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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us

August 09, 2001

August 09, 2001

 

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION


Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, August 9, 2001
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting



PRESENT:                    Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:                    None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT FAY AT 1:35 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green, Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; David Alumbagh; Paul Lord; Tina Tam; Mat Snyder; Scott Sanchez; Michael Li; Judy Martin; Mary Woods; Dan Sider; Glenn Cabreros; Nora Priego, Transcription Secretary; Andrea Green, Acting Commission Secretary

A.          ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

          1.          2000.1217C          (DiBARTOLO: 558-6291)
                    1100-1126 POLK STREET (AKA: 1092 POST STREET) - northeast corner of Post and Polk Streets; Lot 12 in Assessor’s Block 692 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow amplified live and recorded music (defined as "Other Entertainment" by Planning Code Section 790.38) in an existing bar, d.b.a. The Lush Lounge, as required by Planning Code Section 723.48 in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 130-E Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
                    (Proposed for Continuance to August 23, 2001) September 13, 2001

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

          2.          2001.0522C          (SIROIS: 558-6313)
                    965 GENEVA AVENUE - south side of Geneva Avenue between London and Paris Streets, Lot 010 Assessor’s Block 6409. Request by Metro PCS for Conditional Use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility pursuant to Planning Code Section 712.83 which includes the installation of nine panel antennas, one GPS antenna and equipment cabinets at the Apollo Theater which is located in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The subject site is a Preference Location 4.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
                    (Proposed for Continuance to September 6, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to September 6, 2001
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Fay, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Lim

          3.          2001.0327C          (WOODS: 558-6315)
                    2038 CLEMENT STREET - north side between 21st and 22nd Avenues, Lot 32 in Assessor's Block 1412 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under Section 717.39 of the Planning Code to demolish an existing two-story building containing retail on the ground floor and two dwelling units on the second floor and construct a new, four-story building containing three parking spaces on the ground floor and three dwelling units above the ground floor in the Outer Clement Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
                    (Proposed for Continuance to September 13, 2001)

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

          4a.          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
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 26, 2001)
                    Note: On July 26, 2001, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and took the following actions:
                    ACTION No. 1:          Motion to continue for 30 days. This motion failed by a vote of +2-4 (Commissioners Baltimore, Fay, Joe and Lim voted No; Commissioner Theoharis was absent).
                    ACTION No. 2:          Motion to approve with the condition that the space be used for a sewing factory only. Any other use would require project to come back to the Planning Commission. This motion failed by a vote of +3-3 (Commissioners Chinchilla, Fay and Salinas voted No; Commissioner Theoharis was absent).
                    ACTION No. 3:          Project Continued to August 9, 2001 to allow absent Commissioner to review and participate. This motion passed by a vote of +6-0).
                    (PROJECT WITHDRAWN)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Project Withdrawn

          4b.          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.
                    Note: On July 26, 2001, the Zoning Administrator continued this matter to August 9, 2001.
                    (Continued to the next Variance Hearing on August 22, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Continued to Variance Hearing of August 22, 2001 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 408 at City Hall.
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Joe, Fay, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Lim

B.          COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

          5.          Commission Matters

Commissioner Chinchilla:
- Last week he received a resolution from Supervisor Leno urging the Planning Commission not to approve housing projects unless they impose 10% or whatever the language was.
- This resolution was based on false information.
- He communicated to the Supervisor and pointed out that the resolution was mistaken and untrue.
- He challenged the supervisor to identify specifically, any conditional use that this Commission or the department had approved a project.
- According to his recollection there has been a trend to go beyond the 10% minimum.
- The department has been very conscientious about how they approve projects.
- If the Supervisor had done his homework, the Supervisor would have realized that the projects where they had not imposed the 10% minimum is because it was not required.

Commissioner Baltimore:
- Frequently she reads information on the housing needs of the City. The information that is not included is what level or cost range of housing is needed.
- She would like staff to provide information to the Commission broken down by income group in order to know what moderate income was, what low income was, along with the housing that has been produced in the past year.

C.          DIRECTOR'S REPORT

          6.          Director's Announcements

Re: Vacation
- Glad he is back.
- Thanked Larry Badiner and Dr. Amit Ghosh for serving as Acting Directors while he was on vacation.

