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

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

February 26, 2004

February 26, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, February 26, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Edgar E. Boyd, Lisa Feldstein, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:40 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Craig Nikitas - Acting Zoning Administrator; Tim Kelley (President of the Landmarks Advisory Board); Michael Li; Dan DiBartolo; Sara Vellve; Elaine Tope; Dario Jones; Ben Fu; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

      The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

      1. 2001.1039E (A. AGUILAR: (415) 558-5973)

          55 NINTH STREET - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report: The State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) proposes to expand their San Francisco office at 1275 Market Street by constructing an adjacent 12-story, approximately 268,000 gross-square-foot (gsf) office building at 55 Ninth Street. The project site (Assessor's Block 3701, Lot 63) is occupied by a surface parking lot and located mid-block on the northeastern side of Ninth Street in the block bounded by Market, Ninth, Mission, and Eighth Streets in the Mid-Market neighborhood. The new building would be approximately 198 feet high, including mechanical penthouse, and would have a two-level below-grade parking garage with about 126 parking spaces. The entrance to the new building and access to off-street parking and loading would be from Ninth Street. Trucks would enter and exit on Ninth Street and could exit to Laskie Street onto Mission Street. The project site is zoned C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) and is within a 120-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. Please note that the public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended at 5:00 pm, January 27, 2004.

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 4, 2004

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

      2. 2001.1039E!KBMXZ (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

          55 NINTH STREET - east side between Mission and Market Streets, Lot 063 in Assessor's Block 3701 - Requests for: (1) Recommendation to reclassify the site from a 120-X Height and Bulk District to a 200-S Height and Bulk District; (2) Recommendation to amend the Downtown Area Plan of the General Plan to reclassify the site from a 120-X Height and Bulk District to a 200-S Height and Bulk District; (3) Determination of Compliance and Exceptions under Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Project); (4) Authorization under Planning Code Sections 320 through 325 for a 12-story, approximately 198 foot tall building with up to approximately 268,000 square feet of office space; and (5) Finding no adverse shadow impact. The Project also includes approximately 25,392 square feet of open space, two loading docks, and approximately 126 off-street parking spaces.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt findings and draft resolutions, and approve with conditions.

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 4, 2004

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

      3. 2003.1312T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

          LANDMARK TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND ARTWORK CONTRIBUTIONS - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 128 to allow a City-owned landmark in a P (Public) zoning district that is adjacent to properties zoned C-3 (Downtown Commercial) to sell Transferable Development Rights and by a amending Section 149 to authorize the landmark to receive artwork contributions in order to finance rehabilitation and restoration of the exterior of the property; adopting findings of consistency with the priority polices of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 4, 2004) March 11, 2004

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 11, 2004

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

      4. 2000.465E: (R COOPER: (415) 558-5974)

          HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN - Appeal of the Preliminary Negative Declaration for the proposed revision of the Housing Element of the San Francisco General Plan, which is an update of the 1990 Residence Element of the San Francisco General Plan. The Housing Element is a public policy document that comprehensively addresses issues of housing needs for San Francisco residents and households. Included in the Housing Element is San Francisco population, employment and housing data analysis. Eight new policies are proposed to be added to the 63 policies and 11 objectives that have been modified or retained from the 1990 Residence Element.

              Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

      (Proposed for continuance to March 18, 2004) April 1, 2004

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 1, 2004

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          5a. 2003.0904D (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

          937 - 939 JACKSON STREET - south side between Powell and Mason; Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 0191 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.24.0318 proposing the demolition of a two-family dwelling and its replacement with a new building containing nine dwelling units. The subject property is located in an RM-3 (Mixed Residential, Medium Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and approve the Demolition Permit.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 8, 2004)

          (Proposed for Continuance to April 1, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 1, 2004

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          5b. 2003.0535EDV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

          937 - 939 JACKSON STREET - south side between Powell and Mason Streets, Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 0191, in an RM-3 (Mixed Residential, Medium Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District - Request for Discretionary Review of Permit Application 2003.05.20.5122 to construct a new four-story, nine-unit residential building approximately 40 feet in height.

