December
2000
Presented below are Minutes of the Planning
Commission. The top of the this page lists Commission meeting dates for the
month. Click
on the date and you will reach the minutes for that that week. The minutes
present a summary of actions taken at the Planning Commission hearing and
provides a Motion or Resolution number for that action.
With most browsers you will be able to search
for any text item by using the Ctrl-F keys. It is recommended you search by
case number and suffix, if you know it, as that will always be a unique item.
You may search by any identifying phrase, including project addresses.
(Please note, commission minutes generally
are approved and finalized two weeks following the hearing date.)
December 14,
2000
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING
COMMISSION
?Meeting Minutes
Board
of Supervisors Chambers - Room 250
City
Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday,
December 7, 2000
3:35
PM
Regular
Meeting
PRESENT:?????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
THE MEETING
WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 3:35 P.M.
STAFF IN
ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning
Administrator; Patricia Gerber, Executive Secretary; Andrea Green - Acting
Commission Secretary
A.????????? ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1.?????? 2000.385C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (SANCHEZ:
558-6679)
2001 UNION STREET, southwest
corner at Buchanan Street; Lot 024 in Assessor?s Block 0541:?? Request for Conditional Use authorization
pursuant to Section 725.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of eight
antennas on the existing rooftop penthouses and an equipment shelter on the
second-floor of the existing six-story mixed-use building as part of Nextel?s
wireless telecommunications network within the Union Street Neighborhood
Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.? As per the City & County of San
Francisco?s Wireless Transmission Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines
the proposal is a Preference 2 (co-location site).
Preliminary Recommendation: None
(Proposed for Continuance to December 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: ???????? Continued
as proposed
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
2.?????? 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 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: None
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 9, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance to December 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: ???????? Continued
as proposed
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
3.?????? 2000.944C?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NIKITAS:
5586306)
1527-1533 PINE STREET, south side
through to Austin between Polk Street and Van Ness Avenue, Lots 018, 018A, and
019 in Assessor?s Block 0667 - ?Request
for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 121.2 for use
size exceeding 3,000 square feet within the Polk Street NC District (Lot 19)
and Section 209.8(c) for a commercial establishment located above the ground
floor in an RC-4 District (Residential-Commercial High Density) and the Van
Ness Special Use District (Lots 18 and 18A). The properties are in 130-V and
65-A Height and Bulk Districts.? The
proposal is to convert three interconnected buildings from commercial and
industrial uses (Albert Daini Fine Furniture) to business or professional
services office space (West Coast Property Management).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Proposed for Continuance to December 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S)?????? None
ACTION: ?????????????? Continued as proposed
AYES: ?????????????????? Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
4.?????? 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 for billiard hall, dance hall,
nightclub, other amusement enterprise and nighttime entertainment activities,
and adult entertainment; and to require Conditional Use Authorization for hours
of operation between 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. in the RC‑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 Authorization to operate
amusement and adult entertainment enterprises in C‑3‑R and C‑3‑G
districts between the hours of 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.
Recommendation: Adoption of proposed
amendments.
Note: On November 9, 2000,
following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing.? A motion to approve the legislation failed
to carry by a vote of +2 -5.?
Commissioners Baltimore, Chinchilla, Mills and Theoharis voted against.? The matter was then continued to December 7,
2000.
(Proposed for Continuance to
December 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: ???????? Continued as proposed
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
5.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (RICH:
558-6345)
General Plan
Referral for Urban Design aspects of the Third Street Light Rail Project,
including, station platforms, street lighting, trackway paving, 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 October 26, 2000, to explore funding
sources by a vote of +7 -0.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of November 9, 2000)
(Proposed for
Continuance to January 11, 2001)
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: ???????? Continued as proposed
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
6.?????? 1999.346TZ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MALTZER:
558-6391)
ADOPTION OF
NEW POLICIES REGARDING OFFICE USE AND CONVERSION OF LIVE/WORK (LOFT HOUSING) WITHIN
INTERIM INDUSTRIAL PROTECTION ZONES AND MIXED USE HOUSING ZONES
- Consideration of adopting new policies to discourage office development and
to further discourage the conversion of live/work to office within the Interim
Controls boundary area.? These new
policies are to supplement existing policies previously adopted August 5, 1999
(CPC Res. 14861).
Preliminary
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution creating new Policies within Interim Zones
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of November 16, 2000)
(Proposed for
Continuance to December 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: ???????? Continued as proposed
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
7.?????? 2000.1007T??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LORD:
558-6311)
LIVE-WORK TO LOFT HOUSING
AMENDMENT -Consideration of adoption 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
would subject it to existing live/work controls except that there would be no
restriction on the nature of work which could be performed in the unit so long
as the use is permitted in the SSO (Service/Secondary Office) Zoning District
and no requirement that the occupant(s) work in the unit, would establish
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 the residential
design guidelines, would require loft housing constructed in areas not zoned
residential to comply with non-residential design guidelines and all
requirements for residential uses except for height, front setback and open
space requirements, would establish procedures for converting live/work units
to non-residential uses, and would establish loft housing rear yard standards;
states that this ordinance supersedes any inconsistent planning commission
policies.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt
the Draft Ordinance
(Continued from Regular Meeting
of November 16, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance to
December 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S)????? None
ACTION: ???????????????????? Continued as proposed
AYES: ????????????????? Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
8a.???? 2000.863BV???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WONG:
558-6381)
2712 MISSION STREET
- The subject property seeks an authorization for a proposed office development
under the smaller building reserve, pursuant to Planning Code Section 321. The
proposal is for a change of use from "Retail" to "Office"
and for the renovation and expansion of an existing 27,831 gross square foot
building into a 30,847 gross square foot building by enlarging an mezzanine
within the existing structure.? The
subject property falls within a NC-3 (Moderate Scale Commercial District)
Zoning District and a 50-X/80-B Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval
(Proposed for Continuance to January
11, 2001)
SPEAKER(S)????? None
ACTION: ???????????????????? Continued as proposed
AYES: ????????????????? Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
8b.???? 2000.863BV???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WONG:
558-6381)
2712 MISSION STREET
- The subject property seeks a parking variance for the reduction of required
off-street parking, pursuant to Planning Code Section 151.? The project proposes to provide 5 parking
spaces for the conversion of 30,847 gross square feet of office space on a site
which presently provides no off-street parking spaces.? The subject property falls within a NC-3
(Moderate Scale Commercial District) Zoning District and a 50-X/80-B Height and
Bulk District.
(Proposed for Continuance to January
11, 2001)
SPEAKER(S)????? None
ACTION: ???????????????????? Continued as proposed
AYES: ????????????????? Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
9.?????? 2000.1148C?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WILSON:
558-6602)
700-740 LE CONTE AVENUE AND 845
MEADE AVENUE, at Jennings Street; Lots 111-116, 133
and 134 in Assessor?s Block 4991: -- Consideration of the possible revocation
of conditional use or the possible modification of or placement of additional
conditions per Planning Code Section 303(f) of a prior authorization to allow a
planned unit development for up to 45 dwelling units, within a RH-1 (House,
One-Family) and RH-2 (House, Two-Family), and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: pending
(Proposed for Continuance to
January 11,? 2001)
SPEAKER(S)????? None
ACTION: ???????????????????? Continued as proposed
AYES: ????????????????? Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
10a.?? 2000.654D???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? (YOUNG: 558-6346)
412 LOMBARD STREET,
north side between Grant Avenue and Stockton Street, Lot 010 in Assessor's
Block 0062 -- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application
No. 2000/03/03/3468 to construct a two-story vertical addition to an existing
one-story over basement single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House,
Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation:? Pending????????????????????????????
(Proposed for
Continuance to January 18, 2001)
SPEAKER(S)????? None
ACTION: ???????????????????????????????? Continued as proposed
AYES: ????????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas,
Theoharis
10b.?? 2000.654V???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? (YOUNG: 558-6346)
412 LOMBARD
STREET, north side between Grant Avenue and
Stockton Street, Lot 010 in Assessor's Block 0062, proposing? the construction of a two-story vertical ?????? addition to an existing one-story over
basement single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family)
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.?
REAR YARD VARIANCES SOUGHT:?
Planning Code Section 134(c) requires a 15-foot rear setback for the
subject property and the proposed vertical addition extends 3 feet into this
15-foot area.? Planning Code Section
134(c)(1) limits the height of building extensions in the rear 45% of the lot
to 30 feet.? The proposed third story
exceeds this limit by approximately 8 feet, but does not exceed the absolute
limit of 40 feet.
(Proposed for
Continuance to January 18, 2001)
SPEAKER(S)?????? None
ACTION: ?????????????????????? Continued as proposed
AYES: ?????????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas,
Theoharis
11.???? 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.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 16, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance to January 18, 2001)
SPEAKER(S)???????????? None
ACTION: ?????????????? Continued as proposed
AYES: ???????????????????????? Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
12.???? 1999.998D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WANG:
559-6335)
583-587
CORBETT AVENUE, east side between Iron Alley
and Glendale Street, Lots 110 and 111 in Assessor?s Block 2717, proposing to
construct a two-story-over-garage and basement single-family dwelling on each
of the two vacant lots in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and
a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.
(Proposed
for Continuance to January 25, 2001)
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: ?????????????????????????? Continued as proposed
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
13.???? 2000.779D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WONG:
558-6381)
806-808 RHODE ISLAND STREET,
Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application No.
200006213250 for the property at 806-808 Rhode Island Street, Lot 002 in
Assessor's Block 4094.? The proposal is
to demolish the existing single family residence and to construct a
two-dwelling unit building.? The subject
property falls within a RH-3 (Residential, Three-family) Zoning District and a
40-X Height / Bulk District.
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WITHDRAWN
14.???? 1999.690E???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (CHAN:
558-5982)
3000 THIRD STREET
- Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration: Assessor?s Block 3754
Lot 8. 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 would consists of approximately 161,900 square feet of light
industrial space on the second and third floors, of which up to 24,500 sq.ft.
could be accessory office space. The ground floor would consist of about 5,000
square feet of commercial space. The majority of the new building would be at a
height of 60 feet with the exception of the 10 x 10 parapet and clock tower on
the southwest corner of the building. The highest point of the tower would be
approximately 80 feet. The vehicular access to the parking lot would be from
Cesar Chavez Street and 26th Street. The project would replace an existing
two-story vehicle maintenance and office building. The majority of the site is
currently used as equipment storage and 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 Negative Declaration.
