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

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

July 26, 2001

July 26, 2001

 

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION


Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, July 26, 2001
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting



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

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT FAY AT 1:45 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator and Acting Director; Adam Light; Michael Li; Ben Fu; Tina Tam; Thomas Wang; Tim Woloshyn; Mary Woods; Dario Jones; Nora Priego, Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery, Commission Secretary

A.          ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

          1.          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
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 28, 2001)
                    (Proposed for Continuance to August 9, 2001)

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


          2.          2000.1140X          (LIGHT: 558-6254)
                    1 POWELL STREET - west side between Eddy and Ellis Streets, Lot 5 in Assessor’s Block 330 - Request under Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Code) for Determination of Compliance to make minor modifications to the ground floor entrance and windows of the subject Category I Building, which is located in the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District, to accommodate a retail store and to seismically retrofit the existing 138-foot tall, seven-story over basement building containing a ground level banking institution with office uses on the upper floors. The seismic retrofitting will be accomplished by infilling a large interior light well on the north side of the property with a structural system that will provide proper seismic reinforcement for the building. No exceptions under Section 309 of the Planning Code are requested by the proposed project. The project is located in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and a 110-X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
                    (Proposed for Continuance to August 16, 2001)

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

          3.          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)
                    (Proposed for Continuance to September 20, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to September 20, 2001
AYES:          Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Baltimore, Theoharis

B.          COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

          4.          Commission Matters

Commissioner Lim:
During the last hearing of the Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Leno proposed a resolution that the Planning Commission should not approve projects that does not include housing even if a Conditional Use permit is not required for the approval. Supervisor Leno gave an example of a project that was approved recently by the Planning Commission that is located on Market and Polk. Because the project did not require a Conditional Use permit, the inclusionary affordable housing was only five percent. Supervisor Leno suggested that the Commission not approve projects that don't have inclusionary housing. She believes that the supervisor is misinformed. She knows that the Commission has most always approved projects that have at least 10 percent of inclusionary housing. Since Supervisor Leno is misinformed, she would like to clarify the policy of this Commission to the supervisor. She urges the Commission to expedite Commissioner Chinchilla's request about looking into the policies that cover inclusionary housing.

Commissioner Chinchilla:
He agrees that Supervisor Leno is misinformed. The only reason that this Conditional Use was not applied to the project on Market and Polk Street is because there is a flaw in the policy. He requests that the Planning Department review and potentially update the policy. It might be a drafting error.

Commissioner Salinas:
He requested information on the timeline of projects that have inclusionary housing. He is concerned that we have affordable housing that is in great demand but the process is not an expeditious one. He would like the Department to provide Commissioners with the most current 30 projects and determine the timeline for each project. The Commissioners are willing to help make this process an expeditious one.

C.          DIRECTOR'S REPORT

          5.          Director's Announcements

Larry Badiner (Acting Director)

Re: Supervisor Leno's Concern:
It is not that the Commission is avoiding applying 10 percent affordability. He agrees that there is a drafting error and this was carried into Supervisor Leno's current proposal. The project located on Market and Polk did not require a Conditional Use so this was an exception. Another question and/or issue would be that another potential requirement should be a variance. Director Green has committed to having a hearing regarding these issues.

          6.          Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and Board of Appeals (BOA):
                    BOS – None

                    BOA - None

D.          REGULAR CALENDAR

          7a.          2001.0669XCV          (LIGHT: 558-6254)
                    199 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET - east side between and with secondary frontages on Natoma and Howard Streets, Lot 21, in Assessor’s Block 3722 -- Request under Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Code) for Determinations of Compliance and Exceptions, including but not necessarily limited to: an exception to the Separation of Towers requirement (Section 132.1(c)); an exception to the Reduction of Ground Level Wind Current requirement (Section 148 (a)), and an exception to the rear yard requirement (Section 132.1); to construct a 150-foot tall, 16-story building containing approximately 168 dwelling units, ground floor retail, and 80 sub-grade parking spaces; The project lies within a C-3-O(SD) (Downtown, Office, Special Development) District and within a 150-S Height and Bulk District. This proposal replaces a previous project (2000.552BCVX) approved by the Planning Commission on February 15, 2001, that was for construction of a mixed-use building containing approximately 49,000 square feet of office, 99 dwelling units, ground level retail and 70 sub-grade parking spaces. The office square footage that was approved under Section 321 of the Planning Code (Annual Office Limit) will now be available for other project applications for office projects containing less than 50,000 square feet. The project is located in a C-3-O(SD) (Downtown Office, Special Development) District, and a 150-S Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

