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
May 27, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, May 27, 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 1:40 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Jim Nixon - Zoning Administrator; 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. 2004.0058D (D. SIROIS: ( 415) 558-6313)

        1430 43RD AVENUE - east side between Kirkham and Judah; Lot 038 in Assessor's Block 1811 - Request for Discretionary Review of building permit application No. 2003.09.04.3873 seeking to construct a vertical addition and lateral addition on an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential House, Single-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve permit with modifications.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 13, 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

        2. 2003.0106D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

        1910-12 STEINER STREET - east side between Wilmot and Bush Streets; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 0659 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.16.7169, proposing to merge two dwelling units to a single-family residence in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the proposed dwelling unit merger.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 25, 2004)

        (Proposed for Continuance to June 24, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 24, 2004

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

        3a. 2004.0032D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

            43 HAMILTON STREET - east side south of Silver Avenue; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 5919 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.10.17.9296 proposing the demolition of a one-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

            (Continued fro Regular Meeting of April 22, 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

        3b. 2004.0033D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

            43 HAMILTON STREET - east side south of Silver Avenue; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 5919 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.10.17.9298 proposing the construction of a two-story single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 22, 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

        4a. 2003.0047DDDDDDDDDDDV (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        44 LURMONT TERRACE - a cul-de-sac on the north side of Leavenworth Street between Greenwich and Lombard Streets; Lot 025 in Assessor's Block 0071 - Mandatory Discretionary Review and Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.05.08.4122, proposing the construction of a four-story, single-family dwelling within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The related demolition, Case No. 2004.0030D is not before the Commission under the Residential Demolition Policy because the home to be demolished is appraised at greater than $1.2 million.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 11, 2004)

        NOTE: On March 11, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to May 27, 2004, by a vote +5 -2. Commissioners expressed concern with the size of the proposed house, the unusable interior space, and the top floor. Commissioners Boyd and Feldstein were absent. Public Hearing Remains Open.

        DISCRETIONARY REVIEW REQUESTS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: None. Discretionary Review requests were withdrawn.

4b. 2003.0047DDDDDDDDDDDV (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        44 LURMONT TERRACE - a cul-de-sac on the north side of Leavenworth Street between Greenwich and Lombard Streets; Lot 025 in Assessor's Block 0071 - Request for Variance from the rear yard requirements of the Planning Code to construct a single-family dwelling partially into the required rear yard, within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Section 134 of the Planning Code states that in an RH-3 District, in the case of any lot that abuts along both its side lot lines upon lots with buildings that front on another street or alley, the minimum rear yard depth shall be 25 percent of the total depth of the lot, or 15 feet, whichever is greater. On the approximately 80-foot deep subject lot, this results in a rear yard requirement of 20 feet, with the south side of the lot being considered the rear. The proposed construction would project into the required rear yard by up to 11 feet at the ground (garage) floor level, extending to within 9 feet of the south property line. The application requesting a Variance will be heard by the Zoning Administrator.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 11, 2004)

` Zoning Administrator Continued Item to May 27, 2004. Public Comment Remains Open.

      REAR YARD VARIANCE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: None. Rear Yard Variance request has been withdrawn.

        5. 2003.0724C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

            1287-89 11TH AVENUE - west side between Irving Street and Lincoln Way; Lot 19, in Assessor's Block 1739 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 303 and 730.39 of the Planning Code to demolish two residential units on the second and third floors of a building on an approximately 2,400 square-foot lot in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk Districts. The proposed project would demolish the existing two-story over garage, two-family building and construct a new three-story over three-car garage building containing three dwelling units.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 15, 2004)

            CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: None. Conditional Use Application has been withdrawn.

        6. 2004.0216D (S. SNYDER: (415) 558-6543)

            459 RHODE ISLAND STREET - East side between Southern Heights Avenue and 22nd Streets; Lot 44 in Assessor's Block 4095 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.10.29.8840, proposing to raise the walls and create a gable roof on a dwelling in an RH-2 (House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 13, 2004)

        DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: None. Discretionary Review request was withdrawn.

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

        7. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commissioner Sue Lee:

        Re: Process Question

        - Many times when a Discretionary Review is brought before them the DR requestor has issues that are not always the same as the issues that Commissioners have.

        - Regarding cases that have been withdrawn, are these projects going forward? Are they being dropped? What does the Department do when a DR project is withdrawn but the project has not accommodated the requests from the Department regarding modifications? How is this tracked?

