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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us
May 24, 2001

 

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION


Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, May 24, 2001

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

PRESENT: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe

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

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green, Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Amit Gosh; Dan Sider; Matt Snyder; Elizabeth Gordon; Nora Priego, Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery, Commission Secretary

A.                  ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

1. 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 19, 2001)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 14, 2001 June 28, 2001)

SPEAKER(S) None

ACTION: Continued to June 28, 2001

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe


2. 2001.0015Z (WOODS: 558-6315)

1052 OAK STREET - north side, between Divisadero and Scott Streets, Lot 5 in Assessor's Block 1216 - Request for reclassification of a portion (approximately 3,136 square feet) of Lot 5 (a part of the Touchless Car Wash site) from NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) to RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District. Currently, the entire lot area, approximately 4,199 square feet, of Lot 5 is zoned NC-2. This reclassification is to allow the construction of three new residential units, in accordance with Planning Commission Motion No. 16036 relating to a conditional use authorization approved on November 16, 2000 to expand the car wash.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of the Draft Resolution for Reclassification.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 3, 2001)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 21, 2001)

SPEAKER(S) None

ACTION: Continued to June 21, 2001

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe

3. 2000.1190C (SANCHEZ: 558-6679)

2801-2825 CALIFORNIA STREET - southwest corner at Divisadero Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 1028 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 711.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of three antennas and GPS receiver on the roof with related connection to an equipment shelter within the basement of an existing three-story, mixed-use building, as part of Sprint PCS’s wireless telecommunications network within an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As per the City & County of San Francisco’s Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 5 as it is a mixed-use building within a high-density district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to June 21, 2001)

SPEAKER(S) None

ACTION: Continued to June 21, 2001

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe

4. 2001.0150R (ASSEFA: 558-6625)

20th STREET VACATION (aka 740 VERMONT STREET) - Consideration of a proposal to vacate a portion of 20th Street between Vermont and San Bruno Streets.

Preliminary Recommendation: Finding proposal not in conformity with the General Plan.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 17, 2001)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 21, 2001)

SPEAKER(S) None

ACTION: Continued to June 21, 2001

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe

5. 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 24, 2001)

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKER(S) None

ACTION: Continued Indefinitely

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe

6. 2000.259KXV (MILLER: 558-6344)

421 TURK STREET - south side between Hyde and Larkin Streets, Lot 17 in Assessor’s Block 346 -- Request for Determination of Compliance pursuant to Section 309 with respect to a proposal to construct an eight-story apartment building with 34 affordable dwelling units, involving an exception to the rear-yard standards of the Planning Code (Section 134, et seq.) in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) D istrict and an 80-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed project is also the subject of a requested Variance (Case No. 2000.259XVKE) of the Planning Code standards for Dwelling-Unit Exposure (Section 140). Following Advertisement and Notification for this project, the Sponsor has proposed a reduction in units to 29 total, and a reduction in off-street parking spaces from 9 to seven, and the addition of accessory space to be used for job counseling, all within the previously submitted building envelope.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance Continuance to June 7, 2001)

SPEAKER(S) None

ACTION: Continued to June 7, 2001

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe

7. 2000.259KXV (MILLER: 558-6344)

421 TURK STREET - south side between Hyde and Larkin Streets, Lot 17 in Assessor’s Block 346 –dwelling-unit exposure variance sought in conjunction with the construction of an eight-story apartment building with 34 affordable dwelling units, also involving a requested exception from the rear-yard standards of the Planning Code pursuant to Code Sections 134, et seq., and 309, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and an 80-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance Continuance to June 7, 2001)

SPEAKER(S) None

ACTION: Continued to June 7, 2001

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

8. Commission Matters

Commissioner Theoharis: She would like for staff to contact Ms. Voughey or the Alamo Association regarding Touchless Car Wash. There have been several letters sent to her regarding conditions of approval that have not been met.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

9. Director's Announcements


Re: Touchless Car Wash

The Director and the Zoning Administrator will look into this matter and the letters and report to the Commission.

Re: New Environmental Review Officer

Ms. Hillary Gitelman left the Department a few months ago. The Director is happy to announce that the new Officer of Environmental Review will be Mr. Paul Maltzer.