(Continued from Regular Meeting
of November 2, 2000)
APPEAL WITHDRAWN
B.??????? COMMISSIONERS?
QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
15.???? Consideration
of Adoption - draft minutes of 10/26/00.
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: ???????? Approved
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
16.???? Commission
Matters
None??????????????
C.??????? DIRECTOR?S
REPORT
17.???? Director?s
Announcements.
- Reminder of Staff Christmas Party
18.???? Review
of Past Week?s Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
BOS:
None
BOA:
1133 Green Street - Denied permit
????????? 135 Carl Street - Overturned CPC decision and approved
the permit
19.???? 1999.176BX??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LeBLANC:
558-6351)
235 SECOND STREET,? Report on revised open space plan.? The original project, including an open
space plan, was approved on March 2, 2000 in Motions Nos. 15003 and 15004.? A revised open space plan was presented to
the Commission on November 9, 2000.? The
current modified plan responds to comments the Commission made on November 9.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of November 9, 2000)
SPEAKER(S)?????? None
ACTION: ?????????????? Approved
AYES: ?????????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay,
Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
D.??????? REGULAR CALENDAR
20.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GREEN:
558-6411)
Planning
Commission consideration of adoption?
proposed changes to the Rules for the Office Development Annual
Limitation Program.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of November 9, 2000)
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: ???????? Adopted
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION No:??? 16043
21.???? 1999.187ET??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GREEN:
558-6411)
JOBS-HOUSING
LINKAGE PROGRAM:?
Consideration of adoption of amendments to the Planning Code amending
Sections 313 through 313.14 and 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, to all
new and expanded retail space of at least 100,000 square feet.
Preliminary
recommendation: Adopt Resolution amending the Planning Code.
(Continued
from the Regular Meeting of November 16, 2000)
SPEAKER(S)
(+) Calvin
Welch
- Favored this
ordinance
- Indexing the
fee language in the ordinance. Page 20 seems to change the policy in a way that
is conceivable to us.? Seems to take
away the indexing.
- Build
options - pg. 20, sec. 1513a, it seems to be an error, this document is based
upon 1997 Kaiser Morton Study?
ACTION: ???????? Adopted
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION No:??? 16044
22.???? 2000.1098T??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LORD:
558-6311)
SUTRO TOWER
NOTIFICATION, Consideration of adoption of amendments
to Part II, Chapter II of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Planning Code) by
adding Section 306.9 to require notice of application for building permits for
Sutro Tower to be sent to all property owners within a 1,000 foot radius of the
Tower?s site.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Adopt the proposed amendment
SPEAKER(S)
(+) Jessica
Lane
-
Representative from Supervisor?s Teng?s Office
- Supervisor
Teng encouraged the Commission to adopt this ordinance
(-) Christine
Linnebach
- Neighborhood
has been working on legislation for the last two years
- This is
unreasonable legislation
- Problems
with notification
- Seismic
study was recently done
(+) Jim Luster
- Concerned
about the omission of Section D.? Every
single permit would require that notification be sent
- Maintain
Section D with the understanding that in no way would it affect the people
within the 1000 feet
ACTION: ???????? Adopted
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION No:??? 16045
23.???? 2000.020T????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (HERRERA:
558-6316)
?????????? LANDMARKS
BOARD 60 DAY REVIEW AMENDMENT - Consideration of adoption of an
amendment to the Planning Code Section 1004.2 to allow the Landmarks
Preservation Advisory Board sixty (60) days instead of thirty (30) days within
which to review and report to the San Francisco Planning Commission on proposed
landmark designations.
Testimony and
Commission considerations could result in recommendations of modifications to
the proposed legislation.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Adopt the proposed amendment
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: ???????? Approved
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION No:??? 16046
24.???? 2000.024T????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
(HERRERA: 558-6316)
HEIGHT LIMIT
EXCEPTION - Consideration
of adoption of? an amendment to the
Planning Code Section 263.1 to make the height limit exception available under
Section 263.1 inapplicable to properties located in the Jackson Square Historic
District and Assessor?s Block 195, Lots 4 and 16.? Planning Code Section 263.1 permits the San Francisco Planning
Commission to approve height exceptions of up to 200 feet for properties in the
65-D-2 Height and Bulk District located at the southern edge of Jackson Square.
Testimony and
Commission considerations could result in recommendations of modifications to
the proposed legislation.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Disapprove proposed amendment with recommendations
to? Board of Supervisors
SPEAKER(S) None
ACTION: ???????? Continued Indefinitely
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
25.???? 1999.771ET??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (SHOTLAND:? 558.6308)
SOUTH OF
MARKET BILLBOARD AMENDMENT Consideration of a
proposal to adopt 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.? Testimony and Commission considerations
could result in recommendations to modify the proposed legislation.
Preliminary
Recommendation:? Adoption of Draft
Resolution Approving the proposed Amendment.
SPEAKER(S)
( ) Dick
Millett
- Potrero Hill
has been invaded by this sign
- Advertising
on all new live/work buildings in the Waterfront Area
(+) Dee Dee
Workman
- Support the
amendment to the Planning Code
- We need to
preserve the character of this neighborhood
- The quality
of life of this area is very important
- Huge wall ad
had gone up in the neighborhood
- Diminish the
character
- Urge you to
adopt this amendment
(+) Peter
Winkelstein
- Support
control of general advertising in the City
-Urge in
approval of the changes
(+) Jean
McClatchy
- Pollution of
one the most wonderful City in the world
- Finding
building size advertising is very offensive to the citizens of this City
- This is not
tolerable; it needs to be controlled, enforced
-
Commercialization is just not acceptable to SF
(+) Milo Hanke
- Endorse all
the other comments
- Feel like
other citizens that SF is being taken away from us
- Deteriorate
the quality of the greatest City in the world
- Pass more
restrictive legislation
- No regard to
the properties values
(+) Francis Rigney
- Watch in the
course of many years the destruction of the City with all these billboards all
over? ?????????????????????? -
Abolish this advertising from districts
- This will be
a great start
(+) Jim
Lazarus
- Technology
of the 90s has gotten out of hands
- Urge to pass
this amendment
- It is out of
control, we?ve? got to take on this
issue, give this the highest priority
(+) Jane
Winslow
- Endorse all
other speakers
- It will
assist the Planning Department
- Support this
amendment
(-) Michael
Alexander
- Advertising
is out of Control in San Francisco
?????????????????????? (-)
Marilyn Duffey
- Support
amendment as an initial step
- Continuing
control the advertisement
(-) Robert
Frieze?
- a lot money
in the advertisement industry
- Staff should
look into the interim control
- Rules are
being abused
(-) Unknown
Speaker
- This is a
first step to stop the proliferation of signs in the City__
- We need to
have a more wide restrictions
- This will
set precedents for future legislations
(+) Joe
O?Donoghue
- In support
of the project
(-) Maytee
Colorado
- We need to
limit the amount of billboards
- We have the
largest concentrations of seniors and citizen in the South of Market
- Biggest
buyer of advertising space have been liquor and tobacco advertisement
(-) Sue Hestor
- Proliferation
of advertisement is destroying the City, especially in the South of Market Area
?? ??????????????????? (-)
Michael Colbruno
-
Proliferation of illegal signs
(-) John
Newman - Sailors Union of the Pacific
- This
organization is one of many non-profit organizations who would be impacted by
the approval of this legislation.
- They are
requesting that the legislation be continued for further study.
- It is
important that thi Commission has taken testimony
(-) Steven
Chin
- There need
to be a clarification about this amendment
- Do not
understand why the City is doing this
-
Proliferation on these three small areas in the City
- Recommend
this should be sent back to staff
(-) Dean
Arbitt
- Maintain all
permits that have been issued properly
- This
industry is benefiting the City
?????????????????????? ACTION:
???????? ?????Adopted
AYES: ???????????? ?????Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
RESOLUTION NO.? 16047
26a.?? 1999.300BX??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LeBLANC:
558-6351)
272 MAIN STREET, West side of
Main Street between Howard and Folsom Streets,?
Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 3739, -- Request under Planning Code
Section 309 for Determination of Compliance for the construction of a
six-story, 80-foot tall building with a total of approximately 56,320 gross
square feet including up to 46,500 square feet of office space, approximately
6,100 square feet of ground floor retail space and 1,360 square feet of open
space.? The existing 30-foot tall,
approximately 10,000 square-foot office building would be demolished.? The project lies within a C-3-O(SD)
(Downtown Office, Special Development) District and an 80-X Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S)
(+) Jim Reuben
- Representing Project Sponsor
- Project at
this site does not required loading deck
(+) Clark
Manus - Project Architect
- Gave a
description of the project
(-) Sue Hestor
- What is the
working assumption??
- Would like
the Commission to find out what this really means
- This project
has a enormous amount of glass
- How is this
going to be in the long term
- This is a
very unusual project
ACTION: ???????? Approved
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION No:??? 16048
26b.?? 1999.300BX??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LeBLANC:
558-6351)
272 MAIN ?STREET,
West side of Main Street between Howard and Folsom Streets,? Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 3739, -- Request
under Planning Code Sections 320-325 (Office Development Limitation Program)
for the construction of a six-story, 80-foot tall building with a total of
approximately 56,320 gross square feet including up to 46,500 square feet of
office space, approximately 6,100 square feet of ground floor retail space and
1,360 square feet of open space.? The
existing 30-foot tall, approximately 10,000 square-foot office building would
be demolished.? The project lies within
a C-3-O(SD) (Downtown Office, Special Development) District and an 80-X Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S)
(+) Jim Reuben
- Representing Project Sponsor
- Project at
this site does not required loading deck
(+) Clark
Manus - Project Architect
- Gave a
description of the project
(-) Sue Hestor
- what is the
working assumption??
- Would like
the Commission to find out what this really means?
