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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us

February 15, 2001

February 15, 2001

 

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION


Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, February 15, 2001

1:30 PM

 

Regular Meeting

 

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

ABSENT: None

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:40 p.m.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green, Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Costolino Hogan; Hillary Gitelman; Leslie Buford; Joan Kugler; Ricardo Bressanutti; Rick Crawford; Sailesh Mehra; Michael Smith; Nora Priego, Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery, Commission Secretary

 

A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

1a. 2000.863BV (WONG: 558-6381)

2712 MISSION STREET - west side, between 23rd and 24th Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 3643. The subject property seeks an authorization for a proposed office development under the smaller building reserve, pursuant to Planning Code Section 321. The proposal is for a change of use from "Retail" to "Office" and for the renovation and expansion of an existing 27,831 gross-square-foot building into a 30,847 gross-square-foot building by enlarging a mezzanine within the existing structure. The subject property falls within a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Commercial District) Zoning District and a 50-X/80-B Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 25, 2001)

(Proposed for Continuance to February 22, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to February 22, 2001

AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

 

1b. 2000.863BV (WONG: 558-6381)

2712 MISSION STREET - west side, between 23rd and 24th Streets, lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 3643. The subject property seeks a parking variance for the reduction of required off-street parking, pursuant to Planning Code Section 151. The project proposes to provide five parking spaces for the conversion of 30,847 gross square feet of office space on a site, which presently provides no off-street parking spaces. The subject property falls within a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Commercial District) Zoning District and a 50-X/80-B Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 25, 2001)

(Proposed for Continuance to February 22, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to February 22, 2001

AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

2. 2000.1310C (DiBARTOLO: 558‑6291)

1268 Grant Avenue - southeast corner of Grant Avenue and Vallejo Street; Lot 044 in Assessor’s Block 145. Request for Conditional-Use Authorization to allow amplified live and recorded music (defined as "Other Entertainment" by Planning Code Section 790.38) in an existing full-service restaurant and bar, d.b.a. Basta Pasta, as required by Planning Code Section 722.48, in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40‑X Height and Bulk District

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to March 1, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to March 1, 2001

AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

3. 2000.1108C (TAM: 558-6325)

3995 ALEMANY BOULEVARD - south of Alemany Boulevard, between Worchester Street and St. Charles Avenue, Lots 3 in Assessor's Block 7126A Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 713.21, 713.27, and 121.2 for the proposed establishment of a fitness center (Bally Fitness), approximately 25,792 square feet in size, operating between 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, in an NC-S (Neighborhood Commercial-Shopping Center) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to March 15, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to March 15, 2001

AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

4. 2000.1033D (SMITH: 558-6322)

4328 20th STREET – Lot 016, in Assessor's Block 2697. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/08/01/6694 proposing to raise the existing building two feet to construct a new garage and rooms at the basement level and construct a two-story rear addition that projects 13'-6 beyond the existing rear building wall. The proposal also includes constructing two new decks at the rear of the addition, constructing a new dormer on the fourth floor, and infilling the walkway that leads to the service entry on the side of the building in an RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District; and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Hearing of January 11, 2001)

(Proposed for Continuance to March 15, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to March 15, 2001

AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

5.             Commission Matters

None

 

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:

- Supervisor Maxwell has requested a meeting regarding  server farms as well as the environmental review process. Gerald Green, Planning Department Director and Hillary Gitelman, Environmental Review Officer; will attend this meeting.

- The Board passed a six-month moratorium on live/work projects.

BOA:

None

 

8. (BADINER: 558-6350)

240 –16th Street – Status Report

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 22, 2001

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

ABSEBT: Chinchilla

 

 

Note: The following item was taken out of order. Voted on after Public Comment.

 

9. (BADINER: 558-6350)

Discussion of Planning Code Requirements for Bay Windows

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 22, 2001

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

NAYES: Chinchilla

 

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

 

10. (HOGAN: 558-6610)

REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT  S PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR 2001-2002.

 

SPEAKER(S):

Mark Riser

- The pilot project will give the Planning Department valuable tools.

ACTION: Continued to February 22, 2001 for action. Public comment remains open.

