To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco
May 16, 2002

 

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION



SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, May 16, 2002
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting


PRESENT:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Theoharis

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT FAY AT 1:45 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green – Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Dan Sider; Jim Miller; Rick Crawford; Geoffrey Nelson; Glenn Cabreros; Victoria Ryan; Petterson Vollman; Dario Jones; Nora Priego – Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

A.          CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

          1a.          2001.0494CDV          (W. HASTIE: 415-558-6381)
                    1475-79 FOLSOM STREET – (The Jackson Brewery Complex) south side between 10TH and 11TH Streets. Assessor’s Block 3520, Lots 30B & 30C – Request for a Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 803.5(c) and 816.48 of the Planning Code to convert 9,885 square feet at 1475 Folsom from office of design professionals and retail to general office use and to convert 10,361 square feet at 1479 Folsom from office and warehouse to general office; both lots are within a SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) zoning district and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The Jackson Brewery Complex, Landmark #199, is also located within the Industrial Protection Zone (Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202), which discourages office conversions. Project includes minor exterior alterations, as well as seismic and ADA upgrades.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
                    (Proposed for Continuance to May 23, 2002)
SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued as proposed.
AYES:          Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Theoharis
          1b.          2001.0494CDV          (W. HASTIE: 415-558-6381)
                    1475-79 FOLSOM STREET – (The Jackson Brewery Complex) south side between 10TH and 11TH Streets. Assessor’s Block 3520, Lots 30B & 30C – Request for a parking variance for 5 required parking spaces at 1475 Folsom and 7 required spaces at 1479 Folsom–these parking requirements are based on pre-existing parking credits. The proposal does not provide any parking spaces for this project. Subject lots are located in a SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) zoning district and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The Jackson Brewery Complex, Landmark #199, is also located within the Industrial Protection Zone, per Resolution No. 16202. Project includes minor exterior alterations, as well as seismic and ADA upgrades.
                    (Proposed for Continuance to May 23, 2002)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued as proposed.
AYES:          Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Theoharis

          1c.          2001.0494CDV                                                   (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)
                    1475-79 FOLSOM STREET – (The Jackson Brewery Complex) south side between 10TH and 11TH Streets. Assessor’s Block 3520, Lots 30B & 30C – Mandatory Discretionary Review for conversion of existing uses (office of design professionals and retail / office and warehouse) to general office use within the Industrial Protection Zone, per Resolution No. 16202. Subject lots are located in a SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) zoning district and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The Jackson Brewery Complex is Landmark #199. Project includes minor exterior alterations, as well as seismic and ADA upgrades.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: pending
                    (Proposed for Continuance to May 23, 2002)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued as proposed.
AYES:          Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Theoharis

          2.          2000.790EKXCTZM          (K. AMDUR: 415-558-6351)
                    888 HOWARD STREET (aka 155 FIFTH STREET) - northeast corner of 5th Street, Lot 66 in Assessor’s Block 3724 -- (1) Request for Determinations of Compliance under Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Project) and (2) Request for Exceptions, including an exception to the Reduction of Ground Level Wind Currents requirement (Section 148); (3) Request for Conditional Use authorization for a hotel, Planning Code Sections 303 and 216(b) and (4) Amendments to the Planning Code and Zoning Maps to change the height, bulk and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the project site, Planning Code Section 302(c) . The proposal would change the height and bulk zoning of the project site from 160-F to 320-M, and would change the maximum FAR from 5:1 to 7.5:1 without the purchase of Transferable Development Rights (TDR). (The current zoning allows a maximum FAR of 7.5:1, but only with the purchase of TDR). The Project would also require amendments to the Urban Design and Land Use Elements of the General Plan and the Downtown Area Plan to be consistent with the proposed changes related to height, bulk and FAR.
                    Preliminary Recommendations: Pending
                    Note: The project currently proposes to rezone to a 320-S height and bulk district, instead of a 320-M district as originally requested.
(Continued from Regular Hearing of April 25, 2002)
(Proposed for Continuance to May 23, 2002)


SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued as proposed.
AYES:          Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Theoharis

          3.          2000.1170D                    (M. SNYDER: 415-575-6891)
                    2637 24th STREET - south side between Potrero Avenue and Utah Street, Lot 25 in Assessor’s Block 4264 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/03/07/3664 proposing to construct a new building that would contain six new dwelling units, six parking spaces, and a small commercial unit, on a lot that currently contains a single-story commercial building. The property is within the 24th Street - Mission Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 25, 2002)
                    (Proposed for Continuance to June 20, 2002)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued as proposed.
AYES:          Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Theoharis

B.          COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

          4.          Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of April 11, 18, 2002.

