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

June 14, 2001

June 14, 2001

 

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION


Minutes of Meeting

 

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 14, 2001

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

PRESENT: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

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, Amith Ghosh; Isolda Wilson; Thomas Wang; Craig Nikitas; Tina Tam; Tim Woloshyn; Rick Crawford; Alison Borden; Catherine Bauma; Joy Navarrete; Patricia Gerber – Transcription Secretary; Linda D. Avery – Commission Secretary

 

A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

1. (WILSON: 558-6602)

Planning Commission consideration of adoption proposed changes to the rules for the 2001-2002 Office Development Annual Limitation Program.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 21, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

2. 2000.1267D (WANG: 558-6335)

215 ROOSEVELT WAY - southeast side between Fairbanks and 15th Streets, Lot 060 in Assessor's Block 2614. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Demolition Permit No. 2000/04/27/8397 and Building Permit Application No. 2000/04/27/8394. The proposal is to demolish an existing one‑story over garage, single‑family dwelling and construct a new three‑story over garage, two‑family dwelling in an RH‑2 (Residential, House, Two‑Family) District and a 40‑X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to June 28, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

3. 2000.1328E (Chan: 558-5982)

1750 Folsom Street - Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. Assessor's Block 3530, Lot 6. The proposed project would include the demolition of an 8,600-square-foot warehouse building, retention of a portion of the existing slab foundation and construction of a new 14,280-square-foot, three-story plus mezzanine, 40-foot-tall structure. The building would contain about 10,210 square feet of restaurant and bar space, and 4,070 square feet catering facility. Nineteen off-street parking spaces would be provided in the basement-parking garage. The site is on Folsom Street, bounded by Erie Street, 14th Street, and South Van Ness, within the Mission neighborhood. The site is within the Planning Commission's adopted Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ) buffer and within the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district and a 40-X height and bulk district. The project sponsor is seeking a variance from the parking requirement for independently accessible parking spaces in order to increase available parking from 19 to 34 spaces by providing valet parking.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration

(Proposed for Continuance to June 28, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

4. 2000.1165B (BRESSANUTTI: 558-6892)

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

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 19, 2001)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 28, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

5. 2001.0361C (SANCHEZ: 558-6679)

1634-44 PINE STREET - north side between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street; Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 0647. Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 712.61 of the Planning Code to allow the conversion of an automobile repair establishment to an automobile rental establishment within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 130-E Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to July 12, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

6. 2001.0092E (DEAN: 558-5980)

1800–1822 San Jose Avenue - Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. Proposed demolition of existing auto repair business structures, construction of two, four-story, nine-residential unit buildings, located on the north side of San Jose Avenue, between Santa Rosa Avenue and Colonial Way; Assessor's Block 3144A; Lot 31. Each of the proposed buildings would have 800 sq. ft. of ground-story retail space. The project would provide 9 to 10 off-street parking spaces in each building. Parking garage entries would be from each of the side streets. The proposed project site is approximately 14,360 sq. ft. and is located in the NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster District) and the 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project would require conditional use authorization by the City Planning Commission and lot split approval by the Department of Public Works

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

(Proposed for Continuance to July 12, 2001)

 

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

7. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of April 19 and April 26, 2001.

 

ACTION: Approved as corrected

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

8. Commission Matters

 

Theoharis: There was an article in the Independent Newspaper on Tuesday, June 5 regarding a proposal about Supervisor Peskin's desire to legalize in-law units. Does staff have any information on this?

Lim: There was a point brought up at the Finance Committee meeting regarding having the different departments work together and put together a housing strategy. Will our Department be included?

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

 

9. Director's Announcements

-          Did not get any information prior to the release of the proposed legislation by Supervisor Peskin--there is no actual legislation drafted.

-          In response to Commissioner Lim's comment--in January or February when we started the Work Program discussions we included several items that included our ongoing efforts to coordinate with other agencies on housing.

-          In terms of receiving notices about the existing efforts toward base community planning, we notified the Commission about the Better Neighborhood meetings that have been and are being conducted.

-          Finance Committee Meeting is open to the public on Saturday, June 16, 2001, at 9:00 at City Hall

-          With regard to the Department's budget we have received the draft report from the Budget Analyst and will be commenting on that their recommendation to the Finance Committed on June 19.

 

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

-          BOS: This past Monday the Board of Supervisors had an appeal of a Conditional Use authorization that was granted for an antenna at 501 Laguna Street. That item was continued for two weeks

-          Also, there was a Conditional Use on a unit development on a rather unusual shaped site, at 19th and Oakwood. That case was heard by the Board and was continued to allow further consideration. It will be back before the Board on Monday, 6/18.

