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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us
May 20, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, May 20, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:50 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Craig Nikitas - Acting Zoning Administrator; Ken Rich; May Fung; Jonas Ionin; 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.

1. 2004. 0164D (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)

                  571-573 MISSOURI STREET- east side between 20th and Sierra Streets; Lot 28 in Block 4101 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.19.5267, proposing to construct a horizontal and vertical addition to an existing two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project as Proposed.

                  (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 15, 2004)

            (Proposed for Continuance to June 10, 2004)

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 10, 2004.

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

            2a. 2003.1061D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

                  133 ST. MARY'S AVENUE - south side, west of Mission Street; Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 6722 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.07.22.0097 proposing the demolition of a fire-damaged one-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

                  (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 15, 2004)

                  (Proposed for Continuance to July 1, 2004)

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 1, 2004.

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

            2b. 2004.0104D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

                  133 ST. MARY'S AVENUE - south side, west of Mission Street; Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 6722 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.22.0093 proposing the construction of a three-story, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District

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

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 15, 2004)

            (Proposed for Continuance to July 1, 2004)

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 1, 2004.

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

        3. 2004.0310D (S. SNYDER: (415) 558-6543)

            457 HAMILTON STREET - North side between Bacon and Wayland Streets; Lot 19 in Assessor's Block 6043 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.11.25,1150 proposing to construct a two-story rear addition in an RH-1 (House, Single Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve revised building permit application as submitted.

            DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn

      B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

        4. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of April 22, 2004.

            Regular Minutes of April 22, 2004:

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Approved

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

            Special Joint Hearing Minutes of April 22, 2004:

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Approved as Corrected: Page 3, Comment from Jack Meyers, last sentence, last word should be "condemnation."

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

          5. Commission Comments/Questions

            Commissioner Antonini:

            Re: Housing Element

            - On Tuesday there was an article in the Chronicle that spoke about the Housing Element He felt that it captured the spirit of how the meeting went the previous Thursday.

        6. (JIM CHAPELL/MARGIE O'DRISCOLL: (415) 781-8726/362-7449)

            INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION FROM SPUR AND AIA - Informational presentation by SPUR and the AIA/SF on their joint recommendations to improve the functioning and results of the planning process in San Francisco.

            Presentations From:

            Charles Higueras - President of the San Francisco Chapter of the American Institute of Architects

            - He initiated the thought of the report "Planning for the City's Future" in late 2003. At that time there was the potential to combine information on both the Department of Building Inspection and the Planning Department.

            - After completing the report they submitted it to the Mayor.

            - They have broadly distributed the report to various organizations interested in planning and building.

            Gabriel Netcaff - Deputy Director of SPUR

            - The report puts out a long list of ideas in great detail.

            - He is in charge of hitting what seems to be the biggest themes that pertain to the Planning Department. They will be doing the same for the Department of Building Inspection.

            - The following are the various issues dealt with in the report: 1) A need to focus more on planning as opposed to projects; 2) Fix the division of labor between Planning and the Board of Supervisors; and 3) The need to integrate Planning with other departments.

            Peter Winkelstein

            - The things that take a lot of time are Discretionary Review (DR) hearings and Conditional Use (CU) hearings.

            - He believes that CUs could be eliminated on projects like housing that is taller than 40 feet even if it is allowed.

            - Besides trying to get funding from the General Fund, the Department should look for partnerships.

            - One of the things that are very important is that the Department have a new director. It is clear that the Department is having difficulties in this area.

            - It is important to determine what kind of director the Department needs and that the new director be allowed to pick his/her own team even if this means changes in Civil Service.

            - Planners don't fully understand what DBI's functions are and vice versa so it is important also that each Department have good communication.

            - Because planning is involved in land use, staff needs to push for either putting all transportation planning in one place or establishing processes with other departments.

            SPEAKER(S):

            Marilyn Amini

            - SPUR has been the author of high density in the Housing Element for many years.

            - SPUR is out of sinc with the community.

            - In June of 2003, there was a Charter amendment introduced which talked about combining DBI with the Planning Department. That is nothing new.

            - There has not been effective outreach.

            - It is very patronizing that SPUR talks about the lack of trust between the Department and the community.

            - The community has to have as much input as possible.

            John Bardis

            - The Inner Sunset community has been working with the Planning Department for many years.

            - This is a new Commission and they came aboard because there were a lot of problems going on.

