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

July 19, 2001

July 19, 2001



Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, July 19, 2001
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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


STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green, Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Max Putra; Samuel Assefa; Amit Ghosh; Paul Lord; Matt Snyder; Judy Martin; Michael Li; Michael Smith; Isolde Wilson; David Alumbaugh; Nora Priego, Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery, Commission Secretary


          1.          2000.306C          (TAM: 558-6325)
                    215 CHURCH STREET, east side of Church Street, between Market and 15th Streets; Lot 64 in Assessor’s Block 3544 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization to allow a full-service restaurant (CHOW) in excess of 2,999 square feet in floor area with an outdoor activity area, approximately 90 square feet in area, at the rear of the building in the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 721.21 and 721.24. This request also includes an amendment to a previously approved Special Use authorization (81.526U) to increase the seating capacity from 40 to 68 seats and extend the hours of operation from 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Pending.
                    (Proposed for Continuance to August 2, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to August 2, 2001
AYES:          Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Fay

          2.          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 (four residential units and one commercial unit) without the four 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 August 9, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to August 9, 2001
AYES:          Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Fay

          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: Approval with conditions
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 28, 2001)
                    (Proposed for Continuance to August 16, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to August 16, 2001
AYES:          Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Fay

          4.          2001.0520D           (VOLLMANN: 558-6405)
                    844-848 GREEN STREET - north side between Mason and Taylor Streets, Lot 016 in Assessor’s Block 0119, staff-initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/05/02/8240, proposing to merge two units within a three family building located in a RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove building permit application.
                    (Proposed for Continuance to September 13, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to September 13, 2001
AYES:          Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Fay

          5.          1999.811D           (PUTRA: 558-6233)
                              1660 MISSION STREET - west side between South Van Ness Avenue and Thirteenth Street, lots 5 and 6 in Assessor’s Block 3512. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000 0515 0033, to construct a six-story above grade level, approximately 76-feet-tall addition with 25,365 gross square feet of office and 5,073 square feet of parking at grade level. This is an addition to the existing 92,000-gross-square-foot city office building, of which 22,610 square feet are in an underground garage, in a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District; and a 105-J Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the
                    Building Permit Application as revised.
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 7, 2001)
                    (Proposed for Continuance to September 20, 2001)
SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to September 20, 2001
AYES:          Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Fay

          6.          2000.0173C           (LIGHT: 558-6254)
                    500 FRANCISCO STREET (a.k.a. 401-499 BAY STREET & 501-599 BAY STREET) - north side of Francisco Street between Mason Street and Columbus Avenue; Lot 1 in both Assessor’s Blocks 42 and 43. Request for a Conditional Use Authorization of a planned unit development for approximately 360 affordable housing units, a child care center, a computer learning center, ground level retail, and small scale neighborhood-serving office space in an RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
                    (Proposed for Continuance to August 16, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to August 16, 2001
AYES:          Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Fay

          7.          2001.0092EC            (DEAN: 558-5980)
                    1800-1820 SAN JOSE AVENUE - located on the west side of San Jose Avenue, between Santa Rosa Avenue and Colonial Way; Assessor's Block 3144A; Lot 31. Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. Proposed demolition of existing auto repair business structures, construction of two, four-story, nine-residential unit buildings,. One 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 August 16, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to August 16, 2001
AYES:          Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Fay

          8.          2001.0092EC            (Sirois: 558-6313)
                    1800-1820 SAN JOSE AVENUE - west side of San Jose Avenue, between Colonial Way and Santa Rosa Avenue, Lot 031 Assessor’s Block 3144A. Request for Conditional Use Authorization to demolish a service station pursuant to Planning Code Section 228.3, and to develop 18 residential units and approximately 1,600 square feet of ground floor commercial spaces in two buildings on two lots greater than 5,000 square feet in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District pursuant to Planning Code Section 710.11 and 121.1.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
                    (Proposed for Continuance to August 16, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to August 16, 2001
AYES:          Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Fay


9.          Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of June 21, 2001.

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Approved
AYES:          Baltimore, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Fay

          10.          Commission Matters

Commissioner Theoharis:
Re: Meeting Procedures
The Board of Supervisors meeting this past Monday was disrupted and several people had to be arrested because they (people) were not following the democratic process. She is concerned about similar incidents happening at the Planning Commission. She agrees with President Amiano that people have the right to disagree and to demonstrate but it cannot come to a point that a meeting should be disrupted and/or cancelled.

