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 28, 2001

June 28, 2001





Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 28, 2001

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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



STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green, Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Max Putra; Samuel Assefa; Rick Cooper; Sharon Young; Ben Fu; Thomas Wang; Jonathan Purvis; Tammy Chan; Matthew Snyder; Andrea Wong; Judy Martin; Nora Priego, Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery, Commission Secretary


1. 2001.0230D (WONG: 558-6381)

2130 HARRISON STREET - west side between 17th and 18th; Lot 025 in Assessor’s Block 3573 - Request for staff-initiated Discretionary Review for an alteration to a previously approved live/work project. The proposal is to construct a 24’ by 35’ general advertising sign on the northeast wall of a 26-unit live/work project, previously approved by the Planning Commission in November of 1998 (Case No. 1998.040D). The Zoning Administrator is referring the project to the Planning Commission as (1) a significant alteration to a previously approved project under Discretionary Review and (2) a land use entitlement issue under the live/work moratorium. The subject property falls within an M-1/IPZ (Light Industrial/Industrial Protection Zone) District and a 50-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending



ACTION: Discretionary Review Withdrawn

2. 2000.1275C (TAM: 558-6325)

401 TARAVAL STREET - Southwest corner of Taraval Street and 14th Avenue; Lot 1 in Assessor’s Block 2411. Request for a Conditional Use authorization to install a total of three (3) panel antennae on the building rooftop and an interior equipment shelter in the basement of an existing two-story over basement commercial office building as part of a wireless telecommunication network (Sprint PCS), pursuant to Planning Code Section 711.83, in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The site is a Location Preference 3.

Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 12, 2001)


ACTION: Continued to July 12, 2001

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

3. 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 June 14, 2001)

(Proposed for Continuance to July 19, 2001)


ACTION: Continued to July 19, 2001

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

4. 2000.1141C (SANCHEZ: 558-6679)

2346-2348 CLEMENT STREET - north side between 24th and 25th Avenues; Lot 025 in Assessor’s Block 1409 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 717.39 to allow the demolition of an existing mixed-use building with a residential unit at the second floor, and under Planning Code Section 161(j) to allow the construction of a four-story mixed-use building (three residential units and one commercial unit) without the three required residential parking spaces, within the Outer Clement Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to July 19, 2001)


ACTION: Continued to July 19, 2001

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

5. 2000.1104C (M. SNYDER: 575-6891)

488 BRYANT STREET - north side between 2nd and 3rd Street, Lot 18 in Assessor's Block 3763. Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 817.73 and 227(h) to install three panel antennas on the building rooftop and related backup equipment within the building, in an SLI (Service Light Industrial Mixed-Use) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. This is a Preference Location 4.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to July 26, 2001)


ACTION: Continued to July 26, 2001

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

6. 2000.254D (CABREROS: 558-6169)

3040 STEINER STREET, east side between Filbert and Union Streets, Lot 050 in Assessor’s Block 0534 -- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9913355S, proposing to construct a one-story penthouse measuring approximately 10’ x 15’ (150 square feet) on top of the flat roof of the existing two-unit building, with access to a new 300 square-foot roof deck to contain a spa 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


(Proposed for Continuance to August 16, 2001)


ACTION: Continued to August 16, 2001

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


7. Consideration of Adoption – draft minutes of May 17, 2001.


ACTION: Approved

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

8. Commission Matters

Commissioner Theoharis:

Re: Commission Quorum

She would like to know, either by the City Attorney or the Director, if all the Commissioners were to be invited to a meeting or an event, even if all of them were to attend just as observers, would that require the event to be noticed?

The City Attorney, after checking the laws of the Sunshine Ordinance, stated that the event does require it to be noticed.

Re: Live/Work Lofts Enforcement

She would like to know how many cases we have gone in and looked at. How are these cases being enforced or chosen?

The Zoning Administrator replied that we send out about 25 to 30 notices of violation of live/work units alleged being used for all office use. These notices may have covered more than one live/work unit. Somewhere in that range many were abated, others proved that they weren't in violation, others when to the Board of Appeals.

The cases are being chosen usually on a complaint basis or when it's brought to the ZA's attention. There was one mentioned in the SF Weekly that the Bay Guardian has occupied a unit contrary to the intent of the live/work ordinance.


