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

Skip to page body
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

February 01, 2001

February 01, 2001



San Francisco Planning Commission --Feb 01, 01 -- Minutes


Meeting Minutes


Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, February 1, 2001

1:30 PM


Regular Meeting




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





STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Kenneth Chin; Scott Sanchez; Michael Li; Andrea Wong; Fallay; Matt Snyder; Craig Nikitas; Isolde Wilson; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery – Commission Secretary




1. 2000.428D (NIKITAS: 558-6306)

1615 BRODERICK STREET - west side between Sutter and Bush Streets, Block 1053, Lot 002: Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/10/06/2475, to remodel an existing Group Home in an RH-3/40-X District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to February 8, 2001)

ACTION: Continued to February 8, 2001
AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis




2. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of January 11, 2001



ACTION: Approved

AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis


3. Commission Matters


Commission Chinchilla:

- He would like to have a report on the problems builders have had with the Planning Code and Bay Windows. This was a matter brought to the Commission during Public Comment at the hearing held on January 25, 2001.


Commissioner Theoharis:

- She would like a copy of the updated Commissioner's Action List.

- She would like to have staff from the Citywide group of the Planning Department notify Commissioners personally instead of sending out mailings regarding meetings that are scheduled for the Better Neighborhoods 2001 program.


Commissioner Baltimore: Visitation Valley Community Groups Update on February 15, 2001.




4. Director’s Announcements

Jobs Housing Linkage Program will be heard during the Finance Committee meeting on February 8, 2001.


5. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

BOS None

BOA None




6. 2000.1031C (CHIN: 575-6897)

1060 – 1068 HYDE STREET - southeast corner of Hyde Street and California; Lot 023 in Assessor’s Block 0251. Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 723.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of three antennas and a base transceiver station on an existing two-story over basement building, also known as the Hyde Out Bar, as part of Sprint’s wireless network in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. As per the City & County of San Francisco’s Wireless Transmission Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preference 6.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions



(+) Robert Krebs - Project Sponsor representing Sprint PCS

- This petition complies with the WTS Sighting Guidelines and the San Francisco Municipal Code.

- Three antennas will be installed on the roof.

- The transmission equipment will be located on the ground floor.

- All sights in the area were analyzed and considered but the proposed location was necessary and compatible with the community.

- The equipment will provide reliable service to the area.

- Community meetings were held in the neighborhood. Both building owners and tenants were notified of these meetings.

(-) Todd Spencer

- He works with telecommunications equipment so he knows enough about antenna radiation.

- There are a lot of controversies regarding the health effects from the use of cell phones.

- Companies should avoid sighting base stations near schools because of the health concerns.

- The FCC has published various reports on this issue.

- The only thing that Sprint needs to provide is that the site is legal, but they don't have to prove that there will be any health concerns.


ACTION: Approved

AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

MOTION: 16083


7. 2000.385C (SANCHEZ: 558-6679)

2001 UNION STREET - southwest corner at Buchanan Street; Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 0541. Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 725.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of eight antennas on the existing rooftop penthouses and an equipment shelter on the second floor of the existing six-story mixed-use building as part of Nextel's wireless telecommunications network within the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Transmission Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preference 2 (co-location site).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 14, 2000)



(+) Ann McSweany - Project Sponsor

- There will be 4 antennas located on 2 separate penthouses.

- Using the site selecting process, this location was best suited for these antennas.

(-) John Kelley

- He would like to commend the planner on a good job working with him even though he is not in agreement with the decision.

- He is concerned about the health issues regarding radiation from antennas.

- Cell phone companies have admitted that there are health problems with the use of cell phones.

- Nextel has had a lease on this facility so it's up to them to prove that there is no better location.

- Regarding zoning and appearance, the base stations are ugly and bad for the neighborhood.

(+) Dane Ericksen – Representing Hammet and Edison

- For an unconstructed site near an existing site, measurements can't replace the affects of the second site because it does not exist yet.

- The affects of the AT&T site were considered.


ACTION: Approved

AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Theoharis

NAYES: Salinas

MOTION: 16084


8. 2000.1221C (LI: 558-6396)

450 SUTTER STREET - north side between Powell and Stockton Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 0285. Request for Conditional-Use Authorization pursuant to Section 219(c) of the Planning Code to consolidate existing office and retail spaces into a single office space of approximately 15,227 square feet on the third and fourth floors of the 450 Sutter Medical-Dental Building within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions



(+) Bob McCarthy - McCarthy and Swartz – Representing the project sponsor

- This building has been an office building for many, many years, most specifically for doctors and dentists.