                    SPEAKER(S):
                    (+) Jim Reuben, Reuben and Alter
                    - Mr. Clark Manus will be presenting the project. He will speak on affordable housing policies.
                    - There is an ongoing public dialog regarding these policies.
                    - The current policy has been 10 percent for projects that require conditional use. He does not argue or want to get in the way of changing this.
                    - The project sponsor has been acting honorably under the circumstances.
                    - The market has changed and is reacting to these changes.
                    - The series of exceptions don't change the size of the building.
                    (+) Clark Manus – Heller-Manus Architects
-          Gave a discription of the project.
-          This project was before the Commission a few months ago and it was accepted quite favorably.
                    - The exceptions, which were granted last time, were the same then as now.
                    (-) Roger Brandon
                    - This seems like another project to get rid of a parking lot.
                    - This is also not a residential district.
                    - There are businesses surrounding this project.
                    - This project is not necessary at all.
                    - This is not a good place for this type of project.
                    - People who work in downtown areas don't want to work (live?) so close to their jobs. Many people commute into the City.
                    - The average size of the units is quite small and appears to be very crammed.
                    - The developer is trying to squeeze in too many units
                    (+) Lou Blazej
                    - There is a historical perspective about housing in the downtown area.
                    - He would like the Commission to stick to the 10 percent policy.
                    - There should be a lot of open space throughout the building.
                    - This building is providing TDR's.
                    - This project is providing housing in the downtown as opposed to office use and this is a good thing.
                    ACTION No. 1:          Approved the project with the following amended condition: 10% affordable units imposed on the first 99 units and 12% imposed on the rest of the mixed units which would equal 11% total of affordable units. Motion was withdrawn.
                    ACTION No. 2:          Project was determined to be Consistent with Section 309.
                    AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
                    ABSENT:          Theoharis
                    MOTION:          16194

          7b.          2001.0669XCV          (LIGHT: 558-6254)
                    199 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET - east side between and with secondary frontages on Natoma and Howard Streets, Lot 21, in Assessor’s Block 3722 -- Request under Planning Code Section 204.5 for a Conditional Use authorization to allow non-accessory parking. Sixty-three parking spaces are allowed as accessory parking by Code. The project sponsor is requesting 80 parking spaces, 17 of which require Conditional Use authorization by the Planning Commission. Parking is proposed to be provided below ground on four separate levels. (See item "a." above for a more complete project description.)
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

                    SPEAKER(S):          Same as those listed in Item 7a above
          ACTION No.:          Project Approved with the following condition: The affordable housing requirement should be 11 percent which is equivalent to 18 units of affordable housing.
                    AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
                    ABSENT:          Theoharis
                    MOTION:          16195

          7c.          2001.0669XCV          (LIGHT: 558-6254)
                    199 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET - east side between and with secondary frontages on Natoma and Howard Streets, Lot 21, in Assessor’s Block 3722 -- Request under Planning Code Section 140 for a Variance for dwelling unit exposure. Sixteen of the proposed units face an inner court that does not meet the requirements of Section 140 of the Planning Code for levels 2 through 14. Therefore, a variance must be sought and justified for the units on these levels facing solely on the inner court. (See item "a." above for a more complete project description.)

