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

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco
May 10, 2001

 

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION


 

Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, May 10, 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 1:35 p.m.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green, Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Rick Cooper; Elizabeth Gordon; Dan Sider; Ben Fu; Andrea Wong; Scott Sanchez; Sharon Young; Craig Nikitas; Michael Smith; Tom Wang; Nora Priego, Transcription Secretary; Isolde Wilson, Acting Commission Secretary

 

ADDENDUM ITEM:

 

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.

Note: On April 26, 2001, after public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing and continued the matter to May 10, 2001 instructed staff to explore finish materials for each building.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 17, 2001)

 

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 17, 2001

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

 

A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

1. 2000.1058E (DEAN: 558-5980)

1598 DOLORES STREET - located at the northwest corner of Dolores and 29th Streets; Assessor's Block 6618; Lots 7, 9, 38. Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposed construction consists of two, four-story residential buildings with a total of 13 units (two of which would be affordable units) and demolition of an existing two-story mortuary building. The project would provide 13 off-street parking spaces. The proposed project site is 10,500 sq. ft. and is located in the NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District. The project would require Conditional-Use Authorization by the City Planning Commission.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration

(Proposed for continuance to May 24, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 24, 2001

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

 

2. 2000.1058C (TAM: 558-6325)

1598 DOLORES STREET(Reilly’s Funeral Home), northwest corner of Dolores and 29th Streets; Lots 7, 9, and 38 in Assessors Block 6618. Request for Conditional Use to demolish the existing one and two-story mortuary building and construct two (2) new four-story, residential buildings with a total of 13 dwelling units (two of which would be affordable units) and 13 parking spaces on lots totaling approximately 10,500 square feet.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Proposed for continuance to May 24, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 24, 2001

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

 

3. 2001.0005C (SIDER: 558-6697)

224 MISSISSIPPI STREET - west side between Mariposa and 18th Streets; Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 4001. Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the continuation of a nonconforming light industrial use, doing business as Graphisoft pursuant to Planning Code Section 185(e), in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. The proposal is to allow the continued occupancy of the ground floor of the subject property by a light industrial use for 20 years. No physical changes are to be made to the structure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(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

 

4. Commission Matters

 

Linda Avery: A form was given to the Commissioners to fill out with information on how they can be reached in case they are on vacation and need to be reached by the Mayor.

 

Commissioner Chinchilla: He would like to see the Commissioners amend the stakeholders as discussed earlier to give appellate rights in CU cases to business owners and tenants. Expedite appropriate language.

 

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

 

5. Director's Announcements

Transit Impact Development Fee Analysis and Planning Report:

This report was given to the Commissioners in anticipation of an informational hearing. This informational hearing will be held at the discretion of the Commission.

 

During the Planning Commission hearing of May 17, 2001, a series of briefings will be held on the status of the process to replace IPZ interim controls. These briefings should be held before the August 6, 2001 deadline. These briefings will be in the form of a status report.

 

During the Planning Commission hearing of June 7, 2001, there will be a discussion on the annual limit program rules.

 

Finance Committee Hearing

- He appeared before the Finance Committee to respond to the Department's request for a supplemental appropriation.

- In February, the Director spoke to the Commission to endorse the Department's work program. The Department is actually generating more fee revenue than originally forecasted. He found a need to allocate those funds specifically to expand the existing Balboa Park Better Neighborhood's program, fund an appropriate planning process and community-based planning process to replace the IPZ Interim Controls, and assure that we had proper funds to carry out the necessary environmental review for these Interim Controls. It was important to have positions to help carry out this work. One of these positions is a liaison to the Board of Supervisors with the new and increased workload resulting from district representation.

- He asked for 1.9 million dollars in order to carry the work out and fill these positions. The Committee recommended to the full board that they do provide the funding to carry out the consultant driven work, to continue the Better Neighborhoods program but they did not approve the funds for the 4 positions. The Committee deferred the funding for the 4 positions to be taken up as part of the full budget process, which starts in June. That was the decision of the budget analyst for the Board of Supervisors. The Director opposed since this decision would delay work.

- An Interim Acceptance Process was then agreed upon which will allow some of the revenue from the planning budget in June 2001 to cover these positions. They will make a decision to allow us to proceed even though they have not authorized these salaries. This will protect the integrity of the full budget process.

 

Housing, Transportation and Land Use Committee Hearing

Larry Badiner, Ken Chin and Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department, represented the department regarding wireless communications and antennas.

- There were representatives from wireless communications companies as well as representatives from an organization called SNAFOO. There were discussions of implementing a moratorium by neighborhood groups. Mr. Badiner had to leave the meeting early so he doesn't know the results of this request. The department will analyze the guidelines and find out the results of this meeting and report to the Commission on May 17, 2001.

 

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

Board of Appeals

May 2, 2001 Hearing

4616 18th Street – This project was a dwelling unit merger and the Commission denied the merger. The BOA overturned the Commission's decision because although the board feels that the Commission's DR policy is a good policy, the board is making their decisions on a case-by-case basis. The board decided that this case was in the  pipeline , that it was not a monster home, and that there would be no loss of rental housing. The board is not overturning the Commission's DR policy just the decision on this specific case.

 

May 9, 2001 Hearing

690 DeHaro Street – The Commission voted to take DR on this case, then it went to the BOA and the board upheld the Commission's decision. The subdivision from DPW went to the BOS and the board denied the subdivision based upon environmental issues and general planning issues.

The question came up of rehearing the case on the DR. If there is substantial new information that could affect the project, the board could allow a rehearing yet the board did not believe that a new hearing should be held. The board felt that the new information did not affect their decision.

696 Pennsylvania Street – This is a live/work project, the Commission took mandatory DR. The Zoning Administrator issued a notice of violation and the BOA overturned his decision.

1800 Mission Street (Armory) – This was an appeal of a negative declaration for a  server farm . The Commission upheld the negative declaration and a DR was filed, this DR did not come to the attention of the department, the ZA issued a suspension of the work order. The BOA decided to continue the suspension until after the hearing at the Commission. Whatever the decision the Commission makes, the board will consider it.

