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

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

April 1, 2004

April 1, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, April 1, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Kevin Hughes

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:37 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Craig Nikitas - Acting Zoning Administrator; Steve Shotland; Jonas Ionin; Kate McGee; Ben Fu; Dan DiBartolo; 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.

          1a. 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 February 26, 2004)

          (Proposed for Continuance to April 22, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Sue Hestor

          - This case should be heard on April 22, 2004. The hearing should start at 1:30 then adjourn the meeting for the joint meeting and then reconvene to hear the Housing Element.

          - The Housing Element will take a long time and this will cause Jackson Street to not be heard.

          - It is important to clean out the calendar for April 22, 2004.

          Jim Reuben

          - He has been representing the developer for a while.

          - There has already been a lot of delay.

          - He hopes that the Commission will keep this case to April 22, 2004.

          - He knows that there is a document stating that the neighbors have reached a settlement. He does not believe that there will be a lot of people to come on that day.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 22, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          1b. 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 February 26, 2004)

          (Proposed for Continuance to April 22, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 22, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          2. 2003.0304E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

          829 FOLSOM STREET - New Construction of 69 Residential Units: Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration The proposed project is new construction of 69 residential units in a nine-story, 80-foot tall, approximately 92,900 gross square-foot building covering a 10,313 square-foot site. A public parking lot currently occupies the project site, which would be demolished. About 63 parking spaces would be located in a basement-parking garage with parking entrances/exits on Shipley Street. There would be about 5,000 sq. ft. of ground floor retail space on Folsom Street. Pedestrian access would be on Shipley and Folsom Streets. The proposed project would require Conditional Use authorization for the project's proposed height above 40 feet. The project site is lot 91 in Assessor's Block 3752, on the south side of Folsom Street with street frontage also on Shipley Street, between Fourth and Fifth Street, within a South of Market Residential/Service District (SOM RSD) and a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold the Negative Declaration

            (Proposed for Continuance to April 22, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Steve Atkinson

          - He asked that you keep the Housing Element on April 22 as well as this project.

          - He would like to have at least a chance to have this case heard.

          - If for some reason it cannot, then he would ask that this case be continued to May 13, 2004.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 22, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

      3a. 2003.0304CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          829 FOLSOM STREET - south side between 4th and 5th Streets, a through lot to Shipley Street; Lot 091 in Assessor's Block 3752. Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 157, 207.5, 263.11, and 271 to construct an 85-foot-tall, nine-story building exceeding bulk limits, for a mixed-use development with up to 70 dwelling units, up to 5,000 gross square feet of ground floor retail commercial space, and a 62-space parking garage exceeding accessory amounts. A rear yard modification is sought under Section 134(e) to provide rear yard open space within an inner court and on a 7th floor setback of 10-15 feet along Shipley Street.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

            (Proposed for Continuance to April 22, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 22, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

      3b. 2003.0304CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

                829 FOLSOM STREET - south side between 4th and 5th Streets, a through lot to Shipley Street; Lot 091 in Assessor's Block 3752. The proposal is to construct a mixed-use development with up to 70 dwelling units, up to 5,000 gross square feet of ground floor commercial space and a 62-space parking garage. A rear yard modification is sought under Section 134(e) to provide rear yard open space within an inner court and on a 7th floor setback of 10-15 feet along Shipley Street. Variances are sought from the bay window projection limitations of Section 136(c)(2)(B) and from dwelling unit exposure requirements of Section 140(a)(2). The site is within an RSD (Residential/Service) Mixed-Use District, and a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District.

            (Proposed for Continuance to April 22, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 22, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          4. 2003.0741D (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

          580 OAK PARK DRIVE - end of Oak Park Drive, a cul-de-sac, 450 feet from the corner of Devonshire Way and Oak Park Drive, located in the Forest Knolls Neighborhood, in a residential enclave sandwiched between Mount Sutro and the Laguna Honda Reservoir, Lot 30 in Assessor's Block 2676 - Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.04.2261, proposing to construct a new three-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 11, 2004)

          Note: On March 11, 2004, the Commission heard a staff report and received public testimony. Following the Commission's deliberation, they continued this matter to April 1, 2004, instructing the project sponsor to meet with neighbors and directed the Director of Planning to report back to them on the soil conditions.

