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

July 22, 2004

July 22, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, July 22, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Sue Lee, William L. Lee, Christina Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Shelley Bradford Bell and Kevin Hughes

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:32 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director of Planning and Acting Zoning Administrator; Susan Cleveland-Knowles - Deputy City Attorney; Jim Miller; Rick Crawford; Elaine Tope, Sara Vellve, 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. 2004.0365DD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

      850 45TH AVENUE - east side between Cabrillo and Fulton Streets; Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 1687 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.22.2792 proposing to add a second dwelling unit, add two floors and a horizontal addition to the rear of the existing single-family residence resulting in a 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 approve with modifications.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 10, 2004)

      (Proposed for Continuance to August 5, 2004) September 2, 2004

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 2, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

      2a. 2001.0249CV (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

          605 KEARNY STREET - west side between Sacramento and Commercial Streets, Lot 7 in Assessor's Block 226 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization for a building exceeding 35 feet in height in the Chinatown Community Business (CCB) Zoning District and a 50-N Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to add one four-story dwelling unit to an existing one-story commercial building on a small, approximately 700 square foot, 29.5-foot deep lot. The commercial unit on the ground floor would remain. The building would be 50 feet in height with the proposed addition. The addition, like the existing commercial building, would cover the entire small site. No parking would be provided. Both a parking and a rear yard/site coverage variance would be required and will be considered by the Zoning Administrator at the same hearing as the Conditional Use authorization. Required open space would be provided on a rooftop terrace.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 17, 2004)

          (Proposed for Continuance to September 9, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 9, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

      2b. 2001.0249CV (K. AMDUR: 558-6351)

      605 KEARNY STREET - west side between Sacramento and Commercial Streets, Lot 7 in Assessor's Block 226 - Request for a Variance for rear yard/site coverage and parking for a building in the Chinatown Community Business (CCB) Zoning District and a 50-N Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to add one four-story dwelling unit to an existing one-story commercial building on a small, approximately 700 square foot, 29.5-foot deep lot. The commercial unit on the ground floor would remain. The building would be 50 feet in height with the proposed addition. The addition, like the existing commercial building, would cover the entire small site, and no parking would be provided. Required open space would be provided on a rooftop terrace. Conditional use authorization is also required for a building in the CCB to exceed 35 feet in height.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 17, 2004)

          Proposed for Continuance to September 9, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 9, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

      3. 2004.0338DDD (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

          755 22ND AVENUE - west side between Cabrillo and Fulton Streets: Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 1665 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.29.6087S, proposing to construct a two-story horizontal extension at the rear of the existing three-story single family dwelling unit. The rear addition would extend the full lot width and would increase the structure's depth by approximately 6 feet into the rear yard in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: pending

          (Proposed for Continuance to September 2, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 2, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

      4. 2004.0251C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

          2298 MARKET STREET - north side between Noe and Sanchez Streets, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 3560 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to the following sections of the Planning Code: 721.41 to establish a bar; 721.48 to provide other entertainment; 721.27 for extended hours within the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 1, 2004)

          (Proposed for Continuance to September 23, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 23, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

      5. 2003.1177C (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

          2301 FILLMORE STREET - northwest corner at Clay Street, Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 0611 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 718.48 and 790.38, to allow amplified music and to extend the hours during which entertainment is allowed in a nonconforming bar and full-service restaurant (occupied by Leticia's Restaurant) in the Upper Fillmore Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Planning Commission Motion No. 13781, adopted on November 17, 1994, limited entertainment at this location to non-amplified music and restricted the hours during which entertainment is allowed.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 10, 2004)

          PROJECT APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Project Application Withdrawn

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      6. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of June 24, 2004

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

      7. Commission Comments/Questions

      Commissioner S. Lee:

      Re: Position of Planning Director

      - She would like to have this item heard at a time specific on August 5, 2004.

      - She would also like to have this calendar mailed to the neighborhood list.

      - She requested the current job description of the current planning director position and job announcements when Director Green was hired.

      - She is under the understanding that the Mayor's Office issued a job announcement in a Planning publication. She would like a copy of this.

      Commissioner W. Lee:

      Re: Position of Planning Director

      - He feels that the qualifications for Director of Planning should be revised as well as look at the pay scale of that position.

      - It is also important to know what the position is responsible for and what it is not responsible for.

      - Would like to ask Mr. Kawasaki, the Acting Director of DHR, what the Commission can do and cannot do. Maybe he can attend the hearing.

      - Other issues to look at are: Should the City pay for expenses of candidates who come to an interview in the City? Should the City pay for moving costs of a candidate if chosen and he/she lives out of town?

      - What is required to put in writing?

      - There is no requirement for what the director is required to have under the Charter and the Administrative Code. It would be helpful if staff went over the Charter and Administrative Code regarding this.

      Re: 80 Natoma

      - There is a letter from Alice Barkley. Does the Commission have to respond?

