to do the same.
E.???????? CONSIDERATION
OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
12.????? 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.
Note: On June 8, 2000, following
public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing.* Matter was
continued to July 27, 2000 to get input from DBI to determine if the current
structure is sound.? Staff will work
with Mr. Pantaleoni, project architect, to improve facade and make it more
compatible with the neighborhood.
*(Public testimony will be open only
to discuss any new design features submitted from the project architect).
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Sylvia Meliquian:
- She appreciates the effort of the
architect.? The new design now jets out
further than the original design and outside of the context of the surrounding
houses.? The height has also been
significantly increased.? The floor
heights could be reduced slightly and keep it as a high quality rental unit while
reducing the overall building height.?
The off street parking has been eliminated due to the configuration of
the entrance and garage. She would like this to be reconsidered since parking
in San Francisco is very difficult.
(-) K. Rose Hillson:
- She appreciates the fact that the
new facade is a Victorian facade.
- Yet it is still too high.
- At the previous hearing, the DR
requestors were not able to comment on the facade since they mostly spoke about
the soundness of the current building.
- She would like the garage to be
made smaller.
- She would like commissioners to
re-consider the design of the facade.
(+) Hahn Phan - Reuben & Alter -
representing project sponsor
- At the previous hearing, the
Commission narrowed down the case to two issues 1) the DBI report 2) facade.
- DBI determined that the current
building was unsafe and that the cost of renovation would exceed 50% of new
construction.? This information is
consistent with the engineer?s report which was originally submitted.? It is uneconomic and unreasonable to keep
the building Aas is.@
- Regarding the design issue, the
project architect developed a scheme that saves the Victorian facade.? The architect eliminated bay windows.
(+) Tony Panteleoni
- After meeting on June 9, he went
to measure the existing house.
- He tried to look at the
opportunity to extend the rear of the building and still provide 2 units behind
it.
- He looked at adding square footage
to the rear of the building.
- Because of the requirements of
providing sunlight to various rooms of the house, various light wells had to be
designed, which in turn makes the rooms a lot smaller.
- He is trying to preserve as much
of the existing facade as possible.
- The size of the garage would be
the smallest he can go.
- The size of the peaked roof can go
smaller.
ACTION:?????????? Take DR and require:?
1) height of peaked roof be lowered to 32 feet;?? 2) lower one level to 9 feet.
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Theoharis, Chinchilla
13.????? 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
June 15, 2000).
Note: On June 15, 2000, the
Commission passed the following motions:
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. Vote of +2 -2.?
Commissioners Antenore and Joe voted no.? Commissioners Theoharis, Martin and Mills were absent.
2nd Motion: Take Discretionary Review with the
following changes: 1) remove 4th floor 2) modify the front facade to fit into
the character of the neighborhood.? Vote
+2 -2.? Commissioners Chinchilla and
Richardson voted no.?? Commissioners
Theoharis, Martin and Mills were absent.
3rd Motion: Continue to July 27, 2000 until
there is a full commission - Public Hearing will be closed.?? Vote +4 -0.? Commissioners Theoharis, Martin and Mills were absent.
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to August 3, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Theoharis, Chinchilla
F.???????? REGULAR
CALENDAR
14.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GHOSH:
558-6275)
DISCUSSION OF HOUSING ISSUES
INCLUDING OAHPP, an
informational presentation on the Residence Element of the General
Plan's approach to assessing housing need, the relationship between job growth
and housing need, and the status of the current Office Affordable Housing
Production Program (OAHPP) and how it is addressing this housing need.
SPEAKER(S):
Marsha Rosen - Director of the Mayor?s
Office of Housing (MOH):
- They work with the planning
department and at the Mayors request, she convenes an inter-agency and
community affordable housing planning process which the planning staff
participates in.
- There are parallel requirements
between the Commission?s responsibility to produce affordable housing under the
housing element of the General Plan and the Federal responsibility to produce a
5 year plan called the Consolidated Plan of Housing Needs and a 1 year action
plan.
