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.)
PLANNING COMMISSION
?Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
Place
Thursday, August 3, 2000
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT:??????????????????? Antenore, Joe, Salinas, Mills, Theoharis,
Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT:????????????????????? None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY
PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:40 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green
- Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Isolde Wilson; Edy
Zwierzyky; Amit Gosh; David Alumbaugh; Paul Lord; Tony Kim; Paul Deutch;? Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary, Linda
D. Avery - Commission Secretary
A.???????? ITEMS
PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1.???????? 2000.257E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WYCKO)
200 TOWNSEND STREET, Appeal of Preliminary Negative
Declaration ?Proposed demolition of existing
one-and-two story buildings with about 8,000 gross square feet occupied by clothing
outlets, a liquor store, and a vacant bar/restaurant plus a surface parking
lot.? New construction of a 97,400 gross
square feet, 65 feet high structure with 51 live/work units, 1,400 gross square
of retail space, about 10,900 gross square feet of office/business services,
and 63 off -street parking spaces.? The
project site is situated at the northwest corner of Third and Townsend Streets
in Assessor?s Block 3787 and includes Lots 9, 10, 11, and 46. The proposed uses
are permitted uses in the applicable Service/Light Industrial (SLI) and
proposed South End Service (SES) Districts.?
Live/work is a permitted use under the interim Mixed Use Housing Zone
(MUHZ) also in effect.? The proposed
five-story, 65 feet high structure would also conform to the 65-X height and
bulk zoning for the project site.? A lot
merger is being sought.? Parking,
loading, and all other Planning Code requirements would be satisfied.
(Proposed for Continuance to
August 17, 2000 August 24, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued without hearing to August 24, 2000
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
B.?????? ??????????? PUBLIC
COMMENT
At this time, members of the public
may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within
the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items.? With respect to agenda items, your
opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached
in the meeting with one exception.? When
the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members
of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public
hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during
the Public Comment portion of the Calendar.?
Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three
minutes.? If it is demonstrated that
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President or chairperson may
continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.
AThe Brown Act forbids a commission
from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda,
including those items raised at public comment.? In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1)?
responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the
public; or
(2)?
requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3)?
directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.? (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
Patricia Vaughey
- Two unit buildings are being
converted to single family dwellings.
- There are several properties in
the City which are being converted illegally.
- Concerned about the
inconsistencies.
- A new residential plan needs to be
developed that works.
Gia Fujioka
Re: 1351 Grant Avenue
- A project that was approved as a
conditional use has been converted to commercial development located at 1351
Grant Avenue.
- Would like this case to be opened
again.
- 20 tenants will be evicted for
commercial use.
- A letter was submitted by the
Asian Law Caucus to the Zoning Administrator.
- This case should be reconsidered
by the Planning Commission.
Choi Kwok
Re: 1351 Grant Avenue
- Many of the tenants which are
illegally being evicted are senior citizens or are disabled.
- They were Ellis Acted in October
of 1999.
- If the proposed restaurant and bar
opens up, there will be many tenants which will be evicted.
- He would like the case to be
opened.
Reverend Norman Fong
Re: 1351 Grant Avenue
- Many of the tenants have been fighting
to not be evicted since September of 1999.
- He would urge the Commissioners to
open and reconsider this project.
- This project has a very negative
impact on many people.
Bill Sorro
Re: 1351 Grant Avenue
- He is a native San Franciscan.
- He has seen a lot of changes in
the City, and one of the changes is the displacement of many people.
- Approval of the International
Hotel project--on August 4 (23 years ago)--caused about 70 Chinese and Filipino
Senior Citizens to be evicted form the hotel.
- The Chinatown Community does not
want this to happen again.
- Please don?t let these tenants be
evicted.
Mrs. Chan Bao Wan
Re: 1351 Grant Avenue
- She does not speak English so she
brought a translator.
- She is from the Community Tenants
Association.? There are about 60 members
here today at this hearing.
- They urge the Commission to reopen
this case.? They would like the
commission to do whatever they can to save the affordable housing.? San Francisco cannot afford to lose this
affordable housing unit.
- They have nothing against the bar
and restaurant, they just don?t want to be evicted.
Roberta Caravelli - President of Citizens Review
Re:?
585 Laidley street -
- She is here to speak about all the
laws which are being broken just to approve projects.
- The following laws will have been
violated: The Brown Act, Section 54953c, 549 54.3a, Sunshine Ordinance Section
67.15(a) (c), and various sections of the Planning Code and Administrative
Code.
Brett Gladstone
Re:?
129 Randall Street
- He submitted the latest drawings
to the commission.
- Staff will agree to the compromise
indicated in the submittal that addresses some of the concerns expressed by
some commissioners.
- Hopes that the Commission will take
DR and approve changes.
Paul Travis
Re:?
129 Randall Street
- The plans submitted did shorten
the top floor, yet there were plans (and a preference expressed by some
commissioners) to eliminate the entire top floor.
- Most of the neighbors are still
not happy with the new plans.
Paul Curtis
Re: 129 Randall Street
- He is not aware of any meeting
with the neighbors and he doesn?t have a copy of the new plans.
Bil Petri
Re: 129 Randall Street
- There was no meeting between the
neighbors and the developer.
- There are issues about mass and
volume as well as parking.
- He would like a proper conference
to agree on the structure.
Tom Gillert
Re: 129 Randall Street
- Would like to have proposed
building without the 4th floor.
- He agrees with everything the previous
speakers have made.
C.???????? COMMISSIONERS?
QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
2.???????? Consideration
of Adoption - draft minutes of July 13, 2000.?
???????????? ?????????? ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
3.???????? Commission
Matters
Commissioner Theoharis:??????? 1351 Grant Avenue - Would like this item calendered next week,
8/10/00, to get a status report.
Commissioner Richardson:????? 1351
Grant Avenue - She is concerned that the commission is not creating another
International Hotel.? She would like to
take appropriate measures that the tenants are not displaced.
Commissioner Joe:????????????????????????????? 1351
Grant Avenue - She remembers when the project came before the commission,
the tenants were not to be affected.
Commissioner Antenore:???????? He
won?t be here next week but would like the case to move forward since he
remembers when this case came before the commission.
SPEAKER(S):
Roberta Caravelli:?????? The
item is not on the agenda so the commissioners should not be able to comment.
D.???????? DIRECTOR?S
REPORT
4.???????? Director?s
Announcements.
- He will not be present for the
next 2 hearings but Mr. Larry Badiner will be in attendance.
5.???????? Review
of Past Week?s Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
None
6.???????? Discuss
procedures for addressing modifications to plans after they have been approved
by the Planning Commission.
Larry Badiner:
- They have been working with staff
specifically on this item.? They have
had a stamp in the office for a number of years.? The procedure has been clarified in the last week.? An e-mail was sent to all planners requiring
that they stamp both the application and all elevations and plans of a project
that has come to the Commission with the following items: Aapproved pursuant to
CPC Discretionary Review action, all revisions should be referred to DCP@.? He has asked staff to follow up on this
matter and date and initial the stamp as they put it on.? He will be working with DBI to ensure that
these items come back to us.? He will
follow up on this and provide reports on items as they come up.? Also, a notation will be included in the
permit tracking computer program to augment the hard copy.
Gerald Green:
- Although this is nothing new, Commission
Chinchilla should receive credit for initiating this process.
- Unfortunately, in the last year,
this method has been applied inconsistently.
- We are taking steps to improve and
do a better job.
Patricia Vaughey
- One of the problems she has with
the stamp is that certain people get copies of the stamp and use them at their
own discretion when it?s convenient.
- She suggests that different color
ink be used for different days.
- There are still problems with lost
drawings.
- People who are repeat offenders
should have double or triple the fine.
Roberta Caravelli
- Internally, both the Building
Department and the Planning Department need to watch for staff who are
inconsistent about applying the procedures.
- Procedural disciplinary steps
should be set in place if certain staff members don?t comply with this.
7.???????? 955
Green Street ?- Status report.
Joe Butler
- He appreciates Mr. Badiner?s eye
on the details.
- The compliance with these matters
is not hard to do.? This has more to do with
the attitude of the contractor and the inability of the project sponsor to get
compliance from his contractor.
He looks forward to having these
problems go away.
Net Topham - Project Sponsor
- He is working very hard to make
sure every last detail of these conditions are approved.? He met with Mr. Butler and they will
continue to improve communications and make sure that any infractions are taken
care of in a cooperative way.
8.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ALUMBAUGH:
558-6601)
Update on the Better Neighborhoods 2002
project, per the Commission?s request for quarterly updates.
Roberta Caravelli
- Regarding transportation planning,
government needs to start educating staff that they should take public
transportation.
E.???????? CONSIDERATION
OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
9.???????? 1999.684D?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WILSON:
558-6602)
129 RANDALL STREET, south side between Whitney and
Chenery Streets, Lot 038 in Assessor?s Block 6663 -- Request for Discretionary
Review of BPA No. 9911578, proposing to demolish the existing building and
construct a new two-unit building in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family)
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not
take Discretionary Review, approve project.
Prior Action: Public comment was
closed at the February 17, 2000 hearing.?
The Commission continued the item to allow further discussion between
the project sponsor and neighbors.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
July 27, 2000).
Note: On June 15, 2000, the
Commission passed the following motions:
1st Motion:?
Take Discretionary Review with the following changes: 1) set back 8 feet
further on the 4th floor; 2) project sponsor to continue to work with staff on
architectural detailing of the facade with specific reference to the skylight
on the 3rd floor. Vote of +2 -2.?
Commissioners Antenore and Joe voted no.? Commissioners Theoharis, Martin and Mills were absent.
2nd Motion: Take Discretionary Review with the
following changes: 1) remove 4th floor 2) modify the front facade to fit into
the character of the neighborhood.? Vote
+2 -2.? Commissioners Chinchilla and
Richardson voted no.?? Commissioners
Theoharis, Martin and Mills were absent.
Note: On July 27, 2000, the
representative of the project sponsor submitted revised plans.? The Commission continued the matter for one
week so they, staff, and the Discretionary Review Requestor would have an
opportunity to review the new submission.
SPEAKER(S):
Brett Gladstone - representing
project sponsor
- New changes are as follows:
setting back the top floor an additional 8 feet; making the facade out of
plaster to look like the surrounding buildings; change the front to show
cornices; and change the front to eliminate wood siding.
- Many of the neighbors did receive
the revised plans, although one neighbor mentions that he did not receive it.
John O?Reilley - Project Sponsor
- A transcript of the last hearing
which states the requested changes was submitted to the commissioners.? The only item which was not addressed was that
the entire floor be removed.
- They have met with the neighbors
many times and have had hearings a few times and there was never an intent
expressed to remove the 4th floor.
Paul Curtis
-None of the changes made have been
major.
- The revised plans don?t say
anything about the interior of the house.
- There will be 7 master bedrooms
yet there is no way of knowing if the changes refer to a reduction of bedroom
sizes.
- There is another house which is
being built on this street and there has been no problems at all with that
project since it totally complies with the neighborhood requirements.
- The current project is still too
tall and too big.
- He hopes that the commissioners
have had an opportunity to come to the site of the proposed project.
Paul Travis
- Two aspects need to be clarified:
1) a meeting which was held after the last hearing just outside of the
chambers, is not a community meeting although it has been classified as one;
2)the plans which have been submitted address the view of the project from one
narrow position.
Art Bender
- The compromise of the project
sponsor in no way addresses the concerns of the neighbors.? The neighbors are still strongly opposed.
Bill Petri
- There have not been any meetings
since the last hearing.
- The issues have not been
addressed.
- They are asking for a meeting so
that all the items can be addressed.
- Meeting in the hall after the last
hearing is not considered a meeting.
ACTION:?????????? Excused new Commissioner, Jim Salinas, who stated that
he has not had an opportunity to review all tapes and material related to this
case.
AYES:????????????? Theoharis,
Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
ACTION:?????????? Take
DR and remove 4th floor.? The motion
failed to carry.
AYES:????????????? Theoharis,
Joe, Antenore
NAYES:??????????? Mills,
Chinchilla, Richardson
EXCUSED:??????? Salinas
ABSENT:????????? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued
to August 17, 2000
AYES:????????????? Theoharis,
Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas, Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
(ADDENDUM)??? 2000.269D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ZWIERZYCKI:
558-6263)
585 LAIDLEY STREET, south side between Castro and
Roanoke Streets, Lot 025 in Assessor?s Block 6727 - Request for Discretionary
Review of building permit application No. 9923677 of proposal to construct a
third-story addition on top of an existing two-story single-family residence in
an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not
take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
July 20, 2000)
Note: On May 18, 2000, following
testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of
intent to take Discretionary Review and approve the project with design changes
--? show new peaked roof design, add
dormers to the rear, and setback building on the side of the DR requestor.
Andy Forest
- The project is a 2 story building
and plain stucco facade.
- They have gone through several
changes.
- Staff has been working very hard
to keep abreast of all the details.
- The new design will show a slopped
roof to be more in character with the neighborhood; the north side of the
structure will be set back, and dormers were inserted on the 3rd floor to allow
headroom which is impinged by the slopped roof.? He also kept the dormers away from the north side, which is the
DR filer?s side.
- He has followed the Commission?s
recommendations from the last hearing.
Geraldine Foster
- The engineer?s proposed changes
does not meet the Commissions mandate.
- The proposed peaked roof variation
is still too high.
- More architectural changes will
not legalize the project.
- To comply with Commissioners?
requests, the roof slope should start at the floor of the 3rd level, not 5 feet
high.? The side setback at the rear
should remain.? The third floor facade
should only have one small window and two or three dormers can be added.? The peak of the roof should be limited to 30
feet as promised.? It would provide the
owner with more headroom.
- These changes will diminish the
possibility of a future creation of a separate and illegal unit.
Patricia Caravelli
- If the 4th story on 129 Randall
Street is out-of-character, then the 3rd floor on Laidley is out-of-character
as well.
Mr. Alvarenga
-He is a native San Franciscan and
grew up in this house.? He would like to
provide the same for his children.
- There are only two bedrooms, the
addition would be to provide a space for his children.? If the sloping roof starts at the base of
the 2nd floor, this would give him no floor plan which was the whole idea for
this project.
ACTION:?????????? Excused new Commissioner, Jim Salinas, who stated that
he has not had an opportunity to review all tapes and material related to this
case.
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Joe,
Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
ACTION:?????????? TAKE DR and approve project as revised
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Joe,
Antenore
EXCUSED:??????? Salinas
ABSENT:????????? None
F.???????? REGULAR
CALENDAR?
10.??????? 2000.742Z???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LORD:
558-6311)
1306-1314 10TH AVENUE, Initiation of proposed
reclassification of three Neighborhood Commercial District parcels (Assessors'
Block 1764 Lots 039, 040, and 041) to RH-2 (House, Two Family)zoning.
Recommendation: Initiate
reclassification and set public hearing date.
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Approved to Initiate Reclassification and Set Public
Hearing Date for 9/7/00.
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
RESOLUTION NO.? 15930
11.??????? 96.223E??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (DEUTSCH:
558-5965)
ALAMEDA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN.?
Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Alameda
County Watershed Management Plan.? The
Watershed Management Plan would provide comprehensive policies and actions for
managing the land and resources of the 40,000 acre Alameda Watershed, located
in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, owned and administered by the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Supply and Treatment Division.? The Watershed stores and provides water for
homes and businesses in San Francisco and portions of San Mateo, Alameda and
Santa Clara Counties.? The EIR analyzes
at a programmatic level the potential environmental impacts of various
activities and development projects that could occur under the policies of the
proposed Management Plan.?