 

7. (ALUMBAUGH: 558-6601)

BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS 2002 – Informational presentation regarding Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Patricia Walkin

- She wants to express the enthusiasm that the community has shown.

- All presentations have been well attended. People have been very pleased with the planning.

- This plan accommodates their goals by providing housing that fits criteria for affordable housing.

- They are happy to increase the density of the neighborhood without increasing congestion.

- Many parts of this neighborhood are crime-ridden. When there are a lot of shops and good pedestrian traffic this can deter crime.

- They are thankful that they were one of the three neighborhoods chosen.

- They are happy to build the Octavia Boulevard.

- This plan will be great for the neighborhood as well as the whole city.

- This will become an interesting and diverse community.

(+) Rob Levit – Member of the Board of the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Organization

- He is not going to repeat the comments from the previous speaker yet he agrees with everything she said.

- He will say that everyone is very enthusiastic about the planning process.

- This planning process opens up an opportunity for improvement in the neighborhood.

- He just wants to say thank you!

- They have been talking about the neighborhood as being a pedestrian neighborhood and being transit friendly. They have been pushing to reduce the parking requirements and build affordable housing and having more pedestrian traffic.

(+) Joe Curtin - President of the Castro Area Planning In Action

- He agrees with the previous speakers.

- The workshops have been very successful.

- They are anxious to work with planning staff.

- The development of the Market Street plan will connect various areas of the City to the subject area.

- This street is the most important street of the City.

- He hopes this program continues for many years.

 

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

 

8. 1999.423E (COOPER: 558-5974)

639-699 – 2ND STREET - on the northeast corner of Townsend and Second Streets, Assessors Block 3789, Lots 4 and 5. Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed project would include the conversion of the existing two-story-over-basement building at 699 Second Street, which has been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and is a contributory element to the South End Historic District, from its industrial/warehouse designation, to office and retail/restaurant use, and construction of a three-story addition with two levels of underground parking. The resulting building would contain about 49,950 square feet of office space, about 6,550 square feet of retail/restaurant space and about 100 off-street parking spaces. On the adjacent parcel to the north with an existing surface parking lot, at 639 Second Street, a separate six-story building would be constructed that would include about 49,950 square feet of office space, nine residential units and 112 off-street parking spaces. The project site is located in an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) zoning district, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

Note: Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on May 29, 2001.

 

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: No Action Required by the Commission

 

9. 2000.507L (LIGHT: 558-6254)

261-271 COLUMBUS AVENUE (CITY LIGHTS BOOKSTORE) - south side of street between Jack Kerouac Street and Broadway. Assessor's Block 162, Lot 18. The subject property is zoned Broadway NCD (Neighborhood Commercial District) and is in a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District. This hearing is for the consideration of approval of the proposed Landmark Designation of the City Lights Bookstore as Landmark No. 228. Approval of the proposed Landmark Designation was recommended by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board to the Planning Commission at the Board's public hearing on March 21, 2001.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Daniel Reidy – Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board

- He is honored to bring this designation to the Commission.

- It has been one of the most personally satisfying projects that he has worked on since being appointed by the Mayor to serve on the Landmarks Advisory Board about 5 years ago.

- They developed a case report with a combination of work with staff and their board and Tim Kelley, who is a historian, actually did the major work on the drafting of the original case report.

- There was universal support. In Paris, they believe that the building has already received a landmark designation.

- A number of people thought that they could take the case report and add new material. People who had access to the North Beach Survey, the owners themselves thought that there could be corrections and augmentation of the material. There were two distinguished published writers: Lorence Furlingetti and Nancy Petters who contributed information.

- GG Platt and other preservation people felt that there had to be more architectural attention to the building and the architect. Although he was not well known, a lot of his work was destroyed in the 1906 earthquake. The architect was really a master.

- He recommends that this building be dedicated as an architectural landmark.

(+) Gerry Crowley – President of Telegraph Hill Dwellers Association

- There are about 791 members and were founded in 1954, just one year after Lawrence Furlingetti and his partner found the City Lights Books Store.

- The historical significance of its place and the literary culture of this nation are well documented.

- Since their inception, Telegraph Hill Dwellers mission has been to protect and preserve neighborhood character.

 

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION No. 16156

 

10. 2001.0203C (SIDER: 558-6697)

1192 FOLSOM STREET - northeast corner of 8th Street, Lot 28 in Assessor’s Block 3730. Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the intensification of a nonconforming night time entertainment use, pursuant to Planning Code Section 181(f), in an SLR (Service, Light Industrial, Residential) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation. The proposal is to intensify the existing ground floor bar and place of entertainment (Border Café & Cantina) by allowing dancing and amplified entertainment until 2 a.m. Tuesday through Thursday mornings, until 4 a.m. Friday morning, and until 6 a.m. Saturday through Monday mornings. No physical changes are to be made to the structure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval for dancing and entertainment/Disapproval for extended hours

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 3, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) John Luna – Project Sponsor

- He is here to represent his family's business, the Border Café and Cantina.

- The Border Café and Cantina has a long history in the South of Market area and so does his family.

- Ignacio Luna Sr. came to this country as a  bracero a Mexican immigrant contract worker. Ten years after his arrival he opened a delicatessen business in the South of Market area. He was the only Mexican business owner in the area. An accomplishment he is very proud of.

- In 1964, he expanded and opened a business on Folsom and 8th Street, the project site. The business was a delicatessen,  La Ideal Deli . However, when his father, Ignacio Luna, Jr., took over, he diversified the deli's business by incorporating a Mexican restaurant, entertainment and comedy.

- As a third generation business owner, his father has given him the opportunity his father gave him; the opportunity to continue to run the family business.

- Obtaining the proper permits are very important to him.

- The restrictions for entertainment hours are very restrictive.

- Originally they had requested to operate entertainment 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

- After community meetings, Officer Rose Meyer made some suggestions, which he agreed to regarding the hours of operation: dancing after hours on Friday and Saturday until 4:00 a.m. only. He agreed if she would agree to endorse all night dance if they operate the nightclub responsibly.