- Various tenants decided to stay even when the rents were raised.

- Of the tenants who moved out, they have been relocated to other locations.

- The building has suffered a long-term vacancy rate.

- Turner Construction has been in the City for 22 years and have had about 4 billion dollars in contracts. They want to remain in San Francisco.

- There will be interior renovation and construction done to the building.

(+) Peter Sotos - Representing the Owners of 450 Sutter Street Building

- The owners of the building, own two of the largest medical buildings in San Francisco.

- The people that they cater to, Doctors and Dentists, have relocated to other locations.

- There was a referral incentive for the current tenants which means if any doctor or dentist refers a tenant of the medical profession and successfully stays, would receive $1,000.

(+) Sam (last name unclear) - General Manager of 450 Sutter Street Building

- He has managed various medical/dental buildings.

- He was hired to manager 450 Sutter Street building since there was about a 20% vacancy in the building.

- There were various marketing strategies, which became kind of slow and tedious since dentists and/or doctors don't want to move too frequently.

(+) Jay Turnbull - Page and Turnbull Architects

- This building is a historic building.

- His architectural firm has various years of experience working on historic buildings.

- There will be major improvements to the interior of the building, most importantly are life-safety improvements.

(+) George Sanen - Representing Turner Construction Company

- This company was originally headquartered in New York. They have been in San Francisco for the last 26 years. They have built various buildings here including City Hall.

- The office in San Francisco is vital to their company since they currently have many tenant improvement contracts in San Francisco.

(+) Bob Bagley - Executive Director of the Hotel Council

- He would like to speak on the economics of occupancy. Hotels and office buildings run into the same problem. If they're not occupied, you're not in business.

- It is not unusual to have buildings change because of the tenants who occupy it.

- Office buildings that are high in occupancy require clients to come into the city and stay at San Francisco hotels.

(+) Scott Arbor - Hired by the ownership of 450 Sutter Street building

- This building has not been able to benefit from leasing tenants like other buildings in San Francisco.

(+) Simon Goldstein - Hired by the ownership of 450 Sutter Street building

- There has been an intensive marketing campaign to try and get more tenants into the building yet it's been a very hard task. They have done all that they could possibly do for this.

(-) Dr. Liza (last name unclear) - President of the San Francisco Dental Society

-The organization opposes the change of use of this building.

- If the status were changed, this would be detrimental to the tenants.

- Imagine if a hospital was dismantled?

- There is a medical waste issue as well. Having all the providers in one central location is more beneficial to remove this waste from one location.

- For more than 70 years this building has had medical/dental tenants.

- She has served on the Board of Directors of the association and has never heard of these incentives.

(-) Dr. Roland Barakat

- He found out about this meeting only a few days ago.

- He read a letter in opposition from a tenant at 450 Sutter Street building that was unable to attend the hearing.

(-) Dr. George (last name unclear)

- He has been a tenant at 450 Sutter Street for various years.

- Various tenants have received rent increases.

- He wonders if the lease and cost information is accurate.


ACTION: Approved

AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Salinas, Theoharis

NAYES: Joe, Fay

MOTION: 16085





At the conclusion of the Regular Calendar, the Planning Commission will convene into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters. Procedures governing Special DR Hearings are as follow: DR Requestor(s) are provided with up to five (5) minutes for a presentation and those in support of the DR Requestor(s) are provided with up to three (3) minutes each. The Project Sponsor is then provided with up to five (5) minutes for a presentation and those in support of the project are provided with up to three (3) minutes each. At the conclusion, each side (not each person) is provided with two (2) minutes for a rebuttal.


9. 2001.0036D (WONG: 558-6381)

1955 PALOU AVENUE - south side, between Rankin Street and Silver Avenue; Lot 037 in Assessor’s Block 5330. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 200005311379S - a proposal to construct a two-story front and side addition to a single-family dwelling, in an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary review and approve the project as proposed.



(-) Roberta Reese - Discretionary Review Requestor

- She just moved back into this house in order to take care of her mother.

- She opposes the new construction because it will block the sunlight from her mother's house.

- She welcomes current additions done to some of the houses, but this should be done with consideration to the surrounding houses.