          Preliminary recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the permit with conditions.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 8, 2004)

          (Proposed for Continuance to April 1, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 1, 2004

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          6. 2004.0151D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

          2250 JACKSON STREET - north side between Buchanan and Webster Streets; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0589 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.07.8857S, proposing to merge five dwellings units to a single-family residence in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

            (Proposed for Continuance to April 8, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 8, 2004

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          7. 2003.0873D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          2524-2540 ANZA STREET - north side between 16th and 17th Avenues; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 1528 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.10.3209, proposing to add a new fourth floor to the existing three-story, four-unit building in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 8, 2004)

                (Proposed for Continuance to April 8, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 8, 2004

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          8. 2003.1079D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          3344 MARKET STREET - northeast side between Glendale and Clayton Streets. Assessor's Block 2717 Lot 004F. Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.06.26.8149, to demolish the existing one family house and construct a new one family house 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 Demolition Permit.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 8, 2004)

            (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          9. 2003.1327DD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

          830 GARFIELD STREET - north side of the street between Monticello and Byxbee Streets, Lot 025 in Assessor's Block 6997 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.16.4881, proposing to construct a two-story rear horizontal addition on a single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take discretionary review and approve the project as modified.

          DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATIONS WITHDRAWN

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn

          10a. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

                690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for adoption of CEQA findings and a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to 1) a finding that a net new shadow impact on Union Square Park is not adverse; 2) a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit an eight-story vertical addition, historic façade restoration, and conversion of an existing office building to a mixed-use project for up to 64 residential dwelling units, up to 73 hotel time-share units, approximately 6,500 square feet of ground level retail space, and a sub grade parking garage (capable of accommodating up to 29 independently-accessible parking spaces and two loading spaces with the capability of accommodating up to 100 vehicles through the use of valet services and vehicle stacking), with exceptions to the Planning Code for the separation of towers requirement, residential open space requirements, publicly-accessible open space requirements, dwelling unit exposure requirements, ground-level wind currents, independently-accessible parking, sunlight access to sidewalks, and an upper tower extension; 3) a Conditional Use application to allow a hotel in the C-3-O (Downtown, Office) Zoning District; 4) a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for a General Plan amendment to change the height and bulk district of the existing site; 5) a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for approval of the creation of the Downtown Housing Demonstration Special Use District encompassing and comprised of the subject property and allowing, among other items, exceptions under Section 309 for residential open space requirements, publicly-accessible open space requirements, and dwelling unit exposure; 6) recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for conditional designation as San Francisco Landmark No. 243 (to be heard at a subsequent Planning Commission hearing date); and 7) recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for conditional approval of a Mills Act Contract (also to be heard at a subsequent Planning Commission hearing date) ; all for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to:

          1) Seismically upgrade the subject 16-story office building (The Old Chronicle Building), which would include infilling a large light well at the rear of the building that is not visible from any public right-of-way;

          2) Restore the historic building façade by removing a non-historic metal, glass and marble cladding system installed in 1962 and rehabilitating/restoring/reconstructing intact, damaged and missing historic façade features;

          3) Construct an eight-story vertical addition that will result in a building height of approximately 312 feet, and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of approximately 19.68 if the residential floor space were to be counted toward the FAR calculation as currently required by the Planning Code (see item No. 5 below);

          4) Convert the existing office building use to a mixed-use project that would have at least 40, but up to 64 residential dwelling units, at least 49, but up to 73 hotel time-share units (for a combined total of 113 hotel and residential units), approximately 6,500 square feet of ground level retail space, replacing an existing retail bank, and creating a sub grade parking structure, that given the irregular floor plate shape and placement of support columns would yield a maximum of 29 independently-accessible parking spaces and two loading spaces on the project site with the capability of providing up to 100 valet and vehicle-stacking spaces in place of the independently-accessible spaces. The new parking facility would be accessed through an existing sub grade garage facility at the adjacent 88 Kearny Street property, thereby not requiring a garage entrance at the ground level of the subject 690 Market Street property;

