Clickon 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 tosearchfor any text item by using the Ctrl-F keys. It is recommended you searchby casenumber and suffix, if you know it, as that will always be a uniqueitem. Youmay search by any identifying phrase, including project addresses.
Please note, commission minutes generally are approved and finalized two weeks following the hearing date.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Board of Supervisors Chambers - Room 250
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, November 2, 2000
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay,Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:40 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Leslie Buford; Ricardo Bressanutti; Irene Nishimura; Pedro Arce; Paul Maltzer; Paul Lord; Rick Cooper; Sharon Young; Mary Woods; Jim Miller; Elizabeth Gordon; Dario Jones; Ken Chin; Andrea Wong; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary
A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1. 2000.270C (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)
535-537 VALENCIA STREET - east side between 16th and 17th Streets; Lot 044 in Assessor?s block 3569: Request for Conditional Use authorization to (1) allow continued operation of an existing large (over 1,000 squarefeet) fast food restaurant, presently d.b.a. ?Cable Car Pizza?,per Section 726.43 of the Planning Code, and (2) to extend the hours of operation from 2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., per Section 726.27, in the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation : None
(Proposed for Continuance to November 9, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to November 9, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe Salinas
2. 2000.996T (HERRERA: 558-6316)
HOURS OF OPERATION - Consideration of amendments to the Planning Code Sections 206.3 and 209.8 to prohibit the operation of billiard hall, dance hall, nightclub, and other Amusement Enterprise and Nighttime Entertainment activities between the hours of 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. in the RC-3 and RC-4 Districts, and to require Conditional Use Authorization to operate bars and variouseating establishments (Full-Service Restaurant, Large Fast-Food Restaurant,and Small Self Service Restaurant) in RC-3 and RC-4 Districts between thehours of 2 a.m. to 6 a.m; amending Section 210.3 and 221(f) to require ConditionalUse Authorization to operate Amusement Enterprises in C-3-R and C-3-G Districts between the hours of 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
(Proposed for Continuance to November 9, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to November 9, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe Salinas
3. 1999.690E (BUFORD: 558-5973)
3000 THIRD STREET - Assessor?s Block 4315, Lots 8 &13; Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposal is to demolish the existing 11,000 square feet building and construct a three-story, 225,000 square feet building with 145 parking spaces. The building wouldconsists of 150,000 square feet of light industrial space on the second andthird floors. The ground floor would consist of a cafe that is 3,900 squarefeet and 13,000 square feet of retail. The majority of the new building wouldbe at a height of 60 feet with the exception of the 10 x 10 parapet and clocktower on the southwest corner of the building, where the highest point ofthe tower would be approximately 80 feet in height. The vehicular accessto the parking lot would be from Cesar Chavez Street and 26th Street. Theproject would replace an existing two-story vehicle maintenance and officebuilding. The majority of the site was is currently used as equipment storageand parking for buses and vans. The project site is located within the M-2(Heavy Industrial) zoning district and within the 80-E Height and Bulk district.
(Proposed for Continuance to November 16, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to November 16, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe Salinas
4. 2000.299E (T. CHAN: 558-5982)
690 DE HARO STREET - Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposed project would demolish an existing single family house, and construct four two-unit residential buildings in the Potrero Hill neighborhood. The project site is zoned RH-2 (Residential, House -Two Family), and iscurrently identified as Assessor?s Block 4031, Lots 26 and 27. Lot27 has been proposed for subdivision into three lots.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration
(Proposed for Continuance to December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to December 7, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe Salinas
5. 1999.849E (NAVARRETE: 558-5975)
809-821 FOLSOM STREET - 78 RESIDENTIAL UNITS - Appeal of a Negative Declaration. Assessor's Block 3752 Lots 92, 93, and 94, at 809-821 Folsom Street. The proposal is the new construction of 78 residential units (32one-bedroom and 46 two-bedroom) in a five-story plus basement, 56-foot tall,approximately 108,100 gross square foot building covering a 28,875 squarefoot site. The project site is currently occupied by a 58 car public parkinglot and 2 two-story concrete buildings totaling approximately 14,600 squarefeet, which would be demolished. The project would include about 76 parkingspaces located in a basement parking garage with entrance and exit both onFolsom Street. The project site is in the South of Market Residential/ServiceDistrict (SOM RSD) and the 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District. The sitelies within the Mixed-Use Housing District of the Industrial Protection Zone(IPZ). (Proposed for Continuance to December 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to December 14, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe Salinas
B. COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
6. Commission Matters
Commissioner Mills: The Action List states that there was supposed to be a report on teacups. When will this be scheduled?
C. DIRECTOR?S REPORT
7. Director ?s Announcements.
None
8. Review of Past Week ?s Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
BOS - None
BOA -
Re: 541-543 29th Street - The Commission voted to take DR. The Board upheld the Commission?s decision.
D. REGULAR CALENDAR
ADDENDUM ITEM:
2000.009E (BUFORD 558-5973)
1800 MISSION STREET (STATE ARMORY),- Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The project site occupies the northern half of a blockbordered by Fourteenth Street to the north, Mission Street to the east, FifteenthStreet to the south, and Julian Street to the west. The proposed projectinvolves the rehabilitation of the existing four-level (plus basement) StateArmory building and conversion of the use from vacant to a telecommunicationsfacility. The project would provide approximately 240,000 gsf of space devoted to telecommunication tenants (including co-location companies, web hosting companies, and/or telecommunication switching firms) and parking. The proposedproject includes 32 off-street (self-park) parking spaces and a loading areathat could accommodate at least two trucks. The site is within a C-M (HeavyCommercial) District and the 50-X and 65-B Height and Bulk Districts andis within the Mission District neighborhood. The building is listed in Appendix A of Article 10 of the Planning Code as City Landmark #108 and is listedon the National Register of Historic Places. A variance would berequired to provide fewer than the Planning Code-required amount of parkingspaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Luis Granados - Mission Economic Development Association
- The intent of the CEQA process is to find out the negative impacts of a particular project. By looking at those impacts the project may be improved.
- Previously, there was a negative declaration that was issued. It was appealed and then there was a new project. There was no real analysis of what other alternatives were less negative.
- The baseline for determining the impacts of the project wasn ?t done correctly.
- The project is located in the Mission District -- a residential neighborhood that has gone through a lot of land use changes over the last 9 years.
- The study states that there is no potential impacts on land use. That ?s not true since there are significant impacts from this project. The project maximizes the potential negative impacts because of the 90,000 gallons of hazardous waste that would be located in this facility.
(-) Sue Hestor
- She would like to speak about the 96,000 gallons of diesel fuel which will be brought into this project.
- This project is located across the street from apartment complexes.
- 1875 Mission Street was an apparel factory yet it is being converted to dot.coms.
- Sliding over the issues of growth-inducing impacts is ludicrous.
(-) Heather Rogers
- She is a member of MAC and a member of Redstone Tenants Association
- She supports the appeal.
(-) Eric Quesada - MAC
- MAC, Poder and other organizations are feeling the effects of the so-called developments in the Mission.
(+) Andrew Junius - Law Office of Reuben and Alter - Representing Icon Capitals
- He clarified some aspects of CEQA - CEQA asks to look for substantialevidence that a project will cause a significant impact on the environment.
- The appeal talks about a lot of things but not about significant impacts on the environment.
- The appellant spoke about growth-inducing impacts. This facility/project is for equipment only and not for people. There will only be about 150people employed here. This project will not cause other businesses to comeinto the area since the equipment can be accessed from any where in the world.
(+) Roberto Estrada
- He has lived in the area for many years. Although he is affiliated with many organizations in the Mission, he comes to speak as a concerned individual.
- This area is very dilapidated, full of crime, and is an area that needs a dramatic change.
- We have to look at this project in a different point of view. This site has been vacant for over 25 years. It ?s time that changes be done to develop this project and clean up the neighborhood.
(+) Richard Reutlinger - Victorian Alliance
- The Alliance wrote a letter a few weeks ago. He read the letter regarding the environmental effects of this project.
(+) John Barbey - Liberty Hill Neighborhood Association
- Not everyone in the neighborhood is in agreement with members of MAC.
- Everyone in the Mission District is aware that this project has been idle for too many years.
- This use will be a good one for the armory building.
(+) Carlyle A. Johnston - Alfred Williams Consulting
- Submitted letters in support of the project and did not have any comments.
(+) Mauricio Aviles - Arriba Juntos
- The government of this City has left the Mission District alone for 25years.
- The new industries that are coming in will develop the area one way oranother.
- The residents of the Mission will benefit in many ways.
- This project will develop jobs.
(+) Winchell F. Hayward - California Heritage Council
- He would like the Commission to uphold the negative declaration. The armory building should be maintained.
- He has lived in the city for over 40 years and doesn ?t remember that the armory has been used for anything.
- He would like to leave the marble base boards in the interior hallwaysof the building.
(+) Larry Burnett
- Has lived in the Mission for about 20 years.
- He read a letter from the Inner Mission Neighborhood Group in support of the project.
(+) Peter McDevit
- He lives in northwest Bernal Heights. He is not part of any organization but supports the project.
(+) Joe Porcoro - Northwest Bernal Alliance
- His organization supports this project.
- He believes that this building is a ?white elephant. ?
- He works for the telephone company and was able to take a tour of the interior of the building.
- Property owners cannot raise the rents since the area is under rent control.
(+) Jeffrey Livovits
- He would like to know how the appellants feels about the ARCO gasolinestation across the street since they are concerned about the fuel on site.
- Federal regulations have to deal with fuel containers when it comes todiesel generators. Many buildings throughout the city have them.
- It?s about time that the building is paid attention to.
ACTION: Uphold Negative Declaration
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
MOTION NO. 16014
9. 2000.290E (BUFORD: 558-5973)
370-398 10TH STREET - Assessor?s Block 3520, Lots 11, 12, & 13;
Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposed project is the
demolition of a furniture showroom and warehouse and construction of 30
live/work units, 30 off-street ground floor parking spaces, and approximately
4,680 square feet of retail space within a new three-story (including two
mezzanine levels) structure. The new building would be approximately 50'in
height and would have vehicular access from Harrison Street. The mainpedestrian
entrance would be located on 10th Street, with a secondary entranceon Harrison
Street. The site is within the Planning Commission?s adopted Industrial
Protection Zone (IPZ) Buffer, where conditional use authorization is required
for new live/work or housing development and for industrialbuilding demolition.
The project site is located within the SLR (Service/Light
Industrial/Residential) zoning district and within the 50-X Height and
Bulkdistrict.
Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration
.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Sue Hestor
- It?s unfortunate that staff continues to gloss over the loss of industrial businesses in an area that is an IPZ.
- The commission adopted controls about 15 years ago.
- There is a list of displacements that she submitted to the Commissioners.
- There is no environmental analysis and no environmental thinking, yet this is an environmental issue.
(+) Kevin Huye - Reuben and Alter representing Fred Wilman, Project Sponsor
- Fred Wilman has operated a furniture store for about 20 years now. Mr. Wilman would like to retire and redevelop the site. He is counting on this redevelopment project to finance his retirement.
- There is no substantial evidence of significant affects on the environment in the report.
- The appellant is concerned mostly about larger policy related issues and CEQA is not concerned about policy related issues.
(-) Speaker did not state name
- Each project which involves developments of loft housing is not working for the city. People are suffering because there aren ?t enough affordable housing development.
ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe Salinas
ABSENT: Baltimore
MOTION NO. 16015
10. 2000.290C (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)
370-398 - 10TH STREET, northwest corner of Harrison Street; Lots 11, 12 and 13 in Assessor?s Block 3520 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to construct a four story (plus mezzanines), 50-foot-high, mixed use building with commercial space and off street parking on the ground floor and 30 live/work units on the upper floors, requiring Conditional Use Authorization to allow construction of new live/work units in the Industrial Protection Zone, Buffer, across the street from the Mixed Use Housing Zone, per the Interim Zoning Controls established by Planning Commission Resolution No. 14861, in an SLR (Service/Light/Industrial/Residential) District and a 50-X height and bulk district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Kevin Huey - Reuben and Alter
- The project sponsor looked at various sites for the purpose of his project.
- The building currently standing doesn ?t even have heat. It ?s just like a warehouse so the building will be demolished.
- The proposed project is desirable and compatible with the other uses and buildings in the area.
(+) Toby Levy - Project Architect
- In this project, they have actually added signage bands.
- The spaces in these buildings would really be identified as live and work.
- Towards the north there is a print shop.
- Most of the ground floor has been designed for commercial.
(+) Jim Meko
- He owns the property to the north of the proposed site.
- This is the second time that he has received Ms. Hestor ?s unsolicited assistance on opposing a project that he is here tospeak in favor of.
- This project complies with the interim controls, it voluntarily includes affordable housing.
- This developer has played by the rules.
- He recommends that the Commission approve this project.
(-) Sue Hestor
- Once uses are changed, they are permanently changed.
- These uses have all been changed.
- Affordable housing is required in various lots.
- There is nothing for families.
(-) John Elberling
- There is a key question: ?why does the Commission continue to fail to apply it ?s policy of affordable housing? ?
- This question can be answered today, by rejecting this project.
- The Commission needs to come to the South of Market area and face the neighbors.
(-) Anastasia Yovanopolous
- She is a tenant.
- The BOS did approve an ordinance to preserve single-occupancy housing.
(-) Joan Holding - Commission for Arts, Jobs and Housing
- She is not surprised to hear developers make any argument. Yet she isstill amazed to hear staff use the existence of live/works units in an industrial neighborhood as an argument as to why it ?s ok to approve more. She would expect just the opposite.
ACTION: Approvedas amended: Sponsor to continue to work with staff on design and material.