Note:? The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed.? The public comment period for the Draft EIR
ended on January 31, 2000.? The Planning
Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs.? Public comments on the certification may be
presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the
Commission calendar.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify
Final Environmental Impact Report
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Approved to Certify Final Environmental Impact Report
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
MOTION NO.???? 15931
12.??????? 2000.271E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BLOMGREN:
558-5979)
415 BRYANT STREET, Appeal of a Preliminary
Negative Declaration,?? Lot 97 of
Assessor?s Block 3995. The project would entail the construction of a
four-story, 45-foot high building which would have eight live-work units at 415
Bryant Street, south side of Bryant Street between Second and Third Streets
(Assessor?s Block 3775, Lot 97).?? The
project is within the Mixed Use Housing Zone (MUHZ), a South End Office (SEO)
Interim Control District, Service/Secondary Office (SSO) Zoning District, and a
40-x Height/Bulk District.? The proposed
building would cover the entire 4000 square foot lot which extends from Taber
Place on the south to Bryant Street on the north.?? A one-story, 24-foot high office building at the south end of
the parcel would be demolished.? The
floor area of the proposed building would be 17,800 gross square feet,
excluding parking.? All of the units of
the building would be accessed from stairways and hallways which would have
entrances on Bryant Street and Taber Place.?
The proposed building would provide eight parking spaces in a
ground-level garage with an ingress/egress from Taber Place.? Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold the
Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
July 6, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Lee Molton
- He has been a resident of the
neighborhood for 13 years.
- He is against the fact that this
project is designated as live/work.
- When live work was created, it was
to preserve diminishing large space for artists in industrial zones.
- He is not sure why the City or the
Planning Commission is allowing housing to be built under live/work.? He strongly disagrees with that.
- Housing patterns in San Francisco
has advocated setbacks and open space between buildings and this pattern is not
doing that.
- The Commission could help the
neighbors by looking at the pattern.
- Census data is being used from 10
years ago so it?s not up to date.? The
neighborhood has changed dramatically in the last 10 years.
- He wants to be a good neighbor
with the developer.
(-) David Fink
- Resident of South Park.
- They are not against development
in general.
- They are asking for respect from
their new neighbor.
- Someone who doesn?t live in the
neighborhood will not know the impact of the construction.
- Developers of new houses need to
abide by the laws.
(+) Alice Barkley - Representing
Project Sponsor
- The project architect did not
appeal the negative declaration.
- Currently the rear of the property
is used for parking.
- There is no basis for ordering an
EIR or not to affirm this Preliminary Declaration.
- The project sponsor volunteered
not to work on Sunday and limit work hours on Saturday.
- There are no environmental issues
for this project.
ACTION:?????????? Uphold Negative Declaration
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
MOTION NO.???? 15932
13.??????? 1999.728C????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MIRAMONTES:
558-6348)
2, 4 AND 5 CHARLTON COURT, an alley off the south side of Union Street between
Buchanan and Laguna Streets, Lots 26, 27 and 31 in Assessor?s Block 542 --
Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.2(d)
and 725.55 to continue operation of an existing inn, The Bed and Breakfast Inn,
on two lots located within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District
and a 40-X Height and Bulk District and on one lot located within the Union
Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Elizabeth Gordon
- She is an attorney and represents
the owners John and Beverly Shields
- There are about 220 petitions to
support the project to remain as it is.
- The Inn has been in operation for
the last 30 years.? The Inn is also
featured in the Inn City Guide Magazine.
- Would like for 2, 4 and 5 to
remain in operation as an Inn.? The
department has indicated that the Shields needed to bring their guestrooms
within the current zoning.?? The Shields
agreed to do this.? This would involve
eliminating two guestrooms, brining the total number of guestrooms from 11 to
9.
- She asks that the Commission adopt
the department?s recommendations with the following modifications: 1)
continuation of the use of not only 2 and 4 but also 5 Charlton Ct.; 2)
elimination of the two guestrooms in 4 Charlton to bring the Inn within the
required zoning; 3) she is agreeable with the conversion of the two eliminated
guestrooms to residential use.
(+) John Shields
- He and his wife purchased the Inn
in 1987.
- They did not fully appreciate the
legal significance of the zoning disclosed on the 3 R reports they
received.?
- They believed incorrectly that the
Inn which had then been in operation for about 25 years had always been a Bed
and Breakfast Inn.
- They have always had a business
license with the city, a tax registration certificate and have paid hotel tax
since the purchase of the Inn.
- In June of 1997, the Department of
Public Health issued a permit to operate and a certificate of sanitary
inspection authorizing food preparation.
- Also, in June of 1997, Planning
approved continuation of their existing continental breakfast.
- They believed that there were no
problems to continue running the Inn as is.
- They replaced a green house and a
fence without obtaining proper permits.?
Although they eventually obtained permits, they realize that
after-the-fact permits are not the same as obtaining the permit before starting
the work.
(+) William Abend - Project
Architect
- Buildings 2 and 4 are
architecturally significant.
- Buildings 2 has 4 units and will
remain that way.
- Building 4 which has 5 units, will
combine 2 units for residential use, and keep the other 3 units.
- Building 5 which is across the
street has 2 units and will remain as 2 units.
- There will be no modification to
the outside of any of the buildings.
(+) Leslie Lenhart - representing
the Union Street Association
- Their organization has positive
comments about the Inn.
- The Inn cannot be held responsible
for people who are not guests of the Inn.
- The Inn is a vital part to the
shops and restaurants of the surrounding neighborhood.
(+) Dennis Beckbam - Owner of the
Enchanted Christal
- He has spoken to hundreds of
guests at the Inn.? Their experiences
are positive
- He has reserved rooms at the Inn
on several occasions for his family.
- There are very few opportunities
in the City to stay at Inns and shop and dine in the surrounding area.
(+) Heleen Rene
- She lives very close to the Inn.
- She has lived in the neighborhood
for about 15 years.
- The Inn is always clean and it is
always calm.
- She would like the commission to
approve the existence of the Inn
(+) Ainya Housener
- She feels that the response of the
tourists makes the inn the jewel of the neighborhood.
(+) Daniela Kirshenbaum - member of
the Pacific Heights Residents Association
- The owners have shown that it is possible
to control noise and traffic on Charlton Court.
- Her recommendation for the
Commission to approve their permits to continue operating is contingent on a
few considerations.? The main one being
5 Charlton Court.? This unit should be
reverted to a 1 single family dwelling.?
It would be great for the owners to live at this unit.
(-) Pauline Johnson-Brown
- As a neighbor she has tried to
dialog with Mr. Shields regarding a code violation.? It took him 8 months to return her phone call.
- There is non-stop noise from the
commercial laundry, the maids, the services.
- Her drive way is constantly
blocked.
- There is no possibility for fire
vehicles or emergency services.?
- At one point she wasn?t able to
leave her house because her car was blocked.
ACTION:?????????? Approved as per staff recommendation:? convert 5 Charlton Court back to a single
family dwelling and allow no activities related to the remaining inn operations
at 2 and 4 to occur at 5 and shall maintain an on-site full time manager and
shall provide guest who plan to arrive by car with parking passes prior to the
arrival to alleviate congestion on the court and a need to pull in.? Diligently monitor a taxi/limousine service
and ensure sound levels do not exceed acceptable noise levels.? No events shall be held at the inn and other
standard conditions.?
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
MOTION NO.???? 15933
14.??????? 2000.304C?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (FALLAY:
558-6367)
4050 19TH AVENUE, east side, between Byxbee and Monticello
Streets,? Lot 010 in Assessor's Block
7083 -- Request for a Conditional Use Authorization to add approximately 4,380
square feet of floor area to an existing nonconforming self-storage facility as
required by Planning Code Section 186(b)(expansion of a non-complying use) in
an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and a 26-X Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
John Rhinehart
- There is no traffic impact.
- They are well under the square
footage coverage.
- They are not altering any of the
elevations.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
MOTION NO.???? 15934
15.??????? 2000.565C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (DIBARTOLO:
558-6291)
430 COLUMBUS, east side between Vallejo and
Green Streets; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 131: --Request for Conditional Use
Authorization under Section 722.27 of the Planning Code to Extend the Hours of
Use from 2:00 am to 6:00 am, to allow for a 24-hour operation, for the existing
Full-Service Restaurant (Calzone's) in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial
District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Without hearing, continued to August 10, 2000
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
16.??????? 1999.209EC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WANG:
558-6335)
1748 HAIGHT STREET, a rectangular corner parcel, north
side of Haight Street at Cole Street: Lots 8, 32, 33, 34, and 35 in Assessor?s
Block 1229 B Request for Conditional Use authorization as a Planned Unit
Development under Planning Code Sections 303 and 304, requesting
authorizations, modifications and exceptions related to Code Sections 719.11,
121.1, 719.12, 134, 719.21, 790.130, 121.2, 790.91, 790.92, 152, 136, 260, and
261.? The project requires Conditional
Use authorization for lot size exceeding 5,000 square feet, for up to five
commercial uses over 2,500 square feet in area, allow replacement of an
existing self?service restaurant up to 3,000 square feet in area or a future
full?service restaurant up to 6,000 square feet in area. Authorization as a
Planned Unit Development is requested to permit 100% lot coverage below grade
and at the first commercial level, to allow the construction of two town house
units in the rear yard, to permit commercial and underground parking use in the
rear yard, to allow the substitution of two van loading spaces for the larger
code required? single loading dock, to
allow minor deviations from the provisions for measurement of building height,
loading space, awnings, marquees and bay windows. The property is in the Haight
Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40?X Height and Bulk District.????
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Lu Blazej - Representing John
Brennan Company
- This is a good project for San
Francisco since it?s a 34-unit housing project.? It replaces retail. ?It?s
not building new retail.
- He thanked staff for their great
work.
- He handed out a 28 page
presentation outline.
- The commission will be making
judgement with respect to housing affordability.
- This project is exempt for
consideration from the housing affordability requirement.
(+) Mark Brennan
- Lives on Cole Street
- He supports the project.
- 10 years ago before the Goodwill
building was built, Haight Street was a very bad place.
- Now more housing will be built.
(+) Fredo Sarashederi
- He is the owner of business called
Coffee Cantata
- He has had this business since
1992
- He wholeheartedly supports this
project.
- It will help the parking problems
around the Haight?????????
(+) Don Dietzing - support
(+) Mathew Brennan- support
(+) Joe O?Donaghue
- This is not a live/work
- This is a 100% union project
- There should be no property taxes
on the units
(+) Ted Lowenberg
- The last time he was here, the
commission failed to listen to the neighbors
- The current project will improve
the neighborhood
- Please do not play politics.? Approve this project.
(-) Jerum Donalds
- He and his wife have lived there
since 1973.
- He hopes that this case is not
approved right away.
(-) Margerie Donalds
- Their garden is their pride and
joy.? With the proposed construction,
she will loose the sunlight coming into her garden.? She will also loose air.
- They were never approached by the
owner.
- Does not keep the Haight?s
character???
(-) Nane Obalstein
- Didn?t receive any notice
- Density of the infill is
considerable
- The impact will unsupportable for
the people living on Haight Street?????????
- Traffic Impacts
- Loss of light into her backyard
- Reduce the number of units
- Reduce the square footage of the restaurants.
(-) David Walker
- He opposes the townhouse.
- The original plan was to renovate
the I-beam
- He is a tenant not a property
owner.
(-) Phil Sower
- President of the Height/Ashbury
Neighborhood Association
- 1) keep mom and pop shops character;
2)neighborhood should decide what commercial site will be put in to the
neighborhood; 3) maintain a bit of the diversity of the neighborhood.
(-) Elizabeth Kurshin
- They oppose anything that will
bring more cars into the neighborhood.
- She is opposed to the commercial
parking
(-)James Beck
- This area is a major transit
corridor.
- The area has a large volume of
rental housing.
- It?s a good thing that the owner
wants to build more rental housing.
- Would like the owner to reduce the
parking
(-) Calvin Welsh
- The developer is asking for
special permission.
- Not opposing the rental housing or
the affordable housing.???
- This is not a historical
site.?
- Opposed to tripling the parking
spaces
- Height Street is a transit
preference street--the project should be designed to take advantage of it.
(-) Lin Grinow
- Adding a 74 stall parking
component to the project will not improve the character of the Haight
neighborhood.
- He would like the commission to do
a review of the traffic impact of the proposed project.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe
NAYES:??????????? Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
MOTION No.????? 15935
17.??????? 1999.817C? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LeBLANC:
558-6351)
990 COLUMBUS southeast corner at Chestnut Street;
Lot 048 in Assessor's Block 0065 ?? Request for Conditional Use authorization
to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 3 panel
antennas on the roof of an existing 3-story commercial building and base
station equipment in the basement of the building in the North Beach
Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
July 6, 2000)
(+) Anthony Lolowell - Representing
project sponsor Hammet & Edison
- The facility proposed meets the
requirements of Section 303(c)(1) of the Planning Code
- Worked very hard with the staff to
secure the highest security for this facility
- This site is a preference 6
- The project will provide a
reliable wireless system that will be good for not only the neighborhood but
the entire City of San Francisco
(+) Bill Hammet
- This proposal meets the SCC
standards in all accessible locations
(-) Sheryl Harrison
- She has been a tenant of this building
for many years.
- There are many tenants in the
area.
- These people will have exposure 24
hours a day.
- There are many other apartments,
schools and preschools in the near vicinity of the proposed location for the
antenna.
- There is a serious transmission of
electro-magnetic fields and radiation
- Concern about public safety issues
- would affect human being
- Would like commissioners to
consider another location for these antennas.
- We do not really know the impact of this antennas
(-) William Parell
- The city of Los Angeles banned the
installation of cellular phone towers within 100 meters of schools.? If we where in Los Angeles this would not
even be considered.
- This is very much of a health
issue.
- The proposed antenna has 10,000
times the output of the hand held cell phones.
- The proposed antennas are for
residential neighborhoods
- A number of neighbors have
expressed their fears
- There are a number of alternative
sites in the area.
- There is no need for this cellular
tower to be in this neighborhood.
- Sprint has no need to increase
capacity
- There is new equipment on the
market that they click on from their existing sites to address the problem
(-) Derk Carkjus,? Consulting Engineer
- He has been a resident of the area
for 45 years.
- There are many guidelines
regarding the safety/appearance and cost?
- The government has put standards
through the FCC, through OSHA, through the Veterans Administration
- There are no requirements that
these antennas be installed at the proposed site.
(-) Barry Martinez
- Has lived in North Beach over 9
yrs.
- There have been studies made on
the effects of microwave transmission
(-) Carol Humphrey
- Works on the second floor of 900
Columbus
- There are conclusive studies
regarding the effects of electro-magnetic-radiation transmission
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
MOTION No.????? 15936
18.??????? 2000.323C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LeBLANC:
558-6351)
545 POWELL STREET, southwest corner at Bush Street; Lot
001 in Assessor's Block 0284 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to
(1) install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 4 panel
antennas on the existing rooftop penthouse of a building and base station
equipment inside a new penthouse on the roof of the building and (2) construct
a structure exceeding 40 feet in height (the new penthouse) in an RC-4
(Residential-Commercial Combined) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
June 22, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Robert Crebs - Project Sponsor
representing Sprint PCS
- The design is visually
unintrusive.
- There was one community outreach
meeting held.? Only 2 people attended.
- Needed service was identified in
this area.
- This proposed facility will assist
residents with better communication
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
MOTION No.:???? 15937
G.????????
SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 6:50 P.M.
the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR)
Hearing.
19a.????? 1999.833D???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
(MILLER: 558?6344)
1 LA AVANZADA STREET ??"Sutro Tower", (also
known as 250 PALO ALTO AVENUE), Lot 3 in Assessor?s Block 2724 ??Request for
Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9916932 ??Retroactive
permitting of 176 antennas (variety of hardware and distance off the ground) and
two underground fuel tanks, at the existing SUTRO TOWER broadcast facility, in
an RH?1(D) (House, One?Family Detached Dwellings) District.
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval with Conditions
NOTE:? Items
19a thru 19e were called and heard together.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Doris Linnenbach
- She has been a residence of this
neighborhood since 1956.
- Letters received from Supervisors
state that they support continuance of this project (hearing).
- Neighbors were not adequately
notified
- Sutro Tower has not been a good
neighbor.
- Mr. Miller is greatly overworked,
he needs to have an assistant.
(+) Charlene Chin
- The Planning Commission considers
the effect of the Tower upon surrounding properties when exercising their
discretion?????????????????????
- The Office of Environmental Review
issuing a categorical exemption does not affect the Planning Commission?s
discretionary review authority
- This is an unprecedented series of
applications
- There are currently about 80
antennas on the tower
George Lynn
- He has concerns about the
radiation of the antennas but he also would like to speak about the tanks
replaced on the site.