          5) In order to construct the addition; infill the light well; implement the proposed change of use; grant exceptions for residential open space, publicly-accessible open space, and dwelling unit exposure under the procedures of Section 309, a new Special Use District is proposed to change the existing height district to a 285-S Height and Bulk District (the Planning Code allows for a 10% increase in height over the height limit under certain criteria, in this case up to 313.5 feet), eliminate residential uses from Floor Area Ratio calculations, and allow said exceptions under Section 309 instead of requiring variances. The Special Use District would also require a minimum of 15% on-site or 17% off-site Below Market Rate (BMR) units. The Downtown Element of the General Plan must also be amended as it specifies the height and bulk districts as currently designated within the C-3 zoning districts;

          6) The Project Sponsor is proposing to meet the Below Market Rate (BMR) housing requirement by constructing the required BMR units off-site at 938 Market Street, a project that is seeking authorization concurrently with the subject application (2003.0587HXVLU);

          7) The project sponsors are seeking to avail themselves of the Mills Act, which allows local governments to grant property tax relief benefits in exchange for the guaranteed preservation of a historic property. In order to qualify under the San Francisco Administrative Code, the property must either be designated as a San Francisco Landmark or listed separately on the National Register. As neither condition is the case with the subject property, the project sponsor is seeking conditional San Francisco landmark status. The proposed Landmark Designation would become final upon the completion of the proposed project consistent with the Rehabilitation Program set forth by the proposed Mills Act contract.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt CEQA findings and mitigated negative declaration.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 19, 2004)

          NOTE: On February 19, 2004, without hearing the merit of the case, the Commission passed a motion to continue this item to March 18, 2004. The proposal is now to consider continuing this item to March 11, 2004.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: None. The Commission's February 19, 2004 action stands.

                The item remains continued to March 18, 2004

          10b. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

                690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for a finding that a net new shadow impact on Union Square Park is not adverse for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt finding.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 19, 2004)

          NOTE: On February 19, 2004, without hearing the merit of the case, the Commission passed a motion to continue this item to March 18, 2004. The proposal is now to consider continuing this item to March 11, 2004.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: None. The Commission's February 19, 2004 action stands.

                The item remains continued to March 18, 2004

          10c. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

                690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit an eight-story vertical addition, historic façade restoration, and conversion of an existing office building to a mixed-use project for up to 64 residential dwelling units, up to 73 hotel time-share units, approximately 6,500 square feet of ground level retail space, and a sub grade parking garage (capable of accommodating up to 29 independently-accessible parking spaces and two loading spaces with the capability of accommodating up to 100 vehicles through the use of valet services and vehicle stacking), with exceptions to the Planning Code for the separation of towers requirement, residential open space requirements, publicly-accessible open space requirements, dwelling unit exposure requirements, ground-level wind currents, independently-accessible parking, sunlight access to sidewalks, and an upper tower extension, for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of Determination of Compliance with Exceptions Motion with Conditions.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 19, 2004)

          NOTE: On February 19, 2004, without hearing the merit of the case, the Commission passed a motion to continue this item to March 18, 2004. The proposal is now to consider continuing this item to March 11, 2004.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: None. The Commission's February 19, 2004 action stands.

                The item remains continued to March 18, 2004

          10d. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

                690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for a Conditional Use application to allow a hotel in the C-3-O (Downtown, Office) Zoning District, for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of Conditional Use Motion with Conditions.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 19, 2004)

          NOTE: On February 19, 2004, without hearing the merit of the case, the Commission passed a motion to continue this item to March 18, 2004. The proposal is now to consider continuing this item to March 11, 2004.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: None. The Commission's February 19, 2004 action stands.