 

11. 2000.613E (GITELMAN: 558-5977)

BATTERY STREET HOTEL - Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed project would demolish three existing structures at 425‑427 Battery Street and 418 Clay Street, and would construct a new 11‑story mixed use building on a 14,025 square foot site in downtown San Francisco (Assessor's Block 206, Lots 3, 4, and 5). The new building would include about 17,700 square feet of retail space, and up to 348 hotel rooms. The hotel, called Club Quarters, would be a private business hotel for exclusive use of member organizations. Off street loading would be accessed from Merchant Street. No off‑street parking would be provided on site. Note: written comments on the Draft EIR will be accepted at the Planning Department offices until the close of business on February 20, 2001.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-/+) Stephen Kim

- He owns a company adjacent to the proposed project.

- He has concerns and is working with the project sponsor.

(-/+) Christopher Cole

- His building is a two-story building next to the proposed site.

- He also has concerns and issues and is working with the project sponsor.

(-) Alexander Sidle

- He is one of the tenants of the proposed project.

- He was interested in the portion of the EIR related to jobs and displacement.

- He would like to have these concerns addressed.

- The EIR states that there are about 100 tenants when there are actually about 300.

- The project has low proposed employment.

- Displacement of jobs in downtown is very significant.

(-) Roger Brandon

- This is across the street from a popular hotel as well as another hotel about a block away.

- There is no point in this project since there are quality hotels close by.

 

ACTION: Meeting held. No Action Required

 

12. 1997.478E (WYCKO: 558-5972)

525 Golden Gate Avenue - City Administration Building - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The project involves the demolition of an existing, vacant State of California office building and construction of a new building for City offices on City-owned property at the southwest corner of Polk Street and Golden Gate Avenue on Lot 1 of Assessor’s Block 766 in the San Francisco Civic Center area. Two options are under consideration: Option A would entail construction of a 14-story, 181-foot-tall building containing about 255,500 square feet of office space, while Option B would consist of a 12-story, 156-foot-tall building containing about 215,000 square feet of office space. Each option would include two basement parking levels containing about 100 spaces (corresponding to about 140 spaces with valet operations). The project would require a height reclassification (amendment of the height and bulk designations in the zoning maps and General Plan maps) of the site to accommodate the proposed building and will also seek a Variance from the Planning Code for on-site parking and loading.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certification of FEIR

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Diane Cramton

- There is an environmental impact in regards to shadows on the learning center close by.

- Children need to have sunlight.

(-) Brother Cohen

- The zoning for this area does not allow such a tall building.

- This will cause an environmental impact on the learning center.

- The building should not be so tall.

(-) Michael Levin

- He does not have problems with the project except that any City building ought to set an example to all the developers.

- If there is any significant change to the building from the photo on the report, there should be a supplemental EIR written.

- This is an important building in an important location.

(-) Roger Brandon

- This building is located behind the courthouse.

- He does not see the purpose of developing another government building.

- This building is not good for the City and people should be against this project.

 

ACTION: EIR Certified

AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Chinchilla

MOTION: 16092

 

13. 1999.377E (BUFORD: 558-5973)

SAN FRANCISCO SOUTHERN WATERFRONT - Certification of Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR). All of these proposed uses and future development assumptions, as summarized below, constitute the project analyzed in the Supplemental EIR: Coach USA (bus storage and repair) at a Pier 94-96 location; British Pacific Aggregates (bulk cargo and concrete and asphalt batching plant uses) at a Pier 94-96 location; Kaiser Bode/Mission Rock (concrete ready-mix facility and bulk cargo use) proposed for relocation from Mission Bay to Pier 92; ISG Resources (import, storage, and transloading of fly ash, slag, and other constituent elements for concrete) proposed at the Pier 90 grain silos; USA Waste (construction material recycling) proposed for relocation from Candlestick Point; RMC Lonestar (concrete ready-mix facility, including bulk cargo barge and rail transport), proposed for relocation from Mission Bay to a Pier 80 location; construction of a lift-segment Illinois Street bridge between Piers 80 and 90-92 to allow rail and truck transport between Port facilities on either side of Islais Creek; cargo shipping contracts (containerized and non-containerized cargo shipping) on Piers 80 and 94-96; unspecified development of approximately 50 acres of Pier 90-94 Backlands for mixed light industrial and commercial uses; Pier 70 Maritime Reserve (unspecified general industrial and maritime industrial uses on approximately 55 acres); and Pier 70 Opportunity Area (unspecified development of about 16 acres for mixed-use commercial, public access and recreational maritime uses).