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Approved with typographical corrections.
AYES:          Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Theoharis

5.          Commission Matters
          Commissioner Salinas: During the week, he received two calls regarding a case before the Commission last week. His comments last week were not directed to the family who had their lives turned around especially when there is construction going on. His comments were directed towards the professionals who had been hired and who had been given the trust by this family to look out for their interest. His message is to please be careful when one hires professionals and look for references. He does not want the professionals thinking that this Commission is a fail-safe mechanism.

C.          DIRECTOR'S REPORT

          6.          Director's Announcements
                    None

          7.          Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
                    BOS –
Budget Committee
Re: Release of $263,000--money that was on reserve mainly intended for capital improvement for the Department's computer system.
- It was a difficult hearing. Director Green admirable represented the department and the needs.
- The money was released pending a quick review by the Department of Telecom munitions and Information Services.
- He believes that the period would be between three or four weeks until we are up and running.

                    BOA –
Re: 315 and 319 Edgehill Way
- The Commission took Discretionary Review and disapproved the project based on the following items: 1) because the project was on a very steep hill, the Commission was concerned about the soil stability; 2) character of the neighborhood; 3) scale of the house; 4) the driveway was 10 feet wide so it is very narrow.
- There was controversy on the permit streamlining act.
- The Board upheld the Commission +4-1 to allow construction. The size of the houses was reduced; there was an open space easement, and there were street improvements prior to the start of construction. The Board supported the Commissions decision to take Discretionary Review.

D.          PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have 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 must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

          SPEAKERS:          None

E.          REGULAR CALENDAR

8.                    2000.1061ECK          (D. SIDER: 415-558-6697)
                    400 PAUL AVENUE - north side, between 3rd Street and Bayshore Boulevard; Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 5431A - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the construction of an internet services exchange facility pursuant to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 405-01 (Interim Zoning Controls for Internet Services Exchanges) in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, an Industrial Protection Zone, and a 65-J Height and Bulk District. The project involves the demolition of an existing 89,000 square foot industrial building and the construction of a new 330,000 square foot Internet Services Exchange.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Steve Kundich – Architect, Director of Design Construction of San Francisco Wave Exchange
- They are currently located at 200 Paul Avenue.
- They are looking to expand their business.
- There are a number of fiber optic wires that run from the Peninsula, which makes this location ideal for his business.
- Over the years they have worked with various community organizations as well as members of the Board of Supervisors.
- Various committees of the Bay View PAC support this project.
- They have had many open houses for the neighbors but not many people attended.
- They are working with organizations in order to provide scholarships.
- He hopes that the Commission approves this project.
(+) Lynn Sedway – President of Sedway Group
- They analyzed the site for the project sponsor.
- This is an ideal location for this company.
- There are limited vacancies in San Francisco.
- There is definitely a demand for this use.
(+) Joe Boss
- The project sponsor has made an effort to work with the community.
-          He believes that the Commission should approve this project.

(+) Sabrina Hernandez – International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 6
- They offer apprenticeships.
- This project will provide many jobs for electrical workers.
- This project provides many benefits for people who live and work in San Francisco.
(+) Elizabeth Echols – CEO, OpNet Community Ventures, Inc.
- Her company provides assistance for young adults to obtain jobs in the technology industry.
- In order to provide this assistance they need to have support from the community.
- The project sponsor has provided donations to her company to continue this assistance.
- Two of her graduates have found jobs at Wave Exchange.
- She urges the Commission to support this project.
(+) Ellouise Patton – Young Community Developers
- This project will provide a more viable community economically.
- Wave Exchange has shown that they are willing to work with the local community.
- Wave Exchange has donated training space to Young Community Developers.
(-) Jack Woo - Paul Avenue Neighborhood
- He submitted signatures of people who are against this project.
- The supply of affordable housing should be preserved.
- This project will not be compatible with the neighborhood.
(-) Eloy Martinez
- The telecommunications business is going out of business.
- He lives across the street and is afraid that someone might throw a bomb at the location.
- He does not believe that this company will provide jobs since there are so many companies that have gone bankrupt.
- He does not believe that this project should be approved. Instead, they should fill out the building that they are currently in.