            (Proposed for Continuance to April 22, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 22, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          5. 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

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 26, 2004)

                (Proposed for Continuance to April 22, 2004) April 8, 2004

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          John Bardis - Inner Sunset Action Committee (Appellant)

          - There was a meeting of the 15 appellants last night. At the meeting there was a resolution adopted regarding the appeal.

          - There has been a suggestion about holding a hearing simultaneously on the appeal of the Negative Declaration and the merits of the Housing Element. He feels that this is kind of an abuse of the public because the public sometimes has to speak on both items in three minutes.

          Marilyn Amini

          - When something is scheduled on the Housing Element, the Commission should schedule the hearing in a larger chamber and at a special time.

          - The public file on this item is not complete.

          - Commissioners might not have as much information as has been submitted.

          - Most neighborhoods were not involved in the process of developing the Housing Element.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 8, 2004, under Items Proposed for Continuance, with instructions to staff to find out from the Redevelopment Agency how continuance of this matter beyond 4/22/04 could or would impact projects under their jurisdiction.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          6a. 2003.1181KCR (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

                801-825 MISSION STREET - the entire block bounded by 4th, Minna, 5th, and Mission Streets, Lot 067 in Assessor's Block 3724 - Request for a General Plan Referral to determine if the construction of a wireless telecommunications facility for Cingular Wireless on the 5th & Mission Garage is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Determination that the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 4, 2004)

            (Proposed for Continuance to May 6, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 6, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          6b. 2003.1181KCR (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

                801-825 MISSION STREET - the entire block bounded by 4th, Minna, 5th, and Mission Streets, Lot 067 in Assessor's Block 3724 - Request for conditional use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility for Cingular Wireless consisting of one antenna and two equipment cabinets on the 5th & Mission Garage. The antenna will be façade-mounted against an existing elevator penthouse on the roof of the garage and the equipment cabinets will be located adjacent to the same penthouse. The project site is within a P (Public Use) District and a 90-X/340-I Height and Bulk District. The proposed facility meets Location Preference 1 of the WTS Facilities Siting Guidelines.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 4, 2004)

            (Proposed for Continuance to May 6, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 6, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

        7. 2003.1047C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          3372-3378 MISSION STREET (aka 3350 MISSION STREET) - dba "Safeway" west side between 29th Street and 30th Street, Lot 55 in Assessor's Block 6635 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 712.83 and 790.80 to install a total of six panel antennas and associated equipment cabinets, as a part of a wireless transmission network operated by Cingular Wireless. The site is within an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate-Scale) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Pursuant to the WTS Facilities Guidelines, the project is a Preference 4 Location Site, a wholly commercial building.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

            (Proposed for Continuance to May 6, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 6, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      8. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of March 11, 2004

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          EXCUSED: Feldstein

      9. Commission Comments/Questions

          Commissioner Sue Lee:

          Re: 8 Washington Street

          - She understands that the Board of Supervisors heard this case. She is interested in knowing what happened.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: Article in the Examiner

          - He read an article in the Examiner regarding 8 Washington Street.

          - He was concerned because the article published wrong information.

          - He contacted the writer about this.

          Re: California Department of Economic Development and the United States Department of Labor

          - There are some statistics that show that the work force has fallen from 433 thousand in 2001 to 400 thousand in 2004. There has been a steady drop.

          - The information shows that the higher percentage of unemployed people were the ones that have lost their jobs vs those who have been previously unemployed.

          - It is important to have this knowledge when making decisions on these cases.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          - She asked Commission Secretary the status of presentations from different entities and/or departments.

            Commission Secretary Responded:

            - Neighborhood Parks is scheduled for April 15.

            - SPUR and AIA she is working on.

            - Arts Commission she does not have a date yet.