Re: Telecommunications Guidelines
She saw something in the newspaper about having a moratorium on cell sites in order to allow Planning staff to update the Telecommunications Guidelines.

Director Green replied that there has been legislation regarding this that was introduced at the Board of Supervisors on Monday. This would be a temporary moratorium on wireless communications facilities imposing interim zoning controls for a 6-month period. This legislation would instruct planning staff to review the siting guidelines and to determine whether or not they should be amended to consider the current issues that are being raised.

Commissioner Theoharis would like to know who would provide the budget for this study when this happens?

Re: Edgehill Way
Last week there was a hearing for a case on this street. There was an article in one of the newspapers that inferred and insinuated that the reason this case was not approved was because the head of the builders association did not oppose it. This is simply not true. The neighborhood did so much work and the fact that they presented their case so compellingly that the Commission unanimously felt that it was meritorious for the neighborhood to have the power of Discretionary Review.

Commissioner Salinas:
Re: Incident that Disrupted the Board's Hearing
He witnessed the situation and he believes that the incident was handled properly. This Commission handles its affairs over and above board.

Commissioner Chinchilla:
Re: flaw in the housing guide
Last week at the Planning Commission hearing there was a case regarding a housing project on Market and Polk. This protect pointed out a flaw in the housing guidelines. He would like the Director to schedule a hearing on this matter to discuss whether changes to the implementation manual of those guidelines can be made and when. If we have high-rise protects coming through and they are producing hundreds of housing units and are asking for discretionary acts, there has to be a nexis with an imposition of an affordable housing requirement. As he reads the housing element and the implementation guidelines, it appears that this might have been the intent but its not executed in the language.

Director Green responded that he will be working with the Mayor's Office of Housing and will schedule a hearing.


11.          Director's Announcements

Re: Vacation
Director Green will be on vacation, for the next two meetings, Mr. Larry Badiner will be Acting Director and Zoning Administrator for the first week. The following week, Mr. Badiner will be on vacation and Mr. Amit Ghosh will be the Acting Director and Mr. Jim Nixon will be the Zoning Administrator.

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

1) There was an appeal of a Conditional Use for an antenna at 2489-2491 Washington Street. The project was to install three antennas at this location. The Board overruled the Commission's decision. Their main issue with this location was that there wasn't an adequate case made for the need of these antennas. This was a preference 6 site and the Board felt that there were other sites more appropriate and there wasn't a need for these antennas at this location.

2) Regarding the fiscal impact to the department on studying the guidelines, he will be taking up this matter with Supervisor Amiano. There are siting guidelines, which have been refined. He doesn't believe that this would require a lot of staff time.


Re: 3633 Webster Street – This project consisted of a two unit building in an RH-2 District. In the 1990's the Department approved space behind the garage that was only to be used as storage. It appears that over the years the property owner had been using this space as a separate unit. The property owner then applied for a permit to connect the lower ground floor spaces to the unit above which was being occupied by a tenant. The Board categorized this as a dwelling unit merger and denied the permit.

Re: 2838 Sacramento Street – This project was issued a 311 notice and there were no appeals. The permit was issued and more work was done than the neighborhood understood. Mr. Badiner issued a stop work order. His suspension of the project was appealed to the Board of Appeals and the work to the project continued.

Re: 272 Missouri Street – This project was a Discretionary Review, which the Commission heard in April of this year. The Commission upheld the project and allowed it to go ahead. The project was appealed and the Board took a motion to approve it asking for a voluntary contribution to pay the next-door neighbor $3,000 to do half of the skylights. The Board requires 4 votes to overturn an approval and the votes resulted as 2 votes to overturn and 2 votes to deny so the motion did not pass therefore the Commission was upheld.

Re: Building Department
He (the Zoning Administrator) has been working with Mr. Chiu of the Building Department. Together they are trying to establish a permanent way to referr permits back to Planning if changes are made after the Planning Commission's/Department's action. He has tried to make this clear. This is a continuing process.

13. (PUTRA/ASSEFA (558-6233 / 558-6625)
INDUSTRIAL AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES - Public Hearing and consideration of adoption of proposed Industrial Area Design Guidelines.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve resolution adopting the design guidelines as Commission policy.