 

 

 

B of A:

-          365 – 11th Street: Was a request for a replacement entertainment permit. We will work with the Police Department to get a focus on what is reasonable in allowing background music in bars and restaurants.

- 100 –15th Street: Upheld the Commission's decision

(GREEN: 558-6411)

11. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION ON LAND USE IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS that are currently subject to interim controls, and review of development activities, employment and economic trends in those areas.

 

SPEAKER (s):

(-) Calvin Welch, Counsel Community Housing Organization

-          The Department is aware of the critical balance between the creation of jobs and housing--most especially matching the affordability levels of the jobs we are creating&

-          Lowering housing cost by increasing housing production is not politicaly correct in this City

- We have to be really careful when we talk about affordable housing in this City

(-) Jim Miko, SOMA Leadership Counsel

-          We are not anywhere near where the Mission is in this process, or even Dogpatch or other neighborhoods in the City

-          Pointed out the schedule for the beginning of the base community planning efforts. SOMA Anti-Displacement Coalition will meet this Saturday, June 16, from 10 to Noon, sponsoring a community forum. It will be held at 65 9th Street.

(-) Sue Hestor

-          Concerned about the continuation of this on every calendar to give yourself the flexibility to do things when you are ready. It is a burden on the public.

-          Concerned about reopening the South of Market zoning; to undo the controls; we might have more lost jobs.

(-) Joe O'Donoghue

- The Housing crisis is continuing and getting worse instead of getting better

-          This report is just a fiction and full of inaccuracies

-          We have to change our methodology

(-) Alice Barkley

-          Concerned about displacement

-          When you change the definition of what is in the PDR, multimedia will no longer fit–it becomes offices

-          Industrial Use: mixed use area is not located strictly in the industrial area, it is located in what has been for a long time a mixed use zone,

-          The Moratorium and the Commission's policy did not open housing opportunity sites because the interim controls that this Commission adopted are more restrictive than the moratorium adopted by the Board of Supervisors. They (the BOS) allowed housing to proceed under Conditional Use--you wiped it out.

-          As far as displacement of PDR is concerned, most of them are in vacant lands, therefore, no job displacement.

(-) Quintin Meck,

-          Concerned that a lot of displacement has taken place in the last few years

ACTION: Meeting held. No action required

PRESENT: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

 

12. (BAUMAN: 558-6287)

HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN - The Department has released a background report, which will provide information needed for the upcoming revisions to the Housing (Residence) Element of the General Plan. This report, Part I of the Housing Element, contains housing data and an evaluation of housing needs in San Francisco. It is available at the Department’s office, and on its web site. (http://www.sfgov.org/planning). This hearing will allow the Commission and the public to comment on this information and other housing policy issues.

 

SPEAKER (s):

(-) Roger Brandon

-          Land should be preserved for industrial use

- Monthly rent rates should be reasonable

-          There is a need for affordable housing. It would be better to maintain housing districts in city neighborhoods that are better designed for that purpose

-          Change the rental policies of several real estates firms. Rent do not need to be so high

- San Francisco should remain a small city

- Hold the exisiting zoning controls

-          There is a flaw in this report. There are too many exaggerated economic forecasts. This forecast came from the Association of Bay Area Governments.

-          Avoid putting high-density development in places where you do not have many of them. By doing so, good quality living conditions in the City are reduced.

(-) Calvin Welch, Counseling Communities Housing Organization

-          Commended the staff on their presentation

- Increasing housing construction and at the same time there is an increase in housing cost

-          The goal is to maximize

-          The Planning Codes is to provide a policy that links job growth, protection of existing neighborhoods, and natural population growth

-          Housing that could be afforded to existing San Franciscans and those who would be working here in the future

-          The greatest deficit that we've faced in the last 11 years has been in affordable housing

-          We actually exceeded the projection by building 8900 market rates units,

-          We have fallen short in the affordable sections of our housing elements

-          That reality should motivate the formation and amendments of the existing residence element.

-          How do we maximize affordable housing production? Simply approving housing development does not work in San Francisco if the goal is to maximize affordable housing for San Franciscans.

(-) Jaime Roth, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce

-          Poll showed that most San Franciscans can not afford to live in this City

-          We need to expedite the approval process; to encourage infill housing; maximize the construction of housing units next to transit; and we also need density

- We cannot allow this housing crisis to keep going

-          Home ownership should be more affordable to San Francisco

-          The San Francisco work force is in danger of being squeezed out of the City

-          Our great City needs innovative policies to make housing and homeownership more affordable to all San Franciscan.