- This project
has a enormous amount of glass
- How is this
going to be in the long term
- This is a
very unusual project
ACTION: ???????? Approved
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION No:??? 16049
27a.?? 2000.987CV??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (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 BELLOW THE GROUND FLOOR and not
offering on-site services to the general public and for OFF-STREET PARKING
EXCEEDING ACCESSORY AMOUNTS (20 spaces when 15 are permitted), in conjunction
with conversion of live/work units to approximately 46,000 square feet of
office space, having been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on
November 2, 2000, 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 with conditions
SPEAKER(S)????????
(+) Steve
Atkinson, Project Sponsor
(-) Sue Hestor
- Suggested at
the time, tenant moves out
ACTION: ???????????????? Approved
AYES: ???????????????????? Baltimore,? Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:??????????????? Chinchilla
MOTION No:?????????? 16050
27b.?? 2000.987CV??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (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-SD 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 of the site (and approved for conversion to office
space).
SPEAKER(S)???????? None
ACTION: ???????????????? Approved
AYES: ???????????????????? Baltimore,? Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:??????????????? Chinchilla
MOTION NO.????????? 16051
28.???? 2000.824C?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (YOUNG:
558-6346)
1351 GRANT AVENUE,
west side between Vallejo and Green Streets; Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0131:
-- Consideration of the possible revocation of conditional use or the possible
modification of or placement of additional conditions per Planning Code Section
303(f) of a prior authorization to allow the establishment of a full-service
restaurant and bar, approximately 3,400 square feet in floor area, within the
North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and 40-X Height and Bulk
District.? The proposal is to consider
revocation, modification,? or? placement?
of? additional? conditions on a conditional use
authorization approved on December 17, 1998, for the conversion of a vacant
commercial space,? the former Figoni
Hardware Store,? into a full-service
restaurant and bar, per Planning Code Sections 722.41 and 722.42.? The proposed full-service restaurant and bar
is located on the ground floor level of an existing three-story residential
over commercial building.? The proposal
was approved under Building Permit Application No. 9912999.? There have been unresolved complaints from
the community in relation to the construction and operation of the facilities
and the possible eviction of residential tenants within the building.?
Preliminary Recommendation:
Planning Commission to schedule a subsequent hearing to consider the
revocation, modification, or placement of additional conditions on the
conditional use authorized in Motion No. 14785 under Case No. 1998.243C.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2000)
SPEAKER(S)?? None
ACTION: ?????????? Continued to February 8, 2001
AYES: ?????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas,
Theoharis
29. ??? 2000.429C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LIGHT:
558-6254)
1060-1062 GEARY STREET,
north side of street between Van Ness Avenue and Polk Street, Lots 9 and 9a in
Assessor?s Block 694: -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to construct
a 130-foot high mixed use building containing?
approximately 6,000 square feet of retail use, 6 live/work units, artist
gallery space and 27 residential units, and accessory parking, in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial
Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District, and a
130-V Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions and a modification to change 6 live/work units to dwelling
units and reduce building square footage by 2,150 square feet to meet F.A.R.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Hahn Phan,
Representing Project Sponsor
(+)Mr.? Gardner, Architect
- Gave an
overall description about the project??????
ACTION: ?????????????? Approved as amended
AYES: ?????????????? Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Mills,
Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:?????????????? Chinchilla
MOTION No:???? 16052
30.???? 1999.217C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WOODS;
558-6315)
2222 BROADWAY,
north side, between Webster and Fillmore Streets, with additional frontage on
Vallejo Street, Lots 1, 23 and 24 in Assessor?s Block 564 -Request for
Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 209.3(g), 209.3(h), 303 and 304 of
the Planning Code to permit a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the expansion
of the Schools of the Sacred Heart. The site consists of two private elementary
schools and one private secondary school. The proposal is to demolish and
remove the outdoor play yard and the two-story wood framed classroom building
on the southwest corner of Vallejo and Webster Streets, behind the existing
Grant Building, and to construct a new five-story 32,000 square-foot Fine Arts
and Science building serving the existing elementary and secondary
schools.? The proposal would require
modification of rear yard requirements, pursuant to Section 134 of the Planning
Code, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height
and Bulk District
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S)?? None
ACTION: ?????????? Continued to January 25, 2001
AYES: ?????????????? Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Mills,
Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla
31a.?? 2000.299E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (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 is currently identified
as Assessor?s Block 4031, Lots 26 and 27.?
Lot 27 has been proposed for subdivision into three lots.?
Preliminary
Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2000)
SPEAKER(S)??
(+)
Christopher Cole
- This appeal
is not about resolving this matter today
- It is
whether we have meet the CEQA requirements that requires that an EIR be prepared
- It may cause
significant impact to the environment
- Legal
argument are stated that it will severe environmental damages
- The reason
that the State of California encourage EIRs in all situations, the State wants
us to have EIR when there is a significant environmental impact
- Experts
disagree , we have the records of Timothy Kelly, that gives a detail historical
significance of this property
- There is not
mitigation in destroying a property that had been around for 100 years
- Neighbors
would like to save this property
(+)
Christopher Ver Plancke
- historical
significance of the property
- research has
been done in the dog patch neighborhood
- lack a good
transportation
- emerge in
Potrero Hill no single family houses
(+) Barbara
Deutsch
- Environmental
review is necessary
(+) Gloria
Ferra
- Long time
resident
- Potrero Hill
is a place of quite beauty
(+) Elizabeth
Deutsch
- concerned
about traffic, parking
(+) Kevin Del
- concerned
about density
(+) Unknown
speaker
- Sit on brick
foundation
- Not
significant work has been done on the property
- support plan
to be built
- best use of
the property now is? new housing
- strongly
support this project
(+) Ron Miguel
- EIR would
hardly recommend upholding the negative declaration
- No EIR is
necessary
- It is a
natural area?????
(+) Kathy Del
- No objection
to the? project
(+) Barbara
Preston
- SF needs
more open space
(-) Joe
O?Donoghue
- EIR is not
necessary
- Accumulative
impact , there will be a negative impact if we stop building
- Negative
declaration should be upheld??????????????????
(-) Babett
Refky
- Neighbor was
not notified properly
(-) Guy
Crystal
- concerned
about open space?????????????????????
(-) Josh Blume
- Is there
substantial evidence?
- speculation
and, evidences that are not substantial
- concerned
about whether a property is eligible
ACTION: ?????????? Uphold Negative Declaration
AYES: ?????????????? Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Mills,
Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:????????? Chinchilla
MOTION No:????
E.?????? SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At
Approximately 7:46 P.M. the Planning Commission convened into a Special
Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review
matters.
31b.?? 2000.299D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (M.SNYDER:
575-6891)
690 DeHARO
STREET, northwest corner of DeHaro Street and
19th Street Right-of-Way, Lots 026 (to be subdivided) and 027 in Assessor?s
Block 4031, proposing to demolish the existing single-family house and
construct four duplexes in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and
a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not? take
Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.
SPEAKER(S)
(-) Chris Cole, Representing
project sponsor
- CEQA also are grounds for this
Commission to turn down this project
(-) Kevin Del, Project Sponsor
- building is not habitable
- significantly no code
compliance
(-) John Warner
- inspected
property and conclude with the report that the original facade of the building
was kept
- in conclusion conditions of the
bldg is such that everything would have to be remodeled to be code compliance
ACTION: ???????? Do not take Discretionary Review and
approve project
AYES: ???????????? Baltimore,? Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:???????? Chinchilla
32a.?? 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
Note:
On November 16, 2000, following public testimony the Commission continued the
matter to 12/7/00 instructing Staff to provide the Residential Design Checklist
and explain any concerns and analyses.? The
vote was +7 -0 for the continuance.?
Public Hearing to remain open.
(Continued from Regular Meeting
of November 16, 2000)
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WITHDRAWN
32b.?? 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 proposal is to construct a new two-family dwelling on a vacant lot.
(Continued from
Regular Meeting of November 16, 2000)
WITHDRAWN
33.???? 2000.049DDDD????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????? (CRAWFORD: 558-6358)
1021 FRANCISCO
STREET, between Larkin and Polk Streets, Lot
023 in Assessor?s Block 0477, proposing to construct vertical and horizontal
additions to the existing two-family dwelling consisting of two stories of
living space above a garage.? A new
story of living space with a rear projecting deck and stairs is proposed above
the existing living space and a portion of the existing building envelope will
be extended to the rear in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District
and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as per
the revised plans submitted on September 20,2000.
SPEAKER(S)
(+) John
Larkin, D.R. Requestor
- No dialogue
with neighbors
- concerned
abut cubic footage of the 4th floor
- 14 feet
above our roof line
- the air and
light will change dramatically
- Excessive
size of the ceiling
- Won?t have
any privacy
- In addition
there is a bay window
- DR packet
dated November 15
- new material
that was not sent on time to them
- from 2 unit
to 1, square footage changes
(+) Jeanny
Loughran
-?? This plan will
impact their home and lifestyle
- is not a 2
family dwelling
- we share
sunlight and view
- 24 foot
above our house
- pleading for
a DR
- asked the
Commission to reject this plans??????????
(+) Kate Black
- asked for a
18 inch height reduction
(+) Jack
Scott, representing owner
- bulk of
building is really an Issue
- keeping
residential guidelines
- is not a
five story building,
- privacy
issue
(+) Joe
O?Donoghue
- 18 inches
reduction, it will destruct the project
ACTION:????????? Do not take DR and approved project as
amended
AYES: ??????????????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla,
Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:???????? Chinchilla
34.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2000.1034D??????????? (JONES: 558-6477)
220 MAGELLAN , northwest
side between Pacheco Street and Sola Avenue, Lot 005 in Assessor?s Block 2863,
proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition at the rear of the
property in a RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District and a
40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take
Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.
DISCRETIONARY
REVIEW WITHDRAWN
35.???? 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 November 16, 2000)
DISCRETIONARY
REVIEW WITHDRAWN
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))
Adjournment: 9:58
P.M.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2001.