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Salinas
NAYES: Joe
MOTION NO. 16016
11a. 1999.579E (NISHIMURA: 558-5967)
301 - 1ST STREET, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - Certificationof the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed project is removal of a 200+-space parking lot, and new construction of a two-tower residential building consisting of 342 dwelling units, 454 residential parking spaces and seven retail employee parking spaces, and 10,300 square feet of retail space on an approximately 38,000-square-foot site on the southeast corner of Folsom Street, Lot 32 in Assessor?s Block 3748; within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial, Combined, High-Density) District, Rincon Hill Special Use District -Residential Subdistrict, and 200-R and 250-R Height and Bulk Districts. One tower, on the north portion of the building, would be 200 feet high and the other tower on the south side of the building would be 250 feet high. Parking wouldbe provided from two levels to five levels below ground on the sloping sitewith the entrance/exit on First Street and an exit on Grote Place off ofFolsom Street, where access also would be provided for one off-street truck loading space.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
NOTE: PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THE DRAFT EIR ENDED ON AUGUST 29, 2000. PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE EIR CERTIFICATION ONLY MAY BE PRESENTED.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Environmental Impact Report Certified
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
MOTION NO. 16017
11b. 1999.579C (GORDON: 558-6309)
301 - 1ST STREET - at the southeast corner of First and Folsom Streets, Lot 32 in Assessor's Block 3748 -- A proposal to develop the site with up to 342 dwelling units in two buildings (one of approximately 200 feet in height, the other of approximately 250 feet in height), approximately 10,300 square feet of ground floor and second floor retail and professional services space, and 342 to 349 independently accessible parking spaces and 113 tandem spaces. Request per Planning Code Section 304 for ConditionalUse Authorization under the Planned Unit Development process to allow: (1) a structure over 40 feet in height in an R zoning district per Planning Code Section 253; (2) site coverage at ground level exceeding 80%on a sloping site per Planning Code Section 249.1(b)(1)(B); (3) separation between towers, above a height of 150 feet, of 80 feet rather than 150 feet, as required by Planning Code Section 270(e), pursuant to Planning Code 271; (4) exceptions to bulk limits of the R bulk district as stated in Planning Code Section 270 (e), pursuant to Planning Code Section 271; (5) parking within 25 feet of the street frontage on the ground floor on a small portion of the site per Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(5)(C); (6) a reduction in the loading requirement of Planning Code Section 152 from 2 spaces to1 space per Planning Code Sections 304; (7) a small portion of thecommon open space to be provided in solaria (the fitness room and activityroom) per Planning Code Sections 135(g)(3), 249.1(c)(4) and 304(d)(3);and (8) up to 1,000 gross square feet of the commercial space to be a smallself-service restaurant as required by Planning Code Sections 304(d)(5) and710.44. The site is within the RC-4 (Residential Commercial High Density)District and the Rincon Hill Special Use District - Residential Subdistrict. The northern portion of the site is in a 200-R Height and Bulk district; the southern portion of the site is in a 250-R Height and Bulk district.
Preliminary Recommendation : Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Steve Vettel - Morrison and Forrester
- This project is entirely consistent and implements many policies of the general plan. In particular the Rincon Hill plan and the Rincon SpecialUse District.
- This is the largest project to come forward in the Rincon Hill area.
- There will be no displacements.
(+) Clark Manus - Heller-Manus
- This project will be good for the area.
- He gave a brief description of how the project will look.
- The project will provide views in the east-west direction and a commonpavilion in the middle.
(+) Jeffrey Leibovitz
- He is a property owner near the port.
- He thinks this is a wonderful project in an area that is underutilized.
- It?s about time that housing catch up with the production of jobs in the City.
- One of the things that this neighborhood is really lacking is a grocery store.
(+) Brad Paul
- He was here for another item but he just wanted to thank the developerof this project for providing this City what it really needs.
(-) Edward Weiner
- He is a resident of the area.
- He has submitted written comments which state that the opposition to this project is not because it will block his view.
- The issue that he raised in his written comment is that the project iscompletely out of scale of the Rincon Hill area.
- The important thing here is the scale of the building and the design is very unattractive.
(-) Anastasia Yovanopolous
- Although she wants housing, her reservation if this 27-story building is earthquake safe and if there will be any more similar developments what are they going to fall on?
ACTION: Approved with Amendments
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
MOTION NO. 16018
12. 2000.1063R (ARCE: 558-6332)
SITE ?G? OF THE RINCON POINT- SOUTH BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (200 BRANNAN STREET AND NO.1 FEDERAL STREET) - On the west side of Delancey Street (formerly First Street), between Federal and Brannan Streets, Lots 18 and 24 in Assessor?s Block 3774. -- Request for an Amendment of the Rincon Hill-South Beach Design for Development Documentto increase the off-street parking requirement on Site G of the Rincon Point-South Beach Redevelopment Project Area from a ratio of one off street parking space per residential unit, to 1.5 off-street parking spaces per residential unit.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Amy Netches - Senior Project Manager - Redevelopment Agency
- These parcels were aggregated by the agency many years ago with the intention of creating one, large integrated residential project.
- Out of 238 units, there will be 51 affordable condominium units as well as creating and preserving storage space for non-profit organizations.
- The project which was started in 1981 has been a very successful project.
- Together the agency, private development community, and non-profits have built over 2,000 housing units approximately 1/3 affordable units, commercial development, and a wonderful waterfront.
- Because of the growth of this area, parking has become quite difficult.
- This change to the design of the development to allow this inclusion of parking is good for the neighborhood.
(+) Jeffrey Leibovitz
- He is speaking on behalf of Richard Dickerson who is a member of the Rincon Point South Beach CAC, who had to leave, as well as the 29 members of the same organization.
- The developer proposed building more parking and he and his organization are in agreement with this.
- The ballpark is not busy 6 months out of the year, it is busy all year.
- He fully supports this additional parking for the project.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
NAYES: Mills
MOTION NO. 16019
13a. 1999.346TZ (MALTZER: 558-6391)
INTERIM ZONING CONTROLS - INDUSTRIAL PROTECTION ZONES AND MIXED USE HOUSING ZONES - Consideration of extension for nine (9) months of Interim Zoning Controls which establish Industrial Protection Zones and Mixed Use Housing Zones Within Industrially Zoned Land. The interim zoning controls establish an industrial protection zone where new residential and live/work uses are not permitted and demolition of industrial buildings requires a conditional use authorization; a mixed use housing zone where residential and live/work uses are encouraged; and buffer zones where residential and live/work uses require conditional use authorization. The interim zoning controls apply to all lots zoned M-1, M-2, C-M, RSD, SLR, SLI, SPD, SSO in the area generally bounded by Market Street from The Embarcadero to Valencia Street, South to Twenty-Fourth Street, East to Highway 101, South to Highway 280 and South along Mission Street to Geneva Avenue, and then East to the County Line and the Eastern Shoreline, exclusive of lots under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port, and lots in the Mission Bay North and Mission Bay South Redevelopment Project Areas, the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area, the Rincon Point/South Beach Redevelopment Project Area and the Transbay Survey Area. The interim zoning controls would be extended for a period of nine (9) months, from November 5, 2000 to August 5, 2001.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Resolution extending Interim Zoning Controls
SPEAKERS:
(+) Jill Simpson - Maritime Marketing Manager of the Port of San Francisco
- A recent economic impact study done by the port of San Francisco showed that for the fiscal year ending 1999, the ship repair and other industries alone contributed 1,438 direct jobs as well as 1,600 indirect jobs.
- The maritime industries and cargo industries are growing. Although a lot of business was lost to the Port of Oakland, the Port of San Francisco refocused their marketing efforts to attract the smaller and mid-sized shipping businesses. The port has been very successful in attracting these businesses to thePort.
(+) Jim Wilshire
- He is co-chairman of the Maritime/Commerce Committee just formed by the Port of San Francisco.
- Most of the members are involved in industries that require access to their facilities by water.
- The Committee understands the needs of accommodating the various people and the housing needs of the area, they also understand the need for thedot.coms.
- He would appreciate from the Commission consideration to extend the 9-month extension on the IPZ.
(+) Mark Francis - NBC Transportation
- NBC Transportation is a support group to the steamship lines calling on the Port of San Francisco.
- He urges the Commission to support the extension of the IPZ for the benefit of future commerce in San Francisco.
(+) Roger Peters - San Francisco resident
- He has worked with the Port of San Francisco for 15 years. Now he is an independent consultant specializing in industrial waterfront development.
- The current industrial zone preservation legislation provides protection for this essential industry and others. The current set of IPZs shouldbe extended.
- Please continue to protect local industries through the extension of the IPZs. It will continue to keep San Francisco a diversified City in employment, economics and opportunity.
(+) Ron Dean - Owns and Operates a Storage Facility
- When he negotiates his lease, he wants to be sure he will stay in a place for a certain amount of time. His facility has over 10,000 gallons of ammonia refrigeration. Housing near his facility could be very dangerous.
- 80% of his industry is related to the Port of San Francisco
(+) Jeffrey Liebovitz - South Park Improvement Association
- He supports the 9-month extension of the IPZ because he believes it ?s critical.
- Live/work lofts are being used as commercial uses.
- Something is wrong when housing is being used as commercial under the Prop M caps.
- Items are coming up in the ballots, that ?s because people are not being responsible.
(+) Claude Jacques - Port of San Francisco - Foreign Trade Zone
- In the last 3 years that they have operated the trade zone they have grown 500%.
- They are using the Port of San Francisco and marketing to bring commerce back.
- The Port of San Francisco has an advantage over other ports. This port creates jobs.
(+) Richard Meade - ILWU Local 10
- The port is looking at ways to increase maritime use.
- The protection is needed in this area.
- Please see to it that blue-collar workers and longshoremen are protected in this City.
(+) Marina V. Secchitano - Inland Boatmen ?s Union - ILWU Local 10
- Please consider that commerce is essential to the Port of San Francisco.
- These buffer zones are essential to this area.
(+) David Gavrich - President of LB Railco
- There is a working rail yard. Everyday a freight train is brought in with cargo. This symbolizes good paying jobs.
- These jobs afford for people to continue living in San Francisco.
(+) Henry Graham - Longshoreman
- He stresses the importance of extending the IPZ (industrial projectionzone).
- They have active members that are employed at port cargo terminals andmarine terminal warehouses. They are asking that the Commission extend theIPZ to 9 months.
(+) Bill Poland - Bay West Group
- He is located several blocks from here. For over 20 years, he has been involved in obtaining approvals and further developing the area into what is internationally renounced as the design district.
- There are about several thousand visitors to this area.
- He strongly supports the work that the Department is doing. He believes the Director of the Department is doing the right thing by extending the IPZ.
(+) Oscar Grande- MAC
- Today is a step toward achieving the goals of the community and developing a process for community-driven planning.
- They did a community-based research and in a period of one month , they defined the problem, framed analysis , collected the data and produced areport which is for community and by community.
(+) John Wetzel - MAC
- Working class residents of San Francisco face an affordability crisis on two dimensions. People are struggling to live here as well as employers.
- The northeast Mission industrial zone has been an important jobs-base for the Mission community.
(+)Don Shoemaker
- They estimate $22.6 million in lost housing and childcare fees alone.
- He applauds the fact of the extension of the IPZ.
- Commission should consider the idea to ban office south of Cesar Chavez.
(+)Erick Quesada - MAC
- After the election, regardless of what happens, large sections of the community would like to come together in a good faith effort and do real planning.
(Neutral) John de Castro - Potrero Hill
- He is glad that the IPZ has helped some areas but it certainly hasn ?t helped Potrero Hill or the Mission District.
- IPZ has not prevented the displacement of neighborhood distribution and retail in his neighborhood.
- There is extensive conversion of live/work lofts to office space.
- Why is the Commission not taking care of the people who need 2 and 3 bedroom units.
(+) Brad Paul - Coalition for Jobs, Arts and Housing
- Zoning Options for Industrial Land is a report produced by the Planning Department and it ?s one of the best reports the department has done in the last 5 years.
- This report started out trying to protect about 750 to 1,000 acres of industrial land left in the City out of 15,000 acres.
- Why would you try to protect industrial from housing?
- In good financial times if you allow office, residential and industrial, what you get is lots of office, maybe a little residential in the form of live/work that ?s actually used as residential and no industrial. IF you just ban office, what you get is lots of high-end residential and no industrial.
- Therefore, you have to ban office and residential if you want to project industrial. This was true then and is true now.
(Neutral) Dick Millet - Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association
- He doesn ?t know whether to support the extention of the IPZ, maybe it would be better to go back just to the straight industrial.
- There is a resolution from the department that states ?discourage, discourage, discourage in the IPZ ?.
(+) Joe Cassidy - Residential Builders
- He has heard a lot of talk about office space and where it is being built in the Mission. Office space needs to be built downtown.
- There is such demand out there for office space. Proposition M needs to be revisited.
- He is in favor of IPZ and they will work with the department to preserve these industrial protection zones especially along the Port and along Army Street.
(+) Alice Barkley
- About 2 weeks ago she came to the Commission and she urged the department to make sure that there are true industrial zones in this City.
- This item is extention of industrial protection zones. All the previous speakers talk about the next item.
- There is no new application for live/work in IPZs. They have only come before the Commission in mixed use housing districts.
(+) Joe O ?Donahue - Residential Builders
- It was interesting to hear the ILWU and the Port workers to speak about this item.
- His organization has joined with the ILWU in asking for an extension of the industrial use.
- There are people in the City which the Commission will never please.
- Of the 3,000 live/work loft buildings which his members built, there were no evictions.
(+) Sue Hestor
- Interim controls are supposed to be followed by permanent controls.
- The Commission has allowed 1,520 artists ? live/work units in the Mission because that ?s all that is allowed. In South of Market, 1,600 units. The number of affordable units is zero.
ACTION: Resolution Adopted. Controls are extended.
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
RESOLUTION NO.16020
13b. (MALTZER: 558-6391)
ADOPTION OF NEW POLICIES REGARDING OFFICE USE AND CONVERSION OF LIVE/WORK (LOFT HOUSING) WITHIN INTERIM INDUSTRIAL PROTECTION ZONES AND MIXED USEHOUSING ZONES - Consideration of adopting new policies to discourageoffice development and to further discourage the conversion of live/workto office within the Interim Controls boundary area. These new policiesare to supplement existing policies previously adopted August 5, 1999 (CPCRes. 14861).
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Resolution creating new Policies within Interim Zones
SPEAKER(S): See speakers after item 13b.
ACTION: Without Hearing - Continued to November 9, 2000
14. 2000.1007T (LORD: 558-6311)
LIVE-WORK TO LOFT HOUSING AMENDMENT - Consideration of amendments toPart II, Chapter II, of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Planning Code)by amending Sections 102.7 and 102.13 to redefining ?live/work?units as ?loft housing? and classifying them as residential uses;repealing Section 233 regarding live/work; adding Section 232 to establishrequirements for loft housing that would subject it to existing live/workcontrols except that there would be no restriction on the nature of workwhich could be preformed in the unit so long as the use is permitted in theSSO (Service/Secondary Office) Zoning District and no requirement that theoccupant(s) work in the unit, would require loft housing to comply with inclusionary housing policies, would establish and in-lieu payment for affordable housingrequirements in the 40/85 foot height district contained wholly within thesouth of market Residential Service District (RSD), would require loft housingin residential areas to comply with all requirements for residential usesincluding the residential design guidelines, would require loft housing constructedin areas not zoned residential to comply with all requirements for residentialuses except for height, front setback and open space requirements, wouldprohibit existing live/work units from being used or converted to officespace, and establishes minimum dwelling unit air and light exposure standard;states that this ordinance supersedes any inconsistent planning commissionpolicies.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the draft Ordinance recommending approval to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Mr. Schumacker
- When the Katz legislation was drafted it did not allow an opportunityfor conditional use authorization that would allow a conversion from live/work to office.