- The water department has taken
great caution
- There are tanks that have
fuel.? These were replaced because they
were inadequate.? There might have been
some leakage into our water.
Emmet Humboldt
- He is very worried about the
radiation and EMF of the antennas
- He is worried about the structural
integrity of the tower.
- There has been an arrogant
approach with the neighborhood.
- He is concerned about the 24
additional antenna panels
- Sutro Tower has not been a good
neighbor or corporate partner.
John Rhinehart
- He has been to
meeting-after-meeting for the last 2 years.
- He is worried about the effect of the
Tower as a whole.
- He keeps coming to meetings
because he is concerned about the City.?
This tower seems to get rewarded for breaking the law.?
- The neighbors only know that this
is happening if they are in the loop.
- Why can?t each antenna stand on
it?s own merit?
Catherine Goldam Skyler, President,
Twin Peaks Improvement Association
- Lack of notice; inclusion as
neighborhood association; questions why all those antennas should be installed
before retrofitting the tower.
- She did not receive proper
notification.
- Read a letter from Supervisor
Mabel Teng.
- The neighborhood associations
should have been properly notified.
- It is reckless to permit the
antennas before they know if the retrofit will or can be done.
Evelyn Craine, President of the Midtown
Terrace Association
- She would like to have good
neighbors and would like to communication with the neighbors.
- If the elderly become ill, they
can?t have a life line.
- Would like the Planning Commission
to provide the same services as the Water Department has.
- The streets are all torn up, yet
the Water Department has been working very well with the neighbors.
- The Health Department said that
they get more radiation than any other part of the residents of the City.
- Let the neighbors know at least 10
days before (a hearing) so they can be prepared.
- They are not morons, they are
citizens of the City just like the Commissioners are.
(+) Christine Linnenbach
- The notice was inadequate.
- A lot of the antennas have been installed
without permit.
- 1992, after the Loma Prieta
earthquake, engineers did a study to find out what was there (Sutro Tower
site).? They substantiated that a lot of
antennas been installed without permit.
- Antennas were installed in order
to broadcast television to the entire Bay Area.? -
The 1988 Planning Commission required conditional use applications and hearings
when Sutro wanted to installed antennas.
Robert McCarthy of McCarthy on
behalf of Sutro Tower and Metricom
- There have been 3 major concerns
from the neighbors:? Seismic safety of
tower, safety of radio frequency eemissions and tanks.
- The tanks were replaced because
state law changed and they wanted to be in compliance.
- The tanks do not represent a
threat whatsoeverto the (resident?s) water supply or the water supply in the
reservoir
- In August of 1998, the Commission
certified an EIR in connection with the DTV installation.
- The final building permit was
never pulled by the contractor.
- Pursuant to findings at the most
intense spot the amount of radio frequency emissions
- In order to insure that there is
comfort among the neighbors in connection with that, we accept the Planning
Director?s conditions (there are 9 pages of them) to be attached to this
permit.
- Every time we light a major
antenna we will be required to do additional testing at 200 public accessible
sites.
- Agree that DPH be permitted to be
present and monitor the testing to assure that readings are accurate--and
indeed DPH and two designated community representatives will be included to
monitor the testing.
- Required to file the results and
to notify the neighbors
?(+) Jim Lastros,? General
Manager of Sutro Tower
- In regard to the seismic
inspection, we have agreed to accept the Planning Department?s conditions to
make a very detailed annual inspection by an independent structural firm and
licensed engineer.
- We also agree to comply with the
recommendations that address any problems or conditions that require repair or remediation
as suggested by this inspector.
- After compliance, we agree to
bring back the engineer to inspect/insure that repair has been properly done.
- Agree to file these inspections
with DBI, and notify the two adjacent neighborhood associations.
ACTION:?????????? Take Discretionary Review and approve as amended
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
19b.????? 2000.603D????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER:
558?6344)
1 LA AVANZADA STREET ??"Sutro Tower", (also
known as 250 PALO ALTO AVENUE), Lot 3 in Assessor?s Block 2724 ??Request for
Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9927275 ??Two
microwave interconnect antennas (two?way communication, to and from downtown TV
studios to Tower) ??one, two feet in diameter,?
on roof of transformer building approximately 35 feet above the ground,
and the other, four feet in diameter, on Second Level of Tower at +/?185 feet
high ??one new six?foot dish antenna and one replacement six?foot dish antenna
(replacing a four?foot dish) to be used as news?related microwave antennas
(from studios to and from mobile news vans for dispatch and news transmission
purposes), both on Fourth Level of Tower at +/?550 feet high ??one two?way
radio whip antenna (two inches in diameter and six feet long), Second Level of
Tower at +/?185 feet high, at the existing SUTRO TOWER broadcast facility, in
an RH?1(D) (House, One?Family Detached Dwellings) District.
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):?? Same as listed in item 19a
ACTION:?????????? Take Discretionary Review and approve as amended
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
19c.????? 2000.604D????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER:
558?6344)
1 LA AVANZADA STREET ??"Sutro Tower", (also
known as 250 PALO ALTO AVENUE), Lot 3 in Assessor?s Block 2724 ??Request for
Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000?02?11?1670 ??Related
to work in progress under Building Permit Application No. 9913916 (which was
the subject of a "Discretionary Review" on August 12, 1999) ??concrete
pad to even out floor in transmitter building.?
The subject Permit Application was required by the Building Inspector
reviewing the work under Application No. 9913916 to cover additional work that
developed out of the work permitted therein, at the existing SUTRO TOWER
broadcast facility, in an RH?1(D) (House, One?Family Detached Dwellings)
District.
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval without Conditions
SPEAKER(S):?? Same as listed in item 19a
ACTION:?????????? Take Discretionary Review and approve as amended
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
19d.????? 2000.605D????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER:
558?6344)
1 LA AVANZADA STREET ??"Sutro Tower", (also
known as 250 PALO ALTO AVENUE), Lot 3 in Assessor?s Block 2724 ??Request for
Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000?04?07?6699 ??Twenty?four
wireless data?service internet?access panel antennas (panels +/?the size of
medicine cabinets ??to be attached to horizontal beam on Third Level of Tower,
+/?380 feet high ??for "Ricochet" metricom ??to be used for wireless
remote access to the internet by users of laptops and hand?held data
organizers, etc.), at the existing SUTRO TOWER broadcast facility, in an RH?1(D)
(House, One?Family Detached Dwellings) District.
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):?? Same as listed in item 19a
ACTION:?????????? Take Discretionary Review and approve as amended
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
19e.????? 2000.606D????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER:
558?6344)
1 LA AVANZADA STREET ??"Sutro Tower", (also
known as 250 PALO ALTO AVENUE), Lot 3 in Assessor?s Block 2724 ??Request for
Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000?06?07?1964 ??One
news?gathering antenna (six?foot microwave dish, receiving only ??Fifth Level
of Tower, +/?650 feet high ??also to transmit data from traffic jams on Golden
Gate and Bay Bridges), at the existing SUTRO TOWER broadcast facility, in an RH?1(D)
(House, One?Family Detached Dwellings) District.
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):?? Same as listed in item 19a
ACTION:?????????? Take Discretionary Review and approve as amended
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas,
Joe, Antenore
ABSENT:????????? None
Adjournment: 8:00 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE
PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION
?Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
Place
Thursday, August 10, 2000
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT:?????????????? Joe, Mills, Theoharis,
Chinchilla, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:????????????????? Antenore,
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO
ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:33?
P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald
G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Nora
Priego - Transcription Secretary, Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary
A.???????? ITEMS
PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1.???????? 2000.634D????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MIRAMONTES:
558-6348)
768 EL CAMINO DEL MAR, north side between Lake Street and
30th Avenue, Lots 5 and 6 in Assessor ' s Block 1307 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No.
200003204801S, proposing to construct a below-grade exercise room at the rear
of the property in a RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family [Detached
Dwellings]) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not
take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.
Discretionary Review Withdrawn
2.???????? 1998.090E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KUGLER:
558-5983)
YERBA BUENA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
EXPANSION/EMPORIUM SITE DEVELOPMENT CEQA FINDINGS.?
Consideration of adoption of Findings and a Mitigation Monitoring
Program, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), the State Guidelines, and Chapter 31 of the City's
Administrative Code in connection with adoption of the Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena Center Approved Redevelopment Project
Area D-1 and various other actions necessary to implement the Yerba Buena
Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project on
Lots 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 33, 38 and 43 of Assessor's
Block 3705.
_
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval
(Proposed for Continuance to August
17, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
3.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE:
558-6332)
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ABSOLUTE
CUMULATIVE SHADOW LIMIT FOR BOEDDEKER PARK.? Proposed
action to amend the absolute cumulative limit for new shadows on Boeddeker
Park, established by Resolution No. 11595 on February 7, 1989, from zero
to 0.007%.
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval
(Proposed for Continuance to August 17, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE:
558-6332)
4.???????? FINDINGS
OF INSIGNIFICANCE FOR NEW SHADOW ON BOEDDEKER PARK.? Consideration of Findings of no significant
impact on Boeddeker Park from new shadow within the revised cumulative limit of
0.007% that would be cast on the park by the proposed Yerba Buena Redevelopment
Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project.
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval
(Proposed for Continuance to August
17, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
5.???????? 1998.090R????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE:
558-6332)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP
AMENDMENTS.? Consideration of a proposal to adopt
amendments to various maps of the General Plan to facilitate the Yerba Buena
Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project.? The maps of the General Plan that would be
considered for amendment are:?
(1) the Map entitled "Streets are Important to the Perception
of the City" found on page I.5.16 of the Urban Design Element of the
General Plan, to be amended to remove a portion of Jessie Street which would be
reconfigured by the Project; (2) Map 1 on page II.1.9 of the
Downtown Area Plan, "Downtown Land Use and Density Plan," which would
be amended to include the Project site in the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment
Project Area; (3) Map 3 on page II.1.21 of the Downtown Area
Plan, "Major Open Spaces," which would be amended to show the Project
site as included within the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area;
(4) Map 5 on page II.1.29 of the Downtown Area Plan,
"Proposed Height and Bulk Districts," which would be amended to show
the Project site as included within the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment
Project Area; (5) Map 7 on page II.1.47 of the Downtown Area
Plan, "Proposed Pedestrian Network:?
Downtown District," which would be amended to remove Jessie Street
within Block 3705 as a "Pedestrian/Service Street"; and
(6) Map 2 on page I.2.6 of the Commerce and Industry Element,
"Generalized Commercial and Industrial Density Plan," which would be
amended to include the Project site within the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment
Project Area.? The Planning Commission
initiated these amendments by Resolution No. 14920 on November 4,
1999.
Consideration also of a proposal to
adopt amendments to Map 1H of the Zoning Map to facilitate the Yerba Buena
Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project.? The current building height and bulk
designations for the Project site are 120?X and 160?S (north of Jessie Street)
and 160?F (south of Jessie Street) and would be reclassified to designate the
project site as 135?X, 200?X and 400?X Height and Bulk Districts.? The Planning Commission initiated this
amendment by Resolution No. 14921 on November 4, 1999.
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval.
(Proposed for Continuance to August
17, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
6.???????? 1998.090R?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE:
558-6332)
FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL
PLAN AND SECTION 101.1 OF THE
PLANNING CODE.?
Consideration of findings of consistency with the General Plan and
Section 101.1 of the Planning Code for the Amendment o the Redevelopment Plan
for the Yerba Buena Center Approved Redevelopment Project Area D-1 and various
implementing actions for the Yerba Buena Redevelopment Project Area
Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project, including but not limited to
General Plan and Zoning Map amendments,?
partial vacation of Jessie Street, dedication of Jessie Street East and
Jessie Street West, including establishment of sidewalks thereon, sidewalk
changes to Mission Street and Jessie Street, and project authorization pursuant
to Sections 320-325. All of these items are discussed in the Staff Report and all
require findings of consistency with the General Plan and Section 101.1 of the
Planning Code.
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval.
(Proposed for Continuance to August
17, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued as proposed
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
7.?? 1998.090R???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE:
558-6332)
RECOMMENDATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.? Consideration of
recommendation of the proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Yerba Buena Center Approved Redevelopment Project Area D-1 to the Board of
Supervisors for approval.
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval
(Proposed for Continuance to August
17, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
8.???????? 1998.090B????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE:
558-6332)
PLANNING CODE SECTIONS 320?325
(OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LIMITATION PROGRAM) PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.?
Request under Planning Code Sections 320?325 (Office Development
Limitation Program) for 49,100 gross square feet of floor area of office space.
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval
(Proposed for Continuance to August
17, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
9.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE:
558-6332)
DELEGATION AGREEMENT CONTROLS,?
Consideration of approval of a Delegation Agreement by and between the
City and County of San Francisco, acting through its Planning Commission, and
the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, to administer certain development
controls under the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena
Center Approved Redevelopment Project Area D-1.
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval
(Proposed for Continuance to August
17, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
10.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE:
558-6332)
SCHEMATIC DESIGN DOCUMENTS, Pursuant to the Delegation
Agreement, consider the Schematic Design Documents for the Yerba Buena
Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project for
consistency with certain development controls in the Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena Center Approved Redevelopment Project
Area D-1.
Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval with conditions
(Proposed for Continuance to August
17, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION:???????????? Continued as proposed
AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
11.??????? 2000.286E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (JAROSLAWSKY:
558-5970)
925 BRYANT STREET ? Appeal of a Preliminary Negative
Declaration. ?The project site is
located on Block 3780, Lot 077, within the western portion of the block,
contains approximately 20,000 square feet and is within an IPZ (Industrial
Protection Zone), a SLI (Service/Light Industrial) District and a 40?X Height
and Bulk District.? The site contains 75
feet of frontage along Bryant Street to the west and 265 feet of frontage along
Langton Street to the north.? The
proposal includes the conversion of approximately 13,000 square feet of an
existing office/retail/warehouse structure into retail/business service use and
the addition of approximately 26,000 square feet of new floor area.? The footprint of the structure would remain
the same.? The addition of two floors
would result in a total of three stories.?
The resulting building would be approximately 40 feet in height, contain
approximately 39,000 square feet and would contain 37 on?site parking spaces
accessed from Langton Street.?
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold
Preliminary Negative Declaration.
(Proposed for Continuance to August
24, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued as proposed
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
12.??????? 2000.009E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (JAROSLAWSKY:
558- 5970)
1800 MISSION STREET ? THE ARMORY ? Appeal of a Preliminary Negative
Declaration,? Assessors block 3547, lot
001.? The project site contains the
State Armory building, a city landmark containing approximately 200,000 square
feet.? The proposed project includes
rehabilitation of the building, addition and conversion of use from vacant to
office use.? The total new square
footage of the structure would be approximately 300,000 and would include 32
below?ground, off?street parking spaces and a loading area.? There would be no substantial expansion of
the building envelope.? The 68,722
square foot project site is composed of one lot containing frontages on
Mission, Fourteenth and Julian Streets.?
The site is within a C?M (Heavy Commercial) District and 65?B Height and
Bulk District within the Mission District neighborhood.? A variance would be required to provide
fewer than the Planning Code required amount of parking and loading spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold
Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Proposed for continuance to
September 7, 2000).
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued as proposed
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
13.???? 1999.543DD????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WOODS:
558-6315)
338 - 12TH AVENUE, east side between Geary Boulevard
and Clement Streets, Lot 33 in Assessor?s Block 1443 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No.
9901007S, proposing to add a new fourth floor, front, side, and rear additions
to the existing single-unit building at the front of the property only in an
RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not
take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as revised.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
June 20, 2000)
Note: On June 8, 2000, following
public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter
to give Staff time to review permit history.
(Proposed for Continuance to
September 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
14.??????? 2000.209C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER:
558-6344)
1470 PINE STREET, north side between Polk and
Larkin Streets, Lot 7A in Assessor?s Block 645 ??Request for authorization of a CONDITIONAL
USE for a FIBER?OPTIC TELEVISION and TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLE EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION in an existing one?story building, in the Polk Street Neighborhood
Commercial District and an 80?A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
July 27, 2000)
(Proposed for Continuance to
September 14, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
15.??????? 2000.415C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (M.
