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

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

June 21, 2001

June 21, 2001




Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 21, 2001

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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


STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Isolda Wilson; David Alumbaugh, Amith Ghosh; Sam Assefa; Tina Tam; Alison Borden; Scott Sanchez; Michael Kometani; Paul Maltzer; Patricia Gerber – Transcription Secretary; Linda D. Avery – Commission Secretary


1. 2000.1261EC (WANG: 558‑6335)

4501 IRVING STREET, southwest corner of Irving Street and 46th Avenue; Lots 047 and 049 in Assessor's Block 1801 ‑ ‑ Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.1 and 710.11 to develop a new, four‑story, mixed‑use building, including approximately 1,800 square feet of ground floor commercial space and ten dwelling units on three upper floors, on two lots totaling approximately 8,250 square feet in area within an NC‑1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and a 40‑X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for continuance to June 28, 2001)

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2. 2001.0234D (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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 24, 2001)

(Proposed for continuance to August 2, 2001)

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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


3. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of May 10, 2001.


ACTION: Approved

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

4. Commission Matters

Commissioner Lim: Urged the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors to approve the Planning Department's Proposed Budget


5. Director's Announcements

- Gave a status report regarding to the Department's proposed budget before the Finance Committee

- 19th and Oakwood – 43 residential units – Compromise proposal was submitted and was continued to Monday June 25, 2001 to allow the public to comment on the compromise proposal.

- Housing Land Use and Transportation Committee – Legislation sponsored by Supervisor Tom Ammiano would create Interim Zoning within the Mission District. Director appeared before the Board Committee on 6/20 to comment on this legislation and to communicate that the Department carried out the necessary review.

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

- Zoning Administrator represented the Department at the Building Inspection Commission's Unlawful Demolition Subcommittee on Tuesday 6/19 to address the concern about  Unlawful Demolition

B of A: None

7. Presentation on Controller's Office Audit and Department's response.


(-) Sue Hestor

-          Planning Department should get out of the business of handling money. This department is not set up as a money handling department

-          Controller's Audit did not identify a problem that she was able to identify--which is the Planning Department staff does not understand the provisions of transit impact fees, which covers not only offices but also business services

- There are no close-out procedures for files. The Department needs to close them out and notify the appropriate agencies

(-) Alice Barkley

-          We do not need to create another Department to solve these problems

-          The School District does very well. They do not issue your site permit or your building permit until you pay the fees

-          Since most impacts do not happened until the building is completed and people moved in, and since DBI is the collecting agcncy, they [DBI] should have within their tickler system a way to know whether or not the fees have been paid before they issue any permits of occupancy or certificate of occupancy whether it is temporary or permanent.

(-) Phil Donohue

-          Does seem to him that the Controller's Office is doing a good job, the entire process has been politicized

8. 2001.0609

455 Market Street - Keller Graduate School of Management- Assessor’s Block 3709 Lot 012. Request under Planning Code Section 304.5(c) receipt of application for an Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan, for a graduate level management degree program occupying no more than 10,000 square feet of space in an existing office building.

Preliminary Recommendation: The Department recommends that the Planning Commission not hold a public hearing on this request.


ACTION: No public hearing will be held

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

9. (ALUMBAUGH: 558-6601)

San Francisco Federal Office Building - Informational presentation on the conceptual design of the proposed new Federal Office Building at Seventh and Mission Streets.

Preliminary Recommendation: None. Informational only, with no staff endorsement



(+) Maria Ciprazo, GSA

-          Hopes the Commission will share our enthusiasm for this long waited project

-          This federal project not only rethinks the office building prototype, but also creates a new place--a destination within the City's fabric

-          This will become a catalyst for change

-          The creation of community space that is within the complex is intended to facilitate a critical mass of people to come into the area to make use of not only of the federal services but the facility in and of itself. It is to enlighten a San Francisco neighborhood that has been lacking a public use space for many years

-          In July 2000, GSA gained title to the site on 7th and Mission. At this location, we were given an opportunity to showcase our historic 9th Court of Appeals by developing a structure that serves and frames the beauty of the Court House as well as preserves view corridors

(+) Tom Mayne, Project Architect

Gave a detail description of the project

(+) Catherine Dodd, District Director for Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi

-          We are loosing a lot of Federal employees to Oakland and Richmond. We have lost the Social Security Administration, Drug Administration and several others. We are soon to loose the National Park Service Office from San Francisco because of the high cost of office space and the lack of Federal office building space.