(+) Stanley Muraoka – San Francisco Redevelopment Agency – Project Manager for Bay View Hunters Point and India Basin
- The Agency supports these design guidelines because they are very much needed.
- There is very little control that the Agency or the Planning Department can exert to promote coherent design and to really enhance the environment in the industrial zones.
- He thanked the Director, Max Putra and Sam Assefa for their hard work.
(+) Dick Millet – Potrero Boosters Association
- He did notice that in the maps there are industrial areas that are not blacked out.
- Parts of Potrero Hill were not marked off on the report as well as South of Market areas.
- Should these areas have been included in the design guidelines?
- These areas came up in another brochure.
(+) Andrew Junius
- He has a comment about Page 18 of this report regarding retail usage--it should be encouraged on ground floors on primary street frontages. Please keep in mind that these are industrial areas and there is not going to be too much pedestrian traffic.
- He has been involved in many projects where they thought that retail would work and now there are many vacant locations.
- This is an important issue and he would like for the Commission to be a bit more sensitive to the fact that ground floor retail will be difficult in industrial areas where there is little or no pedestrian traffic.

ACTION:          Approved
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Fay
RESOLUTION:          16190

14.          2001.0602ETZ                               (GHOSH/LORD: 558-6275/558-6311)
BAYVIEW/HUNTERS POINT COMMUNITY PLAN AREA - Informational presentation on the potential  Policies and Procedures for the proposed Bayview/Hunters Point Community Plan Area. Such policies and procedures for this community plan area would be necessary after the expiration of the IPZ Interim Controls on August 2, 2001 and would remain in effect until permanent controls are adopted.
          Preliminary Recommendation: No action item. Public and Commission deliberation

(+) Stanley Muraoka – San Francisco Redevelopment Agency – Project Manager for Bayview Hunters Point and India Basin
- The Redevelopment Agency supports this proposed study area. For over four years the Agency has been working closely with the Hunters Point community and in particular with the Bay View Hunters Point Project Area Committee.
- They have completed substantial work on the community revitalization concept plan.
- This concept plan is very consistent with the direction that the Department is taking.
- It is important to know that with the expiration of the interim controls the community and the agency feel that there should be some level of Planning Department review and control over proposals that come forward to the Department in the M1 and M2 zones.
- Later this year, the agency will bring the Bay View Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan to you.
(+) Fran Martin – Visitation Valley Planning Alliance
- Their large and diverse organization has been working to get a neighborhood planning process for the Schlage Lock site.
- During their monthly meetings, they have become knowledgeable about the planning process. They enjoy the support of many organizations throughout the City.
- Two years ago, they created a neighborhood survey to determine what the neighborhood's needs and desires were in the valley. This created a mixed-use plan for the Schlage Lock site.
- They support the concept of community planning areas. However, they request that Visitation Valley be designated as a separate area because of their special needs.
- They have a specific area focus, which is well defined.
(+) Robin Chiang – President of the Board of Friends of Islais Creek
- For the past 13 years they have been working with individuals and stake holders around Islais Creek.
- The Third Street Light Rail, which is almost a $13 billion project, will turn this area into a spectacular place.
- They have been working with various property holders in the area in order to discuss housing in the area.
- He hopes that the industrial development in the area will be sustainable.
- The nature of the industrial use is changing in San Francisco. The need for space could be diminished.
- He hopes that this will attract a lot of stakeholders to the area.
(+) Lawrence Thibeaux – International Long Shoreman's Union
- One of their concerns is the encroachment of houses too close to waterfront activity.
- They work 24 hours a day, its noisy and there is light. This is just the way the waterfront works
-If houses are too close, people come to the Commission requesting that the port be closed.
