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

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

April 05, 2001

April 05, 2001

 

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION


Minutes of Meeting

&

Calendar

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, April 5, 2001

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

 

PRESENT: Theoharis; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:40 PM

 

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; David Alumbaugh; Jasper Rubin; Kelly LeBlanc; Alison Borden; Jonathan Lau; Tim Blomgren; Jonathan Purvis; Adam Light; Ricardo Bressanutti; Tim Woloshyn; Sailesh Mehra; Frank Jones; Paul Lord; Patricia Gerber – Transcription Secretary; Linda D. Avery – Commission Secretary

 

A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

1. 2001.006DD (DiBARTOLO: 558-6291)

835 LOMBARD STREET - south side of the street between Taylor and Jones Streets, Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 0073. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/07/13/5089S. The subject property contains one structure, a portion of which extends into the required rear yard. The proposal consists of two components; (1) to construct a new 425-square-foot rear addition on the fourth floor, within the permitted build able area, and (2) to remove the gable roof, creating a flat roof and deck atop the noncomplying structure at the rear of the subject property. The height of the roof with proposed deck will be reduced from 20’-4" to 18’. The site is in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit application with modifications as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 22, 2001)

(Proposed for continuance to April 12, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

2. 2000.1165B (BRESSANUTTI: 558-6892)

2 HENRY ADAMS STREET - west side, between Division Street and Alameda Street; Lot 1 in Assessor’s Block 3910. Request under Planning Code Sections 320-322 for project authorization of an office development consisting of the conversion of up to 49,900 square feet in an existing building (San Francisco Design Center) from wholesale design showroom space to office space. This notice shall also set forth an initial determination of the net addition of gross square feet of office space, pursuant to Planning Code Section 313.4. The subject property is located in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District and the Industrial Protection Zone, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2001)

(Proposed for continuance to April 19, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued as corrected

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

3a. 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: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 22, 2001)

(Proposed for continuance to April 19, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

3b. 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 February 22, 2001)

(Proposed for continuance to April 19, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

4a. 2000.190BX (LeBLANC: 558-6351)

201 SECOND STREET - southeast corner of Second Street and Howard Street, Lot 97 in Assessor’s Block 3736. Request under Planning Code Sections 320-325 for authorization to deduct up to 44,500 square feet of office space from the City’s Office Development Annual Limit. The proposal is for the construction of a 12-story, 160-foot-tall building with a total of approximately 60,000 gross square feet including up to 44,500 square feet of office space and approximately 7,700 square feet of retail and/or restaurant space. The project also includes a minimum of 1,020 square feet of open space. This project lies within a C-3-O(SD) (Downtown Office, Special Development) District and within the 350-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meetings of February 8, 2001 and March 8, 2001; and Re-noticed for March 15, 2001, because of change in project description. Project added 2 stories and 9,500 square feet of office space by request of applicant.)

(Proposed for continuance to April 26, 2001

 

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

4b. 2000.190BX (LeBLANC: 558-6351)

201 SECOND STREET - southeast corner of Second Street and Howard Street, Lot 97 in Assessor’s Block 3736. Request under Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Code) for Determinations of Compliance and Exceptions, including an exception to the setback requirements of Section 132.1 of the Code for the construction of a 12-story, 160-foot-tall building with a total of approximately 60,000 gross square feet including up to 44,500 square feet of office space and approximately 7,700 square feet of retail and/or restaurant space. The project also includes a minimum of 1,020 square feet of open space. This project lies within a C-3-O(SD) (Downtown Office, Special Development) District and within the 350-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 8, 2001, and March 8, 2001, and Re-noticed for March 15, 2001, because of change in project description. Project added 2 stories and 9,500 square feet of office space by request of applicant.)

(Proposed for continuance to April 26, 2001)

`

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

5. 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: Pending

(Proposed for continuance to April 26, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

6. 2000.765E (PULON: 558-5978)

67-69 Turk Street - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration: The proposed project would construct a mixed-use building on the southeast corner of Turk and Taylor Streets. The proposed building would be approximately 96,984 gross square feet (gsf), accommodating: 12,432 gsf of mechanical and maintenance space in the basement floor; 7,207 gsf of retail on the ground floor; 40,484 gsf of parking on floors 2-4; and 36,861 gsf of office on floors 5-7. The tenant parking garage would provide 76 parking spaces, without any loading spaces. The building would be 106 feet tall. Vehicular site access to the proposed parking garage would be from Taylor Street. Pedestrian street level site access to the retail and office spaces would be from Turk Street. The existing 84 parking spaces on a surface- and basement-level garage would be demolished. The project site, approximately 12,940 sq. ft, is on Assessor's Block 0342 and Lot 011, in a C-3-G Zoning District and a 120-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration.

