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

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

April 26, 2001

April 26, 2001

 

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION


Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, April 26, 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 1:48 p.m.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green, Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Daniel Pulon; Pedro Arce; Kelley LeBlanc; Rick Crawford; Judy Martin; Michael Li; Susan Snyder; Thomas Wang; Augustine Fallay; Craig Nikitas; Dario Jones; Nora Priego, Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery, Commission Secretary

 

 

A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

1. 1998.927C (WONG: 558-6381)

40 Woodward Street - west side between Dubose and 14th Streets, Lot 048 in Assessor’s Block 3532. Request for Conditional-Use Authorization to renew a nonconforming use (storage warehouse) under Planning Code Section 185 in a RM-1 (Residential, Mixed) Zoning and a 50-X Height/Bulk District. No construction, alteration, expansion of the existing building or use is proposed.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for continuance to May 10, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 10, 2001

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


 

2. 2000.1061E (WYCKO: 558-5972)

400 Paul Avenue - bounded by Paul Avenue, Third Street, Bayshore Boulevard and railroad spur track, Lot 14 of Assessor's Block 5431A. The proposal is an Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration for the demolition of an existing, 40-foot-high warehouse/distribution building, which totals approximately 89,400 gross square feet to be replaced by a newly constructed 65-foot-high structure with 339,300 gross square feet of space for Internet and telecommunication equipment and 155 off-street parking spaces. The proposed facilities would be warehouses for telecommunication switches and operational equipment that provides data services to Internet users. The proposed project is an allowed use within M-1 District and is situated within an Industrial Protection Zone.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 12, 2001)

(Proposed for continuance to May 17, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 17, 2001

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

 

3. 2000.1061C (MARTIN: 558-6616)

400 PAUL AVENUE - north side between Third Street and Bayshore Boulevard, Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 5431A. Request for a Conditional-Use Authorization to demolish an existing industrial building which has not been vacant for more than fifteen months, in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and the Industrial Protection Zone, per Planning Commission Resolution No. 14861 and a 65-J Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 12, 2001)

(Proposed for continuance to May 24, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 24, 2001

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

 

4. 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 April 5, 2001)

(Proposed for continuance to May 24, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 24, 2001

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


 

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

5. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of March 15, 2001

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved as revised

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

 

NOTE: CANCELLATION OF MAY 3, 2001 HEARING

 

ACTION: Hearing cancelled at the call of the chair.

 

6. Commission Matters

Commissioner Theoharis: She received a letter from the Union Square Business Improvement District. There have been a lot of complaints about a mesh signage at the construction site of the French Connection (Ellis and Powell). She would like to know if the mesh is there as signage or to protect the public from the construction. She would like to have a report at the May 10, 2001 hearing. There is also a trademark issue but this is not part of the jurisdiction of the Commission.

 

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

 

7. Director's Announcements

- Congratulated Mr. Pedro Arce on his retirement and acknowledged his contributions to the Planning Department.

 

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

BOS

- Supervisor McGoldrick, at a past hearing, suggested that a hearing be held at the Land Use Committee on residential design guidelines. The Planning Director and the Zoning Administrator will attend this hearing. If there are any items that the Commissioners would like the Planning Director to include, please let him know.

 

BOA - None

 

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

 

9. (ARCE: 558-6332)

COW HOLLOW NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN GUIDELINES – Public Hearing and consideration of adoption of design guidelines for the Cow Hollow Neighborhood.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Brooke Sampson

- It has been a pleasure to work with Mr. Arce.

- The Cow Hollow Association is in full support of the guidelines. There are many people here from the neighborhood that are in support of the guidelines.

- The guidelines have been modified by the suggestion of the Planning Department.

- She thanked Commissioner Theoharis for working so hard in organizing neighborhoods to develop guidelines.

- She thanked many of the department staff that has been so helpful and supportive of this undertaking.

 

(+) Charlotte Maeck

- She has been involved with neighborhood zoning for about 40 years.

- She thanks the Commission and the department for their support of this proposal.

- She hopes that this will come to fruition this evening.

- She remembers when Commissioner Theoharis was actively working with neighborhoods.

ACTION: Guidelines Adopted adding the following clause from the Zoning Administrator:  not only available for purchase to prospective purchaser and/or developers, but to residents, owners and the general public.

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

RESOLUTION No. 16147

10. 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 sf, 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S):

Comments on Continuance:

Andrew Junius

- Ms. Hestor has requested a continuance based on the fact that she did not receive a case report. Ms. Hestor is aware that the material is available at the Planning Department a week before the hearing. She could have also called the planner and asked for a case report.