-          67% of the City's renters expressed that they would like to buy a home in San Francisco, but feel that homeownership is out of their reach

-          53% agreed that the City should create new programs to help middle income workers

-          53% also support increasing the density of housing along transit lines

-          1/3 of all San Franciscans are so concerned about the high cost of housing, that they considering leaving the City altogether

-          Numbers speak for themselves. San Francisco voters want better housing options and they are frustrated by the high housing cost

-          We just want the Commission to consider the needs and aspirations of all San Franciscans

(-) Gabriel Metcalf, SPUR

- Virtually everyone in City agrees that we need more affordable housing to be produced each year than we currently do

- Increasing supplies bring down the costs

-          It is good for the City if we build enough housing that can meet the City's share of projected population growth

-          Building housing--if it is well planed and well located--is the tool we need to strengthen the

-          Neighborhoods. It is what allows us to support a transit-oriented City. It is what allow us to support neighborhood commercial districts

-          Looking forward to see the next phase of the residence element which is going to talk about strategies--not just targets--but how we are going to achieve those targets

(-) Alice Barkley

-          There are several factors that have to be considered. One is neighborhood politics.

-          Families in San Francisco have dropped by 12%

- The City needs an affordable housing program

- More Middle class families would be living in the City

- Consider increasing the density where it is appropriate--giving bonuses for affordable units

-          Encourage the private sector to come up with the lowest rates

(-) Sue Hestor

- Troubled by the Department's abandonment of tracking unit sizes--which comes through in repeated places in this report

-          Page 6 talks about the average household size increased between 1990 and 2000, including doubling up of occupancy in existing housing units

-          Page 19: the City has not collected informational housing unit sizes since 1996

-          Page 18: reminded you that Live/work was 18% of the housing stock that was added from 1991 to 2000

(-) Joe O'Donohue

-          Housing crisis started in 1986

-          This Commission is not responsible for the shortage of housing. The shortage was created in 1986--at least that was the second phase of the shortage of housing--when we came up with the demolition controls ordinances, RCC, and RCA of the Richmond and the Sunset.

-          At that time the builders pontificated about the fact that family housing was not being built because you could not build it. Just like you can't do 2 bedroom live/work units because it is a prohibited use

-          For this Commission to be berated because the staff can not control the cost of building is a redundancy. Need to change the definition of affordable housing. Affordable housing is subsidized housing

ACTION: Meeting held. No Action Required

PRESENT: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

ITEM 13 CALLED OUT OF ORDER AFTER ITEM # 11

13. 2001.0232L (BORDEN: 558-6321)

1338 FILBERT STREET (aka 1338 FILBERT COTTAGES) - historically known as the Bush Cottages (1907-1930s) and the School of Basic Design and Color (1940s), north side of Filbert Street between Polk and Larkin Streets; Assessor’s Block 524, Lots 31, 32, 33, and 34. Request for Planning Commission recommendation on the proposed landmark designation of four, two-story wood frame cottages sited among brick walkways, patios, and mature plantings, which was initiated by the Board of Supervisors. The subject property is in the RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

 

SPEAKER (s): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 12, 2001

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

 

14. 2000.272E (NAVARRETE: 558-5975)

185 POST STREET (PRADA) - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report: On Assessors Block 310, Lot 18, the 3,600-square-foot project site, situated within the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District, is occupied by a vacant six-story-plus-basement structure. The proposed project would consist of demolition of the existing 26,200-square-foot building and construction of a new ten-story-plus-basement, 130-foot tall building that would serve as the West Coast headquarters and retail store of the apparel company Prada USA. The new structure would contain approximately 39,300 square feet with part of the basement serving as storage and mechanical equipment space, display space and a reception area on the ground floor, retail space on the second through fifth levels, open space on the sixth level, showroom space on the sixth and seventh levels, office space on the eighth and ninth levels, and a private residential space on the top floor. In total, the project would provide approximately 4,400 sq. ft. of office space, 6,800 sq. ft. of retail space, 1,500 sq. ft. of showroom space, 1,700 sq. ft. of residential space, 2,250 sq. ft. of open space, and 22,650 sq. ft. of storage and other space. The site is within the C-3-R (Downtown Commercial, Retail) Zoning District and 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. Note: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., on June 19, 2001.

Preliminary Recommendations: No action required.