- Somehow in the version of the legislation that appears before the Commission that conditional use authorization is now available. There is no circumstance under which live/work should be allowed to convert to office. It ?s against the whole point of the entire live/work concept.
(-) Jeffrey Leivobitz
- The live/work lofts are being converted into office as well. The Commission needs to put caps on the size of these developments.
- Sometimes it ?s better to let the market place dictate the uses.
- Maybe it ?s better to allow the developer or the owner to have the choice if the market place demands office, under the caps; if it demands residential then build residential under these caps.
(-) Alice Barkley
- She supports staff recommendation to continue this item.
- This Commission should not adopt a piece of legislation with policy init that is inconsistent with what the department ?s policy is.
(-) Sue Hestor
- She found that this legislation ?gave with one hand and took away with the other. ?
- The issue of live/work abiding residential sites which has been a hugeproblem with the people in Potrero Hill and the Mission.
- There is no substance in the Katz Legislation.
- The rule across the board should be it ?s conditional use or whatever the standard from the City Attorney.
(-) Joe O?Donahue
- He supports staff request to continue this item.
- For years people heard about affordable housing yet affordable housingdoesn ?t exist.
- Of all the affordable housing which was built, not one African-American qualified.
ACTION: Continued to November 16, 2000. Public Hearing will remain open.
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
15. 1999.795E (COOPER: 558-5974)
KING-TOWNSEND BUILDING AND COMMUNITY GARAGE - PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR). The proposed project would be the construction of a mixed-use building with parking, retail, office and live/work spaces at 175-179 and 183 Townsend Street (Assessor?s Block 3794, Lots 4 and 7). The project site is an approximately 42,969 square-foot site fronting on both King and Townsend Streets between Second and ThirdStreets in the South of Market neighborhood. The project would contain atotal of 657 parking spaces, approximately 29,275 square feet of retail usesin a ground floor podium, approximately 46,775 square feet of office usesacross six upper floors, plus a ground floor lobby, and approximately 55live/work spaces across seven upper floors. The building would vary in heightbetween seven and ten stories, and between 90 and 110 feet. A 17-space surface parking lot and two connected industrial warehouse buildings, containing a retail/wholesale electrical supply store and a nightclub would be demolished.
Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required
Note: Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department ?s offices until the close of business on November 7, 2000.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jeffrey Libovitz
- He supports the project.
(+) Sue Hestor
- There are a lot of garages going up around the ballpark area. There should be a good map pointing out where these garages are located.
- She tracked permits on projects pending.
ACTION: No Action Required
16. 2000.530C (YOUNG: 558-6346)
1500 TAYLOR STREET, Northeast corner of Taylor Street and Pacific Avenue; Lot 20 in Assessor?s Block 158: Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 253 and 295 of the Planning Code, to allow the construction of a residential building exceeding 40 feet in height within the RC-3 (Residential-Commercial Combined, Medium Density) District, Garment Shop Special Use District, and 65-A Height and Bulk District. The proposal is the demolition of a 1-story commercial building and the construction of a 4-story over garage, 50-foot high residential building containing three dwelling units and five off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Hahn Phan - Reuben and Alter - There were concerns expressed inletters and calls, regarding views and heights.
- There is no legal right to preserve views.
- This is consistent with the General Plan ?s residential element.
- This building is not tall in comparison to buildings around the neighborhood.
(+) Gabriel Ng - Project Architect
- He studied the site and because of the fact that there is retail the project sponsor decided to add parking spaces.
- He is willing to take out 2 parking spaces if the Commission desires.
- He talked to one neighbor and she was very happy with the design. After she reviewed the plan she was very happy with the project.
(-) Michael Stumpt
- He has been a resident of this area for about 30 years.
- His concern is that there is zoning that limits this building ?s height.
- Affordable housing at a penthouse on Russian Hill will change the effects and nature of the area.
- This project will throw a shadow.
- The character of this neighborhood is such that the height should be limited.
(-) Aina Stunz
- She lives and has lived on the 1400 block of Taylor for 35 years.
- She took an inventory of the buildings in the area. Specifically to find out the height and stories of these buildings.
(+) Glen Kurner
- He lives in the neighborhood.
- He believes that his project should be limited in height.
- He asks that the Commission limit the 40 foot height limit so the proposed building will be compatible and a friendly addition to the neighborhood and not impose itself on them.
ACTION: Approve with revised condition to limit parking to three spaces and explore the possibility of alternate uses.
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Fay, Salinas
NAYES: Baltimore, Joe
RESOLUTION NO.16021
17. 2000.291CZ (WOODS: 558-6315)
1062 OAK STREET, north side, between Divisadero and Scott Streets, Lot 19 in Assessor?s Block 1216- Request to amend the Planning Code Zoning Map to reclassify a portion of Lot 19 from an RH-3 (Residential, House Districts, Three-Family) Zoning District to an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) Zoning District. Currently, the northern portion of Lot 19 (trapezoidal-shaped of approximately 113 feet wide by 82 feet deep) is zoned RH-3 and is ina 40-X Height and Bulk District; the southern portion of Lot 19 (a narrowstrip of approximately 25 feet wide by 90 feet deep) is zoned NC-2 and isin a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to reclassify the RH-3portion of Lot 19 to NC-2 to allow the expansion of an existing car wash(Touchless Car Wash). The Height and Bulk District of the reclassified portionof Lot 19 would remain 40-X.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of the Draft Resolution for Reclassification.
NOTE: On August 24, 2000, after public testimony, the Commission closed public comment and continued the matter to September 14, 2000 to allow the project sponsor time to meet with neighborhood groups and develop modifications to the project. Public comment will be re-opened to address proposed modifications only.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without Hearing. Continued to November 16, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
18. 2000.291CZ (WOODS: 558-6315)
444 DIVISADERO STREET AND 1052-62 OAK STREET, northeast corner of Oak and Divisadero Streets, Lots 5, 17, 18 and 19 in Assessor?s Block 1216 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 186.1, 209.7,303, 304 and 711.59 of the Planning Code to permit a Planned Unit Developmentfor the expansion of an existing car wash (Touchless Car Wash) in an NC-2(Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) Zoning District with 65-Aand 40-X Height and Bulk Districts.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
NOTE: On August 24, 2000, after public testimony, the Commission closed public comment and continued the matter to September 14, 2000 to allow the project sponsor time to meet with neighborhood groups and develop modifications to the project. Public comment will be re-opened to address proposed modifications only.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without Hearing. Continued to November 16, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
19a. 2000.987BCX (MILLER: 558-6344)
530-32 FOLSOM STREET (also known as 41 Clementina Street) - northeast corner at Ecker Street, between First and Second Streets, Lot 17 in Assessor?s Block 3736 --Request for Determination of Compliance pursuant to Section309 with respect to a proposal to convert an existing building currentlybeing remodeled/expanded for live/work to office use. There would be noaddition of gross floor area. Parking would be reconfigured to provide 19independently-accessible spaces and one tandem space on the ground level,accessed from Clementina Street. The project is within a C-3-S (DowntownSupport) District and 200-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Steve Atkinson - Baker and McKenzie
- He would like to thank the department for bringing this project forward to the Commission.
- The site is appropriate for office use and all the floors will be handicap accessible.
(+) Bret Robertson - Vice President and General Counsel of Critical Path
- The company was founded in 1997 in San Francisco as an e-mail outsourcer to manage the e-mail Messaging needs of individual and Internet businesses. Their slogan states that they manage the world ?s e-mail.
- They have a large number of clients.
- They have offices in over 30 cities, 11 countries and 4 continents. They have chosen to keep their headquarters in San Francisco but they have totally out grown their current space.
- They are excited about the future of the company.
- They look forward to continuing their success and remaining part of the innovative high-tech community of San Francisco.
(+) Sheryl Van
- She is proud to say that at Critical Path they recognize that they have a responsibility to contribute to the community and that they are constantly acting on their commitment to do so.
- They welcome applicants of all people.
- They are working to identify other employee agencies to identify applicants to fill their employment vacancies.
(+) Sue Hester
- It is refreshing for someone to come honestly into the City and do thechange of use and call themselves an office building.
- She appreciates someone coming in and smartly using the small office cap while there is still quite a bit of space in it.
- Her only concern is that the building be accessible.
ACTION: Approved Staff Recommendations
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas
EXCUSED: Chinchilla
MOTION NO. 16022
19b. 2000.987BCX (MILLER: 558-6344)
530-32 FOLSOM STREET (also known as 41 Clementina Street) - northeast corner at Ecker Street, between First and Second Streets, Lot 17 in Assessor?s Block 3736 --Request under Planning Code Sections 320-322 (Office Development Limitation Program) to allow Request for authorization of office space in the downtown area pursuant to Section 321 of the Planning Code. The project proposal is the creation of up to 46,000 square feet of office space in an existing building currently being rebuilt (after a fire) and expanded for occupancy as live / work units, of approximately 46,000 gross square feet. The project is within a C-3-S (Downtown Support) District and 200-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S): Same as 19a.
ACTION: Approved Staff Recommendations
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas
EXCUSED: Chinchilla
MOTION NO. 16023
19c. 2000.987BCX (MILLER: 558-6344)
530-532 FOLSOM STREET (also known as 41 Clementina Street) - northeast corner at Ecker Street, between First and Second Streets, Lot 17 in Assessor's Block 3736 --Request for authorization of a CONDITIONAL USE for approximately 6,000 square feet of OFFICE SPACE AT OR BELOW THE GROUND FLOOR and for OFF-STREET PARKING EXCEEDING ACCESSORY AMOUNTS (20 spaces when the Planning Code would permit up to 15 spaces), in conjunction with conversion of live/work units to up to 46,000 square feet of office space, requiring review under Planning Code Sections 309 and 321(also requiring a Variances of Planning Code standards for open space), in a C-3-S (Downtown Support) District and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without Hearing. Continued to November 16, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
20a. 1999.821BDVC (GORDON: 558-6309)
178 TOWNSEND STREET - southeast corner of Townsend Street and Clarence Place, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 3788 -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow up to 49,999 square feet of office space within a building in the SLI (Service/Light-Industrial) Zoning District that is also a Contributory structure to the South End Historic District, pursuant to Planning Code Section 803.5(b). The site is within the SLI (Service/Light Industrial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, the Industrial Protection Zone's Mixed Use Housing Zone, the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District's South End Service District and is a Contributory building to the South End Historic District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Warner Schmalls - Project Architect
- This is a unique project since it ?s a historic building.
- This is a 114 year old building. It was originally the California Electric Light Company built in 1886.
- The building will be rebuilt to emulate its 1906 appearance. The building is just a shell, there is no structural integrity to the building.
- Because of its historic quality and the need in the zoning code to preserve this building, giving office use as an incentive is the reason that a developer/owner can afford to seismically upgrade this building and bring it up to code and spend the resources that is required to preserve this building.
- From the outside the building will resemble it ?s 1906 appearance.
- There were some issues to face with the neighbors but these issues have been dealt with.
- They have worked really hard with the neighbors to make sure that everything is in order.
(+) Mark Mathis - Project Sponsor
- His father and partner bought the building in 1968.
- This building started life in 1888. After being damaged in the 1906 earthquake it was mostly used as a warehouse.
- Some structural work was done to the building already.
(+) Mike O?Neal - Legacy Partnersformer Lincoln Property
- They will be moving their headquarters from Foster City to San Francisco.
- They are going to be putting a lot of money into this building and tryto make it classy.
- They are very excited about this project.
(-) Jeffrey Leibovitz
- He wants to commend the project sponsor in working with the Heritage Foundation to try to save the building.
-It was unfortunate that the smoke stack was removed.
- This project will create a deficit parking. This area needs to createmore parking garages and here there will be a reduction of parking. He wouldlike to go forward on the 90 parking spaces which is a minimum for this use.
- This is a historic resource.
- He would like a conditional use to be granted and be attached.
(+) Sue Hestor
- She was ready to file a DR when the developer was going to call themselves a 24,999 square foot office building and 25,001 square foot business service space. Fortunately there was no need since the developer is coming through as office. Another smart developer!
- She is not opposed to this project.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
MOTION NO. 16024
20b. 1999.821VCDB (GORDON: 558-6309)
178 TOWNSEND STREET - on the southeast corner of Townsend Street andClarence Place, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 3788 -- Request under PlanningCode Section 321(b) (4) for authorization to add approximately 49,002 squarefeet of office space to the City's Office Development Annual Limit Reservefor Smaller Buildings. The site is within the SLI (Service/Light Industrial)District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, the Industrial Protection Zone'sMixed Use Housing Zone, the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District'sSouth End Service District, and is a Contributory building to the South EndHistoric District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): See Item 19a.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
MOTION NO. 16025
20c. 1999.821BVCD (GORDON: 558-6309)
178 TOWNSEND STREET - on the southeast corner of Townsend Street andClarence Place, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 3788 -- Staff Initiated DiscretionaryReview of a project proposing renovation of an existing three-story buildingfrom auto repair to office use. Approximately 49,002 square feet of officeuse is proposed The proposal would develop a new fourth floor to the existing structure to make the building four-stories and 50-feet tall. The site is within the SLI (Service/Light Industrial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, the Industrial Protection Zone's Mixed Use Housing Zone, the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District's South End Service District, andis a Contributory building to the South End Historic District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): See Item 19a
ACTION: Do Not Take DR and Approve Project
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
20d. 1999.821BCDV (GORDON: 558-6309)
178 TOWNSEND STREET - on the southeast corner of Townsend Street and Clarence Place, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 3788. The proposal is renovation of an existing three-story building from auto repair to office use. Approximately 49,002 total gross square feet of office use is proposed, approximately 45,000 square feet of that as occupied floor area. The proposal would developa new fourth floor to the existing structure to make the building four-stories and 50-feet tall. Request for an off-street parking waiver pursuant to Planning Code Sections 161(m) and 307(g) to reduce the Planning Code required parking of 90 spaces, to 18 legally independently accessible off-street parking spaces, but 35 tandem/valet spaces in total. The site is within the SLI (Service/Light Industrial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, the Industrial Protection Zone's Mixed Use Housing Zone, the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District's South End Service District, and is a Contributory building tothe South End Historic District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Zoning Administrator has closed the public hearing and has taken the item under advisement.
E. SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 7:37 P.M. the Planning Commission will convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.
21a. 1998.885D (GORDON: 558-6309)
128 KING STREET , south side of King Street between Second and ThirdStreets, Lot 23 in Assessor's Block 3794 -- Staff Initiated DiscretionaryReview of Building Permit Application Nos. 9725403, 9725404, 9801069, and9801070, proposing to rehabilitate, seismically upgrade and re-use the existingvacant unreinforced masonry warehouse building into art, restaurant and multimediaspace. The proposed project also includes the addition of a partial mezzaninelevel within the building and a penthouse addition on the fourth floor.The project site is within the M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, a 105-X Heightand Bulk District, within the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District'sSouth End Office District, and is a Contributory Building to the South EndHistoric District. By Resolution 14844, the Planning Commission adopteda policy of Automatic Discretionary Review for project or permit applicationsthat do not meet the more restrictive provisions of the proposed South Endpermanent controls. Under these controls the proposed project would be requiredto receive Conditional Use Authorization for the bar and restaurant use,and is therefore currently subject to the Discretionary Review process.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review, applicant should reduce square footage of the restaurant/bar.
SPEAKER(S):
(+)Dan Sullivan - Representing Project Sponsor - Van Properties
- This project is to rehabilitate a UMB into restaurant and multimedia use.
- The proposed restaurant meets all the criteria set forth in section 303 and the Special Use District.
- The proposal is for a restaurant not a sports bar.
- The building has passed through the landmarks process. The building has had no parking access.
- This site is very well served by public transit.
- Regarding traffic issues like off street loading and people who would be coming into the restaurant --there is a loading zone which is very restrictive. Passenger who need to debark at the restaurant, there is a passenger zone in front of MOMO restaurant which can be extended.
(+) Alan Byer - Project Sponsor
- He has been in the garment business for 36 years.
- San Francisco has been really good to him. It has afforded him the luxury to be involved with the group that purchased the Giants in 1992 when they were ready to leave town.
- He as been involved in developing the area around the ballpark.
- This project is a long-time family investment.
- He has gone through all the heritage and landmark obligations and bothare supporting this project.
(+) Joe O?Donahue -
- This is a contributory building.
- He supports this project entirely.
(-) Jeffrey Leibovitz
- Valet Parking should be applied. MOMO does it and this project shouldrequire it as well.
(-) Sue Hestor
- She has been tracking this project for a long time. She requested that staff communicate to her about changes through this project but nothing was ever communicated to her. She has had no response to her letters.
- How do you appeal a project you don ?t even know about?
- The developer will find out that it ?s not smart to attach a tenancy to a determination.
(-) Michael Burke - Represents SOMA Partners LLP
- His clients want to support this project but they feel compelled to oppose it as proposed because of two reasons: There are no provisions for off-street parking. The Neg Dec states a requirement for off-street parking. There is no provision for off-street loading. These deficits will create negative impacts on this block.
(-) Douglas Rosenberg - Developer/Partner of 139 Townsend and 160 King LLC
- He has never opposed a project.
- He has tried to be reasonable with the project sponsor. This is not apersonal vendetta.
- There should be a consistent application of the Planning Code.
- If there is a change in the policy, then things need to be reconsidered.
- The loading issue can be solved and he can sit with the project sponsor to work something out.
- Regarding the parking, he is looking for some sort of consistency withsimilar situations on previous projects.
(-) Paul Stein - SKS Investments
- He is not involved with 160 King Street.
- He was invited by the project sponsor to discuss off-street loading and after that meeting the sponsor never called him again.
ACTION: Take DR with the following requirements: Reduce square footage, require valet parking; establish offpeak loading hours
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
21b. 1998.885V (GORDON: 558-6309)
128 KING STREET, south side of King Street between Second and Third Streets, Lot 23 in Assessor's Block 3794. Request for an off-street parking variance from the Planning Code required 54 off-street parking spaces. Section 151 of the Planning Code requires in total 112 off-street parking spaces forthe proposed mixed uses at the site. However, the existing warehouse building was constructed in 1913 without providing any on-site parking spaces. Therefore there is a current parking deficiency of 58 off-street parking spaces for the previous warehouse use on the site, thereby reducing the amount of the Planning Code required off-street parking for the new proposed uses to 54 spaces. No off-street parking spaces are proposed. The project site is within the M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, a 105-X Height and Bulk District, within the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District's South End Office District, and is a Contributory Building to the South End Historic District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Zoning Administrator has closed the public hearing and has taken the matter under advisement.
22a. 2000.866D (JONES: 558-6477)
75 ZIRCON PLACE, east side of Zircon Place between 29th and Day Streets, Lot 068 in Assessor's Block 7537 -- Request for Discretionary Review ofBuilding Permit Application No. 2000/02/03/1013 proposing the constructionof a new four-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House,One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit application as submitted.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approvebuilding permit.
SPEAKER(S): (-) Did not state name - Project Sponsor
- The main questions are: 1) Is this project too big for the neighborhood. Have all the parties really exhausted negotiating to find an agreeablesolution? He believes that neither of these are true.
- The volume and mass of the proposed structure is too large. It will be the biggest structure on this street.
- He is not opposed to the needs of the family of this project but they should have purchased a larger lot.
(-) Buck Trigers- Co-Trustee of 95 Zircon Place
- The structure is quite monolithic as proposed.
(-) Randy Vistine
- He met Shamus McGee, his daughter, Janet, and the architect Steven Antinaris. Mr. McGee ?s manner was quite bullish and intimidating. Mr. McGee stated that he had been building houses for 35 years and never had problems like this. But that ?s not true because Mr. Vistine ?s father was a contractor and always had problems like this.
- When Mr. Passmore subdivided the lot in 1997, his statement was that the house that was to be built on this lot could be no more than 900 square feet. Mr. Antenaris plans call for a footprint of about 1,060 square feet.
(-) Steve Matune
- This house was proposed 15 years ago but it wasn ?t able to be built because the street was located in the Diamond Heights Redevelopment Area. The zoning for most of Diamond Heights fell under that, the houses on either side were constructed under the Redevelopment rules.
- This house is just too large for the neighborhood. The houses on either side are a lot smaller.
(-) Leticio Mariano
- He lives in the neighborhood.
- The proposed structure will tower over his house. He has some concerns and would like to propose a reasonable dialog with the developer. Other concerns involve the steepness of the slope where the proposed structurewill be located.
(-) Mark Rupper
- Has lived on Zircon Street for more than 20 years and would like to retain the pleasant atmosphere which now exists there.
- All structures should be of the same silhouette and size. The proposed structure does not meet these conditions.
- He is also disturbed by the constant shifting of figures and dates of completion. He believes a reasonable compromise can be achieved but the final details of the project should be settled by the neighbors. To date, no one has contacted him.
(-) Bill Kurtis
- He is going to be right next to the proposed structure.
- A few months ago, he signed something but didn ?t really read what he signed. He is sorry that he signed the document.
- He has lived in this area for many years. He has seen Diamond Heightsbeing developed.
- The new structure will be totally out of scale with this neighborhood.
(-) Linette Crain
- She loves her neighborhood and is very proud of it. When she saw thedesign of the structure she was appalled and would like to have the Commissiontake DR on this project.
(-) Sherie Brocker
- She supports taking DR and agrees with all the neighbors who have spoken previously.
(+) Brett Gladstone
- There were 3 meetings with Mr. Goodman. Mr. Gladstone understood that Mr. Goodman was speaking for the rest of the neighbors. He is sorry if he misunderstood and didn ?t go to the neighbors directly.
- The report produced by Mr. Passmore didn ?t state that there were conditions limiting the size of the future lot. Because of the strange lot configuration and the small size, to develop a decent-sized home would require some kind of a variance for a front yard deck which is what is before the Commission.
- The issues have always been regarding views.
- The project was originally 10 feet higher. It was brought down by request of staff. Mr. Goodman requested story poles, then there was a further reduction.
- Mr. Goodman has requested to keep a view of St. Paul ?s Church. This would require the removal of the entire peaked roof of this project which would severely impact the livability and the sizeof the project. If the peak roof was eliminated and instead put a flat room it would be totally different from the other houses.
(+) Joe O?Donahue - Residential Builders
- This is a sloping lot.
- This building is a modest building. It is two stories above street level.
- The issues about the Redevelopment Agency would have been imposed whenthey took jurisdiction of the area.
(+) Patricia Voughey
- She has worked with Mr. McGee and she knows that he is a very, very good builder.
ACTION: Do not take DR and Approve Building Permit
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay
NAYES: Salinas, Joe
22b. 2000.866V (JONES: 558-6477)
75 ZIRCON PLACE, east side of Zircon Place between 29th and Day Streets; Lot 068 in Assessor's Block 7537 in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District AND 40-X Height and Bulk District. FRONT YARD VARIANCES SOUGHT : The proposal is to construct a new deck in the required front setback. The deck will allow for entry access to a new 4-story, single family dwelling. Section 132(d)(2) of the Planning Code requires a maximum 15-foot frontsetback, measured from the front property line for the subject property. The proposed deck would encroach entirely into the required front setback.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Zoning Administrator has closed the public hearing and has taken the variance under advisement.
23. 2000.786D (CHIN: 575-6897)
2844 GREENWICH STREET - between Baker and Lyon Streets, Lot 033 in Assessor?s Block 0940, proposing to raise the split level roof in the rear to matchthe existing roof level in the front in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take discretionary review and approve the building permit as submitted
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Patricia Vaughey
- For the sake of Commissioner Fay, Baltimore and Salinas, she showed a picture of the penthouse.
- On May 13, the Commission asked the property owner to take down the penthouse and canceled the project.
- At the April 13, 2000 meeting, Mr. Somaya was informed by the Commissioners of the gravity of what he had done.
- On May 4, 2000, Mr. Somaya said that he would bring the penthouse downif he could keep his permit. At the time he made his speech he had alreadymade a ?peace meal? permit on May 3, 2000 for the windows of that permit and then hesubsequently applied for the raising of the roof and the sidewall for thepatio on the front.
- As of yesterday, Bureau of Building Inspection does not report any final inspections for the roof.
- Neighbors have seen the walls come down but the wood has remained there. The neighbors are concerned that the penthouse is still going to go up.
(-) Jennifer Crandall
- She lives west of the proposed building. She is upset by the unethical way that this is being built.
(-) Bob Greeley
- He is a neighbor. About a month ago he received a notice that there would be some construction done to raise the split level roof. He called various places and finally ended up at the Planning Department. He requested a blueprint to try to understand what splitting a level roof was.
- About a week ago he received a notice to come over to the proposed project site. He won ?t over and started talking with the project sponsor. He requested to see pictures of the project and he only received a small piece of paper.
(-) Dr. Gene McCoy
- The building has been finished and there is no intention to rebuild this. The building is horrendous and the owner has done a good job to alienate the neighbors.
- Would like the Commission to deny this project.
(-) Greg Hanson- Cow Hollow Neighborhood in Action
- He has been asked to speak on behalf of the owner and the residents of the building which he lives in. The issues are regarding air and light.
(-)Tim Lucier
- He lives across the back yard from the proposed building. His light will be reduced because of this building. There has been construction at 5:00 a.m. and even during Christmas Eve.
- He doesn ?t trust the owner of the proposed building.
(-) Mary Boardman
- On the April 13, 2000 hearing, the Cow Hollow Association urged the Commission to maintain the roof at the existing level. It was not just about the penthouse. There have been requests and petitions for a sun study.
- This is a case of a family wanting more light in their living room. This is at the expense of reduction of light and air to all the neighbors.
(-) Richard Olsen
- He lives in the neighborhood. There were 27 people that requested a sun study. The owner of the proposed structure did a so-called sun study.
- Everyone on the block is very concerned about this project.
(-) Chris Vankovitch
- He is speaking on behalf of himself and his grandparents. His bedroomwindow faces north and a small number of feet from the structure. It willhave an adverse affect on the light coming into his bedroom.
- The structure is completely out of taste to the neighborhood.
(-) Stuart Fung
- His family lives in a building adjacent to the proposed structure.
- He has directly seen the impact of the illegal construction of the penthouse. If the roof is raised it will affect the light coming into his home.
(+) Christopher Moscone - Representing project sponsor
- He represents Jitu Somaya. The last two speakers are related to the last DR requestor who withdrew the DR.
- Since the Commission requested the removal of the penthouse, he has done just as the Commission requested.
- Mr. Somaya and his wife has paid the price for the mistake they made regarding the penthouse.
- The penthouse is not an issue anymore. This proposal is not about thepenthouse but about raising the roof to the size of what is already in thefront of the building.
- The wood which is still on the roof, is wood which will be reused for raising the roof.
- The DR were filed by two people: Mr. Fung and Ms. Voughey. Among other things Mr. Somaya agreed to an additional 9 1/2 foot setback. He also agreed to paint the vertical wall facing the Somaya ?s property a white or off-white color which was Mr. Fung ?s choice. Mr. Fung withdrew his DR. The remaining DR is of Mrs.Voughey.
- He would like the Commission to decide this matter on the merits. Mr.Somaya made a mistake and he is paying for it. There are neighbors thatMs. Voughey brought who oppose the project yet there are neighbors here whodo support the project.
(+) Robert Marciel - Independent Consultant
- He works for the Pacific Energy Center. They provide a service regarding light.
- He went to the Residential Design Guidelines and there is a question of a pattern of rear yard depth creating a common open space. In this casethere isn?t.
(+) Vishal Thacker
- He, along with Robert Marciel, worked on the shadow analysis. This study has been done on a very professional basis. The building model from thearchitect is up to scale.
(+) Susan Somaya
- She is here to ask the support of the Commission and ask for their approval.
- When she found out that there was a DR filer, she was shocked because she and her husband had spoken to all the neighbors.
- She took pictures of the homes, every hour on the hour from her cameraand showed them to her neighbors.
(+) Steve Rehmus
- He has lived in Cow Hollow for 3 years. He supports the project completely.
- He showed some diagrams comparing the homes in the neighborhood regarding height.
(+) Amy Nicolas
- She has lived in Cow Hollow for many years. She supports the project. The concern of the penthouse not being removed is not correct. Mr. Somaya invited the planner for a site visit. She read a letter from the Planner to Mr. Somaya regarding the site visit.
(+) Sherry Mathews
- The Somayas have collected signatures of people who support the project. She showed a diagram of the homes who support the project.