- This causes unnecessary pressure on the work they do.
- He knows how things are in this area because he was raised in Hunters Point.
- There should be a buffer zone in the industrial areas so that housing cannot encroach into these industrial areas.
- Houses are getting closer and closer to the kind of activities that they are involved in and he is concerned about this.
(+) Emily Rogers – Bayview HP Project Area Committee
- She is here to represent the Bay View Hunters Point Area Committee.
- Although there are many industrial areas, the jobs are low paying for the Bay View Hunters Point residents.
- The issue of housing is greater in this area than in other areas on the City.
- They sent a letter to the Director with a copy to the Commissioners requesting a specific person to work with the community members of this area. A frequent and open dialogue is very important.
- They generally support the plan, but as a PAC representative he noted that there isn't a key person from the Planning Department to interact with their community.
- In regards to the concept plan, they want to continue working with the Planning Department and work with a community planning process but a dialogue is very important.
(+) Julia Viera – Friends of Islais Creek
- She understands the southeast section of the City more than anyone since she was the founding member of the Friends of Islais Creek; she is on the San Francisco Beautiful Board of Directors; Waterfront Plan Advisory Board of the Port of San Francisco for 7 or 8 years; Waterfront Plant Advisory Boards; Two terms on the Rec Park Open Space Committee.
- There is room for more quality housing for residents of this City, the kind the City needs.
- She believes that the Planning staff is a little  fuzzy about the channel because they still refer to the waterway as a sewer.
- The proposal is for an IPZ to blanket this still emerging shoreline recreation area.
- The Port of San Francisco is to the east of the channel where there is recreational use. On the left side is the last piece of equipment, which his being restored with help of the ILW retirees as a San Francisco landmark.
(+) Jim Chappell – President of SPUR
- He would like to applaud the Department for their work on the Bay View Hunters Point Community Plan. He has some issues with the blanket IPZ use.
- A couple of years ago, they assembled a team of economists, and they decided that an IPZ is the wrong model since it misunderstand the difference between basic industry and support industry and it doesn't acknowledge the fact that we are a region.
- There are things that need to be subsidized, like artists for example.
- He submitted a report on the San Francisco economy.
(+) Fred Pecker – International Long Shoreman's Warehouse Union
- He represents the warehouse division. Recently they became aware of the fact that the port has tried to get more work into the City.
- One of the things that they have seen is that people who want to deal with container freight don't want to pay drayage.
- They want good neighborhoods and want good jobs to allow people to stay in the City.
- Manufacturing and Light Industries need a place to work. There is a need to preserve an area in the City for this.
- They don't want the waterfront to become some kind of dinosaur.
(+) Jim Haas
- He has had the privileged of working on Islais Creek.
- The south shore of Islais creek is not accessible to the public except for the small area that the Friends have developed for recreational purposes.
- This south shore is subject to the jurisdiction of BCDC.
- Something that has not been discussed is the proposal by the Public Utilities Commission to expand the sewer plant.
- This is not a suitable place for the sewer plant to expand.
- He hopes that the Commission studies the proposal well.
(+) Steve Vettel – Morrison and Foerster
- Defining PDR as production distribution and repair facilities makes sense in an urban environment.
- We don't need policies that protect cargo, warehousing, and heavy uses that don't work in an urban environment except at the port.
- All of the port lands in the southern waterfront are strictly industrial.
- The port just received responses to the RPF for Pier 70.
- The port is moving forward.
(+) John Swinnerton – Dean's Services
- They are greatly concerned with the current PDRs. More than 50% of his client base are food wholesalers who distribute food items throughout San Francisco and the other 50% are import and export who most recently go through the Port of San Francisco.
- Most of his employees live in San Francisco.
- His trucks will have to deal with the consequences of the Third Street Light Rail project.