            - She will provide the dates for these presentations next week.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      10. Director's Announcements

          None

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

          BOS -

          Land Use Committee

          Re: 690 Market Street

          - This was the rezoning and other issues. They passed this item to the full Board.

          Re: Work Program for Next Year

          - This will go to the full Board after it goes to the Mayor along with any changes.

          - The Land Use Committee understood the constrains that the Department operates under and the need to increase resources in terms of Long Range Planning and Environmental Review.

          Full Board of Supervisors

          Re: Formula Retail

          - The Board passed this item on the second reading.

          - He has been working very closely with Supervisor Gonzalez on Section 312.

          Re: 8 Washington Street

          - He understands the Commission's concerns about this item.

          - Both the project sponsor and the Department were under the impression that the three parcels were under the jurisdiction of the Planning Department. It turns out that two of the northern parcels are under the jurisdiction of the Redevelopment Agency. He blames this confusion on miscommunication.

          - The Board of Supervisors had a number of options. They could have continued the matter to allow the Redevelopment Agency Commission to hear this on April 20 and then the Full Board on April 27; or

          - The Board could have approved the project and upheld the negative declaration pending the actions from the Redevelopment Commission; or

          - The Board could and did decide to reject the Negative Declaration. He argued that while the Negative Declaration did not describe the process totally correctly it did not make the Negative Declaration flawed because the Environmental Impacts of the project would not have changed.

          - The Board found the Negative Declaration not complete. This needs to be prepared again changing the procedural process. More importantly it would have to go to the Redevelopment Agency and the Planning Commission again.

          Re: Demolition Ordinance of 20 Units or More

          - The Mayor vetoed this and the Board was not able to override it. The veto stands.

          Sue Hestor

          Re: 8 Washington Street

          - The dispute was not merely about process it was about substance.

          - The Commission did not have the proper set of plans when the Commission took action on this case.

          - There was a huge conflict between the Negative Declaration and the reality of the project.

          - The building was proposed to be built on two lots. The Negative Declaration, the staff report and the Conditional Use resolution were all substantively wrong but not procedurally wrong.

          - This is an issue that should not have come to this point.

          - The public and the Commission have the right to expect planners to check plans.

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

      12. 2002.0914R (D. ARGUMEDO (S. Shotland: 558-6308): (415) 558-6284)

          675 TOWNSEND STREET. south side between 7th and 8th Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor Block 3799. The project is related to Planning Case No. 1998.455C, a mixed use development of 148 dwelling units, approximately 35,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 256 parking spaces in two basement levels. Due to the presence of a Caltrain easement, the originally proposed 7'-6" wide sidewalk along Townsend Street would be reduced to 4'-6" to maintain a minimum distance from an existing rail line in the Townsend Street right-of-way. The reduced sidewalk width is less than the Department of Public Works' minimum 6-foot sidewalk width standard. The subject property (675 Townsend Street) is in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District and an 40-X/50-X (Height and Bulk) District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Find the proposal not in conformity with the General Plan

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 25, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Jim Reuben - Representing Project Sponsor

          - The case was approved for 138 units a few years ago. A significant amount of structural work was done already.

          - In every case in the City, the sidewalk is a public right-of-way.

          - The rails are in the public's right-of-way.

          - The City gave the rails the right to be in the public's right-of-way.

          - They went to Union Pacific and paid about $45,000 or so to own the right of way. Later he learned that Cal Train was not willing to negotiate.

          - He started to move the wall back further from the curb. This is extremely expensive because this would involve very much needed retail space.

          - Now the Department is asking him to move the wall to the way it was before.

          - The architect and the owner will not build anymore.

          (+) John Carney

          - He lives on Potrero Hill and he drives by this project site every day.

          - If there is a fire and the sidewalk is reduced, there will be a disaster.

          - He supports what staff is recommending.

          - There is going to have to be more engineering and more piling but this project cannot continue as it is.

          (+) Sue Hestor

          - She supports what staff is recommending.

          - As the Commission is doing project-by-project approvals, there won't be the ability to have comprehensive rezoning.