Preliminary Recommendation: Certification of FSEIR

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: FSEIR Certified as modified by staff: point out relevant mitigation measures that address dust.

AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Chinchilla

MOTION: 16093

 

14. 2000.594E (KUGLER: 558-5983)

150 Powell Street- Assessors Block 327, Lot 22, southeast corner of Powell and O'Farrell Streets. Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration for the proposed project that would demolish three existing buildings, one to three stories tall, fronting on O'Farrell Street (171, 179, 181 O'Farrell St.) and would retain and renovate the 150 Powell Street building including the construction of a new seven floor addition to 150 Powell Street structure on the O'Farrell Street lots. Three floors would be added to a portion of the 150 Powell building. The proposed project would be an increase of about 35,900 gsf of retail space and about 19,100 gsf of office space. The renovated and remodeled building would be about 105 feet tall. The Elevated Shops Building is a Category IV (Contextual Importance) building. The project site is in the C-3-G zoning district and an 80-130-F Height/Bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) (Name unclear) – Representative of appellant

- He would like to request a continuance since his partner is in India. The appellant had to travel to India because of family matters. The appellant was scheduled to be here for the hearing but he has been delayed in India.

 

ACTION: Do not continue case.

AYES: Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

NAYES: Baltimore

ABSENT: Chinchilla

 

(-) (Name unclear) – co-appellant

- There is an issue regarding parking and the loading dock in front of his building.

- There will be 28 windows, which will be completely blocked by the proposed project.

- He hasn't had time to look completely at the reports.

(+) Steve Atkinson – Baker and McKenzie - Representing project sponsor

- This negative declaration was prepared by a very experienced consultant and was reviewed thoroughly by the Department. A firm of great experience prepared the transportation study. The report totally meets CEQA standards.

- The appellant owns a vacant building adjacent to the proposed project. None of the issues raised in the appeal are meritorious.

- The sponsor is seeking an exception of the off-street loading requirement but this will be brought to the Commission in a future hearing.

- Regarding the loading dock, the negative declaration states that there is no impact on loading with or without an off-street loading. Much of the loading will be done in the storefront and with limited hours.

- Regarding the property-line windows, there is no impact since the code allows for this type of construction.

ACTION: Preliminary Negative Declaration Upheld

AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Chinchilla

MOTION: 16094

 

15. 2000.1179C (BRESSANUTTI: 558-6892)

366-368 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - west side between 14th Street and 15th Street; Lot 61 in Assessor’s Block 3616 - Request for Conditional-Use Authorization to enlarge a two-unit residential building, requiring Conditional-Use Authorization for dwelling units in a C-M District per Section 215(a) of the Planning Code. The proposal is to increase the floor-to-ceiling height of the ground floor by 6’-6" and to raise the upper stories of the building to accommodate the taller ground floor. Although there would still be a total of three stories, the overall height of the building would be increased from the existing height of approximately 32’-0" to approximately 38’-6". In addition, the ground floor would be extended to the rear property line and the facade of the building would be modified. No change in the number of dwelling units is proposed. The project is within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District and a Mixed Use Housing Zone, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

 

SPEAKER (S):

(+) Tony Pantaleoni – Project Architect

- He and the owner of the building are here to answer any questions.

 

ACTION: Approved with conditions as drafted

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

MOTION: 16095

 

16a. 2000.1248C (CRAWFORD: 558-6358)

2 ROWLAND STREET - Assessors Block 0163 Lot 027 Request under Planning Code Sections 714.10 and 253.1 for conditional use approval for a building greater than 40 feet in height in a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District. This project is for the demolition of the existing one story storage building on the property and construction of a five-story, 52-feet tall building that will contain three residential units with ground floor parking. This project lies within the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District and within the 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

 

SPEAKER (S):

(+) Bruce Baumann – Rep. of the project sponsor

- The project is exempt from environmental review and there are no shadow impacts.