Back to top
SAN
FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
?Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
Place
Thursday, December 14, 2000
2:00 PM
Regular Meeting
![]()
PRESENT:?????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:????????????????? None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO
ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 2:15 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald
G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Isolde
Wilson; Paul Lord; Samuel Assefa; Stephen Shotland; Maltzer; Navarrete;
Elizabeth Gordon; Cecilia Jaroslawsky; Ellen Miramontes; Craig Nikitas; Sharon
Young; Judy Martin; Andrea Wong; Matt Snyder; Patricia Gerber - Executive
Secretary; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Andrea Green - Acting
Commission Secretary
A.??????? ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1.???????? 2000.436C?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (SMITH:
558-6322)
1594 - 43RD AVENUE - northeast corner of the
intersection of Lawton Street and 43rd Avenue; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 1888
--? Request for Conditional Use
Authorization under Planning Code Section 710.83 to install three antennas in a
canister on the roof and two equipment cabinets and one battery cabinet in the
garage of a mixed-use building located in a (NC-1) Neighborhood Commercial
Cluster District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.? The subject site is a Limited Preference 6 site according to
Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Siting Guidelines, 1996.
Preliminary Recommendation:
(Proposed for
Continuance to January 11, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? Continued to January 11, 2001
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
2.???????? 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 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 Restaurant use; disapproval of extended hours.
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of December 7, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance
to January 11, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? Continued to January 11, 2001
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
3.???????? 2000.985C????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (CHIN:
558-6897)
1176 SUTTER STREET (AKA,
1214 POLK STREET) - northeast corner at Polk Street; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 0669
--? Request for Conditional Use
authorization to allow amplified live and recorded music (defined as ?Other
Entertainment? by Planning Code Section 790.38) in an existing bar, d.b.a. An
Sibin, as required by Planning Code Section 723.48, in the Polk Street
Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
(Proposed for Continuance
to January 11, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? Continued to January 11, 2001
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
4.???????? 2000.1007T????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LORD:
558-6311)
LIVE-WORK TO LOFT HOUSING
AMENDMENT
- Consideration of adoption 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 would subject it to existing
live/work controls except that there would be no restriction on the nature of
work which could be performed in the unit so long as the use is permitted in
the SSO (Service/Secondary Office) Zoning District and no requirement that the
occupant(s) work in the unit, would establish 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 the residential design guidelines, would require
loft housing constructed in areas not zoned residential to comply with
non-residential design guidelines and all requirements for residential uses
except for height, front setback and open space requirements, would establish
procedures for converting live/work units to non-residential uses, and would
establish loft housing rear yard standards; states that this ordinance
supersedes any inconsistent Planning Commission policies.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Adopt the Draft Ordinance
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of December 7, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance
to January 11, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? Continued to January 11, 2001
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
5.???????? 2000.1026C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WOODS:
558-6315)
?? ???????????????????????????????? 4314
CALIFORNIA STREET - north side, between Fifth and Sixth Avenues, Lot 14 in
Assessor?s Block 1365 -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization under
Sections 303 and 710.27 of the Planning Code to extend the bar hours of an existing
bar and restaurant establishment (the V Pub Bar and Grill) from 11:00 p.m. to
2:00 a.m. in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster District) Zoning District
and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Pending
(Proposed for Continuance
to January 18, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? Continued to January 18, 2001
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
6.???????? 2000.1118DDDD???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??? (NIKITAS: 558-6306)
33 WALNUT STREET - between Pacific and
Jackson Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor?s Block 0972 - proposing to demolish
existing rear deck and bay, and to add a rear expansion 19'-10"+ deep at
the first floor and crawl space and 15'-10" deep at the second-story with
a roof deck above and a new attic level dormer in front in an RH-1
(Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve project as submitted
(Proposed for Continuance
to January 18, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? Continued to January 18, 2001
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
7.???????? 2000.856C?? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (FALLAY:
558-6367)
??????????????????????????????????? 445
BURNETT AVENUE - southeast corner of Burnett and Dixie Avenues,? Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 2756 -- Request
for a Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 209.1(h) to
allow an additional single family dwelling unit on the subject property for a
total of thirteen units in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District
and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
PROJECT HAS CHANGED FROM
ORIGINAL NOTICE.? A NEW NOTICE WILL BE
ISSUED.? THE PROJECT AS DESCRIBED ABOVE
IS NO LONGER BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? Case Withdrawn
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
8.???????? 2000.385C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (SANCHEZ:
558-6679)
2001 UNION STREET - southwest corner at
Buchanan Street; Lot 024 in Assessor?s Block 0541:?? Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section
725.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of eight antennas on the existing
rooftop penthouses and an equipment shelter on the second floor of the existing
six-story mixed-use building as part of Nextel?s wireless telecommunications
network within the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a
40-X Height and Bulk District.? As per
the City & County of San Francisco?s Wireless Transmission Services (WTS)
Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preference 2 (co-location site).
Preliminary Recommendation:
Pending
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of December 7, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance
to February 1, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? Continued to February 1, 2001
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
B.??????? COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
9.?????? Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of November 2, and
9, 2000.
SPEAKER(S):??????????? None
ACTION:????????? Continued to January 11, 2001
AYES:????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay,
Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
10.???? Commission Matters
Commissioner Theoharis:
Would like for
Commissioners to receive a copy of the case report for Item 17 at least 15 days
in advance.
C.??????? DIRECTOR?S REPORT
11.???? Director?s Announcements.
None
12.???? Review of Past Week?s Events at the Board of Supervisors &
Board of Appeals.
Larry Badiner:
He will be putting his
interpretations on the City Web Page so the public can have immediate access to
the information, therefore, submit their comments and/or questions.
D.??????? REGULAR CALENDAR
13.?????? DWELLING UNIT MERGER POLICY??????????????????????????????? (WILSON: 558-6602)
Policy discussion on the
removal of dwelling units. Consideration for adopting a policy of Discretionary
Review of all permit applications that result in the removal of a legal
dwelling unit.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Andrew Zucki
?- He is an attorney and counsels small
property owners.
-? He is in opposition to this policy.
- There is a housing
study which is going on at City Hall and he believes that this policy
should? wait to be voted on until those
results are in.
(-) Duane Danielsen
- He is a third
generation San Franciscan.
- He is surprised that
this policy has come to the Commission so quickly.
- This policy is
punitive to small property owners.
- He is starting a
family and when he is ready to expand to his house he disagrees that he will
have to go through a Discretionary Review.
- He has a tenant which
left recently who was not evicted.
(-) Dean and Catherine
Akazawa
- They have a unit
which is pending a merger.
- They recently bought
a duplex which was originally a single family home.
- The merger is being
done because he is starting a family.?
His wife?s sister is living with them currently because she can?t afford
a place to live.? When their babies are
born (twins) his mother will also come to live with them.
- They will not be
taking any additional space.
- Since their project
is in the ?pipe line? he would like for his project to be exempt from
Discretionary Review.
- He was shocked to
find out that this policy would be voted on at the Commission.
(-) Michael Vanni
- He and his wife
started a project to merge units since more family members will be moving in.
- They are almost half
way through the project and have spent thousands of dollars.
- Now they become aware
that this policy will be voted on at the Commission.
- Since he started his
project in February of this year and many permits have been issued, he believes
that this is unfair since he would have to go through Discretionary Review.
(-) Tamsin Randlett
- She and her husband
bought? property which is going through
the ?pipeline? right now.
- They have spend a lot
of money and have had to borrow in order to pay for their merger project.
- They are not changing
the footprint of the project.
- They would like have
project s that are in the ?pipeline? be exempt from this policy.
(-) Erin Day
- She and her husband
own a property.
- Her project is in the
?pipe line? as well.
- In August of this
year, they applied for a dwelling merger, what through all the paperwork and
now become aware of this policy which would cause problems to their project.
- Although she is
sympathetic to the reason for this policy, she doesn?t believe that projects
which have been started should have to go through Discretionary Reviews.
- This policy will
cause a tremendous burden to them.
(-) Erin Oberly
- She is glad she
doesn?t have a project at the Planning Department right now.
- Yet, she is
sympathetic to the people who have spoken previously which will be affected by
this policy.
- This policy will
cause a tremendous burden on small property owners who wish to expand because
their families are growing and instead of buying a bigger house (because they
can?t afford it) would rather expand their homes and merge dwelling units for
more space.
- Large properties
and/or projects should go through
(-) Robert Celso
- He received an e-mail
today of someone who told him about this meeting.? He wishes he would have had more time to prepare.
- He does not agree
with this policy since the Commission is so interested in not loosing rentals
that they are not taking into consideration the families who own small
properties and need to expand since their families are growing.
(-) Will Sprietsma
- He owns a small
property
- There are no tenants
involved.
- He has been saving
money to make this property into a single-family home.
- Right now, he has to
go outside to get to the other part of the house.
- There are no tenants
involved so he doesn?t think it?s fair that he would have to go through
Discretionary Reviews.
(-) Jim Fabris
- He is opposed to this
policy.
- A legal dwelling unit
is removed when two units are merged.? A
long time ago, many of the multiple unit properties were single-family homes
yet they started splitting.? Now because
society is changing, many of these properties are becoming single-family homes.
- This policy is
inappropriate.
(-) Siesel Maibach
- She will not repeat
what everyone has said, but is in opposition to this policy.
- Her plans for her
project have been in the Planning Department for many months now.
(-) Donald Gibbs
- He grew up in the
Mission District and had to leave the City he loves because he can?t afford it.
- Now he has moved back
and has a project which will merge units.
- He would like to have
a second bedroom in his 1 bedroom unit.
- He objects to the
design review since it?s an erosion of property rights.
- The department needs
to be more creative in finding a solution.
(-) Robert Rosenbaum
- He lives in a unit
which was converted.
- He is not trying to
merge units yet is sympathetic to the speakers who have merger projects.
- In the future he
might want to merge units and thinks it?s not fair to have to go through
Discretionary Review.
(-) David Grossman
- He has a 2 unit
building.
- He learned that his
tenants are moving out of state.
- He is starting a
family and would like to merge the units since there will be no evictions.
- He echoes the sympathy
what the Department is trying to do yet his hear goes out to the people who
have dwelling merger projects.
(-) Ted Loewenberg
- He heard about this
policy through the Small Property Owners Organization.
- He pays mortgage,
taxes, repair costs, etc to his own property and now the Department is telling
him what he? has to do with his
property.
- He finds it unfair
that there is a recommendation to adopt the policy after public speakers.? In any court, the public has a right to
speak and then a vote is conducted.?