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

BOS

Re: Budget/Work Program

- The Department's budget and work program was before the Board's Housing, Land Use and Transportation Committee.

- The issue was quite important and it required the Director, Zoning Administrator, Amit Gosh and Ms. Diane Lim who is our fiscal person, to attend to respond to questions that were raised.

- The Committee felt that it [our budget and work program] was relevant and important to discuss.

- This process is a public process so there were members of the public that were there.

- Supervisor McGoldrick had a series of questions and I (as the director) will sit with him and try to respond to these questions.

- Although it's a little premature to go through all these discussions because things change, but the amount of money we need to receive is quite important.

- When the Department knows how much revenue we will actually be granted, we will have a better understanding of whether or not we will be able to do all that the work program proposes to carry out. At that point, we can then come to the Commission and try to resolve any conflicts.

- At least 3 hours were spent on this and how the Department implements the Residential Design Guidelines.

- The hearing was an informational presentation and no action was taken. There are still people who are dissatisfied with the outcome of the hearing and expressed their frustrations about their expectations of the process.

BOA (Isolde Wilson represented Larry Badiner at this hearing).

Re: 673 Clipper Street

The Commission approved this residential project in Noe Valley in 1997. It was to contain 2 affordable units. Apparently these units became rental after the project was bought by someone new who had a different understanding. The original plan was for 60% of median but the outcome was 120% of median income.

Re: Pier 39

When this project was approved, the areas of public accessible open space were approved even though the spaces are privately owned. In 1997 the Zoning Administrator at that time approved, as a temporary use, a bungee jump concession. This issue came to the Zoning Administrator's attention as a request for a permanent bungee jump concession. He sought the advice of BCDC and they both decided that because there is a fee charged for the activity, it is not public access. Although the Zoning Administrator disagrees, the BOA decided that this was publicly accessible open space.

11. (BAUMAN: 558-6287)

The Department is releasing a background report, which will provide information needed for the upcoming revisions to the Housing (Residence) Element of the General Plan. The Element is required by the State of California, and will be completed by December 31, 2001. This report, Part I of the Housing Element, contains housing data and an evaluation of housing needs in San Francisco. The Department intends to share and discuss this information with the public and with those who shape San Francisco’s housing policy as the drafting of the Element’s objective and policies proceeds. Part I is now available at the Department. Call 558-6282 to order a copy. It is also available on the Department’s web site. The Commission will hold a public hearing on this information and other housing policy issues in June 2001.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: No Action Required

D.                                       REGULAR CALENDAR

12. 2000.1058E (DEAN: 558-5980)

1598 DOLORES STREET - (Reilly’s Funeral Home), located at the northwest corner of Dolores and 29th Streets; Assessor's Block 6618; Lots 7, 9, 38 in Assessors Block 6618. 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 Preliminary Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 10, 2001)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued Indefinitely

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe

13. 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 buildings 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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 10, 2001)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued Indefinitely

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe

14. 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, 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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 10, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) David Silverman – Representing the Project Sponsor

- The property was constructed in 1958

- For many years the bottom floor was used for light industrial.

- The existing use supports and is compatible with the mixed-use

- There are no windows in the building and there is no rear yard. Windows cannot be added because it would violate the building code of property line windows. There are no parking spaces and no open space.

- This warehouse was built to the lot lines.

- Granting this conditional use would continue the status quo and promote the General Plan's policy of allowing a viable, industrial firm to remain in the City.

- He is requesting the 20-year extension since this building cannot be used for residential use and would have to be torn down.

(+) Jack Greenwood

- He has been a resident of San Francisco for 15 years.

- He lives very close to the property site.

- He fully believes that Graphisoft should be able to stay in San Francisco.

- The owners are trying to stay in the City since most of their employees live in San Francisco.

- He hopes that the Commission approves this project otherwise Graphisoft would have to relocate to another city.

- There are about 15 people employed there.

(+) Edmundo Vito Cruz

- He has worked for Graphisoft for over 7 years.

- He started to search for new office space in February of 2000. His goal was to find something within their budget and in San Francisco.

- He covered over 3,000 miles in various cities surrounding San Francisco, and found out that they were up against various other companies. This was not an easy task.