- Many of the houses in the neighborhood have set backs and are detached.

- The houses in the neighborhood are single-family.

- This construction is just too big for its lot.

(+) Edward Wong - Project Sponsor

- He has had many calls from his realtor stating that there have been complaints about drug dealing and the house being used as a crack house.

- The house has been vacant for many years.

- The house is not a large one.

- Regarding historical items, the whole building has been damaged. There is no historical value.

- All he would like to do is to construct more affordable housing in San Francisco.

- By demolishing this house and constructing a new one, he is improving the neighborhood and increasing the value of the neighbor's homes.


ACTION: Take DR and approve project with a Notice of Special Restriction

AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis


10. 2000.1200D (FALLAY: 558-6367)

4515 20th Street - south side between Eureka and Douglass, Lot No. 049, in Assessor's Block 2749. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9909606, case No. 2000.1200D proposing to construct a second‑story addition with new decks at the first floor level of the existing one‑story‑over‑garage, single‑family dwelling in RH‑2 (Residential House, Two‑Family) District and a 40‑x Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions



(-) Andy Lowis - DR Requestor

- He would like to correct a statement from Mr. Fallay's report that this building is within 10 feet of the rear property line.

- He spoke to Mr. Fallay to tell him that he would be moving from San Francisco.

- He would like to request that this project be continued for at least 2 weeks in order for the other neighbors to scrutinize the information.

- Some of the neighbors did not receive notification of the hearing.

(-) James Hatch

- He showed an aerial picture of the street where the project will be located.

- Many of the houses were built many years ago.

- The project house is on a small lot.

- Many of the neighbors were not able to come to the hearing but they have expressed their concerns via letters.

- The project applicants are trying to double the density of the structure on a lot that is already too small.

- The house does not comply with the 15-foot front set back, which all the houses comply with.

(-) Sharlot Hatch

- The issue for her and her husband is related to privacy.

- Because of the design of the new addition, the bay windows will invade their privacy.

- Other houses will be affected with light and air blockage.

- Many of the neighbors did write letters in opposition.

(-) Claire Pilcher - Friends of Noe Valley

- The lot of the house is small which makes the construction go up higher. The higher the construction the more controversial it gets.

- Roof decks in San Francisco just don't make sense and are not really that useful. They mostly block the sunlight from neighbors' houses because of the height.

(+) Tim Eicher - Project Sponsor

- This project is to add a second story to his home.

- During the past 18 months, he has worked with the neighbors to find out what the concerns of the neighbors are.

- The overwhelming problem that neighbors were concerned about was views.

- The window that would be affected would be a window from the bathroom.

- He has tried to understand the neighbors.

- The size of the house is another great concern of the neighbors. His house is not on a half lot. It's on a smaller lot.

- The aerial picture shown previously proves that his house is smaller than the surrounding houses.

- The construction will be well within reason.

- Regarding privacy, he has removed a deck along the rear of the addition and the windows that would face the neighbor's yard.

- An easement was created so that the neighbors will be protected from future owners wanting to make changes.

(+) Richard Williams

- He had an opportunity to look at the plans and feels that the construction is a very reasonable one.

- He would like to have this project approved.

(+) Roger Sare - Project Architect

- He spent a considerable amount of time looking at ordinances and meeting with planning staff so that the construction is compliant to all codes.

- The street elevation shows that the neighbor's house is taller than the proposed addition.

ACTION: Discretionary Review was not taken and the project was approved modified.

AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis


11. 2000.1203D (M. SNYDER: 575-6391)

969 DEHARO STREET - east side between Southern Heights Avenue and 22nd Street, Lot 37 in Assessor’s Block 4096. Staff initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/11/28/6722 proposing to merge two dwelling units into one unit, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the Building Permit as submitted.



(+) Tamsin Ranlet

- They would like to restore the home to its original floor plan from 100 years ago.

- They would like to restore the historic character to the house.

- The only way to go from the lower floor to the upper floor would be to walk outside.

- They are expecting a baby soon and would like to make a room into a baby room.

- They want to create an internal staircase.

(+) Nancy Shinehold- Project Architect

- They met 2 of the three criteria that the Planning Department requires.

- The most economic choice would be to combine both units.

-          She was surprised to know that this project would have to go through a Discretionary Review process simply because it's a dwelling unit merger.

(+) Joe O'Donaghue

- This couple played by the rules, contacted an architect and requested permission from the Planning Department.