-          This proposal is a very slender building.

-          It will reflect the sky and the historic buildings surrounding it.

-          It would be a very active plaza

- Embrace this new design

(+) John Anderson, Federal Employee

- Believed this new plaza would be very nice and very different from United Nations Plaza

- Would be a very safe place to work

(+/-) Michael Levin-

-          Ever since he first heard about this many years ago, especially with the jewel building across the street--Old Court of Appeals, and the glorious City Hall, he felt it might be fair to compare our government buildings with the best government buildings in Washington D.C.

-          Hoped to see a building that would be complimentary to the glorious Court of Appeals

-          He is greatly pleased by the large plaza because it affords one a view to the beauty of the Court of Appeals, and because of the open space

-          He has a problem with the design. Does not believe it compliments the Court of Appeals in any way. It is slender from the east-west perspective--that is certainly a plus, but from north and south it is a huge rectangular mass that appears not to blend with the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood

(+) Jim Haas

-          This building is essential to the east side of the Civic Center and Mid-Market area with the 3000 employees and the agencies that are going to be there

-          The building should try to connect 7th Street to Civic Center--which has been a goal going back before the 1906 earthquake when the Court of Appeals was built

- The Federal Government is giving us an opportunity to try something new for a change

- Have concerns mainly about the plaza

-          This project will bring thousands of new people to this area. Although it is in a transit corridor, the building itself virtually won't have any parking. Parking will become a chaos

(-) Lu Blazej

-          I had seen many projects–private and government projects. It has been a long standing policy that both the Federal and State government, even though they are exempt from local laws and ordinances, respect those law and ordinances.

-          Clearly the massing and the lay out of this project do not meet the provisions of the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan and the planning process is for the whole City. The State and Federal government should respect what is [established to guide development] for San Francisco.

-          Surprised that GSA came before you with a project that so exceeds what the policy and guidelines are. It is unbelievable.

- This is totally disrespectful to what the Planning Code stipulates

(-) Robert Meyers

-          Agreed with the former speaker

-          We might as well throw the Urban Design Plan and Larry Badiner's Downtown Plan out of the window if this project is approved

-          Open space and energy conservations are terrific

-          It is mainly the mass on Market Street. This mass would create terrible shadows on Market


ACTION: No Action Required

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

D.                  REGULAR CALENDAR

10. (WILSON: 558-6602)

Planning Commission consideration of adoption proposed changes to the rules for the

2001-2002 Office Development Annual Limitation Program.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 7, 2001)



(-) Sue Hestor

-          Suggested that the hearing/decision should be continued at least a week

-          Just got information yesterday and there is a significant change

-          Need to have an integrated list of projects

ACTION: Continued to 7/12/01

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

11. 2001.0602 E, T, Z (GREEN: 558-6411)

Permanent Industrial Protection Zone - Proposed initiation of an amendment to create a Permanent Industrial Protection Zone as a special use district in the industrially-zoned lands within a multi-block area generally bounded by Bayshore Avenue, 26th Street, 25th Street, Iowa Street, Tubbs, 22nd Street, San Francisco Bay, Islais Creek, Third Street, Evans, Rankin, Phelps, Oakdale, Selby, and Helena; and proposal to hold a public hearing on said proposed amendment no less than 20 days following initiation of the amendment.


(+) Alice Barkley

-          Glad to see that the Department is moving forward with this legislations

-          What the Department has right now, in a way, makes it even more restrictive in some of the IPZ areas than what is being proposed by the Board of Supervisors in terms of housing.