ACTION:          Approved with Modifications: change motion language from  & the following are voluntary conditions agreed to by the project sponsor to new language:  & the following conditions were voluntarily proposed by the project sponsor: 
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Theoharis
MOTION:          16408

          9a.          2000.718CEKV          (J. MILLER: 415-558-6344)
                    1630 CALIFORNIA STREET AND 1529 POLK STREET (The "ROYAL THEATRE"), north side of California Street between Polk Street and Van Ness Avenue, with additional frontage on Polk Street, west side between California and Sacramento Streets, Lot 3 in Assessor’s Block 643 -- Request for authorization of Conditional Use for lot size, use size, and bulk exceptions to permit construction of a new, six-story, mixed-use building containing up to 42 dwelling units, up to 9,950 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, and a two-level underground garage containing up to 60 parking spaces, after demolition of the existing "Royal Theatre" building (with the exception of its Polk-Street facade which would be retained and incorporated into the new building), also the subject of a requested Variance of City Planning Code requirements for rear-yard area and dwelling-unit exposure -- in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and in a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 9, 2002)

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Lou Blajez
- This project will provide much needed housing.
- He displayed diagrams of the design of the building.
(-/+) Matthew Brannan
-          He has various issues and questions that he still needs clarification on.
(+) Ted D. Nasser – President of Consolidated Theatres
- He was the owner of the Royal Theatre.
-          He has tried on various occasions to reach developers to invest in the theatre–those that would also retain the theatre.
-          He finally had to sell the property.
(+) Joe Cassidy
- He is in support of this project.
- He has a few questions he would like clarification on.
(+) Jim Reuben – Reuben and Alter
- He urges the Commission to approve this project.
- Preservation construction is more expensive than building from the ground up.
(+) Peter Hatierris
- He lives on Russian Hill.
- This area is in danger of a substantial decline.
- He does not know much about this project but any type of improvement will help out this area.
(+) Joe O'Donaghue
- Theatre preservation has become the new  buzz word.
- There is a lot of confusion in the legislation of theatre preservation.
- This project sponsor will be required to pay utilities to the tenants that he is subsidizing.
(+) TJ Leighton
- He urges the Commission to support this project.
- There is a demand for affordable housing.
(-) Francisco Centurion – Russian Hill Neighbors
- He is an architect and member of the Russian Hill Neighborhood Association
- The variance process should not be used to make exceptions to the Planning Code.
- This project abuses the conditional use and variance provisions.
- Please don't open the door to produce substandard housing.
- The building does not fit in with the neighborhood character.
(-) Penelope Clark
- She believes that one of the reasons the property owner had a hard time finding tenants was because there is no parking and the area has a lot of parking problems.
- Housing needs to be provided but it should be respectable house.
(-) Claire McGhee
- She is a resident of Russian Hill.
- The property owner has worked very hard to keep theatres in the area. Yet it has not turned out to be a winning situation.
- There are many neighbors who are not supporting any mega stores.
- Conditional uses (limitations) should be placed on how commercial space should be used.
- This project is not ready to be decided upon by this Commission.

ACTION:          Approved with conditions as modified: distribution should be 1 studio unit, three 1-bedroom units, and one 2-bedroom unit; or provide housing units off-site; or provide other housing as permitted by Planning Code Section 315.
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Theoharis
MOTION:          16409