                The item remains continued to March 18, 2004

          10e. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

                690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for adoption of a resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors a General Plan amendment to change the height and bulk district of the existing site, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Draft Resolution

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 19, 2004)

          NOTE: On February 19, 2004, without hearing the merit of the case, the Commission passed a motion to continue this item to March 18, 2004. The proposal is now to consider continuing this item to March 11, 2004.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: None. The Commission's February 19, 2004 action stands.

                The item remains continued to March 18, 2004

          10f. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

                690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for adoption of a resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors the approval of the creation of the Downtown Housing Demonstration Special Use District encompassing and comprised of the subject property, requiring a Planning Code Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment, for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Draft Resolution

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 19, 2004)

          NOTE: On February 19, 2004, without hearing the merit of the case, the Commission passed a motion to continue this item to March 18, 2004. The proposal is now to consider continuing this item to March 11, 2004.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: None. The Commission's February 19, 2004 action stands.

                The item remains continued to March 18, 2004.

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      11. Commission Comments/Questions

          Commissioner Feldstein:

          Re: 690 Market Street

          - When the Commission started seeing large and more complex project, they requested that case reports be received two weeks in advance.

          - There are two issues: 1) volume of reading; 2) adequate time for the Commissioners to be informed and ask adequate questions.

          - If staff knows that a project is complex, they should provide Commissioners with case reports two weeks in advance.

          - Staff should err on sending information in advance.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          Re: 942 Market Street

          - This is the companion case to 690 Market Street.

          - She would like to receive this information on the week of the 4th of March.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: 690 Market Street

          - If one of the Commissioners did not receive the information two weeks in advance it would be good to inform staff so that something can be done and not have to continue a case.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      12. Director's Announcements

          Re: Budget

          The budget was forwarded to the Mayor's office after the Commission hearing last week.

          - There are changes and there will continue to be changes.

          - He will keep the Commission informed on this.

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

          BOS -

          Land Use Committee

          - On Monday, February 23, 2004, there was a presentation on public benefits that was presented by Supervisor McGoldrick regarding an ordinance that staff has received formally which calls for one community based planning for all neighborhoods.

          - Any time there is an increase in zoning allowance that staff include a public benefits program to recapture for the City, and for the public, some of that increased potential.

          - Dr. Ghosh made a presentation on what staff is proposing in terms of public benefits and the study that is being done.

          Board of Supervisors

          - On Tuesday, February 24, 2004, the Department and the Commission had the second reading of the ordinance that would prohibit the demolition of 20 units or more. This passed the week before with a vote of +8-3. During that week Supervisor Dufty worked with him to try and craft some conditions of approval and some notices of special restrictions.

          - The vote ultimately was +7-4 to approve the ordinance. This will go on to the Mayor to decide whether he wants to approve it or not.

          - Supervisor Dufty mentioned that he intended to introduce an ordinance that by Conditional Use, there would have to be replacement housing built on site prior to the demolition of 20 units or more.

          Re: Board of Supervisors meeting

          - The Board of Supervisors will not meet next week. Although there is no holiday next month, they don't meet at least once every month whether there is a holiday or not.

          BOA -

          - Julian Banales represented the Acting Zoning Administrator at the Board of Appeals hearing.

          - There was no quorum so the entire calendar was continued.

          14. (T. KELLEY)

          ARTICLE 10 COMMITTEE PRESENTATION - Informational presentation on the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, its Code mandated interactions with the Planning Commission on issues of Landmarks, CEQA, and historical resources as well as recommended modifications to Article 10.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Tim Kelley - President of the Landmarks Advisory Board

          - There is an existing relationship and interrelationship between the Landmarks Board, the Planning Commission and the Planning Department.

          - This article was enacted in 1967 and it established historic preservation for the first time as City policy and assigned responsibilities to the Planning Commission and Planning Department. At the same time it created the Landmarks Advisory Board. This is a body with particular expertise in the history of the city and it's buildings. It assigned responsibility to the Landmarks Board to advise the Commission and the Department in these matters.