- They signed the lease agreement in October on the location of Mississippi Street.

- Being in the same neighborhood, this allows them to visit the same locations and clients.

(+) Noe Zavala

- He has been working for Graphisoft for 5 years and is a homeowner in Potrero Hill.

- He rides his bike to work and it is very advantageous for the company to remain in the neighborhood.

(+) Daniel Kon

- He was just hired by Graphisoft and is very happy working there.

- He just moved to the City about 4 months ago.

- A lot of people are looking for financial stability and this company is allowing him to live in the City.

- A lot of people are in similar situations where they have to move away from the City because the company they work for is also moving away.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe

MOTION: 16168

15. 2001.0204C (SIDER: 558-6697)

832 FOLSOM STREET - northwest side of Folsom Street between 4th and 5th Streets, being a through lot to Clementina Street, Lot 17 in Assessor’s Block 3733: Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow (1) the establishment of social service space in an RSD (Residential / Service) Mixed-Use District pursuant to Planning Code Section 815.21 and 890.50(a), (2) a special height exemption to 85 feet per Code Section 263.11, and (3) a bulk limit exception per Code Section 271, in a 40-X / 85-B Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to construct up to 1,500 new square-feet of social service space for use as administrative office space by the Salvation Army within an existing 10-story office building. The additions would enclose 1 existing terrace/deck each on the northeast and northwest sides of the 5th floor of the structure. The proposed additions would occur above the 40-foot base height limit and in excess of the "B" bulk controls.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Stephen Rajninger

- The report given by staff was very through.

- He hopes that the Commission will approve the project.

- He thanks staff for all their help.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe

MOTION: 16169

E. SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

At Approximately 3:00 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

16. 2000.375D (M. SNYDER: 575-6891)

705 UTAH STREET - a landlocked parcel bordered by parcels facing 19th Street to its north, and San Bruno Avenue to its east, Lot 14 in Assessor's Block 4076. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit No. 2000/02/17/2203, proposing to construct a two-unit residential building on a vacant lot, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 12, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Heather Villasenor

- She would like to thank Commissioners Salinas and Theoharis for coming to a site visit.

- There are various people here who are opposed to the project because they will be impacted from this project.

- She believes that this site should be rezoned.

- Many of these people are homeowners and all have made large investments in their homes.

- The steep block on Utah Street and it will make it impossible for people to get in and out of their homes.

- Invasion of privacy is of great concern.

- The air quality is already terrible since these homes are located near the freeway.

- They are worried about loosing the trees on the block.

- Their street has 6 houses and one large office building that takes over all the parking spaces.

- The loss of sunlight will be devastating.

- She will have a 33-foot wall on her property line.

- They have a petition of almost 300 residents who are opposed to this project.

- It is not right that the whole neighborhood will suffer just because of one developer who will not even be living there.

- There will also be an impact from heavy construction use.

- Already it is difficult for the homeowners to get to their homes now. With the construction going on, it will be more difficult.

(-) Mickey Hall

- She considers herself ground zero from both projects.

- They are going to enclose two windows and a light well on her property.

- The three original buildings were built in 1907.

- This project will be devastating to her and the quality of life to her and her neighbors, all for the sake of profit.

- She feels that the project has done nothing to work in conjunction with her property.

- She has pointed out to the project sponsor that the surrounding buildings are Victorian and the proposed project is very industrial.

-          The project is monster construction that will replace a single-family home.

(-) Daniel Reily

- He is a resident and owner on 17th Street.

- The proposed project will drastically impact the quality of life to him and his neighbors.

- The current structure is a modest size. The project sponsor wants to replace it with a building that will be twice that size. It will be more imposing.

- The wall, which will be constructed, will cast a shadow to his back yard where his children play.

- The properties on the street are harmoniously designed and located.

- This building will have decks and walls that will cause an impact on the neighbors just to maximize profits from the developer.

- This project is just too excessive.

- A compromise would be to build a 3-story building instead, and more in a Victorian style that will be more compatible with the neighborhood.

- He is not opposed to construction on this site so long as it's reasonable.

(-) Betty Reily

- She lives on San Bruno Avenue.

- She has never protested any buildings of any kind going on around her but this is just above and beyond anything that could happen.