(+) Arvind Lyer - Project Architect
- The drawings were done per code. The project meets code requirements. He has managed to get a letter from the previous architect who designedthe building which states that the building was done to code for that particular year.
- Someone stated that dirt was being put in the back and raising the ground. These are just misconceptions that neighbors have come up with.
(+) Jitu Somaya- Project Owner
- He would like to request the Commission to approve his project.
- He made a mistake and has paid the price. He apologizes for the mistake he made.
- He has caused a lot of pain to himself and his family.
- This time, he is here not because of the penthouse but for straightening the roof.
ACTION: Take DR and place conditions on approval of permit (add sidings on all exposed sides, no penthouse; require that plans be stamped, any modifications have to come back for further Planning Commission action; report back tothe Commission in a 6 month period (under Director?s Report).
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
24. 2000.995D (B. WASHINGTON: 558-6263)
53 GLENVIEW - Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 2000/05/01/8755 to construct a two-story rear horizontal extension to an existing single-family, two-story dwelling unit in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Nancy Wu - Project Sponsor
- She has in good faith tried to meet the needs of the DR requestor.
- There have been meetings and mediation meetings with DR requestor.
- It is a strange and difficult situation because the DR requestor is selling the property.
ACTION: Do not take DR and approve project.
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
25. 2000.953D (WONG: 558-6381)
642 CAROLINA STREET - Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 4071, Building Permit Application No. 200005220620, Request for Discretionary Review for a proposal of a modification of an existing garage by expanding it to a three-storysingle family residence over a two car garage. The existing single familyresidence at the rear of the property will remain so that the subject propertywill contain a total of two dwelling units. The subject property lies withina RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height / BulkDistrict.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approveas proposed
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Mike Freit
- He has lived on Carolina for 5 years.
- He is 100 feet uphill from the proposed project. There are concerns about fire safety lane. He has concerns about the other downhill properties.
- He first requested to have building lowered. This idea was rejected. Then he requested to have the roof tapered and that was rejected as well.
(+) Jerry Agusta - Owner
- He submitted signatures of support from neighbors.
- He has been a builder in San Francisco since 1991. He thought that this was a non-controversial project.
- This building is less than 25 x 25 feet.
- He doesn ?t understand the view issue from his neighbor.
- He has worked hard to compromise and make the project fit into the neighborhood.
(+) Jonathan Pearlman - Project Architect
- Using Mr. Fray ?s diagram to show that he has a very substantial view. It is amazing that he is requesting modification.
- Across the street, every single building has a flat roof yet on the side of the street where the project will be constructed, there is a very mixed character.
(+) Haily Parsons
- She has watched the property owner bend over backwards to try to deal with the neighbors issues.
(+) Joseph Bradford
- He supports the project since the property owner has been sensitive tothe neighbors needs.
ACTION: Do not take DR and approve as submitted
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
F. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
?The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
SPEAKER(S): None
Adjournment: 10:20 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY,JANUARY 11, 2001.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, November 9, 2000
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay,Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:35 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Kelley LeBlanc; Roger Herrera; Dan DiBartolo; Paul Deutsch; Adam Light; John Davidson; Elizabeth Gordon; Michael Smith; Nora Priego - Executive Secretary; Patricia Gerber - Transcription Secretary;Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary
A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1. 2000.045D (WANG: 558-6335)
1117-1125 OCEAN AVENUE, Lots 041 and 042, in Assessor?s B lock6944 -- Request for Discretionary Review - proposing to demolish an existingground floor single-family residence and storefront on Lot 042, demolishan existing storefront and a garage on Lot 041, and construct a new four-story,mixed-use building occupying both lots, in an NC-2 (Small-Scale NeighborhoodCommercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted
(Proposed for Continuance to November 16, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to December 14, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
2. 2000.884D (PURVIS: 558-6354)
688 POWHATTAN AVENUE, Appeal of a determination of compatibility, pursuant to Planning Code Section 242(e)(6)(B), of Building Permit Application No. 2000/04/04/6293, to construct a 3-story, single-family dwelling at a height of 30 feet and with two off-street parking spaces. The project site is within an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District, with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation and is within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve project with modifications
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance to November 16, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to November 16, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
3. 2000.270C (BRESSANUTTI: 558-6892)
535-537 VALENCIA STREET, east side between 16th and 17th Streets; Lot 044 in Assessor?s block 3569: Request for Conditional Use authorization to (1) allow continued operation of an existing large (over 1,000 square feet) fast food restaurant, presently d.b.a. ?Cable Car Pizza?, per Section 726.43 of the Planning Code, and (2) to extend the hours of operation from 2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., per Section 726.27, in the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation : Approval of large fast food use; disapproval of extended hours.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance to November 16, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to November 16, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
4.1999.455E (NAVARRETE: 558-5975)
NEW DeYOUNG MUSEUM PROJECT, Certification ofEnvironmentalImpact Report. The proposed project would demolish and reconstruct theM.H. DeYoung Museum on the site of the existing DeYoung Museum in GoldenGate Park. The project would include demolition of eight existing buildings,totaling approximately 230,000 square feet, which compose the DeYoung Museumand the Asian Art Museum. (The Asian Art Museum will move to the Civic Center.) The new building would include two main levels above grade, one level below grade with a varying roof height ranging from 33 to 48 feet, and a 160-foot tower at the northeast corner of the project site. The building would increase current DeYoung Museum gallery and exhibition space at the site from theexisting 37,000 sf to total about 75,000 sf. The project would remove the85 existing paved parking spaces for museum staff, currently on the easternside of the museum, and would not provide replacement parking. The projectsite is within the P (Public Use) zoning district and within an OS (OpenSpace) Height and Bulk District; Assessor?s Block 1700, Lot 1, boundedto the north and east by John F. Kennedy Drive, to the south by Tea GardenDrive and to the west by the Hagiwara Japanese Tea Garden.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify Final Environmental Impact Report
(Proposed for Continuance to December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to December 7, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
5. 2000.1094K (NIKITAS: 558-6306)
NEW DEYOUNG MUSEUM PROJECT, Findings Regarding Planning Code Section 295 (Sunshine Ordinance). The proposed project would demolish and reconstruct the M.H. DeYoung Museum on the site of the existing DeYoung Museum in Golden Gate Park. The project would include demolition of eight existing buildings, totaling approximately 230,000 square feet, which compose the DeYoung Museum and the Asian Art Museum. (The Asian Art Museum will move to the Civic Center.) The new building would include two main levels above grade, one level below grade, with a varying roof height ranging from 33 to 48 feet, and a 160-foot tower at the northeast corner of the project site. The building would increase current DeYoung Museum gallery and exhibition space at the site from theexisting 37,000 sf to total about 75,000 sf. The project would remove the85 existing paved parking spaces for museum staff, currently on the easternside of the museum, and would not provide replacement parking. The project site is within the P (Public Use) zoning district and within an OS (OpenSpace) Height and Bulk District; Assessor's Block 1700, Lot 1, bounded tothe north and east by John F. Kennedy Drive, to the south by Tea Garden Driveand to the west by the Hagiwara Japanese Tea Garden. Section 295 of thePlanning Code requires, prior to approval of the project, that a determinationbe made that shading from the structure will not have a significant and adverseeffect on lands under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department. The Commission shall make this determination in a joint hearing with theRecreation and Park Commission to adopt implementation criteria.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to December 7, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
6. 2000.1094R (ALUMBAUGH: 558-6601)
GENERAL PLAN REFERRAL FOR THE NEW DEYOUNG MUSEUM PROJECT IN GOLDEN GATE PARK.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to December 7, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
7. 2000.1094V (WOODS: 558-6315)
NEW DEYOUNG MUSEUM PROJECT, Parking Variance Request. The proposal is to remove 85 surface parking spaces for museum staff, currently on the eastern side of the museum, and to construct a new DeYoung Museum without providing the required 156 off-street parking spaces. The project site is within the P (Public Use) Zoning District and within an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District; Assessor's Block 1700, Lot 1, bounded to the north and east by John F. Kennedy Drive, to the south by Tea Garden Drive, and to the west by the Hagiwara Japanese Tea Garden.
(Proposed for Continuance to December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to December 7, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
8.2000.052EZ: (BORDEN: 558-6321)
14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 50, AND 56 ARCO WAY AND THREE ADDITIONAL VACANT LOTS , north side of Arco Way, abutting the Bay Area Rapid Transit tracks; Lots 024, 025, 026, 027, 028, 032, 037, 038, 039, and 051 in Assessor's Block3154 -- Request to reclassify the subject property from P (Public District)to RH-1(Residential, House, One-Family District) with a 40-X Height and Bulk District designation. The rezoning of these parcels is related to building permit applications on file with the Department to construct ten single-family structures on the ten existing vacant lots. Each single-family dwelling will require separate approval under the building permit application process.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance to December 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to December 14, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
9. 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 address of the project site is 14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44, 50, 56 and 62 Arco Way. Two lots would be merged to create a total of nine legal lots. The proposed project includes the rezoning ofthe lots from Public (P) to Residential House-One Family (RH-1) with a 40-XHeight 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. The lots are along the northern side of Arco Way and range from 1,973 square feetto 9,900 square feet and abut the Bay Area Rapid Transit tracks to the north.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 9, 2000)
(Proposed for continuance to December 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to December 14, 2000
YES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
10.2000.578D (KEYLON: 558-6613)
1401 DOUGLASS STREET, southeast corner at Duncan Street, Lot No.020 in Assessor?s Block 6605 -- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 200002252837, 200002252844 and 200002252847 for demolition of an existing one-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling. The proposal includes the subdivision of the subject lot into two legal lots and construction of a new single-family dwelling unit on each new parcel. The subject lot is zoned RH-1 (House, One-Family) and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
(Proposed for continuance to December 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to December 14, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
11. 2000.046D (FALLAY; 558-6367)
2147 - 29TH AVENUE, Lot No. 012, in Assessor?s Block 218S. Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9912564, proposing to construct a third-story addition at the rear of the existing two-story, single-family dwelling within RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: It is the Department ?s view that the proposed third floor addition is within the buildable area of the lot and meets the minimum criteria of the volume and mass of the Residential Design Guidelines. The issue of light, air and view from the site of the Discretionary Review requester ?s building is not compelling enough to warrant a disapproval of the proposed third floor addition. The Department therefore recommends that the Commission do not take a Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
(Proposed for continuance to December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to December 7, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
B. COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
12. Commission Matters
None
C. DIRECTOR?S REPORT
13. Director ?s Announcements
None
14. Review of Past Week ?s Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals
None
15. 1999.176BX (LeBLANC: 558-6351)
Report on revised open space plan and art proposal for 235 Second Street. The original project was approved on March 2, 2000 in Motions Nos. 15003 and 15004.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: No Action Required
16. (ALUMBAUGH: 558-6601)
Update on the Better Neighborhoods 2002 project, per the Commission ?s request for quarterly updates.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: No Action Required
D. REGULAR CALENDAR
17. (GREEN: 558-6411)
Planning Commission consideration of adoption proposed changes to the Rules for the Office Development Annual Limitation Program.
SPEAKER(S):
Sue Hestor
- Need to have a lot of amendments to this study.
- Understand that Prop. M priority policy had been amended by Prop L.
- Staff has the Prop M material in the computer as does every developer in town who come within their Prop M policies; standards are different.
- Are EIRs complete?
- It is not an option to do a beauty contest, it is not a nice idea, it is the law.
- Need to have a full report from the City Attorney ?s Office.
- The department is now going to have to check the EIRs.
Tom Sullivan
- He would like to request an annual allocation limitation.
-Their
situation is unique in regards to the project at First and Howard, and this
would be an
appropriate action for two primary reasons:
1. Submitted an application for entire four buildings 9/99. Commission made all supporting findings and granted section 309 approval for all four buildings in March of this year, but granted annual allocation limitation for three buildings, specifically for buildings 2, 3, & 4.
2. The last building, building #1 has already been subject to the reviewdescribed in the director ?s memorandum, therefore believes that including it in the evaluation process being considered today is unnecessary.
- The Commission prefers to restrict the allocation in the March approval of buildings 2 and 3 because of concerns regarding land banking. He believes that this will not be the case. This is one of the most significant leases in the City. This will be the largest commitment to the City made by a Silicon Valley base technology company.
- He would like to thank the Commission
- He would like to request that Building #1 be scheduled on a Planning Commission agenda.
Unknown Speaker
- There are two new criteria spoken to, one of them is the one about projects that had been before the Commission for consideration at a prior date; the other is about art being supplied if it is not required.
- Office buildings in a C-3 zone are required to have art space.
Deborah Walker
- She would like to reiterate some of the concerns of Ms. Hestor.
- It would be a good gesture at this point and pause, and do what the public has asked.
Erick Quesada
- Section B, regarding housing policies, is there an input from the Mayor ?s Office?
Debra Stein
- There has been an inverted omission on the list of small buildings - 500 Pine Street should be added to this table.
- This draft is preference for a project that already had Planning Commission action. This means you have a bad project that had an EIR certified that failed for approval this year and somehow automatically get a higher rating next year.
- She has concerns about the revisions with regard to housing providing preference for a project that include construction housing.
- Urges Commission not to adopt any kind of preference for projects thatare not good enough for approval.
- Housing language should be amended.
- Should not restrict or discourage projects in the commercial court in the C-3 zones.
- Incentive or advantage to projects that do not currently have public art or open space requirements.
Jim Reuben
- If indeed Prop L pass, it is the law that there are things to be incorporated. We would do whatever is necessary to comply with whatever requirements might be added.
- All of the projects on the list are ready to go.
- Process be accelerated not delayed.
- Ms. Hestor was regrettably correct in regards to 2550 Cesar Chavez and601 King, both of which his office has been representing. This office couldhave a problem if indeed Prop L. pass.
ACTION: Continued to December 7, 2000 (Public Comment Remains Open).
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
18. (RICH: 558-6345)
General Plan Referral for Urban Design aspects of the Third Street LightRail Project, including, station platforms, street lighting, trackwaypaving, and other urban design elements.
Preliminary Recommendation: Finding of conformance with the General Plan.
Note: On October 12, 2000, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to 10/26/00 to explore funding sources by a vote of +7 -0.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued toDecember 7, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
19. (MALTZER: 558-6391)
ADOPTION OF NEW POLICIES REGARDING OFFICE USE AND CONVERSION OF LIVE/WORK (LOFT HOUSING) WITHIN INTERIM INDUSTRIAL PROTECTION ZONES AND MIXED USEHOUSING ZONES - Consideration of adopting new policies to discourageoffice development and to further discourage the conversion of live/workto office within the Interim Controls boundary area. These new policiesare to supplement existing policies previously adopted August 5, 1999 (CPCRes. 14861).