            - The Commission does not plan for other agencies. Right now it is not a Planning Department, it is a "Planning Approval Department."

            - Right now there is no Planning Department Head.

            - The timeline for projects is too long.

            Dick Millet

            - He is an architect and a member of SPUR.

            - He has a problem with everything that SPUR has mentioned. AIA does not do enough community service so he discards them from the beginning.

            - There is no certainty right now.

            Hiroshi Fakuda

            - Regarding Comments by Sue Lee when she encouraged members of AIA and SPUR to become commissioners, this might be well intended but the public is not well represented.

            - He is a pharmacist. One of the biggest influences in the medial field are the pharmaceutical representatives because they are salespeople. They don't really say what is best for the public because they just want to tell you what is best for their bottom line.

            - He feels that Planning is similar to the pharmaceutical industry.

            ACTION: None. Informational only.

        7. (ROBERT DAVIS: (415) 554-5793)

            ENTERTAINMENT COMMISSION PRESENTATION - Presentation from the Executive Director of the Entertainment Commission to the Planning Commission on the functions and duties of the Entertainment Commission.

            Presentation From:

            Robert Davis - Director of the San Francisco Entertainment Commission

            - He is glad to be hear and speak about the cross functions between the Commissions and how the two departments can work better together.

            - The Commission is comprised of seven members and by ordinance are designated from different industries.

            - The present of the Commission is Terrance Alan and comes from the industry; Audrey Joseph who is also an industry representative; Bowman Leong is an urban planner and comes from the land use segment of the population; Bruce G. Loren is a retired police lieutenant and represents law enforcement; Jim Meko represents neighborhoods, Dr. Jordan Shlain represents neighborhood interests; Erick Joseph Preg represents the emergency medical type of businesses.

            - The members of the Commission are appointed by both the Board of Supervisors and by the Mayor, and they are termed positions.

            - The Entertainment Commission has the duty to review, gather information and conduct hearings for entertainment related permit applications.

            - The Commission has the authority to issue permits, issue warnings, and suspend or revoke permits.

            - They would like to know that a use is permitted or acceptable so they will not hear a project until it has gone before the Planning Commission.

            - If there is an expansion or alteration, these are sent to the Planning Commission as well.

            - They would like for both Commissions to more closely coordinate their actions because there are some projects that are time related.

            - The entertainment industry is an industry that hires very large numbers of employees.

            - As residential communities expand, opportunities for entertainment venues have decreased. He believes that entertainment venues can exist in residential communities.

            - It is important to emphasize the good neighbor policy and actually have this attached to all permits.

            - He thanked staff for their help to date.

            SPEAKER(S):

            Dick Millet

            - Entertainment venues do have problems and don't always get resolved.

            - Do permits have to go first to the Planning Department?

            - For one of the Entertainment Commission meetings there was a permit that was advertised before the permit was requested.

            - What if the entertainment permit is on Port property?

            - He is a big supporter of notification, notification, and notification.

            - When do permit requestors take care of extra parking?

            - He does not want to close the clubs, but the industry has changed.

            - Sometimes the noise is just too loud.

            ACTION: None. Informational only.

      C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

        8. Director's Announcements

            Re: Director's Search

            - Last week this item was on the calendar, a member of staff, Geoffrey Nelson mentioned that he had received cash for $400 dollars and this was stated in the chronicle indicating that it was a bribe. This was not a bribe. He thinks that it was more of a cultural thing and Mr. Nelson spoke to his supervisor, to the city Attorney and talked to the Ethics Commission. Mr. Nelson expressed to the project sponsor that it was an inappropriate thank you and refused the accept it. Mr. Nelson did suggest that the project sponsor make a donation to a non profit organization.

            Re: New Commissioner

            - There will be at least one new Commissioner in the near future.

            Re: Mr. Nikitas

            - He is pleased to let everyone know that Mr. Nixon will be back in the office next Monday.

            - He thanked Mr. Nikitas for taking over the responsibility with very little notice and little financial support.

            - He appreciates the work of Mr. Nikitas for the past few months.

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

            BOS -

            Land Use Committee

            Re: Sunset and Presidio Carnegie Libraries as Landmarks:

            - This item passed and will be heard at the Full Board of Supervisors.

            Re: Citywide Bike Plan:

            - There is some concern expressed on how the environmental review could be expedited.