            Acting Director Badiner responded:

            - Regarding Lurmont Terrace, the project has been withdrawn and will be reconfigured as an alteration. The Department will take a fresh look at it when it is resubmitted. If there is a project that the Department has brought before the Commission, staff will take into account the Commission's concerns.

            Acting Zoning Administrator Jim Nixon responded:

            - On a case that is withdrawn/re-submitted, when staff is aware that the Commission is concerned about certain issues and staff sees those evidence of those issues in the (new) plans, staff would still bring the project before the Commission.

            - The Commission can also request a Discretionary Review on any project.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        Re: Cell Phone Installation for 2599 Lombard Street

        - When a cell phone installation comes before the Commission and the emissions are below the standards, what the Commission decides upon is the information they are provided.

        - The only way that the Commission would be able to change the way things are addressed would be if there were any appraisals in terms of the coverage and capacity.

        - The Commission is taking the information as valid representations.

        Commissioner Bradford Bell:

        - She asked that the meeting today be held in memory of Annie Powell who was killed in the Bay View District.

        - When people have asked her why she does what she does, she was never able to articulate it until today. She does what she does so that people like Annie are able to have a future.

        - Today's meeting is going to be about humanity, positive forward movement, and cooperation.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      8. Director's Announcements

        - Welcomed Jim Nixon back to the hearing.

        Re: Upcoming Issues

        - The Mayor will release the budget on June 1, 2004.

        - The fee ordinance will be heard on Thursday, June 3, 2004.

        Re: Commissioner Antonini's comment:

        - Commissioner Antonini is correct.

        - Planners don't have the ability to know if the information submitted to them is correct--they are not wireless engineers. The battles over antennas are being fought about health issues more than anything else.

        - It becomes a planning issue as a substitute for what they can talk about.

        - Unless the Planning Department hires wireless engineers, planers will continue to struggle with whether an antenna installation is necessary or desirable.

        - Maybe this needs to be dealt with at a federal level.

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

        BOS -

        Re: Special Planning Audit Committee

        - He attended this hearing last Friday.

        - It was mostly a positive discussion.

        - The most important thing was that towards the end, Supervisor Peskin brought up the management structure of the department.

        - The issue about this was actually about how many senior planners there are, etc.

        - Sup. Peskin expressed that the senior management level was too heavy.

        - This will be an ongoing discussion this budget year.

        - He believes that the senior management level is good. There are good people at that level.

        Re: Special Finance Committee

        1) Release of funds for the Eastern Neighborhoods

        - There was $127,000 still on reserve for the Eastern Neighborhoods environmental review. Staff has not been able to continue with this environmental review because only a quarter of the funds had been released. The remaining amount was finally released.

        2) Supplemental to cover salaries for the past year. The fee ordnance was pulled for legal reasons but the budget is based on those fees, which means that salaries based on those projected fees and approved budget still need to be covered. This item was pulled to do more research on it.

        3) 690 Market Street - the Mills Act contract was being reviewed when he left the meeting. The Board did not take final action and continued the item.

        BOA - None

D. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

      At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

      None

E. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

      10a. 2004.0063D (G. Cabreros: (415) 558-6169)

            141 Willard North street - west side between Turk Street and Golden Gate Avenue; lot 005 in Assessor's block 1142 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of demolition permit application no. 2003.05.22.5283, proposing to demolish an existing two-unit building in an RH-2 (residential, house, two-family) district and a 40-x height and bulk district.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove demolition.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 6, 2004)

            NOTE: On May 6, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued the matter to May 27, 2004 by a vote +4 -0 to allow the absent Commissioners the opportunity to participate in the final action. Commissioners Bradford-Bell and Sue Lee were absent.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        MOTION: To not take Discretionary Review and approve demolition

        AYES: Antonini and Boyd

        NAYES: Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        RESULT: Motion Failed

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved demolition

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

        NAYES: Antonini and Boyd

      10b. 2004.0064D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        141 WILLARD NORTH STREET - west side between Turk Street and Golden Gate Avenue; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1142 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential buildings in association with residential demolitions, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.05.22.5280, proposing to construct a new four-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the application.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 6, 2004)

            NOTE: On May 6, 2004, Following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued the matter to May 27, 2004 by a vote +4 -0 to allow the absent Commissioners the opportunity to participate in the final action. Commissioners Bradford-Bell and Sue Lee were absent.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the project based on the disapproval of the demolition.