(Proposed continuance to April 26, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

7. 2001.0141D (CABREROS: 558-6169)

1041 LAKE STREET - between 11th and 12th Avenues, Lot 043 in Assessor’s Block 1371. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/09/07/9909, proposing to construct two additional floors and rear deck onto an existing one-story over garage single family dwelling. The proposed addition occurs within the permitted building envelope in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the project.

(Proposed for continuance to May 17, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

8. 2001.0102C (WOLOSHYN: 558: 6612)

2238 GEARY BOULEVARD - north side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets; Lot 025 in Assessor's Block 1079 within the existing Kaiser Medical Office Building. Request for Conditional-Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 712.43 to operate a Large Fast Food Restaurant on the first floor of the existing Kaiser office building, located within an NC-3 District (Neighborhood Commercial Moderate Scale) and The Geary Boulevard/Divisadero Street Special-Use District.

WITHDRAWN

 

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

9. Consideration of Adoption – draft minutes of March 22, 2001.

 

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

10. Commission Matters

Baltimore: Requested staff to schedule a presentation on present process on expediting housing that will come on line.

Theoharis: Asked Commission secretary to prepare a letter to the Housing and Land Use Committee regarding their meetings time conflict with Planning Commission meetings

 

 

 

 

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

 

11.               Director's Announcements

- 366-368 South Van Ness Avenue – requested to be move to the beginning of the calendar

- Housing Land Use Transportation Committee – respond to two request from Sup. McGoldrick on April 12, 2001

1) Communicate the status of Residential Element of the General Plan

2) Participating in a discussion about a community planning effort

- Doggie Dinner Head City will be responsible for the repair/restoring

 

12. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

- 222 El Camino del Mar – Discretionary Review before Commission on 1995, action was to take discretionary review and this project ultimately was not built.

- 69 DeHaro Street – Discretionary Review - Upheld Commission decision by +3 –1.

13. (GREEN/ARCE: 558-64411/558-6332)

COW HOLLOW NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN GUIDELINES – Director will give a status report.

 

SPEAKER(S): None

 

14. (ALUMBAUGH: 558-6601)

BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS 2002 – Informational presentation regarding Central Waterfront Neighborhood Plan.

 

SPEAKER(S): None

 

D.                  CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION -- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

 

15a. 1999.603BX (LeBLANC: 558-6351)

555 MISSION STREET - south side of Mission Street between First and Second Streets, with a secondary frontage on Minna Street, Lots 69, 70, 78, 79, 80 and 81 in Assessor’s Block 3721. Request under Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Project) for Determinations of Compliance and Request for Exceptions, including an exception to the Separation of Towers requirement (Section 132.1(c)), exceptions to the Bulk requirements (Sections 270(d)(2), 270(d)(3)(A), and 270(d)(3)(B)), and an exception to the Reduction of Ground Level Wind Currents requirement (Section 148) for the demolition of six vacant buildings and the construction of a 31-story, approximately 455-foot-tall office tower containing up to 557,000 gross square feet of office space, approximately 8,000 square feet of ground floor retail space, 11,140 square feet of public open space and 150 parking spaces. The project lies within a C-3-O (Downtown, Office) District and within 500-S and 550-S Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from March 8, 2001 Regular Meeting)

Note: On March 8, 2001, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a Motion of Intent to approve the project with 499,000 gross square feet of office space, and requested staff to prepare draft Motions for the Commission’s consideration on April 5, 2001.