Input should be considered first and not just make decisions by what the
Director has recommended.
(-) Mary Lis
- She owns a property
which is going through the Planning Department right now.
- She and her husband
have a daughter and are expecting another baby.? So, they would like to expand their home.
- If this policy is
passed they will not be able to merge their 2 units into 1.
(-) Elizabeth Airheart
- She is an attorney
and she is representing a family who has a project right now in the Planning
Department.
- She would like to
request that these type of project should be exempt from this policy.
(-) Joe O?Donahue
- He recommends that
this policy should be continued and brought to the attention of the Board of
Supervisors.
- This policy is an
intrusion on people rights.
- This policy is also
forcing people buy properties with more than one unit and spend money on
merging these units.
- He also recommends
that properties that have started projects to have them continue and go through
the process.
(-) John (last name
unclear)
- He is here for
another matter but decided to speak because his property was never approved as
a single-family home, yet the two units house 1 family.
- Having units merged
would create less parking problems.
ACTION:???????? Policy Adopted.?? Guidelines to this policy will be
elaborated and presented to the Commission on January 18, 2001.
AYES:???????????? Chinchilla, Mills, Salinas,
Theoharis
NAYES:????????? Baltimore, Joe, Fay
MOTION:??????? 16053
14.?????? 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 for billiard hall, dance hall, nightclub, other
amusement enterprise and nighttime entertainment activities, and adult
entertainment; and to require Conditional Use Authorization for hours of
operation between 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. in the RC‑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 Authorization to operate amusement
and adult entertainment enterprises in C‑3‑R and C‑3‑G
districts between the hours of 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.
Recommendation: Adoption of
proposed amendments.
Note: On November 9, 2000,
following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing.? A motion to approve the legislation failed
to carry by a vote of +2 -5.?
Commissioners Baltimore, Chinchilla, Mills and Theoharis voted
against.? The matter was then continued
to December 7, 2000.
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Daniel Emerson
- This issue seems to
be complicated but it?s actually very simple.
- He attends church in
the Tenderloin
- There are families
that live in the Tenderloin as well as various churches and YMCA.? This community is asking for support to
control it?s destiny.
- They are not against
restaurants or businesses that bring value to the community yet there needs to
be control in order to grow the neighborhood.
- CU allows the
community to work with the Police Department.
(+) Robert Garcia
- He would like Commission
to adopt this policy since neighborhoods need protection.
- People who work in
the Downtown Area, Civic Center and Financial Area will be the first victims of
gentrification.? Gentrification is need
necessary to clean up the neighborhoods.
- People need to be
protected especially between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.
- He is not against
restaurants.
- Neighborhoods need
this projection.
(+) Phillip Faight
- Displaced a map of
extended hours permit locations.
- Residential
neighborhoods are protected so why aren?t downtown people not protected as
well.
- This neighborhood
needs the same type of controls as other neighborhoods.
- People need to be
able to sleep between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.
- Conditional Use and
controls are required for this area.
(+) Linda Mjellem
- She represents the
Union Square Business Association.
- There are many fine
restaurants in this area as well as hotels and stores.
- In the hotel rooms of
the square, there are people who seek entertainment but also who would like a
good-night?s sleep.
- A conditional use
would have control on late-night entertainment.
(+) Bob Begley
- He is a native of
this city and works for the hotel association.
- The hotel association
has experienced very good business during the last couple of years.
- People have choices
of place to go.? People might decide to
not come to San Francisco because they can?t get a good night?s sleep or have
problems on the street.
(-) Terrance Alan
- San Francisco Late
Night Coalition
- There is no
gentrification plan for the downtown area.
- The media took a
statement that he made.
- After hours is being
called evil.? Something that happens
after 2 a.m. becomes a problem.
- There has been a
moratorium in certain areas already.
- The police department
has a process to issue late-night permits.
- There has been an
intense pressure to after-hours establishments.? These pressures have caused many establishments to close.
(-) Kathleen Harrington
- President of the
Golden Gate Restaurant Association
- She is thankful to
Supervisor Becerril.
- She doesn?t agree
that this conditional use be imposed on restaurants.
- For restaurants, they
still need to obtain a permit from the police department.
- She supports the
notification and not the conditional use.
(+) Dick Millet
- He has an area in his
neighborhood (Potrero) which has a number one use of loft housing and number
two use are late night establishments.
- The police policy of
notification is not good enough.
- He worries about
creating character in neighborhoods have late night establishments there.
- There are good late
night establishments and there are bad ones.
(+) David Overdorf
- He lives, works and
owns property in San Francisco.
- There has been a lot
of work put into establishing legislation and a compromise.
- The situation is that
a moratorium is expiring soon.
- He is supportive to
the Planning Department?s recommendation.
- He is asking the
Commission to give the same protection as other neighborhoods and approve a
conditional use.
?
ACTION:???????? Legislation will go back to the BOS
on Monday, December 18, 2001.? No Action
Required.
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
15.?????? 2000.324R?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ASSEFA:
558-6625)
COLIN COURT (AKA COLIN
PLACE) STREET VACATION - easterly of Jones Street between Post and Geary Streets
on Assessor's Block 305 - Consideration of a proposal to vacate Colin Court
(AKA Colin Place) and install a steel gate at its entrance.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Finding proposal not in conformity with the General Plan.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Cy Szpyrka
- He is trying to clean
up his neighborhood.
- This would be between
2 a.m. and 4 am.
- This alley is a
problem.
- A gate would assist
in eliminating all these problems.
(+) Michael Goldstein
- He is a friend of a
person who couldn?t make it to the meeting.
- There is no parking
except through the alley.?
- Who will have a key
to that gate?
- There is a safety
issue as well.
- He didn?t know that
this case would be heard.
ACTION:???????? Project Disapproved
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION:??????? 16054
16.?????? 2000.994ET?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (SHOTLAND:
558-6308)
INCREASING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING GENERAL ADVERTISING SIGNS - Consideration of a
proposal to Adopt an Amendment to Part II, Chapter II of the San Francisco
Municipal Code (Planning Code) by amending Section 176 and adding Section 610
to substantially increase the penalties for violation of regulations governing
general advertising signs.? Fees and
administrative penalties collected pursuant to Section 610 would be used to
establish and fund a Planning Code Special Account which would be used to fund
sign regulation enforcement activities and graffiti removal.? The proposed Planning Code amendment was
introduced by Supervisor Leno at a Board of Supervisors hearing on July 31,
2000 (Board of Supervisors File No. 001391).?
Testimony and Commission considerations could result in recommendations
to modify the proposed legislation.?
Preliminary Recommendation:
Adopt the Draft Ordinance.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Didi Workman - San
Francisco Beautiful
- Assessing significant
fines for erecting non-permit signs should be enforced.
- These fees would back
to continue the enforcement.
- She urges the
Commission to adopt this ordinance and enforce it.
(+) Peter? Winkelstein - SPUR
- SPUR supports this
legislation.
- If the legislation
passes, he would like to make some conditions:?
1) make an inventory of all the signs.?
When this goes back to BOS, he would like to s
- The Commission may
want to do the inventory through a contract.
(+) Dr. Francis Rigney
- He supports the
motion of not mixing ?apples and oranges?. In other words, not mixing billboard
regulations with graffiti.
(+) Did not state name
- She is concerned with
the way this City looks.
- There is a lot of
pollution in this City: air, graffiti and now billboards.
- She is thankful to
Supervisor Leno for initiating this legislation.
- She agrees with not
mixing billboards and graffitti.
? - Board of Directors
of Union Square Association
- They are in support
of this legislation.
- He would like the
billboards which are not legal to be taken down.
- 90% of the billboards
are illegal.
- Some of the
billboards are interesting yet they are illegal and should be taken down.
(+) Milo Hankey -
Member of San Francisco Beautiful
- This legislation is
very important.
- This signage has
reached a critical point.
- Billboards are ugly
and will still be ugly.
- He would like the
Commission to consider a moratorium of any new signage.
- An additional revenue
source would be to impose taxes on signage since it?s encroaching on public
space.
(+) Robert Freese -
Member of San Francisco Beautiful
- This is an
alternative of an already banned proposal.
- This policy should be
adopted.
(+) Did not state name
- San Franciscans are
trying very hard to preserve the cityscape of this City.
- These billboards add
to the visual clutter of the streets.
- In the past sign
companies have showed up to Planning Commission hearings.
- Do not be persuaded
by these comments.
(+) Steve Shinn
- He supports the
City?s efforts to enforce the billboard regulations
- He would like the
Director of the department
(+) Dick Millet -
Potrero Boosters Association
- Many billboards could
be prevented if this legislation is approved.
- He agrees with the
Director?s explanation that we are not mixing ?apples and oranges?
- Many of the companies
who have billboards will run away.
(+) Patricia Reynolds -
National Association of Realtors
- This legislation will
only make San Francisco more beautiful and more valuable.
ACTION:???????? Draft Ordinance Adopted with
Recommendations from Planning Director:?
Any reference to ? will be taken out.
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION:??????? 16055
17.?????? 1999.346TZ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MALTZER:
558-6391)
ADOPTION OF NEW POLICIES
REGARDING OFFICE USE AND CONVERSION OF LIVE/WORK (LOFT HOUSING) WITHIN INTERIM
INDUSTRIAL PROTECTION ZONES AND MIXED USE HOUSING ZONES - Consideration of
adopting new policies to discourage office development and to further
discourage the conversion of live/work to office within the Interim Controls
boundary area.? These new policies are
to supplement existing policies previously adopted August 5, 1999 (CPC Res.
14861).
Preliminary Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution creating new policies within Interim Zones
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? Continued to January 18, 2001
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
18a.??? 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 (32 one-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 square foot site.? The
project site is currently occupied by a 58-car public parking lot and two-story
concrete buildings totaling approximately 14,600 square feet, which would be
demolished.? The project would include
about 76 parking spaces located in a basement parking garage with entrance and
exit both on Folsom Street.? The project
site is in the South of Market Residential/Service District (SOM RSD) and the
40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District.? The
site lies within the Mixed-Use Housing District of the Industrial Protection
Zone (IPZ).