            BOA - None

      D. REGULAR CALENDAR

            10. 2003.1220I (K. RICH: (415) 558-6345)

                  CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO - Submission of 10 year Institutional Master Plan by City College of San Francisco and subsequent public hearing as per Planning Code Section 304.5 (d). The purpose of this hearing is for the receipt of public testimony only, and shall in no way constitute an approval or disapproval of the institutional master plan by the Planning Commission.

                  Preliminary Recommendation: No Commission Action is required.

                  (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 6, 2004)

            SPEAKER(S):

            Barbara Moleney - BMS Design Group

            - There are 12 different sites for City College.

            - The process for community outreach consisted of facilities advisory committee meetings; three community workshops; community site walks; CCSF Board Meeting Updates; etc.

            - Most of the work will be occurring on the main campus on Phelan Avenue.

            - There is a request for a new Chinatown Campus and Mission Campus.

            - The main campus consists of about 60 acres. The college also occupies a large site with some parking on the PUC reservoir across the street.

            - The project facilities program would be a community wellness center; student health center; childcare center; theater, music visual and media arts center; and academic facility.

            - The main campus has very interesting older buildings.

            - The Plan elements are land use, transportation and parking, open space, etc.

            - The master plan concepts include improved pedestrian environment and increased transit use; long term flexibility; support of neighborhood revitalization; and an improved image and identity of campus.

            - The plan recommends the reconfiguration of the reservoir.

            - The reservoir is challenged by a very severe topography.

            - Future development of the areas would be to construct new facilities on the western part of the campus.

            - The plan is a ten-year plan.

            - The plan also has recommendations for BART because it is so close to the campus.

            Jeremy Nelson - Policy Director - Transportation for a Livable City

            - TLC is troubled that the Master Plan seems to prioritize increasing the on-campus parking supply and continue to provide parking subsidies rather than an adoption of best practices in "transportation demand management" to better manage the existing parking supply and provide improved incentives and infrastructure to improve access for the large portion of the City College main campus.

            - TLC urges the Commission to ask City College to: 1) establish specific mode share goals; 2) set timetables for accomplishing these goals; 3) report back to the Planning Department and Commission annually in order to share their progress towards these goals with the City College community, their neighbors and the general public.

            Peter Winklestein

            - SPUR has looked at this master plan and believes that it is excellent.

            - They would like to add more discussion of sustainability in terms of sustainable construction and utilities function and housing.

            ACTION: No Action Required.

                  11. (M. FUNG: (415) 558-6364)

            DISCRETIONARY REVIEW COST RECOVERY PROGRAM - On September 25, 2003, the Planning Commission directed the Department to implement full cost recovery for all Discretionary Review (DR) requests, as provided in Sections 352(b) and 350(c) of the Planning Code. On March 4, 2004, the Planning Commission continued the Discretionary Review (DR) Cost Recovery hearing to April 22, 2004 and again to May 20, 2004 for interested neighborhood groups and department staff to problem solve on how to balance the Department's financial deficit from Discretionary Reviews against the needs of the neighborhoods for affordable Discretionary Reviews. The Department is now proposing that Discretionary Review applicants and permit applicants for all building permits reviewed by the Planning Department share the cost of Discretionary Reviews. This would be accomplished by imposing a Building Permit surcharge on all building permits reviewed by Planning and a fee increase for DR to $300 from $133.

            Preliminary Recommendation: To initiate the code amendment to allow the Department to add a Building Permit surcharge for all building permits reviewed by Planning to subsidize Discretionary Reviews and modify the Planning Code Fee Ordinance to increase the initial Discretionary Review fee to $300 from $133 to partially cover the Discretionary Review cost.

            SPEAKER(S):

            Re: Continuance

            Judy Berkowitz

            - This is all contingent upon hearing the pre-application item.

            - If the pre-application process is put into effect, then there will not be a need for the other items.

            Re: Merits of the Case

            Paul Wermer - Neighbohrood Network

            - They support this proposal strongly.

            - The one suggestion he has is to consider exempting smaller projects like for example having a $10,000 cut off.

            - He is very pleased with the outreach form the department.

            Judy Berkowitz

            - She thanked Ms. Fung for being exemplary in the outreach.

            - Her organization was divided on whether to charge fees or not.

            - She hopes to have the pre-application policy approved with a review after about a year. Then the other policies might not be necessary and there would not be a need for a surcharge.

            Penelope Clark - Russian Hill Neighbors

            - She is glad that staff is not recommending four figure fees.

            - In her neighborhood there are a lot of old non conforming developments.