- Two homes in her back yard with decks looking into 7 backyards. Seven backyards will be affected.

- She objects to this project just being for profit.

- There are decks everywhere.

- She opposes this project and hopes that the Commission will vote to revise these plans.

(-) Dick Millet – Potrero Boosters Association

- He is also having a problem with this project.

- The project will just not work in this neighborhood since it's out of scale and out of character.

- The apartment building on the corner is different but this building is massive. He would like to have the penthouse removed.

- He recommends that they put up a single story cottage. The design of this building is for everyone to be up in the air.

- It is a poorly designed project.

(-) name unclear

- She lives on San Bruno Avenue.

- She and her neighbors come before the Commission to plead regarding this project.

- She, her housemates and neighbors are opposed to this project since it is out of scale with the neighborhood. The high buildings will block sunlight from the homes. Is it good to do this just for financial gain?

- With this building so large next to their homes, there is no more privacy.

- Would the Commissioners allow this if the project were being built near their homes?

- 19th Street is also a dead end street. In a dramatic or life threatening emergency it would be impossible for them to get through.

(-) Don Kimball

- He wants to be very personal about this.

- He chose to live in the neighborhood because of the type of homes and because of the sunlight that he can have.

- This project just does not fit in this neighborhood because of its strange type of design.

- The condominium will block sunlight from three windows. He uses this sunlight to warm his home.

- Due to the size and scope of the project, and the problem of accessibility of the dead end street, it would be impossible for emergency vehicles to get through.

- In order to understand fully his concerns, he invites the commissioners to come on a site visit.

-          He is confident that if the Commissioners came to a site visit they would understand the impact of this building.

(-) Marcello Bani

- He lives on San Bruno Avenue.

- He thanks Commissioners Salinas and Theoharis for visiting this site.

- They felt that to promote fair judgment of the Discretionary Review, the visit was very important.

- The model looks nice but it is not reality. It is best to come to the site personally.

- There is an existing and very big house, which is not shown on the model.

- Instead of the yellowish blocks on the model, there are very nice Victorian houses with real people.

- The proposed project is going to have a catastrophic impact on the quality of life to him and his family as well as the community.

- As soon as the staff visited the site, there were changes done to the plans.

- He hopes that the Commissioners will vote to take both projects into Discretionary Review.

(-) Ana Tenato

- She lives on San Bruno Avenue

- She is not antidevelopment.

- She feels that she has a social responsibility to speak on conflicting values.

- She would like to plea for the Commissioners to reconsider both projects

- The projects impact negatively on the quality of life of the neighbors especially with light and air, which are basic ingredients for living.

(-) Stephen Kasey

- He lives on San Bruno Avenue.

- It actually is a little nicer than the blocks display on the model.

- He has lived on Potrero Hill for about 15 years.

- He is not opposed to construction. His neighbors directly across the street are building and trying to stay within the guidelines of the neighborhood.

- The word that comes to his mind regarding this project is  mass!

- He is not even sure why the project sponsor can show this model since it doesn't display the correct scale of the project and the impact it will cause.

(-) Lia Tisey

- She lives on San Bruno Avenue.

- All her neighbors that have spoken have pretty much said it all.

- She would like to have the penthouse removed and the building to be more in character with the neighborhood.

(-) Sharon Radich

- She is a house sitter for Mindy Hall who has been a property owner on 19th Street for the past 11 years. She considers this her home and her community.

- There are many homes that will be greatly impacted by this construction.

- She is very passionate about protecting the integrity of surrounding homes.

- 19th Street is a narrow dead-end street a half block long that was never intended to accommodate increased traffic flow from this project.

- She will lose their window access and light coming into the house and ventilation. Air quality is important in this area since the freeway surrounds the houses.

- Their quality of life will be reduced.

- It is very difficult already to bring emergency vehicles into this street.

(-) Ann Chavez

- She believes that the project is too large.

- It will take away the trees.

- It will be a cause for pollution.

(+) David Silverman – Representing Project Sponsor

- There has been a lot of testimony, which is not correct.

- There were 5 meetings, which were scheduled, and not that many neighbors attended.

- The project sponsor has  bent over backwards to try to meet with the neighbors.

- The Utah building is 60 feet down the slope from the homes.