9. Director's Announcements


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


Re: 501 Laguna Street – Antenna

- After some discussion, the Board stated there was some concern that the Department monitor these antennas. The matter was continued for another two weeks. The Public Hearing on this matter was closed.

Re: Appeal of the Planned unit Development of 19th and Guerrero Streets

- The project was revised after it came before the Commission. It originally had 43 units with 6 units of affordable housing. It was revised to have 39 units with 5 units of affordable housing. The Board, after hearing public testimony, approved the project.

Re: Budget Process Approved

- He (The Director) believes that the Department accomplished their goal. Although, the Department did not come out as we originally wanted, the decision was favorable.

- There will be an administrative analysis that will be the liaison for the Department to the Board of Supervisors. This position was approved.

- Supervisor McGoldrick did not pressure us regarding IPZ areas. He believes that January would be a target date to start the environmental review.

- The Board approved $263 thousand that will go to the department to purchase new equipment (e.g. computers, and a new vehicle for enforcement, etc). One year from now, this position will have to prove that it has been effective. In January, the department will come back to the Board to ask to release the other funds.

11. (GREEN: 558-6411)

PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES - Staff presentation, public comments and discussion of proposed Industrial Area Design Guidelines (IADG).


ACTION: No Action Required


12. 1999.423E (COOPER: 558-5974)

639 and 699 SECOND STREET - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the conversion of the existing two-story-over-basement building at 699 Second Street, which has been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and is a contributory element to the South End Historic District, from its industrial/warehouse designation, to office and retail/restaurant use, and construction of a three-story addition with two levels of underground parking. The resulting building would contain about 49,950 square feet of office space, about 6,550 square feet of retail/restaurant space and about 100 off-street parking spaces. On the adjacent parcel to the north with an existing surface parking lot, at 639 (635) Second Street, a separate six-story building would be constructed that would include about 49,950 square feet of office space, nine residential units and 112 off-street parking spaces. The project site is located in an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) zoning district, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Please Note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on May 29, 2001. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification only may be presented to the Planning Commission.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify Environmental Impact Report


ACTION: Environmental Impact Report Certified

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

MOTION: 16179

13. 2001.028T (YOUNG: 558-6346)

BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS - Consideration of a proposed Ordinance adding Section 155.4 to the Planning Code to require that all new and renovated commercial and industrial buildings contain parking spaces for bicycles in accordance with such building's square footage and primary use.

Testimony and Commission considerations could result in recommendations of modifications to the proposed legislation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval


(+) Sarah Owsowitz Klein, Deputy City Attorney

- At the recommendation of the Zoning Administration, the City Attorney suggests a recommendation of an amendment to section 155(j). Section 155(j) states that except as provided in 155.1 and 155.2 for each 20 off street parking space provided, 1 space should be provided for parking of bicycles. The most restricted provision of 155(j) or 155.4 shall prevail. This would have the effect of ensuring that this currently existing ratio of off street parking to bike parking would only come into play when the requirements of 155.4 were less restrictive.

(+) Athem Curtis – Representative of Supervisor Leno's Office

- Supervisor Leno was not able to attend this hearing.

- Mr. Badiner explained perfectly what the intent is. The existing bicycle storage legislation is strictly limited to commercial buildings that have parking space and they wanted to create a bicycle storage requirement for other commercial buildings.

- Bicycle transit is a very environmentally friendly form of transportation that they really would like to encourage.

(+) Lea Shaham – San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

- The coalition has been working with the staff of Supervisor Leno's office.

- There are many benefits to transportation via bicycles.

- She is a little surprised at the Department's estimate of cost for very basic parking.

ACTION: Approved with the following amendment: Section 155(j) is amended to add,  The more restrictive provisions of Planning Code Section 155(j) or 155.4 shall prevail .

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

MOTION: 16180

14. 2001.0518C (FU: 558-6613)

2872 - 24th STREET - north side between Florida and Bryant Streets, Lot 020A in Assessor’s Block 4208 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 727.42 and pursuant to Planning Code Section 303, to allow the conversion of a trade shop into a full service restaurant in the 24th Street-Mission Neighborhood Commercial District with a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions


(+) Jorge Hernandez – Project Sponsor

- He submitted the declaration of signage and letters of support by the adjacent neighbors.