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Resolution creating new Policies within Interim Zones
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to November 16, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
20. 2000.996T: (HERRERA: 558-6316)
HOURS OF OPERATION - Consideration of amendments to the Planning Code Sections 206.3, 209.8 and to add Section 303 (c)(7) to require Conditional Use Authorization with Good Neighbor Policies per Section 805.5 for hours of operation between 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. in the RC-3 and RC-4 Districts forbilliard hall, dance hall, nightclub, other amusement enterprise and nighttimeentertainment activities, and adult entertainment; and to require ConditionalUse Authorization for hours of operation between 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. in theRC-3 and RC-4 Districts for bars and various eating establishments (full-service restaurant, large fast-food restaurant, and small self service restaurant); and to amend Sections 210.3 and 221(f) to require Conditional Use Authorizationto operate amusement and adult entertainment enterprises in C-3-R and C-3-Gdistricts between the hours of 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.
Recommendation: Adoption of proposed amendments.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Overdorf
- He supports the proposed zoning changes with some major revisions.
- An EIR needs to be done.
- Parking and traffic is an important issue.
- A plan needs to be done; we need to protect our neighborhood.
(+) Robert Garcia - President of Save our Streets
- This protection needs to be adopted.
- People in the neighborhood need their sleep. People who come to visit and stay in hotels, need their
sleep as well.
- He wants to applaud Supervisor Becerril for initiating this ordinance.
- There are 4,000 children in this neighborhood.
(+) Lorrie Pentel
- The legislation is an attempt to have reasonable controls for late-night permits.
- This was initiated with the concerns of neighbors in the area.
- Supervisor Becerril had several meetings to find out the exact the concerns and comments from the neighbors.
(+)Phillip Fate
- This is the most important housing issue since the Commission enacted the 1978 North of Market Special Use District. That legislation insure thatit would remain a residential neighborhood.
- Neighbors should not be evicted.
- The bottom line is that the Commissioners would not like an all night venue right next to their bedrooms.
Edith Laderback
- When this district was named the Tenderloin, it was to describe the more desirable section in the heart of the City.
- The area deteriorated into a district permitted with the worst elements of urban America.
- In recent years, the Tenderloin has worked hard to outgrow these destructive activities.
- Families and children must be cherished and protected in the heart of our City.
- Please don ?t let the Tenderloin go back to the wasteland that it is rapidly outgrowing.
- Let ?s continue to progress to make the real Tenderloin of our City.
Daniel Emerson
- He is president of a thriving manufacturing company.
- The proposed changes concern him regarding the safety for families andseniors, parking, traffic, and schools in the neighborhood.
- The Mission is a City treasure.
Nick Flynt
- He doesn ?t believe that this needs to be done at all.
- Many of the people in the area are young people working in the area who pay taxes.
- He would like to preserve this area as it is and not require the conditional use for late night permits.
Leslie Aires
- Would like the Commission to vote against this legislation.
- Misconception about what it is going on at night in the Tenderloin.
- Need places for young people to go at night.
- Night hour people are not some sort of freaks, weirdos; most of them are people who work hard during the day, and structure their life to go out at night.
- Do not put restrictions on a small business.
- Preserve and promote late night option, to keep San Francisco the amazing City it has been since the Gold Rush.
(-) Tarrence Allen
- He is a property owner in the tenderloin. He faces the economic reality of this interesting
neighborhood everyday.
- The Moratorium district has been closed for two years to a ban for after hours activities.
- If there were going to be huge problems with this legislation, the problems would come up in areas outside of the moratorium area.
- If you adopt the Conditional Use requirements for after hours you willbegin to stifle the economic fatally which is beginning to gain back thevery area of San Francisco, that needs it the most.
(-) Patricia Bresland
-Concerned about the amount of time it would take to process this legislation. Supervisor Becerril
made a step in the right direction.
- Provide adequate parking for handicap people.
- Hours of operations are simply the results of supply men to men.
- Common criticism from our international visitors, is that this City donot have late night dinner.
(-) Kathleen Harrington
- She has reservations about this legislation.
ACTION: Approve Legislation
AYES: Joe, Salinas
NAYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay
ACTION: Continue to December 7, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
21. 2000.987BCX (MILLER: 558-6344)
530-32 FOLSOM STREET (also known as 41 Clementina Street) - northeast corner at Ecker Street, between First and Second Streets, Lot 17 in Assessor?s Block 3736 --Request for Determination of Compliance pursuant to Section309 with respect to a proposal to convert an existing building currentlybeing remodeled/expanded for live/work to office use. There would be noaddition of gross floor area. Parking would be reconfigured to provide 19independently-accessible spaces and one tandem space on the ground level,accessed from Clementina Street. The project is within a C-3-S (DowntownSupport) District and 200-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2000)
ON CALENDAR IN ERROR
22. 2000.918C (DiBARTOLO: 558-6291)
1402 GRANT AVENUE, east side between Green and Union Streets; Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 115 --Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Section 303 (e) of the Planning Code to modify Condition #2 as approved in Case 89.540C and Motion 11782, to allow the existing Small Self-Service Restaurant to extend the hours of operation beyond 10 pm to 2 am and to open at 6 am instead of the current 8 am, as permitted in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
MOTION NO.: 16026
23. 1999.812E (DEUTSCH: 558-5965)
3200 CALIFORNIA STREET- JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF SAN FRANCISCO. Certification of Final Environmental Impact (EIR). W ithin an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) Zoning District, the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and the 40-X Height and Bulk District, the proposed project would demolish the existing Jewish Community Center(JCC) and the four other structures on the project site (north side of California Street between Presidio Avenue and Walnut Street; Assessor's Block 1021,Lots 5, 6, 24, 25, 28, 29 and 31-37) for the construction of a three-storycommunity center building containing approximately 120,225 gross square feet,excluding parking. The new building would range in height from about 50to 61 feet. The new building would accommodate JCC community, recreationaland educational uses which would be generally a continuation of its current programs. New or expanded space would include an expanded theater/auditorium, additional meeting rooms and classrooms, and a new restaurant and a retailstore. The fitness and recreation facilities would be expanded to containa lap pool, recreational pool and new workout areas. The project would provideup to 181 parking spaces in two below-grade parking levels in an approximately89,000 gross-square-foot garage. The project includes the establishmentof a proposed California Street and Presidio Avenue Community Center SpecialUse District, and modification of the Height and Bulk District from the current 40-X to a proposed 65-X.
Note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR ended on September 12, 2000. Public comments on the EIR certification only may be presented.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify Final Environmental Impact Report
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Cynthia Servednick
- Why is it necessary to tear down the existing structure.
- Final EIR should not be certified for three reasons, 1) there are two potentially viable alternatives that have not been explored; 2) Art Deco Society of California has filed an appeal against not granting landmark status to the building; 3) believes that the Special Use District, which been created for California and Presidio only benefit the JCC and not the entire community.
(-) Joseph Breall
- Requests that the Commission not to approve the EIR.
- EIR has not properly addressed both the land use and the housing issues.
- The JCC has properly used the building.
(-) Linda Atwood-Miller
- She doesn ?t agree with the Commission to certify the EIR.
- There have been findings that do not correlate with the factual information.
- Final Draft failed to address the factual information that had been presented during the course of all these procedures and in regards to the historical value, landmark status of the building.
- There is an proposed alternative project that has not been considered.This proposed alternative provide the solution that could satisfy the needsof all parties, it will be premature to certify the Environmental ImpactReport.
(-) Arnie Lerner
- Keep this historic center for uses by seniors citizens, not for profituses.
(-) Hal Glatzner - Board member to the Art Deco Society
- Delay the certification.
- Seriously explore the proposal to build on what is now a building sitethat the University has chosen not to use.
ACTION: Certified
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
MOTION NO: 16027
24. 1999.812C (LIGHT: 558-6254)
3200 CALIFORNIA STREET - request to adopt California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA) findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan related to the proposed Planning Code Text Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Conditional Use authorization, all of which together will facilitate the replacement of the existing Jewish Community Center of San Francisco building and four adjacent structures with a new Jewish Community Center building.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Draft Resolution
Items 24 through 27 were called together.
SPEAKER(S):
Joshua Steinhauser - Coblentz, Patch, Duffy and Bass, Representing Project Sponsor
(+) Nate Levine
- The Jewish Community Center is a dynamic institution that serves all San Franciscans.
- The proposed site is essential for their survival.
- They have modified and re-modified the design of the building, taking into consideration the concerns and issues of the surrounding neighbors.
- He is very happy with the support received from the neighborhood.
(+) Kevin Hart - Project Architect - Gensler and Associates
- Gave an overall description of the project
(+) Sandy Blackman
- She is familiar with all the needs of the center.
- The design of the new center has been a long and involved process.
- The new building will provide a wonderful resource to the people of San Francisco.
(+) Nina Madeline - Menorah Park
- The seniors from the Menorah Park center will benefit greatly from thenew JCC since it will provide lunch service and activities.
(+) Rick Mariano - Owner of the Laurel Inn
- His building has been there for more than 30 years.
- The JCC has been a wonderful neighbor.
- He is very excited that this project is finally moving forward.
- His daughter went to the JCC kindergarten center.
(+) Ron Blackman
- He urges the Commission to approve the JCC project.
- People like himself who have young children need a place like this to be able to take their children and be able to stay in the City.
(-) Ron Miguel - President of the Planning Association of the Richmond
- He is happy with the decision the Commission made a few weeks ago to not designate the old JCC building a landmark.
- He doesn ?t believe that there is any viable alternative to the new building.
- Programs are more important than the building.
- This new facility is important for the JCC to succeed.
(-) Teresa LaQuey
- It?s a shame that bits of the City are being chipped away.
- The JCC should try to find a way to remain in the current building.
(-) Lorie Gordon
- She is a member of the Jewish community and a member of the Art Deco Society.
- She agrees that the JCC should expand its services, yet the JCC shouldfind another place to construct a building.
- She would like to see the new construction across the street and be able to use the current building for another use and therefore not demolish it.
(-) Hal Glatzner
- Everyone wants the JCC to expand and construct the building across thestreet.
- Urge the Commission to postpone making a final decision.
(-) Joseph Breall
- You cannot Ellis Act condominium units.
- If conditional use is granted and we opposed the eviction, the JCC will use a different eviction, an eviction based in demolition.
- Postpone the project.
- How can a gymnasium replace a housing unit in this City, which is having the greatest housing problems in the entire nation?
(-) Cynthia Servednick
- Would like to see the USF, JCC and the community to get together and look at this realistically, and see if there are another alternatives.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
RESOLUTION NO. 16028
25. 1999.812T (LIGHT: 558-6254)
3200 CALIFORNIA STREET - request for approval of Planning Code TextAmendment to create a new California Street and Presidio Avenue CommunityCenter Special Use District (California/Presidio SUD) which will facilitatethe replacement of the existing Jewish Community Center of San Franciscobuilding and four adjacent structures with a new Jewish Community Centerbuilding.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Draft Resolution
SPEAKER(S): Same as item #24 ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
RESOLUTION NO. 16029
26. 1999.812Z (LIGHT: 558-6254)
3200 CALIFORNIA STREET - request for approval of Zoning Map Amendment to designate a new California Street and Presidio Avenue Community Center Special Use District (California/Presidio SUD) which will facilitate thereplacement of the existing Jewish Community Center of San Francisco buildingand four adjacent structures with a new Jewish Community Center building.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Draft Resolution
SPEAKER(S): Same as item #24 ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
RESOLUTION NO. 16030
27. 1999.812C (LIGHT: 558-6254)
3200 CALIFORNIA STREET - request for a Conditional Use authorization to permit the replacement of the existing Jewish Community Center of San Francisco building and four adjacent structures with a new Jewish Community Center building, conforming to the provisions of the proposed CaliforniaStreet and Presidio Avenue Community Center Special Use District (California/Presidio SUD).
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Draft Motion
SPEAKER(S): Same as item #24 ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION NO. 16031
E. SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 5:15 P.M. the Planning Commission will convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.
28. 2000.1005D (DAVIDSON: 558-6363)
3352 CLAY STREET, north side between Presidio Avenue and Walnut Street, Lot 010 in Assessor?s Block 997 -- Department staff-initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 200003134135 proposing to reduce the number of legal dwelling units in a building from five to three in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As a part of this proposal, one illegal dwelling unit would also be removed.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve a modified project reducing the number of legal dwelling units from five to four.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Desmond Hayes - Co-Owner
- Reducing it to three units - we are not taking any units out of the market.
- Building was originally built as a duplex.
- No permit has ever been issued to allow five units.
-
Planning Department has approved the designation of three units, except that
they are basing their objections on City policies that opposes the reduction on
affordable housing
- his nephew and his niece are living in the units.
(-) Patrick Hayes - Co-Owner
- His children are the ones who live in the unit.
(+) Edward Manor
- Voiced his support and concerns.
-
The proposal of reducing from five existing units to four in a single family
zone, is not a
conformity use.
- Concerned about this setting a dangerous precedent for the Planning Commission to consider disallowing other code requirements such as parking, etc.
Sabrina Holman
- She does not oppose the remodel of the house since it needs to be repaired.
- She would like the Commission to ask the following: 1) present a clearand honest assessment of the scope of the work to be done and a reasonableaccurate time frame; 2) make sure that the rear of the building meets thecode and rules for the lot size; 3) protect the children in the neighborhoodagainst led.
ACTION: Take DR and Disapprove Project.
AYES: Baltimore, Joe
NAYES: Theoharis, Mills, Salinas, Fay, Chinchilla,
29. 1997.379D (GORDON: 558-6309)
386 ALABAMA/2625 16TH STREET, entire block bounded by 16th Street, Alabama Street, 17th Street and Harrison Street. Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 3967. Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 9801586, 9801587 and 9801588, proposing development of three four-story live/work buildings containing 64 units within the Industrial Protection Zone and the NEMIZ area. The three proposed buildings will contain 153,333 square feet total. The project also includes: 84 off-street parking spaces, three loading spaces and a maximum of nine ground-floor level commercial retail spaces, 84 off-street parking spaces and 3 off-street loading spaces. The proposed buildings would be approximately 50 feet tall. Per Planning CommissionResolution No. 14861, adopted on August 8, 1999, all live/work projects submittedprior to April 22, 1999 (pipeline projects) within the Industrial ProtectionZone are subject to a mandatory Discretionary Review process before the Planning Commission. The subject building permit applications were submitted January 29, 1998. The project site is within the M-1 (Light Industrial) District, the Industrial Protection Zone, the NEMIZ area, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take discretionary review, approve building permits as submitted.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to December 14, 2000
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas
30. 2000.1014D (SMITH: 558-6322)
649 DARIEN WAY, Lot No. 009, in Assessor?s Block 3263 , Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 2000/07//127/6312, proposing to construct a second floor addition within the existing attic space of a one-family dwelling in a RH-1(D) District. The proposal involves constructing dormers in the attic to add approximately 563 square feet to habitable area to the dwelling.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approvethe proposal as it was submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) David Burness - Project Architect
- The proposed addition will have a significant negative affect on the next door neighbor ?s home.