- He has gone around and explained to several neighbors of what he intends to do. He has assured them that he will operate responsibly. He has given several neighbors his phone number so that they can call him in case there are any problems or complaints.

- He plans to keep a cordial relationship with the neighbors.

- He is asking for unrestricted hours 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays. 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.

(+) Officer Rose Meyer – Permit Officer, San Francisco Police Department

- She is not here representing the chief or the police department. She is here representing Captain O'Hara.

- She is not here to advocate the nightclub.

- Mr. Luna has not yet applied for a police permit, just an amendment to the change of hours. He wanted to come to the Commission first.

(+) Jim Meko – SOMA Leadership Council

- He read the 7 angry letters, which are attached to the file of this project. He contacted l the people who wrote these letters. He spoke to the angriest and the saddest.

- Sleep deprivation can kill you.

- John Luna keeps his promises. He has known the Luna's for about 20 years. This family has run a business for about 36 years. John will show others what it means to respect your neighborhood. The Late Night Coalition is here to support this club.

(+) Tarrance Allen- San Francisco Late Night Coalition

- History is in front of the Commissioners eyes. They were formed to control and make sure that not all of the clubs be closed.

- He urges the Commission to approve this proposal and consider that economic vitality is very important in the City.

- He knows that when businesses are shut down and landlords are not allowed to open their businesses, the neighborhood becomes blighted.

(+) John Ward – San Francisco Late Night Coalition

- They are putting themselves on the line to stay with this situation.

- They have stressed to John Luna for his business to be a model business.

(+) Leslie Ayres – San Francisco Late Night Coalition

- What they have been dealing with over the last years is a loss of business permits where people can go dance late at night

- There are visitors who come to the City to dance.

- This business has been around for 36 years and is responsible operator.

(+) Fareka – neighbor

- She is here to show her support to John Luna.

(+) Darek Boyle

- In the 4 years he has been working in the South of Market area he has not had any problems with the club.

(+) Kevin – neighbor

- In the South of Market, socializing is done mostly in clubs.

- He supports this project.

(-) Daniel Dabcosky

- He is a native San Franciscan and is faced with a situation. He has worked hard his entire life to pursue the American dream and acquire a piece of property about 3 years ago. He purchased a 4-unit building with his entire life savings. This property is located right across from the Border Cantina.

- He knows that the area is zoned mixed use yet he opposes this proposal.

- When he purchased his property the noise level in the area was tolerable.

- Several new clubs have opened so the noise has become intolerable.

- He has called the police about 10 to 12 times.

- The livelihood of all the residents has become quite difficult.

- There are times when he has not been able to sleep until about 3:00 a.m. This makes it quite difficult for a person to function if they have to get up the next day to go to work.

 

ACTION: Approved with amended hours: allow dancing and amplified entertainment from Sunday through Thursday until 2:00 a.m. and from Friday and Saturday until 4:00 a.m.

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

MOTION No. 16157

11. 2001.0252C (FU: 558-6613)

1218 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - west side between 23rd and 24th Streets, Lot 67 in Assessor's Block 3642. Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.3(g), and 209.3(h) and pursuant to Planning Code Section 303, to allow the conversion of a convalescent home into an elementary and secondary school in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 3, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Charles Bloszies – Project Architect/Sponsor

- The most recent use of this facility was its original and only use since 1965.

- The proposed use is less intensive.

- The physical building is perfect for the school. There will be no major changes done to the building. No changes to the exterior.

- The conditions of approval are fine with the project sponsor.

- Both the building and the location are ideal for the school.

 

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION NO. 16158

 

12. 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: Disapproval

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Mark Deong - Project Sponsor

- He wrote a letter and wanted to make sure that the Commission received the letter.

- He could not do anything to the property right now, just use it as it has been used.

- The garage door doesn't even work.

- He hopes that the Commission considers his situation.

- If he is not able to use the property for what he intends to do, it will not be beneficial for the City.

- He would like to develop this property for housing.

 

ACTION: Project Disapproved

EXCUSED: Chinchilla

AYES: Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

NAYES: Baltimore

MOTION NO. 16159

 

 

13. 2001.0363C (WONG: 558-6381)

1212 THOMAS AVENUE - north side between Ingalls and Hawes Avenues; Lot 029 in Assessor’s block 4792. Request for Conditional Use Authorization to demolish a 14,000 square foot industrial building which involves the displacement of a production, distribution or repair business in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 14861. The subject property falls within the IPZ (Industrial Protection Zone) buffer of the interim zoning controls for industrially zoned lands. The State of California has issued an abatement order to demolish the building in order to remediate contaminated soil on both the subject and adjacent properties.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Barbara Cook – California Department of Toxic Substance Control

- Her department has approved two plans, which require the excavation of contaminated soil from the 1212 Thomas Avenue as well as the residential properties and a vacant lot.

- The plans ask for all contaminated soil to be removed.

- The building must be demolished because the excavation of the soil must be of varying depths and she wants to be sure that it's done safely, effectively and quickly.

- This demolition permit and conditional use permit must be issued quickly in order to begin the work.

- The requirement is that no heavy equipment be used. Their intent was that the project sponsor not come out with a big bulldozer since it's near other structures and fences separating residential structures.

(+) Nicholas van Aelstyn - Attorney

- He is representing the Bay Area Drum Ad Hoc PRP Group

- As Ms. Cook indicated that group has entered into an agreement to implement the cleanup of the property as well as the eight adjoining residential properties.

- The buildings and the lot next to it contain piles of drums. Behind the pile of drums are the eight residential properties.

- The community has been demanding this clean up for many years.

- There has been thorough public comment and communication. There have been countless meetings with neighbors, public organizations, etc.

- They seek approval in order to implement the plans. It is critical; otherwise, the work will not be done before the rains come.

(+) Jim Cantrell

- He is here to support the demolitions. He is one of the residents that abut this particular property. His biggest concern is that he is the grandfather of 8 children and they cannot play in his back yard.

- There have been some obstacles but he hopes that the Commission will approve the project.