            - A code compliant project located in the mid block might not be appropriate for her neighborhood.

            - Although she realizes that the city has budget issues, these fees should be reasonable.

            Ron Miguel

            - Ms. Fung was extremely generous with her outreach time.

            - This policy should proceed now.

            - The fee ordinance as proposed is correct and just.

            - Quite often, there is more than one filer. If two or more got together the fees would be able to be met.

            Steve Hiello - Zero Design Co.

            - He has been before the Commission before.

            - He hopes that the Commission will enforce the full fee recovery.

            - There are no reasons for a Discretionary Review to fall under exceptional or extraordinary.

            - DR's are simply a private interest.

            - The DR problem is not just for project sponsors. Many DRs are abused by people who use it most often.

            Bob Clausner - Community Boards

            - He thanked staff for the manner of outreach allowing the community to offer input.

            - He recommended an approach for consideration when the Commission makes their determination on changes to the fee schedule.

            - He believes that simple and complex requests for DRs should both receive minimal initial review when being categorized and described as to whether or not they are exceptional or extraordinary. For both types, the filer should pay for the full cost of that assessment. Since under no circumstance will simple DRs require further staff information gathering, they are actually paying their way in terms of the staff time devoted to the request.

            - The Planning Commission may remand back to staff, for further background information and modification, complex DRs that have an exceptional element.

            - He suspects that the number of these cases will be relatively few and will not justify setting up an elaborate monitoring or accounting system.

            Jeremy Paul

            - He encouraged more reliance on mediation and community boards.

            - The DR process has become a crutch for staff.

            - So many cases could be resolved at the staff level.

            - He actually enjoys working on DRs, but it has gotten ridiculous.

            Hiroshi Fukuda

            - Regarding the DR fee increases, it may be a bit expensive for most and not for others.

            - Regarding the issue of exceptional or extraordinary, it actually depends on where you live.

            - DRs should be made available.

            - DRs should be at the lowest possible cost.

            Marilyn Amini

            - There are complex issues involved here.

            - If there were a pre-application process that dealt with all projects that would trigger a 311 notification process, issues would arise proactively and could be dealt with.

            - The authority for approving applications rests with the Planning Department so there is a responsibility from the Commission to consider the affects of the project on the surrounding properties.

            - If there are issues that are not addressed by the Planning Code or by the Residential Design Guidelines, then these situations are extra or other than ordinary.

            - Every staff member working on this ordinance has different amounts of money listed in their reports.

            ACTION: No Action Required.

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

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

            Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Option 1.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 1, 2004

            NOTE: On February 19, 2004, a proposal to amend the Planning Code Text to establish an Administrative Discretionary Review Policy failed to receive approval. 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. At the April 1, 2004 hearing it was continued to allow interested parties time to review the proposal.

            SPEAKER(S):

            Paul Werner

            - The pre-application process is popular with the neighborhood groups because it will reduce DRs.

            - There should be some type of document control.

            - Breaking the DRs into complex and simple is great because it will reduce staff time.

            - It is important that with simple DRs, the Commission does not arbitrarily limit public comment.

            Ron Miguel - Planning Association for the Richmond District

            - He likes the pre-application process.

            - He believes that the determination of exceptional and extraordinary would in affect create a body of case law.

            - Full and complete submission to the Department of rejections should be applied.

            - Full consideration of the Residential Design Guidelines.

            - Page 11, Option 2, Number 10- This has no consideration for neighborhood associations.

            - Maybe this will reduce the number of DRs, or at least the amount of time spent on them.

            Peter Winkelstein - AIA and SPUR

            - The pre-application process should considered--see if this is actually required.

            - Regarding the options, both the AIA and SPUR support all of them.

            Hiroshi Fukuda

            - One of the key elements that is missing is to say: "pre-application process" will be tried for six months.

            - Planning should inform the applicant with the entire information.

            Penelope Clark - Russian Hill Neighbors

            - The pre-application process should be given a chance to see what would result.

            - This would be a good way to start.

            - Many people from her neighborhood do not understand the process.

            Judy Berkowitz - Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods

            - The most common sense and practical way to deal with this is to sever the pre-application from the rest of the policy changes and implement it for a period of a year. If a cost recovery fee needs to occur after that, then it could be implemented.

            - The pre-application process should be broadened. Clarifying the contradictions between the Planning Code and the Residential Design Guidelines could reduce the number of DRs.

            - Standard issues should be resolved before a project goes before the Commission.