SNYDER: 575-6891)
510 -? 3RD STREET, southwest corner of 3rd Street and Bryant Street, Lot 115 in Assessor?s Block 3776 -- Request for
Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 817.73 to install
three sectors of antennas (four antennas in each sector) on the building?s rooftop penthouse, in an SLI
(Service/Light Industrial) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The
antennas would be flush mounted to the penthouse approximately 85-feet above
grade or 6.5-feet above the height of the building?s parapet.?? As part of the proposal, a base transceiver station would be
installed within the building.? The
installation of the antennas and related equipment would be part of a wireless
telecommunications network operated by Nextel Communications.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(Proposed for Continuance to
September 21, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued as proposed
AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
B.?????? ? PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public
may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within
the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items.? With respect to agenda items, your
opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached
in the meeting with one exception.? When
the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members
of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public
hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during
the Public Comment portion of the Calendar.?
Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three
minutes.? If it is demonstrated that
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President or chairperson may
continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.
AThe Brown Act forbids a commission
from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda,
including those items raised at public comment.? In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1)?
responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the
public; or
(2)?
requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3)?
directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.? (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
SPEAKER(S):
Patricia Vaughey
- There is an application at the
Planing Department--2860 Filbert Street--drawings done by an interior??? designer not by a licensed architect.
- There are several issues
concerning this case:?? Lot line
differentials, and lot issues that have been overlooked.
- Building? is on next door neighbor?s lot--2812-2814 Lyon?
- The Department could be liable for
a law suit because of the fact that the building passes onto the neighbors lot.
- There should be a survey made
before 311 notices are sent out.
Aaron Peskin - Speaking on Behalf of the
Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Alta-Filbert Preservation Association, and Friends of
the Garden
Re: 22-30 Alta
- EIR does not adequately respond to
the comments and also failed to take into account that in June of this year,
the? Landmarks Board unanimously
rejected this project because it has not been consistent with the Historic
District.
- They are in negotiations with the
project sponsor
- Would like the Commission to not
certify this case
Joe Latro - Speaking on Behalf of
the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Alta-Filbert Preservation Association, and Friends
of the Garden
Re: 22-30 Alta
- The Landmarks Board rejected the
proposed alternative called C in the final EIR
- This can?t be a proper bases for comparison
- Would like to focus on the shadow
- The lot has shade on the garden
during 26 days of the year.? If C goes
in, it will increase the shade to 115 days.?
There will be 89 additional shade days per year.
- The final EIR should not be
approved.
Debra Stein, representing property
owner at 22 Alta Street
- The Board?s opinion is not evidence of significance
of environmental impact.? The CEQA? charge to the Planning Commission is to use
its own judgment.
- The project is compared to the
former McNear building and not to the empty site.? However, for informational purposes the DEIR also compares the
project with the McNear building, but for compliance with CEQA, there is
compared data with the empty site.
- There is concern that alternative
C somehow presents substantial new information that requires a recirculation
and reevaluation of the environmental review document
- The new alternative is smaller
than the prime project that is being evaluated.
C.???????? COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
16.????? Consideration
of Adoption - draft minutes of 7/20/00.
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore, Chinchilla
17.????? Commission
Matters
Commissioner Mills: - Look into the
conversion of 2 units into 1 unit.
????????????? Schedule for the first week of September when Gerald
Green returns.
Commissioner Theoharis: 2860
Filbert Street
???????? - staff to check project to make sure that the owner had a
survey by ????????????????????????? ????????????a licenced professional.
420 Collingwood Street
- The floor was not removed.
- staff has schedule a meeting with
the DR requestor and project sponsor.
- wants to schedule a staff report
to insure the Commission that what was decided in the DR is carried out.
D.???????? DIRECTOR'S
REPORT
18.????? Director?s Announcements.
2860 Filbert Street
- ZA is consulting with the District
Attorney
- will provide information on 2860
Filbert and 420 Collingwood on 8/17/00 under Director?s Report.
19.????? Review
of Past Week's Events
at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
None
20.????? Status
report on 1351 Grant Avenue
Following the status report, the
Zoning Administrator, Mr. Badiner, recommended that this matter be calendared
on the Commission's
9/7/2000 hearing agenda to consider revocation.
SPEAKER(S):
Wai Ching-Kwan, Chinese Community
Development Center
- pleased with the ZA ' s report and they support his
recommendation.
- look forward to the hearing of the
conditional use.
E.???????? REGULAR
CALENDAR?
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
21.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GITELMAN:
558-5977)
Update City List of Categorical Exemptions
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Citywide.?
The proposal is to adopt an updated list of types of projects that are
categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).? CEQA
and the Guidelines for implementation require that local agencies adopt a list
of types of projects that are exempt from environmental review.? Such a list must show activities at the
local level that fall within each of the classes of exemptions set forth in the
CEQA Guidelines, and must be consistent with the letter and the intent of the
Guidelines.? The Planning Commission
adopted such list in 1981.? Since that
time, CEQA and the Guidelines pertaining to categorical exemptions have been
revised.? The City?s list currently proposed for
adoption has been updated and amended to be consistent with changes in CEQA
statutes and Guidelines.? Chapter 31 of
the Administrative Code (Section 31.17) requires that modifications to such
list be adopted as administrative regulations by resolution of the Planning
Commission after a public hearing.?
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption
of Updated List of Categorical Exemptions.
SPEAKER(S):
Don Andrini, Architectural Heritage
Association
- Class 31 Historic Resource Restoration
Rehabilitation exempts projects if they are constructed in a manner that is
consistant with the Secretary of the Interior?s standard for the treatment of historic
properties? with guidelines for
preserving/rehabilitating and reconstructing historic buildings.
- In California the Office of
Historic Preservation is charged with pre-construction and post-construction
review.
Aaron Peskin - Telegraph Hill
Dwellers Neighborhood Association
- Will give written comments to Environmental
Officer next week
Sue Hestor
- Glad that this item is being
continued for a week.
- it would be very helpful if, in
addition to making important documents available early enough to obtain to
review, they would be advertised in advanced.
- The department has not decided on
what is the determination of dot.coms.
- The Department does not have
General Plan evaluation.
Alice Barkley
- She supports adoption of the
categorical exemptions.
- It is a very important exception
being adopted by the Commission.
- There is no inconsistency.
- Adopt the list as circulated.
- This hearing was mentioned more
than once in public
John Bardis
- The BOS legislation is considered
the chapter 31 update that Sup. Kaufman submitted, which was then submitted to
the department as a staff report.
- There is a horrendous oversite
that a piece of legislature like this go unnoticed.
- The BOS will recognize this
oversite and send the documents back to the Department.
ACTION:?? ??????? Continued to
8/17/00
AYES:???? ???????? Theoharis, Mills,
Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas, Richardson
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
22.????? 1997.433E???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (COOPER:
558-5974)
22-30 ALTA STREET, ???? Certification
of a Final Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project would be the
construction of a new residential building at 22?30 Alta Street, north side,
between Sansome and Montgomery Streets (Assessor?s Block 106, Lot 34A). The project site is located on
a steeply sloped parcel adjacent to the Filbert Steps and Grace Marchant
Garden. Please note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The
public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on December 22, 1998. The
Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public
Comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission
during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify
Environmental Impact Report
(Continued from Regular Meeting of
July 20, 2000)
SPEAKER(s):??? None
ACTION:?? ??????? Certified the
Final EIR
AYES:???? ???????? Theoharis, Mills,
Joe, Salinas, Richardson, Chinchilla
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
MOTION NO.???? 15938
23.??????? 1998.497B??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
(LeBLANC: 558-6351)
215 FREMONT STREET, Southeast corner at Fremont and
Howard Streets, Lot 12 in Assessor's Block 3738 -- Request for Project
Authorization under Planning Code Sections 320-325 (Office Development
Limitation Program) for 49,950 gross square feet of office space.? On November 4, 1999, the Planning Commission
approved Case No. 1998.497X, per Section 309 of the Planning Code, to alter the
existing 6-story, approximately 286,991 square-foot office building at 215
Fremont Street.? The approval of Case
No. 1998.497X included the demolition of an existing 4-story penthouse
structure, the conversion of 21,660 square feet of existing ground floor office
space to retail space, and the construction of a new full seventh floor and a
partial eighth floor, resulting in a net addition of 24,950 gross square feet
of office space.? The current project
proposes to construct an additional 25,000 gross square feet of office space on
a new partial floor within the 7th floor of the building at 215 Fremont Street,
therefore bringing the total net new office space to 49,950 square feet.? The project lies within a C-3-O (SD)
(Downtown Office Special Development) District and within a 350-S and
200-SHeight and Bulk Districts.?
Pursuant to Planning Code Section 313 the Department has determined that
the project would result in the net addition of approximately 49,950 square
feet of gross floor area office use, requiring compliance with the Office
Affordable Housing Production Program.
Preliminary Recommendation:?
Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(s):
Andrew Junius, Project Sponsor Representative
- requesting additional floor area
- The exterior changes are well
underway
- The majority of the steel
structure is now in place.
- The job is 50% complete.
- Because the floor height is larger
than 20 feet, there is enough space to build an additional floor.
- Charles Schwab is the new owner of
the building
Meredith Foundoff, Charles Schwab
team
- They are very excited about this
project.
- Every bit of space in this
building is very important to them.
- They are a highly-developed
technology company.
- This is a very positive
opportunity for Schwab.
Sue Hestor
- She is glad that the height has
dropped below the limit to 205 ft.
- The relations between DBI and the
Planning Department are not very good.
- She would like the Commission to
place restrictions when square footage is so close to the limit.
- It would be a good idea to start
looking closely at this type of case.
ACTION: Approved as amended with the
following condition:? In? 6 months, staff is to report on whether art
space is accessible open space.
AYES:? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson, Chinchilla
ABSENT: Antenore
MOTION NO.15939
??
24.??????? 2000.326C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (M.
SNYDER: 575-6891)
988 HOWARD STREET, northeast corner of Howard Street
and 6th Street, Lot 25 in Assessor?s Block 3725, -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under
Planning Code Section 815.73 to install six antennas on the southwest corner of
the building's roof
approximately 38.66-feet above grade, in an RSD (Residential/Service Mixed Use)
District and an 85-X Height and Bulk District.?
As part of the proposal, the antennas would be installed within a
stealth chimney vent and a base transceiver station would be installed on the
property.? The installation of the
antennas and related equipment would be part of a wireless telecommunications
network operated by Sprint PCS.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
Robert Crebs - Representing project sponsor - Sprint PCS
- The Conditional Use petition
complies with both the WTS Sighting Guidelines and the San Francisco Municipal
Code.
- The current building is a mixed use building.
- On June 21, a community outreach meeting was held.? Nobody attended.
- The proposed equipment will be unintrusive.
- The proposed installation is necessary for communication of cellular
equipment.
- A CU is permitted if the equipment is necessary and is compatible with
the community.
- The design is compatible with the neighborhood.
ACTION??????????? Approved
AYES:???? ???????? Theoharis,
Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson, Chinchilla
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
MOTION NO.???? 15940
25.??????? 2000.580C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (DAVIDSON:
558-6363)
620 CLEMENT STREET, north side between 7th and 8th
Avenue; Lot? 021 in Assessor's Block
1426 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 186.1(b) and
186.1(e) of the Planning Code to allow the relocation and enlargement of a
financial institution (National American Bank), which is considered a
non-conforming use, from 100 Clement Street (Assessor's Block 1431, Lot 18) in
the Inner Clement Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk
district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Dan Sullivan - Speaking on
Behalf of National American National Bank
- Some neighborhoods want to have
banks in their neighborhoods.
- In the old days, banks were
considered a threat.
- This project is compatible with
the neighborhood.? It will be a small
bank.
- The bank will have a
neighborhood-serving use.
- This proposal should be approved.
(-) Isai Gershwil
- As of this date, the neighborhood
has not received information on how this proposed bank will impact them.
- Will the current space be used
completely by the bank, or will there be an expansion done?
- The area of the proposed bank has
the highest traffic (pedestrian and cars) in the Clement Street area.
(+) Ron Miguel
(-) George Jules
- What are the conditions of the
approval?
- At the existing site, the bank is
located in the center of the neighborhood?s commercial? area
- What happens if there is another
bank which wants to be located there?
(+) Peter Chan
- Would like landlords to have the
possibility to request additional banks to come into the neighborhood.
ACTION:?? ??????? Approved
AYES:???? ???????? Theoharis,
Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson, Chinchilla
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
MOTION NO.???? 15941
26.??????? 2000.565C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (DIBARTOLO:
558-6291)
430 COLUMBUS AVENUE, east side between Vallejo and
Green Streets; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 131: --Request for Conditional Use
Authorization under Section 722.27 of the Planning Code to Extend the Hours of
Use from 2:00 am to 6:00 am, to allow for a 24-hour operation, for the existing
Full-Service Restaurant (Calzone's) in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial
District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from
Regular Meeting of August 3, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Restaurant owner
(+) Marsha Garland
ACTION:?? ??????? Approved
AYES:???? ???????? Theoharis,
Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson, Chinchilla
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
MOTION NO.?? 15942
F.????
SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 3:10? P.M. the Planning Commission convened
into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.
27.??????? 2000.732D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KEYLON:
558-6613)
3445 GEARY BOULEVARD, southeast corner of Geary
Boulevard and Stanyan Street, Lot 041 in Assessor?s Block 1085 -- Request for Discretionary Review of
BPA No. 200006304172, proposing a retail store (BEVERAGES AND MORE) of
approximately 5,998 square feet on the ground floor of a newly constructed
four-story building within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial)
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: The
Planning Department recommends that no Discretionary Review be taken and that
the building permit application be approved as proposed.
SPEAKER(s):
(-) Ron Pierce - President of the
Jordan Park Neighborhood Association
- He comes with no malice to
Beverages and More
- He opposes this case primarily
because of the parking and traffic impact in the neighborhood.
- Stanyan is one of many major
corridors.
- This is a very hazardous and
dangerous location.
- There is a loading dock which will
cause traffic problems when delivery trucks are trying to back up into a small
space.? The driver would have to be an
excellent driver to back up in one shot.
- Parking within the neighborhood
and the Lone Mountain neighborhood is very difficult.
- They would like to limit impact on
the neighborhood.? It is a quiet
neighborhood and they would like to keep it that way.
- Please look at the negative impact
and suggestions from the neighborhood.
(-) Supervisor Yaki
- He is here to speak on behalf on
the Discretionary Review requestor.
- Beverages and More is a good
commercial neighbor, yet this type of store requires its customers to drive
their cars.
- This store is not like a
Blockbuster where one can walk and drop off their movies.? Purchases from Beverages and More could
require a car to be driven to transport them.
- The Coronet Theater will be
demolished and a large use will be constructed there.
- It is important that we consider
constructing housing in major transit areas.
(-) David Heller - President of the
Geary Boulevard Merchants Association
- Their concerns are about safety
and traffic.
- Parking is a major problem in the
Geary Street area.
- He sees a potential disaster
happening if this project is approved.
- This will have a devastating
affect on their neighborhood.
(-) William Goodson
- To get to the parking spaces that
Beverages and More is providing, you have to drive down below street level
through a passage way that is 14 feet wide.?
An SUV is about 6 1/2 feet wide which means that anyone who has a car
larger than a Geo, Saturn, or Toyota would have to park on the street.
- It is illogical for such a small
space to be used for in/out cars.
(-) Bob Lee - President of the
Francisco Heights Neighborhood Association
- Supervisor Yaki mentioned that we
need to look into the future.
- UCFS is adding many residential
units.
- My son was injured at this
intersection.
(-) Michael Sullivan
- Has lived on Stanyan street for
about 40 years.
- He works out of his home.
- Every day of the week he hears
screeching brakes.
- He and his wife have a concern of
the traffic safety at that intersection.
- Difficult to find parking in this
area.
- This store will not be a store
which would just attract people from the neighborhood.? It will bring people from various parts of
the City.
(-) Ron Miguel - President of the
Planning Association of the Richmond
- This is a situation where a building
was not designed to effectively handle the commercial activity it will
generate, nor the resulting parking issues
- Beverages is ill suited for this
neighborhood.
- He has been a customer of
Beverages and More but this site is not good for the neighborhood.