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

        NAYES: Antonini and Boyd

        11. 2003.1015E (N. TURRELL: (415) 558-5994)

        1905 MISSION STREET - Assessor's Block 3553, Lots 27, 28, 29, and 30 - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 34,369-gross-square-foot (gsf), 24-unit, five-story, residential building, which would contain about 26,900 gsf of residential use, 2,600 gsf of retail use, and 5,000-gsf of garage with 24 parking spaces. The proposed project would also include the demolition of three existing commercial buildings. Two of these buildings with a total square footage of 4,431 gsf are located at 1911 Mission Street. The third building, consisting of 1,320 square feet is located at 1581 15th Street. The approximately 8,670-square-foot project site is located at the southeast corner of Mission and 15th Streets in the Mission District. The site is in the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, and is in an 80-B height and bulk district.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 13, 2004)

        NOTE: On May 13, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to May 27, 2004 by a vote +5 -0 in order to obtain more information from the Mayor's Office of Economic Development. Commissioner Boyd was absent.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld

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

        MOTION: 16793

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

      12. 2003.1250L (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

        1201 ORTEGA STREET - southwest corner at 19th Avenue, Assessor's Block 2115, Lot 37. Landmark Designation. 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.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 20, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Mark Duffett - SPEAK

        - He thanked the Commission for allowing them the opportunity to present this proposal for landmark designation.

        - He hopes that the Commission will approve this designation.

        - The neighbors do not oppose this proposal.

        - It is essential to protect the original structure from demolition.

        - The shelter has been hope for many youth.

        - This site will continue to become a place of hope if the Commission approves this proposal.

        (+) Robert Judson Clark - Architectural Historian and Consultant

        - He has known this building since 1960.

        - He is working on a book on the architect who designed this building.

        - The architect was first known for the cottage he designed in the Bay Area.

        (+) Harry O'Brien - San Francisco Conservatory of Music

        - The Conservatory of Music is not opposed to this proposal to landmark.

        - The Conservatory's only reservation to this project is knowing the specifics of making it a landmark.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        RESOLUTION: 16794

        13a. 2003.1048CTZV (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

        A ZONING MAP CHANGE TO ESTABLISH THE THIRD STREET AND OAKDALE AVENUE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Consideration of an Ordinance to amend Section Map 10 of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco to rezone the property described as Assessor's Block 5322, Lot 45, southwest corner of Oakdale Avenue and Third Street, from NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) with a 40-X height and bulk designation to establish the Third Street and Oakdale Avenue Affordable Housing Special Use District with a 50-X height and bulk designation.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Serine Zandich

        - She is here to provide an update on the development.

        - This has been a community process for about 18 months.

        - This project will provide affordable housing, which is a major issue in the area.

        - This project is considered a tax project for the Redevelopment Agency.

        - She is pleased to present this project to the Commission.

        (+) Dan Dodt

        - He lives in the Bay View District.

        - He shares the comments made by the previous speaker and is in full support of the project.

        - This project will be respectful of the neighborhood. The relaxing of the parking requirements are good precedents for a project in a transit corridor.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        RESOLUTION: 16795

        13b. 2003.1048CTZV (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

        A ZONING TEXT CHANGE TO ESTABLISH THE THIRD STREET AND OAKDALE AVENUE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Consideration of an Ordinance to amend the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 249.27 to create the Third Street and Oakdale Avenue Affordable Housing Special Use District for the property described as Assessor's Block 5322, Lot 45, southwest corner of Oakdale Avenue and Third Street. The establishment of the Third Street and Oakdale Avenue Affordable Housing Special Use District permits the construction of 15 affordable housing units, under a density bonus, and allows for the provision of 4 parking spaces where 15 are required, with Conditional Use Authorization. The site is in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 13a.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        RESOLUTION: 16796

        13c. 2003.1048CTZV (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

        4800 THIRD STREET - southwest corner at Third Street; Lot 45 in Assessor's Block 5322 - Request for conditional use authorization under Section 303 of the Planning Code to allow for the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 15 dwelling units, and approximately 3,000 square feet of commercial/retail space at the ground level and to provide 4 parking spaces, in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and in the proposed Third Street and Oakdale Avenue Affordable Housing Special Use District and 50-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 13a.

        ACTION: Approved with conditions that include and address affordability and subordination. (These concerns are included as conditions 19 and 20 in the Conditions of Approval.)