            Kirk Scott

            - He requested that the Commission take some action today.

            - The time is now to change this process and to do something.

            - He encouraged the Commission not to continue this item and to take some action today.

            - He supports Option 1.

            - It has been so long and so difficult to have any changes made.

            Bob Klausner

            - On a pre-application, whoever feels impacted would give their information to the planner of the project.

            - Communication can mess things up very badly.

            - It is important to take into account how much time is used in the pre-application process.

            Steven Hiello

            - He supports a trial period.

            - There is no clear set of numbers.

            - It is important to assign one staff person to set up collecting DR data.

            - He submitted a proposal of more specific ideas.

            - Many owners feel that they have their lives completely put upon when their neighbors design their projects.

            - It is not possible to please everybody.

            Marilyn Amini

            - The DR as-of-right is very important with the Residential Design Guideline's emphases on neighborhood character.

            - She feels that anything that triggers a 311 notice should really be subject to the pre-application process.

            - The outreach to the impacted community will limit DRs.

            - The question of what constitutes complex with simple DRs is important.

            - All projects should get the amount of review needed before coming to the Planning Commission so that no more work is necessary.

            ACTION: Adopted the pre-application process and option 3 with a review period of 8 months after implementation.

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

            MOTION: 16787

        13. 2003.1255DD (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

            2051-2057 GREEN STREET - south side between Webster and Buchanan Streets: Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 0556 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.10.22.8225, proposing to extend the garage into the rear of the ground floor, infill two existing lightwells at the ground floor only, and add an elevator to access all four stories of the two-unit building 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.

        SPEAKER(S):

            (-) Cornelia Tilney - 1st Discretionary Review Requestor

            - She is also representing her neighbor who lives in the bottom apartment of her house.

            - The neighbors illegally built a very long extension from the back of their home.

            - The City asked to reduce the extension but there is still a back stairway in the back.

            - She is not asking that the Commission not approve the permit but rather to approve the project with some conditions: 1) remove the proposed new light well windows; 2) relocate proposed gas heaters; 3) require that the elevator be the quietest one available; 4) make permit approval contingent upon the Kelly's tearing down their illegal back deck; 5) paint light well walls and elevator with mutually agreeable white tone reflective paint; 6) provide a ventilation system for the light well; 70 and that their structural engineer review the project sponsor's plans.

            (-) Pat Buskavich - Representing 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor

            - Several of the issues his client had have been resolved.

            - The project sponsor is designing a two or three car garage for a two unit building.

            - He does not see any reason to get a two car garage and have matched light wells.

            - This project does not meet Residential Design Guidelines.

            - It is true that not everyone requires the same amount of ventilation.

            (-) Allan Zumberti

            - It is not his intent to try to stop the project.

            - When does one property owner's rights stop and another's begin?

            - He renovated a room where his concern was to add light and air and now his neighbor wants to put a wall there.

            - He does not agree with staff's conclusions.

            - The proposed project will have an economic impact on him.

            (+) Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor

            - The project sponsors have owned their home since the 30s.

            - The proposed construction will not have any impact on the light well.

            - Structural design for this project has not been completed yet.

            - The issues regarding creating an inset into the garage would create a real difficulty for senior citizens to drive in and out of their garage.

            - The accommodation will impact the proposed project and does not equate to the impact on the patio that has been developed.

            - He gave a PowerPoint presentation displaying photographs of the light well, garage, etc.

            ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following amendments:

                  1) At the west wall of the project, at the location of the in-filled light well, the roof at the shared side property line shall not exceed eight(8) feet in height and shall be sloped from this point in a manner that provides for adequate rainwater drainage;

                  2) At the location of both in-filled light wells, the project sponsor is required to use opaque material for all new window openings facing towards the Discretionary Review Requestors' properties.

                  3) At the east wall of the project, the project sponsor shall use the most effectively sound rated equipment that is possible.

                  4) At the east wall of the project, the project sponsor shall paint the elevator shaft a reflective color to provide for enhanced light at the shared light well area.

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

            14. 2004.0330D (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

                  2423 LEAVENWORTH STREET - west side between Francisco and Chestnut Streets: Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 0048 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.12.16.2412, proposing to merge three dwelling units into two dwelling units in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                  Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the proposed dwelling unit merger.

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the merger.