(+) Gladys Madison

- She is a resident near this site. There are 8 families in the back of the project site. She was able to see all the undesirable things that went on. Her late husband used to ask the owner of the property to cover all the barrels because there were children near by.

- The time is up and something needs to be done.

- Now the responsible people want to do the cleanup.

- The job needs to go on because no one wants to live around these chemicals.

(+) Maverick H. Madison

- He would like to show support of demolition to this building.

- It is time to do the clean up. They have been poisoned for many years.

- They had no idea what the various types of chemicals were on the site.

- The building needs to come down in order to do thorough cleanup.

- He asks the Commission to use their good judgment and show concern to the residents of this area.

- This clean up is absolutely necessary.

- There are a number of cases of asthma and breast cancer among the residents of this area.

(+) Raymond Jack, Jr.

- His father purchased a property in this area.

- He grew up playing in toxic substances and didn't even know it.

- He hopes that the Commission supports the demolition of this building so that there can be toxic clean up.

 

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION NO. 16160

 

14. 2000.1244C (SANCHEZ: 558-6679)

2489-2491 WASHINGTON STREET - southeast corner at Fillmore Street; Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 0612. Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 718.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of three antennas within one 6.25 inch wide by 57 inch high cylinder flagpole and an equipment shelter within the basement of an existing two-story, wholly commercial building, as part of Sprint PCS's wireless telecommunications network within the Upper Fillmore Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Transmission Services (WTS) Facilities Sitting Guidelines the proposal is a Preference 6.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Robert Krebs – Representing Project Sponsor – Sprint PCS

- The building is entirely commercial and is located in the Upper Fillmore district.

- Licensed professional engineer, Dane Erickson from Hammet and Erickson, is here to answer any questions.

- The conditional use petition for this location complies with the WTS Guidelines, the San Francisco Municipal Code and the Federal Communication's Commission Radio Frequency Emissions Standards.

- Under the WTS Guidelines, the design is visually unobtrusive since the antennas will be located inside a flagpole and the equipment will be located in the basement.

- All sites of a high preference were considered but they were not technologically feasible or were not available for lease.

- This installation will ensure emergency communications when LAN lines are not working. Will increase the safety for visitors and residents of San Francisco.

- Two community outreach meetings were held. 532 owners and tenants and 6 neighborhood organizations were contacted in 3 languages. No one attended the first meeting and 3 members of the community attended the 2nd meeting.

(-) Kate Jones – Body/Mind Movement

- She lives at  ground zero!

- The announcement for the installation of these antennas comes in the most un-descriptive envelope. Only someone is very diligent about opening their mail would be able to notice these communications.

- She is a health care practitioner and is very concerned about the health hazards of these waves transmitted by these antennas.

- There are more and more reports being published about complaints by people who have been exposed to these antennas.

(+) Sue Hestor

- Is the area of coverage Sacramento to Broadway to Steiner to Buchanan – that's 15 blocks?

- When the first hearings were held regarding antennas and the amount of antennas that would be needed to cover the city, people were saying that there would be thousands of antennas.

- If the areas of coverage of one of these antennas are 15 blocks, the density of antennas would be a lot.

 

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION No. 16161

 

15. 2001.0164T (YOUNG: 558-6346)

ORDINANCE ADDING AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPEALS - Consideration of an amendment to Planning Code Section 308.1 to authorize an additional conditional use appeal procedure wherein four members of the Board of Supervisors may subscribe to a conditional use appeal. Testimony and Commission considerations could result in recommendations of modifications to the proposed legislation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Supervisor Peskin

- He appreciates the opportunity to address the Commission on this important legislation.

- He is here to explain the legislation introduced in early February.

- He would like to thank the Department and staff for all the help on the number of issues.

- This ordinance would expand the way conditional uses are appealed to the Board of Supervisors. As staff described, it would allow 4 Supervisors to bring a conditional use appeal to bring it to the Board of Supervisors.

- He has always found that as neighborhood leader and a supervisor that the code is problematic since tenants and business owners have no recourse to appeal a conditional use under the current code.

- Opponents of this legislation have raised various questions.

- He is prepared to introduce an amendment to the Board of Supervisors that would provide a sunset clause to the legislation.

- It is important to know that he is not trying to change the super majority of the Board.

- His office is well aware of how long it takes for this legislation to become law.

- He is happy to make all of this clear so that there are no misunderstandings.

(-) Ken Cleveland – Building Owners and Managers Association

- This is an issue that is very big to property owners across the city.

- He agrees with President Theoharis that there is an adequate procedure going on right now. If there needs to be some tweaking of this process that's fine. But to add the ability of 4 supervisors to appeal a conditional use decision adds incredible uncertainty to a process that is already uncertain. We don't need to raise costs we need to lower costs.

- It is outrageous. The current conditional use process works. It allows input from all the residents of San Francisco.

- Enacting this would devalue the real estate.

(+) Ann Ronce

- She urges the Commission to support Supervisor Peskin's legislation.

- In her neighborhood, Nob Hill, thousands of people opposed a very controversial conditional use permit. Virtually none of those people were able to appeal the Commission's decision.

- Some of the abuses that the Commission is worried about exist under the current regulations.

- She is surprised to know that the Commission thinks that there is a lack of evidence.

- She would like the Commission to reconsider and approve this legislation.

(+) Tho Do – Secretary/Treasurer of Local 2 Union

- She is here to speak on behalf of the union and to speak on behalf of Supervisor Peskin.

- She and the Union believe that the procedure that shut out the renters and the workers who live in different areas. The union believes that they are empowering workers in the workplace to have a voice and make changes in their working conditions. They encourage that same right in their neighborhoods and where they live.

- They encourage the Commission to acknowledge this and to pass this legislation.

(-) Frank Notu – Golden Gate Heights Neighborhood Association

- They have 500 dues-paying members. They are concerned that this legislation will put more power to the BOS at the expense of neighbors. They have some serious objections. Although the Supervisors might have good intentions, there are some real problems here. This legislation applies to both approvals and disapprovals.