-          The Department should really look at this map. Agreed that there are some areas where there should not be any housing at all. But there are some pockets that at a minimum, the staff should allow non-profit, totally affordable housing to go forward. Make it double the density for affordability

(+) Lu Blazej

-          Glad that this is moving forward

(+) Joe O'Donoghue

-          Good that this is getting concrete planning like this, but unfortunately, this going down the same path.

-          Unlike in the past, when there was more money available to the Department and the Board of Supervisors had some interest in solving the housing and job issues, we have now constraints on the Department.

-          One of the problems we have is that the model, which we had set up, is deficient. We should, as part of the model, when we give the number of the many possible jobs, we should also put a tax dollar increment as revenue to these figures, especially in terms of housing. Because the fact is that job and housing production and property tax revenue is the economy engine that in fact provides 90% of the revenue to this City.

(-) John Sanger

-          Unfortunately this is moving forward and no analytical foundation has been establish whatsoever, either on land use analysis or economics for this proposal

-          It took fifteen years through the 60s and 70s to change the City's zoning and get rid-off of the provisions on housing and mixed use in Industrial districts.

-          This is been unfairly presented.

-          This isolated the residents of these areas including the traditional Dogpatch neighborhood which is located immediately adjacent to the Special Use district

-          A creative approach might be in the form of some variation to the existing interim controls that bounces between how to deal with vacant land, land that is already occupied by industrial uses of various types, and how to somehow juggle the mixture of uses that have been traditional in San Francisco Zoning.

(-) Steve Vettel

-          South of Cesar Chavez is perfectly appropriate

-          His concern is the north area of Cesar Chavez. It is a mixed-use area that is currently undergoing community planning as part of the Better Neighborhoods 2000-2002 program in the Central Waterfront Plan.

-          It seems little precipitous to impose permanent bans on all housing in an area that is undergoing studies under Master Plan policies and the Better Neighborhood 2000-2002 program.

-          Let this Better Neighborhood process go on in that area.

(+) Stanley Marouca, Redevelopment Agency project manager for the Bayview-Hunters Point

- Supports the proposed project that has been presented to the Commission

(+) Jim Martin, Economic Development Chairperson for the Project Area Committee (PAC)

-          Respectfully requested that the Planning Department reconsider the boundaries of the proposed perminent Industrial Protection Zone. To exclude from the proposed perminent Industrial Controls the land within Assessor's blocks 4355, 4356, 4357, 4377, 78, 5217, 5226, 5304 and 5313. These blocks are either directly adjacent to 3rd. Street or to the pending MUNI 3rd Street Lightrail Line.

-          Focus on capitalizing on the economic development and affordable housing opportunities provided by the lightrail line

-          Requested that instead of creating a new community plan study area for the Bayview Hunters Point, that the Planning Department and the Commission work with the Bayview Hunters Point Project Area Committee (PAC) and the Redevelopment Agency, because in creating a redevelopment survey in 1995 the Board of Supervisors granted the PAC future planning jurisdiction for all properties line south of Cesar Chavez Boulevard and Highway 101

(+) Andrew Junius

-          Supports the proposed project

ACTION: Initiated. Public hearing 7/19/01

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

MOTION No. 16177

12. 2001.0602 E, T, Z (GREEN: 558-6411)

Community Plan Study Areas and Policies and Procedures in Some Industrial Lands - Proposed resolution establishing four community plan study areas encompassing the industrially-zoned lands in the South of Market, Showplace Square/Lower Porter Hill area, Bay view/Hunters Point, and the area of the Mission District generally bounded by the Central Freeway, Porter Avenue, Cesar Chavez, and Guerrero; and establishing policies and procedures for development proposals in some industrially-zoned lands within the four proposed community plan study areas and the Central Waterfront.


(-) Alice Barkley

-          I think this needs to be clarified.

-          Secondly, you referred back to resolution 18461, the department staff under Mr. Ghosh has got to stop referring and putting layers and layers of resolutions, one on top of another.

(-) Quentin Maeck

-          In the current zoning of South of Market, the SSO is the only area where office development is allowed.