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

        MOTION: 16797

        13d. 2003.1048CTZV (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

        4800 THIRD STREET - southwest corner at Third Street; Lot 45 in Assessor's Block 5322 - Request for a Rear Yard Variance under Section 134 of the Planning Code, to allow for the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 15 dwelling units, and approximately 3,000 square feet of commercial/retail space at the ground level with a rear yard equal to only 21% of the lot area, in an area which requires 25% of lot area under Planning Code Section 134(e), in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and in the proposed Third Street and Oakdale Avenue Affordable Housing Special Use District.

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 13a.

        ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and will be granting the rear yard variance based on the conditions imposed on the project about affordability and subordination.

      14a. 2003.1051RZ (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

        DE LONG STREET/ HEAD STREET/ SANTA CRUZ AVENUE/ SAN DIEGO AVENUE, HABITAT FOR HUMANITIES - Assessor's Block 7153 Lots 008, 008A, 009, 010, 011, 012, 013, 014, Assessor's Block 7154 Lot 023, Assessor's Block 7174 Lots 004, 007, 008, 009, 025, 026, 027, 028, 029, 030, 031, 047, and 048. Request for an Amendment to the Zoning Map to change the zoning classification from P, Public Use to RH-1, Residential House, One Family for various parcels of excess BART property. This Project is located within a P, Public Use, District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) John Slessinger - Project Architect

        - The public assistance is for the land acquisition only.

        - There are three homes that will be fully accessible for handicapped.

        - There are some rear yard properties at the BART right-of-way.

        - This project is very close to the BART station.

        (-) Gabriel Marien

        - She is a resident of Shakespeare Street.

        - She grew up in this area and has always used this as public open space.

        - This is an underserved community.

        - Most of the community is working class, single families.

        - This project would take a lot of the public open space.

        - These lots are not ideal for single-family units.

        (-) Morgan Raul

        - She lives on Shakespeare Street.

        - This will increase the population density in a community that is very under served.

        - There is a need for everyone who lives around here to use his or her cars.

        - The signs that were posted about this project have been disappearing. She feels that is the reason why there are not more people here.

        (-) Steena Marigold

        - The space has been used for children to play.

        - Taking all those spaces away and crowding the neighborhood will not make it nicer in any way.

        (-) Chelsea Starfield

        - She lives on Shakespeare Street.

        - Every day when she comes home there are a lot of children that play in the lots.

        - The community really needs a lot of help.

        - Building more houses should not be the focus.

        - A playground should be built instead.

        (-) Jeff Chin

        - He lives on Shakespeare Street.

        - There is a blind curb in the area. The San Andreas Fault runs directly underneath there. If there was a derailment caused by an earthquake there would be a lot of damage.

        - There are carcinogen fumes that come from Highway 280.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        NAYES: S. Lee

        RESOLUTION: 16798

        14b. 2003.1051RZ (R. CRAWFORD: ( 415) 558-6358)

        DE LONG STREET/ HEAD STREET/ SANTA CRUZ AVENUE/ SAN DIEGO AVENUE, HABITAT FOR HUMANITIES - Assessor's Block 7153 Lots 008, 008A, 009, 010, 011, 012, 013, 014, Assessor's Block 7154 Lot 023, Assessor's Block 7174 Lots 004, 007, 008, 009, 025, 026, 027, 028, 029, 030, 031, 047, and 048. Referral for General Plan Consistency for publicly assisted private housing for various parcels of excess BART property. This Project is located within a P, Public Use, District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Find that public assistance for the Project is consistent with the General Plan

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 14a.

        ACTION: Found to be consistent with the General Plan

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

        NAYES: S. Lee

        MOTION: 16799

        15. 2003.0304E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

            829 FOLSOM STREET - South side between 4th and 5th Streets, a through lot to Shipley Street; Lot 091 in Assessor's Block 3752. Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration The proposed project is new construction of 69 residential units in a nine-story, 85-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. Up to 62 parking spaces would be located in a basement-parking garage with parking entrances/exits on Shipley Street. There would be up to 5,000 sq. ft. of ground floor retail space on Folsom Street. Pedestrian access would be on Shipley and Folsom Streets. The proposed project requires Conditional Use authorization, a rear yard modification and a variance from dwelling unit exposure requirements. The site is within a South of Market Residential/Service District (RSD) and a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold the Preliminary Negative Declaration

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 13, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Ed Tansen - Appellant - Yerba Buena Lofts Homeowners Association

        - He is the developer of Yerba Buena Lofts.

        - They have two objections to the Negative Declaration: 1) a two story underground garage cannot be justified at this location because it is too risky for his building; and 2) if excavation is done near the steel piles of his building, there is no way to support them properly.

        - No one is going to take that risk at any price.