 

SPEAKER (s):

(-) Dr. Charles Thiel

-          This building was constructed after 1906

-          Evaluated safe after the San Andreas Earthquake

-          177 Post Street was constructed after the 1906 earthquake

-          It is substantially different from the City Hall building, in that City Hall is a free standing building with no adjacent structure with which they could collide

-          We at 177 Post Street are the one with which the PRADA Building may collide, if the building is not adequately designed

-          Engineers indicated the separation between our buildings would be 23 inches, they indicated that this separation would accommodate the earthquake displacement, assuming that our building is a 1988 Building Code compliant structure. This assumption is erroneous

-          Our building was constructed over 90 years ago, not within the last 3

-          They estimated that their unrestrained building would deflect in excess of 42 inches not the 23 inches that they assumed would be adequate to accommodate the deflection of both buildings

-          It is their assessment that the buildings would collide during an earthquake, creating catastrophic results--both to each of the buildings and to the public itself

-          The increase of vulnerability to our building and the public by the development decision today, is unacceptable

-          Requested that the Draft Environmental Impact assessment report, be revised, to add mitigation measures to protect the adjacent buildings and the public.

-          Require the Developer to design a new building, so the seismic performance does not post an earthquake damage threat to adjacent buildings

-          Require the Developer to provide that the adjacent building owners be technical peer reviewers of the proposed design documents; if the technical peer review has unresolved issues, the Director of the Building Department should be advised--who then should advise on how to resolve these issues prior to issuing the building permits

(-) Thomas P. Dove

-          There are current design violations that are not adequately addressed in the EIR

-          Believed the current design violates the CEQA, particularly sections 21084.1 and 15064.5 subsection (b)

-          Also believed that current design violates City Planning Code, Article 11, the project is incomperable with the requirements of the C-3 District

- Earthquake safety here is very questionable

(+) Jason Duckworth

- Lives a few blocks away from the site

- Urge the Commission to approve the EIR

- Would increase the value of neighborhood buildings

- Are we destroying something that is really valuable to the architecture of this great City?

(+) Mark Donohue

-          EIR is clear and meets design guidelines

-          Proposed building would indeed be different from its neighbor. It would, as the EIR suggests, not meet certain guidelines for the conservation district in which it is located

-          As an architect feels in this case, the differences offered by this project are not a bad thing, but rather a good thing

- The draft EIR identified two areas within the historical architectural resources category that the PRADA Building would be different from the guidelines of the district and therefore have a significant impact in the character of the district.

(+) David Meckel, Dean Architectural School at CCAS

-          The economic, social and urban vitality of cities can only be maintained through renewal and regeneration

-          The nature of retail further emphasis this need, which is recognized in section 5a through the description of Area of History

-          The evaluation of the map under the title  Progressive Development of KMNS District , dated December 2000, showed 5 categories. The category of 1946 - 1980 makes up only 9.6% of the buildings in the district. It is this category that holds most of the unlisted buildings and provides the opportunity for increased fatalities

ACTION: Public hearing closed. Meeting held. No action required

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

 

15a. 2000.660BX (CRAWFORD: 558-6358)

35 HAWTHORNE STREET - Assessor’s Block 3735 Lot 047, north side of Hawthorne Street between Howard and Folsom Streets. Planning Code Sections 320-325 (Office Development Limitation Program) for allocation of up to 40,350 gross square feet of office space for an 11-story building within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown, Office, and Special Development) District and within a 150-S Height and Bulk District. The Project will demolish an existing one story parking building and construct a 10 story building including 40,350 gross square feet of office space, 2,800 square feet of retail space and one residential unit.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER (s):

(+) Jim Webber, Co-Owner

-          Has managed and developed the property since 1978. Considered the proposed project to be a logical and appropriate final development phase on the L shape parcel of the corner of Hawthorne and Howard Street

-          Feel that this proposal will enhance the City

-          Thanked the Planning staff for the help and numerous applications in the last year and a half and especially comments and criticisms that we feel very much enhanced the building

(+) Andrew Lewisky, Project Architect

- Gave an overall description of the project

(+) Joshua Freewall, Co-Owner

-          This is a meritorious project. Encouraged Commission to approve it

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Joe; Lim

NAYES: Chinchilla;

ABSENT: Salinas

MOTION No. 16174

 

15b. 2000.660BX (CRAWFORD: 558-6358)

35 HAWTHORNE STREET - Assessors Block 3735 Lot 047, north side of Hawthorne Street between Howard and Folsom Streets. Request under Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Code) for Determinations of Compliance, and for exceptions as provided under Section 309.a to (1) allow a 5 foot setback from the interior property line above the 103 foot building base where 15 feet are required, to (2) allow no setback from the rear property line at the level of the residential unit where a 28 foot setback is required and to (3) allow wind currents to exceed the permitted maximum of 11 miles per hour at the pedestrian level. The Project will demolish an existing one story parking building and construct an 11-story building including 40,350 gross square feet of office space, 2,800 square feet of retail space and one residential unit. This project lies within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown, Office, Special Development) District and within a 150-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKERS: Same as thoes listed in item 15a.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Joe; Lim