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

            NAYES: Hughes

        15. 2003.1250L (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

            1201 ORTEGA STREET - southwest corner of Ortega Street and 19th Avenue, Assessor's Block 2115, Lot 37. The proposal is to designate the Infant Shelter/San Francisco Conservatory of Music building, constructed in 1928, as City Landmark No. 242. The property is zoned RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Landmark Designation.

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 27, 2004.

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

        16. 2001.0563L (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

            351-359 9th AVENUE - west side between Geary Boulevard and Clement Street, Assessor's Block 1441, Lot 7. The proposal is to designate the Carnegie Richmond Branch Library, constructed in 1913, as Landmark No. 247. The property is zoned P (Public) and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Landmark Designation.

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Approved

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

            MOTION: 16788

        17. 2002.0268L (M. CORRETTE: (415) 558-6295)

            165 10th STREET - east side of 10th Street between Mission and Howard Streets, assessor's Block 3509, Lot 14. The proposal is to designate the James Lick Baths / People's Laundry building at 165 10th Street as Landmark No. 246. The building is listed in Here Today, in the South-of-Market Area Plan, and in the 1976 Architectural Survey. It is in an SLR (Service Light Industrial, Residential) District, and located in a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Landmark Designation.

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Approved

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

            MOTION: 16789

        18a. 2003.1102D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

            361 ELSIE STREET - east side south of Cortland Avenue; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 5676 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.08.08.1577 proposing the demolition of a one-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Demolition

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 15, 2004)

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition.

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

        18b. 2003.1103D 2004.0104D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

            361 ELSIE STREET - east side south of Cortland Avenue; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 5676 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.08.1581, proposing the construction of a three-story-over-garage two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Project.

                  (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 15, 2004)

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.

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

        19. 2003.1324D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

            2614 SACRAMENTO STREET - north side between Steiner and Scott Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0631 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.24.5627S, proposing to merge three dwelling units to one dwelling unit in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

            SPEAKER(S):

            (+) Jay Slevinson - Project Architect

            - The two units are on the main structure. The units have been Ellis Acted and cannot be occupied until 2007.

            - The property has an extremely confusing layout.

            - There is not a permit to definitively add a legal unit.

            - The documents show that sometime after 1950, two units emerged but he does not knows how.

            - The building does not meet the requirements for a three-unit structure.

            - The proposed project would bring the property closer to the conformity of the properties in the neighborhood.

            - The property is out of character because it is currently too dense.

            (+) John Dow - Legal Counsel

            - The owner will be stuck with a unit they cannot do anything with since it has been Ellis Acted.

            - The owner has a right to be able to return this property to a single-family unit.

            ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the merger

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

            NAYES: Hughes and S. Lee

        20. 2003.0855C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

            680 - 682 HAIGHT STREET - north side between Pierce and Steiner Streets; Lot 019, in Assessor's Block 0847 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 161(j) and 303 to eliminate an existing one-car parking space within a garage on the ground floor to make room for a proposed retail/commercial space. The two-story building contains a parking space and commercial space on the ground floor and a dwelling unit on the second floor. The site is within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

            SPEAKER(S): None

            ACTION: Approved

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

            MOTION: 16790

        21a. 2003.1159CR (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

            1001 POTRERO AVENUE - southwest corner of Vermont Avenue and 22nd Street, Lot 001, Assessor's Block 4154 - Request for a General Plan Referral to determine if the construction of a wireless telecommunications facility for Cingular Wireless on the roof of San Francisco General Hospital 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.

            SPEAKER(S):

            (+) Darrell Doherty - Cingular Wireless

            - He is available for questions.

            ACTION: Found to be consistent with the General Plan objectives and policies.

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

            ABSENT: W. Lee

            MOTION: 16791

        21b. 2003.1159CR (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

            1001 POTRERO AVENUE - southwest corner of Vermont Avenue and 22nd Street, Lot 001, Assessor's Block 4154 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 234.2 of the Planning Code to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of six (6) panel antennas and six (6) related equipment cabinets on an existing seven-story publicly-used structure (San Francisco General Hospital) as a part of Cingular's wireless telecommunications network within a P (Public) Zoning District and a 105-E Height and Bulk Designation. The project would establish a new use on City-owned property and a General Plan Referral is required. A finding of consistency with the General Plan is necessary and has been submitted.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

            SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 21a.

            ACTION: Approved

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

            ABSENT: W. Lee

            MOTION: 16792

      G. 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))

        None

Adjournment: 8:11 p.m.

          THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2004.

          SPEAKERS: None

          ACTION: Approved

          AYES: Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          EXCUSED: None

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