- They are not in agreement to the continuance.

Sue Hestor

- The parties are supposed to be mailed a brief.

- This is sloppy work from the planner

- She is ready to have the hearing since the item will not be continued.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Sue Hestor – Appellant (representing various Tenderloin residents)

- One of the biggest problems is the way staff summarized their issues.

- The issues are that when there are loading activities not only is the parking lane occupied but also the traffic lane--either because there are vehicles double-parked or because there are items being brought into the theatre.

- There is a lost traffic lane on the east side of Taylor Street.

- When people get off the freeway and go down 6th Street towards Market, because it's a strange intersection, there are many cars that are involved.

- There is a big jumble of traffic mess.

- All they are asking is for staff to do an analysis of traffic on Turk Street.

- They want an honest analysis of the traffic patterns.

(-) David Baker

- He is a long time resident of the Tenderloin. He lives a block from the proposed site.

- This area has suffered from traffic problems for many years.

- There should be an analysis done of what counts and what is important: is it pedestrians, the public, etc.

- He is not asking much. An entrance on Turk Street instead of an entrance on Taylor Street should be considered.

(-) Brother Collins

- There is a lot of chaos on Taylor Street.

- During the mornings, there are cars double-parked at a grocery store. The Orpheum Theatre has traffic that double parks as well.

- He sometimes has to jaywalk because of so much traffic.

- He is not in disagreement of the project. He would just like to have a traffic analysis done or just have the entrance moved. The design could be improved as well.

- He challenges the parking study. He has been living and working in the neighborhood for many years and the results of the study are not what he sees.

- His organization has had to find parking for their six cars, which becomes quite difficult. St. Anthony's Foundation has had to look for parking of their four cars as well.

(-) Ernestine Weiss

- She travels on the No. 33 bus. The streets in the neighborhood are not wide and they are very dangerous.

- She would like to have the entrance of this building on Turk Street.

- Parking garages should be built underground.

(+) Andrew Junius – Reuben and Alter – Representative of Project Sponsor

- The negative declaration was based on the requirements of CEQA.

- The project has no significant effects on the environment.

- CEQA requires that a project be focused on the project. None of the statements made at this hearing have to do with the environment.

- The Turk Street entrance would cause more significant problems.

- The impacts on the project state that the transportation studies during peak hours are worse.

- He spoke to one of the managers of the Orpheum Theatre and also looked in the Pink Section of the Chronicle and in the next month there will only be 5 shows at the theatre. When an analysis could be done is not certain since there will not be many shows in the next month.

- He is available for questions.

ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld

AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Salinas, Theoharis

NAYES: Joe

MOTION No: 16148

 

11a. 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: Approval with conditions

(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 two stories and 9,500 square feet of office space by request of applicant.)

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2001)

 

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Jim Reuben – Reuben and Alter – Representing Project Sponsor

- This is a construction of an office building being built where it should be.

- The developer is the same developer of 235 Second Street.

(+) Jim Tanner – Project Architect

- He has been working for a project on this site for many years.

- They have been asked by new clients to design a new building.

- The building is an interface from the financial district to the South of Market Area.

- He described all materials used for the building and displayed a rendering of the proposed building.

- There will be a landscaped area.

- 21,000 square feet of open space will be available.

- There is a location for public art as well.

- The south elevation of the building is the one that most concerns him. There is a four-hour firewall.

- The Second Street view is of concern to the neighbors.

- They tried to use a lot of glass.

- They tried to make a small building have a vertical emphasis and compatibility with neighboring buildings.

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION No: 16149

 

11b. 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: Approval with conditions

(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 two stories and 9,500 square feet of office space by request of applicant.)

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2001)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 11a.

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION No: 16150

 

12. 2000.613XC (CRAWFORD: 558-6358)

425 BATTERY STREET (aka 418 CLAY STREET) (BATTERY STREET HOTEL) - Assessor’s Block 206 Lots 003, 004, 005, west side of Battery Street between Clay Street and Merchant Street. Request under Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Code) for Determination of Compliance, and for exceptions as provided under Section 309.a to (1) allow no tour bus loading space where one such space is required and to (2) allow no setback from the interior property lines above the 90-foot building base where a 15-foot setback is required. This project lies within a C-3-O (Downtown, Office) District and within a 200-S Height and Bulk District. The project will demolish three existing mixed-use office/retail buildings and construct an eleven-story hotel with up to 348 rooms and ground-floor retail.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

Note: On April 12, 2001, following public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing. A motion of intent to approve failed to carry by a vote +3 –1. Commissioner Chinchilla voted no. Commissioners Fay and Joe were absent. The matter was continued to April 26, 2001, by a vote +4 –0. Commissioners Fay and Joe were absent.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Jim Reuben – Reuben and Alter – Representing Project Sponsor

- He recalls that the public hearing is closed except for the open space.