        - If the number of units are cut, there would not be a need for a two story garage.

        - This project needs to comply with the California Building Code. His property determined the property line first.

        - If there is an earthquake, the two buildings would bang on each other.

        - The environmental group is strictly concerned with the San Francisco Building Code but both codes apply.

        (+) Steve Atkinson - Steefel, Levitt and Weiss

        - As the staff report notes, the issues of the negative appeal are not environmental issues under CEQA.

        - Regarding traffic or shadows, the appellant has not issued information on significant impacts.

        - The only reason for this appeal is to delay the project.

        - If the Commission follows the recommendation and upholds the negative declaration, then the major issue like the setbacks can be addressed.

        - He believes that through the submittals from the project sponsor, the public and this presentation, the Commission will have all the information it needs to make a decision on this project.

        (-) Roger Hall - Clara Street Town Homes Homeowners Association

        - He urged the Commission to follow the policies, which apply to setbacks, etc.

        - People take pride in their yards.

        - The area will be very concentrated and an eye sore to the area.

        (-) Brian Fujikawa - Yerba Buena Lofts

        - He lives on Folsom Street.

        - He is concerned with the large excavation.

        - The developers have not responded to the reports submitted regarding engineering and geology.

        - There are a lot of questions that still need to be answered.

        ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld

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

        AYES: 16800

      16a. 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 207.5, 263.11, 271, and 157 to construct a nine-story, mixed-use building with up to 69 dwelling units at a density of one unit per 147 square feet of lot area under Section 207.5, to construct an 85-foot-tall building (with a 16-foot-tall mechanical penthouse) in the 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District under Section 263.11, to exceed the bulk limits at the 50-foot height by 60 feet in length and 54 feet diagonally (by 48 feet in length and 42 feet diagonally at the 65-foot height) under Section 271; and to provide parking exceeding accessory amounts (with up to 62 spaces for project residents) under Section 157. On the ground floor, garage access would be provided at Shipley Street, and up to 5,000 gross square feet of retail space would be provided with access from Folsom Street. The proposed project would also require a rear yard modification and a variance from dwelling unit exposure requirements. The site is within an RSD (Residential/Service) South of Market Mixed-Use District, and a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications and conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 13, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Steve Atkinson

        - The project is on a narrow and deep vacant lot.

        - He displayed an aerial photo from Shipley Street.

        - The project provides needed housing.

        - The project also provides retail space on the street level.

        - The setbacks should not be required because they confer little public benefit.

        - The suggestion of a setback is based on the setbacks on adjacent buildings.

        - If setbacks were designed, there would be a loss of units.

        - He requested that the project be approved.

        (-) Roger Hall

        - The egress from the parking garage is right across the street from Silvercrest Residence with studio units for seniors.

        - All of the traffic on Shipley is a considerable hazard for the seniors.

        - He would rather have the egress on Folsom Street instead of Shipley Street.

        (+) Jim Salinas - Carpenter's Local Union

        - He supports this project because it will provide much needed housing.

        - He is also excited about the jobs that will be created.

        - This developer has chosen to work with union workers.

        - If everyone works together, there will be a more positive future for young working people

        (+) Judith Gatewood - Carpenter's Local Union

        - This is attractive much needed housing for San Francisco.

        - This project will revitalize lower SOMA.

        - The project looks well with the adjacent buildings.

        - This project will also provide union jobs.

        (+) Victor Vittlin

        - He and his family own property that they will sell to the project sponsor.

        - He is in support of this project.

        - He does not understand the objection to this project.

        - This is an appropriate development that will provide much needed housing.

        (-) Ed Tansev - Yerba Buena Lofts

        - He submitted a copy of the lawsuit that has been filed.

        - He would like to keep his neighborhood the way it is.

        - If this project is approved there should be a revision to the number of units.

        - A code conforming project by doing the setbacks is important.

        (-) David Gadarian - Yerba Buena Lofts

        - He lives on Folsom Street.

        - He chose to live here because of the environment. He is not against development.

        - His conditions of approval would be: maximize the number of units, maintain and improve the pedestrian traffic, the project should not rise more than 40 feet, provide 20 percent lot depth [for open space], provide no less than 20 percent of the units as family units, the structures should comply with California Building Code by widening the gaps.

        (-) Beau Simon - Yerba Buena Lofts

        - He lives in the Yerba Buena lofts.

        - He loves the amount of light that comes into this unit.

        - His developer has designed an alternative project that should be considered and approved.

        - This is an incredibly narrow lot.