- There was a question if this legislation was a power-grab. He doesn't see any reason for taking power from neighborhood property owners and giving it to 4 supervisors.

- A developer can come to 4 supervisors to appeal a decision. There is nothing in the legislation, which prevents this.

- He has no problems with renters and appeals.

- Neighborhood homeowners have few rights when it comes to land use decisions. He doesn't think that it's right to dilute these rights and give it to the BOS.

(+) Jerry Crowley – President of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers Association

- This organization has just fewer than 800 members. There are tenants, owners and business owners in the membership.

- She is here representing the entire membership.

- When conditional use authorizations are considered the code requires that it be beneficial to businesses nearby, tenants and owners. When it comes to an appeal only property owners have that option.

- She urges the Commission to consider that there must be a democratic process and have the ability to appeal.

(+) Robert McCarthy – McCarthy and Swartz – on behalf of 450 Sutter Partners

- Although this might come as a shock to the Commissioners but he agrees with Supervisor Peskin.

- This is an issue about due process and this is an issue about fairness.

- There are only 34 projects involved in the retroactivity.

- There should absolutely be fairness.

- Ms. Crowly mentioned it – we need democracy.

- There are projects on the list that are involved in this retroactivity that have no opposition at all.

- This is about the confidence of people.

(+) Peter Sotos – Vice President Harsch Investments

- They are the owners of 450 Sutter Street.

- Turner Construction is a 100-year firm, all union shop. He is very troubled about the retroactivity of the legislation.

- He was outraged about this legislation.

(-) Joel Yodowitz – Reuben and Alter

- San Francisco's existing conditional use process is geared to allow those most affected by conditional use authorizations those within 300 feet of a project to appeal the Commission's decision weather pro or con to the BOS.

- The proposed amendment will undercut this fundamental aspect of conditional uses, which gives the largest voice to the subject property's neighbors.

- The proposed amendment will undercut the authority of the Planning Department to consider land use and zoning matters.

- It would allow delays and uncertainties to the planning process. This would discourage development and economic growth.

- He urges the Commission to disapprove this legislation.

(+) Alice Barkley

- She is a renter so she has no right to sign a petition.

- She recommends that 20% of the tenants within 300 degree radius.

- Right now, an applicant who is denied by this Commission cannot go to the BOS, he has to go out and get 20%. This should be corrected so that all stakeholders have a right to it.

- She believes that the problems regarding time and energy are that it takes a lot of energy to organize something.

- Because staff and Supervisor Peskin stated that there is an amendment, the language is not before the public, a due process requires that this language be communicated.

(+) Sue Hestor

- It is hard to represent low-income tenants and tell them they can't appeal a decision that goes against them at the Commission. She has been telling them that for the past 20 years.

- Every one of the Commissioners lives in an RH-1 and RH-2 zones. People in these zones have multiple rights.

- It is justice for people who live in renter dense areas. They can't get to the BOS.

- The policies of prop M are also in the General Plan.

- Right now it only takes one person to appeal those projects. One person with a $100.00 fee can appeal a case to the Board of Appeals.

- She has not been able to take anything downtown to the BOS.

- She thinks it's grossly unfair.

(+) John Bartis

- He has seen this process over the last 30 years and sees that it works.

- Someone who is a property owner and happens to do something with his or her property can get it done.

- Who has the super right? The person who files the application?

- The Commission can make changes to the legislation form Supervisor Peskin. But he recommends that the BOS rewrite the legislation.

- He urges the Commission not to reject this.

(+) John Barbey

- He recently filed a conditional use that they had to gather signatures for. Though the area has a lot of absentee landlords, they almost miraculously got unanimous signatures from the owners.

- It seems appropriate to him that the tenants and the business owners have a say in the same way. He commends this legislation.

 

ACTION: Legislation Disapproved

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

RESOLUTION NO. 16162

 

16. 2001.0175T (YOUNG: 558-6346)

ORDINANCE ADDING REGULATIONS GOVERNING MERGER OF DWELLING UNITS Consideration of Amendments to the Planning Code to add a new Section 303(h), requiring conditional use approval for the merger of dwelling units. Testimony and Commission considerations could result in recommendations of modifications to the proposed legislation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) John Henry Cruz – Office of Supervisor Gonzalez

- This legislation is something that they have taken a lead on from the Commission.

- These are things that this body usually considers: how the removal of the unit would affect the housing stock; how hardship on displacement are minimized; if replacement of the units is proposed; if the removal of the unit would bring a building to a closer conformity of the prevailing unit density; if removal of the unit is necessary to correct design or functional deficiencies; if removal of the unit is necessary to preserve or rehabilitate the structure; whether that unit is intended for the occupancy of the actual owner and/or any other criteria deemed appropriate.

(-) Robert McCarthy

- This caught his attention because he was here for another reason.

- He is a father of 5 children. He was able to purchase a house to accommodate his large family.

- It is very difficult to justify the proposal as currently drafted on the basis that it doesn't amount to consistency with the general plan.

- This discourages families from being able to stay in San Francisco.

- This needs to be studied further. San Francisco is a very wonderful and diverse city with many immigrant families.

- The real issue is that it's an expensive process.

- This needs a little bit more work and needs some fine-tuning.

(-) Patricia Vaughey

- The dialogue should be kept open on this.

- She has seen both sides of the story. She has seen someone with a lot of money Ellis Act a building and the case gets scheduled three weeks later. If a young family comes to the department to get their case before the Commission, it gets scheduled months later.

- The average cost of a house in San Francisco is $420,000. She is very sad about this because there are a lot of people who cannot afford this.

- She has to look at both sides.

- There is an inequity with the current legislation and there is an inequity with this legislation.

(-) Jim Cassio

- He was introduced to the Commission in December when there was a decision made for an mandatory Discretionary Review on a dwelling unit merger. Last Monday, he was watching a Board of Supervisor's meeting and Supervisor Gonzalez spoke about dwelling unit mergers.

- What the Commission is doing about Discretionary Reviews for dwelling unit mergers is a bad idea.