- He heard the Commission's concerns and talked to representatives of the Chinatown Economic Development Group.

- They have spent some time upgrading the rooftop open space recognizing that it's highly unlikely that they will build this open space if the variance is not granted.

- He is available to show photos of this open space to the Commission.

(-) Ernestine Weiss

- Their neighbors, Golden Gateway Center, never received notice of this hotel going up. Several members passed by the Yank Sing restaurant and saw a notice that a hearing had been held. These members were not able to come to that hearing since they did not know about it.

- There is an over supply of hotels, the economy is down so there is no need for a hotel at this time. Housing, housing, housing is the most important issue now.

- We do not need that many hotel rooms.

- People should be notified of huge developments.

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION No: 16151

 

13. 2000.277XC (CRAWFORD: 558-6358)

425-427 BATTERY STREET (aka 418 CLAY STREET) (BATTERY STREET HOTEL) - Assessor’s Block 206 Lots 003, 004, 005, west side of Battery Street between Clay Street and Merchant Street. Request under Planning Code Section 219.b.ii for a hotel with up to 348 rooms. This project lies within a C-3-O (Downtown, Office) District and within a 200-S Height and Bulk District. The project will demolish three existing mixed-use office/retail buildings and construct an eleven story hotel with up to 348 rooms and ground-floor retail.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

Note: On April 12, 2001, following public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing. A motion of intent to approve failed to carry by a vote +3 –1. Commissioner Chinchilla voted no. Commissioners Fay and Joe were absent. The matter was continued to April 26, 2001 by a vote +4 –0. Commissioners Fay and Joe were absent.

 

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 12.

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION No: 16152

 

14. 2000.1232C (MARTIN: 558-6616)

435 Harriet Street - east side between Brannan and Townsend Streets, Lot 077, Assessor’s Block 3784. Request for Conditional-Use Authorization under Section 817.73 of the Planning Code to install a total of three (3) panel antennae to be mounted inside the top of a new flagpole to be located at the north corner of the existing building, with the base transceiver station to be located on a platform to be screened within the building, as part of a wireless communication network in an SLI (Service/Light Industrial) Zoning District and 50-X Height and Bulk District. The Project Site meets Location Preference Number 4 (Preferred Location Site) of the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, as it is within an industrial structure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Robert Krebs – Representing Project Sponsor

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

- Three antennas would be installed in a flagpole and screened from view.

- This is an important site to provide better service for this area.

- They looked at other locations but none were feasible. Many sites were vacant sites and it would not be appropriate to just have a flagpole on a vacant site.

- A community meeting was held and no one attended the meeting. The notice for the meeting was sent out to various residents and property owners in various languages.

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION No: 16153

 

15. 2001.0180C (LI: 558-6396)

601-603 LARKIN STREET - northwest corner at Eddy Street; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0740. Request for Conditional-Use Authorization pursuant to Section 249.5(d)(4)(C) of the Planning Code to establish a retail liquor store within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District, and an 80-T Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to allow Fox Liquors to move from its current location at 581-585 Eddy Street (aka 570 Larkin Street).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Alias (last name unclear)

- He is just trying to relocate his liquor store.

- The size of his liquor store will be reduced yet everything will remain the same.

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION No: 16154

 

E. SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

 

At Approximately 3:30 p.m. the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

 

16. 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 April 5, 2001)

NOTE: On April 19, 2001, following public testimony, the Commission closed Public Hearing and continued the matter to April 26, 2001, to explore alternative parking solutions. Public Hearing will be open to address this issue only.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) David Silverman – Reuben and Alter – Representing Project Sponsor

- He submitted revised parking information.

- He is available for questions.

(-) Max Schmeder

- He has been living on this block since 1981.

- The one-story project will create a lot of traffic problems.

- The concerns they have are regarding expanding--adding spaces to the plan. He referenced a diagram of the parking issue.