        (-) Gregg Lynn

        - He lives in the Yerba Buena Lofts.

        - He is concerned about this project.

        - Setbacks are what make Shipley a beautiful street.

        - He is distraught that there is a project on the drawing board that will destroy the beauty of his neighborhood.

        (-) Regina Flanagan - Yerba Buena Lofts

        - She is trained to evaluate situations such as this.

        - She implores the Commission to provide an alternative that is code compliant.

        - There are too many exceptions to the building code.

        - Removing the soils, which will interrupt the piles in the adjacent building, could be dangerous.

        - The Shipley side of the building is the most adversely affected.

        (-) Terry Goggin - Yerba Buena Lofts

        - He lives on Folsom Street and has a very small garden that is very close to the project.

        - This project will significantly change the nature of the experience of the residents of this street.

        - There is nothing that will be achieved by this other than to give more profit to the developer.

        - This project is not consistent with the neighborhood.

        (-) Robert Meyers - City Planning Consultant

        - He read a letter from John Elberling who is opposed to this project.

        - He also submitted a letter from Jim Meko and Mr. Garari who are also opposed to the project.

        (+) Tim Tosta - Steefel, Levitt and Weiss

        - He displayed a map of the lots of Shipley Street.

        - The block does not have just low-rise buildings.

        - He would be happy to discuss a solution to the issues when it is appropriate.

        ACTION: Motion of Intent to approve. Recommendations to staff and project sponsor:

            On Shipley side:

            1) Require a 5-foot setback to the top of the 6th floor,

            2) Setback 7th and 8th floors 15 feet,

            3) Setback 9th floor 10 feet,

            4) Setback of mechanical penthouse a minimum of 15 feet from face of building on the 9th floor,

            5) Provide parking exceeding the accessory amounts up to 62 spaces for residents,

            6) Allow the construction of a 9-story building with up to 69 dwelling units,

            7) Exceed the bulk limits under section 271 up to 60 feet in length and 54 feet diagonally

            Final Language/Action: July 1, 2004

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

        NAYES: S. Lee

      16b. 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 - Requests for Variances. The proposal is to construct a nine-story, mixed-use building with up to 69 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. A variance is sought from dwelling unit exposure requirements, as the horizontal dimensions of the inner court do not meet the requirements for an open area as defined under Section 140(a)(2) for dwelling unit exposure, and 27 of the 70 units have no exposure other than this inner court. The site is within an RSD (Residential/Service) Mixed-Use District, and a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 13, 2004)

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

        ACTION: Zoning Administrator has left the public hearing open and continued the item to July 1, 2004.

        17. 2004.0202DD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        880 PRESIDIO AVENUE - northeast corner at Post Street; Lot 011A in Assessor's Block 1073 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.23.5554, proposing to construct a new three-story, three-unit building on a vacant lot in an RM-1 (Mixed Residential, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Barry Brown - Discretionary Review Requestor

        - He displayed diagrams of the project showing the shadow impacts during the seasons of the year.

        - The property will cast long shadows onto the large bay windows on the west side of the building.

        - The bay window currently allows afternoon sunlight and radiant heat into his primary living area during five critical fall and winter months.

        - The proposed project to the west will take that away.

        (-) Patrice Motley

        - She lives in the other unit of the Discretionary Review requestor.

        - It saddens her that they have to be here today.

        - From the beginning, they went to the project sponsor to express their concerns.

        - There were meetings with the rest of the homeowners association.

        - They are trying to peacefully coexist.

        - They would like to have the part of the building that has not been built yet pushed back so they can receive some sunlight.

        (-) Cristina Wong

        - She lives on the opposite side of the building.

        - She is not opposed to the construction of the building; she is just concerned about the size of it.

        - The light studies that Barry Brown did show how detrimental the project will be.

        - She had hoped that everyone could work together.

        - A new building will improve the neighborhood.

        - She hopes that the architect will consider some of the proposals.

        - Her neighborhood association is in agreement with the project.

        (+) David Silverman - Representing Project Sponsor

        - The height limit in this area is 40 feet but the proposed construction is lower than that.

        - The Discretionary Review requestor is worried about direct sunlight.

        - The DR requestor's building is as tall or taller than the proposed project.

        - There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in this case.

        - This project will provide much needed housing, especially family housing.

        - It is designed to be consistent with the other buildings on the block.

        - There are about ten neighbors that are in support of the project.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project

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

        18a. 2004.0124DD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

        554 VALLEY STREET - north side between Castro and Diamond Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 6611, Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.06.06.6518, proposing to demolish the existing one-story single-family dwelling 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 demolition.