Re: Planning Budget
- The Commissioners were presented with the budget and the final results of the Board of Supervisors by Dr. Amit Ghosh.

Re: Commissioner Baltimore's request:
- He will be scheduling a presentation regarding information on housing needs. At that time he will be discussing Commissioner Chinchilla's request as well.

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

BOS
Re: Live/Work Task Force
- There was a live/work task force that was created by the Board of Supervisors and this report was recently released. The director was a member of this task force and he will be looking at it closely since it was issued while he was on vacation. He will be scheduling a presentation in the near future regarding this task force.

Re: Housing, Transportation and Land Use Committee
- The resolution Commissioner Chinchilla brought up was discussed.

- Bicycle storage legislation was adopted and the Commission has recommended it go forward to the full board.

- There are some legal questions regarding the Commission approving cases with less than 10% affordability.
- It is true that we have never approved any project with less than 10% affordability. Actually, the Commission cannot do this.

BOA - None

D.          REGULAR CALENDAR

          8.          2001.0602TZ          (ALUMBAUGH: 558-6601/LORD: 558-6311)
                    COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS – Consideration of adoption of a resolution establishing community plan areas. Following the expiration of the IPZ Interim Controls on August 5, 2001, community planning for the areas in and around the IPZ Interim Control sections of the City should be conducted. The community planning areas identified in hearings on July 12th and July 19th, of this year are portions of the City and County of San Francisco where modifications to the existing permanent zoning controls need to be considered. This draft resolution proposes the boundaries for these community plan areas.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the draft resolution establishing the community plan areas.