(-) Ron Konapouski
- Has lived in the Richmond for
about 30 years.
- He echos everything that people
have mentioned.
(-) Ralf Sisfek
- Lives on Anza Street
- He shares the concerns which have
been expressed.? He knows the intersection
very well.? It already is a strange
intersection.
- The intersection is very narrow as
well as subject to fast traffic.
Tailor Nagle
- 30 years resident of Jordan Park
- His mother lives on Jordan Avenue.
- His concerns are about traffic.
- This project is not appropriate
and/or compatible to the neighborhood.
John Steuart
- Has lived in the Richmond for 12
years.
- He is most familiar with the
Beverages and More in Oakland.
Rob Isimarkola - Represents the
Richmond ? Neighborhood Association
- There are safety and parking
issues.
(+) Andrew Junius - Reuben &
Alter - Representing Beverages and More
- This project is a fully
code-compliant use.
- We talked about the Trader Joe
issue in greater detail in our report.
- Project designed so there will not
be a traffic problem.
- This store is located in an NC-3
district.
(+) Tim Earny - Wilbir, Smith
Associates
- They did count about 500 vehicles
going to the Trader Joe store.
- A parking study was done and
parking conditions were looked at
- The addition of about 20 -30
vehicles would not substantially worsen the actual traffic conditions.
- Field counts were not conducted at
other Beverages and More locations.
(+) Ban Hudson - President and CEO
of Beverages and More
- Why does Beverages and More want
to open a store at this location?? They
don't believe that the
majority of the people are against their store.
- They are a neighborhood specialty
store.? They assist the
neighborhoods.? The neighborhood will
appreciate the service they provide.
- Traffic and Parking is an issue in
Northern California.? This area has been
zoned for retail.? Their retail project
fits within the guidelines and the structure of where they propose moving into.
(+) Sharon Mark
- Owns one of the building in the
area which has 33 units.
- Please deny DR and approve store.
(+) Wilfred Wong
- He has been a resident of San
Francisco for 49 years.
- He has owned a store at Ashbury
and Market for many years.
- He has been watching this company
for many years.
- This company is a high quality
retail store.
(+) David Richards - Officer of
Beverages an More
- There are 45,000 members just in
San Francisco City and County.
- There are 14,367 members of the
Bev Club.
- They have talked to their club
members and they are asking for this store because it?s convenient.
(+) Mark Wasack
- 20 year resident of the area.
- He is an attorney and his firm has
done work for Beverages and More
- He shops at Trader Joes, and he
eats at the restaurants in the area along with his family.
- The products that Beverages and
More provide are good quality.
- This would be a good addition to
the neighborhood.
(+) Randy Kaplan
- He is a small business owner
- This would help the neighbors.
(+) Michelle Myers
- She is here to support the
Beverages and More project.
- She drives to Blockbuster or to
Mels Diner even though they are close to her house.
- If she needs to get some ice cream
or some beer, she would go to the corner store.? She would go to Beverages and More to get the higher end
specialty goods.
(+)?
Hudson
- He is in favor of this project.
- If he wants to get more bulk items
he would like to have a choice and go to Beverages and More.
- This is not a quiet area, its a
commercial area.
(+) Matt Alexander
- He and his family are customers of
many of the retail stores on Geary Boulevard
(+) Jessica Hessman
- She agrees with other speakers in
support of BevMo.
- She believes that the benefits
outweigh the costs.
(+) Steven McCleran - one of the
founders of Beverages and More
- The company did an analysis and a
comparison of the various Beverages and More.
- The design of the store at this
site will fit the circumstances of the area.
- Since 1994, not one single
independent liquor store has closed their doors because of Beverages and More,
simply because BevMore are a different kind of store.
(+) Joe O'Donahue - Residential Builders
- It makes sense for Beverages and
More to be located there.
ACTION:?? ??????? Take
Discretionary Review and approve with conditions
AYES:???? ???????? Theoharis,
Mills, Salinas, Richardson, Chinchilla
NAYES:??????????? Joe
ABSENT:????????? Antenore
Adjournment: 4:37 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE
PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER
7, 2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION
&
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
?Meeting Minutes
Special Joint Meeting
Board of Supervisors Chamber - Room
250
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
Place
Thursday, August 17, 2000
?12:00 PM
PLANNING -??????? PRESENT:??????????????????? Theoharis, Antenore, Joe, Mills, Salinas
? ABSENT:??????????????? Chinchilla,
RECREATION &
?????? PARK:???????????? - PRESENT:???????????? Chin, Murray, Flunder, Friend, Getty, Segal
? ABSENT:??????????????? ? Martin
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO
ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 12:22?
P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:? Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator;
Hillary Gitelman, Pedro Arce,? Patricia
Gerber - Transcription Secretary, Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary
A.???????????? PUBLIC
COMMENT
At this time, members of the public
may address the Joint Commission on items of interest to the public that are
within the subject matter jurisdiction of these Commissions except agenda
items.? With respect to agenda items,
your opportunity to address these Commissions 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.
AThe Brown
Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not
appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public
comment.? In response to public comment,
the commission is limited to:
(1)? responding to statements made or questions
posed by members of the public; or
(2)? requesting staff to report back on a matter
at a subsequent meeting; or
(3)? directing staff to place the item on a
future agenda.? (Government Code Section
54954.2(a))
SPEAKER(s):???????? None
SPECIAL CALENDAR
1.?????? 98.090E???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KUGLER:
558-5983)
YERBA BUENA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
EXPANSION/EMPORIUM SITE DEVELOPMENT CEQA FINDINGS.?
Consideration of adoption of Findings and a Mitigation Monitoring
Program, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), the State Guidelines, and Chapter 31 of the City's
Administrative Code in connection with adoption of the Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena Center Approved Redevelopment Project
Area D-1 and various other actions necessary to implement the Yerba Buena
Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project on
Lots 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 33, 38 and 43 of Assessor's
Block 3705.
_????????????????????? Preliminary
Recommendation:? Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)
SPEAKER(s):??? (name
unclear)
-the project is an economic liability; complete renovation
is not a good idea; totally unnecessary; we don?t need another hotel
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:?????????????? Theoharis,? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Jr.
ABSENT:????????? Chinchilla
MOTION No.??? 15943
NOTE:? - Items 2 through 9 were called and heard together
- Under their authority, the Recreation and Park Commission
took seperate and independant action from the Planning Commission on items 2
and 3.
2.???????????????????????????????? (ARCE:
558-6332)
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ABSOLUTE CUMULATIVE SHADOW LIMIT
FOR BOEDDEKER PARK.? Proposed
action to amend the absolute cumulative limit for new shadows on Boeddeker
Park, established by Resolution No. 11595 on February 7, 1989, from
zero to 0.007%.
Preliminary Recommendation:?
Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)
SPEAKER(s): ?? David
Jones, Rep. of Project Sponsor
- ????????? Gave
an overall description of the project.
- ????????? Gave a
summarized description of the project?s design.????????????????
- Debra Learner, Sr. Planner, Recreation and Park Dept.
- ????????? Gave
an overview of shadow impacts
(+) Paul Moss
- ????????? concerned
about loading truck monitoring deliveries
(+) Patrice Johnston
- ????????? Supports
the project?
(+) Anita Hill, Yerba Buena Alliance
- ????????? Supports
the project?
(+) Miles Stevens
- ????????? Project
will be a great source of employment for the people of San Francisco; supports
the overall project
(+) Carolyn Diamond
????? - ??? This project would serve as a destination to
Market Street for new generations
(+) Bernadet Sea, Filipino Cultural Center
??????????????????????
-??????????? Good asset to
neighborhood
(+) Naomi Ryan - Toolworks
- ????????? Supports
the project?
(+) Nathan Naman - Executive Director for
the Committee on Jobs
- ????????? Vast
potential to the people of San Francisco
- ????????? Assurance
of 4,000 jobs to the City
(+) Jim Chappel, SPUR
- ????????? One of the
first projects SPUR was involved in the 1960s was called AWhat to do about
Market Street@.
- ????????? Lower
Market Street has been successfully rebuilt, yet the mid-Market area has been
resisting this renovation, especially the Emporium area.
- ????????? This site
must be redeveloped as soon as possible.
-?????????? Patronage
in the 5th and Market garage is going down since ATransit First@ is working
effectively.? People are definitely
taking transit to all the shops and restaurants in the area.
-?????????? He would
like Commissioners to expedite this process as quickly as possible.
(+) Don Marcus, Executive Director, Mission Hiring Hall
-?????????? Will help
the low income people of the City??????????
(+) (name unclear)
-?????????? Shadow
issue is very minimal; this project will benefit people both north and south of
Market.
(+) Ernestine Weiss
- ????????? It would be
a wonderful thing for Market and Mission Streets.
(-) Charles Chase, Executive Director, San Francisco
Heritage
- ????????? Concerned
about the decision making process that will have far reaching? implications on the future of San Francisco
as it relates to this project--particularly, historic resources.
(-) Mike Ryser, San Francisco Beautiful
-?????????? Concerned
about maintaining the quality of our urban environment
(-) Jim Furth, United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 101
- ????????? not in
supports of the project?
(-) Rick Hetches, ?United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 101
-?????????? employees
shouldn?t be discriminated
(-) Mary Ann Miller, San Francisco Tomorrow
?? ???????? -?????????? Planning
Code bulk, and height limits
????????????????? - ??? EIR should be used to negotiate and get a
better proposal, keeping all the good uses and promote good thoughtful
renovation of the Emporium building.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? -????? Should be more discussion about open
space
(-) Gary Jacobson
???? -????? Shadow impact is very significant
?????????????????????????????????????????? -?????? Social impact of the project, dividing the
community
???? -????? Project does not impact the South of
Market Street community
???? -? ??? MOU
between the Private Developer and North Market Coalition, this MOU should
become a part of the conditions of approval
(-) Winchell Hayward, California Heritage Council
????? - ??? The use of tax payer money to subsidize
against competition with private enterprise is a bad precedent.
????? -????? This is a very beautiful historical site??????
(+) Joyce Robertson
????? -???? Project very valuable for the City of San
Francisco ?
(+) Elizabeth Sullivan, Executive Director, Car Share
???? ?????????????????? ??????-???? Would make a great
a contribution to San Francisco?s livability.????
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe,
Salinas, J r.
ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla
MOTION No.?? 15944
3.???????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE:
558-6332)
FINDINGS OF INSIGNIFICANCE FOR NEW SHADOW ON BOEDDEKER PARK.? Consideration of Findings of no significant
impact on Boeddeker Park from new shadow within the revised cumulative limit of
0.007% that would be cast on the park by the proposed Yerba Buena Redevelopment
Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project.
Preliminary Recommendation:?
Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)
SPEAKER(s):??? (same as
shown for item #2)
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe,
Salinas
ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla
MOTION No.??? 15945
4.???????? 98.090R??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE:
558-6332)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS.? Consideration of a proposal to adopt
amendments to various maps of the General Plan to facilitate the Yerba Buena
Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project.? The maps of the General Plan that would be
considered for amendment are:? (1) the
Map entitled "Streets are Important to the Perception of the City"
found on page I.5.16 of the Urban Design Element of the General Plan, to
be amended to remove a portion of Jessie Street which would be reconfigured by
the Project; (2) Map 1 on page II.1.9 of the Downtown Area Plan,
"Downtown Land Use and Density Plan," which would be amended to
include the Project site in the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area;
(3) Map 3 on page II.1.21 of the Downtown Area Plan, "Major
Open Spaces," which would be amended to show the Project site as included
within the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area; (4) Map 5
on page II.1.29 of the Downtown Area Plan, "Proposed Height and Bulk
Districts," which would be amended to show the Project site as included
within the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area; (5) Map 7
on page II.1.47 of the Downtown Area Plan, "Proposed Pedestrian
Network:? Downtown District," which
would be amended to remove Jessie Street within Block 3705 as a
"Pedestrian/Service Street"; and (6) Map 2 on
page I.2.6 of the Commerce and Industry Element, "Generalized
Commercial and Industrial Density Plan," which would be amended to include
the Project site within the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area.? The Planning Commission initiated these amendments
by Resolution No. 14920 on November 4, 1999.
Consideration also of a proposal to adopt amendments to
Map 1H of the Zoning Map to facilitate the Yerba Buena Redevelopment
Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project.? The current building height and bulk
designations for the Project site are 120‑X and 160‑S (north of
Jessie Street) and 160‑F (south of Jessie Street) and would be
reclassified to designate the project site as 135‑X, 200‑X and 400‑X
Height and Bulk Districts.? The Planning
Commission initiated this amendment by Resolution No. 14921 on
November 4, 1999.
Preliminary Recommendation:?
Approval.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)
SPEAKER(s):??? (same as
shown for item #2)
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe,
Salinas
ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla
MOTION No.??? 15946
5.???????? 98.090R??????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)
FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND
SECTION 101.1 OF THE PLANNING CODE. Consideration of findings of
consistency with the General Plan and Section 101.1 of the Planning Code for
the Amendment o the Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena Center Approved
Redevelopment Project Area D-1 and various implementing actions for the Yerba
Buena Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project,
including but not limited to General Plan and Zoning Map amendments,? partial vacation of Jessie Street,
dedication of Jessie Street East and Jessie Street West, including
establishment of sidewalks thereon, sidewalk changes to Mission Street and
Jessie Street, and project authorization pursuant to Sections 320-325. All of
these items are discussed in the Staff Report and all require findings of
consistency with the General Plan and Section 101.1 of the Planning Code.
Preliminary Recommendation:?
Approval.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)
_
SPEAKER(s):??? (same as
shown for item #2)
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe,
Salinas
ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla
MOTION No.??? 15947
6.???????? 98.090R??????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)
RECOMMENDATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.? Consideration of recommendation of the
proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena Center
Approved Redevelopment Project Area D-1 to the Board of Supervisors for
approval.
Preliminary Recommendation:?
Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)
SPEAKER(s):??? (same as
shown for item #2)
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe,
Salinas
ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla
MOTION No.???? 15948
7.???????? 98.090B??????????????????????????????????? (ARCE:
558-6332)
PLANNING CODE SECTIONS 320‑325 (OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT LIMITATION PROGRAM) PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.? Request under Planning Code
Sections 320‑325 (Office Development Limitation Program) for 49,100
gross square feet of floor area of office space.
Preliminary Recommendation:?
Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)
SPEAKER(s):??? (same as
shown for item #2)
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe,
Salinas
ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla
MOTION No.???? 15949
8.???????? (ARCE:
558-6332)
DELEGATION AGREEMENT CONTROLS.? Consideration of approval of a Delegation
Agreement by and between the City and County of San Francisco, acting through
its Planning Commission, and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, to
administer certain development controls under the Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena Center Approved Redevelopment Project
Area D-1.
Preliminary Recommendation:?
Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)
SPEAKER(s):??? (same as
shown for item #2)
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe,
Salinas
ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla
MOTION No.???? 15950
9.???????? (ARCE:
558-6332)
SCHEMATIC DESIGN DOCUMENTS.? Pursuant to the Delegation Agreement, consider the Schematic
Design Documents for the Yerba Buena Redevelopment Project Area
Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project for consistency with certain
development controls in the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba
Buena Center Approved Redevelopment Project Area D-1.
Preliminary Recommendation:?
Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)
SPEAKER(s):??? (same as
shown for item #2)
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe,
Salinas
ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla
MOTION No.???? 15951
Adjournment:____
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR
MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION
?Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
Place
Thursday, August 24, 2000
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
PRESENT:??????????????????? Antenore,
Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla
ABSENT:????????????????????? Theoharis
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT MILLS AT
1:33 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning;
Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Eddy Zwierzycki; Paul Maltzer; Bill
Wycko; Irene Nishimura; Cecilia Jaroslawsky; Joy Navarrete; Joan Kugler; Mary
Woods; Craig Nikitas; Michael Smith; Sharon Young; Matt Snyder;? Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda
D. Avery - Commission Secretary
A.???????? ITEMS
PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
1.???????? 98.953C ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON:
558-6309)
557-4TH
STREET, entire
block bounded by 4th, Welsh, Zoe and Freelon Streets (except for the existing
building at the corner of Zoe and Freelon Streets which is Lot 62 in Assessor's
Block 3776),? Lot 119 in Assessor's
Block 3776 -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow: the
construction of a Public Automobile Parking Garage (as defined by Planning Code
Section 890.12) per Planning Code Section 816.30, and to allow parking in
excess of accessory amounts per Planning Code Section 204.5.? The site is within the SLI (Service/Light
Industrial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, the Industrial
Protection Zone's Mixed Use Housing Buffer and the proposed Ballpark Vicinity
Special Use District's South End Service District.