NAYES: Chinchilla; Baltimore

ABSENT: Salinas

MOTION No. 16175

 

16a. 2000.863CV (WONG: 558-6381)

2712 MISSION STREET - west side between 23rd and 24th Streets, lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 3643. Request for Conditional Use Authorization for a "Public Use", pursuant to Planning Code Section 712.83. The proposal is for the renovation and expansion of an existing 27,831 gross-square-foot retail building into a 32,000 gross-square-foot building by enlarging a mezzanine within the existing structure. The City and County of San Francisco Public Health Department intends on operating an outpatient mental health clinic at this location. The subject property falls within a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Commercial Zoning) District and a 50-X/80-B Height and Bulk District Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKER (s):

(+) Warner Schmall. Project Architect

-          Gave a general description of the project

(+) Manuel Vasquez

- Better accessibility to neighbors

- Would enhance the Mission District

- This would enhance the accessibility to senior citizens that do not have access to health care

(+) Sergio Canjura

- Full support of this project

- Services provided by this health center would help the neighborhood

- Encouraged the Commission the approve this project

(+) Linda Wong

- Personally involved for the last 6 years to find sites for the adult city programs in the Mission

-          In this site we would have the three service program together

-          Transportation is very good in the area

-          No concerns of whether frail elderly would be willing to come to this site

-          We have home visiting to our sick/elder patients

(-) Sara Davis

-          Concerns about the traffic and parking

(-) Bruce Olson, Social Worker

- Putting a program for the elderly in the basement is very inappropriate. This basement is 275 feet long. There would be only 2 bathrooms to serve staff and elderly patients. Other bathrooms are at the far end

- There is no parking for the staff nor the patients

ACTION: Approved with conditions

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

MOTION NO 16176

 

16b. 2000.863CV (WONG: 558-6381)

2712 MISSION STREET - west side between 23rd and 24th Streets, lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 3643. The subject property seeks a parking variance for the reduction of required off-street parking from 57 to 6 spaces, pursuant to Planning Code Section 151. The project proposes to provide 6 parking spaces (4 independently accessible parking spaces and 2 tandem spaces) for approximately 15,769 square feet of occupied outpatient clinic space and approximately 9,864 of administrative space on a site which presently provides no off-street parking spaces. The total proposed occupied floor area equals 25,633 square feet. Under Planning Code Section 151, the proposed uses require a total of 72 off-street parking spaces, where 1 off-street space is required for every 300 square feet of occupied clinic space and 1 off-street space is needed for every 500 square feet of occupied administrative space. The project receives a legal parking credit of 15 spaces for the previous retail use, pursuant to Planning Code Section 150 (d). After applying the legal parking credit, 57 off-street spaces are required. The subject property falls within a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Commercial Zoning) District and a 50-X/80-B Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed in item 16a.

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed Public Hearing and granted the variance subject to a condition that the sponsor make a good faith effort to secure parking in the area and report back on the progress that is made.

 

At Approximately 5:40 PM the Planning Commission conveneD into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

 

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 May 10, 2001)

Note: On May 10, 2001, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion to continue the matter to June 14, 2001, to revise the design facade, by a vote +5 –0. Commissioner Fay was absent. Public Hearing is closed but will be reopened for comments on new design only.

 

SPEAKER (s):

(+) Alice Barkley,

- Gave a description of the new façade design of the project

(-) Patricia Vaughey

- Neighbors got these new changes just yesterday

-    Asked for a two week continuance

-    There has not been a chance to talk with the new architect regarding the new proposed changes

(-) James Meyers

-    Elevator shaft would have to go–just as the Commission asked the last time this item was before you

- Materials that the Commission considered changing have not been changed.

(-) Kelly Dyke

- Agreed with Patricia Vaughey that continuing this case is the best thing. It will be fair

- They haven't given us any information about the new revision we received just yesterday

- Thrilled that there won't be an elevator shaft

- This will block our view and light

(-) Cathy Sernovich

-          Do not approve this project

(-) Louise Baldochi

- Proposed project should preserve the marina architecture

 

ACTION: Take DR and approve project with modifications shown in Exhibit  B' by

Hank Bruce Architects dated June 6, 2001.

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

ITEM 18 CALLED OUT OF ORDER AFTER ITEM # 22

 

18. 2001.0147D (NIKITAS: 558-6306)

2645 BAKER STREET - west side between Union and Green Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 0949. Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2000/10/19/3483 and 2000/10/19/3487 to demolish a three-story residence and build a new four-story, two-family home in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 17, 2001)

 

SPEAKER (s):

(+) Robert McCarthy

- With the cooperation all of the parties including Mr. Williams, we were able to reach a resolution, which we think includes most of the good neighbor policies

(+) Steve Williams

- On behalf of the DR requestor, we have reached a written settlement agreement.