 

SPEAKER(S): None -

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

MOTION NO.: 16129

 

15b. 1999.603BX (LeBLANC: 558-6351)

555 MISSION STREET - south side of Mission Street between First and Second Streets, with a secondary frontage on Minna Street, Lots 69, 70, 78, 79, 80 and 81 in Assessor’s Block 3721. Request under Planning Code Sections 320-325 for authorization to deduct up to 557,000 square feet of office space from the City’s office development annual limit. The proposal is for the demolition of six vacant buildings and the construction of a 31-story, approximately 455-foot tall office tower containing up to 557,000 gross square feet of office space as well as ground floor retail space, public open space and parking and loading spaces. The project lies within a C-3-O (Downtown, Office) District and within 500-S and 550-S Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 8, 2001)

Note: On March 8, 2001, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a Motion of Intent to approve the project with 499,000 gross square feet of office space, and requested staff to prepare draft Motions for the Commission’s consideration on April 5, 2001.

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

MOTION NO.: 16129

E.                  REGULAR CALENDAR

 

16. (BORDEN: 558-5979)

Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan - 2318 Fillmore Street, Assessor’s Block 612, Lot 19, 2209 Webster Street, Assessor’s Block 612, Lot 7, 2232 Webster Street, Assessor’s Block 613, Lot 28, 2238 Webster Street, Assessor’s Block 613, Lot 15, 2244 Webster Street, Assessor’s Block 613, Lot 16, 2250-52 Webster Street, Assessor’s Block 613, Lot 17, 2389 Washington Street, Assessor’s Block 613, Lot 18 and 2472 Clay Street, Assessor’s Block 612, Lot 17. The Planning Department received an Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan (Abbreviated IMP) for the Smith-Kettlewell Eye Institute on January 5, 2001. Per the requirements of Planning Code Section 304.5(d), this filing is being reported to the members of the Planning Commission. The Commission may decide either to hold or not hold a public hearing on the plan at a later date. A hearing would be for the receipt of public testimony only and subject to the same notice requirements as a conditional use, as set forth in Planning Code Section 306.3. Please note that the Smith-Kettlewell Eye Institute submitted this document to the Zoning Administrator as part of an ongoing enforcement action involving some of their properties in the Webster Street Historic District.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Steve Nicholson

-           Like many San Franciscan recognize the importance of our historical resources in creating the City unique image and world image

-           Last year in the annual meeting of the National Trust for Historic Preservation was a little dishearting hear some of the speakers mentioned the City of San Francisco as a example of a city that failed to effectively protect its historic resources

-           The Webster Street Historical District is one of the few effort for preservation that we had made, and without the public participation, particularly in the form of the Friends of Webster Street Historical District.

-           Smith Kettlewell failured to comply with the requirements of that historic district, it would have gone unnoticed to the Department and unknown to this Commission

-           On the institution past behavior, it is only reasonable to expect that the neighborhood and the public at large, would be skeptical of their future behaviors

-           Urge Commission to schedule a public hearing, so the Smith Kettlewell master plan can be heard, evaluated for appropriateness and determined that are true and effective means for enforcement that would be put in place.

-           People who brought this issue to your attention, needs to participate in the process

(-)Ian Berke

-           35 years ago Kettelwell was giving permission to build an enormous out scale ugly concrete building on a handsome residential block

-           One of the conditions was not to expand in further north from this building

-           No content with these institutions began to buy five more Victorian houses, all in the City's first designated historic district.

-           The neighborhood curious, why these houses were deteriorating, discovered that these houses were using for offices and housing

-           Neighbors organized and petitioned the Planning Department, who ordered this institution to stop this usage and submit an abbreviated master plan

-           Master Plan is very abbreviated; it is conspicuous for what it does not say.

-           This is organization that has a long history or arrogance and duplicity

-           If you think his characterization of them as arrogant is exaggerated, consider that the appealing the Planning Department requirements that seize the illegal use of one this building, it is at the Board of Appeals right now.

-           This organization has a huge impact in the surrounding neighborhood and literally affect hundreds of people

-           Urge Commission to schedule a public hearing

(-) Ruth Poole, Chief Operating Officer at Smith Kettlewell Institute

- Sad that the neighborhood feel the way that they do

- We have tried to have a good harmony with neighborhood and hid anything from the neighborhood or the Planning Commission

- Renovated the building on Webster Street

- No intention of these buildings been thorn down

-           We have done everything that has been possible

-           Urge the Commission to approve their master plan

(-) Donald Langley

-           Since them abbreviate the General Plan is not a plan at all, does not show clue to the institute future, its development, its use of existing houses or its intention regarding other houses in the area

-           A full must held to learn what this institute is going to do

- They had fixed the houses after pressure from the neighbors

- There is a notice of violation regarding meeting at Board of Permit Appeals

- Notice was received a day before the deadline

- Suggest enforcing restrictions

- This a friendly neighborhoods

- All the houses have been converted into offices

(-) Beverly McCallister

1996 when the Planning Commission allowed this institute to build this concrete research building, stated that shouldn't be not further north structural expansion or the in hospital related activities, because the fragile nature of the historic nature surrounded, They expanded north anyway.