- This is not a public park. The land was put up for sale.

- These are very modest sized buildings.

- The neighbors don't seem to understand that the project sponsor will own the building. The homes are not at all monster homes.

(+) Drake – Building Designer

- The Planning process is tiered.

(+) Antonio Gribaski

- This project will be a home for him and his family.

- Although his neighbors do not approve to this project, he would like to construct this home since he lives in an apartment right now with his family.

ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve a one unit building that is not to exceed 20 feet in height.

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Theoharis

NAYES: Salinas

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe

17. 2000.360D (M. SNYDER: 575-6891)

2311 - 19TH STREET - south side between San Bruno Avenue and Highway 101, Lot 18 in Assessor's Block 4076. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit No. 2000/02/29/3109 and Demolition Permit No. 2000/02/29/3108, proposing to demolish the existing single-family house and construct a new two-unit building, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continues from Regular Meeting of April 12, 2001)

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

ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and revise project by reducing the height of the structure not to exceed 20' in height and to build only one unit.

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe

18. 2000.395D (GORDON: 558-6309)

1800 MISSION STREET - at the corner of 14th and Mission Streets, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 3547, request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/01/05/9659, proposing the rehabilitation of City Landmark No. 108, the National Armory & Arsenal Building and conversion of the vacant site to a facility for telecommunications use in a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District and a 50-X/65-B Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Because the building permit has already been issued and is final, the Department is recommending conditions to the Board of Appeals. The Board has pending before it an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's suspension of the permit pending the Commission's hearing on the project.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Sue Hestor

- The staff gave a very good explanation of the status of the project. She would just like to add a few points.

- Everyone has been working with very good faith.

- At the Board of Appeals, if the vote had gone against the project sponsor, they would have been put back into the conditional use process under Supervisor Maxwell's legislation.

- She feels that they could reach an agreement.

- She has been working on real sensitive issues regarding server farms and generator issues.

- They have focused on issues

- There are very serious power problems and energy demands.

- She has been focusing on issues that staff have stated are not problems.

- She wants to point out that one of the things that came about from the Board of Supervisors regarding server farms is that San Francisco is in a unique situation because there is one central line bringing in power and that line is at full capacity.

(-) Antonio Diaz – PODER and MAC

- Their concern is about power consumption.

- They are very concerned about the impact on the City of San Francisco and the Mission on how power is utilized.

- There has been talk about dealing with the fact that the Hunters Point Power plant is very unclean with its emissions.

- They don't want to have something come into the Mission which will cause impacts.

- The discussions taking place have been peaceful

- One of the issues is that the building should use the best commercially available energy efficient technology.

- There is an energy-offset fund set aside for the Energy Department

(-/+) Joe Boss

- A server farm is an excellent use of the Armory.

- They went through a list of issues and indicated that they have eliminated difficulties with parking.

- How do we offset the incredible demand for power?

- In order to make this work, they came up with a scheme. The project would pay a fee after the first 3 megawatts of power has been used (which is the same amount an office building would consume). Once it reached that level, they would pay ½ of 1% of their energy bill to the Department of the Environment to fund programs to reduce energy consumption. This would end in 10 years.

- Negotiations have been good.

(-) Sheheryar Kaoosji

- Diesel emissions coming out of the backup generators are another matter of concern.

- The emissions will be similar to dozens of diesel buses.

- They will run all the time.

- The emissions of this and all following projects should be controlled by the air quality management guidelines.

- They want the following in order to mitigate the air quality impacts of the server farm: initial generators should be run no longer than 10 years; all generators must have traps to control emissions as much as possible; and these controls must be approved before any server farms are allowed in the City.

(-) Erik Quesada

- They have learned a great deal of information, especially from Supervisor Maxwell.

- Given what they have found out, they believe that their Discretionary Review is justifiable.

- They continue to look for a solution that guarantees

- At this point, their goal is to have the best, state of the art, and greenest project in their neighborhood.

- They hope they will come to an agreement.

- Their issues are reasonable.

- They want to share that they will continue to monitor and be involved in proposed server farms proposing to come into their neighborhood.

- He really hopes that the Commission will listen to what they are saying.

(-) Ann Fishman

-          She is a resident and a worker in the Mission District.