ACTION: No action taken. The request for Discretionary Review is Withdrawn

PRESENT: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

19. 2001.0385DD (TAM: 558-6325)

228 CHENERY STREET - Staff initiated and a neighbor’s Discretionary Review request on building permits 2000/12/28/8738 and 2000/12/28/8823 to demolish an existing one-story, single-family dwelling, and construct a new three-story over garage, two-family dwelling, 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.

 

SPEAKER (s): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 6/21/01

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

 

20. 2001.0487D (WOLOSHYN: 558-6612)

2158-60 FILBERT STREET - north side of the street between Fillmore and Webster Streets; Lot 032 in Assessor’s Block 0516. Staff-initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Number 2001/0215/2255S, proposing to reduce the legal number of dwelling units from 2 to 1, in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the application.

 

SPEAKER (s):

(+) Mark Thomas, Architect for the project

- This project complies with the Department's criteria

-          No occupants should be displaced

-          This project is consistent with the San Francisco Master plan

- This would give the opportunity to a lot of families to live and work in the City

(+) Barbara Anderson, Property Owner

- Lived on her property since 1992

- Would like to raise her family and provide them with adequate affordable housing

ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

21. 2001.0498D (WOLOSHYN: 558-6612)

2339 GREEN STREET - north side between Steiner and Pierce Streets; Lot 041 in Assessor’s Block 0559. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Number 2001-0130-0997S, proposing to add a one-story deck, with a depth of six feet, at the rear of the existing house, 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.

 

SPEAKER (s):

(+) Judith Branch, Property Owner

- Approve this project with the tentative compromise agreement of a 4-foot setback

(+) Ellen Wise

- Thanked the Department for being so helpful during this difficult process

ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve with a 4-foot setback on the side of the DR requestor

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

22a. 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. The proposal would alter an existing vacant one‑story over garage, single‑family dwelling into a 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 and May 10, 2001, respectively. Following public testimony on April 6, 2000, 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 (the demolition building permit application will be withdrawn by the project sponsor); (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 retain approximately 42 feet of the front of the existing building which includes both exterior side walls and some of the interior walls. The existing facade would be preserved and moved forward by approximately 3 feet 4 inches and lowered by approximately 4 feet. The facade would be attached to a reinforced and expanded structure constructed between its new location and the existing portions of the sidewalls, which are to remain in place. The sidewalls would be extended downward by approximately 4 feet and the 3‑foot 11‑inch parapet would be removed. The revised project would further include building additions above and behind the retained portion of the existing building, resulting in a three‑story over garage, three‑family dwelling. 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 by the Department of Building Inspection to not require a demolition permit under the Building Code, the Planning Department believes that it is consistent with the Commission's instruction to not demolish the existing house as communicated on April 6, 2000. However, as to whether or not, the proposal is consisted with the Commission's second instruction of substantial retention of front part of the building must be a decision of the current members of the Commission. No specific positions or instructions were provided on April 6, 2000. In evaluating whether substantial retention has been achieved, the Commission should consider the removal of the front facade from the foundation (temporary storage off‑site) and reattaching a restored facade 3 feet forward and 4 feet lower than the current location. It is the Department's position that the restored facade can and should be reattached at the existing location with some minor alteration at the base to accommodate the modified driveway entrance.

 

SPEAKER (s):

(+) Amanda Lewis

- Urged the Commission to approve this project

- On 4/6/00, the Commission asked us to come with a new design

- The Commission did not say that the façade was going to be removed

- Instructed to keep in character with the neighborhood

- Moving it forward provides better light

- Accommodate the driveway

- Replacement of windows on the second floor

- Design is as requested by the Commission

- The façade is kept with the other restrictions

(+) Judith Hoyem – DR Requestor

- Over 900 people signed a petition to save this house

- Plan does not show a substantial portion retained

- How can the façade be preserved?