        SPEAKER(S):

        Supervisor Dufty

        - There have been a lot of issues on growth.

        - He is concerned about this project because of bulk.

        - He is looking for ways to not recreate the anger that has happened before.

        - The home is of high quality, but in this neighborhood there is a fear of demolitions and large buildings.

        - He is open to see how everyone can work together to have reasonable growth and respect the neighborhood character.

        (-) Larry Mivoy

        - He is mostly concerned about the demolition and thinks it should be denied.

        - Two houses will be built after the demolition. The average price of houses is now $779,000.

        - If the city is going to allow a demolition of affordable houses then the replacement houses should be as affordable.

        - The city cannot have all the houses be million dollar homes.

        - The Commission should deny the demolition.

        (-) Father Nazarin

        - He lives on Valley Street next to the proposed house.

        - If the purpose of the Commission is to preserve the character of the neighborhood, then they should preserve the house.

        - The character has a certain charm. Trying to build a house with the size that is being proposed would destroy the character.

        (-) Jackie Garry

        - She has lived next door to the proposed house since 1968.

        - Her house is very charming. This type of housing is being destroyed all over Noe Valley.

        - People like me could never afford the house that is being proposed.

        - There are about four houses that are being demolished in her neighborhood.

        (-) Allan Kessler

        - He lives across the street from the proposed project.

        - These projects are changing the quality of the neighborhood.

        - He is please to see that the Planning Commission requests setbacks, etc.

        - He urges the Commission to incorporate into the review process the Residential Design Guidelines.

        (+) Bruce Bauman - Representing the Project Sponsor

        - There are a number of speakers that are here in support of the project.

        - The project sponsor works with the neighbors to carefully sculpture a project that fits with the neighborhood and the Residential Design Guidelines.

        - The lot can be subdivided and two units created, thereby increasing housing in the city.

        - The house is vacant and it is in deplorable condition.

        - The lot is on a very steep street so the houses step up the hill.

        - The proposed houses will be on the top of the hill.

        (+) Steve Antenaros - Project Architect

        - He displayed a rendering of the proposed houses.

        - The upper floors are not visible.

        - The design guidelines encourage this type of house.

        - Houses can be larger.

        (+) Raimond Totah

        - He has lived near the proposed house since 1956.

        - He will be impacted the most.

        - The house is unstable. That is why the person that lived there moved out.

        - If the two poles that are in the garage were taken out, the house would collapse.

        - There are a lot of large houses in the neighborhood.

        (+) Brian McGee

        - He and his family own the property.

        - The have had a business in San Francisco for about 40 years.

        - Many people that work for him live in the area.

        - Their projects are designed to be compatible with the neighborhood and they do extensive outreach.

        - This project has overwhelming support from the immediate neighbors.

        - They always try to deal with issues that people might have.

        - They also try to minimize the impact of construction as much as possible.

        - There are many buildings that are not suitable for today's family needs.

        - He hopes that the Commission will support this project.

        (+) Tracey McGee

        - He and his family have been building homes for about 40 years.

        - They have built numerous homes in the City.

        - They have a reputation for building quality homes.

        - Before doing a project, they speak to the neighbors and do an analysis of the surrounding homes.

        (+) Janet McGee

        - There has been a large neighborhood outreach--going door-to-door and presenting the project.

        - They have spent about 80 hours presenting the project during nights and weekends.

        - She displayed a lot map showing the homes that have signed a petition and support of the project.

        - They have made every effort to address the issues and concerns of the neighbors.

        (+) Monica McGee

        - They have the support of the immediate neighbors.

        - The Discretionary Review requestor has tried to sell his house to them.

        - The Discretionary Review requestor has been very hostile.

        (+) Angus McCarthy - Residential Builders Association

        - If people were very passionate against this project they would be here tonight.

        - It is unfortunate that it's about 90 percent negotiating and 10 percent building.

        - This developer has done a good job designing a project following the Residential Design Guidelines, dealing with neighbor's issues, etc.

        (+) Charles Breidinger

        - The very top story will not be seen from the sidewalk.

        - The houses that are being proposed are truly family housing.

        - Parents are moving in with their children and children are moving in with their parents.

        - There is a demand for this type of house.

        - The children are working downtown and can afford to pay the mortgage.

        - Families are joining incomes to pay for mortgages.

        (+) Kieran Bukley

        - He is in support of the project.