- The benefits to the project and mid-block open space are that the project has a rear yard instead of a side yard. The project is consistent with the policies regarding mid-block open space.

(+) Alice Barkley – Attorney for the project sponsor

- The site is unusual and warrants a waiver.

- This project does not impact any of the neighbors.

(-) Peter Craggy

- He is one of the owners of 540 Pacific.

- There is a substantial lot between his property and the proposed property.

- The notice that he received stated that the property was located at 2 Rowland Street and not 2 Rowland Place.

- He needs to see how this affects his property related to shadows.

- The people in his building use the yard to have their lunch.

(-) Francesca Valdez

- Her property is adjacent to the proposed site.

- She opposes the project since the proposed property has been in a commercial zone and used as commercial use. This change will cause disarray to the existing businesses.

- Rowland is a narrow alley.

- The building height will cause shadows to the adjacent properties.

- Many of the businesses are restaurants and are open until about 2:00 a.m.

(-) Carl Prescott

- There are three exits that run into Rowland.

- The garbage under the stairways will cause problems to the new owners.

- The height of the building will block his view of the City.

(-) Steve Soriani – Owner of the Bubble Lounge

- The stage in his establishment will be adjacent to the proposed project.

- They are discussing alternatives to block out noise.

 

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Chinchilla
MOTION: 16096

 

16b. 2000.1248V (CRAWFORD: 558-6358)

2 ROWLAND STREET - Assessors Block 0163 Lot 027 Request under Planning Code Section 134e for a modification of Rear Yard Requirements by the Zoning Administrator to allow the rear yard to be placed on the south side of the parcel instead of on the east side. This project is for the demolition of the existing storage building on the property and construction of a five-story, 52-feet-tall building that will contain three residential units with ground floor parking. This project lies within the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District and within the 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.

 

SPEAKER (S): (Same as those for item 16a)

ACTION: Zoning Administrator granted the rear yard waiver.

 

E. SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

 

At Approximately 4:10 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.

 

17a. 2000.964DDDD (MEHRA: 558-6257)

250 SEA CLIFF AVENUE - north side, west of 27th Avenue; Lot 1M in Assessor's Block 1307. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 200006213244 proposing to construct a one‑story addition ‑ 391 square feet in size ‑ on the second floor on an existing deck adjacent to the master bedroom, above the garage on the east side of the property. The addition will accommodate an exercise room and a dressing room and will not encroach into the required rear or side yards. The property is in an RH‑1 (D) (Residential, House, Single‑Family, Detached) District and a 40‑X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take discretionary review and approve project as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting December 14, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Christopher Moscone – Representing one of the DR requestors

- The project sponsor has worked in good faith with him and his client and his client's issues have been resolved.

(-) Sue Hestor – Representing one of the DR requestors

- This project was continued from December because she discovered that multiple building permits had been taken out. They had not done what the Department requires them to do--do one application for all of the improvements.

- She disagrees with the Department's legal characterization.

- The Planning Department did not pull up the variance decision.

- The Planning Department did not apply the Planning Code to this project.

- The developer is adding view rooms all over the place.

- All the windows have 180o views.

(-) Byron Litman – DR Requestor

- He and his wife have lived on Sea Cliff Avenue for 20 years.

- Their house is across the street from the proposed project.

- He read a passage from the Sea Cliff magazine published 85 years ago, which states that all houses should conserve the beautiful sea views.

- When the project was originally proposed there was no opposition. But through a series of changes, it has become too massive.

- Trees can be adjusted, a building cannot.

- If this project is approved, it will take away the view that his family has enjoyed for many years.

- He urges the Commission to deny this project.

(-) Marlene Marsai

- She lives on Sea Cliff Avenue across the street from the proposed project.

- She had asked that the project be reshaped for less neighborhood impact.

- Sea Cliff was established in a master plan to allow for view and limit the height of trees.

- Trees should just be allowed to grow to the level of the rooflines.

- The allowance of light and air is a character of this neighborhood.

- Whenever the trees became unruly, they were trimmed.

- The request to lower the trees has been going on since 1997.

- An arborist has been consulted, which has said that the trees can be safely trimmed.

- There should be a condition that requires the trees be lowered to the lowest level allowed.

(-) Mr. Hirsh

- He lives across the street from the proposed project.