          - There is an incredible amount of construction going on in this area.

          - Townsend Street has become a big mess.

          - A new residential area and this is starting with substandard sidewalks? This is not acceptable.

          - There should be an acceptable means of public circulation.

          MOTION: Found that the Proposal is not in Conformity with the General Plan

          AYES: Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          NAYES: Antonini and Bradford Bell

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          RESULT: Motion Failed

          ACTION: Item Continued to April 8, 2004 to allow the absent commissioners to participate in the final action. Public Hearing is Closed.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

      13. 2002.0677D (J. IONIN (415) 558-6309)

          679 40TH AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 1583 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9909801, proposing a vertical and horizontal addition to accommodate a second dwelling unit with a second off-street parking space, to an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 25, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Steve Williams - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

          - He hopes that the Commission had time to read his brief.

          - This is about the worst case of "permit shopping" that he has ever seen.

          - This project has been delayed more than five years, not because of the Planning Department or the Discretionary Review Requestor, but because the Project Sponsor refused to do what the Planning Department and the Director had requested.

          - It is important to enforce the original plans, which had been approved by three previous planners and the Planning Director, and reject this current proposal.

          (-) Jim Salinas

          - He is here because he supports [the DR requestor].

          - It has not changed or modified [the structure] in 40 years.

          - He went to Mr. O'Neil's home and looked at the year yard. Mr. O'Neil has created a beautiful garden, which has been very well maintained.

          - He asked the Commission to take Discretionary Review and go back to what two previous Planners and what Director Gerald Green had approved to modify.

          (-) John O'Neil

          - He is the Discretionary Review requestor.

          - If this project is approved as it stands, there are going to be disasters at his home.

          - If the proposed project goes through, he will have darkness in various rooms.

          - His house is going to be ruined.

          - About two years ago he went to a community board and they only asked to take out two windows.

          - He hopes that the Commission does the right thing and makes modifications.

          (-) Sean O'Neil

          - His father is the Discretionary Review requestor.

          - He and his father went around to 20 neighbors who were not in support of the project.

          - He is concerned with the scale of the proposed project because of the scale.

          - The garden located at his father's house is very important. Because of his age, he spends a lot of time there.

          - His father's good neighbor gestures have been rejected. This is causing a lot of stress to his father.

          (-) David Silverman

          - He is not for or against the project but would like to speak against the attacks on planners. This is personally offensive to him.

          (-) Lisa O'Neil

          - She is the daughter of the Discretionary Review requestor.

          - She grew up in this house and has always enjoyed the relationship her father and mother have had with the neighbors.

          - She hopes that the Commission will realize the monstrosity being proposed.

          (-) Hiroshi Fukuda

          - The Richmond District has fought against such large developments.

          - The Richmond District is not anti-growth either.

          - He urged the Commission to take Discretionary Review and pass the proposals previously presented.

          (-) Patrick Mulligan

          - This is very much irresponsible development.

          - It is his understanding that certain areas of the City have been rezoned to accommodate denser populations.

          - He would also like to question the planning procedures that have gone on with this proposal.

          (+) Min Winchelhaus-Hsu - Project Sponsor

          - Is there something called "permit shopping?" She has never heard of this.

          - This is the first time that she met Mr. Jonas Ionin, who is the planner.

          - She has been discriminated against and harassed by the Discretionary Review requestor's lawyer.

          - The objectives of this proposal is to increase living space, to place on the market one rental unit, etc.

          - This project is her American dream.

          - She has done a very through analysis, which she has presented to the planner.

          (+) John Sing - Project Architect

          - He has been working on this project since 1999.

          - He displayed a photograph of the Discretionary Review requestor's yard, displaying that the proposed project will not have an impact on this yard.