9b.          2000.718CEKV          (J. MILLER: 415-558-6344)
          1630 CALIFORNIA STREET AND 1529 POLK STREET (THE "ROYAL THEATRE"), north side of California Street between Polk Street and Van Ness Avenue, with additional frontage on Polk Street, west side between California and Sacramento Streets, Lot 3 in Assessor’s Block 643 -- Request for a Variance of City Planning Code requirements for rear-yard area and dwelling-unit exposure, in conjunction with a proposal to build a new, six-story, mixed-use building containing up to 42 dwelling units, up to 9,950 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, and a two-level underground garage containing up to 60 parking spaces, after demolition of the existing "Royal Theatre" building (with the exception of its Polk-Street facade which would be retained and incorporated into the new building), also the subject of a request for Conditional Use authorization for lot size, use size, and bulk exceptions -- in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and in a 65-A Height and Bulk District.          
          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 9, 2002)

SPEAKER(S):          Same as those listed in item 9a.
ACTION:          The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance subject to his review: make sure that 42 parking spaces are provided or show how they cannot be supplied (two spaces need to be commercial); 2) open space is provided; 3) the signage marquee should serve the public purpose once it's removed and replaced.

10.                    2002.0354C          (R. CRAWFORD: 415- 558-6358)
369-373 WEST PORTAL AVENUE Assessor’s Block 3012 Lot 016 Request under Planning Code Section 729.21 for Conditional Use Approval for a nonresidential use exceeding 2,500 square feet in floor area for a 3,012 square foot Trade Shop (Armstrong Carpet and Linoleum Co.). This project lies within the West Portal Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District and within the 26-X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S):
(+) George Sun – Project Architect
- He presented himself and his client.
(+) Steve Ballistreri – Owner of Armstrong Carpet and Linoleum
- They are a service-oriented flooring retailer.
- They are very excited about moving to the West Portal District.
- He is currently involved in the Clement Street Merchant's Association. He will continue to work with Clement Street and hopes to be part of the West Portal Association. He believes it is important to keep the streets clean.

ACTION:          Approved
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Theoharis
MOTION:          16410

E.          DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

At Approximately 3:45 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

          11.          2002.0187D           (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
126 GAMBIER STREET - West side between Sillman and Pioche Streets. Assessor’s Block 5907 Lot 006. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2001/1203/4317, to remove the existing lean-to extension of the dwelling and construct a new two story addition to the rear in an RH-1 (Residential House, One Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the permit with modifications.

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          At the call of the Chair, the matter was continued to May 23, 2002 to confirm or correct the address.

          12.          2002.0141D          (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
                    2130-2140 JEFFERSON STREET - south side between Lyon and Baker Streets; Lots 005 and 005A in Assessor’s Block 0909 - Staff-initiated request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2001/1121/3631 to merge two existing single-family homes into one single-family home. The proposal involves substantial interior and exterior alterations, and would also result in the merger of the two lots into a single lot. The property is located within an RH-1 (Residential House, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the Building Permit.
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 18, 2002)

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Dan Sullivan – Representing Project Sponsor
- The project sponsor would like to join the lots in order to make a single-family home.
- Six of the immediate neighbors support the project.
- There is no loss of housing units.
- The merger will comply with the adjacent larger homes.
(+) Jeanette Simons
- She has been living in the neighborhood for about six years.
- She adopted two young children and her parents are will be moving into her home.
- The additional space is invaluable to her.
- She is part of the community and would like to remain there.
- Her neighbors support this merger.

ACTION:          Took Discretionary Review and approved the merger.
AYES:          Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
NAYES:          Chinchilla
ABSENT:          Theoharis

13.          2001.0739DDDDDD                     (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
                    3352 WASHINGTON STREET - north side between Walnut Street and Presidio Avenue, Lot 011 in Assessor’s Block 0984 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2000/0616/2818S proposing to construct a dormer, deck and windscreens at roof level, to horizontally expand the rear of the existing building and to alter both front and rear facades in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 14, 2002)