-          Early this year we requested through Supervisor McGoldrick's office and Supervisor Daly's office a list of business services in the SOMA. We received that list and are currently in the process of researching the available space that now stands vacant and cannot be used for anything else. Mr. Badiner had indicated that he will not be issuing any more termination of business services.

(-) Bob Meyers

-          Pointed out that in the SLI district one of the goals presented today was to encourage and maximize housing in the SOMA. The SLI district which occupied one half of the entire SOMA has a restriction in it--while it permits housing by conditional use, the only housing that is permitted there is low income housing. Since this plan was adopted in 1989, outside the redevelopment area no low-income housing has been produced. If we want affordable housing in the SOMA, it has to be associated with market rate housing

-          Urged that market rate housing through conditional use (in order to generate the desirable affordable housing) be considered through our planning process for the SLI and other districts.

(-) Jim Martin, Economic Development Chairperson for the Project Area Committee (PAC

-          Community needs to hear directly from members of the different agencies involved in this process

-          Urged the Commission to schedule a full presentation

(+) Jim Rico

-          We need to find ways to encourage neighborhood serving, neighborhood building development in SOMA

(-) Joe O'Donoghue

-          In the past there have been a lot of documents produced by this Department, and nothing ever happened. For example, the live work. Reports like this came out; we were supposed to build 10,000 live work units in the SOMA. That never happened because halfway through the process you get the protestors. You get the self interest groups. And the protestors this time came from the outside, not from the people generally around the area, as this Commission very well knows

ACTION: No action. This matter will be continued at future hearings.

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

ABSENT: Theoharis

13. 2000.541E (KUGLER: 558-5983)

350 BUSH STREET - Office Development - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report: Assessor's Block 269, Lots 2, 2a, 3, 22, 24, 25, 26, which is the approximate middle third of the Block between Bush, Pine, Kearny and Montgomery Streets. The proposed project which would have frontages on both Bush and Pine Streets would be a 250-foot-high (19 stories), 400,000 sq.ft. office building that would incorporate the historical San Francisco Mining Exchange Building (San Francisco Landmark No. 113). The proposed office tower would be set back from the Bush Street façade of the Mining Exchange Building. The project as proposed would contain 360,000 sq.ft. of office use, 7,270 sq.ft. of retail use and 32,730 sq.ft. of parking as 100 subsurface parking spaces. Four existing buildings (465-469 Pine, 451-453 Pine, 447 Pine, and 441-443 Pine) would be demolished. The project site is located in the Financial District of downtown San Francisco in the C-3-O Zoning District and 250-S Height and Bulk District.

Note: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on July 5, 2001.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required.


(-) Michael Levin

-          Concerned about the mass of the building

-          EIR is lacking in graphics and photographs, this was something the Landmarks Board members brought up

-          There are not any photos of the interior of the Mining Exchange Building, and this is a Landmark. The architect expressed various aspects on what they plan to do to preserve it. This should be part of the EIR.

-          Building has been vacated for many years and glad to see a proposal that would energize it

-          Photos were very interesting but not useful. For example, the photos in the EIR showed a drawing of the building that is significantly different from what the actual building may appear to be.

ACTION: Meeting held. Public hearing closed.

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

ABSENT: Theoharis

14. 2001.0150R (ASSEFA: 558-6625)

20th STREET VACATION - 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 San Francisco General Plan.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 24, 2001)


15. 2001.0140C (TAM: 558-6325)

845 Vienna Street – Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow expansion of an existing private elementary school at 845 Vienna Street (School of the Epiphany), under Planning Code Section 209.3(g). The proposal is to demolish an existing one-story converted church building, which houses the present gymnasium and construct a new two-story building, approximately 13,800 square feet at the northeast corner of the school site. The property is located within a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.


Monsignor Bruce Rayer

-          The project before you has been a dream for the last five years

-          The existing school building that we have now it just inadequate to meet the needs of the 600 students we have right now in our program.

-          We were planning originally to put this building on top of the school, but we encountered some real problems in developing that because the roof is wood, we had to put in a concrete floor, and the concrete floor triggered retrofitting of the entire building

-          Our original church was built in 1911. It has been moved a coupled of times in our neighborhood. It has been our gymnasium since 1951.