- But then he thought that the Commission needs to know when units are taken off the market because of dwelling unit mergers.

- Please vote no on this legislation since he believes that the Commission has this under control.

(-) Alice Barkley

- She is glad that the office of Supervisor Gonzalez seems to be willing to continue this issue to study it further.

- She has a problem with this legislation since filling out conditional use applications takes an enormous amount of time.

- Homeowners should not have to hire a lawyer to come before the Commission because they have a family need.

- Most applicants that come before the Commission have a real need as far as quality of life.

- There are many items in this legislation that she needs to have explained.

- There are another criteria that are so vague that it needs to be thought about further.

- She hopes that the office of the Supervisor gives some clarification.

(-) Brett Gladstone

- It is interesting that he is the third permit attorney that is opposed to this legislation.

- He doesn't think that the Board of Supervisor's staff can spend the amount of time necessary for each case like Planning Department staff.

 

ACTION: Legislation Disapproved

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

MOTION NO. 16163

 

E. SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

 

At Approximately 7:20 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.

 

17. 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 26, 2001)

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) James Meyers

- He lives on Rico Way.

- Rico Way is a street scape of 1920s Mediterranean style home.

- In Ms. Barkley's letter she included on the last page a 3-dimensional diagram, which shows the project as smaller than the other buildings. This diagram is quite misleading.

- He displayed the same diagram but drew the proposed project to scale.

- This project is a  poster child for disruptive design.

- He displayed a map of Rico Way, which shared the homes which signed a statement of opposition or submitted statements where it stated that they were mislead by being told that the DR requestors were in agreement with the project.

(-) Richard Dike

- He is not here to oppose the construction but to look for a compromise on the elevator shaft.

- It is not only that it greatly obstructs their view of the Golden Gate Bridge and the Marin Headlands but it also obstructs their sunlight from the west that hits the back of the house and their yard where their children play.

- He understands about expansion since he just had some expansion done to his house.

- He would just like the elevator shaft removed.

(-) Kelley (last name unclear)

- She is the other neighbor mentioned in Ms. Barkley's letter.

- She doesn't believe that this construction belongs in the Marina.

- During a community meeting, the planner stated that the elevator shaft was not in contention.

- At the time the request was made, the elevator shaft had been taken out. It is her impression that the elevator shaft is an issue with all the neighbors.

- She had requested story poles so that they can prove that the elevator shaft would be an obstruction to the neighbors.

- She is a big believer that everyone should cooperate with one another since all the homes in the Marina are so close together.

(-) Barbara Rogers

- She is here in opposition of the proposed structure.

- She is a 25 year resident of San Francisco. Although she does not live in the Marina she works there taking care of children. Even though they are very young children, they do know that the Marina is a beautiful district.

- The design is not keeping with the guidelines.

- If this project is approved, there will be other houses that will want to follow.

- She read a letter from a neighbor who is opposed to the project and was not able to attend the hearing.

(-) Carolyn Ganini

- Her opposition of this construction stems from the fact that she feels in recent year much has been done to diminish the look of the Marina Gardens. It has taken away from the character of the neighborhood.

- She has seen a change in the homes, which have been allowed to go up.

- After the Loma Prieta earthquake, she had to do many alternations to her home.

- Many changes have been good since many homes have kept the façade.

- This construction is not architecturally or aesthetically acceptable.

- She would like to keep the look of Rico Way.

- The City has taken upon a project to keep the architectural heritage of the libraries.

(-) Lois Beldochi

- She is interested in neighborhood preservation.

- She is involved in maintaining historic sites and belongs to a preservation organization.

- She has two units on 18th Street, which runs into Market.

- She received notice that right next to that unit on 18th Street there was a large unit being built. She became tired of fighting it and the large unit went up.

- She bolted down her façade on her house in the Marina. She dreads another earthquake.

- In Spain, when you want to add to your house you must keep the façade.

(-) Joe O'Donahue

- Residential builders rebuilt many of the homes in the Marina.

- He has lived in the Marina and knows the sensitivity of the residents.

- This design should really be brought back to the drawing board.

- He does not mean that it needs to be exactly the way it was but it should be similar to the character of the neighborhood.

(-) Catherine Certavitch

- She read a letter from a neighbor who is against the project and could not attend the hearing.

(+) Alice Barkley – Representing Project Sponsor

- There is a photo in the case packet, which shows the whole bock face. It is quite obvious that there are very diverse buildings and façades on the street.

- The design, which was revised and recommended by staff, has an additional detail. She has asked the homeowner to add another cornice line. This will be an improvement and an additional detail.

- There are two issues here; one is whether the façade is appropriate. The other issue is the penthouse.

- They chose the elevator shaft instead of a stair penthouse since a stair penthouse would be much larger and much longer. The project sponsor chose to put a circular staircase in the back even though it will be difficult to move furniture up there.

- The elevator shaft will be an impairment of the view but not a total blockage.

(+) Louis Butler – Project Architect

- The ceiling heights on the building are 10 feet on the top floor and over 11 feet on the main floor and 8 feet on the bottom floor.

- The building is 35 feet high. The elevator shaft is 10 feet high.

- One of the nice things about working with Ms. Barkley is that she covered all the important points.

- When soil is re-compacted on the site, it needs to be pressure grabbed and that takes a lot of machinery. It also takes a lot of machinery to build a three-foot thick floating slab. This is required because it's an unstable location.

- With respect to the façade, they have followed the code and neighborhood design guidelines to the letter.

- They looked at the buildings in the neighborhood and there was quite a variety. He feels that the building will be a nice addition to the block.

- What the Commissioners see on paper is entirely correct.

(+) Rebecca Schumacker – Project Sponsor

- She apologizes for being here today since she hoped she and the DR requestor could have come to an agreement.

- The so called  marina style is not just one particular type of style.

- The Spanish tile that her neighbor is requesting to incorporate to the new construction, can be found in various neighborhoods of this City.

(+) Patricia Schumacker

- She read a letter from a neighbor who is in support of the construction but could not attend the hearing because of surgery.