          - He displayed photographs of the rear of the DR requestor's and the Project Sponsor's property proving that there will not be a shadow impact on the homes.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved the Project with the following modifications: 1) remove attic storage area; 2) install matching light well, per staff recommendation; 3) reduce rear addition by 6 feet; 4) remove entire bathroom at the garage level; 5) allow an open railing for rear addition deck.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          14. (J.IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

          DISCRETIONARY REVIEW POLICY - Consideration of two options for a 'Simple vs Complex" Discretionary Review Policy and creating a Pre-Application process for new construction and certain alterations in RH and RM districts.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Option 1.

          NOTE: On February 19, 2004, a proposal to amend the Planning Code Text to establish an Administrative Discretionary Review Policy failed. At that hearing, the Commission directed the Department to explore criteria for Simple Discretionary Review vs. Complex Discretionary Review. The Commission scheduled the review of this proposal for April 1, 2004.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Marilyn Amini

          - She would like to have this item continued since this is a complex project and not many neighborhood groups have had an opportunity to review it.

          - There have been submitted continuance letters from community groups.

          - The pre-application process should be severed from the entire policy.

          Francisco Centurion

          - He supports a continuance because the report just came out last Thursday and he has not had time to present this to the Board of Directors of the Russian Hill Association.

          Penelope Clark

          - She found that there was very little notice about this to the public.

          - There are many people who are interested in the details of this policy.

          - There are many non-conforming lots in San Francisco and there are many unusual projects that come before them. There is need for time to deal with these projects.

          - This policy should not be moved ahead until the entire process has been analyzed.

          Paul Wermer

          - He would also agree to a continuance.

          - He would actually like to have department staff meet with neighborhood groups as Ms. Fung from staff has done on the economic aspects of the policy.

          - This would allow the public to deal with the issues and concerns they have.

          Hiroshi Fukuda

          - He agrees with a continuance of this item.

          - Last Tuesday he was fortunate enough to go to Boston and when he came back, he was surprised to see this item on the calendar.

          - Because of the importance of this item, the public needs time to look this over and review it.

          - The pre-application process should be separated from the Administrate Review part of the policy.

          John Slazenger

          - With the window of opportunity provided by the 40 days of continuance, staff should come up with a document of implementation. This would actually save time.

          John Bardis

          - He supports the idea of a continuance.

          - There is need for time to review and for neighborhood organizations to have time for discussion.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 20, 2004. Public Comment remains Open in order to look at the various components like pre-application; simple vs. complex; etc.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          15. 2003.0167C (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

          42-44 SHOTWELL STREET - west side between 14th and 15th Streets; Assessor's Block 3549, Lot 056 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to expand a residential use in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and in a 50-X Height and Bulk District per Planning Code Section 215(a). The proposal is to construct a four-story addition at the rear of the existing 3-story, two unit building.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Mohamed Hussein

          - He is not blocking anyone's view because all the extensions of the homes in the neighborhood are large.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

          ACTION: Approved with the following amendment: Conditions of Approval should be acted on within three years.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          MOTION: 16761

          16a. 2002.1198CV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

          3184 MISSION STREET - northern intersection of Mission and Valencia Streets, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 6574 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 712.11 and 121.1, to allow the development of a lot greater than 10,000 square feet in a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation. The proposal is to demolish the existing single story restaurant structure and construct a new four-story, 40-foot tall structure that would contain up to 20 dwelling units, 20 off-street parking spaces, and approximately 4,800 square feet of commercial space. The project also includes a request to allow modification of the rear yard requirement in Neighborhood Commercial Districts, pursuant to Planning Code Section 134(e), which will be considered concurrently by the Zoning Administrator.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) David Silverman - Representing Project Sponsor

          - He acknowledged Ben Fu for the hard work on this project.

          - There were letters submitted to the Commission related to this project stating that there are windows of egress. However, the photographs that he displayed showed bars on these windows--so they cannot be a means of egress.

          - A second means of egress is not even required on the property.

          - Most apartment buildings do not have either lot-line windows or setbacks.

          - The Planning Code requires that non-conforming structures and non-conforming uses be phased out completely.

          (-) Ron Morgan - Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center

          - They have been involved in a community planning process for the last two years.

          - They have great concerns regarding this project.