-          Made a reference to Condition #5: This conditions states that the new two-story building, that is part of the School of the Epiphany should be used only by the school and should not be rented out for outside events or used for non-school related events. He believes that this is a very narrow sentence. First of all, our facilities are not available for rent. We do not rent to any outside group.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

The new two-story building that is part of School of the Epiphany shall be used only by the school and shall not be rented out for outside events or used for non-school and non-parish related events.

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

ABSENT: Theoharis

MOTION No. 16178

16. 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 24, 2001)


ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 26, 2001

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

ABSENT: Theoharis

At Approximately 6:07 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

17. 2001.0385DD (TAM: 558-6325)

283 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 14, 2001)


(+) John Wurly

-          Lived in the neighborhood for many years

-          Surprised by the size of the project

-          Concerned about the space between the two residences

-          Windows are the only resource of light to the laundry room and kitchen

-          Will be deprive of light and ventilation

-          Concerned about the noise coming from the other house

-          There is also a fire hazard because of the closeness of the properties

-          Over all the project is too massive and parking will create an impact in the neighborhood

(+) Paul Curtis

-          Lives very close to the proposed project

-          This proposal would impact the character of the neighborhood

-          There are no fourth floor buildings on Chennery Street

-          Would block enormously the only sunlight that comes into this house

-          It is out of context with the rest of the neighborhood

-          Commission should impose the removal of the fourth floor as one of the conditions of approval.

(+) Mary Ann Wurly-Deignan

-          Has lived in the area for 80 years

-          His mother spends most of her time in the kitchen since she retired because it is the sunnyest room in the whole house

-          With this new proposed project, his mother will not be able to enjoy the little bit of sunlight that she has in her house

-          This will be detrimental to his mother's health as well as the property value of the house

-          The rooftop is unacceptable. It would violate their privacy.

(-) Charles Karl, Architect

- Gave a description of the project

ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve project with modifications:

(1) Obtain demolition clearance before approving any building permits to demolish and reconstruct a building on the subject property;

(2) Reduce the 12-foot permitted obstruction at the rear of the property from three (3) to two (2) stories to comply with the Residential Design Guidelines to respect rear yards and open space;

(3) Eliminate the proposed fourth story completely to reduce the mass and scale of the building and to be more consistent with the established two and three-story development pattern on the block and in the surrounding neighborhood;

(4) Eliminate the roof deck completely to further negate the need for any additional structures (stair tower and railing) protruding vertically from the proposed building envelop. However, should the roof deck be allowed and access to and from the roof area is required, then propose a stair penthouse of a minimal size instead of a spiral stair tower that is so grandiose in design. Furthermore, the stair penthouse should be located where it does not negatively impact the adjacent neighboring property to the west and is not so visually dominating from the street;

(5) Increase the building separation between the subject and the adjacent building to the west from three (3) to a minimum of four (4) feet;

(6) Modify or remove all horizontal and vertical projections located along the west side setback area, including the stair tower and two (2) chimneys to minimize negative impacts on light, air, and privacy to the DR requestor’s property line windows

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

ABSENT: Theoharis

18. 2001.0251DD (BORDEN: 558-6321)

2935 PACIFIC AVENUE - south side of Pacific between Baker and Broderick Streets, Lot 27in Assessor’s Block 976. Staff-initiated Discretionary Review of proposal to merge three dwelling units into two units and neighbors’ request for Discretionary Review on a proposal for new fourth story and basement additions, including changes to the roof pitch, under Building Permit Application No. 2000/12/21/8481 in an RM-2 (Mixed Residential, Moderate Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the building permit application.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 17, 2001)


(+) James Johnson

-          Project would have a severe impact in the light and air into the units on the west side