          - Specifically the Landmarks Advisory Board provides advice to the Planning Commission and then the Commission to advise the Board of Supervisors on the creation of landmarks, historic districts and structures of merits and these are issued an individual ordinance with the Mayor's signature.

          - This article also provides a setup so that the Advisory Board advises the Commission and the Department on exactions after review by the Commission on Certificates of Appropriateness which are required for any permit that would alter the appearance of any of these designated properties that would essentially affect its historic character.

          - The article also provides information on the adoption of surveys. They have supervised the conduct of various surveys of the City. These surveys are ongoing and provide CEQA implications.

          - Article 11 of the Planning Code deals with conservation districts in the downtown area.

          - Here the relationship again is that the Advisory Board advises the Commission and the Commission advises the Board of Supervisors on the addition of any conservation districts and the change of designation for any particular building.

          - It also includes the review of certain buildings as well as demolition.

          - There are other miscellaneous functions as well.

          - This article predates the enactment of CEQA and has not kept the pace with the philosophy of historic preservation.

          - He recommends the that Advisory Board make its advise on these matters directly to the Board of Supervisors.

          - On Certificates of Appropriateness, they would like to make their recommendations to the Director of Planning and then directly to the Board of Supervisors.

          - The Landmarks Advisory Board should be involved in a public oversight process for threshold determinations.

          - He recommended that there be a public review process or appeal.

          Charles Chase - Executive Director of San Francisco Architectural Heritage

          - It is important to look at how historical resources are being treated--those that are defined and those that are yet to be defined.

          - There are some resources that have not been reported.

          - This has to do with clarity and purpose and the infusion of policies that have taken place.

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

          15. 2003.1314C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

          900-916 GRANT AVENUE - northeast corner at Washington Street, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0194 - Request for conditional use authorization to establish a small self-service restaurant (an ice cream parlor) of approximately 1000 square feet within the Chinatown Visitor Retail District and a 50-N Height and Bulk District. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building. The name of the business is not known at this time.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 19, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          NAYES: Feldstein

          MOTION: 16734

      16. 2003.0263D (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

          3148-3150 GEARY BOULEVARD northeast corner of Geary Blvd. and Spruce Street: Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 1066 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.07.17.1660, proposing to construct a four-story mixed-use structure with retail space and seven off-street residential parking spaces at the ground level and seven residential units occupying the upper floor levels in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. A permit application has also been filed to allow the demolition of the vacant one-story commercial building, which currently occupies the site.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Robert Link - Member of the Board of Realtors

          - He is representing the DR requestor.

          - They do support the project because it will support the neighborhood.

          - The issue here was the access to their parking spaces.

          - The combined parking lots accommodate about 6 cars.

          - The main issue is that there is no accommodation for the loss of access to those parking spaces during construction.

          - They are asking for accommodation to the parking spaces during construction.

          (+) David Cincotta - Representing Project Sponsor

          - There has been an agreement since the 70s that the properties be linked.

          - He does not believe that this matter should come before the Commission.

          - There have not been any Planning Code issues being raised.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approve the project with the understanding that staff will continue to work with the project sponsor on the architectural design of the project.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

      17a. 2003.1214D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

          120 MAYNARD STREET - south side between Craut and Congdon Streets; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 5894 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application 2002.11.22.2105, proposing to demolish a single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (House, One-Family) Zoning District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Rev. Arnold Townsend

          - The project Sponsor and the various people involved in the case are here ready to talk about the case.

          - However, they are willing to move the case to April 8, 2004.

          Camela Curry

          - She is the Discretionary Review requestor.