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Stanley Muraoka – Project Manager of the Bay View Hunters Point Project - San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
- The Redevelopment Agency supports this resolution.
- This project is very appropriate and very timely.
- This project is within the preliminary plan boundaries adopted by the Commission in 1997. The survey area correspond with the boundaries of the Bay View Community Study Area.
- They are going to release to the public a general plan from the Redevelopment Agency.
(+) James Martin – Economic Development Committee for the Bay View Hunters Point
- Their organization supports this resolution since it is consistent with the concept plan.
- This is critical to the integrity of the community as a whole.
- While there are other concepts, which will come forward, they request that the Commission approve this since it is critical to the community.
(+) Joseph Smooke – Housing Director of Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center.
- His organization has been working with various departments to do a detail study on various parcels.
- He would like to introduce this planning process to the Commission so that their community and the Bay View community can come together and plan some key parcels.
(+) Ignacio Nunez
- He was born and raised in Bernal Heights.
- He would like to see rezoning of the Bayshore corridor for multi use instead of just industrial.
- He would like to see more housing for low and medium income as well as artists.
- An industrial zone would create a lot of traffic and a lot of outsiders to the area.
(+) Buck Bagot – Bernal Heights Neighborhood
- Mayor Brown attended their community meeting and he complimented their work on the neighborhood.
- Mayor Brown mentioned that there is no place for Home Dept anywhere in San Francisco.
- He has lived in Bernal Heights for 27 years and has seen a lot of his neighbors being priced out of their homes.
- People need to work and live in the Bayshore Corridor.
- He compliments the department for separating Visitation Valley as a specific community plan area.
(+) Jim Hewitt – Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
- When he found out that there were some plans in the works to improve the Bayshore corridor he became involved in this process.
- He went to the first community meeting and it was very exciting; many people attended.
- A lot of the ideas were very exciting.
- He is asking that the Commission include the Bayshore Corridor in the Community Plan Area.
(+) Penny Clifton – Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
- She supports the proposed amendment because of the traffic.
- To make it just industrial would make the area worse.
- If this area would have more retail it would make it a pedestrian area.
(+) Kingmond Young – Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
- He is a resident and a merchant of Bernal Heights.
- The freeway is an eye sore. If an industrial zone is established it would increase the difficulty of living in there.
- He would like a mixed-use designation for the area.
(+) Mark Lynch – Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
- He believes that the Bayshore Boulevard corridor in the Community Plan since it would make this area a better neighborhood.
(+) Kim Grose – San Francisco Organizing Project
- They brought 3,000 people to ask state and local officials for better housing.
- They launched a campaign in the churches to promote better and affordable housing.
(+) Beatriz Rosales – San Francisco Organizing Project
- She would like the Commission to support the community planning process for the Bayshore Boulevard because more housing is needed in the City.
(+) Maria Pascuala – San Francisco Organizing Project
- She is a leader at St. Anthony's Church.
- More housing is needed in San Francisco.
- It is very hard for her to find an affordable place to live.
(+) Mauricio Vela – Executive Director of the Bernal Heights Community Center
- Bayshore borders Bernal Heights so they are always impacted of what happens on Bayshore Boulevard.
- They want an opportunity to include this area in the concept plan.
- They just started a planning process.
- Various community leaders are in support of this.
- There is a need for retail in this area.
- They have had little or no opposition to their development, which was presented to various organizations and residents of the area.
(+) Bella Ramos – Church of the Visitation – San Francisco Organizing Project
- They support Visitation Valley to be the 5th planning area.
- They hope to present a plan to the department in the late fall.
- She is a retired senior who lives with her husband and believes that we need more affordable housing in the area for seniors.
(+) Fran Martin – Visitation Valley Planning Alliance
- She would like to thank the Planning Department for making the Bay View Community Plan Area separate from the Visitation Valley Plan Area.
- Visitation Valley has a specific area focus which is well defined. The site is vacant and right for development and MUNI is on it's way.
- She has spoken to Supervisor Maxwell about the need for more Planning Department staff, she would like to speak to the Planning Department regarding these issues.
(+) Oriana Ides – Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
- She lives in the Portola District.
- Both the Portola and Bernal Heights Districts will be impacted by this resolution.
- She would like the Commission to allow them to be part of the design process.
(+) Giulio Sorro – City College
- She encourages the Commission to approve this resolution.
- She has been working with various residents and merchants in the Potrero Hill area.
- She supports this resolution.
(+) Doris Vincent
- She lives in the Bay View Hunters Point area.
- She was elected to protect the Bay View Hunters Point Survey Area.
- The people in her neighborhood would like to see the plan as it is.
- She realizes that there is a need for housing but honor the work that the PAC has done. She hopes that the Commission will not do anything to damage this plan. She wants the Commission to work with PAC.
(+) Ena Aguirre - PAC
- She has lived in Bay View Hunters Point for more than 11 years.
- She was elected about 4½ years ago to the PAC.
- She would like to remind people that District 10 and Bay View Hunters Point has a common division which is the freeway.
- They have made sure that the neighbors have been included in their meetings.
- It is important that the Commission works with the PAC.
(+) Dan Dodt – Bay View Hunter's Point - PAC
- He has lived in the Bay View District for 22 years.
- He encourages the Commission to adopt the Community plan areas as drafted.
(+) Julie Milburn
- She urges the Commission to pass the plan for the Showplace Square Area.
- They are very excited about this.
(+) Demetria Page – PAC – Project Area Committee
- She is the supervisor for PAC
- The Bay View Hunters Point Community has been working with the Redevelopment Agency for the past 20 years.
(+) Michael Hamman - PAC
- He is a member of the Bay View Hunter's Point PAC
- He lives in the area and works in the area.
- Their community plan envisions the Bay View corridor to be a place where people can get jobs.
- There are a lot of people who support bringing jobs to the community.
(+) Andrew Junius
- He is here on behalf of Home Depot.
- There is a proposal for Home Depot at the Goodman Lumber sight.
- If there is a place for Home Depot, he thinks that this is it.
- There will be hundreds of jobs, which Home Depot will be able to provide.
- They have been invited to various community organization meetings to be able to discuss this.
- This site as a city-service resource.
- Any community dialogue should look beyond the Bayshore Corridor and should look at the citywide issues.
(+) John Daniel
- He lives in Bernal Heights
- He is concerned about the amount of traffic that goes on Cortland Avenue.
- He would like this area included in the community plan areas.
- There is an opportunity for six acres, which can be included in the community planning process.
- They ask that they be allowed to design a process, which would benefit the community.
(+) Necolious Hooker
- He was born and raised in Bernal Heights.
- It is not a good idea to build housing in the area since the freeway emits fumes.
(+) Mark Tulley
- He has been working with the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center.
- The planning process has just started. The center doesn't have a set plan since this is just starting.
- There is nothing that has been set in stone.