-          Deck would have direct viewing into their home

-          Proposed project is unacceptable and should be disapproved

-          It would change the character of the building

(+) Linda Ramori

- Supports Discretionary Review

(+) Tom Preskencsky

-          In support for the Discretionary Review

-          Concerned about the light and air

(+) Gail Sheptor

- In support of the Discretionary Review

- This will be too big

- Would loose sunlight, heat, and air

(+) Tom Ramori

- The foruth floor is a major issue. It will block the sunlight

(-) David Silverman, Project Sponsor

- Building has been vacant for a long time

- Constructed in 1936 as a two family dwelling

- DBI performed an inspection

- There is no permit on file

- Application is to return building to its original occupancy/usage

(-) Ernie Zelander, Project Architect

- Gave a description of the project

ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove

AYES: Baltimore; Chinchilla; Lim; Salinas

ABSENT: Theoharis; Fay; Joe

19. 2001.0042D (TAM: 558-6325)

176 Clipper Street - Discretionary Review request on Building Permit No. 2000/11/21/6290s to demolish the existing 10-foot, two-story over garage extension and construct a new 26’-7", two-story plus attic over garage extension at the rear of the property. The existing structure is a single-family dwelling, located in the RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project as revised.


(+) Jerry McDonald, DR requestor

-          Lived in this house for 32 years

-          This house was built in 1895 and he is the second owner. His concern is for quality of life. He hopes to live the rest of their life there

-          This has been done fast to avoid any additional process

-          Project would have 52 windows. 32 of those windows would be looking into every room in our house--into our private airwell, deck and garden.

-          This is a house with no regard to neighborhood context and neighbors

-          Addition would shaded their garden totally for 8 months of a year

(+) Dave Montz, President, Friends of Noe Valley

-          Concerned about how the request for continuance was handled

-          We have to be fair with the neighbors that are going to be affected by this project

(+) Unknown Speaker

- Read a letter on behalf of Timothy Fintz

-          Vertical addition of the 4th floor is completely inconsistent with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood

-          It will create shadows

-          It will negatively impact the properties adjacent to it

(+) Paul Curtis

- It is too intrusive

- This style does not fit in this neighborhood

(-) Jerome Alton, Architect

-          Scale of the project is consistent with the neighborhood

-          It is not a very large project

-          Prepared several studies that indicate this project would have very minimal impact on sunlight

(-) Laurie Hersch

- Supports project

(-) Laurie Bell, Owner

-          Needs to enlarge her house to take care of her mother

-          Supports the project

(-) David Bell

- Supports project

(-) Edward Bell, Owner

-          Lived at this property for many years

-          Proposed changes meet the design guidelines and is comparable with the existing buildings in the neighborhood

-          Cares about maintaining the neighborhood character

(-) Unknown speaker

- No objections to the project. It is well within the Planning Code.

(-) Francis Hellerim

- Supports the project

(-) Judith Turner

- Presented a petition from the neighbors

- Do not agree with the DR

- Fully supports the project

ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve as revised:

1. Elimination of the roof deck;

2. Reduction of the proposed floor height for portions of the master bedroom from 20 to 16 feet;

3. Removal of the roof overhang adjacent to the D.R requestor’s property; and

4. Usage of obscure rather than clear glass for all windows, including the portion of the bay window, facing the D.R. requestor’s property.

AYES: Baltimore; Chinchilla; Lim; Salinas

ABSENT: Theoharis; Fay; Joe

20. 2001.0542D (SANCHEZ: 558-6679)

217 - 219 16TH AVENUE - west side between California and Clement Streets, Lot 002 in

Assessor’s Block 1417. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/08/25/8970S, proposing to construct a three-story horizontal addition at the rear of the existing two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve project with revisions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 7, 2001)


(+) Denise Brady, Discretionary Review Requestor

-          Owned this building since 1932

-          Would loose air, light and heat

-          Our concerns are confirmed and supported by your staff recommendations

(-) Dan Lee, Co-Owner

-          Bought it in December 1999

-          Because of the number of members in our families, we decided to add to the back of our house

-          Provided a light study

-          Compromised by bringing the project back 5 feet

(-) Nancy Leland, Co-Owner

-          Has lived in the house for a year and a half

-          There won't be any shadow impact

(-) Debbie Lee

-          This is not a gigantic addition and is in conformity with the rest of the neighborhood