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2000)
Preliminary
Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Recommendation
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? Appeal Withdrawn
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
18b.??? 1999.849VC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON:
558-6309)
??????????????????????????????????? 821
FOLSOM STREET, on the south side, a through lot to Shipley Street between
Fourth and Fifth Streets, Lots 92, 93, 94 in Assessor?s Block 3572 -- Request
for Conditional Use Authorization to: (1) allow a 56-foot tall structure above
the 40‑foot base height? under
Planning Code Section 263.11(b) and (e); and (2) allow exceptions to
bulk limit of the 85-B bulk district above 50‑feet in height as stated in
Planning Code Section 270 and pursuant to Planning Code Section 271(b) and (c);
and (3) provide off-street parking in excess of the accessory amounts as
defined in Planning Code Section 204.5 pursuant to Planning Code Section
157(a), (b), and (d).? The site is
within the RSD (Residential/Service Mixed Use) District and the Mixed‑Use
Housing Area of the Industrial Protection Zone.? The site is also within a 40‑X/85‑B Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with Conditions.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Chris Maney
- The concept is to
develop a 78-unit residential unit with subterranean parking.
- The building will
have an open courtyard.
(+) Ken Iremonger
- He would like to see
the Shipley Street elevation.
ACTION:???????? Approved
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION:??????? 16056
18c.???? 1999.849VC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON:
558-6309)
821 FOLSOM STREET -? south side, a through lot to Shipley Street
between Fourth and Fifth Streets, Lots 92, 93, 94 in Assessor's Block
3572.? Request for a rear yard exception
under Planning Code Sections 134(e) and 307(g). Planning Code Section
134(a)(1), requires the minimum rear yard of the subject site to be 41.25 feet
in depth (equal to 25 percent of the total depth of the lot), from the Shipley
Street property line -- occupying about 7,219-square feet in area.? The Project Sponsor proposes to replace the
required rear yard with a central courtyard of approximately 6,200-square feet,
and other roof deck open areas of approximately 1,760-square feet.? The site is within the RSD (Residential/Service
Mixed Use) District, a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District and the Mixed-Use
Housing Area of the Industrial Protection Zone.?
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? Zoning Administrator has taken
Variance under Advisement.
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
19a.??? 2000.052E???????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????? (JAROSLAWSKY: 558‑5970)
14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 50, and
56 ARCO WAY and three additional vacant lots ‑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,? 50, and 56 Arco Way and three additional
vacant lots.? The proposed project
includes the rezoning of the lots from Public (P) to Residential House‑One
Family (RH‑1) with a 40‑X Height and Bulk Designation and the
construction of one, single‑family structure on each legal lot.? Each structure would be approximately 2,000
square feet, contain a two‑car garage and be a maximum of 30 feet in
height.? The lots are along the northern
side of Arco Way and range from 1,973 square feet to 9,900 square feet and abut
the Bay Area Rapid Transit tracks to the north.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of November 9, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Nazario Bernardo
- He objects to the
- He and some of the
neighbors have prepared a video which was shown to the public.
(-) David Hooper -
Mission Terrace Improvement Association
- He would like to
point out that 1873 is a mistake.? The
smallest lot is 1150 square feet.? This
item is a question of how you read the property lines.
- These lots are
averaging about 25 x 53 feet.
- These lots are quite
small.
(-) Jose Hernandez
- On page 14, item 8 -
states that the site does not have any vegetation yet the video shows
vegetation and would like to have further study done on the site.
(+) Jim Reuben - Reuben
and Alter - Project Sponsor
- Most of the comments
on the tape were regarding the project and not the environmental impact.
- The neg dec does not
show any significant impact.? Staff?s
work is adequate.
- This site used to
contain houses then BART purchased the property and demolished the
property.?
- Housing is necessary
and this site will develop housing.
ACTION:???????? Negative Declaration Upheld
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION:??????? 16057
19b.??? 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 Block 3154 -- 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:
Adoption of the Zoning Map Amendment.
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of November 9, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Cecile Lozano
- Project should not be
approved.
-These lots are not the
same size as they used to be, before BART bought the property.
- There is a lots of
noise, can?t even open windows
(-) Angela Olson
- She lives in the
neighborhood.
- The lots are on a
lope and are very small.
- She will be impacted
with this development.
- She agrees with homes
being built there but not 9.
(-) David Hooper -
Mission Terrace Neighborhood Association
- There has been no
effort to work with the context of the neighborhood.
- There will be no back
yards on these houses.
- The lots are
extremely narrow.
- Nine buildings on
narrow, short blocks should be analyzed.
(-) Gene Bernardo
- She and her husband
live on Arco Way.
- She realizes that
there is a housing shortage but these many houses are too much.
- A smaller number of
houses would be more appropriate.
(-) Jose Hernandez
- The point of the
video is to show that the site is not appropriate for housing.
- This project should
be denied.
- Housing is needed but
not these type of housing.
- The lots have been on
the market for a long time but no one has come forward to purchase the lots and
construct anything -- until now.
ACTION:???????? Map Rezoning Approved
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION:??????? 16058
20a.??? 2000.656CV ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?(MIRAMONTES: 558-6348)
1988 (formerly 1946) VAN
NESS AVENUE,
east side between Washington? and
Jackson Streets, Lot 10A in Assessor?s Block 598 ‑‑Request for
Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 209.8(d) for the
provision of 14,910 square feet of office space located above the ground floor
on a site located within an RC‑4 (Residential‑Commercial Combined,
High Density) District, 80‑D Height and Bulk District,? the Van Ness Special Use District and the
Van Ness Special Sign District.?
Conditional Use Authorization is also required under Planning Code
Section 253.2 for alteration which causes the structure to exceed 40 feet in
height.? The proposal is to add two new
stories plus a top‑floor mezzanine to an existing three‑story
building.
Preliminary
Recommendation:? Approve with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) ?
- He is a native San
Franciscan.
- He is an attorney and
is very blessed to be able to present this project to the Commission.
- He has contacted the
various neighbors especially those who would be affected by the project.
(+) May Yu - Project
Sponsor
- Many of the neighbors
have submitted support letters to the Department.
- Recently they met
with the condominium Association.? They
are appreciative of their support to this project.
(+) Tom Harry - Project
Architect
- The project would
refurbish an older building and build condominiums.
- He gave a detailed
description of the building and the project.
(-) Ann Miller
- She is a natural health
practitioner.
- Although May stated
that she tried to contact all the neighbors, Ms. Miller was not notified
and? yet she lives very close.
- The reasons she is
against the project for two reasons: parking and noise when construction is
going on.
- Her patients need
peace since she treats people who have problems with stress and cancer.
- Parking is an
?endangered species? in San Francisco.
- She has various
petitions of neighbors who are against the project.
(-) Mrs. Pavlov
- She fears that their
house will be impacted with this construction.
- She like the project
sponsors but are quite concerned.?
- She project architect
has not made himself available to them.
- Her house will loose
light and air yet the project supposedly will have a garden and therefore will
not create a problem.? Yet the sponsors
will not be living there, the Pavlov?s will.
- She hopes that some
modifications will be made.
- She has been promised
a lot but there have been no actions.
(-) Mr. Pavlov
- In addition to
parking problems, this project will be mixed residential and commercial.? He doesn?t know who people are going to get
to this project.
- His building is quite
high.
- His objection is the
height and the increase in people who will travel there.
ACTION:???????? Approve with added condition that 3
signs come down(?).
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:?????? Fay
MOTION:??????? 16059
20b.??? 2000.656CV ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MIRAMONTES: 558-6348)
1988 (formerly 1946) VAN
NESS AVENUE,
east side between Washington? and
Jackson Streets, Lot 10A in Assessor's Block 598 ‑‑Request for a
rear yard variance under Planning Code Sections 134 and 243(c)(6) on a site
located within an RC‑4 (Residential‑Commercial Combined, High
Density) District, 80‑D Height and Bulk District,? the Van Ness Special Use District and the
Van Ness Special Sign District.? Section 134 of the
Planning Code requires a minimum rear yard depth equal to 25 percent of the
total depth of the subject lot.? Section
134 further specifies that the rear yard shall be provided at the lowest story
containing a dwelling unit and at each succeeding story of the building.? The proposed project would provide a rear
yard on the fifth level but not on the fourth level which would contain two residential
units.? Section? 243(c)(6) allows for the rear yard
requirement to be modified or waived by the Zoning Administrator if specific
conditions outlined in Section 243(c)(6) are met.
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? Zoning Administrator has taken
variance under advisement.
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:?????? Fay
21.?????? 2000.944C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NIKITAS:
558-6306)
1527-1533 PINE STREET - south side through to
Austin between Polk Street and Van Ness Avenue, Lots 018, 018A, and 019 in
Assessor?s Block 0667 - ?Request
for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 121.2 for use
size exceeding 3,000 square feet within the Polk Street NC District (Lot 19)
and Section 209.8(c) for a commercial establishment located above the ground
floor in an RC-4 District (Residential-Commercial High Density) and the Van
Ness Special Use District (Lots 18 and 18A). The properties are in 130-V and
65-A Height and Bulk Districts.? The
proposal is to convert three interconnected buildings from commercial and
industrial uses (Albert Daini Fine Furniture) to business or professional
services office space (West Coast Property Management).
Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of December 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Erick Cangracing
- West Coast is very
well noted in the district.
- He is looking forward
to continue working in the neighborhood he grew up in.
ACTION:???????? Approved
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:?????? Fay
MOTION:??????? 16060
22.?????? 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(c) of the Planning Code to establish office use, approximately
3,798 square feet in floor area, at? the
second story level of an existing commercial building within a C-3-R (Downtown
Retail) District and 120-X Height and Bulk District.??
Preliminary
Recommendation:? Approval with
conditions
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of November 16, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Hanh Pham - Reuben
& Alter - Representing Project Sponsor
- The project will
convert retail to office.
- The project will not
alter the neighborhood.
- This site is
appropriate for office since it?s close to transit.
- The project will retain
the retail on the ground floor.
(neutral) Sue Hestor
- She doesn?t want
Planning staff that this type of forum analysis is good.
- This will not be ok
on some of the projects that the Commission has lined up.