- Violated the Planning Code

- This is a historic district

- Request a full hearing, due to neighbors no knowing how this institution planning to use this buildings

(-) John Sanger, Sanger and Olson

- Speaking on behalf of the Institute

- Institute has done everything that had been required by the Zoning Administrator

-           Institute would go by the Planning Code and the Building Code as a been interpreted by the Zoning Administrator

-           The only reason anything is on appeal to the Board of Permit Appeals is because we can not determine what more is to be done with respect to outstanding notice of violation

-           Despite the fact every building on Webster Street has been vacated and the institute master plan has committed that they would in the future be occupy for residential purposes in accordance with Planning Code is still an outstanding notice of violation

-           ZA indicated that would like to withdrawn the appeal, if someone is send to inspect to determine that compliances have been achieved.

-           Allegations that have made regarding the institute to disrespect for the neighborhood are really outrageous, this like re-living the hearing that occurred before the Commission in 1961.

(-) John Barbey

-           We have difficulty of enforcement from the Planning Department and Landmarks Board

- There is not budget for enforcement

- This obviously illustrate the vulnerability of an historic district in San Francisco

This institute has been very disingenuous

- Offices are not residential uses

-           They have to re-establish the confidence of the public that they are going to be good neighbors

- We should hold a full hearing

ACTION: Full Hearing on 5/1/7/01

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

MOTION NO.: 16130

 

17. 2000.407Z (J. LAU: 558-6383)

INNER SUNSET NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT MAP AMENDMENT -Consideration of a draft resolution recommending amendments to the Zoning Map to reclassify thirty-five commercial parcels in the vicinity of Irving Street between 5th Avenue and 19th Avenue from current Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District (NC-2) to Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD), and to reclassify one commercial parcel from current Inner Sunset NCD Zoning to NC-2.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

MOTION NO.: 16131

 

18. 1999.210E (BLOMGREN: 558-5979)

3620 ‑ 19th STREET - within the block bound by 18th Street, Guerrero Street, 19th Street and Oakwood Street, Assessor's Block 3587, Lots 18, 68, and 70. Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. Proposed new construction of five two‑, three‑, and four‑story buildings containing a total of 43 dwelling units. The site currently has a 32-space parking lot, which is accessed by a gate on Oakwood and a facade of an industrial building at the 3620 19th Street frontage, which would be demolished. The new buildings would reach a maximum height of 40 feet in a 40‑X height/bulk district. Lots 68 and 70 are located in a RH‑2 (Residential House, Two‑Family) zoning district. Lot 18 is located in a RH‑3 (Residential House, Three‑Family) zoning district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) John Barbey

- Many years a proposal half the size of this one was rejected

- In emergencies it will be a very difficult street to access

- Architect presented complete revised plans

- Very small cosmetics changes were made

- Concerned regarding safety

- Seismically this building has not been refurbish

- This will be very dangerous

(-) Cynthia Arnold

-           Lived in the are since 1988

-           Sidewalk have been parking lots

-           Sunday two inner lanes, are used as parking lot

-           During Summer our neighborhood is bombarded with a lots traffic

-           Building on Oakwood Street, will contain to her knowledge 8 two bedroom units

There are only 8 parking spaces available

-           Allow the same parking spaces as the same of apartments buildings

-           Negative Declaration says that traffic is horrible

-           It is disrespectful and insulting to the neighbors

-           Support housing, but this project is not a good idea to our neighborhood

-           Size of this building should be decrease

(-) Nick Pasquariello

-           Lived in the area since 1979

-           Only the southern portion of it was able to build on this model, it shows what it is proposed to be build

-           Formerly on this lot was a warehouse, it walls were 14 feet high, this warehouse was there for 70 years, and this whole neigborhood was built around it.

-           There was no zoning during those years

-           When this warehouse was put there, it was put there with the sense that there were livable units, in the west side of this building on Guerrero St.