          - She is in support to the continuance.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 8, 2004

          AYES: Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Antonini

      17b. 2003.1215D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

          120 MAYNARD STREET - south side between Craut and Congdon Streets; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 5894 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application 2002.11.22.2107, proposing to construct a two-story over ground/garage, single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (House, One-Family) Zoning District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 17a.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 8, 2004

          AYES: Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Antonini

      17c. 2003.1216D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

          122 MAYNARD STREET - south side between Craut and Congdon Streets; Lot 040 in Assessor's Block 5894 - Staff initiated and public Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2002.11.22.2101, to construct a new two-story over ground/garage, single-family dwelling located in an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District, and a 40-X Height/Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 17a.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 8, 2004

          AYES: Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Antonini

      18. 2003.1263D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

          80 RIVERTON DRIVE - east side near Ocean Avenue; Lot 029 in Block 7252 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.05.1299S, proposing to construct a horizontal and vertical addition to an existing single family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-x Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Chris Manitsas - Architectural Review

          - The Board of Directors' decision for this Discretionary Review is based on the Residential Design guidelines.

          - They are concerned that the project will not keep the character of the neighborhood.

          - There are no additions similar to the one proposed for this project.

          (+) Dan Speirs

          - He and his wife have been living at this house since 1996.

          - This project should be approved because the drawings meet the requirements of the Residential Design Guidelines.

          - Not one neighbor in the area has expressed opposition.

          - There are four people living in the house--in a two-bedroom home. He and his wife plan to have more children.

          - This is their first home and they love their neighborhood.

          - He and his wife feel that Mr. Manitsas does not have jurisdiction over his project.

          (+) Luis Robles - Project Architect

          - The proposal today is based on comfortable living for his clients.

          - By doing this addition, they are creating an affordable house for his clients.

          - He is keeping the same materials and the same design as the houses in the neighborhood.

          - He urged the Commission to approve the project.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with a modification by increasing the front setback to 12 feet instead of 10 feet.

          AYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

          NAYES: Antonini, Boyd, W. Lee

      19. 2003.1330D (F. JONES: (415) 558-6477)

          1695 25TH AVENUE - west side, between Moraga and Lawton Avenues, Lot 021 in Block 1918 - Discretionary Review request, for a building permit (No. 2003.10.16.7721) to allow the construction of a third-story, vertical addition to an existing two-story, two-family dwelling. The property is located in the RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit as revised.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Lina Radavero

          - She has been living in this house since 1960.

          - The area was very quiet.

          - The addition proposed for this project will impact her life negatively by blocking her sunlight and decreasing the value of her house.

          - There are various neighbors who are opposed to this project.

          - The parking in the area is terrible already.

          (-) Josef Brunner

          - He has been living in the Sunset for 50 years.

          - The Sunset district is over populated already and this project will allow more people to live there.

          - His friend has to park in front of his [Josef's] driveway because there are no parking spaces available.

          - The only light that the DR requestor has is not that much. So allowing this addition will completely block her sunlight.

          - He displayed photographs of the DR requestor's home.

          (-) Nick Rubinsoff

          - In a community such as the Sunset where the houses touch each other, any changes to a house can affect severely the adjacent house.

          - Many people would not consider buying a house next to a three-story structure.

          - People who buy a house in the Sunset should purchase it with the understanding that the house they are buying should suit their needs.

          (-) Amy Li

          - She lives close to the proposed house.

          - The houses in the neighborhood are old, two-story single-family houses.

          - She loves her neighborhood so she wants the houses to keep the same look.

          (+) Hogum Menendez - Project Architect

          - The guidelines that the Planning Department uses acknowledges the fact that corner lots are treated different than mid block lots, and that they can and should support strong architectural features in neighborhoods such as this one.

          - Regarding the illegality of the unit, it actually is legal and they have submitted documentation.

          - The room in the back existed before the required date for any kind of permit. The room is not involved in any permit process.

          - There is minimal sunlight impact.