- Just because you are
close to transit does not mean that office is ok.
- Conversion of retail
can be very technical and sensitive.
ACTION:???????? Approved
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla,? Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:?????? Fay
MOTION:??????? 16061
23.?????? 2000.988C
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MARTIN:
558-6616)
399 FREMONT STREET - west side between Folsom
and Harrison Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor?s Block 3747 --? Request for a Conditional Use Authorization
to allow a residential care facility for seven or more persons per Planning
Code Section 209.3(c) in the RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined Districts,
High Density) Zoning District, Rincon Hill Special Use District, and a 250-R
Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jonathan Brink
- They provide support
and treatment who are mentally ill.
- Their organization
basically helps people who have been in hospitals and need a transitional place
to get back into the real world.
- A few years ago they
developed the first detox program.?
There have never been any complaints to this organization being located
in the avenues.
- The CATS program
(which is a shelter program) has 26 adults living there who can come and go
freely.? This program lost it?s funding
and was closed.
- The net impact with
the neighborhood is that they were able to reduce from 26 to 19 people living
at 399 Fremont Street.
- There is never less
than two staff available.? They have a
round-the-clock nurse available.
- People who are living
in the program, has been the congregation of people on the outside of the
building.
- There will actually
be less people gathering outside of the building.
(+) Doug Shoemacker
- He works with the
organization and believes they are a very professional organization.
- He Would like to have
project approved.
(-) Chano ?
- He is a business
owner at 390 Fremont.
- There is a tremendous
amount of drug usage in this area.
- There was a major
accident at the corner of Fremont and Harrison.
- If this center is
approved, there will be traffic and people problems.
- There is a serious
issue going on in this neighborhood.
ACTION:???????? Approved
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:?????? Fay
MOTION:??????? 16062
24a.??? 2000.641E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NAVARRETE:
558-5975)
1047 MISSISSIPPI STREET -? Appeal of a Negative Declaration -
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
building would be approximately 40 feet in height.? The project site is located in an M-1 zoning district, within a
40-X height/bulk district, as well as within an 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:?? Uphold Negative
Declaration
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of November 16, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Sue Hestor
- She raises questions
about the site since the area is very industrial.
- People who reside in
the area do not take transit.
- There is a very steep
and windy hill which is not a very nice walking area.
- There are also
freeways that don?t have lights so it makes it difficult for people to walk to
transit.
(-) Lane Myers
- She has resided in
the area for 19 years.
- Mississippi Street
feels so isolated because between Pennsylvania and Mississippi the grade is
18%.? This is a very steep hill.
- Every single adult
must drive.? There are no amenities near
by.? The area is quite dangerous.
- Two years ago condos
were built in the area.
(+) Alice Barkley
- The project
description in the neg dec describes the project in detail.? Issues related to the Conditional Use and
Discretionary Reviews, she will comment at that time.
ACTION:???????? Uphold Negative Declaration
AYES: ??????????? Baltimore,
Chinchilla, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:?????? Fay
MOTION:??????? 16063
24b.??? 2000.641C????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WONG:
558-6381)
1047 MISSISSIPPI STREET - east side, between 23rd
and 25th Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor?s Block 4224:? Request for Conditional Use Authorization for the construction of
nine live/work units in an M-1(Light Industrial) / IPZ (Industrial Protection
Zone) buffer Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, per Planning
Commission Resolution 14861.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with conditions.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Alice Barkley
- This project is
approprate for live/work since the block is residential.
- The existing
structure on the site is an open shed with a small office.? It was used before by a number of difference
users.? Because of the steep grade, it
makes it difficult for trucks to travel.
(+) Mack Burton
- He takes offence when
someone states that this area is a crime area.
- There is a sore spot
and this area is being dealt with.
- In the area there are
people of every race.
- This project should
move forward.
- He is looking forward
to having this project in the neighborhood.
- People move their
groceries up and down that hill.
- He looks forward to
having workers work on this project
(+) Randy Allison
- He is a property
owner across the street from subject property.
- He also leases the
adjacent building.
- This proposal is a
very good use of the property.
- It is important to
him on how the building will look and he likes the design of the building.
(+) Joe O?Donahue
- There are 90 letters
of support and signatures of neighbors.
- This project is
needed.
- A few years ago,
neighbors wanted live/work in the area.
- This has been a
vacant site for the past several months.
- This is a good
live/work project.
- The architecture is very
sensibly drawn.
?- This project should be approved.
(-) Max Schmeder
- He is opposed to the
project as it is currently planned because it is too dense.
- There are not that
many parking spaces left when people come home from work.
- 25th Street is the main
thoroughfare to Potrero Hill and it?s very dangerous.
- He has had
frightening experiences.? He can no
longer walk his dog.
- Please prevent more
problems by reducing the density of this project.
(-) Bernie Bermudez
- He lives on the
corner of 25th Street and Mississippi
- 4 times a car has hit
his car.
- The project sponsor
is not going to live there when the project is complete.? He and his family will have to live with all
the problems.
- The problem is in the
Commissioner?s hand now.
(-) Carmen Bermudez
- She lives on 1500
25th Street for 16 years.
- There have been many
apartment projects built in the area and there are no more place to park.
- She and her family
belong to a church and when they return there are no places to park.
- Her husband has been
assaulted and mugged with a gun.
(-) Elena Myers
- As everyone else has
pointed out, everyone on this street will drive.? Parking will be a real issue.
- The area is just too
dense.
- Why does the
developer expect approval of all these units.
- There is a great deal
of crime in the area.
- Please recognize the
limitations of the block.
(-) Sue Hestor
- The rendering
submitted to the Commissioners is very deceptive.
- There will be another
large project which will be at the Commission in January on this same
street.? This is just too much for this
street.
- The Commission is
making people?s lives extremely difficult.
ACTION:???????? Approved
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla,? Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
NAYES:????????? Joe
ABSENT:?????? Fay
MOTION:??????? 16064
E.??????? SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 7:39 P.M. the Planning
Commission? convened into a Special
Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.
24c.???? 2000.641D????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WONG:
558-6381)
1047 MISSISSIPPI STREET, east side, between 23rd
and 25th Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 4224:? Staff-initiated discretionary review for removal of a vacant,
2,000 square foot industrial storage shed.?
Proposal to construct nine live/work units in a M-1(Light Industrial) /
IPZ (Industrial Protection Zone) buffer Zoning District and a 40-X Height and
Bulk District, per Planning Commission Resolution 14861.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Do not take Discretionary Review and approve as proposed.
SPEAKER(S):?????????? See 24b.
ACTION:???????? No Discretionary Review.? Project Approved
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla,? Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
NAYES:????????? Joe
ABSENT:?????? Fay
25a.??? 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/work units, 9 retail/commercial spaces, and parking for 84
cars.? There would be a total of
approximately 15,834 square feet of commercial space, about 53,340 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. ?The new buildings would be approximately 50 feet in height and would
cover the 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 Planning Commission as an interim zoning control.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2,
2000).
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Patrick
Gogin - Appellant
- Project
Artaud provides low cost space to artists.
- This has
been known as the gateway to the Mission District.
- There are
several artists co-ops as well as theaters.
- This
project will not provide any benefit to the district.
- The
project is bad for the community.
- There is
no real benefit to the neighborhood.
- The
project will have problems regarding traffic, chemicals, toxic, etc.
- There has
not been any new soils analysis of chemicals that were left behind from
previous owners.
- This
application is incompatible with zoning areas.
(-) Mathew
Francois - Appellant
- His
client lives in the area.
- The
project will result in environmental impacts: land use impacts; San Francisco
SPCA will be impacted; nose impacts; and traffic impacts.
- He is asking
for a full Environmental Impact Report.
(-) Sue
Hestor - Appellant
- Submitted
Resolution No. 13794, adopted on December 15, 1994.? This is a policy for this site which has never been repealed.
- The staff
response to this implies that it is discussed in this resolution.
- The
discussion of compatibility with policies belongs in this negative declaration.
- She has
two issues: a) it?s going to be offices b) policies are not discussed.
(-) Judy
West
- This site
has a major crossroad to the neighborhood.
- She
passed documents to the Commissioners.
- The
occupancy was supposed to be low income artists -- this is not what is going
on.
- This is a
culturally significant site which needs to be addressed further.
(-) Nicole
Sowaya
- There are
toxic chemicals at the site that is why an Environmental Impact Report is
required.
- She has
lived in the area for many years and has seen the cement factory when it was
open.
(-) Lizzy
Spicuzza
- She is a
resident and a member of Project Artaud.
- Parking
and traffic in the neighborhood is already a problem.
- Few
businesses have the luxury to offer valet parking.
- No having
a detailed investigation of traffic should not be avoided.
- A project
of this size is not appropriate for the neighborhood.
(-)
Benjamin Young
- He has
lived next to the site for 28 years.
- 16th
Street was one of the first streets.
- Two years
ago he and his son found some evidence of archeology.
- This is
an extraordinary site.
(-) Phil
Deal
- He is a
resident of Project Artaud for 25 years.
- Traffic
congestion is a problem and is quite intense.
- People
drive around for 15 to 30 minutes in order to find parking.
- 17th and
Harrison is an extremely and hazardous intersection.
- When this
project moves in, these problems will only increase.
(-) Victor
Vitlin
- He owns a
building across from the subject project.
- He does
not oppose development yet this particular project is not compatible with the
neighborhood.
- There are
a number of industrial buildings surrounding the project site.
- In this
type of area, residential developments are prohibited.
(-) Doug
Shoemacker
- He is
here on behalf of MAC (Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition).
- The
original negative declaration for live/work stated that it is not anticipated
that live/work would have any impact on availability of industrial space in the
City.? This is been proven to not be
true.
- Will the
land use have any substantial impact on the existing character of the vicinity.
- How many
times will the Commission tell the public that the Planning policies are not
appropriate with specific project levels and never go to the cumulative impact.
- He is
looking forward to a new day with new policies.
(-) Maria
Gilardin
- Her main
concern is the incredible day and night construction going on.?
- There is
a lot of soil which goes in and out into the area.
- There are
also massive amounts of toxic soil at the site.
(-) Roger
Geisler
- He is
against this project.