- The spaces are not big enough and there aren't enough of them.

- Under regulations, businesses have overnight caretakers. If they moved into these units it would become a residential building and would still cause parking problems.

- A four-unit residential building should be considered.

(-) Dick Millet – Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association

- The attorney for the project sponsor sent him the revised parking information. At first he didn't have a problem but now he does.

- Parking does not work. It will be difficult to get a car in and cars out.

- He recommends taking a bathroom and moving it next to the men's bathroom and moving the wet bar into the office. This would give five more feet.

(-) Elena Myers

- One of the very large businesses on the block has created a lot of problems because they have huge trucks coming and going.

- They have acknowledged that this is a residential neighborhood.

- The Commission needs to look at this as a residential project.

- There are already lofts on the block.

- This project needs to have four parking spaces. There aren't enough street spaces to accommodate all the cars.

- Two cars per unit should be considered.

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 16155

 

17. 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 for hearing on February 22, 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 and approve the project as proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2001)

NOTE: On April 19, 2001, following public testimony, the Commission closed Public Hearing and continued the matter to April 26, 2001, to explore alternative parking solutions. Public Hearing will be open to address this issue only.

 

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 16.

ACTION: Take DR and approve project with the following amendments: move women's bathroom next to the men's bathroom and move the wet bar into the office.

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

 

18. 2001.0206D (S. SNYDER: 558-6543)

754 GATES STREET - last lot on the west side of Gates Street, south of the intersection of Gates Street and Crescent Avenue, on Lot 14 of Assessor’s Block 5813, requesting Discretionary Review on an application proposing to construct a new single-family dwelling on a vacant lot in an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and within the Bernal Heights South Slope Study Area. Subject to mandatory Discretionary Review per Planning Commission Resolution 14973.

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

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Do not take DR and approve project as submitted

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

 

19. 2000.734D (WANG: 558-6335)

255 SAN MARCOS AVENUE - south side on the west of Santa Rita Avenue; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 2882. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/08/22/8494. The proposal is to demolish an existing attached garage and a portion of the current dwelling and construct a new attached garage and a second floor vertical addition, at the existing two-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwellings) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Harold Wright – Forest Hill Neighborhood Association (FHNA)

- There are new homes and extensive additions without any problems.

- Many of the better homes are built on large lots.

- This is the first time that anyone would like to demolish his or her home to subdivide the lot.

- They wouldn't object to a subdivision of a vacant lot. They are opposed to demolishing a home just for subdividing a lot.

- Since the lot is steep the back yard is unusable.

- The current owners have not maintained the house for 14 years. The paint is peeling and the garden is uncared for.

- The owners want to demolish the most interesting part of the front façade.

- The garage is proposed to be moved and subdivide the house at the left side of a gate.

- The owners have conveniently decided that only the left side of the house is architecturally significant.

- Their directors (FHNA) voted to not approve the demolition but construct an addition to the house instead.

- There are not that many neighbors that approve the demolition. They would rather have the house preserved.

(-) Kay Yanemoto – Secretary of the Forest Hill Neighborhood Association

- She strongly opposes the demolition of this house.

- The organization has held public meetings and everyone was invited to attend.

- This project is bad for Forest Hill and she asks the Commission to oppose it.

(-) Gaile Robbins

- The traffic would be increased in the neighborhood since 2 homes will be added.

(-) Radolf Scott

- He lives on San Marcos Street.

- This street is a split-level street.

- He feels very strongly about preserving the character of the neighborhood.

- He was approached by Dr. Kelly soliciting his approval and endorsement of the project. Nowhere does it clearly state what the approach will be.

(-) Tom Grassof

- He is opposed to this project because it will increase traffic on the street since it is a small street.

 

(+) John Sanger – Sanger and Olsen – Representing Project Sponsor

- This project would demolish a large portion of the house and subdivide the lot.

- This opposition is only for the subdivision and not if the project follows the residential design guidelines.

- When the project sponsor purchased the home they were notified that there were two lots they were purchasing.

- The construction will be in conformance to the residential design guidelines and it will not cause blockage of light and air.

- There is no basis to take DR. There is nothing in any of the plan remodeling which will be in conflict with the residential design guidelines.

(+) Albert Lanier – Project Architect

- They have never had any problems with DR's and especially in Forest Hill.

- Various neighbors are in agreement with this home.

- The garage was severely damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

- The project sponsors really like the house.

- They intend to respect every design feature, which has been done.