- Because the rules were changed, this has caused a lot of hardship on the couple.


ACTION: Discretionary Review not taken and the project was approved as submitted.

AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis


12. 2000.945D (NIKITAS: 558-6306)

2628 BRODERICK STREET - east side between Green and Vallejo Streets, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 0954. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/09/22/1261, to correct a Notice of Violation No. 200000937, regarding removal and replacement of walls and the cross-gable roof at rear, in conjunction with work done on a previously issued building permit, in an RH-1/40-X District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve Application with height corrections as submitted by applicant.



(-) William Kales

- He lives to the north of the project.

- After negotiations and a withdrawn Discretionary Review request, he signed off on plans on April 19, 2000. He went away in August of the same year and about 50% of the project had been demolished. He objected to the demolition by phone in early September and by letter. Rebuilding began and he objected to the roof plan.

- He is asking for the department to recognize that this was a demolition and for the building to be constructed as it was originally intended and that the north-facing property line windows be removed.

- He thanks the Planning Department staff and project sponsor for being cooperative.

(-) Ann Johnson

- Her concern is strictly with the height of the building.

(-) Heidi Anglebert

- This is an example of when something goes wrong and construction has already started. Usually the comment is to say leave it because it has already been started. This does not make the construction correct.

(+) David Cincotta - Representing Project Sponsor

- This project was considered when the owner first purchased the project in 1991. The owner filed permits in 1999. There were two Discretionary Review filers. The owner worked for several months on a compromise.

- The two DR's were withdrawn and construction began.

- This project had actually gotten smaller. It is not an expansion.

- The only thing that was being done was gaining more height.

- The concern is the two windows on the property line. The windows can be replaced but cannot be operable.

- Regarding height, there is actually no impact on the DR requestor.


ACTION: DR not taken. Project approved as modified

AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis


13. 1999.770DDDDD (WILSON: 558‑6602)

567 ‑ 569 SANCHEZ STREET - east side between 19th and Hancock Streets; Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 3585. The proposal is to demolish an existing single‑family dwelling with a detached garage and construct a new three-story plus attic-over-garage, two‑family dwelling, in an RH‑3 (Residential, House, Three‑Family) District and a 40‑X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.


(-) Steve Nicholson

- He lives at 585 Sanchez Street and is one of the Discretionary Review applicants. Because he is secretary of his neighborhood association, he was asked to represent the other 4 Discretionary Review applicants and express their concerns.

- The proposed project is extremely high and extremely large.

- He showed a PowerPoint presentation of the project.

- The site has a 22-foot grade drop to adjacent downhill property.

- The neighborhood has a distinctive character of Victorian homes.

- Only a few cottages had to be demolished and new houses were constructed.

- The majority of the homes are 2 and 3 levels.

- The neighbors are concerned that the project does not respect the height and scale of existing development; does not respect the topography of the street; there will be significant loss of light and air to adjacent properties; loss of public views; impact on mid-block open space; failure to comply with Planning requirements; and they are concerned with hillside stability.

- Many of the revisions were made with the need to comply with the Planning Code.

- The neighborhood would like the Commission to approve the settlement envelope.

- All of the Discretionary Review applicants endorse these suggestions.

(-) Gerard Chang

- He lives across the street from the proposed development.

- From the beginning, the neighbors have tried to reach a compromise. When it became evident that there would be no compromise, the neighbors were forced to file Discretionary Reviews.

- To this date, the neighbors are very disappointed that such a compromise has not happened.

- The fifth level of this development should just be removed since the houses in the surrounding area are 4 stories maximum.

- The neighbors are not opposed of building a home; it just should not be a  monster home.

(-) Joann Nelson

- She is the next-door neighbor on the downhill part of the street.

- One of her biggest concern is the lack of light in the mid section caused by the construction of this house.

- If the Commission approves a staggered roof, the project will enhance the facade of the neighborhood and they would be able to receive more light.

(-) Gus Robert Nelson

- He is the husband of Joann Nelson and they have lived in the neighborhood for many years.

- He would like to let the Commission know that with the settlement envelope, they would be willing to have engineers come to his backyard and construct a retaining wall so that bedrock does not come to his yard.

(-) Michael Moran

- He lives adjacent and uphill to the proposed project.