SPEAKER(S):
(-) Robert and Vern Doxie – Discretionary Review Requestor
- She lives on Washington Street, across from the proposed site.
- She is in opposition to this project.
- She read two letters: one from the President of the Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors and one from a concerned neighbor.
(-) Rober Heath
- He lives on Washington Street
- He shares the same concern about the definition of what a dormer is.
- He believes that this so-called dormer is a 4th floor.
- He also has issues related to the roof of the proposed project.
(-) Michael Shane
- He lives on Washington Street.
- Whatever the project sponsor does to his home, it really has no affect to his house yet his concern is related to the precedent this project will cause to the neighborhood.
- He hopes that the Commission will not approve this addition.
(-) Nancy Bowes
- She lives on Washington Street.
- Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors only gets involved in significant issues.
- She is surprised that the staff would make this recommendation since the staff of the Planning Department should work for the public.
- There are no roof decks on Washington Street.
(-) Alice Barkley – Representing one of the DR Requestors
- The neighbors feel that this project exceeds the height limit.
- She has never seen a dormer with sliding glass doors that lead to a deck.
- She would like to have the  dumb-waiter reduced as well as the entire 4th floor be disallowed.
(-) Andrew Frost
- He doesn't believe that the structure on the roof is a dormer; he believes that this should be called a room.
- Something like this does not fit in this area at all.
- He believes that this will set a precedent.
(+) Jim Reuben – Reuben and Alter
- The dormer interpretation was applied to live work units, the same exception, the same dormer interpretation, many times.
- There was an appeal filed by Ms. Alice Barkley regarding a letter from the Zoning Administrator. The appeal was to be heard about three weeks ago, but the Board of Appeals decided to wait until the Planning Commission heard this case.
- Displayed photographs of what the project looks like and what it will look like if the project is approved.
(+) Mark Macie – Project Architect
- He is available to answer questions about the design.
- There are other windscreens in the neighborhood.

MOTION:          Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project with staff recommendation.
AYES:          Fay, Lim, Salinas
NAYES:          Chinchilla, Joe, Baltimore
ABSENT:          Theoharis
RESULT:          The motion failed to carry

ACTION:          At the call of the chair, project continued to June 6, 2002, to allow the absent commissioner to participate in the final action.

          14.          2002.0120D          (V. RYAN: 415-558-6812)
362 31ST AVENUE - east side between California and Clement Street, Lot 024 in Assessor’s Block 1403 - Staff-initiated request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/0719/4043, proposing to merge two dwelling units into one dwelling unit in a building located at the front of the lot. The subject property which is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, also contains another dwelling unit in a building at the rear of the lot.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application.

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Amad Rizadeh – Representing Project Sponsor
- The project sponsor has spent a lot of money already on renovations.
- He hopes the Commission approves the merger.
ACTION:          Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the merger.
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Fay and Theoharis

          15.          2002.0191D          (P. VOLLMANN: 415-558-6405)
292 IVY STREET - at the southeast corner of the intersection at Gough and Grove Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 0809 - Discretionary review request of Building Permit Application number 2001/12/28/6038, to legalize a seven stall parking garage on Ivy Street, in the Hayes Gough NCD, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve parking with requirement to build dwelling units.

SPEAKER(S):
(-) Petter Hatiarris – Representing the DR requestor
- The project sponsor has made representations to people that she needs access to my clients space in order to build the residential units that are required to legalize the parking spaces.
- He has not heard of any need to do fire sealing work. His client discovered the building permit from the public posting. The first time he heard about this was when he was contacted by staff to submit some information for the litigation.
- It is true that his client and the project sponsor have been through bitter litigation.
- The project sponsor should make negotiations on what space she needs form the DR requestor. This is not any kind of extortion. They just want to know what access she needs and what she is willing to do to mitigate any impact this construction project will have on the business operations of the gallery.
(-) Joe O'Donaghue
- The project sponsor is an architect.
- The DR requestor did not know anything about permit search history.
- This project should be denied and need to go back to square one to force this landlord to deal with the project sponsor in a more equitable way.
(-) Larry Roberts – Aid to Supervisor Matt Gonzalez
- They have met with the DR requestor and they feel that he has made negotiations in good faith.
- It is not logical to grant residential parking when there is no residential.
(-) Moulton Elder – DR Requestor
- To provide parking for the condominiums, it took space away from him but there are no condominiums there.
- The issue of having condominiums over his ceiling has not been explained to him.
- He is worried about the impact construction will have on his gallery.
(+) Charles Olson – Sanger and Olson – Representing Project Sponsor
- He believes that there is no basis for Commission action.
- For many years there has been a landlord/tenant dispute.
- The real issue is how many parking spaces should be approved and if there will be any restrictions to these parking spaces.
- His client had intended to build condominiums.
- His client has spent a lot of money on legal fees related to access to DR requestor's space.
- He requests that seven parking spaces be approved: four for the two existing residential units, and three for use by Citizen Cake without any time requirement. Approval of these parking spaces will not be detrimental to the neighborhood; they will serve existing residential and commercial users and not bring new drivers to the neighborhood.
- When MAX limited develops residential units in the future it intends to use all nine spaces for residential purposes.
(+) Pam Pester
-          She has about 20 boxes filled with documents from MAX Limited's previous lawyers documenting the efforts they made over the three years prior to their representation dealing with the DR requestor.