- He proposes revised additions to the house.
- Concern with the loss of sunlight, view and air.
- Proposed plans do not show the real scope of work.
(-) Dr. Michael Siu
- There is an issue as to whether the house is actually complying with the Planning Code.
- Compromising with a permanent eye impairment patient, who has and willneed sunlight.
- He would recommend lowering the height of the addition.
(-) Dr. Lilly Siu
- She is not trying to stop the addition of the proposed project. All she is trying to do is to be a good neighbor and work together.
- There were times when she and her family were able to speak to the project sponsor.
(+) Stan Pankow - Project Architect - Pankow Architects
- Gave a description of the project.
(+) Mike Cordiani, Owner
- Need to expand his property for his children.
ACTION: Do not take DR and approve project.
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas
NAYES: Fay
F. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
?The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
None.
Adjournment: 5:30 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Board of Supervisors Chambers - Room 250
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, November 16, 2000
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay,Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:34 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Kelly Le Blanc, Steve Shotland, Joan Kugler, Alison Borden, Dan Sider, Susan Snyder, Jim Miller, Thomas Wang, Lesley Buford, Andrea Wong, Mary Woods, Patricia Gerber - Transcription Secretary; Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary
A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1. 2000.964DDDD(MEHRA: 558-6257)
250 SEA CLIFF AVENUE , Building Permit Application No. 200006213244, Case No. 2000.964D, for the property at, Lot 1M on Assessor's Block 1307. The proposal is to construct a one-story addition--391 sq. ft. in size--on the second floor on an existing deck adjacent to the master bedroom suite, above the garage on the east side of the property. The addition will accommodate an exercise and dressing room and will not encroach into the required rear or side yards. This property is in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, Single-family detached) district and a 35-X Height and Bulk district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted
(Proposed for Continuance to December 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
2. 2000.887C (YOUNG: 558-6346)
929 MARKET STREET, south side between 5th and 6th Streets; Lots 064, 074, 075 in Assessor's Block 3704: -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 219 of the Planning Code to establish office use at the second story level of an existing commercial building within an C-3-R(Downtown Retail) District and 120-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
(Proposed for Continuance to December 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
3.1997.379E (NAVARRETE: 558-5975)
386 ALABAMA STREET: Appeal of a Negative Declaration - The proposal is to construct three buildings on a 49,700 square-foot lot bounded by Alabama, 16th, 17th and Harrison Streets (Assessor?s Block 3967, Lot 1). The site is currently vacant and has several addresses on record: 386 Alabama Street, 2625 16th Street, 2001 Harrison Street, 2051 Harrison Street, and 2095 Harrison Street. The project would include a total of 64 live/workunits, 9 retail/commercial spaces, and parking for 84 cars. There wouldbe a total of approximately 15,834 square feet of commercial space, about53,340 square feet of parking, and 83,159 square feet of live/work space. The total size of the three buildings combined would be approximately 153,400 square feet. Each building would have a loading space and a separate garageentrance and exit. There would be garage access on 16th, Harrison, and 17thStreets. The main pedestrian entrances and loading would be on Alabama Street. The new buildings would be approximately 50 feet in height and would coverthe entire lot. This proposed project is located in an M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. It is also within the Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ)adopted by the Planing Commission as an interim zoning control. However,the building permit applications were submitted in 1998 and is a ?grand fathered project? under Planning Commission Resolution No. 14861.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to December 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
4. 2000.641E (NAVARRETE: 558-5975)
1047 MISSISSIPPI STREET The proposal is to demolish the existing 1,500 square foot one-story structure and construct a 14,500 square foot, three-story building, with nine live/work units and 11 parking spaces. The buildingwould be approximately 40 feet in height. The project site is located inan M-1 zoning district, within a 40-X height/bulk district, as well as withinan Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ) Buffer, adopted by the Planning Commission as an interim zoning control. Conditional Use authorization would be required for live/work use in the IPZ Buffer.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to December 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
5.
2000.877D
(DAVIDSON: 558-6363)
240 - 16TH AVENUE, north side between California and Clement Streets, Lot 037 in Assessor's Block 1418. Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application No.2000/07/25/6060. The proposal would add a four-story addition to the rear of the existing single family dwelling, and reconfigure the building interior to create a second living unit in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Dwelling and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit with modifications.
(Proposed for Continuance to December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued asproposed
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
6a. 2000.987BCXV (MILLER: 558-6344)
530 FOLSOM STREET, (AKA 41 Clementina Street), northeast corner at Ecker Street, between First and Second Streets, Lot 17 in Assessor?s Block 3736 - Request for authorization of a CONDITIONAL USE for approximately 6,000 square feet of OFFICE SPACE AT OR BELOW THE GROUND FLOOR and not offering on-site services to the general public and for OFF-STREET PARKING EXCEEDING ACCESSORY AMOUNTS (20 spaces where 15 are permitted), in conjunction with conversion of live/work units to approximately 46,000 square feet of office space, requiring review under Planning Code Sections 309 and 321 (also requiring a Variance of Planning Code standards for open space), in a C-3-S (Downtown Support) District and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(Proposed for Continuance to December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
6b. 2000.987BCXV (MILLER: 558-6344)
530 FOLSOM STREET, (AKA 41 Clementina Street), northeast corner at Ecker Street, between First and Second Streets, Lot 17 in Assessor?s Block 3736 -- in a C-3-S (Downtown Support) District and a 200-S Height and Bulk District (Lots 61 and 62). DOWNTOWN OPEN SPACE VARIANCE SOUGHT: The proposal is to substitute an in lieu monetary contribution to the City?s Folsom Boulevard streetscape project for usable open space improvements along Folsom Street approved (but not yet emplaced) as part of the live/work project currently under construction on the site (and proposed for conversion to office space).
(Proposed for Continuance to December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
7. 2000.270C (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)
535-537 VALENCIA STREET - east side between 16th and 17th Streets; Lot 044 in Assessor?s block 3569: Request for Conditional Use authorization to (1) allow continued operation of an existing large (over 1,000 squarefeet) fast food restaurant, presently d.b.a. ?Cable Car Pizza?,per Section 726.43 of the Planning Code, and (2) to extend the hours of operation from 2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., per Section 726.27, in the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation : None
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 9, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance to December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
8. 1999.690E (BUFORD: 558-5973)
3000 THIRD STREET - Assessor?s Block 4315, Lots 8 &13; Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposal is to demolish the existing 11,000 square feet building and construct a three-story, 225,000 square feet building with 145 parking spaces. The building wouldconsists of 150,000 square feet of light industrial space on the second andthird floors. The ground floor would consist of a cafe that is 3,900 squarefeet and 13,000 square feet of retail. The majority of the new building wouldbe at a height of 60 feet with the exception of the 10 x 10 parapet and clocktower on the southwest corner of the building, where the highest point ofthe tower would be approximately 80 feet in height. The vehicular accessto the parking lot would be from Cesar Chavez Street and 26th Street. Theproject would replace an existing two-story vehicle maintenance and officebuilding. The majority of the site was is currently used as equipment storageand parking for buses and vans. The project site is located within the M-2(Heavy Industrial) zoning district and within the 80-E Height and Bulk district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2000 )
(Proposed for Continuance to December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
9. 2000.884D (PURVIS: 558-6354)
688 POWHATTAN AVENUE, Appeal of a determination of compatibility, pursuant to Planning Code Section 242(e)(6)(B), of Building Permit Application No. 2000/04/04/6293, to construct a 3-story, single-family dwelling at a height of 30 feet and with two off-street parking spaces. The project site is within an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District, with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation and is within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve project with modifications
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October November 2, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance to December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
C. COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
10. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of 10/12/00 and 10/19/00
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
11. Commission Matters
Mills: Open Space along the eastern part of the City
Schedule for 1st. Hearing in January, 2001
D. DIRECTOR?S REPORT
12. Director ?s Announcements.
Apologized about not having the presentation nor the right language ready, regarding the Job Housing Linkage.
13. Review of Past Week ?s Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
BOA: 2412 Harrison Street - Uphold Planning Commission ?s decision by a vote +5 -0.
673 Brannan - Uphold Planning Commission ?s decision by a vote of +4 -1
BOS: None
14. 1998.497B (LeBLANC: 558-6351)
Report on art proposal for 215 Fremont Street. The project was approvedon August 10, 2000 in Motion No. 15939.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: No action required
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
15. 1998.766BX (LeBLANC: 558-6351)
Report on revised art proposal for 535 Mission Street. The original project was approved on April 13, 2000 in Motions Nos. 15026 and 15027.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 12/14/00
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
E. REGULAR CALENDAR
16. 1999.178ET: JOBS-HOUSING LINKAGE PROGRAM (GREEN: 558-6411)
CONSIDERATION OF INITIATING AMENDMENT OF THE PLANNING CODE AND CONSIDERATION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ORDINANCE NOS. 00276 AND 00277; Amending Sections 313 through 313.14, and by adding 313.15, to rename the OFFICE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION PROGRAM as the JOBS-HOUSING LINKAGE PROGRAM, to apply the program to all new and expanded hotel space of at least 25,000 square feet, to all new and expanded entertainment space of at least 50,000 square feet, and to all new and expanded retail space of at least 100,000 square feet.
Preliminary Recommendation :
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to12/7/00
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
17. 1999.771ET (SHOTLAND: 558-6308)
SOUTH OF MARKET BILLBOARD AMENDMENT, Consideration of a proposal to INITIATE an AMENDMENT to Part II, Chapter II of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Planning Code) which would amend Articles 6 and 8 to clarify that general advertising signs are not permitted in South of Market Districts, except in the South of Market General Advertising Special Sign District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Initiate Proposed Amendment and Schedule a public hearing on December 7, 2000.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Initiated
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION NO. 16032
18. 2000.998TZ LORD (558-6311)
NOE-EUREKA VALLEY SPECIAL USE DISTRICT, Consideration of a proposal to amend Part II, Chapter II of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Planning Code) by adding Section 245 to create the Noe-Eureka Valley Special Use District for the property within the area generally bounded by 18th Street to the north; Dolores Street to the east; 30th and Clipper Street to the south;Douglass Street and Grand View Avenue to the west. The Noe-Eureka ValleySpecial Use District will place additional restrictions on residential buildingheights, rear yards, design and unit mergers by amending Planning Code Sections 102, 132, 134, and 252.1 to reflect and cross-reference the provisions ofSection 245.
Preliminary Recommendation: The Commission takes no action on the initiated ordinance and reports to the Board of Supervisors on important planning issues as recommended considerations prior to Board action. These important planning issues are contained in a Draft Planning Commission Resolution that is recommended for adoption by the Planning Department staff.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued Indefinitely
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
19. 2000.999TZ LORD (558-6311)
GLEN PARK SPECIAL USE DISTRICT, Consideration of a proposal to amendPart II, Chapter II of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Planning Code) byadding Section 245.1 to create the Glen Park Special Use District for theproperty within the area generally bounded by 30th Street to the north; SanJose Avenue to the east; Bosworth Street to the south; Elk Street and DiamondHeights Boulevard to the west. The Glen Park Special Use District will placeadditional restrictions on residential building heights, rear yards, designand unit mergers by amending Planning Code Sections 102, 132, 134, and 252.1to reflect and cross-reference the provisions of Section 245.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: The Commission takes no action on the initiated ordinance and reports to the Board of Supervisors on important planning issues as recommended considerations prior to Board action. These important planning issues are contained in a Draft Planning Commission Resolution that is recommended for adoption by the Planning Department staff.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued Indefinitely
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
20. (MALTZER: 558-6391)
ADOPTION OF NEW POLICIES REGARDING OFFICE USE AND CONVERSION OF LIVE/WORK (LOFT HOUSING) WITHIN INTERIM INDUSTRIAL PROTECTION ZONES AND MIXED USEHOUSING ZONES - Consideration of adopting new policies to discourageoffice development and to further discourage the conversion of live/workto office within the Interim Controls boundary area. These new policiesare to supplement existing policies previously adopted August 5, 1999 (CPCRes. 14861).
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Resolution creating new Policies within Interim Zones
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 9, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to 12/7/00
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
21. 2000.1007T (LORD: 558-6311)
LIVE-WORK TO LOFT HOUSING AMENDMENT -Consideration of amendments to Part II, Chapter II, of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Planning Code) by amending Sections 102.7 and 102.13 to redefining live/work units as loft housing and classifying them as residential uses; repealing Section 233 regarding live/work; adding Section 232 to establish requirements for loft housing that wouldsubject it to existing live/work controls except that there would be norestriction on the nature of work which could be performed in the unit solong as the use is permitted in the SSO (Service/Secondary Office) ZoningDistrict and no requirement that the occupant(s) work in the unit, wouldestablish density standards, would require loft housing to comply with existing inclusionary housing policies, would require loft housing in residential areas to comply with all requirements for residential uses including theresidential design guidelines, would require loft housing constructed inareas not zoned residential to comply with non-residential design guidelinesand all requirements for residential uses except for height, front setbackand open space requirements, would establish procedures for converting live/workunits to non-residential uses, and would establish loft housing rear yardstandards; states that this ordinance supersedes any inconsistent planningcommission policies.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the Draft Ordinance
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to 12/7/00
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
22. 2000.474E (KUGLER: 558-5983)
1001 17TH STREET, Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposed project is located at the southwest corner of 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue in the northern portion of the Potrero Hill Neighborhood (lots 9 & 10 of Assessor?s Block 3987). The project would remove an existing single-story warehouse with office mezzanine and adjacent storage yard and would construct a new four-level over basement, 50-foot tall, commercial building of approximately 68,290 sq.ft. for business service use with retail on the ground floor. The site has an approximate area of 15,361 sq. ft.. The building entrance and access to the 57 spaces of parking (50 independently accessible and 7 tandem) in the ground and basement levels would be fromPennsylvania Avenue while the loading dock entrance would be off 17th Street. Along with about 37,000 sq.ft. of commercial/business service uses the buildingwould contain about 2,550 sq.ft. of retail space and about 28,740 sq.ft.of parking/building service area. The proposed building would be constructedto cover the entire site. The site is zoned M-2 with a 50-X Height/Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 12, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Alice Barkley, representing Project Sponsor
- Submitted letter to Commission on 10/18 on behalf of the Project Sponsor
- Negative Declaration should be affirmed and Appeal denied
(+) Manny Flores
- Project should be approved
ACTION: Upheld Negative Declaration
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION NO. 16033
23. 1997.433A (KOMETANI: 558-6478)
22 ALTA STREET, north side between Montgomery and Sansome Streets. Lot 34A in Assessor's Block 106 --Request for Certificate of Appropriatenessauthorization, under Article 10 of the Planning Code, to construct a new,one-unit, residential building, two-stories at the front (Alta Street) elevationand five-stories at the rear in the Telegraph Hill Historic District. Thesubject property is zoned RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District and is in a40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 19, 2000)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to 12/1400
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
24. 2000.817B (WONG: 558-6381)
2550 CESAR CHAVEZ STREET, north side, near the intersection of Vermont Street; Lot 016 in Assessor?s block 4329 - Request under Planning Code Section 321 for authorization to convert 33,500 gross square feet in thebuilding from industrial use to office use and to create an additional 10,000gross square feet of office use for a total of 43,500 gross square feet. The subject property falls within a M-1(Light Industrial) Zoning District and a 50-X/65-J Height and Bulk District. It also lies in the Industrial Protection Zone of the Industrial Land Interim Zoning Controls .