- He is available for questions.

(+) Anita Cecina

- She is the owner of the adjacent property.

- She feels that she is not opposed to this project but she does have some concerns.

- Recently she had to have the sewer replaced. This sewer is shared by both properties. Mr. Chan, who owns the building of the proposed property, wasn't aware of this fact. So she had to pay for the repair costs.

- If a full kitchen and bathrooms are constructed, she is concerned that something might go wrong and wants to know who will have to pay for repairs.

- She is also concerned about the noise that will be generated from the restaurant.

- Her family has owned the adjacent property for over 40 years.

ACTION: Approved with Conditions.

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

MOTION: 16181

15. 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 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 of a three‑story, mixed‑use building (fourth floor removed).


(+) John Sanger – Representing Project Sponsor

- The Hung Family has owned this property for about 30 years.

- They have started to develop it for a more intensive use.

- The intent was to accomplish the construction of two generous owner's units for the purposes of rental. The issue boils down to the top floor.

- The difficulty of responding to eliminating the top floor is that it would affect the whole design of the building.

- He presented two options to the Commission between balancing the policy to promote housing and dealing with scale issues.

- The project sponsor would like to have the Commission approve the project as proposed then the sponsor would allow 2 affordable units. The second proposal would be that the design of the project change with the top floor set back. The second option would not allow for owner occupancy.

(+) Mary Ann Miller

- She hadn't seen the plans.

- She wants the housing units and the corner to be improved.

- The character of the neighborhood is mixed. There are some wonderful older houses that she is trying to retain.

- Mr. Ng is a very clever architect who is willing to do a redesign that would modify the 3rd floor. She feels that the design could set back from a few houses on Irving Street.

- She would like 10 units with the top unit still set back in some way.

(+) Mr. Ng – Project Architect

- He is willing to work with staff and SPEAK to redesign the project.

(-) Ron Stikle

- He is opposed to the project not just because of the size and the parking but more because of the loss of valuable space that is there right now.

- In the Sunset, they have more need for valuable service-providing space and/or school space.

- They have tried to get in touch with the owner and tried to find a buyer. It is not in bad shape.

- He would rather a community school be there.

- The space that would be lost would be a disservice to the much-needed services of the Sunset.

ACTION: Approved with revisions: 1) remodeling of the upper floor so it doesn't include a setback; 2) revise landscaping to include more trees; and 3) accept 10 units with two affordable units.

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

NAYES: Theoharis

MOTION: 16182

16a. 2001.1117CV (PURVIS: 558-6354)

2183 MISSION STREET - east side between 17th and 18th Streets; Lots 32 & 33 in Assessor’s Block 3575. Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.2 and 712.21 for a non-residential use size over 6,000 square feet. The project would involve the demolition of two single story buildings and the construction of a five-story building for a Large Institution: "The Homeless Prenatal Program," including social services and childcare, with accessory office space and retail sales. The project would provide up to 17,000 gross floor area for social services for women, including prenatal and substance abuse counseling, housing and job assistance, vocational training, and legal assistance. It would include a childcare facility in the rear for up to 27 children and retail sales space fronting Mission Street. No off-street parking would be provided, subject to a Parking Variance. The site is within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial Zoning) District and a 65-B Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.


(+) Martha Ryan – Executive Director and Founder of the Prenatal Program

- Twelve years ago, the program was just for homeless women and children.

- Now, the needs are to provide more than just prenatal care.

- There are six different programs that have come about from the needs of the clients.

- With these six programs, they will have served 1,600 clients.

- People are never turned away. They try to find the strengths of each woman so that they can move forward in life.

- There are various programs including a housing assistance program.

- There are substance abuse programs; there are advocacy programs that teach clients and staff to raise their voices about policies.

- In this new building, they plan to expand their services.

(+) Jim Stuber – Representing the Department of Public Help

- This program is quite necessary for the community.