- He was sitting in Mr. Passmore's office in July of 1999. He asked if there was going to be any other buildings and the answer was no. All he could recall about the variance was that there be no construction on Saturday and Sundays.

- The trees grew and began to block their view.

- Although there is not much to see from his attic window, there is a feeling of openness.

(-) Tarrance Marsai

- The home in which he lives is across the street from the proposed project. Although it's a large home, it is designed in a way for he and his family to enjoy open space and it does not block his neighbors' views.

- The reason that this has become such an issue is because the trees have grown just too tall.

- If this project is approved, he would like to have the project sponsor have conditions to keep an open space and to keep shrubbery to certain limits.

(-) Mr. Morgolan

- He lives on Scenic Way, which is one block away from the proposed project.

- He was not notified of this hearing.

- He has trees in front of his property yet when these trees become obstructive, they are trimmed.

(+) Alice Barkley – Representing project sponsor

- This project is not by a developer. It is the project of a homeowner.

- There is a provision that each home should have a side yard.

- The project is going to be set back more.

- One of the speakers showed pictures, which were taken 12 years ago.

- The trees grow 24 inches per year.

- The project sponsor has trimmed the trees.

- She would like to have the Commission take Discretionary Review with three conditions: 1) conditions subject to Mr. Badiner's letter; 2) plans be revised; 3) trees to be trimmed annually.

 

ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve project with the following conditions:

1) that the design of project shall conform to the plans presented today;

2) the BAP affirms the ZA's written determination that the proposed project will not require a variance application;

3) the project sponsor will retain a licensed arborist to trim the two New Zealand Christmas trees at the front yard annually, to the maximum extent feasible without harming the health of the trees.

AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Salinas, Theoharis

NAYES: Joe

 

17b. 2000.964V (MEHRA: 558-6257)

250 SEA CLIFF AVENUE - north side between El Camino del Mar and 27th Avenue; Lot 001M in Assessor’s Block 1307 in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwelling) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. SIDE AND REAR YARD VARIANCE SOUGHT: The proposal is to reconstruct the northeast side and rear building walls at the first floor level that were demolished by a contractor in excess of the scope of an approved permit. Additional work includes the addition of a subterranean (completely below grade) home theater, beneath the existing structure/demolished rear and side building walls, and within the required rear and side yards.

 

SPEAKER(S): (Same as those listed under item 17a)

ACTION: Zoning Administrator Closed Public Hearing has taken the matter under advisement.

 

18. 2000.1124D (SMITH: 558-6322)

4616-18th Street - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/09/11/0100, Case No. 2000.1124D, Lot No. 007 in Assessor's Block 2658. Staff-initiated Discretionary Review is requested of Building Permit proposing to merge two dwelling units into one dwelling unit in a RH‑2 (House, Two‑Family) District and 40‑X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the proposal as it was submitted.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Scott Lamert – Project Sponsor

- The Planning Commission is responsible for representing the public. This project does not harm in any way any of the neighbors.

- He purchased the house for his family since his family is growing.

- They are not changing the footprint of the home or changing the façade.

- Before they purchased the house, they did research and found out that there would be no difficulty to merge the units. Since then the Commission has approved a policy about dwelling unit mergers.

- There are no complaints regarding this merger and the neighbors and neighborhood associations support this merger.

(+) Joe O'Donahue

- Families should be allowed to stay in this City.

- This family, which is growing and requires more space, wants to live here.

- There is no protest to this project.

- This is a matter of equity and mercy rather than justice.

 

ACTION: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve project as submitted.

AYES: Baltimore and Joe

NAYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Salinas, and Theoharis

RESULT: Motion failed to carry.

 

ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and deny project.

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Salinas, and Theoharis

NAYES: Baltimore and Joe

 

19. 2000.1265D (SMITH: 558-6322)

282 UPPER TERRACE - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/09/20/1100, Case No. 2000.1265D, for the property located at 282 Upper Terrace, Lot No. 002I in Assessor's Block 2629. Discretionary Review is requested of Building Permit proposing to construct a two‑story rear addition with a second-floor roof deck and stairs on a dwelling in a RH‑2 (House, Two‑Family) District and a 40‑X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take discretionary review and approve the project per staff recommendations.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Dr. Barbara Hennessy – DR Requestor

- She is the only neighbor who will be affected by the construction.