          - He read a letter from a neighbor who requested a condition if this project is approved that would protect light and air.

          (+) Drake Gardner - Sponser Group - Project Architect

          - He displayed a photograph of how the project looks now and how it is proposed.

          - The proposed design is supported by the neighborhood.

          - They are willing to accept compromises.

          (-) David Levy

          - The Dabel's have owned the property since the 1850s.

          - This project would block all seven of the property line windows on the Dabel's side.

          - The Planning Code is where it states that this project cannot be approved because it violates Section 134.

          - The bars on the windows can be opened from the inside so they are a form of egress.

          - The Dabel's have tried many ways to negotiate.

          (+) William Dabel

          - His grandfather purchased the property in 1907. He hopes that the Commission will not block these windows.

          (+) Greg Dabel

          - He grew up in the building and his only concern is that the residents don't want to lose their light and air.

          - He supports the project because he thinks it is a good project.

          - One of the residents is 101 years old. All of the residents are minorities but he is able to communicate with them. They all say that they don't want the windows closed so that there is light and air to the apartments.

          (+) Jamie Ross

          - She represents the North West Bernal Alliance

          - They believe that this is a great project.

          - Right after the plans were revised, there was a breakdown in communication.

          - They do support the project yet urge the project sponsor to get back to the Bernal Alliance and discuss the differences.

          ACTION: Approve the Project with the following Conditions: 1) install an adjacent, minimum (4x12 in size) light well to allow the two subject windows (labeled bedroom egress on the photographs) to allow light; 2) 8 full size and 12 compact parking spaces

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          MOTION: 16762

      16b. 2002.1198CV B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

          3184 MISSION STREET - northern intersection of Mission and Valencia Streets, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 6574 - Request for a rear yard Modification, pursuant to Planning Code Section 134(e), which will be considered by the Zoning Administrator, in a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation. A rear yard of a minimum of 25 percent rear yard depth at each residential level is required. The proposal provides no rear yard setback for the 20 proposed dwelling units. However, an inner court of 11 percent of lot area, or 1,400 square feet, and other private and common decks of 14 percent, or 1,700 square feet, are proposed.

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

          ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and has taken the item under advisement.

          17. 2003.1091C (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

          2696 GEARY BOULEVARD - northeast corner at Emerson Street; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 1071 - Request for conditional use authorization pursuant to Section 712.83 of the Planning Code to install and operate a wireless telecommunication facility for Nextel Communications within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District, upon the roof of an approximately 84-foot tall self-storage building (Public Storage Inc.). Per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunication Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the site is a Preferred Location Preference 2, a co-location site.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Bill Stevens - Representing Nextel Communications

          - He displayed photographs of the proposed location showing where the antennas will be located.

          - There will be visual impact from the antennas.

          - This storage building is a Location 2 preference site, which is an ideal site.

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          MOTION: 16763

          18. 2003.1231C (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

          1342 IRVING STREET - north side between 14th and 15th Avenues; Lot 018A in Assessor's Block 1736: Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 730.44 to add a Small-Self Service Restaurant within an existing Retail Grocery Store in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to add an approximately 455 square foot self-service restaurant within the existing one-story approximately 2,650 square foot grocery store ("Quality Foods").

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Lenny Cobin - Project Sponsor

          - For the past two years, his customers have requested a place to sit and eat since they prepare food at his deli.

          - He has submitted letters from neighbors who support this project.

          ACTION: Approve

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

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))

      Jeffrey Heller - Heller Manus Architects

      Re: 8 Washington Street

      - Supervisor Aaron Peskin said that he was convinced that there was no inappropriate behavior by anybody and that it was a technical problem.

      - The issue at hand was that if the Redevelopment Agency Commission wanted to hear it, it would be a minor and a technical concern involving the pool deck which is the other property and is also separated by a construction joint. It does not involve nor do they have jurisdiction over the building.

Adjournment: 6:45 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, May 6, 2004.

SPEAKERS: Speakers

ACTION: Approved

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

EXCUSED: Hughes

ABSENT: Boyd

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:14 PM