- He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 16183

16b. 2001.1117CV (PURVIS: 558-6354)

2183 MISSION STREET - east side between 17th and 18th Streets; Lots 32 & 33 in Assessor’s Block 3575. Request for a Parking Variance under Sections 151 and 305. The project would provide up to 10,800 occupied floor area for social services, up to 2,000 square feet of accessory office space, up to 400 square feet of retail space, and a childcare facility for up to 27 children. Section 151 of the Planning Code requires off-street parking at a rate of one space for each 300 square feet for outpatient clinics, including social services, one space for each 500 square feet for office and retail space, and one space for each 25 children for a childcare facility. The project would require 42 independently accessible parking spaces. The proposal is to provide no off-street parking. Section 305 of the Code allows a variance from this parking standard subject to a hearing by the Zoning Administrator.

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

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the Public Hearing and granted the variance.

17. 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


(-) Ya Renier - Board of Directors of Rainbow Grocery

- The Board of Directors of Rainbow Grocery Store is very concerned with the impact of parking that this project will create.

- Although the department has a transit first policy, the location of the store has created some problems since they moved away from the Mission District about five years ago.

- The increase in the frequency of the Folsom line bus has helped increase the number of customers.

- She is afraid that this project will impact their business.

(-) Eric Quesada - MAC

- His organization is opposed to the negative declaration.

- This type of a mega restaurant coming into an IPZ will have a negative effect on the area.

- They have seen in the past few years, site after site being turned over into different types of uses even though they meet some type of zoning acceptance in the area, he believes that there is a negative affect on the PDR's within the area.

- Although the catering component of the project is a positive one since it will provide jobs to the neighborhood, he believes that it should be more of a primary use than a 4-story fancy and very large restaurant.

- He knows that the Planning Department is working on re-zoning various areas of the City, especially the Mission District that will begin a planning process to look more closely at different sites.

- He thanked Lulu's Restaurant representatives for contacting various organizations to discuss the concerns they might have.

(-) Oscar Grande – member of People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights and a member of MAC

- He would like to welcome Commissioner Lim who represents District 11.

- His organization is opposed to this negative declaration.

- A project like this inflates the cost of the land. This has been seen on various occasions.

- Although they are in favor of the catering component because if fits into the blue collar uses that are in the North East Mission Industrial Zone. These types of catering jobs provide good living wages and provide jobs for the local community.

- This restaurant supposedly will be  residential-serving . He believes that it will just be another destination spot.

- He is thankful that the architect and the owner of the restaurant did approach MAC to discuss their concerns.

- They lost a lot of auto body shops on 17th and Folsom because of the rising costs of land value.

- They need to have businesses that employ people from the community.

- He would like that the catering to be the primary use and that the restaurant be scaled down.

(-) Ada Chan – MEDA

- The restaurant part of the project is creating the parking problems, not the catering part of the project.

- They don't oppose the catering component of the project.

(-) Chris Selig

- She is concerned about the definition of what is an environmental review. She believes that this would include the impact on people, not just related to their health.

- The use of the site would impact this area as well as the whole neighborhood.

(-) James Tracy

- He agrees with everything Mr. Quesada spoke about.

- They are currently working on a planning process for the Mission.

- Please honor the fact that they are organizing and working on a community planning process for the Mission.

(-) Sarah Jarmon – Rainbow Grocery

- As the Planning Department, it is their job to plan ahead looking out for possible problems that future development may create, looking to find a solution before the problem occurs.

- In the report, it states that the parking problem would worsen.

- It would seem more prudent to offer a solution of the parking problem that already exists.

- The architect has offered to speak to MUNI to improve their service and has contacted various organizations to discuss their concerns.

- She would like the owners of the restaurant to contact Mission Hiring Hall in order to offer employment to residents of the neighborhood.

- She believes that the catering component of the project should be bigger.

(+) Jordan Geiger – Project Designer and Project Architect

- He appreciates the fact that the members of Rainbow Grocery have acknowledged that the project sponsor has worked with them and the community to try to solve problems and issues.

- They have been in communication with MUNI to increase the number of busses running on Folsom Street.

- There is a letter from the project sponsor, which he submitted to the Commission.

- This is a three-story building and not a four-story building.

- This will not be a fancy restaurant.

(+) Cass Smith – Project Architect

- There are issues, which are being brought up to have MUNI increase and improve their service.

- The parking has been designed within the guidelines of the department to be transit oriented and not to have more cars.

ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld

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

MOTION: 16184


At Approximately 4:40 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

18a. 2000.1328ED (M.SNYDER: 575-6891)

1750 Folsom Street - west side between 13th and 14th Streets, Lot 6 in Assessor’s Block 3530. Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit No. 2001/01/04/9225 pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution 14861, for the demolition of an 8,600 square foot industrial building. The building is proposed to be replaced with a new building that would contain a restaurant and catering business. The property is within an M-1 (Light Industrial) District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and an Industrial Protection Zone Buffer.

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


(-) Erik Quesada

- They are very concerned about the impact this project will have on the neighborhood.

- The restaurant will be moderate to some folks and expensive to other folks.

- This is a very large project and a very large restaurant.

- The other concerns are about valet parking. For example, where will these cars be parked?

(-) Oscar Grande

- The bottom line: their concerns are the protection of the Industrial Protection Zones.

- The restaurant should be made more affordable for people to come to the restaurant.

- If the restaurant is scaled down, it would still not be enough.

- They would like to have community-based employment agencies to participate in the hiring process for both the restaurant and the catering business.

(-) Ada Chan

- A previous speaker who wasn't able to stay is concerned about the parking impact.

- Is this restaurant going to be affordable for the people who work in the area?

- She would like to see the project disapproved.

(-) Chris Zelik

- She appreciates the consideration of the Commission with their concerns.

- Even if it is a restaurant use and it does provide jobs, the negative impact on the neighborhood would not be offset by the restaurant jobs.

(-) Shahir

- Every square foot counts in these Industrial Protection Zones.

- The project is not light industry. It is a restaurant, which could be constructed in other areas of San Francisco.

- The only reason the project is going on Folsom is that the land use is cheaper.

- Every single square foot of PDR use should be protected.

(-) Sarah Jarman

- She would like the Commission to look closely at the report.

- This needs to be re-evaluated.

- She would like the Commission and staff to speak to the community even after this hearing.

(+) Jordan Guiger

- It is worth considering a few circumstances of the project. This property was never rented. Its owner always used it.

- The plan is not to inflate uses or costs.

- He understands the issues of gentrification and the increase in rents.

- This project is very well marketed.

- The current building makes it impossible for the building to be remodeled for an accessible use.

- They are counting strictly on a catering business to provide jobs for this City.

- The restaurant is planned for Argentine Cuisine.

(+) Cass Smith

- He would like to thank the Commission and staff working on this project.

- The affordability of the restaurant is tied to the success of the restaurant.

- Many people wrote letters of support but couldn't be here.

- Rainbow has more of a MUNI issue.

- Although he is in favor of community activists, he has concerns about people who are not affected by this project but have come here to speak against the project.

(+) Jody Denton – Executive Chef of Lulu Group

- One issue seems to be unresolved: nobody really knows what affordable is. This is certainly subjective since who you are determines what is affordable for you.

- The appetizers will be in the $3.00 to $9.00 range. Entrees will begin around $10.00 and range up to about $18.00.

- Regarding employment practices: they will employee equally from the back kitchen staff into the management staff. They have always promoted and maintained diversity in their working environment. As far as specific agreements of hiring within the community, they are certainly open to discussions with the community. There are certain jobs that will have certain requirements and these requirements will have to be met. If they are found within the community, well, that would be great.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Disapproved the Project

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

18b. 2000.1328EV (M.SNYDER: 575-6891)

1750 Folsom Street - west side between 13th and 14th Streets, Lot 6 in Assessor’s Block 3530. Variance sought to replace the required 23 independently accessible parking spaces with 34 attendant parking spaces. The parking spaces would not be independently accessible requiring a Variance. The Variance is being sought in conjunction with the proposed demolition of the existing industrial building and the proposed construction of a new building that would contain a restaurant and catering business. The property is within an M-1 (Light Industrial) District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District and an Industrial Protection Zone Buffer.

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 18a.

ACTION: Because the project was disapproved, there is no longer a variance to be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

19. 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 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: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project only with the complete removal of the fourth floor.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 14, 2001)


Re: Continuance

Mr. Chan – Representing Project Sponsor

- He would like the project to be continued to afford the project sponsor the oppratunity to deal with the issues of height and mass for the 4th level.

- They have been searching for a reasonable design solution.