- The project sponsor did not show her the plans before submitting them to the Department.

- The most important aspect is the sunlight being blocked to her home because of the construction.

- She requests that the project sponsor make some modifications. She made this proposal to the project sponsor but the sponsor wasn't in agreement.

- Her second request is that the project sponsor put siding on the wall on Ms. Hennessy's side.

- She does not think that these requests are too much.

- She hopes that the Commission takes this into consideration.

(-) Gary Gerber – Contractor and Designer

- Ms. Hennessy has pretty much covered everything.

- He is a solar engineer and has made an analysis of shadow studies. Because of the proposed construction the sunlight to the DR requestor will be impacted.

(-) Greg Framlechlin – Architect

- He was hired to view the plans and try to come up with a possible mediation.

- The hallway on the upper floor is rather large for the proposed house. He suggests reducing the hallway and office, which would allow for a window and light to come through.

- He did some sunlight studies and showed some computer diagrams, which show the impacts.

(+) Alfred Sanchez – Rep. of Project Sponsor

- He is willing to take into consideration the suggestions made by staff.

- (He displayed a model of the proposed construction.)

- There has been some hill cutting to bring out the deck.

- He does not want to shove his project into the hill.

- If he were to bring the construction into the hill it would cause a shadow affect to the DR requestor.

(+) Carol Cox, Project Sponsor

- The DR requestor stated that she didn't make an attempt to speak to her when she did.

- There are several discrepancies in the review analysis (e.g. that the sunlight to the DR requestor will be diminished, which is not so).

- She was born and raised in this neighborhood so she is familiar with the neighborhood.

(+) Darie Saba

- She does not live in the neighborhood but is a friend of the project sponsor.

- If the proposed construction is reduced, the addition will look like a closet.

(+) Robert Tarlin

- He lives a few houses away from the proposed project.

- His house has an identical floor plan.

- He has a small open area in his back yard.

- Taking off three feet will not provide any more sunlight.

- He supports the construction of this proposal.

(+) Kenneth Gordon

- In general support of the proposed.

(+) (name unclear)

- She lives on Upper Terrace

- Her niece and her niece's mother, who is the project sponsor, grew up in this house. She should not have to compromise three feet.

- It is very unfair that her niece's project is not going forth.

 

ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve project per staff recommendations regarding finished side material.

AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, and 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 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))

 

 

Sue Hestor

Re: 250 Sea Cliff Avenue

- She feels very frustrated since she sent a letter to the Planning Department on December 11, requesting consolidated plans. Since then she kept calling the Department trying to find out if the plans had been filed. The plans were submitted on December 28; but she did not receive a copy even though she should have received a copy.

- She then spent the next six weeks trying to find out where the plans were. Various planners were on vacation yet she left messages. No one could find the plans.

- The plans were finally found 10 days ago. Plans that she should have gotten on December 28, she got in February.

- The first notice she received of a variance was when she got a copy of the calendar last Friday.

- The planner mentioned that there wasn't a variance report and that the only documents the Commission was going to receive would be what Ms. Barkley would submit.

- She later discovered by one of the DR requestors that there was a variance set of plans that she had never seen.

- If she is involved in a case, there is no excuse for staff not to give her the same information that the Commission, DR requestors, etc. receive.

 

Joe O'Donaghue – Residential Builders

Re: Ken Garcia

- He wants to make it clear that the ideas Mr. Garcia has that Mr. O'Donaghue's company is moving to Oakland are not true. Mr. O'Donaghue has been trying to contact Mr. Garcia but has not been able to do so. Then, Mr. Garcia's attorney writes a letter to him stating that Mr. O'Donaghue was trespassing.

- Also, last week at the BOS, Mr. Garcia stated that Mr. O'Donaghue walked out of a hearing. What happened was that he was denied access to a hearing, something that has never happened in the BOS. The Land Use hearings were moved from a bigger room to a smaller room. Since he brought a lot of members, they were denied entrance.

- Instead of denying entrance, they should have reduced the time of the speakers.

 

 

Adjournment: 6:30 p.m.

 

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2001.

 

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