ACTION: Approved staff recommendation

AYES: Baltimore; Chinchilla; Lim; Salinas

ABSENT: Theoharis, Fay, Joe

21. 2001.0542D (KOMETANI: 558-6478)

290 UNION STREET - north side between Montgomery and Sansome Streets, Lot 15 in Assessor’s Block 106. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 200012057228, 9706246S, 9906666, 200004076744, 200004217904, with respect to a 4th floor balcony/fire escape at the rear, a chimney pipe at the rear and a roof deck railing at the rear. The subject property is a single family house in the Telegraph Hill Historic District, is in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District, and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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


(+) Melvin Seraca, DR requestor

- This is one the oldest residential buildings in the City

- Project was built contrary to plans

- Do not authorize the 4th floor addition

(+) Shirley Bentley

-          Does not support project

-          This is the first demolition in the Telegraph Hill Historic District since its designation–which was very controversial. The plans which became part of the approved certificate of appropriateness, memorialized the specific set of compromises and agreements between the developers, the Telegraph Hills Dwellers and the adjoining neighbors to resolve substantial controversies concerning the building envelope and height--specifically including the impact on the adjacent land locked historic cottages at 1334 Montgomery Street

(-) John Lutrell

-          The balcony has to come off

-          There are a series of maneuvers or actions that the developer has taken that are not in conformity with the original Cetificate of Apropriateness

-          This can only be interpreted as an intentional departure [from the agreements]

-          [If the agreements were kept,] the original height would be exactly what it should be, without going up 2 feet, 3 inches further

(+) Nancy Shanahan

-          Windows and doors, except for the garage and front doors, were prefabricated vinyl, instead of painted wood. Windiws should be double hung windows with wood trim that would open onto the balcony

-          Materials were an important element of the plans, and were agreed upon before becoming a part of the Certificate of Appropriateness

-          As a specific condition of the Certificate of Appropriateness, it was required that working drawings be prepared. We asked for them on November 22, 2000. We could not find them. They did not exist. The detailed plans would have shown the materials, the trim and the proper prospective.

(+) Tom Schick

-          This is the largest collection of pre-1870 buildings in the City of San Francisco

-          Suggested that the Commission review in detail what had been built on top of this building.

-          This parapet absolutely would destroy the view for other buildings

(+) Larry Habegger

-          Asked the Commission to make this project comply with the original Certificate of Appropriateness

(+) Alice Barkley

-          Conditions of approval:

(1)    Remove the roof deck

(2)    Remove the parapet

(3)    Add a Notice of Special Restriction stating the conditions of approval and also referencing and attaching to it the original C of A and the conditions that this Commission imposed. She believes this is reasonable as an amendment to the original C of A and the final set of plans, so there are no more mistakes from now on. In the future we will know what is to going to be required and what is not. There will be clear language that states any additional changes must come back and get a new C of A

(-) Keith Wilson, Project Sponsor

-          What is being built here from our approved plans is a huge improvement to the character of the Historic Telegraph Hill community

-          We have done everything from day one by the book on this project--contrary to what the DR supporters have expressed to this Commission

(-) Steward Kaplan

- Supports the project

(-) Patty Snodovia, Project Architect

-          Has met with planning staff for about a year trying to submit 5 different sets of plans. Has had several meetings with everybody in the Building and Planning Departments trying to find a solution that is going to be agreeable to them

ACTION: Approve as recommended by Zoning Administrator

- Conditions of approval:

(1)     Remove the roof deck

(2)     Remove the parapet

(3)     Add a Notice of Special Restriction stating the conditions of approval and also referencing and attaching to it the original C of A and the conditions that this Commission imposed. She believes this is reasonable as an amendment to the original C of A and the final set of plans, so there are no more mistakes from now on. In the future we will know what is to going to be required and what is not. There will be clear language that states any additional changes must come back and get a new C of A

AYES: Baltimore; Chinchilla; Lim; Salinas

ABSENT: Fay, Joe, Theoharis


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))

SPEAKER (s): None

Adjournment: 9:15 PM


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