        - When it comes to family housing, this would be considered the best example of family housing.

        - As far as the top floor, it will not be seen from the street.

        - The McGee's do top class work.

        (+) Grace Shanahan

        - There is high quality craftsmanship in all the projects that the McGee's build.

        - This project is no exception. It would be an ideal family home.

        (+) David O'Keeffe

        - He is a small builder in San Francisco.

        - They have not been able to solve the issues that the Discretionary Review requestor has.

        - If the average family has at least two children, houses need to be larger.

        - This project is being well executed.

        (+) Sean Keighran

        - Neighborhood character and good design comes in all shapes and sizes, especially sale prices.

        - The people that are opposed to this project are not interested in neighborhood character, but to stop this project instead.

        - It is time that communities [accept] the burden of their responsibility for the much-needed housing in San Francisco.

        (+) Jim Keith - Residential Builders Association

        - There is no place in the planning code that states a building cannot go higher than the neighbor.

        - There is nothing in the residential design guidelines that would require taking the top floor off.

        - The DR requestor is mistakenly stating that this project should not be demolished.

        - Everyone has testified that the McGee's build quality homes.

        - He urged the Commission to move this project as proposed.

        (+) Joe O'Donaghue

        - This is not a monster home. A four-bedroom home is not a monster home.

        - Bigger homes are needed for families.

        - There is another new set of values for home needs these days.

        - There is no way to see the top floor from the street level.

        (-) Tamara Galanter

        - She lives on 28th Street.

        - She appreciates the developers and has spoken to them about her issues.

        - This project is inconsistent with the Residential Design Guidelines which requires that the building be in scale with the adjacent buildings and that it respects the mid block open space.

        - She is willing to continue to work with the developers on the issues.

        - She requested that the Commission scale down the size of the building.

        (+) Mr. Santos - Project Engineer

        - The structures that the McGee's build go beyond the requirements of the code [for quality].

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Item Continued to June 24, 2004. Public Hearing remains open.

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

        18b. 2004.0125DD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

        556 VALLEY STREET (aka 554 VALLEY STREET) - north side between Castro and Diamond Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 6611, Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.06.6520, proposing to subdivide the lot into two lots and construct a three-story over garage single-family dwelling on the proposed east lot, in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) 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 18a.

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Item Continued to June 24, 2004. Public Hearing remains open.

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

        18c. 2004.0126DD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

        558 VALLEY STREET (aka 554 VALLEY STREET) - north side between Castro and Diamond Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 6611. Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.06.6522, proposing to subdivide the lot into two lots and construct a three-story over garage single-family dwelling on the proposed west lot, in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) 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 18a.

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Item Continued to June 24, 2004. Public Hearing remains open.

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

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))

SPEAKER(S):

Joe O'Donaghue

Re: Demolitions

      - Tomorrow a number of his members will be looking at a piece of property in Oakland.

      - Already he is thinking of moving out of this city.

      - A member of his organization moved to Burlingame because he was able to purchase a larger house down there.

      - The reality is in 1986 when demolition was active in the Richmond, there was no family housing being built.

      - The cost of doing "defacto" demolitions is more expensive than doing a complete demolition.

      - Demolitions are happening less and less.

      - It is important to revisit the demolition ordinance.

      Charles Bradiger

      Re: Requiring ground floor retail when there isn't' a market for it.

      - He has his office on Howard Street between 7th and 8th. Recently a building was constructed with ground retail that has been vacant for over a year.

      - Why is there a requirement for ground floor retail when there is no demand for it. Windows get broken and vandalism is done to these empty space.

      Angus McCarthy

      Re: A market for larger family houses

      - He has already outgrown his house because his family is getting bigger.

      - Many families cannot purchase bigger homes because there aren't many.

      - It is important to allow certain neighborhoods to allow larger homes.

      - If people want to purchase a million dollar home they should be allowed to do it.

      Shawn Kegran

      Re: Evaluation of having square footage

      - The square footage worries him. It does not affect his impact as a pedestrian on the street.

      - The commission should not pay too much attention to the square footage of a home if it follows the Residential Design Guidelines.

      - A candidate to purchase a home can purchase two houses and merge them or he/she can compete with other people who cannot afford a house and rent.

      - The housing market is recyclable.

      Jim Keith

      Re: Polity on the demolition of residential buildings

      - If there is a circumstance when a lot can become a multiple lot and this is not allowed, then this policy is not going to work.

      - What people will do is go through the remodeling route and make the houses larger.

      Adjournment: 9:30 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