                    SPEAKER(S):          Same as those listed in item 7a above.
                    ACTION:          The Zoning Administrator Closed public comment and granted the variance

          8.          2001.0223C          (LI: 558-6396)
                    1330-1342 POLK STREET - northeast corner at Austin Street; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0668 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to expand an existing yoga studio within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to allow the Funky Door Yoga Center to expand from approximately 3,600 square feet to approximately 4,800 square feet through the conversion of existing retail space on the ground floor. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

                    SPEAKER(s):
                    (+) Jeff Renthrow – Owner of Funky Door Yoga Center
                    - They have been open for about a year now and they would like to expand to the downstairs part of the building.
                    - The neighborhood supports the center and the expansion.
          ACTION:          Approved with the following conditions of approval: All signs are to be legalized.
          AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
          ABSENT:          Theoharis
          MOTION:          16196

          9a.          2001.0584CV          (FU: 558-6613)
                    154-174 CAPP STREET - west side between 16th and 17th Streets, Lot 039 in Assessor’s Block 3570 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 712.21, and pursuant to Section 121.1 to allow a non-residential use, a sewing shop, occupying more than 6,000 square feet in a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

                    SPEAKER(S):
                    (+) Marty Winter
                    - They are very proud of what they have done in the Mission District. His partner and he have done many changes and improvement to the building.
                    - They have done very positive things for a neighborhood that has been very tough.
                    - He hopes that the Commission will approve the project.
                    (+) Louis Goldhammer – Project Architect
                    - The use of this space has been industrial for the past 40 years.
                    - There has always been a sewing shop there.
                    - The project sponsor would like to lease the space to another sewing shop or any other industrial use.
                    ACTION No. 1:          Motion to continue project for 30 days – August 23, 2001.
                    AYES:           Chinchilla, Salinas
                    NAYES:          Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim
                    RESULT:          The motion failed
          ACTION No. 2:          Approve the project with the condition that the space be used for a sewing factory only. Any other use would require the project to come back to the Planning Commission.
                    AYES:          Baltimore, Joe, Lim
                    NAYES:          Chinchilla, Fay, Salinas
                    RESULT:          The motion failed
                    ACTION No. 3:          Project Continued to August 9, 2001 to allow Commissioner Theoharis, who is absent, to review and participate.
                    AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
                    ABSENT:          Theoharis

          9b.          2001.0548CV           (FU: 558-6613)
                    154-174 CAPP STREET - west side, between 16th and 17th Streets; Lot 039 in Assessor’s Block 3570 in an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation. The proposal is to permit the conversion of an industrial building to a non-profit health center, the Native American Health Center, at the second level without providing the required additional parking spaces. Section 151 of the Planning Code requires that one off-street parking space be provided for each 300 square feet of occupied floor area in a NC-3 Zoning District. The Native American Health Center would occupy 9,800 square feet of floor area. Based on the floor area, 33 off-street parking spaces would be required. The existing three-story building has a parking deficiency of 20 spaces, which results in a net increase of 13 required spaces. The applicant proposes no additional parking spaces.

SPEAKER(S):          Same as those listed in item 9a above.
ACTION:          The Zoning Administrator closed public comment and continued the item to August 9, 2001.

          10.          2000.1279C          (TAM: 558-6325)
                    522-524 CLIPPER STREET - north side between Diamond and Douglass Streets, Lot 9 in Assessor’s Block 6545 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 121(f) to allow the subject lot to be subdivided into two lots. One of the newly created lots will have a width of 19 feet, which is less than the required 25-foot minimum. The proposal also includes construction of a new four-story, single-family dwelling on the newly created 19-foot wide lot. The property is located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 12, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Michael Levitt – Project Architect
- The building is an existing Victorian and is significantly smaller than the other existing buildings.
- The original proposal for the project included an additional floor, as a mezzanine level. This level has been eliminated.
- The upper floors have been set back by request of the Planning Department.
- There is neighborhood support for this project.
- Supervisor Leno has reviewed the plans and is in support of the project.
- The original situation on the lot included a parking pad. The new project involves parking for 2 vehicles.
- The addition of the building will not deprive the neighbors of light and air.
(+) Ben Geffen – Project Sponsor
- In the last 30 years the house has been in a state of neglect and abuse.
- There was some construction done without permits.
- He displayed photos of what the house looks like now.
- There are some eucalyptus trees that are quite large, which will be a hazard during winter months. Proper landscaping will be installed.
(+) Joe O'Donaghue
- Mr. Geffen is not a member but he (Joe) is here as support.
- He has never known a project in Noe Valley that didn't have a protest. Yet this project has full support of the neighborhood including Supervisor Leno.
- The issue of light on the adjacent Victorian is a valid issue.
- If the Victorian would be demolished, the neighborhood would not support this yet it would be very costly to upgrade it so the architect has to be quite creative
(+) Dragen Andrekovitch
- He supports the project. All the neighbors support the project also.
- Cutting the trees would make everything nice and clean.
- Everyone supports the project.
ACTION:          Continued to August 9, 2001 in order for project architect to submit revised architectural drawings and to have a representative from the Building Department attend the hearing.
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Theoharis