Preliminary
recommendation:? Approval with
Conditions
(Proposed
for Continuance to September 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued to September 7, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
2.???????? 98.953D ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON:
558-6309)
557-4TH
STREET, entire
block bounded by 4th, Welsh, Zoe and Freelon Streets (except for the existing
building at the corner of Zoe and Freelon Streets which is Lot 62 in Assessor's
Block 3776),? Lot 119 in Assessor's
Block 3776-- Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit
Application Nos. 9825943 through 9825955, submitted 12/19/98, for development
of 11 four-story live/work buildings with 172 live/work units (about 194,200
gross square feet), in conjunction with the construction of four to six
commercial/retail spaces and? an
approximately 244,000 gross square foot, three-level underground parking garage
with 480 spaces.? The site is within the
SLI (Service Light/Industrial) Zoning District, a 50-X Height and Bulk
District, the Industrial Protection Zone's Mixed Use Housing Buffer and the
proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District's South End Service District.
Preliminary
Recommendation:? Take DR, approval of
project with conditions.
(Proposed
for Continuance to September 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION: Continued to September 7, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Salinas
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
3.???????? 2000.496D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MEHRA:
558-6257)
419 -
35TH AVENUE,
Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No.
20000127454, Case No. 2000.496D, for the property at 419 - 35th Avenue, Lot 4
in Assessor's Block 1467, proposing to construct a 19 foot deep, two story
addition at the rear of the existing single-family dwelling and to add a one
car garage adjacent to the existing one car garage at the front of the
property.? This property is in an RH-2
(Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the Building
Permit Application as submitted.
(Proposed for Continuance to
September 7, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Continued
to September 7, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore,
Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
4.???????? 2000.035C?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NIKITAS:
558-6306)
1101-1123 FILLMORE STREET, northwest corner of Fillmore Street? and Golden Gate Avenue; Lot 052, in
Assessor's Block 0755 --? Request for
Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 712.83 of the Planning Code
to install a total of nine antennas and a base transceiver station on an
existing 31-unit apartment building as part of Sprint?s wireless
telecommunications network in an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Scale)
District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.?
The subject site is within the Western Addition A-2 Redevelopment Area.
???? ?????????????????? Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with conditions
(Proposed for Continuance to October 5, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):??????????? None
ACTION:??????? Continued
to October 5, 2000
AYES:?????????? Antenore,
Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas
ABSENT:?????? Theoharis
B.?????? ??????????? PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the
Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items.? With respect to agenda items, your
opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached
in the meeting with one exception.? When
the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members
of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public
hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during
the Public Comment portion of the Calendar.?
Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three
minutes.? If it is demonstrated that
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President or chairperson may
continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.
AThe Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or
discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items
raised at public comment.? In response
to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1)? responding to
statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2)? requesting staff
to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3)? directing staff
to place the item on a future agenda.?
(Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
Kay Lamming
Re: 268 Chennery Street
- She was the Discretionary Review requestor on this case on
May 27, 1999.? This case was the focus
of much opposition.
- The Commission voted to accept the recommendations from
staff.
- She appealed the matter and the decision is pending.
- The reason she is bringing this matter to the Commission
is because the plans for this project on file at the Planning Department do not
reflect the decision of the Commission.
- She would like to know what the true plans are and that an
investigation be done.
Judy Langley - Webster Street Historic District
Re:? Smith-Kettlewell
Eye Research Institute
- She lives near the California Pacific Medical Center
- Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute is one of the
affiliates of the Center.
- This institute now owns 6 Victorian houses in the area
which they have turned into offices; despite the fact that at least 4 of the
houses are zoned for residential only.?
Many of these houses are becoming deteriorated.
- She would like the Commission to preserve these Victorian
houses and keep them for residential use only.
Beverly McCallister - Friends of the Webster Street Historic
District
Re: Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute
??????????? - The Webster Street Historic
District will be very much affected if this Institute is granted a conditional
use permit.
- These San Francisco Victorian homes should be preserved as
residences.
Nelson Wild - Friends of the Webster Street Historic
District
RE: Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute??????
- This institute knows that they are violating the law.
- They should be stopped.
Heidi Engelbrechten - Friends of the Webster Street Historic
District
Re: Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute
- She doesn?t believe that offices belong in the Webster
Street Historic District.
- She wants the Institute to restore these Victorian houses
and have people living in there and not working.
Donald Langley - Friends of the Webster Street Historic
District
Re: Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute
- He would like the Commission to enforce the zoning
ordinance and return the Victorian houses to residential use.
- Dr. Alan Scott, the head of Smith-Kettlewell, mentioned
that his organization had been in the area for many years.? Yet, having been around for many years like
Smith-Kettlewell does not give it the right to change the look of the
neighborhood.
- He would like to support planning staff and support the
zoning ordinance.
Matt Rowe - Haight Ashbury Youth Outreach
RE: 2500 Market Street
- He works with the Haight Ashbury Youth Outreach Team.
- He supports the transitional housing at 2500 Market
Street.
- Transitional housing projects are very important to the
city because they provide shelter for the homeless.
- Agencies that work with homeless are happy to work with
transitional houses.
Bill Eddleman - Webster Street Historic District
RE: Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute??????
- Smith-Kettlewell has been converting the neighborhood to a
medical center.
- These buildings which have been illegally used should be
returned to housing use.
Paul Horcher - Director of Solid Waste Management Company
RE: Sanitary Fill Company????????
- He has to divert trash by 50% this year.
- If they fail to meet their goal they will be charged
$10,000 per day.
John Bardis
RE: Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute??????
- The neighborhood, at that time, supported the building of
the California Pacific Medical Center.
- This institution is violating planning laws and their
master plan.? The Commission has to take
some action regarding what people have asked for with California Pacific
Medical Center.
- Urges the Commission to get some word to the Board and to
the Building Inspection Department regarding the enforcement of the
Institutional Master Plan ordinance and zoning laws.
Ralph Oroquita
Re:? Sanitary Waste
Management Company
- This project has been going on for the past 10 years.? There is no emergency.
- A 2-week continuance shouldn?t hurt the company in any
way.
Patricia Vaughey
RE: Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute??????
- There is a vacant hospital at Mt. Zion.
- Is there any way that Smith-Kettlewell can move in there
instead of moving into houses?
C.???????? COMMISSIONERS?
QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
5.??????? Consideration of Adoption - draft
minutes of 7/27/00.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES: Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
6???????? Commission Matters
Commissioner Mills:????? Would like a
status report on the Webster Street Historic District/Smith-Kettlewell case.
Commissioner Antenore:?????????? Would
like a status report on 268 Chennery Street.
D.???????? DIRECTOR?S REPORT
7.??????? Director?s Announcements.
None
8.??????? Review of Past Week?s Events at the
Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
Re:
2836-2838 Washington Street (Discretionary Review)? - The Planning Commission decision was upheld.
Re:? 450 Rhode Island - There were issues raised
about the appropriateness of the development but the Commission?s decision was
upheld.
9.??????? 2868 Filbert Street, Status
report
- This
item came up during Public Comment at an earlier hearing.? The ZA reviewed the documentation and found
there is discrepancy between City records.?
He has determined that a survey by a licensed architect at the expense
of the project sponsor is required in order to determine what the code
provisions are in order to implement the Planning Code.
10.????? 420 Collingwood Street, Status
report
- The
owner has come to an agreement with what the Commission has requested.
- The
problems have been resolved.
11.????? Staff report
on Business Service Definition - Its impacts on contributions to affordable
housing, transportation and child care.
- Staff
has been receiving a number of requests over the last year on determinations
for business service.? Staff has been
implementing projects on a case-by-case basis--requiring a description of the
actual tenant in order to determine if multimedia is a tenant.
- They
have received 35 cases since January 1, 1999.?
A number of these have been duplicated.
- Since
April of this year, any building over 2,500 square feet would be subject to
these requirements.
- He (the
ZA) believes that we are not loosing fees.?
The proposed fees also apply to hotels and entertainment.? The Commission has not approved any hotels
or entertainment projects.
12.????? Staff report on Congestion Management in
SOMA.
Andy
Nash - Acting Director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority
- Has
designed a program to provide information for use in prioritizing
transportation investment decisions and to identify new ways of solving
transportation problems.
-
Extensive Public Input Process - Started 2 years ago
- Public
Input Program:? 1) improve transit
reliability;? 2) reduce transportation
impacts on neighborhoods;? 3) make it
easier to get around by all modes.
-
Transportation Model Results
- San
Francisco Transportation Policy: 1) General Plan; 2) Charter
- Public
Input
-
Technical Committee
- City
and Regional Agency Input: 1) MUNI Strategic Plan and CIP; 2) DPT and DPW
Capital Improvement Plans; 3) BART Strategic Plan and CIP
-
Federal, State and Local Funding: 1) 30 year estimate based on past success; 2)
assumed extension of existing? 2 cent
transportation sales tax.
-
Approximately $5.4 billion available.
-
Categorize Projects into Components: 1) Maintain and Sustain; 2) San Francisco
Enhancements; 3) San Francisco and Regional Expansion; 4) Market-Based and
Innovative.
-
Problems found: Too little money and too many projects.? The only funds available are $5.4 million.
-
Recommendations: 1) CTP Investment Plan; 2) Planning and Funding
Recommendations Designed to Address Funding Shortfall
- Prepare
a ABetter Neighborhoods 2002" plan for SOMA.
-
Consider ways of anticipating new neighborhoods.
- Support
Transit Priority Corridor Implementation
Patricia
Vaughey
Re:? 2860 Filbert Street
- The
deeds of trust between 4 of the neighbors don?t add up.
- In 1946
some of these lots were merged.
- She
recommends that the survey be based on the 1922-1946 mergers.
John
Bardis
RE:
Congestion Management
- The
report on transportation was very informative.?
Yet it would be wonderful to hear a similar presentation for a housing
plan.
E.???????? REGULAR CALENDAR?
13a.??? 2000.725C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KEYLON:
558-6613)
?????????????????????? 2500 MARKET STREET,
north side between Diamond and Castro Streets, thru lot from Market Street to
17th Street, Lot 1 in Assessor?s Block 2648‑ Request for Conditional Use
Authorization under Planning Code Section 209.2(a) to use the existing
structure as transitional housing for up to 15 homeless youths within an RH‑3
(Residential, House, Three‑Family) District and 40‑X Height and
Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will conduct a joint hearing on a
request for an off‑street parking variance under Planning Code Section
151 and usable open space variance under Planning Code Section 135.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):???? None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 7,
2000
AYES:??????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Salinas
ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis
13b.??? 2000.725V??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KEYLON:
558-6613)
?????????????????????? 2500 MARKET STREET,
north side between Diamond and Castro Streets, thru lot from Market Street to
17th Street; Lot 1 in Assessor?s Block 2648 in an RH‑3 (Residential
House, Three‑Family) District and 40‑X Height and Bulk District.
OFF‑STREET PARKING AND USABLE OPEN SPACE VARIANCES SOUGHT: The
proposal is to establish transitional housing for up to 15 homeless youths in
the currently vacant two‑story, former City Athletic Club building,
without providing any required off‑street parking or usable open
space.?
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Without hearing, continued to
September 7, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Salinas
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
14a.??? 2000.363CV?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ZWIERZYCKI:
558-6263)
471 AND 479 CASTRO STREET, eastern side between 17th and 18th Streets, Lots 59
and 60 in Assessor?s Block 3582? --
Request for Conditional Use authorization to exceed the permitted lot and use
sizes of 4,999 and? 2,499 gross square
feet, respectively, under Planning Code Sections 715.11 and 715.21, by? merging two lots; creating interior? connections between the retail stores on
these lots; and constructing additional floor area in the Castro Street
Neighborhood-Commercial District and 65-B Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Lion Barnet - President of Eureka Valley Promotion
Association
- Would like the Commission to approve the project with the
conditions imposed by staff.
- He also supports the parking variance.
(+) Ernie Asten - Owner of the property
- If the Commission has any questions, he will be available.
- The proposed alterations will allow him to compete with
other businesses.
(+) Joe Curtin - President of Castro Area Planning and
Action
- The amendments to the plan will become effective shortly.
- He supports the owner?s application of a variance and
conditional use permit.
- The restaurant is in a very important location in the
Castro Street.
(+) Patrick Batt - President of the Merchants of Market and
Castro
- Ernie came to their community meetings and exposed the
project to the neighborhood.? There was
no opposition.
(+) Gary Virginia
- The owners of Cliffs are prime examples of how small
business merchants could operate with community planning
- Cliffs donates consistently.
- He supports the Conditional Use and Variance request.
ACTION:?????????? Approved
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Salinas
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
MOTION
NO.???? 15958
14b.????? 2000.363CV????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ZWIERZYCKI:
558-6263)
471
AND 479 CASTRO STREET,
eastern side between 17th and 18th Streets, Lots 59 and 60 in Assessor's Block
3582 -- The Zoning Administrator will conduct a joint hearing on a request for
an off-street parking and loading variance from the five off-street parking and
one off-street loading spaces required when connecting the retail uses at the
referenced addresses and constructing additional floor area at the rear of, and
on top of 471 Castro Street.? The
project is in the Castro Street Neighborhood-Commercial Zoning District and
65-B Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKER(S):?? Public Hearing Closed by ZA
ACTION:?????????? The matter has been taken under
advisement
15.??????? 1999.151E???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MALTZER:
558-6391)
SANITARY FILL COMPANY SOLID WASTE FACILITY PERMIT
REVISION;? 501 TUNNEL AVENUE; Appeal of Preliminary Negative
Declaration.? Assessor's Block
4991/Lots 7, 8, 9 and 82 in San Francisco County; and Assessor's Block 152/Lots
030, 340 and 220 (partial) in San Mateo County. The Sanitary Fill Company seeks
to revise its Solid Waste Facility Permit to allow for: (1) the removal of
scheduling restrictions on refuse fleet hauling; (2) an increase in permitted
vehicle trips per day; (3) approval to stage and handle source-separated
organic waste as a separate waste stream; (4) approval to enclose the
construction and demolition debris sort line and increase the hours of sort
line operation; and (5) removal of the Household Hazardous Waste Collection
Facility from the Solid Waste Facility Permit.?
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 13, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Robert McCarthy - McCarthy and Schwartz - representing
Norcal Waste Systems and its subsidiary Sanitary Fill Company.
- This case is a very limited matter.? The City is under an obligation to reach a
50% diversion of its refuse in order to stop using landfill and start recycling
more.
- This facility would expand the amount of green waste that
comes out of the refuse.? It?s not an
increase in the garbage.? It?s just to
be able to pull it out and stream it so it?s separate and? recycled in a compost facility offsite.? It will also enclose the sort line that is
used for construction and debris.? This
would take the workers out of the elements and will benefits the neighbors
since it will reduce dust, noise and glare.
- This facility operates 24 hours already and will add 12
employees during off hours.
(-) Ralf Oroquita
- His community is now 50% Asian.? He has not seen any publications in Chinese to inform these residents.
- There are many garbage and recycling facilities in their
neighborhood.
- This project requires an EIR and a real plan should be
carried out to inform the neighbors.
- The project is too big.?
Many homes and yards can be built in this location.
- The Commission can help by postponing this development in
order to have more discussions.
(+/-) Don Bertone - President of the Little Hollywood Neighborhood
Association and the Chair of the Planning Commission?s? Local Health Risk Assessment Committee
- The Local Health Risk Committee is now dormant, but
before, it used to study the systems plan and the household hazardous waste
component.
- They had always sought to deal with this expansion.
- They had hoped to get more consideration by the Commission
through an EIR.
- They have never been in any dialog or meeting regarding
this plan.
- Considering that after many years, they had sought to
participate in meetings with organizations, just this morning they came up with
a plan.
- They had also requested a continuation.