- He would like the Commission to deny this Discretionary Review and approve the project.

(+) Dr. Kelly

- He and his wife own the house on San Marcos Street--which is the subject property.

- It is difficult for him to speak about the exaggerations of the Forest Hill Association.

- The lot was originally two lots.

- Has been waiting and waiting to receive notice from the neighborhood association to attend their meeting.

- He received a call from the Association and they stated that they had already met and were in disagreement with his project.

ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove Project

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

 

20. 2000.046D (FALLAY: 558-6367)

2147 29TH AVENUE - west side between Quintara and Rivera Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 2188. Request for Discretionary Review on Building Permit Application No. 9912564 requesting to allow construction of a third-story, vertical addition to an existing two-story, single-family dwelling located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District was denied. The Planning Commission, on January 11, 2001, took Discretionary Review and recommended to the Project Sponsor to construct a rear horizontal extension instead.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve horizontal extension in lieu of a vertical addition per Planning Commission's decision.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Michael Dolan

- He lives next door to the proposed construction.

- He passed out a letter from the FBI

- The Declaration of Independence reads that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

- If the proposed construction goes ahead, it would mean the devaluation of his property where he has lived for the past 42 years.

- He was not notified of the hearing in January.

- He submitted the letter he read to the Commission.

(+) Mr. Edwin Yuen

- He is here to follow guidelines from the previous hearing.

- The addition is up to code. He and the architect spoke to staff in order to know what is allowed by the code.

- They have lived in this house for three generations. It has been a long two years and hopes that it will end today.

(+) John Jay

- He owns a real estate company. He is here to speak in support of this proposal.

- Mr. Yuen has responded to the exact details of the proposal from the Commission.

- He hopes that the Commission will approve the project.

- This construction will create greater value to Mr. Dolan's property

(+) Michael Klestoff

- He lived on 27th Avenue for many years.

- He likes the area a lot.

- Mr. Yuen has shown courtesy and kindness to his neighbors and has tried to make more than a sufficient effort to mitigate the neighbors' concerns.

- He hopes the Commission won't put Mr. Yuen to more aggravation.

(+) Nelson Li

- He is 13 years old and shares the same room with his grandparents.

- He would like to have his own room.

(+) Jody Li

- She is the niece of Catherine Yuen and Edwin Yuen. She is here to speak on behalf of Susie Yen who is a neighbor that could not attend the hearing but wrote a letter in support of the project.

- She also hopes that the Commission approves the project.

(+) Betsy Ho

- She lives on 29th Avenue, one block from the proposed project.

- She is here to show support of the project and to her neighbors.

- As a property owner everyone has the right to build on his or her property.

(+) Roger Nottingham

- It is a really strange situation when a man originally wants to build in the back so he designs a tiny addition on top of his house and then the Commission approves to build in the back again.

- There has to be a limit to this and he hopes the Commission will approve the project.

(-) Jeff Rogers

- He lives next door to the proposed site.

- Previous speakers have stated that the extension is six feet. There are a lot of misunderstandings. The Yuen's house is already 50% larger than any of the other houses in the neighborhood.

- An addition is ok with the neighbors but a reasonable addition is all he asks for.

- A massive addition should not be allowed. If this addition is approved, they will go through the process of appeals.

(-) Steve Williams

- After the hearing in January of this year, he thought that they had an agreement.

- Jeff Rogers retained him some time ago.

- He wished that there was more time to look at the design.

- Two full stories would be a negative impact on the neighbors.

- There is no encroachment on the open space.

- This whole area will become a battleground unless there is a compromise.

- He would request that the second story be eliminated.

(-) Queta Rogers

- She understands that the project sponsor needs to expand.

- They are willing to accept an addition that is within the law.

(-) Michael Mourese Dolan

- He spoke at the January meeting.

- Michael Glesoff gave an address on Noriega Street that is his work address not his home address.

- This addition is outside of the scope of the surrounding properties. The project sponsor has a large home and many people live there.

- There is a bedroom that will be added behind the garage.

- There is a laundry area in the plans.

- He is a licensed real estate broker and was born and raised in San Francisco.

ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications: to add a one-hour roof and eliminate parapet.

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

 

21. 2001.0198D (NIKITAS: 558-6306)

25 RICO WAY - between Avila Street and Retiro Way; Lot 0439A in Assessor's Block 052. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/11/03/4794. The proposal is to demolish an existing two-story residence and construct a new three-story single-family home in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve project as revised by the project sponsor.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Alice Barkley

- She agrees with a continuance because there has been a request by Supervisor Gavin Newsom to mediate the dispute. As a courtesy to the Supervisor, she requests a continuance.