          - This proposal has windows that face directly to the rear, they are not oriented towards any of the neighbors.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following modifications: 1) remove the deck and; 2) remove the decorative railing.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

      20. 2003.1281DD (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

          1380 HAMPSHIRE STREET - west side, between 25th and 26th Streets; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 4275 - Request for Discretionary Review and Planning Department Staff-Initiated Discretionary Review, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.07.8907 to construct a new one-story vertical addition and a rear horizontal addition to the existing two-story building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Jose Obrego

          - He would like a continuance mostly because he is not too familiar with the processes, technicalities, etc.

          - This project was formally presented the first week of November of last year.

          - The project does not take into affect the impact that he will be receiving with this project.

          - He does not want to be put into the position to make decisions on such a high impact project.

          Mathew Klyne

          - It appears that the concern of the DR requestor is how this project will affect the foundation of the DR requestor's home.

          Re: Merits of Project

          (-) Jose Obrego

          - There were many questions that the DR requestor had regarding the affects of the project on her home and the financial impact.

          - The DR requestor is a 75-year-old retiree.

          - They support the findings and agree that this project will conserve and protect the neighborhood character.

          - The Project Sponsor intends to create condominiums and this will affect the neighborhood.

          - He displayed photographs of the driveway and all the issues related to it.

          - He is concerned that the height of the project will completely block out light.

          (-) Michael Hall

          - He is the attorney for the Discretionary Review requestor.

          - He was just hired last week and that is the reason to consider continuance.

          - He feels that there has only been the Planner's recommendation for a few days.

          - More time is needed to analyze the Planner's recommendation, the impact of shadow, the height, and other items that will negatively affect the Discretionary Review requestor's home.

          - If the project is approved, it will only leave 18 feet of back yard area for a car port.

          - The project is too large and too high. It will diminish the benefit that the Discretionary Review requestor has since she has been living there for 40 years.

          (-) Leo Mondragon

          - He lives in the neighborhood.

          - The project is very, very high and will take the light to his house and the DR requestor's home.

          - Parking is very hard to find in the area and with this project it will be made worse.

          (-) Andrew McAllister

          - He has rented from the DR requestor for about eight years.

          - Regarding the separation of the two buildings, he feels that this is the worst case of "carpet bagging" he has ever seen.

          - The project sponsor is trying to separate the buildings and asking the DR requestor to pay.

          - The wall where the separation of the buildings will be is in his son's room.

          - The DR requestor is quite happy the way everything is.

          - The Project Sponsor does not even live in the neighborhood.

          - Two cars for three condos? This is not going to be the case. There will be at least six cars.

          (-) Erika Lopez

          - She lives across the street from the proposed project.

          - She knows that the owner of the building where she lives has submitted a letter against the project.

          - This is a great neighborhood.

          (+) Mathew Klein - Project Sponsor

          - He displayed photographs of the street facade proving that it is actually a three story neighborhood, contrary to what the Planner has said.

          - He spoke about the architectural aspects of the project.

          - The Planner has requested to have a setback yet this would be inconsistent with the Residential Design guidelines.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following modifications: 1) reduce height by 5 feet per the Planning Department's recommendation so that the overall height of the building shall not exceed 35 feet; 2) project sponsor shall provide a matching light well to the adjacent property for the 3rd floor addition, 3) that it be demonstrated to staff that the parking will be accessible; 4) work be conducted within the project sponsor's property line; 5) all load bearing costs as a result of this addition be born by the project sponsor.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

E. 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))

      Mathew Klein

      Re: Light wells

      - Light wells are requested to be matched for neighbors in general.

      - There is no information in the Residential Design Guidelines regarding maximum or minimum square footage required to match, or as to what would happen if both adjacent neighbors had light wells.

      - At which point is one required to match each of those circumstances?

      - The Commission will continue to hear cases like this.

      - The Bernal Heights special restrictions in place and they are very specific about what one can do to ones building.

      - He hopes that the Residential Design Guidelines can be looked at with the same critical eye to questions such as matching light wells.

Adjournment: 5:07 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, March 18, 2004.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:13 PM