                    ACTION:          Resolution Adopted Establishing the Community Plan Areas.
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
RESOLUTION:          16201

          9.          2001.0602TZ          (ALUMBAUGH: 558-6601/LORD: 558-6311)
                    INDUSTRIAL ZONE – POLICIES AND PROCEDURES – Consideration of adoption of a resolution establishing policies and procedures for the industrially zoned portions of San Francisco. The IPZ Interim Controls expiring on August 5, 2001 have encouraged housing developments in identified mixed-use housing zones and preserved PDR uses in the Industrial Protection Zones. As the interim controls expire, policies and procedures need to be considered by the Planning Commission until such time that permanent Zoning controls can be developed within the community plan areas. Noticed Planning Commission hearings were conducted on draft policy proposals on July 12th and July 19th of this year.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Resolution adopting policies and procedures for the industrially zoned portions of San Francisco.

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Stanley Muraoka – Project Manager for the Bay View Hunters Point Project - San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
- The agency supports an endorsement of the policies that Dr. Ghosh has proposed.
- They are currently engaged in a very intensive process with the Bay View Hunters Point Community through the project area committee.
- They are wrestling with what should remain in perpetuity as PDR as opposed to where it would be appropriate to provide for affordable housing production and economic development.
- These interim process and controls are very critical.
(+) Jon Twichell – Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition
- This is an umbrella group of various land use and transportation groups.
- They want to encourage the Commission to include the current temporary map of housing along third street within the permanent IPZ controls rather than banning housing on third.
(+) Diane Oshima – Port of San Francisco
- She is the waterfront Planning Manager for the Port of San Francisco.
- They are in support of the policies that are proposed in terms of maintaining an orderly process and the integrity of the existing industrial areas.
- The industrial transportation access for trucks and freight rail are all integral to making sure that the port's maritime mission can be maintained.
- She applauds this process for establishing these policies.
(+) Julie Milburn – 7th Street Commercial Association/CCAC
- They have done a lot of work in the lower Potrero Hill and Showplace Square area.
- They need planners who might assist them and realizes that staffing is an issue.
- She knows that there are plans for budgeting of staff.
(+) Reverend Cordell Hawkins – Bay View Hunters Point Project Team Committee
- They had a planner that was assigned to Bay View Hunters Point who assisted them regarding various projects.
- They are in desperate need for the department to assign a planner to this area.
- Please don't eliminate housing in this area.
(+) Jaime Rossi – San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
- The number one issue right now is housing.
- The plans, which are being drawn up now, are a little bit too restrictive since there is a housing crisis right now.
- He urges to allow the Commission the discretion to look at all these projects and not be so restrictive.
(-) Jim Meko – SOMA Leadership Council
- There is a lot of miscommunication about what is going to be accomplished.
- There is no disagreement that everyone wants to be part of the long-term process.
- A lot of the decisions, which the Commission has made, have to be undone.
- Drawing nice maps and writing nice words doesn't have action if nothing is done.
(-) Jim Chappel – President of SPUR
- This issue has moved dramatically backwards.
- There are problems in the existing memo since it doesn't really realize the community consensus about housing.
- This memo protects all uses of the PDR area.
- It doesn't let you consider the merits of the housing programs.
- This needs serious amendment.
(+) Steve Vettel – Morrison and Foerster
- He has a similar concern as the previous speaker.
- One important thing which needs to be included are to add a definition of PDR of what it is and what it is not.
- It is important if policy is to be written it needs to be written well. Revised language will really go a long way.
(+) Bill Poland – Bay West Group
- He has been involved in developing and expanding the showplace square district.
- They own several of the substantial properties.
- It is truly a unique market center that deserves as much respect and recognition.
- He requests that the Commission take a careful look at this unique neighborhood.
- They have a map, which shows the real uses of this area, which he can provide to the Commissioners.
- They are planning to add a substantial amount of rental residential so that employees and showroom owners can live nearby.
(+) Greg Asay – Office of Supervisor Maxwell
- He is a legislative aid for Supervisor Maxwell's office.
- On July 9, Supervisor Maxwell introduced legislation that would create interim zoning controls for parcels that adjoin 3rd Street south of Islais Creek. The interim zoning would be until the redevelopment plan is finalized in conjunction with the Bay View Hunters Point Project area.
- They hope to have this legislation to the Board of Supervisors by next month.
- There is clear intent by the Board of Supervisors to encourage neighborhood commercial zoning along Third Street south of Islais Creek, both in support of and supported by the Third Street Light Rail Project.
(+) Mary Murphy – Farella, Braum and Martel, LLP
- It is important for the Commission to clarify that this does not in any way obviate or constrain what the Commission has as a conditional use authority in those areas where certain uses can be permitted conditionally but not as a principal use within that authority.
- This language doesn't seem to address the conditional use.
(+) Quintin Mecke – SOMAD
- He has a few technical questions regarding the proposed policies and procedures: what does office include? Does office include business services? Does office include information technology? Does office include biotech? Office seems to be too broad.
- Regarding the Showplace Square, he feels that the procedure should not be parcel by parcel.
- He is in support of stricter controls.
(+) Lawrence Thibeaux – ILWU Local 10
- There are about 100 members that live or work in the Bay View Hunter's Point area.
- Their main concern is about housing too close to the port.
- He is concerned that people will complain about noise and traffic of the port.
- There is now a small area of the port where there is actual port activities going on.
- They don't have a problem with houses in the Third Street corridor.
(+) Michael Hamman – PAC
- He is a resident of the Bay View.
- With all the changes going on in this area, they are witnessing another  Oklahoma land rush .
- He is here to say thank you for keeping this at bay until they have had enough time to put forward their own plan.
- They would like to have mandatory discretionary review until the plan is adopted this fall.
- They would like to have the opportunity to study and comment on all projects in the survey area so they can have an adequate plan.
- They no longer have a planner to work with, so a mandatory discretionary review would be appropriate.
(+) Dan Dodt
- He is a member of the Bay View Hunter's Point Committee.
- He urges the Commission to extend the discretionary controls immediately to close the window now open by the suspension of the interim controls and adopt the resolution as drafted and to recognize the unfinished business of the PAC and the vision of the residents.
(+) David Cincotta
- He is to talk about housing. He has been working on housing for the past 30 years.
- He was really disappointed in the plan that discouraged housing.
- Discouraged housing means not to allow housing. It is not necessary to do this to protect the PDR uses being talked about right now.
- There have always been competing pressures on land uses.
- He is just suggesting that this plan appears to have given up this struggle. This is not the way the Commission has acted in the past.
(+) Sue Hestor
- She received from Dr. Ghosh the revisions which were not read.
- She feels that it is unfair that this information was not read into the record.
- Things should be balanced and not looked at parcel by parcel.
- This case should be continued since it wasn't read properly into the record before people testified.
(+) Did not state name
- She would like to look at each sub area quickly and prioritize some areas and as they come out of community based planning; some areas can be dropped off.