Preliminary Recommendation: No Recommendation
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
WITHDRAWN
25. 2000.724C (WONG: 558-6381)
1104 YORK STREET, west side, between 23rd and 24th Streets, Lot 038 in Assessor's Block 4209, a request for conditional use authorization for the continuance for a nonconforming use. This is for a metal fabrication business in an RM-1 Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Steve Lisko, Project Sponsor
- Parking is one of the key issue on the area
- 23rd Street is a driveway
- Concerned about 4 year conditional use permit
- Strongest desire to keep their business at the present location
ACTION: Approved with revised conditions for a conditional use to 8yrs.
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION NO. 16034
26. 2000.291CZ (WOODS: 558-6315)
1062 OAK STREET, north side, between Divisadero and Scott Streets, Lot 19 in Assessor?s Block 1216- Request to amend the Planning Code Zoning Map to reclassify a portion of Lot 19 from an RH-3 (Residential, House,Three-Family) District to an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District. Currently, the northern portion of Lot 19 (trapezoidal-shaped of approximately113 feet wide by 82 feet deep) is zoned RH-3 and is in a 40-X Height andBulk District; the southern portion of Lot 19 (a narrow strip of approximately25 feet wide by 90 feet deep) is zoned NC-2 and is in a 65-A Height and BulkDistrict. The proposal is to reclassify the RH-3 portion of the lot 19 toNC-2 to allow the expansion of an existing car wash (Touchless Car Wash). The Height and Bulk District of the reclassified portion of Lot 19 wouldremain 40-X.
The project sponsor, on November 8, 2000, has modified the proposal to reclassify only the northwest portion of lot 19, approximately 4,300 square feet, from RH-3 to NC-2 zoning district.
Original Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of the Draft Resolution for Reclassification.
NOTE: On August 24, 2000, after public testimony, the Commission closed public comment and continued the matter to September 14, 2000 to allow the project sponsor time to meet with neighborhood groups and develop modifications to the project. Public comment will be re-opened to address proposed modifications only.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Troy Suchmacher, Project Sponsor
- Project deserve approval
(+) Harry O ?Brien
- Conditions needs to be specific about what needs to be done before theexpansion takes place
- Specific requirement that the project sponsor submit, before the cuing area be use a report reviewing the status of those conditions and how they been satisfied
- Conditions of approval include: a new soundwall along the eastern edge of the property, a new landscaping and barriers at the sidewalk edging, 25 foot clear zone at the Oak Street side ___, traffic monitors, weekly steam street cleaning of the sidewalks, and very important commiment to work with Ella Hills Hutch Community Center to increase the neighborhood employment
- Eliminated all commercial floor area focused on residential development
- Project Sponsor and neighborhood work very hard to come to an agreement on revision to the project, that we think will make a better project
(-) Patricia Vaughey
- Monitors at least specified clearly, they should not only be for the Oak Street side but also to keep the two Divisadero Exits clear
- Concerned the memo of understanding, between Ella Hills Hutch Community Center on 1984, 1985, 1992, 1994, 1997 and 1998
- MOUs were never signed
- Another issue is enforcement of conditional of approvals
- Neighbors do not approve this project
- This project need to be denied
(-) Valerie Hartwell
- Commending the project sponsor for negotiating with the neighborhood
- They can make all improvements without expanding
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
EXCUSED: Baltimore
MOTION NO. 16035
27. 2000.291CZ (WOODS: 558-6315)
444 DIVISADERO STREET AND 1052-62 OAK STREET, northeast corner of Oak and Divisadero Streets, Lots 5, 17, 18 and 19 in Assessor?s Block 1216 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 186.1, 209.7,303, 304 and 711.59 of the Planning Code to permit a Planned Unit Developmentfor the expansion of an existing car wash (Touchless Car Wash) in an NC-2(Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District within 65-A and 40-X Heightand Bulk District.
Original Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
NOTE: On August 24, 2000, after public testimony, the Commission closed public comment and continued the matter to September 14, 2000 to allow the project sponsor time to meet with neighborhood groups and develop modifications to the project. Public comment will be re-opened to address proposed modifications only.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
EXCUSED: Baltimore
MOTION NO. 16036
28. 2000.572C (BORDEN: 558-6321)
2543 NORIEGA STREET, southeast corner of 33rd Avenue and Noriega Street; Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 2069 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow the installation of three antennas, all at the roof of the existing building, and five equipment cabinets at the first floor, as part of a wireless telecommunications network operated by Sprint PCS, pursuant to Planning Code Section 711.83, in the NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Robert Cribbs, Project Sponsor Representing Sprint PCS ____
- This conditional use petition comply with both the WTS Guidelines and the San Francisco Municipal code
- It is neccessary to provide reliable service to the area
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION NO. 16037
29. 2000.960C (SIDER: 558-6697)
501 DOLORES STREET, southeast corner of 18th Street; Lot 046 in Assessor's Block 3587: Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow an entertainment use on the first floor of the subject structure, pursuant to Planning Code Section 710.48 in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation. The proposal is to conduct performances at the Dolores Park Cafe of non-amplified music, singing, and poetry-readings. No physical changes are to be made to the structure.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(+) Jerry Klein, representing Project Sponsor
- Project should be approve
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION NO. 16038
F. SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 4:38 P.M. the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.
30a. 2000.779D (S.SNYDER: 558-6543)
746 CAROLINA STREET, on the west side of Carolina Street, between 20th and 22nd Streets, on Lot 5 of Assessor's block 4096, proposing to construct a new two-family dwelling on a vacant lot in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Charlie Burnett, Architect and Co-Owner
- Lot is 2500 square feet
- Proposed building is two unit
- Keeping low as possible, beneath the cliff
-get light and air over the window
- 28 ft 6 inches above grade
- Height is well within the character of neighborhood
- Do not have leisure to pull building from the back away from the cliff, as the neighbor from the south had
- Meet parking requirements
- Height in comparison with other buildings, feels that are well within the pattern on the street, - Shadow study showing that his building is on the shade
- Plans shows building to their south, which is 752 Carolina Street, blocking their view
(+ ) Clay Napper
- Building itself set back from the street
- Building fit within the character of the rest of the neighborhood
(+) Neil Short
- In term of good neighbor policy the project right now has two major assests
- Improve the street at the pedestrian level,
- Addition or facade of the bay windows, the inclusion of stair case as supposed to the neighbor from the other side, where is only a garage opening, actually makes that street more inviting on walking on that side of the street
(-) Daniel Conrad
- Live across the street from the proposed project
- Large scale, giant building
- Will block his light and view
- It is out of character -
(-) Dale Friedman
- Concurred with all the remarks his neighbor made
- Misleading the Commission regarding the scale
- Would block his sunlight from the north
- Encourage proponent to meet with neighbors (-) Foster Reed
- Distinctive in violating Proposition M and neighborhood guidelines - Building is a massive construction
- Not other building on the street is this size
(-) Ira Dotter
- Friendly neighborhood
- Sunny northern exposure all year around
- Destroy the beautiful ambient of his home
- Out of scale with the neighborhood
- Ugly massive eye sore
(-) unknow speaker
- Particular concerned about the excavation for the garage and the foundation
- Proposed building is very tall
- Does not comply with the design guidelines
- Preserve the sunlight and character of the neighborhood (-) Dick Millett
- Building is brutal
- Good example of what you see in the design guidelines it says ?do not do this ?
(-) Douglass Coward
- Design is grossly out of scale
- Design could be modified
(-) Unkown speaker
- lost of light, air and privacy
- project sponsor didn ?t contact her
- Plans should be revised
- Concerned about the permit request
- Considered a lower structure and redesign
(-) Erick _____
- at no point during this process nobody has contact him regarding thisproject
- fundamental concerns ___
- No assurance thru study what would happen to his property regarding the excavation.
- Consider the negative impact that will bring to the neighborhood
- with this structure all sunlight will be eliminated
- Further dialogue is needed
(-) ___ Chin
- scale is out proportion
- scale back
(-) Jack ____
- is massive building
ACTION:
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
30b. 2000.779V (S.SNYDER: 558-6543)
746 CAROLINA STREET, on the west side of Carolina Street between 20th and 22nd Streets, on Lot 5 of Assessor's Block 4096 in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District. FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE SOUGHT: The proposalis to construct a new two-family dwelling on a vacant lot.
SPEAKER(S):
ACTION:
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
31. 2000.1109D (MIRAMONTES: 558-6348)
519 - 17TH AVENUE, between Anza and Balboa Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1560. Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application No. 2000/08/14/7768. The proposal is to fill in on the ground level below an existing rear extension and to construct a two-story addition (approximately 9 feet deep by 16 feet wide) at the rear of this extension to a single-family home in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit application with modifications.
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WITHDRAWN
32. 2000.1029D (WONG: 558-6381)
481 ARKANSAS STREET, Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application No. 200003245373 for the property at 481 Arkansas Street, Lot 012A in Assessor's Block 4068. The proposal is to add one dwelling unit to an existing single family, two-story residence by constructing a one floor plus penthouse vertical addition. The subject property falls within a RH-2 (Residential, Two-family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height / Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) ____ Project Sponsor
- Request for a continuance
ACTION: Continued to 1/18/01
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
33. 2000.1018D (MILLER: 558-6344)
1 LA AVANZADA STREET --Sutro Tower, (also known as 1 and 250 PALO ALTO AVENUE), Lot 3 in Assessor?s Block 2724 --Planning Commission-initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000-08-18-8285for installation of a five-foot 11-inch diameter satellite dish antenna onthe roof of the existing transmitter building, a transmission line from theantenna into the building, digital audio broadcast equipment in existingtransmitter building for Sirius Satellite Radio, and interior partitionsin the building, at the existing SUTRO TOWER broadcast facility, in an RH-1(D)(House, One-Family Detached Dwellings) District and a 40-X Height and BulkDistrict.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Christine Linenbach
- concerned about broadcast __
- satelite that transmit to people
- representation
- clarification
- Commission ruling should be made
- No study, from project sponsor
- some of the neigbors didn ?t get a notification
(+) Walter Kaplan
- lived there for 20 years
- deparment is loosing some of its institution
- Cu was authorized ___
- CU statement in 1966 substantiated ___
- Definitions relevant what there putting there ___
- In 1988 the Commission ___
- Zoning require ___
- Only that could be there
- Exclude other uses
(-) Bob McCarthy
- Existing situation, in 8/oo - currently the antenna
- add a sattelite dish
- broadcasting in a experiment ___ since 1988
- 77 inches height ___
(-) Debra Stein
ACTION:
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
34. 2000.1135D (MILLER: 558-6344)
1 LA AVANZADA STREET --Sutro Tower, (also known as 1 and 250 PALO ALTO AVENUE), Lot 3 in Assessor?s Block 2724 --Planning Commission-initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000-10-27-4313 --Replacement of existing 80-pound antenna with new, smaller 40-pound antenna on ThirdLevel of Tower, +/-380 in height, and installation of a new transmissionline from the second level of the existing transmitter building to theThirdLevel of the Tower for Sirius Satellite Radio, at the existing SUTRO TOWERbroadcast facility, in an RH-1(D) (House, One-Family Detached Dwellings)District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
35. 2000.789D (WANG: 558-6335)
501 NOE STREET , Lot 076, in Assessor?s Block 3584. Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application No. 9917044. The proposal would demolish theexisting detached garage, convert the existing ground floor to a new garageand construct a two-story vertical addition, including an in-fill of thespace left by the demolished garage, to the existing two-story, three-familydwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-XHeight and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approvethe project as submitted
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Steve Williams
- is not alike other projects in SF
- Demo. Permit
- a very small units
- let them make the findings
- demographic
- RH-3 neighborhood
- current lot is very small
- this plan violate the ___
- clearly violate the residential design guidelines
- will be largest building on the street
- light and air will be block for neighbors
- Proposed building is out scale
- why a variance is needed to build ____
- Urge to take Discretionary Review
(+) Roger Wong
- affordable housing
(-) ____, DR Requestor
- building that is been proposed
- is very massive, very imposive
- blocking sunlight
- wind tunnel
- proposal for different type of decks, opening light space as well turning one of the den into a deck, this will create quite ___
- 18th facade
- developer to meet with neigbors
- parking situation
- very congested area during rush hour
(+) _____
- massive over scale building in the City
- very upscale neighborhood
- implication withthe context of the report
- parking issues
(-) Alice Barkley, Project Sponsor
- existing bldg is substandar building
- after retrofitting buidlign would be only 1-story tall
- As far as the allegation about affordable housing
- Subsidized housing not affordable to very low income
- Rear yard of this building
- minimum impact on light and air
(-) Robert Spiers
- excited about this building
- there some misleading informationg
- highly support the project
( -) John ____
- Asset to the neighborhood
(-) David ____
- preserving affordable housing
- urge to approve project
( ) unknow speaker
- affordable housing
( ) Joe O ?Donoghue
-
ACTION:
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
G. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
?The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
Adjournment: 6:56 p.m.
Adjournment: p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY,
Return to the Planning Department'sHomePage. 
SanFrancisco
City and County Links