- She is here to represent people who cannot be here.

- MAC's concerns and issues are very reasonable.

- Ignoring these issues will be very neglectful.

- There is no reason not to have clean air planning.

(-) Chris Zelig

- She appreciates the Commissioners listening to their proposal.

- The Environmental Offset Fund has to do with the particulars of being located in San Francisco.

- This project would use 1 percent of the entire power used for San Francisco.

- The fund would offset the total consumption of the Mission.

(+) Michael Burk – He represents F&F Mission Technology Center LLC

- He would like to thank Mr. Quesada, Mr. Diaz and Ms. Hestor for having had many meetings and dialogues.

- This is a fully permitted project that has paid a fully permitted price.

- The material submitted to the Commissioners shows that this project is safe and will not delay or impact the demolition of the Hunters Point Power Plant.

- Staff has addressed the issues in the DR request.

- A faulty assumption behind the energy tax proposal is that the Armory would demand 10 megawatts of power. Its actual demand would be 6 megawatts.

- Another assumption is that the Armory would come online during the current energy crisis. Tenants will not be online until 2003 and not fully until 2009--well after the energy crisis.

- Yet another assumption is that the Armory's demands would be excessive. Yes, it would be more than an office building but less than industrial.

(+) Catherine Bizel

- The project sponsor has emphasized that the installation and operation of the project's standby emergency diesel generator system would comply with all applicable air quality laws and regulations.

- The project generators must be certified.

- If further mitigation is necessary to achieve the risk based performance standards, then the district will impose the requirement on a case-by-case basis.

- The sponsor will voluntarily make their generator records available to the public.

- These generators should be inspected so they can be upgraded as required.

(+) Mike Yoshihara

- He doesn't really have much to add, just that a project engineer is here to answer questions.

(+) Courtney Clarkson

- Her comments have to do with the architectural preservation aspect of the project.

- The building has been abandoned for many years.

- She was able to inspect the interior of the building with the California Heritage Council and was able to see the incredible amount of space available.

- This building is located in a very sunny part of San Francisco and no one has mentioned to install solar collectors to offset the amount of energy used. The roof is vast and would have enough space.

- A lot of effort has gone into this project.

(+) Warren Kop – California Heritage Council

- He would like to lift the suspension on the permit of this project.

- He would like to bring this building back to something usable.

- The building has passed permit requirements.

(+) Winchel Hayward

- He has been a resident of San Francisco for about 50 years.

- He has admired the Armory for many years.

- He is in support of having this use approved.

- The changes will be very minimal to that area, it anything, it will help the area.

- This project offers the best that we could ever have.

(+) James Kieffer

- He has lived in the Mission for many years.

- The project sponsor has put a lot of work and money into this project.

- Does this electricity problem impose a tax on energy consumption?

- He has seen in the Mission that the real problem is the gentrification of the Mission.

- The project sponsor has already given a lot.

(+) Al Lopez

- He is happy to see that the Armory is finally going to come to some conclusion.

- He thanks Sue Hestor for her energy and trying to come to an agreement.

- The armory is a wonderful building. He is all for preservation.

- He wants to see harmony between the developers

(+) Louis Loyal

- He was born in San Francisco and his family has been here for three generations.

- This project deserves to be restored for something useful.

(+) Jules Lavagi

- His family has been in San Francisco for three generations.

- He lives here and pays his taxes here.

- This is an opportunity to upgrade the district

(+) Keith Williams

- He has lived in the Mission District for 11 years.

- He would like to have the suspension on the Armory lifted.

ACTION: Approved Lifting the Suspension

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT: Baltimore, Joe

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))

Sue Hestor

Re: Smith-Kettlewell Report

- She would like to know if the Smith-Kettlewell matter would be reported on next week? She will not be able to attend the hearing next week.

Courtney Clarkson – Pacific Heights Board of Directors

Re: Illegal parking on alleyways.

- She has noticed that some people who have houses that face a major street and back onto an alleyway have been paving over their yards and are parking their cars illegally.

- She would like to know if it's worth her while to investigate this further and report to the Zoning Administrator.

- Does the ZA have any examples?

Adjournment: 6:23 p.m.

THE DRAFT MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, July 12, 2001.

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