(+) Guido Piccinini

- He came to this country in 1950 from Tuscany with his parents and sister. He is a retired restaurant owner and he and his wife are trying to have a home where they will be the rest of their lives. The idea of the elevator is because as they get older, it will become more difficult for them to climb up the stairs.

- His mother will come to live with them as well.

- He would like to clear up some misconceptions. He went door to door to show the original design to all their neighbors.

- There are many facts that have been misrepresented in the petition.

- They have a design that is within code and fits the neighborhood character. There are people here that want to design their house for them but he is putting his faith in the system and hopes that the Commission will approve his case.

 

ACTION: Continued to June 14, 2001 to revise design of façade. Public Hearing is closed but will reopened for comments on revised design only.

AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Fay

 

18. 2001.0192DD (SMITH: 558-6322)

240 SAN FERNANDO WAY - west side of the street between Monterey Boulevard and Darien Way, Lot 004A in Assessor's Block 3251 request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/09/25/1401, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition, infill portions of the building footprint, and alter the front facade of an existing single-family dwelling located in a RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Stephen Murphy – 1st DR Requestor

- He lives across the street from the subject house for about 8 years.

- There was list of signatures opposing the project that was not included in the packet that went to the Commissioners. This was a grievous error since the planner stated that the neighbors support this project.

- He displayed a map that shows the block where the subject property is.

- There have been various neighbors who oppose the project.

- They take great issue with this project for several reasons. He is not opposed to his neighbor constructing an addition to his house. Yet, it is not justifiable to construct an addition and double the square footage just because there was water in the basement.

- This neighborhood was designed with strict guidelines and rules.

- There are walking easements, which are wide. The houses have a variety of styles yet there is consistency. These styles include the way the entire neighborhood is structured.

- His primary objection with this construction is that his neighbor fails to take into account the consistent context of Balboa Terrace. By adding a second story on a prominent block, he is changing the character of the neighborhood.

- There are neighbors here who live in the vicinity and the architect will speak today.

(-) Stanley Markel – 2nd DR Requestor

- He lives on San Benito Way. He purchased his home in 1994. Not having an architectural background it is hard for him to explain things without architectural language.

- If one walks around in the neighborhood, one can see that there is certain similarity in all the homes in the area.

- It is the character of the neighborhood, which he would like to preserve.

- The reasons he opposes the project is that: 1) the home breaks with the adjacent homes; 2) It also breaks with the character of the area.

- There was a project in Santa Ana Street, which was different from the other homes, and stands out from the rest of the homes.

- He retained two architects just to be able to describe how the homes look in Balboa Terrace.

- Adding a second story to a home where the adjacent homes are only one story, will be an inconsistent volume and mass.

(-) Martin Herrman

- He owns a home on San Fernando Way. He would like to state that he has been doing construction on his home by putting foundation because of water damage. He is in full support of having construction on their homes.

- Any addition to the project sponsor's home is fine but that it falls within reason.

- Someone doubling the size of his or her house is just not right. The square footage of the home is doubling on a small lot.

- His issue is the size of the house.

(-) Gerald Bernstein

- He lives on San Fernando Way. He has lived at this address for 16 years. He has made minor renovation to his house with neighbor's compliments and not complaints.

- His concerns are that the house needs work but a more compatible design would be more acceptable.

- He hopes that the Commission grants a Discretionary Review or a continuance so that the design can be revised.

- The uphill houses are two stories or 1½. The downhill side are the one stories.

- The proposed change in Mr. Lee's house takes him square footage wise to be the largest house on the block.

(-) Patty Murphy

- She read a letter from a next-door neighbor to the project sponsor who is against the project but was not able to attend the hearing because of the short notice.

(-) Bob Olsen

- He lives on Balboa Terrace about three blocks away from the subject property. He is past board member of the Balboa Terrace Association so he is very much in favor of keeping the character of the neighborhood.

- His house was considered to be a one story yet the back of the house looks like a two story house.

- He chose to maintain the neighborhood character and not alienate his neighbors.

(-) Chris McMahon - Architect

- He lives on Eureka Street and is a licensed architect. He wrote a letter, which he submitted, to the Commissioners.

- The proposed design is the most insensitive design since it is not in keeping with the rest of the homes.

(+) David Lee – Project Sponsor

- He just heard all his neighbors speak and wishes he could have heard them two years ago. It is very important to him and to his family to build this addition. He understands that it is important to his neighbors as well.

- Two years ago when he acquired the property, he was aware that the house was in bad shape and that there was a stream running below the house.

- He sent letters inviting his neighbors to come to his house to sit and talk about the plans he had for his house.

- He made a presentation to the CC&R committee and they gave him an approval.

- The Balboa Terrace community has an annual meeting; two thirds of the neighbors voted these DR's applicants out of the board.

- This was difficult for him because he has gone through numerous revisions.

- Another problem he has had was to conform to Planning Department requirements. He argues and protests, because he made many revisions based on neighbor's comments. Staff mentioned to him that the design was still not in conformance.

- He does not know when this will end. When he found out all the neighbors who were opposed, he went to mediation to try to resolve the issues. He wants peace.

(+) Michael Jones – Vice President of the Balboa Terrace Homeowners Association

- He appreciates the comments made by the Commission regarding the letter dated January 21. The association has very limited authority over what can be done in the neighborhood. They are going to consider having more stringent authority. The letter was issued only to inform the owner that the project doesn't violate any of the deed restrictions.

- Very recently there was an effort made by a board member to mediate between the neighbors and Mr. Lee but it was not successful.

- There are homes in the neighborhood that were built in the 50s and 40s. They do want to preserve the character of the neighborhood.

- Mr. Lee has made an effort to keep the design compatible with neighboring buildings.

(+) Yevgeniy Bogodist

- He is a resident of San Fernando Way. His home was built in 1927. This is a very old style. He supports Mr. Lee's proposed design because old style is old style. It's ok to renovate buildings.

- Mr. Lee's house has many damaged areas.

- The neighborhood is supposed to be better. If no one improves his or her homes, it will not become a better neighborhood.

- He will also want to improve his home eventually.