ACTION:          Resolution Adopted with the following amendments: 1) adding the word protection to paragraph 1 so that it reads,  Industrial Protection Zone ; and 2) the first bullet point on that paragraph reads  discourage the new development of/or conversion of existing uses to office, housing, or live/work.
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
RESOLUTION:          16202

          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 26, 2001)
                    Note: On July 26, 2001, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the case to August 9, 2001 to allow the project architect to submit revised architectural drawings and to have a representative from the Building Department attend the hearing. The Vote was +6 –0. Commissioner Theoharis was absent.

SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuances:
(-) Did not state name
- He and a few neighbors never received notices for the meeting of July 26, 2001.
- He would like for the Commission to reopen public comment.
ACTION:          Continued to August 23, 2001
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis
ABSENT:          Lim

          11.          2000.1315C          (M.SNYDER: 575-6891)
                    52 SHERIDAN STREET - north side between 9th and 10th Streets, Lot 34 in Assessor’s Block 3519 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 816.13 to demolish an existing single family house. The project would also include the construction of a new 50-foot tall, 75-foot deep building that would contain four dwelling units and one commercial unit. The property is within an SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential Mixed Use) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and a Mixed-Use Housing Zone (as designated in Planning Commission Resolution 14861).
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 2, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Silverman – Reuben and Alter
- The building to be demolished was built in 1906 and it has been vacant for over a year.
- The project block contains a variety of mixed uses.
- The project has been reduced to four units.
- He has met with the neighbors and has discussed their issues; therefore, there is no opposition to this project.
(+) Toby Levy – Project Architect
- The project was meant to fit with the architecture of the other buildings and respect the urban design guidelines.
- By having the parking enter through the back part, she was able to have a small retail use on the front.
- She has designed bay windows to make it more residential.