- Moving it forward is not keeping the house

- They will be building two stories on top of the building

- Asked that the new construction start 32 feet back

- Variance on the side they have the stairway right on the rear

- We ask to approve this 3 units building, but with conditions

(+) Mark Ryser

-          I have followed this project since November 1998, and wrote to the Commission in April '99, March '00 and most recently on 6/5 of this year

-          Hope you had chance to look at the letter of 5/29 sent to Ms. Lewis

-          Commented on the retention of historic preservation

-          Community will not compromise. The community did not resist the project sponsor's desire to redevelop this site; they did not demand the retention of the existing building

-          Project sponsor had conceptions, and maintained a substantial part of the building

(+) Paul Duchscherer, Architectural historian

-          Its is important to know in what context the house was built

-          The façade in the current position was part of the integrity of the streetscape

(+) Felix Smith

-          This sound like a demolition, it is a violation of the instruction of this Commission

(+) Lucia Bogatay

- This commission should uphold the decision of the previous Board, which in her reading required substantial retention of the building, not a substantial retention of the front of the building

- They should hire an architectural preservation specialist

(+) Will Prague

-          One of the problems we have with dealing with a lot of projects coming through Planning and Building is the definition of terms

-          What is a façade? Is it an architectural treatment or is it structuraly part of the building?

-          This building was hand built literally piece by piece -

(+) Gustavo Serina

-          Supports the former Commission's decision made on April 6

-          Moving this façade causes enormous risk

-          Moving this façade is not necessary to accommodate the construction of the 3 expensive condominiums that have been proposed

-          We do not want a demolition

-          Honor the intent as well of the letter of the original ruling

(-) Vicki Rosen. President, Upper Noe Valley

-          Support the Discretionary Review applicant

-          Please retain a substantial portion of the Victorian building,

- Preserve the façade. It is a beautiful streetscape. It is part of San Francisco's historical architecture

(+) Mark Benjamin

- Support the Discretionary Review requestor

-          Moving the façade would destroy the character of the neighborhood

-          Several homes in the area that have done remodeling have kept totally within the character of the neighborhood. This particular project does not preserve the character or the architecture of the rest of the homes in that block

- Support the original Planning Commission decision

- Asked the Commission to review the Discretionary Review requestor's plan for the building

(+) Steve Bartoletti

-          Planning Commission voted unanimously a year ago, over a thousand people signed petitions

- Sponsor is trying to circumvent the unanimous ruling of the Commission

-          The Commission and the neighborhood agreed to support a variance that would benefit the sponsor, allowing him to build deep into the lot. But this was in exchange for preserving the front half of the 100 year old Victorian

(+) Dennis Richard

-          Urged and reaffirmed the decision that was made last year

-          We do need housing in the City. Supported the compromise agreement

(+) Andrew Laws

- Asked the Commission to uphold the previous decision

-          Preserve the front of the house. There will not be alterations to the front of the house

(+) Scott Larimer

-          This is a demolition, and is not in the spirit of the original ruling

-          If we follow this ruling, everybody will be happy

(+) Erin Day

- Opposed to the current plans proposed by the current owner

- Uphold Commission decision from last year

(+) Freddie Niem

- Lived one block south of the proposed project

- A lot of Victorian houses have been demolished in our neighborhood, especially in recent years.

- We need to preserve the history of this City

(+) Joe Butler

-          Retain the front portion of the house. It was built in 1888.

-          Sponsor not only incorporated the rear addition in square footage, but adds one to two stories to the front of the building

(+) Bill Kostura

-          In the course of his work he has to evaluate historic buildings sometimes--deciding whether they have local, state, or national significance. As he traveles he has gained more prospective about San Francisco Victorians. There is not another city made of wood. San Francisco is very unique in the Country because many of our houses was/is made out of wood

-          You do not see this kind of housing in the entire country

-          In Oakland most of the Victorians are gone. In San Francisco we should consider our Victorians a national treasure

(+) Courtney Clarkson

-          Retain the building that could never be replicated

(+) Robert Bregoff

- Support the Discretionary Review applicant

- Saving a substantial part of the project is really important to the neighborhood

(+) Jannine Przyblyski

-          Please preserve the neighborhood character

-          This is a demolition. This will destroy the existing house, destroying the precious example of our Victorian heritage and disrupt the relation with other Victorian houses in the neighborhood

-          The community is fighting for the soul of the neighborhood. Fighting for a city that cares about its history and honors its past, and understand that what distinguishes a great city from a mediocre one, are the accumulated layers of architectural history.

(+) Richard McRree

- Opposed the response from the developer

- Retain the façade of the building

- Needs to be send back to the drawing board

(+) Steve Williams

-          It is against the law for an owner to let a building deteriorate deliberately

-          Urged the Commission to not reward deliberate damage to the building in order to obtain a demolition permit.