- San Leandro Street has many similar buildings.

(+) Robert Lin

- He lives on Santa Ana Street. He is here to support Mr. Lee's project. He didn't know that everyone pointed the finger at him. When he came to this country with 3 family members. Now his family has grown so he expanded his home.

- After he built his expansion, his neighbors did not complain.

- It is a good thing to upgrade your house since we are living in an earthquake zone.

- This is a free country and everyone has to compromise. There are many large families here.

(+) Shao Lin Kao

- An interpreter read her letter to the Commission. She is in support of the project.

(+) Alex Lee

- His father is the project sponsor.

- They sent out 3 notifications to the neighbors surrounding their house.

- They have gone through 30 revisions.

- The current design of the proposed construction will not block any sunlight from their neighbors.

(+) Eddie Chen

- He has lived in San Francisco for about 8 years. He hears a lot of stories and finally he heard a story

- He is very angry about all the problems going on.

 

1st ACTION: Do not take DR and approve project with a requirement of Special Restrictions.

2nd ACTION: Action was rescinded: Take DR to revise design of building and require a Notice of Special Restrictions.

AYES: Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas

NAYES: Theoharis

ABSENT: Fay

 

19a. 2000.138DV (WANG: 558-6335)

4038 17TH STREET - north side between Castro and Douglass Streets, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 2623. Request of Discretionary Review of Building Demolition Permit Application No. 9814005 and Building Permit Application No. 9814006, to demolish an existing one‑story over garage, single‑family dwelling and construct a new three‑story over garage, three‑family dwelling in an RH‑3 (Residential, House, Three‑Family) District and a 40‑X Height and Bulk District. Note: This project was previously heard by the Commission on April 6, 2000. Following public testimony, the Commission moved to continue the hearing indefinitely, so the Project Sponsor could develop a design that (1) does not require demolition of the existing structure; (2) retains a substantial portion of the front part of the Victorian house; and (3) allows three dwelling units to be constructed on the site. The revised project proposes to relocate the existing building facade both forward and at a lower elevation than the existing location, demolish the remaining structure behind the facade and construct a three‑story over garage, three‑family dwelling addition behind the preserved facade. The revised project would also require the justification of a rear yard variance, which will be heard by the Zoning Administrator concurrently with the discretionary review.

Preliminary Recommendation: Because the revised project has been determined to be a demolition by the Department of Building Inspection under the Building Code, it is, therefore, inconsistent with the Commission's instructions as communicated on April 6, 2000.

 

SPEAKER(S):

Regarding Request for Continuance:

(+) Amanda C. Leuis - Attorney

- She is requesting that the Commission grant a continuance so that she can become familiar with this case since she was just recently hired.

- She believes that as she becomes familiar with this case, she will be able to resolve it favorably.

- She agrees with the continuance date of June 7, 2001.

(-) Judith Hoyem – DR Requestor

- She would like to say that under normal circumstances the Commissioners would grant a continuance with no problem. But this is not normal circumstance since firing an attorney at the last meeting before a hearing is not a  good-faith gesture.

- There is no evidence that the project sponsor has any good faith intentions.

- The new attorney has indicated to her that the project sponsor now wants to sit down and try to resolve the issues. This is something that she has wanted to do since the beginning.

- She would like for the project sponsor to talk to her and meet with her.

(-) Andrew Laws

- He came from southern Arizona for this hearing.

- He feels that this is an incredible stressful ordeal for his mother to go through.

- He would like some sort of guidelines and be done with project that does not conform.

(-) Gustavo Cerena – Corresponding Secretary – Eureka Valley Promotion Association

- He supports Judith Hoyem's concern that a continuance will not show any more good faith from the project sponsor.

- Many people have taken time off to come and speak today and their time should be honored.

(-) Mark Riser – Twin Peaks East Neighborhood Association

- He supports the request for continuance as articulated by Ms. Hoyem.

- They have been incredulous from the beginning.

(-) Ann Ferrar

- She just rushed here to be involved at the hearing.

- A little less than a year ago there was a hearing for the project and the Commission made a decision yet the project sponsor did not honor that decision.

- This does not seem like a very democratic process. It is hard to bring all these people again to testify.

- This is just not right.

(-) Steve Bartoletti

- He did not come prepared to speak.

- All of the people here have taken time out of their busy lives to come here.

- The old attorney is standing just outside of the hearing room and he is very much able to come inside and have the hearing.

- The new plans have nothing to do with what the Commission's decision was.

 

ACTION: Without Hearing. Continued to June 7, 2001

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

 

19b. 2000.0138DV (WANG: 558-6335)

4038 17TH STREET - north side between Castro and Douglass Streets; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 2623 in an RH‑3 (Residential, House, Three‑Family) District and a 40‑X Height and Bulk District. REAR YARD VARIANCE SOUGHT: Subject to Discretionary Review by the Planning Commission, the current proposal is to relocate the existing building facade both forward and at a lower elevation than the existing sitting, demolish the existing one‑story over garage, single‑family dwelling behind the facade and construct a new three‑story over garage, three‑family dwelling behind the preserved facade of the existing building.

 

SPEAKER(S): See previous item.

ACTION: See previous item.

 

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))

 

Patricia Vaughey

Creative Graphics from the Department

- She has seen something in the last few weeks that has her disturbed – it's called creative graphics to the Department. She has montages, tiles, new roofs; she has seen a whole streetscape. With computer graphics, be careful. With computer graphics, be careful, because they are extremely creative. She feels very sorry because it's going to be hard to catch any differences.

 

(did not state name)

Wawona Street

- She owns a home on Block 2482. There was an application for a permit on a home which is touching her property and visible by her property. She has a utility pole, which is located in her property.

- There were no 311 notices. The reasoning was that the addition was within the envelope of the home.

- She believes that this construction is not permitted. In 1978 there was a permit taken out for the lower story of this home. PG&E had to reroute their lines.

- She displayed a picture of how close the utility lines are to her house.

- She has a 3R report.

 

Adjournment: 10:15 p.m.

 

 

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2001.

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:12 PM