ACTION:          Project Approved with the following conditions: for architect to continue to work with staff to improve the appearance of the side walls.
AYES:          Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
NAYES:          Chinchilla
MOTION:          16203

          12.          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: Approval with Conditions
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 26, 2001)

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

          13.          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: Approval with Conditions.
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 19, 2001)

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

          14a.          2001.0202CV          (LI: 558-6396)
                    136-142 TAYLOR STREET - east side between Eddy and Turk Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 0340 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to reduce the off-street parking requirement for a six-unit residential building within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District, and an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 2, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):
(+) John Dugan
- The proposed building has been vacant for over 15 years.
- They would like to construct six units of housing.
(+) Did not state name – Project Architect
- The reason for asking for conditional use and not providing parking spaces is financially impossible. The location of the property is just one block away from Market Street.
- To allow parking would sacrifice the retail space on the ground floor.
ACTION:          Project Approved
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION:          16204

          14b.          2001.0202CV          (LI: 558-6396)
                    136-142 TAYLOR STREET - east side between Eddy and Turk Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 0340 -- Rear yard, usable open space, and dwelling unit exposure variances sought. The proposal is to convert a vacant commercial building to a mixed-use building containing six dwelling units above ground-floor retail space within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District, and an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building. The Planning Code requires the provision of a rear yard (Section 134), usable open space (Section 135), and dwelling unit exposure (Section 140). The project will not provide a rear yard or usable open space, and three of the dwelling units would not have the required exposure. The application for variance will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.
                    (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 2, 2001)

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          The Zoning Administrator Granted Variance subject to the following condition: no general advertising.

          15a.          2001.0674CD           (MARTIN: 558-6616)
                    419 - 14th STREET - south side, between Valencia and Guerrero Streets; Lot 31 in Assessor’s Block 3546 -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization to: (1) allow a third dwelling unit to be located on the second floor of an existing three-story building with commercial on the ground floor and two legal dwelling units on the third floor, without the required off-street parking space for the new dwelling unit, per Section 161(j) of the Planning Code; and to: (2) allow a market-rate dwelling unit per the Mission District Interim Controls, within the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District and the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict.
                    Preliminary recommendation: Approve with Conditions.

SPEAKER(S):
(+) David Silverman – Reuben and Alter
- The project sponsor seeks to undertake seismic safety work, repair water damage, install smoke detectors, and do other interior work.
- All of the planning code requirements are met except for the parking requirement.
- The project site is well served by public transportation.
- If the conditional use is not approved, the property would have to go back to commercial use.
- If the project is approved it would contribute to the City's housing supply.

ACTION:          Approved
AYES:          Baltmore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis
MOTION:          16205

          15b.          2001.0674CD           (MARTIN: 558-6616)
                    419 - 14th STREET - south side, between Valencia and Guerrero Streets; Lot 31 in Assessor’s Block 3546 -- Mandatory Discretionary Review for a change of use to a legal dwelling unit on the second floor of an existing three-story building with commercial on the ground floor and two legal dwelling units on the third floor, pursuant to the Mission District Interim Controls, within the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District and the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict.
                    Preliminary recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.

SPEAKER(S):          None
ACTION:          Do not take Discretionary Review
AYES:          Baltmore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, Theoharis

E.          DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

                    At Approximately 5:45 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.

          16.          2001.0497DD          (WOODS: 558-6315)
                    2408-10 UNION STREET - north side between Scott and Pierce Streets, Lot 7 in Assessor’s Block 536 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/0122/0297 to add an additional story and a horizontal addition at the rear of an existing three-story, two-unit building located within 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 revised by the project sponsor.

SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuance
Steve Williams – Representing one of the Project Sponsors
- Notices had not been sent to him or to the Project Sponsors.
Susan Michael – Project Architect
- There was adequate notice for this project.
- If the hearing time changes it could be a problem.
Mr. Jonash
- He also submitted a DR and no one is consulting him if it would be okay to continue or not.
- He would be willing to have the case continued.