-           This proposed building will block the light coming into his apartment

(-) Ginny Pryor

-           Lived right across from the proposed project

-           Unbelievable that they will bring a 100 people to live in this neighborhood when is already overcrowded

-           There won't be any green space available,

-           Fire engine could no access this street

(-) Richard Illig

-           Urge to look the proportional and negative consequence that this project would have on his surroundings and vote against as it stand

-           The consequences that this project would have in this residential are phenomenal

-           Instead of two comparable house of single block 140 and 144 units we would have two very lot sided house 183 and 144 units

-           We would a very limited open space

-           Urge to vote against this project

-           Developer should reduce the number of units to something truly in keeping with its urban context.

(-) Adam Klein

-           Hydro Geologist with 15 years of experience

-           Former neighbor of the proposed project

-           Deficiencies in the site mitigation plan

-           Thank the Department of Public Health for scrutiny that they applied to this project, specially in consideration of the sensitive nature of this development

-           Lacks a certain amount of specificity in particular with respect to the analysis that are proposed

-           Previous analysis at the site did not include analysis for the most toxics components associated with petroleum hydro carbons which are the type of contaminants that have detected at the site

-           The mitigation plan does not include provisions to monitor dust during construction, would recommend putting three mini ramp devices, these aerosol monitoring devices up around the perimeter of the site, to ensure that residents are not exposed to dust or potential hazards quimical at an unacceptable concentration

-           The site mitigation plan indicate the soil sampling plan would be submitted, once the building design is complete, he believes, that this is inappropriate, the soil sampling should be incorporated as a part of the site mitigation plan

- Concerned about the mismanagement of the soil

(-) Dallas Haynes

-           Concerned about the mechanical exhaust and make up air ventilation fence and system, that will house on the top of the gateway building on 19th Street

-           Fans of these nature produce a lots noise

-           It is difficult to find an engineering solution

-           Giving the system would be a carbonixide sensor it should be assume that can kick anytime during a 24 hours period

-           Commission should require that noise level should be far below that maximum levels allow

-           All materials, debris boxes, construction vehicles, should be kept of sidewalks, and have our weekends free of construction

(+) Michael Stanton, Architect

- Addressing specifically the issues that were raised during the appealing, the emergency access is been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and the Department is in received of a letter from him concurrent with the appropriateness emergency vehicle access

-           Ventilation of the garage is under study, the information we has is that the carbonmonixed sensor will in fact will keep the fan off most of the time

-           Model that the appellant shows here, has the bldg., On 19th Street on a location has no longer in, it had shifted 20 feet to the west to address the specific concern of light and air to the building on the back

 

ACTION: Upheld Preliminary Negative Declaration

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

MOTION NO.: 16132

19. 1999.210C (PURVIS: 558-6354)

3620 - 19TH STREET - north side between Oakwood and Guerrero Streets, a through lot with frontage on Oakwood Street; Lots 18, 68 & 70 in Assessor's Block 3587. Request for Conditional-Use Approval under Planning Code Section 304 to develop an up to 43-unit residential PUD (Planned Unit Development), with exceptions from the rear yard requirements of Section 134 and density standards of Section 209.1(g) & (h), within an RH-2 (Residential, House, 2-Family) Zoning District and an RH-3 (Residential, House, 3-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Michael Stanton, Architect

- Gave an overall description of the building

(-) Patricia Kenney

- Preservation of the character and flavor of the neighborhood

- Their neighborhood stopped the demolition of one the building in the area

- Point out that they had tried to have a quality life

- Developers didn't take in consideration any of the neighbors concerns

(-) Leslie Chin

- This development is too large

- Would cause a impact in privacy

- There is not yard space

- Obstructing with the quality of our neighborhood

- If this developer could consider scaling down this building

(-) Eileen Gold

- On 19th Street block has a total 29 homes owners

-           We would like to retain the stability of the neighborhood

Proposed project would have a destabilizing impact because of the density and the number of bedroom

- There is a lots traffic on Guerrero Street, that had a lots of drug traffic

- This property has a history of no compliances

(+) Jim Chappel

- Lived in Guerrero Street

- There is tremendous shortage of housing

- Commended the Commission for been very responsible

- This site is ideal

- It is accessible to public transportation

- This is one the most valuable neighborhoods in San Francisco

- Density is very appropriate for this infield site

- Support parks, open space

(-) Steve Secret

- Strongly urge no to approve this project

- Concerned about the number of houses to be build

- Creation of parking structures

- The excessive number of housing units that not conform to the PC

- Would increase noise, traffic a lots of lights for the neighbors

- This is a monster construction

- Improper parking garage

- Parking structure of this size, is not appropriate for this neighborhood

- Concerned about fume, exhaust, noise, etc.