15.          2001.0602ETZ                               (GHOSH/LORD: 558-6275/558-6311)
INDUSTRIAL PROTECTION ZONE – SPECIAL USE DISTRICT – Consideration of adoption a resolution that imposes zoning controls establishing a Special Use District Industrial Protection/Zone where new residential , live/work and office/business services and information technology uses would not be permitted in the area generally bounded by Bayshore Avenue, 26th Street, 25th Street, Iowa Street, Tubbs Street, 22nd Street, San Francisco Bay, Islais Creek, Third Street, Evans Avenue, Rankin Street, Phelps Street, Oakdale Avenue, Selby Street and Helena Street.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Resolution adopting Permanent Industrial Protection Zone – Special Use District

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Without hearing, continued to August 23, 2001
AYES:          Baltimore, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis, Lim
ABSENT:          Chinchilla, Fay

          16.          2001.0293C (M. SNYDER: 575-6891)
                    490 – 2nd STREET - northwest corner at Bryant Street, Lot 7 in Assessor’s Block 3763. Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 818.73 and 227(h) to install three sectors of antennas (four antennas in each sector for a total of twelve antennas) on the building’s rooftop, and a base transceiver station within the building, in an SSO (Service / Secondary Office) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The site is a Location Preference No. 4 (an industrial or commercial structure where there is no removal of existing visual clutter on the roof) under the WTS Facilities Siting Guidelines. The facility would be operated by Nextel Communications.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 7, 2001)
- Molly Kales – Nextel Communications
- They had originally submitted an application for two-foot panel antennas, but the Planning Department asked them to revise their application to the 1-foot by 1 foot, which is the smallest antenna available to them.
- The equipment will be installed in the basement of this building.
- The need for this site is to help offload two existing sites, since they have reached capacity.
- In addition it would help I-80, the Bryant Street on ramp to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic and building coverage in the area.
- Engineers are here to answer any questions.
(-) Jerry Brown – Engineer
- They physically walked site in order to make sure all the addresses were notified will be mailed.
(-) Lindsay Kelliher
- She lives on Bryant Street.
- The proposed antennas will be placed just across from her living room.
- She has an issue regarding notification to the community. She finds it hard to believe that when this case was first advertised on the calendar, she was the cause that this case was continued because when the notices went out, the Department failed to send it to the apartment building where she lives which is just next door to the proposed building where the antenna will be installed.
- She was told by Nextel that there is some sort of shielding which Nextel can build that will help protect people in the area from radio frequencies and Nextel is not giving up this information. At the community meetings they were told that there was shielding but it was really expensive.
(+) Bill Hammet – Registered Professional Engineer in California.
- The issue of shielding is not a normal one. Shielding is typically done for transmittal rooms where you are trying to keep out interference from equipment to each other.
- Shielding can be done at other locations to shield other structures.
- In this case all the FCC requirements have been met so there is no need for shielding.
ACTION:          Approved
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Theoharis, Lim
NAYES:          Salinas
ABSENT:          Fay
MOTION:          16191

          17.          2000.1151CR (MARTIN: 558-6616)
887 POTRERO AVENUE - SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL - east side between 20th and 22nd Streets, Lot 002, Assessor’s Block 4090 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 234.2 and 209.6(b) of the Planning Code to install a total of three antennae: one flush-mounted to an existing penthouse on the east facade; one flush-mounted to the western building facade facing Potrero Avenue; and one hidden within a cylinder that simulates a vent pipe at the northwest corner of the building, with the base transceiver station to be located on the roof, as part of a wireless communication network operated by Sprint PCS in a P (Public) Zoning District and 105-E Height and Bulk District. The proposal is a Location Preference Number 1 (publicly-used structure) under the WTS Facilities Siting Guidelines.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions; finding of conformity with the General Plan.

(+) Jennifer Estes – Project Sponsor representing Sprint PCS
- This site complies with the WTS Facilities Siting Guidelines and the San Francisco Municipal Code and the FCC Guidelines.
- San Francisco General Hospital is a Preference 1 location.
- Two antennas will be flush mounted and painted the same color as the building.
- There were two community meetings and notices were sent out in three languages.
- A wireless facility is allowed in the district.
- The site is necessary to allow coverage for the area and highway 101.
(-) Ena Lim – She is a member of SNAFU
- This organization has been working with the Board of Supervisors to determine better guidelines and locations for these antennas.
- This location is a place where people are vulnerable. She believes that this is not a good location for these antennas.
- Please give some thought to this site.
ACTION:          Approved
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis, Lim
ABSENT:          Fay
MOTION:          16192

18.          2001.0262C                                                   (LI: 558-6396)
463 AND 471-473 BROADWAY - south side between Kearny and Montgomery Streets; Lots 024 and 025 in Assessor’s Block 0163: -- Request for conditional use authorization to expand an existing bar within the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to allow the Hi-Ball Lounge to expand from approximately 2,500 square feet to approximately 4,300 square feet through the conversion of vacant commercial space on the ground floor.
          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(+) Richard Rome – Representing Project Sponsor who is the tenant
- This project began as a seismic, disability and life safety upgrade.
- The ADA and life safety upgrade would take a lot of floor space.
- The combination of the two spaces will allow the same upgrade and more usable space.
- This proposal will allow the High Ball Lounge to remain in this area.

ACTION:          Approved
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis, Lim
ABSENT:          Fay
MOTION:          16193


At Approximately 5:00 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.

19.          2001.0562D                                                              (SMITH: 558- 6322)
1519-37TH AVENUE - west side of the street between Kirkham and Lawton Streets , Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1883, request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/01/22/0264, proposing to construct a one-story horizontal rear addition on an existing single-family dwelling located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