- They program close to $100 million
dollars a year for affordable housing development between the Redevelopment
Agency and MOH.? They use a variety of
Federal and local funds.? The local
funds include part of the hotel tax and Proposition A.?? The Redevelopment Agency sets aside between
40 and 50% of all tax increment funds available.?? MOH administers the Federal Community Development Block Grant
Program, The Home Investment Partnership Act Program, portion of the Kenney
Homeless Act Program, The Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS, etc.? All of the units are targeted to low and
extremely low income households.
- MOH will always need more
resources and they always need better ways to coordinate amongst agencies.
- Now that MOH is aware of a new
influx of money, they will be preparing another notice of funding availability
of housing/rental housing so that those dollars can go out into the field and
build housing as intended.
- No matter what is done on new growth,
they still have to aggressively try to meet a huge backlog.? Otherwise, they won?t be able to meet their
goals.
Joe LaTorre:
- MOH does annual housing
monitoring.? Currently there are about
140 units (mostly home-ownership but there are about 20 or 30 rental
units).? This does not include
developments which are under construction, or still in the marketing stage.
- Within a year or two the 140 units
will probably reach 300.
Bernard Choden
- He has been a proprietor of the
housing systems program since he helped develop it for Jerry Brown.
- This is a contract; these are
administrative policies intended to be preformed.
Lloyd Schloegle
- The Residence Element has been
revised.? Policy statements 1 and 2
under the heading of ASupply of New Housing@ suggests promoting affordable
housing on surplus, under-used and vacant public lands as well as facilitate
the conversion of under-used commercial and industrial areas to residential use
giving preference to affordable housing uses.?
Some of the proposals under the guidelines are foolish -- for example:
near freeways, by light rail tracks, and useful downtown parking lots.? Some of these places are unsuitable for
housing developments.
Jake McGoldrick
- The right questions need to be
asked.
- We shouldn?t constrain ourselves
in regards to affordable housing.
- Oakland is the natural place for
jobs to go.
- Mayor Brown of Oakland is dying to
see more development on housing.
Sue Hestor
- The Commission is part of the
problem as well as the solution.
- The IPZ hasn?t been rezoned.
- The actions of the Commissioners
have consequences.
- There is a 1997 nexus which has
not been implemented.
- The Commissioners are responsible
and their votes will decide.
John Bardis
- Would like to have literature on
the presentation which could be available to the public.
- Agrees with the idea of having a
joint hearing with Planning, Redevelopment and MOH.
- Staff should look at the process
by which ABAG gets their projections.
- This is too important a subject to
limit it with a visual presentation.
Eric Quesada
- This information has been lacking
in getting to the community.
- This type of presentation is good
to be presented to the community.
- This information can?t stay here,
it needs to get out into the community.
Ina Glim
- She agrees with the other speakers
in regards to presenting this information to the community.
- The public has fought very hard
for inclusionary housing.
- When these projects are developed,
they never know how many units are targeted for low income.
- There is a project on Van Ness
Avenue, but how many units are affordable?
- There needs to be something done
in regards to the marketing of these low income housing developments.
ACTION:?????????? No Action Required
15.????? 2000.292C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MARTIN:
558-6616)
772 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE, west side between 18th and
19th Streets, Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 3590 - Request for a Conditional Use
Authorization to allow the construction of dwellings at a density ratio up to
one dwelling unit for each 1,000 square feet of lot area (Section 209.1(h) of
the Planning Code) in an RH-3 (Residential, House Districts, Three-Family) District
and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
with conditions
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued without hearing to September 14, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Theoharis, Chinchilla
16.????? 2000.387CR?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MARTIN:
558-6616)
3 COM PARK,?
at Candlestick Point, at the intersection of Jamestown Avenue and Harney
Way, Lot 001, Assessor?s Block 5000 -- Request for Conditional Use
Authorization under Sections 234.2 and 209.6(b) of the Planning Code to install
a total of four panel antennae in two stealth speakers with the base
transceiver station to be located in storage space under the bleachers, as part
of a wireless communication network in a P (Public) Zoning District and OS
(Open Space) Height and Bulk Districts.?
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions, including
adopting a finding of conformity with the General Plan for the proposed project
as required by Section 4.105 of the San Francisco Charter.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Robert Crebs - Project Sponsor
representing Sprint PCS
- The conditional use petition
complies with the WTS Sighting Guidelines and the San Francisco Municipal Code.