- They would like to determine if they can extend the front building wall by at least 5 feet into the purported front set back area so as to pick up the square footage and facilitate the program proposed by the project sponsor.

- If this were to happen, it would create additional opportunities to mitigate the concerns of the DR requestor.

- The staff has requested the elimination of the 4th floor.

- He believes that there is a good opportunity to have constructive dialogue.

Michael Givertz – Representing DR Requestor

- He wasn't approached about this until 4:00 p.m. today. There are about 15 to 20 neighbors who are here to listen to this meeting.

- The continuance is for two weeks and he will not be in town.

-          If the Commission were inclined to allow a continuance it would have to be more than two weeks.

NOTE: The Commission decided to hold the hearing today.

Re: Project

(-) Michael Givertz – Representing DR Requestor

- He agrees and appreciates the Planning Department's recommendation of removing the top floor, however, the issue of rear depth and the impacts on the rear depth of the proposed structure has not been addressed by the recommendation.

- He does not believe that a variance is required but he leaves that to the discretion of the department.

- The staff analysis recognizes that the proposed 4th story building does not step down in height in the rear of the lot, which leads to an incompatible building rear configuration.

- Changing the pattern of the rear yards would have a significant negative impact on the mid block open space.

- Each of the adjacent buildings has side windows, which accommodate light, and air and this project will negatively impact these windows.

- In addition to the removal of the 4th floor, he would like to have the building built at it's existing zero setback. He believes that this would be consistent with the neighborhood.

(-) Barbara Deutsch

- She submitted photograph to the Commissioners.

- She has been asked by the downstairs neighbor to show their perspective of the impact they will have if this project is constructed.

- The character of Roosevelt Way is that it's a sloping hill. Each roofline continues up the hill. This 4-story building would interrupt that.

(-) LaVaughn Craig

- She and her husband live on Roosevelt Way.

- She realizes how difficult it is to have different needs and different wants.

- The project is of a very large scale. She agrees with the staff recommendation to bring down the size of the building.

(-) Ed Knoll

- He supports the zero setbacks and the elimination of the 4th Floor. There are no houses that have a 4th story.

(-) Margit Ritchie

- She lives across the street from the proposed project.

- She also agrees with everything the previous speakers have stated.

- The 4th Floor should be eliminated.

- She has no problems with the frontage.

- If the 4th story were allowed to be built, it would lower the value of the other homes.

(-) Peter Sloss

- He lives on Roosevelt Way.

- His building is a two unit building and he is speaking on behalf of the tenants of this building.

- One concern is the tree that will be removed because of the construction.

- There are a few trees that are mature and add greatly to the neighborhood not only in appearance but also enhance the privacy of the homes

- He would like a condition to have the tree remain or replaced with a tree of similar shape.

(-) Jill Terry

- She lives on Roosevelt Way.

- She doesn't own a property but rents a unit in a building on this street.

- She is concerned that the view from her apartment will be impacted. She rented the unit because of the view but she could now be cheated of this.

(-) Arnie Lerner – Architect – Lerner and Associates Architects

- He urges the Commission to approve the project.

- To move the building to the zero setbacks would be the best decision.

- Most of the buildings are right up to the property line.

-          There is an existing pattern with these buildings.

(-) Jerry Spolter

- He lives on 16th Street

- He thanks the Commission for being sensitive to their issues.

- There are many people here who have taken time from their jobs and daily life to be here to speak regarding this project.

- If the setback is required, they will be looking at a building which will be budding over the green area.

(-) Sherry Shaw

- She lives on Roosevelt Street

- Her apartment is on the ground floor and the construction will greatly impact the light and air that come into her building.

(-) Joe Beyer

- He owns a home on Roosevelt Way.

- He supports staff recommendations.

- By extending the setback, this will greatly affect the value of his property.

(-) Mrs. Robert Dreher

- She lives on Roosevelt Way.

- She strongly supports the zero setbacks because of the extra space this will take over the yard.

- There is a cluster of back yards that provide open space. If there is no setback it will not impact these yards.

- She has a very nice view of Bernal Heights and this setback will take over her view and block sun from her garden.

(-) Adolf Mehar

- He purchased his home in 1978 and had a  million dollar view .