ACTION:          Continued to August 23, 2001
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Theoharis
NAYES:          Salinas

          17.          2000.0194D          (SIDER: 558-6697)
                    2121 EVANS AVENUE – Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2000.07.20.4210 and 2000.07.20.4204 (demo permits) and 2000.06.26.3720S (alteration permit) for the property at 2121 Evans Avenue, west side, between Cesar Chavez and Napoleon Streets, Assessor's Block 4343, Lot 001B, proposing to demolish three existing industrial sheds totaling about 6,724 gross square feet and replace them with an additional 88,653 gross square feet of space containing approximately 82,985 gross square-feet of industrial use and 1,746 gross square feet of retail use, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution 14861. The subject property is within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, a 65-J Height and Bulk District, and the Industrial Protection Zone.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed.

SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuance
Stanley Muraoka – San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
- He is here before the Commission to make a request by the Bay View Hunter's Point Area Committee.
- They request that the development project be presented to them so they can become fully aware of what the proposal is.
ACTION:          Continued to August 23, 2001
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

          18.          2000.0933D          (CABREROS: 558-6169)
                    517 HICKORY STREET – south side between Buchanan and Webster Streets, Lot 013A in Assessor’s Block 0829. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000/05/18/0428 proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition to an existing three-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
                    Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve project as proposed.

SPEAKER(S):
(-) Jeff Ma – DR Requestor
- The proposed construction would block sunlight to his home and would affect his privacy.
- There is a problem with illegal parkers on this block.
- Another problem he has is allowing an eight bedroom house on such a small street and having two car parking.
- The property line balconies would inhibit his option of ever doing the same thing.
- There have been 13 neighbors who have gone through the mediation process thought community boards and have been opposed to this project.
- This project is basically taking away light, privacy and adding congestion to the street.
(-) Clark Hack
- There will be loss of light and loss of privacy.
- This structure will be totally out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood.
(-) Brian Berger
- This project is taking advantage of the rest of the street.
- He read an e-mail from neighbors who are opposed to the project.
(-) Gary Hackery
- He would like to be a good neighbor but this property will be overwhelming the whole neighborhood.
- He paid a lot of money to be allowed parking.
- If there will be an office there, it will cause problems with parking.
(-) Patricia Miller
- She has lived on this street for seven years.
- The street is very narrow and most of the homes are Victorian.
- The restricted parking is a real security issue for the neighbors.
- She is concerned about the precedent this project would create.
- There will be a sunlight impact on the neighbors.
(+) Stuart Hills – Project Architect
- They have taken many steps to minimize the impact the project would have.
- They have proposed changes to the plan and have presented this to the DR applicant.
- These changes include: cutting the eaves back to 14 inches on the side facing the DR application; addition of translucent panels on the properly line balconies, this would allow the light to come through but would allow privacy; reglaze the skylight with a protective privacy glass; lowering the two projections closest to their property line to 5 foot 9 inches.
(+) Martin Bars
- He has five more signatures to supporting his project.
- He is not asking for another parking space.
- A few years ago when they initially planned to do the construction, many of his neighbors did not appear to be interested in the project.
- He is very willing to deal with the issues that his neighbors have.
ACTION:          Do not take Discretionary Review with amendments: cutting the eaves back to 14 inches on the side facing the DR application; addition of translucent panels on the properly line balconies, this would allow the light to come through but would allow privacy; reglaze the skylight with a protective privacy glass; lowering the two projections closest to their property line to 5 foot 9 inches.
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas
NAYES:          Theoharis

          19.          2001.0509D          (CABREROS: 558-6169)
                    3016 PIERCE STREET – east side between Greenwich and Filbert Streets, Lot 019 in Assessor’s Block 0514. Staff-initiated request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001/04/02/5739, 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 application.

SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuance
David Cincotta
- He was recently hired for this project and would like time to look at an architectural solution.
ACTION:          Continued to September 27, 2001
AYES:          Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Lim, Salinas, 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.

Jeff Ma
Re: tickets
- Recently the Board of Supervisors and the Department of Parking and Traffic are increasing tickets in order to deal with driving blocking issues.
- This has forced property owners to waking up at 7:00 a.m. when garbage trucks are honking because they can't get through or they will just not pick up the trash.
- Projects are being approved for development, extra rooms and bedrooms on streets that really can't support it.

Did not state name
Re: 52 Sheridan Street
- She lives right up against the project on this street. Her windows will be blocked and she would like to know if there is something that she can do to stop this.


                    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: 6:20 p.m.


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

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

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