(-) James Potts
- He has lived on 37th Avenue for over 30 years.
- This project will block 20 of his 25 feet, reducing his view to the south, changing airflow and infringing on his privacy.
- He displayed some pictures that showed the impact on his property.
- The building will block south access for rear view space.
- The deck will affect the privacy of his daughter's bedroom.
- Over 90% of the homes conform to the rear yard alignment.
- True, there has been some rear yard homes built on this block. Yet all were completed before Proposition M and with permits.
- Over 52 % of this addition is a single purpose room for a spa and swimming pool. What's to become of this room when the house is sold?
(-) Lou Felthouse – Louis H. Felthouse Architect
- Mr. Pots asked him to determine the impact of the proposed addition by doing a shadow study.
- He displayed a diagram, which indicates how the proposed addition will strongly impose a shadow on the neighbor's back yard.
- There were some questions regarding what would be included in the proposed addition.
- He displayed a diagram showing what the proposed construction would contain.
(-) John Murray – Attorney for Barbara Glowner
- To these property owners, it is a quality of life issue. They have been residents for over 35 years.
- The Glowner's will have increase noise and an invasion of privacy since anyone on the deck of the proposed construction will be able to see into their bedroom.
- The proposed spa will also be a distraction.
(-) Maureen Burn
- She lives on 37th Avenue.
- She is very concerned about the shadow, which will be caused by the proposed construction.
- The airflow will be affected as well.
- She hopes that they can reach a compromise.
(+) Bill Guilmore – Project Architect
- The project sponsors purchased this house with the understanding that they could make additions to their home.
- If the neighbors had any reasonable objections then if he can accommodate those objections. There could be compromise.
- He has a letter from Mrs. Valedarki's doctor stating that she has a back problem as well as physical problems. She therefore needs this endless pool.
- The proposed addition does meet the planning code and the residential design guidelines.
- The Valedarki's are more than willing to cooperate.
(+) Mr. Valedarski
- He would like to say that he already reduced the project three times.
- He needs the office since he works about 12 hours a day and it is convenient to have a home office.
- Some of the rooms require expanding.
- He is very flexible. He is a film producer and is used to being flexible and making changes.
- He would like to improve the quality of life of his family.

ACTION:          Approved with the following amendments: 1) Setback will be 10 feet, 2) deck will be eliminated and 3) mechanical equipment will be housed inside.
AYES:          Baltimore, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
NAYES:          Chinchilla, Lim
ABSENT:          Fay

          20.          2001.0666D          (WILSON: 558-6602)
                    2836-2838 WASHINGTON STREET, between Scott and Divisadero Streets, Lot 013 in Assessor’s Block 0979; staff-initiated request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2001105118954, proposing to revise a previously approved permit application (No. 9903501), to retain pre-existing building walls that serve as a parapet for the roof at the rear of the building, located in an RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and modify project.

                    (-) Alexander Seidel – Property Owner
                    - He is in support of what the staff is asking for.
                    - He displayed a photo of the parapets in the rear setback area. This was done without any permits. Eventually these were asked to be removed.
                    - The parapets were reduced so that the area wouldn't be used as a deck.
                    (+) Diane Graden – Attorney representing Project Sponsor
                    - They oppose further discretionary review.
                    - The issue today is the parapet on the 3rd and 4th floor roof areas of the property. There has been a request for DR on these parapets and she hopes that the Commission will not take DR.
                    - The parapets are there for fire protection. The parapet walls have been in existence for over 100 years without causing any negative privacy or aesthetic impacts.
                    - Combustible materials are all over the adjacent property.
                    (+) Mr. Panado
                    - The permit has been filed to clear up confusion at the Planning Department.
                    (+) Robert C. Catone – Safety and Fire Consultant
                    - He retired from the City and County of San Francisco after 29 ½ years working for the Fire Department; spent 15 years doing the plan review for the City and County; worked on Muni Metro and has worked 5 ½ years working at the San Francisco International Airport.
                    - There are two reasons for the parapet: 1) to prevent the spread of fire from the roof of the subject building to a nearby adjacent building; 2) to prevent the roof of the building from being exposed to fire from an adjacent building.
                    - Looking at the site, one adjacent building has verticle wood shingles and is attached to the subject building. They have lattice wood–which could be kindling wood. This wood would cause a vertical fire. The fire would go up and the parapet would prevent it from going horizontally.
                    - The subject property and the adjacent property have unprotected openings on the property line facing each other. This would cause a problem with fire spreading.

                    ACTION:          Take Discretionary Review with the following recommendations: 1) Issue a notice of special restrictions so that there is no use of the roof area as decks--This includes any temporary or permanent fixtures; consider the removal of the existing walkable type surface; removal of the 2nd floor door.
                    AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
                    ABSENT:          Fay


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))

Larry Edmond
- Use discretion regarding the Port of San Francisco
- African Americans and Gays should be represented at the Port.
- If the Commission has any jurisdiction over the Port of San Francisco, he would like the Commission to find out what is going on at 2nd and King Street.

Adjournment: 6:09 p.m.


ACTION:          Approved
AYES:                    Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Fay

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