          11.          2001.0332C          (WANG: 558-6335)
777 BROTHERHOOD WAY - south side between Junipero Serra and Lake Merced Boulevards; Lot 033 in Assessor's Block 7380 ﷓ Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.3(h) and 205.2(a) to add two temporary modular classroom buildings, each module measuring 1,440 square feet and increase the current enrollment from 92 to approximately 120 students in 2001 at the Lake Merced Church of Christ/the Bridgemont Junior High and high school site in an RH﷓1(D) (Residential, House, One﷓Family, Detached Dwelling) District and a 40﷓X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

                    SPEAKER(S):
                    (+) Patrice Fambrini – representing Project Sponsor
                    - This project is very important to this school and it's students since it will provide comfort and safety to Bridgemont School.
                    - She would like to increase the amount of time for module placement. She would like to eliminate the 2 year time limit.
                    (+) Peter Troper – Interim Principal
                    - About 90 percent of their students have gone to colleges.
                    - They have a very diverse student body.
                    - Although it's a private school, they do have a lot of scholarships and discounts that they make available to lower income families.
                    - He hopes that the Commission approves the project.
                    ACTION:          Project approved with the following amendments: module placement will have a 5 year time limit.
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Theoharis
MOTION:          16197

          12.          2000.0758C          (TAM: 558-6325)
                    110 VALE AVENUE - east side of Vale Avenue between Crestlake Drive and Sloat Boulevard; Lot 13 in Assessor’s Block 2526A - Request for a Conditional Use authorization to allow the establishment of a residential care facility for 7 or more persons pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.3(c). The proposal is to establish the Nobis Care Facility, providing long-term care for a maximum of 9 elderly individuals, who do not require skilled nursing care. The proposal is located in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jerry Klein – Representing Project Sponsor
- It is unfortunate that the application states 10 elderly individuals since they applied for 9 individuals.
- There have always been 9 individuals in the house, 3 of whom were members of the family and 9 of who are licensed care people.
- This would expand the state supervision over the entire 9 as opposed to only 6 that are supervised right now.
- These are elderly people who will not have wild parties.
- They agree to the limitation of 9 individuals.
ACTION:          Approved
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Theoharis
MOTION:          16198

E.          DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

At Approximately 4:20 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.

          13.          2001.0216D          (WOLOSHYN: 558-6612)
                    40-42 COLLINS STREET - west side between Mayfair Drive and Euclid Avenue, Lot 019 in Assessor’s Block 1045 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000-1102-4756S proposing to add a one-story vertical addition to an existing two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed

SPEAKER(S):
(-) Mr. Rothman – President of the Laurel Heights Improvement Association
- There are many additions, which have been made in this neighborhood, and the Commission has always approved proper additions.
- The major concern here is the change in character of the neighborhood. If this project is approved, it will set precedence and many other additions will be requested.
- The overwhelming consensus of the residents is to keep the character of the neighborhood.
- The additional height will have an impact on the neighborhood.
- He is speaking on behalf of the 150 members of this association that they do not support this project.
- The BOS message is quite clear--they want to keep the character of neighborhoods.
- This is the wrong project for this neighborhood.
(-) Jerry Klein
- He has carefully drafted legislation to project this neighborhood.
- Character is quite an important issue.
- They are seeking to protect the light, air and rear yards of the properties. Vertical extensions would jeopardize the neighborhood.
- The general feeling of the neighborhood should be protected by the code.
- The people of this association are willing to give up a vertical addition to their properties and they deserve recognition for this.
(-) Donald Green
- He displayed a map of the lots of the neighborhood indicating who is against the prject and who is in support of the project.
- He also displayed a photograph of how the new construction will affect the light of the adjacent buildings.
- Another picture displayed showed how the new construction would be quite visible from the street level.
- Walking up Collins or walking down Collins one would be able to see the new addition.
- This construction will affect the character of the neighborhood.
(+) Michael Zucker – Project Architect
- He would like to thank the Commission for reviewing the project.
- The Planner has been very generous with his time.
- There are a number of things that need to be discussed. This is a special project for the project sponsor. The project sponsor's mother is the primary reason for this project.
- This construction is not designed to go against the character of the neighborhood.
- They have been very careful that the scale of the building, the materials and the design are comparable with the other homes.
- They do not believe that the zoning of the neighborhood should be changed.
- They have very strong support from people immediately adjacent to the project and the in the surrounding area.
- He displayed a model of how the proposed construction is compared to the adjacent buildings.
(+) John Cushel – Planning Consultant
- He has been a planning consultant for many years.
- There are 16 letters, all from immediate neighbors, who are supporting this project.
- He had a discussion with Supervisor Newsom, and they have no intension to do any legislation on this matter. They are not in favor of down zoning and would not introduce anything related to this matter.
- As a result of all this, a new organization--Laurel Heights Alliance, has been created.
- There are a number of substantial 4-story buildings in the neighborhood.
- This construction is just for a family who would like a place for their mother to live in.
(+) Kiroko Zuzuki
- She lives in the neighborhood.
- Her sister and her purchased the property 12 years ago.
- They have a vision to add an extra room for their aging mother In order to give her good care.
- Now is a good time to build an extra room for her. This would allow them to give quality care for their mother.
- They tried to get an alternative solution by buying a larger home but the rising costs of homes did not let them.
- They would like to make their mother happy so that she and her sister can be happy.
(+) Karen Sager
- She is speaking on behalf of her mother who lives in the neighborhood.
- Her mother has lived in the neighborhood since 1948.
- She has a common fence with the subject project and she will be the one most affected by this construction.
- She spends a lot of time with her mother so she knows what she can see and there are no views.
- Her mother is in complete support of this project. The remodeling is very modest and she thinks that the project sponsor is a fabulous neighbor and is doing this in good faith.
- There are many older people in the neighborhood and they try to keep the status quo of the neighborhood. But her mother and other neighbors would like young people to come into the neighborhood.
(+) Carol Hess
- She owns a pair of flats in the neighborhood.
- There was a letter that was sent to the Laurel Heights Improvement Association, which had misinformation regarding this project.
- She hopes that the Commission will allow this project.
(+) Mathew Krisp
- He supports the project. He and his fiancée have just moved into the neighborhood.
- They believe that they will be able to have children and would like to at some point made additions to their property.
- If this project is not approved, it will keep young families from coming into the neighborhood and growing.
- There have been some inaccuracies related to this project.
(+) Don Holter
- He lives on Collins Street
- He supports the project sponsor.
- As a neighbor in the area, he is against the statement that there are various neighbors who are against this neighborhood.
- The houses in the neighborhood are quite expensive so this is not an inexpensive neighborhood.
- The character of the area consists of flats, single-family, 3-stories, and 4-stories. The character of the neighborhood varies.
- This project will not impede parking.
- He hopes that the Commission supports the project sponsor 100 percent.

ACTION:          Discretionary Review was not taken. The project was approved.
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lim, Salinas
NAYES:          Fay
ABSENT:          Theoharis

          14.          2001.0612D          (WOODS: 558-6315)
124-126 7th AVENUE - east side between Lake and California Streets, Lot 39 in Assessor’s Block 1366. Staff-initiated request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/04/20/7373S, proposing to merge an existing two-unit building into a single-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 disapprove the proposed merger.