(+) Maria McFerish
- She has a bad relationship with her tenant and this has cost a lot of money and required a lot of changes with the development plans they had for the building.
- Part of the unhappiness of the DR requester was that she negotiated an agreement that the floor space of the DR requestor would be reduced.
- She needs all the parking spaces and would like to develop the third floor as soon as possible into residential dwellings and will need the parking for these dwellings.

MOTION:          Take Discretionary Review and approve parking with requirement to build dwelling units.
AYES:          Joe, Salinas
NAYES:          Lim, Fay, Chinchilla, Baltimore
RESULT:          Motion Failed
ABSENT:          Theoharis

MOTION:          Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the project.
AYES:          Fay, Chinchilla, Lim
NAYES:          Salinas, Joe, Baltimore
RESULT:          Motion Failed
ABSENT:          Theoharis

ACTION:          At the call of the Chair, this matter was continued to June 13, 2002, to allow the absent commissioner to participate in the final action.

          16.          2002.0066D          (D. JONES: 415-558-6477)
3683 – 18TH STREET - south side between Dolores and Guerrero Streets, Lot 047 in Assessor’s Block 3587 - Pursuant to Resolution 16078 a Request for Discretionary Review is required for Building Permit Application No. 2001/09/21/8989, for the proposed dwelling unit merger of two existing units into one single-family dwelling located in an RM-2(Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the merger.

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Joe Thomas – Project Sponsor
- He and his wife have lived in the City since 1990.
- They have saved money for 10 years in order to purchase a home.
- They love the neighborhood and get along with their neighbors.
- They are not displacing anyone and are not making any impacts on the exterior of the building.
- They will be making improvement to the building.
- Their property is the smallest on the block.
(+) Margaret Shraner
- She is a fourth generation San Franciscan.
- She and her husband purchased this home along with Joe Thomas and his wife.
- They moved out when they had a daughter and found a place just a block away.
- She really wants families like Joe and Patty to live in Noe Valley.
(+) Andy Rogers – Project Designer
- He displayed a diagram and walked through the floor plan stating that the unit is extremely small with one of the bedrooms that has no closet and no window.
- The project sponsor and his wife occupy a room that should be a living room.
- Allowing the project sponsor to proceed would allow these violations to be taken care of.
- He supports the notion of not reducing units in the City but each of the merger cases should be looked at individually.
ACTION:          Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved the Merger
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Theoharis
F.          PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

Chris Arrott – Member of the Housing and Zoning Committee of the Russian Hill Community Association
RE: 1170-1180 Green Street
- There is a neighborhood concern regarding the proposed construction project.
- They are concerned about the flawed building permit notification and review process being implemented by the Planning Department for the project on Green Street.
- They are requesting that the proposed new construction project be submitted under a new application for building permit since the project sponsor was using a two year old application that had been dormant for 18 months.
- They are concerned that the information contained in documents is inaccurate.
- They request that the Planning Commission inquire of the Planning Department why the 30 day review process should not be continued and why the Planning Department does not take action to disapprove and cancel the building permit for the proposed new construction.

Marilyn Amini
Re: Request that the Commission rescind their action taken on May 9, 2002 regarding 320 Wasona Street
- She submitted letters dated May 12, 2002.
- She feels that the full record was not before the Commission at the time of the hearing. She therefore requests that the case be reopened.
RESULT: The Chair asked if any commissioner wished to rescind their vote on this matter. There was no affirmative reply.

Adjournment: 6:46 p.m.


THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, June 6, 2002

ACTION:          Approved
AYES:                    Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Baltimore

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:08 PM