Proposed design no way conform with incomparability of building façade according with the Planning Code, the plan unit should only be approve if offers an outstanding design compliment ting to the design and values of the surround neighborhood

-           It totally out of character with the neighborhood

- It should be approve with out substantial modifications

(+) Ron Miguel

- Referred to a letter of support for the project sent by the Housing Coalition

- It had made a creative use of this very unusual infill site

- Maintain itself within reasonable density for this City

- It is ideal as far as density and public transportation

-           Neighbors do not need more parking spaces

-           Urge Architect and Developer to work closely with the neighborhood

-                Regret that has not been a landscape plan submitted at this point, and think that it is very important aspect of it

(-) Laura Haynes

-           Read a letter of opposition to the Commission

(+) Ray Sharpateer

-                16 year resident of the community

-                Discuss the issue of great level at the interior mid-block of the proposed site

-                The great level slope down to 19th or 18th Street and nearly 5 feet above the adjacent property at the mid block level

-                The height of the proposed structures is already taller than any of the structures that they are going to block.

- Would create a great loss of light

- In addition of loss of privacy

- There would be lots of noise

- This a long time residents area

- Project is too big, needs to scale down

(+) Joel Luke

- No financial or professional benefit

- His interest is that all people has a quality living

- Community that he loves and cherishes

- Community character should be saved

- Closely community that cares about the neighborhood

- Density is a form quality well plan residences, which has the potential to enhance this community

- Density of this development is less than other developments, which faced initial opposition, and ultimately become assets to the community

- This industrial site is currently a scar on a beautiful neighborhood

(+) Steve Nicholson-

-                Take in consideration as you deliver on this, and if in fact, a Planning Commission in the City shows to denied a project significantly smaller than this in 1979, there had to be some good reasons

- Project needs to be scale down

(-) John Barbey

-           Lived on Liberty Street, 2 blocks away from the proposed project for 17 years

- Do not think that a former non compliance use, should be use like this cottage houses, there are several of them, that were made into residential units should be use as an excuse to introduce new non compliance structures into the mid block.

- These houses were built before there was any zoning

- There is not open space, it is very minimal

-                This do not seems a fair argument for introducing these houses, there are huge density

(-) Nick Pascoriello

- Lived in the area for 20 years

- There is a section in the Planning Code that say that is the obligation of the City to protect the affordable housing

- Project has to be scale back

-                This would be cause of a terrible impact to this neighborhood

- Architect has little sensitivity in accommodating the concerns of the neighborhood

(-) Jan Newfield

- Our building's windows would be blocked

(-) David Ball

- Feel this project as proposed is unsuitable

- Do not approve this project

- Density proposed will have an adverse effect in the environment we are residing - - Some of the areas most concerns is the emergency access path

- How people would move into this proposed building

- Height is out the context with its neighboring buildings

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

MOTION NO.: 16133

20a. 2000.1268XCV (LIGHT: 558-6254)

663-665 SUTTER STREET - south side between Mason and Taylor Streets, Lot 11, in Assessor’s Block 297. Request under Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Code) for Determinations of Compliance and Exceptions, including an exception for a building exceeding 80 feet in a 80-130-F District (Section 263.8), and an exception to the bulk limit (Section 270) for a new building in a C-3-G District (Section 138). The proposal is to build an 88’-0" high, 10-level (3 below grade, 7 above grade) structure containing a total of 92,380 square feet, including 212 parking spaces, and approximately 41,880 square feet of recreation space (swimming pool, gymnasium, and women’s locker room facilities) that will connect to the rear of the existing Olympic Club which faces on Post Street.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

(+) Bob McCarthy

-           The site is a garage that was built in 1939

-           In order to make accommodations for the changes in demographic, the real heart and soul of this proposed site is preserving the parking, it is really to accommodate that dynamic

-           Creates a code compliance structure

-           Comparable design

-           Now provides off street loading

-           Its is pedestrian friendly

-           Donating $60,000 to the Open Space Fund

John C. Davis, Principal Architect

- Gave a description of the project

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

MOTION NO.: 16134

 