- He would like the Commission to know that the sponsor and he share a lightwell. The property line wall would loom high above his floor level with no setback. Removing the 5th floor would restore light to this area.

- He would like the Commission to require the project sponsor match the width and length of his light well and adopt the settlement envelope.

(-) Ronald Slein – President of the Sanchez Hill Neighborhood Association

- He resides across the street from the proposed project.

- Sanchez is a very important street since it's very characteristic of a San Francisco neighborhood.

- It is important to him and his wife to protect the character of the neighborhood.

- He proposed to the sponsor that the organization would make recommendations to protect the character.

(-) Paul Tuchedo

- The neighborhood's suggestion of the proposed envelope is a  win-win situation.

- He appreciates the time that the Department has put into this to try to reach a settlement.

- The neighborhood is very united on trying to find a settlement.

- The settlement envelope is very reasonable and would provide the sponsor with a very spacious and spectacular home.

(-) David Mast

- He moved into the neighborhood a few years ago. He and his partner spent about 5 years trying to find a house in this neighborhood.

- When they moved in, they were presented with a building permit across the street. They had some concerns but the project sponsors who were going to do the construction were very sensitive to their concerns. The sponsors immediately made changes from suggestions Mr. Mast and his partner had made.

- He believes that two groups can work together perfectly.

(-) Paul Curtis

- Recently the Commission listened to a similar matter on Randall Street.

- The Commission voted +5 -0 to remove the 4th Floor on that particular project and he is very grateful to the Commission.

- The issues on Sanchez are similar.

- The project is too big.

(-) Norm Leaper- Collingwood Hill Neighborhood Association

- This project, if built as planned, is too large.

- Its size is just very invasive.

- No matter how big the project, developers will always say that they could have made it bigger.

- This is not an isolated problem. San Francisco is a city of neighborhoods. If this building is approved, it will begin to destroy neighborhood character.

(-) Ray Leaper - Collingwood Hill Neighborhood Association

- Although she lives in an adjacent neighborhood, she understands the concerns all too well.

- What affects Sanchez Street affects them as well.

- Each new house becomes a yardstick for the next construction.

- When a cottage is replaced by a condo, it starts to distort the neighborhood character.

- Why must concerned individuals deal with these issues house by house? That's what the design guidelines are for.

- Something is very wrong and it needs to be fixed very soon.

(-) Jeannene Przyblyski - Collingwood Hill Neighborhood Association

- She has worked with the Sanchez Hill Neighborhood Association many times.

- She knows that the association is very reasonable and has a sense of cooperation. It has been a pleasure working with them.

- The reason all these people are here is because they live in neighborhoods and in communities, and believes that what affects one person can affect another.

- She would like the Commission to support the settlement envelope.

(-) Albert Weitz

- He lives across the street and up the hill from the proposed project.

- He and his wife moved into the neighborhood many years ago.

- He has been very appreciative to all his neighbors.

- He has some remodeling to do to his house but the construction has been halted pending the outcome of this hearing.

(-) Vicki Rosen - Upper Noe Neighbors

- She is very familiar with the situation that the Sanchez Hill Association is going through.

- This is a matter of respect. It doesn't seem right that people who live in the neighborhood would have fewer rights than people who do not live in the neighborhood.

- She is in support of the settlement envelope and believes that this would be the best solution for everyone.

(-) Judith Hoyem

- She is a 30 year resident of Eureka Valley.

- She is concerned about the development that is going on.

- She would like the Commission to require the project sponsor go back and design the building with a height reduction.

(-) Ari Fainchtein

- What the neighborhood is proposing is very reasonable.

- This huge thing would be blocking everything in sight.

- This is not about who is building bigger.

(-) Roger Lotz

- He has lived in the neighborhood for 20 years. He owns two buildings on Sanchez Street.

- The initial plan was monstrous and although the plans have been revised, the project is still too large.

- He would like to reach a compromise where the neighborhood will be happy.

(-) Eva del Campo - Sanchez Hill Neighborhood Association

- She lives on Sanchez Street.

- All the people in the neighborhood and the block are well established and have lived there for many years.

- What disturbs her most is the size of the building.

- This building will impact her light and space.

- She has a garden and fears that it will not survive because there will be light blockage.

- She would like the Commission to approve the settlement envelope.

(-) Jane Watanabe

- She lives in the Mission District and although she does not know anyone on Sanchez Street, she came to say that this project would be bad for any neighborhood.