- This site is a preference 1.
- Over 100 organizations and tenants
were notified to attend a community hearing yet no one attended.
- There was a second community
hearing and only one person attended.
- The proposed installation is
necessary to provide cell communication within 3COM park.
- 1/3 of 911 calls come in from cell
phones.
- He would like this project to be
approved.
(-) Ralph House - Bayview Hill
Neighborhood Association
- There is a lack of interest from
the community because he believes the community doesn?t understand the
technology of cell phone communications.
- There are some health problems
with using cell phones.? Sprint PCS has assured
that digital technology is less harmful.
- There have been 5 installations
approved in the area, some include antennas, switching stations/transition
stations, etc.
(-) Ina Glim
- She came to speak on item 17 but
this item involves the same problem.
- She is from the Nob Hill
neighborhood.
- In the last week she has received
3 notices of installations in Nob Hill.
- The building that she lives in is
proposed for antenna installation.
- Commercial buildings are not of
concern, but when it comes to residential buildings, where there are children
and people with health problems, it can be a problem.
- Cumulative affects are never
talked about.
(-) Gary Briggs
- His concern is that he made a
special trip to talk about Item 17, yet it was canceled.
- He lives in a building that he
owns and he received a notice from the Planning Department because he lives
within 300 feet of a proposed site for antenna installation.
- There is a problem with the
mailing of notices since it appears that notices are being sent to residents
and not building/property owners.
- Hearings are scheduled during the
day which makes it difficult for people to leave their jobs to attend the
meeting.
- He would like a notice sent to
people in regards to procedures for Discretionary Reviews.
Bill Hammut
- There was a misunderstand with the
report that staff gave: there is a figure of 6% - that is the value of the
nearest seats under the antennas.? There
is an additional safety factor in that area of 16 times.? The levels in the neighborhoods are
negligible.? They?ll be tens of
thousands of times below the standard.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Theoharis, Chinchilla
MOTION No.????? 15930
17.????? 2000.651C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (YOUNG:
558-6346)
1333-1335 PACIFIC AVENUE, south side between Leavenworth
and? Hyde Streets; Lot 036 in Assessor?s
Block 0184: -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section
711.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of three antennas and a base
receiver station on an existing six-story residential over commercial building
as part of Sprint?s wireless telecommunications network in an NC-2 (Small Scale
Neighborhood Commercial) District, Garment Shop Special Use District, and a
65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued without hearing to September 7, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Theoharis, Chinchilla
18.????? 2000.400C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WILSON:
558-6602)
950 MASON STREET, (Fairmont Hotel), entire block
bounded by Mason, Sacramento, Powell and California Streets; Lot 001 in
Assessor?s Block 0244 ‑Request for a Conditional Use authorization to
allow the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility, pursuant to
Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) and 253, in an RM‑4 (Residential, High
Density) District and a 320‑E Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Robert McCarthy - McCarthy and
Swartz - Representing Metricom, Project Sponsor
- There was a community meeting and
only one person attended.
- This site is a category 6.? It is actually a public building.
- They analyzed every block and lot
in the surrounding area.
- No site was rejected on economic
grounds.? Sites were rejected because
either they were purely residential, too low, or technologically inappropriate.
- This site meets all of the WTS
sighting guidelines as well as the San Francisco Municipal Code.
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Martin, Theoharis, Chinchilla
MOTION No.:???? 15931
G.???
SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 3:30 P.M. the Planning Commission convened
into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.
19.????? 2000.637D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (FALLAY:
558-6367)
350 COLLINGWOOD STREET, Lot No. 006B in Assessor?s Block
No. 2751 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 2000/02/10/1497, to
construct a three-story rear addition and to convert a two- unit building to a
single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X
Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take
Discretionary Review and approve the project with the condition that the third
floor be eliminated and the side building wall of the proposed second floor be
pulled back by five feet from the south side property line.
SPEAKER(S):????? None
ACTION:????????????? Continued without hearing to September 14, 2000
AYES:???????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Richardson
ABSENT:???????????? Martin, Theoharis, Chinchilla
Adjournment:?? 4:31 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR
ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, August
24, 2000.
Back to top
Return to the Planning Department's Home Page. Click here.
San
Francisco City and County Links