- Then the City allowed a construction that eliminated part of his view. Now with this building, it will completely block his view.

(-) Larry Wiman – DR Applicant

- He doesn't want to repeat anything the previous speakers have said.

- He supports taking Discretionary Review.

- All of his neighbors do not oppose the zero setback.

(+) Victor Kim – Architect and Owner of the Project

- He has lived at this address for 4 years.

- This project is for his family and parents.

- He wants a home for his family.

- This project has gone on for too long.

- If the 4th Floor is eliminated it will eliminate two rooms and a full bathroom.

- He submitted further design changes to reduce the size of the 4th Floor.

- There are a lot of 4 story buildings in the neighborhood.

- The project fits within the context of the design guidelines.

- There are yards on both sides of the project.

- The park is situated away from the project.

(+) Alison Kim

- She is the co-owner of this project.

- The proposed house was in bad shape when they purchased it so they have had difficulty getting insurance. They then began to work on developing the project in order to make it safe.

- They have kept their neighbors informed of the designs and modifications this project has had.

- There is no basis for a zero setback variance.

- Over the four years that they have lived in the neighborhood, they have made a few friends.

- No one ever said that there were any negative impacts on this project.

-          They don't understand why there has been a sudden shift of position.

(+) George Broder

- He read a letter from Chuck Womack who wasn't able to attend but is in favor of the project.

(+) Douglas Chan

- As a result of accommodating the Department's decision with concerns to the front setback, it forced the architect to design the project vertically. That is why the 4th floor was designed into this project.

- The massing has been mitigated by the graduated front setbacks on each level above the garage.

- There is an established pattern for the rooflines and that pattern is consistent.

- The owners of the property share a home office and telecommute so the 4th floor is quite important for this family.

- The project will not obstruct the views of the neighbors.

ACTION: Take DR and eliminate 4th floor. Sponsor can apply for a variance.

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

20. 2000.828D (WONG: 558-6381)

98 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE (aka 1000 17th STREET) - west side, between 7th and 17th Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block 3948 - Request for Discretionary Review on Building Permit Application No. 2000.03.06.3616 - The proposal is to construct a new four-story, 38,522 square foot building, including 14,528 occupied square feet of bulk retail and 14,311 occupied square feet of office use, of which approx. 3,600 is incidental storage space. The proposed structure will provide 39 off-street parking spaces, accessed from 17th Street, while loading will have access from Pennsylvania Avenue. The subject property falls within an M-2/IPZ (Heavy Industrial/Industrial Protection Zone) zoning and a 50-X height/bulk district.

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


ACTION: Without hearing, continued Indefinitely.

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

21. 2001.0275D (MARTIN: 558-6616)

553 ARKANSAS STREET -east side between 20th and 22nd Streets, Lot 050 in Assessor’s Block 4099. Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 200101270755, proposing to convert the existing three dwelling unit building into one single family dwelling to be owner-occupied, 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 proposal.


(+) Richard Morrison – Project Architect

- This is primarily a single-family neighborhood. Approving this merger will bring the project within the prevailing use of the neighborhood.

- The city will not loose a unit by this merger. Last year one unit was eliminated legally.

- This project has neighborhood support.

- Many of the neighbors have signed petitions and letters supporting this merger.

- This will be a benefit to the neighborhood.

(+) April BaSaing

- She is a first-time homeowner with a family of six.

- They are currently living in a two-bedroom apartment. Their plans are to reside in this home and be able to raise their kids.

- The merger will allow for their children to have their own rooms.

- She is concerned about having kitchens in children's bedrooms.

(+) Peter Vander Sterre

- He is a general contractor and has been working in San Francisco for many years.

- He would like to state that the use of this building is for a single-family home.

- The kitchens do not have enough ventilation. Since 1961, this building has been  chopped up to have more units.

- Currently the law says that this building should serve 3 households or 3 couples; in other words 6 people. Yet there is a family living here with children who require space.

- This will grant a family the ability to live together.

ACTION: Take DR and allow for two dwelling units.

AYES: Baltimore, Joe

NAYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

ACTION: Do not take DR and approve the 3-unit merger.

AYES: Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

NAYES: Baltimore, Joe


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))


Adjournment: 7:40 p.m.



ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Theoharis

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