- She would like the Commission to vote in favor of the neighbors.

(-) Judy Langley

- She would like the Commission to support the neighbors and to vote for the adoption of the settlement envelope.

(-) John Barbey

- He has been watching this project with horrified fascination.

- The clay at the bottom of the hill is so hard.

- The conformance with the light wells is very critical.

- The requests from the neighbors are very reasonable.

(-) Scott Trammell Moore

- He lives on 19th Street.

- The impact on the neighborhood, because of this project, is tremendous.

- The project sponsor has not had a spirit of cooperation.

(-) Louis Bryan

- He lives on Noe Street.

- He has no association with any of the parties involved.

- He walked by the proposed site and realized how tremendous this project is.

- This kind of proposal is the embodiment of several sins.

- Would you approve this if it were next to the Commissioner's properties?

(-) Pat Figley

- He lives on Duncan Street.

- There are many cities in this world that have so much charm in regards to their neighborhoods.

- This project will set precedence and change the character of these neighborhoods.

(-) Marrilee Dowty

- She lives on Diamond Street.

- Everyone who has preceded her has given excellent points and she agrees with everyone.

(-) Bill Barrett

- A few months ago, various neighbors were here regarding Collingwood Street.

- The Commission voted in support of the neighbors and made the project be reduced from 4 stories to 3.

- The one solution that would work here would be to take off the top floor.

(-) Diane Barrett

- She is a member of the Collingwood Hill Association

- She is thankful to the Commission for voting for the neighbors during a previously heard project.

- Prop M is there for everyone and the guidelines should be followed.

(-) Nakalema Binaisl

- She lives in Nob Hill and has lived in San Francisco for 10 years.

- Two of her friends live on Sanchez and that is why she is here in support of reducing the project.

(-) Claire Pilcher

- She lives in Noe Valley and belongs to the Friends of Noe Valley Association. The association was started simply because of a similar issue.

- Too large houses are not attractive to neighborhoods.

- This is one of the largest proposals she has seen since she has been involved in neighborhood associations.

- She hopes that the Commission will not let this happen.

(-) Dave Monks – President of Friends of Noe Valley

- He is the new President of this organization and would like to introduce himself to the Commission.

- This project has involved a tremendous amount of work to prove how this project does not go with the neighborhood.

- When these types of building are allowed, it puts a lot of pressure on the surrounding houses.

- He encourages the Commission to respect the history of the neighborhood.

(-) Chadwick Carter

- He opposes the demolition of the existing building.

(-) Lydia Bransten

- She lives across the street from the proposed site.

- She has contemporary desires for her living space but she decided to keep it to the interior of her home.

- This is a wonderful neighborhood to live in and she is here in solidarity with the rest of her neighborhood.

(-) Joe Butler

- He represents Michael Moran.

- He is here to ask that the Commission vote against this project and adopt the settlement envelope.

- If the Commission adopts the settlement envelope, certain neighbors will get 2 more hours of sunlight that they deserve.

(-) Joshua Rymer

- He lives on 19th Street, which is just around the corner of the proposed site.

- He has lived in San Francisco for many years.

- When he first received the notification of this project, he was very overtaken by the size and scope and was concerned about the impact of the project.

- Many calls that he made to the project sponsor were unanswered.

- What is being asked here is not reasonable.

(-) Lowkee Devon

- She is here in support of the settlement envelope.

- She was here a few months ago on a similar project and the Commission voted to reduce the size.

- The settlement enveloped should be taken seriously.

(-) Gary Dushal

- He lives on Sanchez Street.

- The proposed construction will block sunlight to the adjacent homes.

(-) Denis Richardson – Friends of 1800 Market Street (a preservation organization)

- Part of the reason he lives in San Francisco is that people want to preserve the streetscape.

- He supports the applicant for Discretionary Review.

(-) Sue Hestor

- There will be excavation made during this construction.

- Setting the project down into the hill helps to reduce the project and open up some lightwells.

- There are many people here, which will not speak, that are in support of taking Discretionary Review.

(-) Richard McCree

- He has been a resident of Eureka Valley for many years.

- He is an architect and believes that not only is an architect a servant of the developer but also of the neighbors.

- He has designed many projects on which the Commission has made a positive impact.

- He believes that it's possible for everyone to come out winning.

(-) John Moreto

- He lives on 19th Street.

- He isn't that familiar with the project but he is concerned with the light, which will be diminished on the street.