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Mike Lusse
- He is a parishioner of St. Mary the Virgin Church.
- They plan to upgrade the house seismically, life-safety issues, etc.
- They respectfully ask that the Commission vote to merge the units.
(+) Jim Forsythe – Controller for the Episcopal Church
- St. Mary the Virgin Episcopal Church has been very active in providing housing.
- One of the major reasons they ask for the support of the Commission is so that the church will be able to provide housing from the budget they have.
- This particular property fits their financial capabilities and is close to the church.
- This would not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
- On behalf of the Bishop, he hopes the Commission will approve the project.
(+) Father Jason Parkin – Pastor of St. Mary the Virgin
- This project has been a commitment for various years and has been growing strongly.
- Churches are not well equipped and are not interested in becoming landlords.
- He is here not only as a pastor but also as a father and husband.
- The issue here is not about the Parkin family but about the ministry of this church and this community.
ACTION:          Discretionary Review was not taken. The proposed merger was allowed with the following condition: Must construct a basement unit.
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
ABSENT:          Theoharis

          15.          2001.0209D          (JONES: 558-6477)
                    235 SANTA PAULA AVENUE - between Yerba Buena Avenue and San Jacinto Way, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 3078, request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/12/21/8505, proposing for the construction of a two-story rear horizontal extension to the existing two-story, single-family residence in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family Detached Dwellings) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve as submitted.

SPEAKER(S):
(-) Sue Hestor – Representing DR Requestor
- She displayed a picture showing the front of the subject property and adjacent properties.
- There is a rather steep grade between Santa Paula and Yerba Buena. As a result, the lot is fairly shallow and the DR requestor looks into a hill.
- The addition is to the rear of the house.
- They are requesting that instead of the addition going straight up from the old addition, that the 2nd floor be set back 3½ feet and instead of having a pitched roof, to have a flat roof; so windows can continue to look out at the sky;
(-) Lisa Jacobson
- She lives on Santa Paula Avenue
- She purchased her home in 1995 and has one of the smallest homes in the Saint Francis Woods area.
- One of the many things she loves about her house is the cottage style.
- The proposed construction will block 3 windows that provide sunlight to her home.
- She would like the addition to be pushed back 3½ feet and for the roof to be flat so she won't loose so much of the natural sunlight.
(-) Arnie Lerner – Architect
- He was asked by the project sponsor to view the design.
- He displayed pictures of the project.
- He doesn't believe that the requests that they have made are unreasonable since they don't affect the urban design or the character of the neighborhood.
(-) Peter Van Dousky
- He and his wife have lived in Saint Francis Woods for over 18 years.
- The peaked roof from the proposed construction will block light from their yard and to their office located on the first floor of their house.
- They support the proposed modifications suggested by DR requestor.
(-) Vanessa Marque
- She lives on Yerba Buena.
- She wasn't able to be here for the first meeting but she is here today representing her next door neighbors as well.
- It is very disconcerting that trees have been cut down and now they are proposing the addition.
(+) Robert Crem – Project Sponsor
- He lives on Santa Paula Street
- They moved into their home in 1999.
- They discovered that there were several structural problems with the home. They hired an architect to help them fix these structural problems yet keep the design and character of the home.
- He met with their neighbors and members of the homeowner's association.
- They have worked very cooperatively with their neighbors.
- They have letters of support from various neighbors and organizations.
- The DR requestor has not been too cooperative.
- He believes that his project is very modest and hopes that the Commission will approve his project.
(+) John Lau – Civil Engineer and Building Designer
- He has been a building designer for over 30 years.
- The main structural problem with the property was the foundation.
- He came up with a plan to improve the foundation and increase the size of the home with a design that would match the character of the neighborhood.
ACTION:          Discretionary Review was not taken and the project was approved.
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Lim, Salinas
NAYES:          Joe
ABSENT:          Theoharis

F.          PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

Sue Hestor
Re: 311 Notice Process
- In the past month, she has had 3 cases where after notices were sent out, the plans went to DBI and they suggested changes to the plans. She has been speaking to DBI, planning and BOS in order to try to get out of this impasse.
- If an expansion of the building envelope happens while the project is going through the approval process of DBI it should get another 311 Section notice.
- It is frustrating to have to deal with these cases when they are under construction or they are at the Board of Appeals.
- This needs to be dealt with and the Commission needs to be aware of how important this issue is.

Adjournment: 6:30 p.m.


THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2001.

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

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