(-) Rob Gibson - Member of the Little Hollywood Neighborhood
Association
- He would like to get some support to protest this project.
- He and his neighbors have been dealing with this situation
for 25 years.
ACTION: Negative Declaration
Upheld
AYES:??????????????? Antenore,
Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas
ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis
MOTION No.?????? 15959
16.??????? 2000.257E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WYCKO:
558-5972)
200 TOWNSEND STREET, Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration - Proposed demolition of
existing one-and-two story buildings with about 8,000 gross square feet
occupied by clothing outlets, a liquor store, and a vacant bar/restaurant plus
a surface parking lot.? New construction
of a 97,400 gross square feet, 65 feet high structure with 51 live/work units,
1,400 gross square of retail space, about 10,900 gross square feet of
office/business services, and 63 off -street parking spaces.? The project site is situated at the
northwest corner of Third and Townsend Streets in Assessor?s Block 3787 and
includes Lots 9, 10, 11, and 46. The proposed uses are permitted uses in the
applicable Service/Light Industrial (SLI) and proposed South End Service (SES)
Districts.? Live/work is a permitted use
under the interim Mixed Use Housing Zone (MUHZ) also in effect.? The proposed five-story, 65 feet high
structure would also conform to the 65-X height and bulk zoning for the project
site.? A lot merger is being
sought.? Parking, loading, and all other
Planning Code requirements would be satisfied.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 3, 2000)
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold the Preliminary Negative
Declaration
SPEAKER(S):
(-)
Charles Miller - Bartko, Zankelete and Miller
-
The report acknowledges that there are serious traffic problems in the area.
- An
EIR is required when there are problems recognized in the report.
-
The report also acknowledges moderate damage after a 7.1 earthquake.
-
This building will become one of the tallest buildings in this low-density area
-- one more reason to prepare an EIR.
(-)
Alan Teague
- He
has 4 major concerns: 1) traffic; 2) parking;?
3) 3rd street station building;?
4) height of the building.
- He
would like the Commission to not uphold the negative declaration and require an
EIR.
(+)
Alice Barkley
-
None of the speakers who are asking the Commission for an appeal have provided
any evidence that this project will create problems.
- A
transportation study was prepared and all the intersections were studied.
-
The implementation of using public transportation was carried out since after a
game, she noticed that there were more people walking towards public
transportation than to their vehicles.
-
This neighborhood is rapidly changing.?
Yes, the building next door is a little bit smaller.
-
Would like the Commission to deny this appeal based on that?
ACTION:?????????? Negative Declaration Upheld
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Salinas
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
MOTION
NO.???? 15960
17.??????? 1999.579E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NISHIMURA:
558‑5967)
301 FIRST STREET,
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‑ Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) The proposed project is removal of a 200+‑space parking
lot, and new construction of a two‑tower residential building consisting
of 332 dwelling units, 410 residential parking spaces, and 5,100 square feet of
retail space on an approximately 38,000‑square‑foot site on the
southeast corner of Folsom Street, Lot 32 in Assessor?s Block 3748; within an
RC‑4 (Residential‑Commercial, Combined, High‑Density)
District, Residential Subdistrict of the Rincon Hill Special Use District, and
200‑R and 250‑R Height and Bulk Districts.? One tower, on the north portion of the
building, would be 21 stories with a height of 200 feet and the other tower
would be 26 stories at a height of 250 feet on the south side of the
building.? Parking would be provided
within two to four levels below ground on the sloping site with entrance/exit
on First Street and a garage exit on Grote Place off of Folsom Street, where
access also would be provided for one off‑street truck loading space.
Preliminary
Recommendation:?? No Action Required.
Note:? Written comments will be accepted at the
Planning Department office, 1660 Mission St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA
94103, until the close of business on August 29, 2000.???????????
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Public hearing only.? No Action Required
18.??????? 2000.286E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (JAROSLAWSKY:
558-5970)
925 BRYANT STREET ‑ Appeal of a Preliminary
Negative Declaration. ?The project
site is located on Block 3780, Lot 077, within the western portion of the
block, contains approximately 20,000 square feet and is within an IPZ
(Industrial Protection Zone), a SLI (Service/Light Industrial) District and a
40‑X Height and Bulk District.?
The site contains 75 feet of frontage along Bryant Street to the west
and 265 feet of? frontage along Langton
Street to the north.? The proposal
includes the conversion of approximately 13,000 square feet of an existing
office/retail/warehouse structure into retail/business service use and the
addition of approximately 26,000 square feet of new floor area.? The footprint of the structure would remain
the same.? The addition of two floors
would result in a total of three stories.?
The resulting building would be approximately 40 feet in height, contain
approximately 39,000 square feet and would contain 37 on‑site parking
spaces accessed from Langton Street.?
Preliminary
Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration.
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of August 10, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):
Jared Eigerman -
Reuben & Alter - Representing Project Sponsor
- Would like the
Commission to reject the appeal and uphold the negative declaration.
- Staff has responded
thoroughly to the material submitted by the appellant.
- This project is not a
major one.? It would maintain an
existing retail use and add some business services use.
- The initial study
found no physical effects on the environment to require an EIR.
- The appellant?s
material doesn?t offer any substantial evidence to dispute this.
- The architect of the
project is here to answer any questions.
ACTION:?????????? Negative Declaration Upheld
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Joe
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
MOTION NO.???? 15961
19.??????? 1999.455E??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NAVARRETE:
558-5975)
NEW DeYOUNG MUSEUM-- Public Hearing on Draft
Environmental Impact Report.? The
proposed project would demolish and reconstruct the M.H. DeYoung Museum on the
site of the existing DeYOUNG Museum in Golden Gate Park.? The project would include demolition of
eight existing buildings, totaling approximately 230,000 square feet, which
compose the DeYOUNG Museum and the Asian Art Museum.? (The Asian Art Museum will move to the Civic Center.)? The new building would include two main
levels above grade, one level below grade with a varying roof height ranging
from 33 to 48 feet, and a 160‑foot tower at the northeast corner of the
project site.? The building would
increase current DeYoung Museum gallery and exhibition space at the site from
the existing 37,000 sf to total about 75,000 sf.? The project would remove the 85 existing paved parking spaces for
museum staff, currently on the eastern side of the museum, and would not
provide replacement parking.? The
project site is within the P (Public Use) zoning district and within an OS
(Open Space) Height and Bulk District; Assessor?s Block 1700, Lot 1, bounded to
the north and east by John F. Kennedy Drive, to the south by Tea Garden Drive
and to the west by the Hagiwara Japanese Tea Garden.? Note:? Written comments
will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., on August 29,
2000.
Preliminary
Recommendation:? No Action Required
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Danny Leone -
North Beach Chamber of Commerce
- He supports the new
design of the museum.? The new design
will offer more exhibit space,? more
parking space, and a view which it didn?t have before.
(-) Joseph Fusco -
Chairman of a new organization called People for a New De Young Museum.
- There are a number of
people from the Sunset District who were not notified and did not receive the
Draft EIR.
- His organization does
not take a stand on the design of the new building, their comments involve
context.
- He would like to
request a continuance.
- The report does not
reflect the impact on the environment.?
It is full of weak assumptions, mistaken conclusions, lack of
neutrality, and disingenuous use of wording and graphics.
- An EIR is supposed to
be an objective assessment of the project?s impact.? It reads like it was prepared by, rather than for, the Fine Arts
Museum of San Francisco.
- Fine Arts of San
Francisco is just trying to build a high rise.
(+) Margarete P.
Archer
- There is one
significant change.? The square footage
will increase.? Some people don?t like
the shape of the tower and the fact that it will move.? The tower moves around very quietly.? The shade will change and it will be very
beneficial to the park.?
- In regards to the
parking, she believes that a garage is needed.?
Some people don?t believe there is a need for parking, other people don?t
believe anything should be built at all.
- The fact that the
tower will move around will be fascinating to children who come to the museum.
- There are a lot of
parking problems in the City.? On
weekends people park on Lincoln Way and some park in the park.
- She has been devoted
to the museum for a long time and believes that the museum is very valuable.
(+) Jim Killoran -
Asian Art Museum
- The project will be
complete in July of 2002 and will open in the Fall of 2002.
- The schedules for the
Asian and deYoung will overlap.? His
organization is working closely with staff of both museums regarding occupancy
of space for the art pieces.
- The construction
process will adequately abate or mitigate affects on the Asian Art Museum in
regards to noise, dirt, vibration, etc. He would like the EIR to reflect these
situations and state that measures are being taken to deal with these
situations.
(+) Toby Levine
- She read the EIR and
believes that this is a very simple one.
- There are no negative
impacts from this project.
- She hopes that this
project will become a beautiful vehicle for art and for people to come and view
this art.
- Would like to have
Commission certify this EIR.
(+) Sally Ann Ryan -
Art Supervisor of the San Francisco Unified School District
- She supports this
project and is exited about the moving tower which will please children.
- The Board of Education
unanimously passed a resolution to support children to find ways to provide
funds for construction.
- San Francisco is known
for many things, now we have a symbol of the love of the arts but also the
moving tower so they can see the area that the museum encompasses.
(+/-) Ron Miguel - Member of Planning
Association for the Richmond
- The present building
is no longer adequate and is not a historical building.
- He doesn?t have great
disputes with the EIR.? It is a very
simple report.
- He hopes that when the
EIR for the Concourse is done, it? will
be similar to the one for the deYoung Museum.
(+) Jim Chappell - President of SPUR
- He has reviewed the
EIR and believes that the report is quite accurate.
- There is no question
that the existing building must be demolished and replaced.
- The EIR considers
visual quality and shadow issues.? It is
properly conservative in it?s analysis of traffic issues and is adequate for
the park.
(+/-) Pinky Cushner - Alliance for Golden Gate Park
- Would like to have
case continued since she just received the EIR this morning.
- She is very
experienced in commenting on EIRs.
- She has various
comments regarding issues she would like to have dealt with in the EIR and she
will submit her comments before the deadline.
(+) John Lumis - ?California College of Arts and Crafts
- He is convinced that
the majority of the architects in the city will agree with the new design of
the museum.
- This museum will be
friendly to all ages.
(+) Chooi Eng Grosso
- SHARP
- Many people voted to
tax themselves to rebuild the museum in Golden Gate Park.
- When she read the EIR,
she had no problems with it.
(-) Roger Brandon
- The voters of the City
rejected building a new structure twice.
- The design of the
building is not appropriate.
- This building is a
disaster in the making.
(-) Philip Carlton -
Alliance for Golden Gate Park
- He would like the
Commission to reject the EIR.
- The tower will be an
observation tower which therefore will be a land use change since there has
never been an Aobservation@ deck before.?
Someone will get hurt at this observation deck.
- There are a number of
observation areas throughout San Francisco.?
There is no need for another one.
- The EIR states that
there will be an additional 300,000 visitors.?
This number is very low.
- He would like a
description of the land deeded by the BOS, Rec and Park Commission, Planning
Commission and the Charter to the Museum.?
What is the process for them if they go beyond to acquire this other
land.
ACTION:?????????? Public hearing only.? No Action Required
20.??????? 95.385E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KUGLER:
558-5983)
444 DIVISADERO
STREET, TOUCHLESS CAR WASH ?Appeal of a Preliminary
Negative Declaration on Assessor?s Block 1216 - Lots 5, 17, 18, 19, located
on the northeast corner of Oak and Divisadero Streets in the Western
Addition.? The proposed project would
demolish two existing buildings at 1060-1062 and 1052 Oak Street and construct
a new two-story mixed-use building with two dwelling units on the second floor
and an auto detailing services and a parking space on the ground floor.? There would be one level of underground
parking with 13 spaces accessed by a commercial automobile elevator.? The underground parking would be covered by
landscaping.? An additional two story
structure would be constructed to serve as an employee lounge and storage
area.? Two shed roofed open sided
structures would be constructed to connect the existing car wash structure and
the two proposed structures.? Minor
modifications in the form of the addition of a covered waiting area and the
enclosure of an existing laundry facilities wold be done to the existing car
wash building.? The car wash vehicular
circulation and queuing area would be expanded and reconfigured.? The proposed site is split between two
zones; lots 5, 17, 18 and the portion of lot 19 that fronts on Oak Street are
zoned NC-2 while the interior remainder of lot 19 is zoned RH-3.? A rezoning of the interior portion of lot 19
from RH-3 to NC-2 is proposed as a part of the project.? The project also has two Height/Bulk
Districts 65-A and 40-X.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of July 13, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):??
(-) Cynthia Marcucci
- This matter has a long
history and has sparked a number of concerns with the neighbors.
- She would like to have
this matter continued because she would like to request that it be heard before
a full Commission.
(-) Richard Kay
- He is here
representing neighbors who have concerns about environmental hazards.
- He would like this
project to have a more detailed traffic and noise study done.
- The car wash noise
will be too loud.
- The neighbors have
concerns about the oil which will be run onto the sidewalk.
(-) Michael Smithrick
- Alamo Square Neighborhood Association
- There has been no
explanation, no calculation or analysis that explains how Touchless Car
Wash--with proposed renovation and expansion--will not create environmental and
traffic problems.
- Over 90% of the wash
time is done before going into the wash tunnel.? The traffic jams will be created even before cars go into the
wash tunnel. This is in addition to the separate auto detailing area proposed.
(-) Patricia Vaughey
- The negative
declaration is breaking the law.? It
does not follow CEQA.?? It does not
address the rezoning of more property for this site and for the potential use
of said property.? Under CEQA this issue
needs to be addressed.
(+) Harry O?Brien - Coblins, Patch, Duffy and Bass
- Representing Project Sponsor
- There is fundamental
confusion in the negative declaration appeals and in the comments today regarding
the environmental impacts of the carwash vs. the environmental impacts of the
project.
- This project has been
designed to express concerns about noise and chemical sprays used at the car
wash.
- The capacity of the
wash tunnel is unchanged.
- A sound consultant
report was issued and passed to the Commissioners.
(-) Joe O?Donahue - Residential
Builders
- He didn?t read the EIR
yet he lives in the neighborhood.
- Is it wise to increase
the capacity of what is already an environmental traffic disaster area?
- Pedestrians and/or
handicapped persons cannot walk on the sidewalk that front the carwash.
- This neighborhood is
completely in opposition to this project.?
- The Mayors office does
not realize the significance of the opposition.
(-) Agar Chakes
- He has driven down Oak
Street.? A whole lane of traffic is used
for people trying to get into the car wash.
- The quality of life of
the people that live around that neighborhood is getting damaged.? This is not what the City or this Commission
are about.
(-) Jeff Williams -
President of the 425-427 Homeowner?s Association on Scott Street
- He is the other
appellant.
- The Touchless car wash
has been continually breaking all environmental laws, ignoring the neighborhood
and their employees.
- The car wash is also
in violation on the hours of operation.
(-) Tom Coniff -
Lives in the neighborhood
- He agrees with the
previous speakers.
- There are 3 gas
stations surrounding the area of the proposed car wash.? Those alone create a number of traffic
problems.? This is already excessive for
a neighborhood.
- This is creating a
larger problem to an already dangerous situation.
(-) Michel? Lipman - Lives on Scott Street
- He is concerned about
the goodwill of the company since they have made promises they have not kept.
- He has tried to speak
to the owners of the touchless car wash and has tried to work out issues and
problems but nothing has been done.
ACTION:?????????? Negative Declaration Upheld
AYES:????????????? Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas
NAYES:??????????? Antenore
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
MOTION NO.???? 15962
NOTE: Items 21 and 22 were called and
heard together.
21.??????? 2000.291CZ ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WOODS:
558-6315)
1062 OAK STREET, north side, between Divisadero and
Scott Streets, Lot 19 in Assessor?s Block 1216 - Request to amend the
Planning Code Zoning Map to? reclassify
a portion of Lot 19 from an RH-3 (Residential, House Districts, Three-Family)
Zoning District to an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) Zoning
District.?? Currently, the northern
portion of Lot 19 (trapezoidal-shaped of approximately 113 feet wide by 82 feet
deep) is zoned RH-3 and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District; the southern
portion of Lot 19 (a narrow strip of approximately 25 feet wide by 90 feet
deep) is zoned NC-2 and is in a 65-A Height and Bulk District.? The proposal is to reclassify the RH-3
portion of Lot 19 to NC-2 to allow? the
expansion of an existing car wash (Touchless Car Wash).? The Height and Bulk District of the reclassified
portion of Lot 19 would remain 40-X.??