- She understands that the project falls within the streamlining act and agrees to a one-time 90-day continuance, waiving the original time limitation.

ACTION: Continued to May 10, 2001

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

 

22. 2001.0253D (JONES: 558-6477)

3868-96 NORIEGA STREET - northeast corner of Noriega Street between 46th and 47th Avenues; Lots 53, 54 and 55 in Assessor's Block 2004. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Applications: 9927325, 9937326, 9937327 for the demolition of a two-story structure and the construction of three mixed-use buildings, each containing three residential units (total 9 units) over commercial space in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Steven Ma

- He is a homeowner on 45th Avenue.

- He spoke to Mr. Samuels over the phone once and met once at the community board. He has tried to resolve their differences but hasn't been able to. That's why they are here.

- He gathered over 80 signatures of neighbors against this project.

- The construction would not follow the neighborhood characteristics. It will be considered an eyesore.

- A two-story building would be more appropriate. This construction would cast a shadow over his neighbor's property.

- Parking and traffic are issues as well. If adequate parking does not exist or can't be provided, this proposal should not be constructed.

- The proposed house was built since the 1900s.

- He would like Mr. Samuels to lower the proposed construction.

- There are no 4th story homes in the neighborhood.

(-) Tim Hittle

- He and his fiancé own a home on 45th Avenue.

- If this house is built they will significantly lose the view they have of the ocean and the western sky. They have established an organic garden, which would be affected.

- The proposed structure is larger than a billboard near their house.

- They will lose both light and air with this new construction.

(-) Michael Lother

- He lives directly across from the proposed structure.

- He has lived in his house since 1952.

- As time goes by he has seen how the original style of cottages is all but gone now.

- He talked to Steve about the actual proposal and objected more because the construction will be right in his face.

- The corner services two major bus lines (18 and 71).

- There are just no parking spaces after 7:00 p.m in this neighborhood.

- The 4th story just does not cut it.

(-) Jonathan Francis

- He has lived on 48th Avenue for many years. He is really familiar with the area.

- This house deserves to be saved. This house could sell for less than $300,000.

- Apartments will be built here--not condominiums. There are no other four stories in the area. The vast majority of the structures are original two stories.

- The least that could be done is to save the house and build on the rest of the property.

(+) Lu Blazej – Representing Project Sponsor

- This is the first time the Commission is seeing him on a Discretionary Review case.

- He took this case because Mr. Samuels, who is the project sponsor, was in distress since he had 9 units he wants to build in San Francisco--some affordable units and small commercial space.

- There were some design issues that staff raised but Mr. Blazej worked out these issues.

- Displayed an aerial photo of the site.

- There is parking available on all streets. Parking and traffic will not be an issue or a problem.

- There will be very little shadow impacts.

- There are no parapet or roof appendages.

(+) Mr. Seth Samuels

- He is one of three owners of three separate lots where there will be three separate buildings.

- Pattern of development in the Sunset; there are 4-story buildings in the area. For example: 22nd and Noriega, 22nd and Vicente, 23rd and Vicente, 47th and 48th and Judah, etc.

- There are many more 4-story buildings in the area.

- He passed to the Commissioners two books that have extensive pictures of 4-story buildings in the immediate neighborhoods.

- Regarding the parking problems, he believes this is a bogus issue.

(+) William Heijn – Project Architect

- He doesn't have much to add only that he is available for questions.

(-/+) Mario Pilpel

- He owns property on Noriega Street.

- He is concerned about the historical significance of the property since he used to run a pharmacy across the street from the subject property where in the early 70's a musical group called The Tubes used to practice there. Since then it's been vacant.

- He spoke to Mr. Samuels and said that all the neighbors agreed to the project and that is not true. He told Mr. Samuels he did not support the project.

- The aerial photos were taken in 1995; in July of 1995 he closed the pharmacy he was operating; there was no traffic being generated by that location until approximately a year later.

- What Mr. Blazej mentioned is not a valid conclusion.

- On Sunday mornings, it is difficult to park in the area because there is church there.

ACTION: Public Comment Closed. Continued to May 10, 2001 with instruction that the sponsor is to explore finished materials for each building with staff.

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))

 

SPEAKERS: None

 

Adjournment: 6:23 p.m.

 

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2001.

 

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