20b. 2000.1268XCV (LIGHT: 558-6254)

663-665 SUTTER STREET - south side between Mason and Taylor Streets, Lot 11 in Assessor’s Block 297. Request for a Conditional-Use Authorization for a parking garage in a C-3-G District (Section 223(n)). See description in item (a) above. The proposal is to build an 88’-0" high, 10-level (3 below grade, 7 above grade) structure containing a total of 92,380 square feet, including 212 parking spaces, and approximately 41,880 square feet of recreation space (swimming pool, gymnasium, and women’s locker room facilities) that will connect to the rear of the existing Olympic Club which faces on Post Street.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

MOTION NO.: 16135

 

20c. 2000.1268XCV (LIGHT: 558-6254)

663-665 SUTTER STREET - south side between Mason and Taylor Streets, Lot 11 in Assessor’s Block 297. Request for a variance from the open space requirements for a new building in a C-3-G District (Section 138). The applicant does not propose any public open space for this project and would like to make an in-lieu payment to the open space fund. See description in item (a) above. The proposal is to build an 88’-0" high, 10 level (3 below grade, 7 above grade) structure containing a total of 92,380 square feet, including 212 parking spaces, and approximately 41,880 square feet of recreation space (swimming pool, gymnasium, and women’s locker room facilities) that will connect to the rear of the existing Olympic Club which faces on Post Street.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

 

ITEM # 21 TAKEN OUT OF ORDER FOLLOWED ITEM #13

 

21. 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, increasing the floor-to-ceiling height of the ground floor by 6'-6 and the overall height of the building from 32'-0 to approximately 38'-6 , extending the ground floor to the rear property line, and modifying the façade of the building, requiring Conditional-Use Authorization per Section 215(a) of the Planning Code. No change in the number of dwelling units is proposed. The project is located in a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District and a Mixed-Use Housing Zone, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved as amended

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

MOTION NO.: 16128

 

22. 2001.0034C (WOLOSHYN: 558-6612)

1290 CHESTNUT STREET - north side at northeast corner of Van Ness Avenue, Lot 011 in Assessor’s Block 0478. Request for Conditional-Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 209.8(d) to allow office use above the ground story in an RC (Residential-Commercial Combined) District. The proposal is to alter an existing three-story office building (currently 30 feet in height) by adding a new fourth story to contain 262 square feet of office space resulting in a new height of 40 feet. The total net increase in floor area is 48 square feet. The subject property is located in an RC-3 (Residential-Commercial Combined, Medium Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S):

 

Project Architect

Description of the project

(-) Don Shepard

- Concerned about commercialization of the neighborhood

- More offices, there will be more traffic

- There is a lot of illegal parking

- Lost of light into their bedroom

(-) Julie Shepard

- Comercial intensification of the neighborhood

- Major part of this project would in our side of their building

- Height of the project

- Parking is horrible problem in this part of town

- A lots people park on the sidewalks

- Air and light is the major concerns

(-) Madeline Camisa

- Long time resident of this neighborhood

- Improvement of this particular property is out of proportion

- It is the only commercial property on this block

- Brings down the character of the neighborhood

 

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe,

NAYES: Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

MOTION NO. 16136

 

23a. 2000.264CD (MARTIN: 558-6616)

1087 MISSISSIPPI STREET - east side, between 23rd and 25th Streets, Lot 049 in Assessor’s Block 4224. Request for a Conditional-Use Authorization to allow the construction of two dwelling units in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and the Industrial Protection Zone Buffer, per Planning Code Section 215(a) and Planning Commission Resolution No. 14861, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued to 4/19/01

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

At Approximately 6:46 p.m. the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

 

23b. 2000.264CD (MARTIN: 558-6616)

1087 MISSISSIPPI STREET - east side between 23rd and 25th Streets, Lot 049 in Assessor’s Block 4224. Staff-initiated request for Discretionary Review for the demolition of an existing, vacant industrial building and construction of housing and space for production, distribution and repair businesses in an existing industrial building space in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and the Industrial Protection Zone Buffer per Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 14861 and 16079; and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. NOTE: This project was previously noticed on February 8, 2001, and has since been modified. The previous notice stated that the ground and second stories would be occupied by office space.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued to 4/9/01