(-) Rachael Briya

- Preserve the architectural history of this beautiful City

- Approve the project. Project would increase density. The owner has worked to do what this Commission asked him to do

- Owner has demonstrated that he is willing to save the integrity and character of the building

(-) James Cassiol

-          Unbelievable that this project has gone this far

-          Project sponsor has compromised

- Allow this project to go forward. Do not delay it more. This City needs housing

(-) Margaret Brown

- This is a neighborhood with a mixture of buildings

- This building is not a jewel. It is a dilapidated building

- Property owner tried to compromise

- It is an attractive design

- Support the property owner

(-) Taylor Walker

- The projcet maintains the character of the block

- It maintains the scale and architectural history of the building

-          It would add much needed housing to a major urban transportation hub

-          It preserve significant parts of the old building, including all the characteristic defining features

(-) Nolan Griffin

- Permit the proposed improvements to this property

-          We have a tremendous housing shortage in the City.

-          Urged the Commission to approve this project

(-) Adele Zierler

-          Housing is so short in the City and neighbors are not realizing it will enhance their property

- Urged the Commission to approve the project

(-) Joan Bard

-          It will enhance the neighborhood

(-) Robert Roper

- Supports project that is being proposed

- This is a real benefit to the City

- City needs additional housing

- Approve this project

(-) Nancy Stamm

- Plans had gone through a variety of changes

-          Plans before you have been compromised, and we believe it is a very good compromise

-          Retained a substantial portion of the old house and the original façade to accommodate many of the concerns raised of the DR applicant

- Tried very hard to situate the building on the property site, to preserve the look of the original house in the neighborhood

The existing building is not a landmark. It is an old structure

(-) David Meisner

- Supports project

(-) Ken Ralph

- Supports project

(-) Chip Doyle

- This is a great project

- Recommends that the Commission accept this wonderful project

- Would maintain the charm of the area

(-) Unknown speaker

- Supports project

(-) Robert Walter, Architect for the Project

- The reason for moving the building down is very essential--the current stairs that go to the building are very steep and in order to bring them to code but appear the same, we brought the building forward.

- There are other reasons why we lowered the building--the windows on the second floor would

be 5 feet high

Trying to do a good project within the constraints we were giving was a challenge

- There is open space in front of the building

(-) Richard Pirner

- Support the original design of the project

(-) Ed Cramer

-          Supports the project--either the original project or as proposed today. This is really an eyesore to look at it.

-          In favor of restoring or building a new structure

 

ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications:

-           The revised plan shall involve the retention of at least 25 feet of the existing building measured from the face of the front bay window. The second and third floors of the new building shall commence at least 25 feet from the face of the front bay window.

-          The reviewed plan must keep the retained portion of the house within the original footprint and at the existing elevation. The retained portion of the house (shall) be restored to Secretary of the Interior standards as used by the Planning Department

-          They (the project sponsors) should retain a preservation specialist to advise them during the process of retention and construction.

-          The revised plan will include a five-foot setback along the rear side property line to retain the accommodation for the property-line windows (of the adjacent house)

 

AYES: Theoharis; Fay; Baltimore; Chinchilla; Joe; Lim

ABSENT: Salinas

 

22b. 2000.138DV (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 alter an existing vacant one‑story over garage, single‑family dwelling by remodeling it into a 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 and May 10, 2001, respectively. Following public testimony on April 6, 2000, the Commission adopted a Motion to continue 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 units to be constructed on the site. The revised project proposes to retain approximately 42 feet of the front of the existing building, which includes both exterior side walls, and some of the interior walls. The existing facade would be preserved and moved forward by approximately 3 feet 4 inches and lowered by approximately 4 feet. The facade would be attached to a reinforced and expanded structure constructed between its new location and the existing portions of the sidewalls, which are to remain in place. The sidewalls would be extended downward by approximately 4 feet and the 3‑foot 11‑inch parapet would be removed. The revised project would further include building additions above and behind the retained portion of the existing building, resulting in a three‑story over garage, three‑family dwelling. 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.

Section 136(c)(25) of the Planning Code allows enclosed and unenclosed extensions of buildings, as permitted obstructions, to extend no more than 12 feet into the required open area, provided that the structure shall be limited to a height not exceeding the floor level of the second floor of occupancy, excluding the ground story, at the rear of the building on the subject property, in which case the structure shall be no closer than 5 feet to any interior side lot line. Section 134(c) requires a minimum rear yard of approximately 35 feet, measured from the mid‑point of the rear property line for the subject lot. The new addition to be constructed behind the retained portion of the front part of the existing building would be three stories tall, extending 12 feet into the required rear yard to be within approximately 33 feet 6 inches of the rear property line and would encroach entirely into the required 5‑foot separation from the east side lot line and from the west side lot line, respectively.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed in item 22a.

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the Public Hearing and has granted

the Rear Yard Variance

 

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))

 

SPEAKERS: None

 

Adjournment: 8:30 p.m.

 

 

THE DRAFT MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 2001.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Theoharis

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