Preliminary
Recommendation: Adoption of the Draft Resolution for Reclassification.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Art Davis -
Represents Canadian Oil Company (owners of the Touchless Car Wash)
- The carwash has been
at this location for 50 years.
- TCW has been the
winner of many awards voted on by consumers.
- This is not about
increasing the peak capacity of the block.?
The wash tunnel will not be increased so the capacity of the cars would
remain the same.
- The company would just
like to increase the work area for their employees by adding a break room,
lockers, etc.
- They have had many
community meetings, have listened to the neighbors and are trying to deal with
their concerns.
(+/-) David Gast -
Principal of the Firm of David Gast Architects
- They designed the new
construction to buffer noise, chemicals, etc from the neighbors.
- They have changed the
project to produce a building which is in scale with the rest of the buildings
in the neighborhood.
- They have increased
the area where cars will wait to go into the wash tunnel; this would alleviate
the back up of cars on Oak Street.
- They have worked quite
hard to come up with a proposal which will deal with the concerns of the
neighbors.
(+) Harry O?Brien -
- An important part of
this project is to make the car wash useful for everyone -- neighbors,
customers, employees.
- Perhaps, in the
history of the carwash, they may not have kept every single promise they have
made.? Yet, they have always tried to be
considerate to the customers and the neighbors.
(+) Javier Calix
- He is the manager of
the Touchless Car Wash.? He has worked
there for 11 years.
- He is here to
represent the workers of the car wash.
- The workers are very
much in favor of having a place where they can take their breaks and eat their
lunch, as well as lockers to store their belongings.
(+) Robert Bentley
- People who are
opposing this project have been using false information and false tactics.
- The people have
created confusion and hysteria by using false information.
(+) Peter Radovich
- He is a new resident
to the area.
- The first thing he
found was a good car wash to get his car clean.
- This project helps the
neighborhood as well as it?s workers.
- Would like the
Commission to approve this project.
(+) Jason Jermane
- He is also a new
resident in this area.
- He supports the car
wash since the changes that they are planning make sense.
- He gets his car washed
there regularly.
(-) Cynthia Marcucci
- Haight/Divisadero Merchant?s Association
- Her organization
opposes the project.
- The car wash is
attracting new customers which will eventually cause more traffic and traffic
problems.
- There has been a
16-year track record in which the owner?s of the car wash has shown that? they have not come through with their
promises.
(-) Mark Garner
- Over the years his
tenants have had many problems with this car wash.
- There were a certain
number of residential units promised yet only a few units were built.
- The trees to buffer
the noise were never built either.
- A fence was supposed
to built as well and it was never built.
(-) Rafael Zocca
- He lives within 50
feet of this project--(he displayed a photograph of a backup of cars trying to
get into the car wash.)
- He has to go into the
middle lane to go into his garage.
- There has been no
peace in this neighborhood.
- The car wash owners
need to realize that neighbors have had many problems with this car wash.
(-) Mary Zocca
- Her backyard is
adjacent to the car wash.? There is a
section where they will be building a park.
- The park will be for
their employees.
- Her fence goes up 6
feet yet the area of the car wash will have to be leveled and a 6 foot fence
added--which will make it a 12 foot fence she will have to look at.
- She wants a right to
privacy and a right to good health.
(-) Homa
Fatalazadelis
- Oak Street is a one
way street, when cars come out of the car wash, people are in so much hurry to
get out of there to get to their next appointment which can cause dangerous
situations.
(-) Patrick Harris
- He has talked to Art
Davis regarding employment.? Yet his
people cannot fill out applications if Mr. Davis is not on the site.?
- He would like to have
more community support from the owner of the car wash.
(-) Holly Thuman
- They gathered 300
signatures and everyone was against the expansion of the car wash.
(-) Mark Lorenzer -
Chairman of the Haight/Divisadero Neighbors and Merchant?s Group
- He lives a block away
and has used the car wash yet he has found another car wash that is more
convenient for him.
- He is concerned that
the representatives of the car wash come to the meetings and provide some
information only, and don?t provide the residents with solutions to their
questions and/or issues.
- He has never met the
owner of the car wash.
(-) Richard Kay
- For many years the car
wash management has allowed the problems to get out of control--(he displayed
pictures of cars on the sidewalk and cars parked in areas where it could be
dangerous for pedestrians.)
(-) Jeff Williams
- He lives on Scott
Street and is totally against the expansion of the car wash.
(-) Michael Smithrick
- They gathered about
300 signatures in one day and people were almost fighting to sign.? This proves the fact that there are more
people against the expansion of the carwash than people who support it.
- Expanding the car wash
is supposed to eliminate problems but after analyzing the proposal it doesn?t
appear to reduce any problems at all.
(-) Gary Goad
- If the owners are
going to spend thousands to expand their facility why can?t they spend $100 to
clean their sidewalk?
(-) Brian DeHuff
- He has a tree in his
back yard and one side of the tree is dying because of the sprays that are used
to clean the cars.
(-) Greg Hansen -
Haight/Divisadero Neighborhood Association
- He has lived in the
area for about 14 years.
- He uses the car wash
yet his issues are about broken promises.?
The car wash promised many things and nothing was ever carried out.
- Bottom line: they can?t
be trusted.
(-) Joe Konopka -
Candidate for District Supervisor
- He is very familiar
with this area and uses the car wash yet he is not a customer on Saturday or
Sunday because the traffic situation is horrendous.
- If you build more,
more will come.? Expanding the car wash
will make problems larger.
- The housing issue is
critical so spaces should be used for housing.
(-) Susan Chandler -
- She lives on Page
Street which is 1 block away from the car wash.
- She lives in a classic
Victorian neighborhood and she doesn?t believe in increasing commercialization.
- The owners have proved
that they can not be trusted.
(-) Winston
Montgomery - Alamo Square Neighborhood Association
- This car wash is a
nuisance and this proposal will increase this nuisance.
- He read a letter from
a resident who could not attend the hearing and is opposed to the expansion.
(-) Kirk Kleinschmidt
- Since 1985 neighbors
have repeatedly complained of the car wash.
- The Commission imposed
restrictions on the car wash yet none of these restrictions were ever
implemented.
- He would like the
Commission to deny this conditional use.
- If the Commission were
to approve the conditional use, certain restrictions should be enforced and
carried out.
(-) Robin Haxo
- Her family is happy
that the car wash is doing so well, yet they should move to an area that can
support heavy commercial use.
- This Commission did
not approve the expansion of a business just across the street.
- She never takes her
children along a very busy street and fight with cars that are either parked on
the sidewalk or coming into the car wash.
(-) Mark Toparcher -
President of the Alamo Square Neighborhood Association
- He would like the
Commission to deny the expansion of the car wash.
- This project goes
against the principals of good urban design.
(-) Patricia Vaughey
- This appeal was done
by Haight/Ashbury, Alamo Square and The Planning Association of Divisadero
Street
- As planners, they hear
it all the time -- more housing is required.
- You cannot allow
someone to expand a project if they have not followed the rules.
(-) Jerry Wilder
- He is one of the
people that run to the park and run back.?
He has slipped because of the oil that comes onto the sidewalk.
- How many incidents
will it take for the carwash to clean their mess?
(-) Valery Hartwell -
Alamo Square Neighborhood Association
- She agrees with all of
the comments from the previous speakers--(showed pictures of her back yard and
how her trees have died because of the chemicals sprayed onto the cars.)
(-) Joe O?Donahue - Residential Builders
- This meeting should be
held not to grant an expansion but to penalize a business owner which did not
follow the requirements imposed on them by the Commission.
- The car wash can
improve on their existing facilities.?
Instead of using money to expand, they should provide better salaries to
their employees.
- There is no need for
underground parking.
(-) Jeremy Burchin
- He has lived in the
neighborhood for over 2 years.
- He opposes the
expansion of this project since he has slipped many times on the sidewalk, the
parking is really bad, there are cars parked on the sidewalk, there is an
incredible amount of noise, and there is an awful smell because of the
chemicals used at the carwash.
(-) Mark White
- He feels very strongly
about opposing this project.
- He agrees to
everything the previous speakers have said.
ACTON:??????????? Motion from Commissioner
Joe--Item 21 only:? Deny reclassification
from RH-3 to NC-2.? The motion failed
for lack of a 2nd.
ACTION:?????????? Public hearing was closed.? Project (items 21 and 22) continued to
September 14, 2000 to allow project sponsor to come back with an alternate
project.?
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla,
Salinas????????
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
22.??????? 2000.291CZ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WOODS:
558-6315)
444 DIVISADERO STREET
AND 1052-62 OAK STREET, northeast corner of Oak and Divisadero Streets, Lots 5, 17, 18 and 19
in Assessor?s Block 1216 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under
Sections 186.1, 209.7, 303, 304 and 711.59 of the Planning Code to permit a
Planned Unit Development for the expansion of an existing car wash (Touchless
Car Wash) in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) Zoning District
with 65-A and 40-X Height and Bulk Districts.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):?? Same as item 21.
ACTION:?????????? Same as item 21.
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe,
Mills, Salinas
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
23.??????? 98.281Z???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON:
558-6309)
185 BERRY STREET, China Basin Landing Project; Lot 5
in Assessor's Block 3803 (bounded by Third, Berry and Fourth Streets and the
China Basin Channel) -- Request under Planning Code Section 302 for an
amendment to the Planning Code's zoning map to change the height and bulk
district classification on Assessor's Block 3803, Lot 5 from 60-X to 90-X to
allow the construction of a three-story vertical addition to an existing
three-story, 40-foot tall building for a total height of approximately 87
feet.? The proposed project at the site
would contain up to 120,000 gross square feet of office space and up to 54
dwelling units. The property is within a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, the
Mixed Use Housing Area of the IPZ Industrial Protection Zone), the proposed
Ballpark Vicinity Special District's South End Office District, and is
currently within the 60-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation:? Adopt a resolution of
intent to initiate the Zoning Map amendment; Recommend adoption to the Board of
Supervisors.
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Without hearing, continued to
September 7, 2000
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Salinas
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
24a.????? 2000.225CV? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NIKITAS:
558-6306)
??????????? 3131
WEBSTER STREET, northwest corner of Moulton Street, Lot 002 in Assessor's
Block 0509 -? Request for Conditional
Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.2 and 712.21 for use size
exceeding 6,000 square feet.? The
proposal is for a Business or Professional Service Office (McGuire Real Estate)
of 12,160 gross square feet to be achieved by remodeling into offices an
existing former restaurant, The North India, (two structures totaling 4,960
square feet in area) and connecting those structures to the existing adjacent
real estate offices at 2001 Lombard Street (gross area of 7,200 square feet)
via a new second-story pedestrian bridge between the lots.? The subject properties are within an NC-3
(Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and 40-X Height and Bulk
District. ?
Preliminary
Recommendation: Pending
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of July 13, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Approved with conditions
AYES:? ??????????? Antenore,
Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
MOTION
NO.???? 15963
24b.?????? 2000.225CV? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NIKITAS:
558-6306)
????????????? 3131 WEBSTER STREET,
northwest corner of Moulton Street, Lot 002 in Assessor?s Block 0509.? The Zoning Administrator will conduct a
joint hearing on a request for a Variance from the off-street parking spaces
required for a proposed office addition.?
Sections 151 and 712.22 of the Planning Code require eight off-street
parking spaces for the proposed use of the subject property, located within an
NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and 40-X Height and Bulk
District.? No off-street parking is
proposed.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of July 13, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):?? None
ACTION:?????????? Acting
ZA closed the public hearing and has taken the matter under advisement.
25.???????? 2000.540C????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (SMITH:
558-6322)
1875
ALEMANY BOULEVARD (A.K.A.) 30 ONONDAGA AVENUE, northeast corner of the intersection of Alemany
Boulevard and Onondaga Avenue, Lot 23 in Assessor?s Block 6956- Request for a
Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 712.83 to install 16
antennas on the Pacific Bell switching facility within an (NC-3 )
Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District and 65-A Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+)
Robert McCarthy - McCarthy and Schwartz on behalf of Metricom
-
Community meetings were held and no one attended.
-
One person submitted a letter.? We
responded by calling this person yet was never able to speak to this person.
ACTION:?????????? Approved with conditions
AYES:? ??????????? Antenore,
Joe, Mills, Chinchilla
NAYES:??????????? Salinas
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
MOTION
NO.???? 15964
26.???????? 1999.086C ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (YOUNG:
558-6346)
815
- 827 HYDE STREET,
west side between Bush? and Sutter
Streets; Lot 004 in Assessor?s Block 0279: -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization
pursuant to Section 209.8(d) of the Planning Code to establish office use at
the second and third story level of an existing three-story building within an
RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined High Density) District and 130-E Height
and Bulk District.?
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+)
Dan Sullivan - speaking on behalf of the project sponsor
-
This project was originally thought of as being an ancillary event area for the
hotel and that the project sponsor was adjacent to this site.
-
The building was constructed in 1904 as a commercial building.? Since 1942, the building had been utilized
as a place of assembly.? Show Folks of
America occupied the building.
-
They have met requirements and would like to have this project approved for
conditional use.
ACTION:?????????? Approved with conditions
AYES:? ??????????? Antenore,
Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
MOTION
NO.???? 15965
G.??? SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING
At Approximately 7:15? P.M. the
Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.
27.??????? 2000.588D???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (JONES:
558-6477)
432 URBANO DRIVE, Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No.
2000/02/07/1232 to construct a new 2nd story vertical addition, and add a one-story
rear horizontal addition to the existing one-story single family dwelling in
RH-1(D)? (Detached, Single-Family)
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review
and approve the Building Permit Application as submitted.
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Les Plack
-The proposed construction will block the vast majority of
direct light into his house.? Also, it
is not within the character of the neighborhood.
- There are two skylights that allow for sunlight yet he
will still get shade into his house.
- He is not an architect so he can?t propose alternatives.
(+) Raymond Yang
- He would like to request an approval to the vertical
addition to his home.
- He has lived in the neighborhood for 3 years.
- His neighbor has many trees in his yard so there is
minimal sunlight already.
- Many of the properties in the area have 2 levels either
because they were built that way or because there were recent additions.
- He would like to build the addition because he and his
wife want to start a family.
- He feels that his project is within the guidelines and is
considerate to his neighbor.
ACTION:?????????? Commissioner
Chinchilla requested to be excused because he lives in the neighborhood.
AYES:????????????? Antenore,
Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas
ACTION:?????????? No
DR.? Project Approved.
AYES:????????????? Antenore,
Joe, Mills, Salinas
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
EXCUSED:??????? Chinchilla
28.??????? 1999.584D???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (M.
SNYDER: 558-6891)
188 KING STREET, north side between 3rd and 2nd Streets, Lot 4A in
Assessor's Block 3794 -- Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Demolition
Permit Application No. 2000/06/20/3161 and Building Permit Application No.
2000/05/24/0891S, proposing to demolish a one-story 20-foot tall building
(previously used as a garment factory) and to construct a 44-unit live/work
project.? The project site is within an
M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, a 105-F Height and Bulk District, and a
Mixed-Use Housing Zone.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Permits with
Conditions.??
SPEAKER(S):??
(+) Alice Barkley
- The Department did not
receive any negative comments.
- The Negative
Declaration was not appealed.? There was
no DR filed by the public.
- The Department is
concerned that the street level have the kind of life and pedestrian interest
instead of a blank wall.? The architect
has done that.
- There shall not be any
T-shirt sales stands.
- Even in the evening,
when the door is rolled down and you can still see through it, they will make
sure that the loading dock door will have some type of panel so it is not just
an ugly metal door.
- When it becomes a
retail space, it will be an actual store front.
?
ACTION:?????????? No DR.? Approved with the condition that T-shirt sales in front are
prohibited; project is subject to any permits required for sidewalk sales.
AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills,
Chinchilla, Salinas
ABSENT:????????? Theoharis
Adjournment:??? 7: 40 p.m.
THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE
PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
THURSDAY, OCTOBER
5, 2000
Return to the Planning Department's Home Page. Click here.
San Francisco City and County Links