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

24. 2000.1047D (SMITH: 558-6322)

4023-4025 – 25TH STREET - south side of the street between Noe and Sanchez Streets, Lot 040 in Assessor's Block 6548. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/11/08/5161 proposing to merge Units 4023 and 4025 in order to reduce the number of dwelling units in the building from two to one in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 8, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S):

Patrick Avanan, Property Owner

- Nice neighborhood that would like to raise his family in it

- Loves the sunlight and the beautiful weather of the area

- Worked hard and saved money to be able to become a property owner, and now it seems that this is going to be taken away

Bill Patchan, Project Architect

- Gave a description about the project

-

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe,

NAYES: Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

25. 1999.811D (PUTRA: 558-6233)

1660 MISSION STREET - west side between South Van Ness Avenue and Thirteenth Street, lots 5 and 6 in Assessor’s Block 3512. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000 0515 0033, to construct a six-story above grade level, approximately 76-feet-tall addition with 25,365 gross square feet of office and 5,073 square feet of parking at grade level. This is an addition to the existing 92,000-gross-square-foot city office building, of which 22,610 square feet are in an underground garage, in a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District; and a 105-J Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued to 5/3/01

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

26. 2000.657D (MEHRA: 558-6257)

2531-33 BAKER STREET - west side between Vallejo and Green Streets, Lot 004 in Assessor’s Block 0956. Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/01/28/559 proposing to alter the existing building containing two dwelling units by adding a horizontal extension towards the front of the lot, and by merging the two dwelling units into one 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 application as revised.

Note: On March 22, 2001, after public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing. The Commission voted to continue this matter to April 5, 2001 by a vote of +6 –0, in order for staff to provide the following information: 1) date the building was built; 2) what was the original use; 3) what do the plans look like now that the neighbors have signed off; 4) what is the current condition of the building; 5) what are the practical implications of approving an expansion of the building envelope to make it a conforming, noncomplying use.

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe,

NAYES: Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

27. 2001.0153D (JONES: 558-6477)

160 YERBA BUENA/166 YERBA BUENA - south side between Santa Paula Avenue and Maywood Drive, adjusted lots 38, and 37 (was lot 8 and 7) for Assessor’s Block 3078. Request for Discretionary Review on Building Permits Applications 2001/11/17/9921 and 2001/01/17/9957. Both permits are for the construction of a driveway and a retaining wall on two separate lots in an RH-1(D) (One-Family Detached Dwelling) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District

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

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Terry Norenberg, DR requestor

-           Speaking on behalf of the home owners in San Francis Woods

- Live two streets away from the project

-           There is obviously a significant real estate development on the way

-           This will have an effect on the home owners of the Association

-           Asked for a full review of the project

-           This is strictly a property development matter

-           Project is situated in a steep hill side made out of pour soil

-           Only access to the site is on Yerba Buena Avenue, and it is already heavily over traffic local street

-           Permit is been contested provide for the building of a road way , which will sit in an unsafe distance from the residential house, and because it will facilitate the over building on the site

-           This is a crucial point on the project, if the site has 55 foot access road, which currently does, it could be develop in a less dense degree if it has the 21 foot exit road

-           Drawings submitted showed that the lot was been subdivided

-           No notice was given to the neighborhood

-           A wall was been build without permit

-           We must anticipate that the lot must not be saleable considering the conditions of the hill side

(+) Michael Acrobado, Project Sponsor

-           Lived at 160 Yerba Buena

-           Had a battle going on with the Home Owners Association pertaining to the driveway and light pillar that was situated in an area that is hazards for coming in and out of our driveway

-           Board of Supervisors, and Public Works unanimously voted that this voted had to be removed

-           Got support from over 100 home owners from the neighborhood

-           Some property owners in the neighborhood combined their driveways so that they can easy access to their garage

(+) Mike Donbraski

-           We are not asking for rights that any other neighbor in the area

-           This is safety issue

-           Our garage is at the foot of the that driveway, it is literally impossible to get into our garage, we had to do a five to a seven point turn every time we want to get out

-           Moving the wall over and widen the driveway it widens the radius of getting in and out the driveway

-           We feel that this is not inconveniencing anybody

(+) Peter Straton

- Supports project

(+) Milton Honeywood

- Supports project-

 

 

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: Fay

 

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

Adjournment: 7: 45

 

THE DRAFT MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2001.


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