- There is
a negative environmental impact to this project.
- He would
not be feeling safe living in a development which might become an office
building? because there will be more
people there.
(-)
Cathlene O?Keafe
- She has
lived in the area for over 20 years.
- The
neighborhood has changed.
- This area
was supposed to encourage artists.
- Not that
many people are coming into San Francisco because it?s becoming harder to come.
(+) Alice
Barkley
- There is
a soil management plan in place which has been approved by the Department of
Public Health.? There will be a health
safety plan for workers.
- Dirt is
coming in and out in order to analyze the soil.
- All the
soil which has come in will be taken out by the people who put it there.
- When this
Commission adopted resolutions in 1999 and early this year, the Commission has
considered IPZs.? Projects in this area
will be ?grandfathered?.
- There is
allegations that this project will displace.?
The site has been vacant for 8 years.
- The
mitigation measure on transportation require the project sponsor to install a
signal at the site for traffic and pedestrian protection.
- The plan
requires that prior to any excavation, there will be an archeologist on
site.? The project sponsor is
responsible for all fees.
- An EIR is
not required since this project is a mitigated negative declaration.
- An EIR
will not provide Commission with any additional information.
- Regarding
the actual use of the building
(+) Joe
Cassidy
- Regarding
the soil, he is an expert on this issue.?
The City is installing thousands of miles of fiber optic cable.? The City does testing of soils before a
project is developed.
- Line
Enterprises uses an industrial building for other uses.
- He finds it
hypocritical for this company to come and state comments against this project.
(+) Joe
O?Donahue - Residential Builders
- This site
has had an intensified use.
- Bode
Gravel?s trips and trucks were approximately 4,000 per day.
- There are
allegations without historic facts.
- People
who live in the City could not afford to live in Walnut Creek, nowadays it is
the reversal.
ACTION:???????? Negative Declaration Upheld
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:?????? Fay
MOTION:??????? 16065
25b.??? 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
three off-street loading spaces. The proposed buildings would be approximately
50 feet tall.? Per Planning Commission
Resolution No. 14861, adopted on August 8, 1999, all live/work projects
submitted prior to April 22, 1999 ("pipeline projects") within the
Industrial Protection Zone 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.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 16, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Mary
Pellow
- She
represents the owners of the Line Building as well as being treasurer of the
Northeast Mission Business Association.
- Many of
the members of the organization are opposed to the project.? These members work? in the vicinity of the project.
- Her point
is that since she manages the project, walks down 16th Street, takes BART,
etc., it is a reality that the dogs are loud.
(-) Nicole
Sowaya - Project ARTAUD
- Referred
to an article on the New York Times regarding artists? vs. dot.coms.
- This is
one of the largest live/work proposals.
- When are
the public going to say ?enough is enough!?
- She wants
non-profits and artists to remain in the Mission.
- This is
about preserving the last bit of industrial use in this City.
- Why can?t
the Commission have a community-planning process.
(-) Chris
Moscone
- He is
here to urge the Commission to take DR and approve the project with conditions
of approval.
- The
project sponsor, Ms. Barkley and he have developed specific conditions of approval.
- The main
concern is parking.
- She would
like the Commission to review the conditions of approval.
(-) Judy
West
- This is a
very crucial site for the neighborhood and she would like for the Commission to
be very careful to not do the wrong thing.
- To say
that this project is exempt from any policies to discourage housing is very
disingenuous on the part of the Commission.
- She would
really like to see built a very large public plaza -- like a European
plaza.? Not something that will compete
with Franklin Square but more like something that would be more urban, for the
business community, for carnaval, for farmer?s markets.
- This is
one of the only sites left in our industrial land that could be something for
the public.
(-) Trisha
Legocio - Executive Director of Southern Exposure
- There
will be great impact if the Commission approves a project of this nature.
- She
represents artists and youth.? They
serve up to 23,000 annually.
- She urges
the Commission to consider not supporting this proposal.
(-) Brian
Goggin
- He is a
public artist and has lived and worked at project artaud for many years.
- Project
Artaud is a low income, affordable housing for artists.
- He urges
the Commission to approve more projects which would allow space for artists.
- This area
is a gateway to the Mission.
(-) Steven
Siegel
- The
proposed development will only aggravate matters more.
- The need
for affordable and performing space is imperative.
- Artists
are being forced to leave areas which they have helped create.
- Venues
are being forced to increase their fees which makes it difficult for artists to
rent and/or perform there.
(-) Sue
Hestor
- There are
important items which are not dealt with in the staff report.
- The
Commission has never dealt with repealing the resolution.
(+) Alice
Barkley
- The
project sponsor, the architect and the SPCA conducted meetings regarding the
barking dogs.
- The code
required that the units have special noise reduction material.
- This
live/work project meets all the requirements.
- Regarding
parking and traffic and the concern of the neighbors, it was suggested to
eliminate commercial spaces, put the parking garage from Alabama Street down to
the commercial level.? The only problem
is that this would be a conflict of policies.
- The project
team came to a conclusion and this is what is being presented to the
Commission.
(+) Joe
O?Donahue
- Art needs
creativity and not money.
- Artists
don?t need subsidies, creativity does not need subsidies.
ACTION:???????? Take Discretionary Review to impose
conditions recommended by staff.
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Mills,
Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:?????? Fay
NAYES:????????? Joe
26.?????? 2000.045D?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WANG:
558-6335)
1117-1125 OCEAN
AVENUE - Lots 041 and 042, in Assessor?s Block 6944 -- Request for
Discretionary Review - proposing to demolish an existing ground-floor,
single-family residence and storefront on Lot 042, demolish an 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 Neighborhood Commercial)
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as
submitted.
(Continued from
Regular Meeting of November 9, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? Continued to January 11, 2001
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:?????? Fay
27.?????? 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 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation:? Do not take
Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted
(Continued from
Regular Meeting of November 16, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? Continued to January 25, 2001
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla,? Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:?????? Fay
28.?????? 2000.1042D????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (M.
SNYDER: 575-6891)
261 FAIR OAKS
STREET - east side between 23rd and 24th Streets, Lot 023 in Assessor?s
Block 3647, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition at the rear of
the house in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X
Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building
permit applications as revised.?
SPEAKER(S):?????????? None
ACTION:???????? DR Withdrawn
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla,? Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:?????? Fay
29.?????? 2000.337D???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (M.
SNYDER: 575-6891)
175 RUSS
STREET/68 HARRIET STREET - northeast side between Folsom and Howard
Streets and fronting on Harriet Street, Lot 089 in Assessor?s Block 3731,
proposing to demolish an existing warehouse building and construct 32 live/work
units in two 16-unit buildings with 34 off-street parking spaces in a SLR
(Service/Light Industrial/Residential Mixed-Use) District and an 50-X Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as
submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Joanna
Sanchez - DR Requestor
- She has
an easement right on the site the sponsor wants to develop.
- When she
found out about this building, she tried to contact Gary Gee and Joe Cassidy.
- She
couldn?t find an attorney in a period of 24 hours.
- She never
got a copy of a survey which was supposedly done.
- She has
concerns for her tenants since they will loose light and air.
- The value
of her property will suffer.? It will
also create maintenance costs.
(-) Vladan
Djakovic
- He does
not think it?s right for the Commission to pick and chose when to imply the
code.
- He
received notice less than 24 hours about the hearing.
- There are
multiple errors and discrepancies in the report.
(-) Marlies
Hensel
- Traffic
will increase tremendously.
(-) Paul
Meyers
- He lives
in the neighborhood and has similar concerns as the rest of the speakers.
- He has
not had much time to review the report.?
Although he has just skimmed through it, he has noticed many errors.
- With the
new development, it will be more hazardous and problematic for the people who
already live in the neighborhood.
(-) Sue
Hestor
- This is one
of the most manipulative projects Ms. Barkley has done.
- Many of
the documents were sent during the Thanksgiving holidays.
- Sending
staff reports a day before the hearing is just not appropriate.
- This case
should be continued until January in order to give people the change to review
the material and not rush through something before the Christmas holiday and break.
(+) Alice
Barkley
- The
project will be revised.
- This
project does have neighborhood support.
- There
were two meetings with the neighbors called by the project sponsor.
- She
recommends if there is no easement then the conditions of approval would be the
ones she submitted.
(+) Gary
Gee
- He had a
meeting with the Zoning Administrator regarding the criteria for the shadow
study.? The ZA asked him to use a more
stricter criteria and since he has gone back and made changes.
(+) Joe
Cassidy
- He is one
of the project sponsors.? He has had
many meetings with the neighbors and has provided practically ?the kitchen
sink? to try to deal with everyone?s issues.
- The area
of this project is a very business area.
(+) Pat
McCune
- They
print t-shirts.
- They started
out with 3 employees and now they have about 50 employees.
- They
moved from Shipley to Russ Street a few years ago.
- The Russ
building is very ill suited for the expansion of their business.
- They
can?t operate the business in two locations.
(+) Ken
Watson
- They are
under two roofs and have about 50 employees.?
They plan on growing and need to be under one roof.
ACTION:???????? Take
Discretionary Review to make amendments recommended by staff.
AYES:???????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe,
Mills, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:?????? Fay
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))
Lidia Fraser
Re: Live/work
Loft she owns with Mr. Dwight Doliver.
- She and a
partner own a film and arts production studio called Provision Studios.
- They have
been in San Francisco for 25 years and in live/work lofts for 15 years.? About 4 years ago they purchased a live/work
loft and a bout 1 year ago they purchased another loft and rented it out.
- They are
having a problem on the tenants of the 2nd building which is located on 18th
Street.
- They are
being harassed and they are being persecuted by people who lied to get in there
in for first place.
- They have
harrazed the other tenants, etc.
Dwight Dolliver
Re: Same as
previous speaker
- They feel
like they are being harrazed.
Sue Hestor
- She urges the
previous speakers to speak at the BOS.
- It is
inappropriate to provide information to the public 1 day before the hearing.
Joe O?Donahue
- There are
many people who submit information 1 hour before the hearing.
Adjournment:
11:00 p.m.
THE DRAFT
MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2001
Back to top
Return to the Planning Department's Home Page. Click here.
San
Francisco City and County Links