- A monstrous home attracts attention and detracts attention to the neighborhood.

(+) Alice Barkley – Representing Project Sponsor

- What the opponents of this project are asking is to take the top floor off as well as press the building down.

- The block has a distinctive topography.

- This is a home that is going to be built for a family.

- There will be two units. The ground floor will be a garage. The second floor will be a 1-bedroom unit. The 3rd floor, which is the bedroom floor, is also going to be below grade in the back of the house. Excavation needs to be done to get light and air into these bedrooms. The top floor is going to be for the project sponsor's mother's area.

- It is not true that the project sponsor did not return any phone calls.

- The first design from the original architect is horrible.

- Since the architect did not cooperate, the project sponsor decided to fire them and hire another.

- The reason why the settlement envelope does not work is because the first floor would not get any light and air since it's below grade.

(+) Patrick McGrew – Project Architect

- When he was brought into the project he immediately whet to see the site and saw the previous design. He realized that it would be easy to design something better.

- There seems to be a discrepancy with the square footage.

- When the square footage of a house is determined the garage is not included.

- He was unable to preserve a lot of the outside space.

- The neighborhood is not exclusively Victorian.

- This is a very good project.

- The final envelope does meet the neighborhood design guidelines and the Planning Code.

- Although the north elevation looks tall, the south elevation is not. This is simply because of the site the house is located on.

- The objective is not to design a monstrous home.

- The Department requested 5 things: 1) set the front back 10 feet – okay; 2) for the building to be lowered 3 ½ feet – okay; 3) match Mr. Moran's lightwell – okay; 4) two level intrusion – will be removed; 5) modulate the construction noise – okay.

(+) Eckhard Evers

- He is in favor of the proposed construction and likes the design.

- People have the right to build.

(+) Mariann Miller

- This is a 3-generation house.

- The baby boom generation is coming along, so finding appropriate housing for everyone is an issue.

- Many adult children are providing help and assistance for their elderly parents.

- This house will allow for a family to live together.

(+) Tom Dempster

- He owns a home in the Castro district.

- Wherever one lives, the issues are about views.

(+) Robin Bristow

- She has lived in this neighborhood for 5 years.

- She has attended neighborhood meetings.

- At those meetings, the opposing neighbors were very harsh to the project sponsor.

(+) Tommy James

- This project is not the exception, it is the norm.

- The project sponsor has gone through a lot to be able to have his family live in one home.

(+) Alan Pex

- He has lived in San Francisco for many years.

- He is here to support this project.

(+) James Seiffert

- Mr. David Balow is not a developer.

- The plans seem to meet the neighbors concerns.

(+) Oswell Melton

- The plans comply with the residential design guidelines.

- He is here to support the project sponsor and ask the Commission to approve the permit.

(+) Martin Guerrero

- He rents at 567 Sanchez.

- He has been coming to San Francisco for many years.

- He is totally in favor of this house being built since he does not want to move from there.

(+) Brad Sink

- He has lived in the neighborhood for 10 years.

- He does not understand how people are complaining about 5 storied buildings in the neighborhood since there are various buildings that are 5 stories.

- He asks for the support of the Commission.

(+) Joe Cassidy

- The site will be safely excavated.

- The job is a pretty safe one also.

(+) Clara McMurtrie

- She will be living with her son

- She hopes that the top floor is not taken off.

(+) Joe O'Donaghue

- The character of all neighborhoods is not the way the houses look but from the sensitivity of its neighbors.

- This proposal is very sensitive to its neighbors.

- This is not a monster home.

(+) Jack Bernstine

- He lives in the Diamond Heights district.

- He is in support of this project.


ACTION: Public Comment is closed.

Public testimony will only be allowed to address the accuracy of revised plans.

Intent to take Discretionary Review and approve with Staff Recommendations and the additional recommendation offered by the project sponsor to reduce the height of the project.

Project will be brought back to the Commission for final action on February 22, 2001.

AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Salinas, Theoharis






At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

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


(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))



Joe O'Donahue – Residential Builders

Re: Interference by the Legislative process into the administrative process

- Legislative aids to the Board of Supervisors have been calling the Director as well as employees.

- This is a total violation of union dues.

- Everyone is supposed to wait in line. No matter what position one has.

- He will be filing a complaint.


Adjournment: 8:05 p.m.






Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:09 PM