        Director Green Responded:

        - He realizes that Ms. Barkley spoke to the Commission related to 80 Natoma.

        - There is a letter from the Building Department that came to the Acting Director.

        - He has replied to the letter and has done what is requested of them.

        - Apparently the issue is of compliance with a previous Commission's authorization. This responsibility rests on the Department and not on the Commission. If it were a Commission issue, the item would have to be placed on the calendar.

        City Attorney Cleveland-Knowles responded:

        - She has not seen the letter. She understands that Deputy City Attorney Boyajian is aware of this letter.

        Director Green Responded:

        - He has consulted with the City Attorney.

      Re: City Stat

      - It is important that the Commission receives this information.

        Director Green Responded

        - He will appear before City Stat tomorrow morning. They provided a chart of information that they requested. Staff has not received that chart back. There is no pre-presentation.

        - At the August hearing, staff will provide the Commission with the information that they will present to the committee.

      Commissioner Olague:

      Re: Public Comment

      - A few members of the public have requested that this item be moved towards the beginning of the calendar.

        Commission Secretary responded:

        - This is a highly contested item and it involves amending the Commission's official Rules and Regulations. It is up to the Commission [or the President] to instruct me to scheduled this for a future hearing.

      Commissioner Antonini:

      Re: Code of Order for Choosing a Planning Director

      - He would like to know what order this process should follow.

      - He would like to receive this information in writing.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      8. Director's Announcements

      Re Newspaper Article

      - There was an article in the newspaper stating that he had submitted his resignation. This information is not true.

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

      BOS:

      Re: Ordinance related to Amending the CM Zoning District

      - This legislation was amended and acted on at the Board by a vote of +7 -4.

      Re: 55 Ninth Street

      - This was approved at the Board.

      Re: Budget

      - The Board, on first read, did consider the City's Budget.

      - The second reading and final decision still needs to be acted upon.

      - The Department's approved budget for fiscal year 2003-2004 and the actuals at the end of the that year totaled $13.2 million. The proposed budget the Department brought before the Commission and then presented to the Mayor's office totaled $14.1 million. The Mayor presented the Department's budget to the BOS's budget committee for a total amount of $16 million. This looks like a substantial increase over the Department's proposed budget. However, there are some significant differences. In the Department's budget there was an amount of $3.8 million that we were hoping would come from the General Fund. The budget that was presented to the Board by the Mayor's office did not include an allocation from the General Fund. The budget did include a greater reliance on fees and an expectation of a fee increase. There has been a fee proposal that is being considered by the BOS. The budget also included a fund transfer from DBI. The budget that was adopted by the BOS called for funding for the Department at $16.5 million. This was different from the budget that was presented by the Mayor. The department received a small amount of General Fund support which totaled $447 thousand. This amount was to cover work responding to the Board's requests. There was also a restoration of the amount of funds that were devoted to interdepartmental recovery. There was also a slight difference in the amount of revenue that was to be generated from fees. It still relied on a fee increase proposal.

      - This budget is still going to have a final reading and it is still a bit confusing. [He will still have to come back to the Commission to try to explain a few things.]

      - In this budget the department lost 11 positions, three of which were vacant. Those positions were replaced with 12 positions. There is a net increase of 1 position. The vacancies have been lost. There is a greater reliance on front line staff. The primary changes have been in administration and upper management. He sees this as a challenge on how people will be managed.

      - This budget does allow the department to have work items that did not exist before. The new budget that the Mayor's office contributed to allows for funds which the department would have had to obtain from it's own budget. As an example, the City Attorney's office is an expense that all departments have to incur. The department has been provide with fund to take care of this expense. There are funds for consultants to be able to do environmental work, bring on urban design, and do transit work.

      - When there is a full Commission (all seven members), the issue of the budget should be on the calendar to talk about various details.

      Commissioner Lee:

      - She requested that a copy of the budget be given to the Commission in preparation of the briefing the Director will have when there is a full Commission.

      - This information should include what changes in the organizational structure the budget calls for.

        Director Green Responded:

        - The department has not received a copy of the budget but the Commission will receive it when we do. This item will be placed on the calendar.

      BOA -

      Re: New Commissioner

      - This was the first hearing of the new Commissioner Ronald Knox.

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

      10a. 2004.0130CV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

          1353 -1355 BUSH STREET - south side between Larkin and Polk Streets, with additional frontage on Fern Street, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 669, in an the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District ("NCD") and a 65-A Height and Bulk District - Request for Conditional Use authorization for use size in excess of 3,000 square feet for a music training facility ("Music City"), with a Full-Service Restaurant and Bar with live entertainment, open after hours (between 2:00 and 6:00 A.M.) also requiring a Variance for off-street parking and usable open space for an upper-floor group-housing use.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Rudy Columbini - Project Sponsor

      - He was raised in San Francisco.

      - He has been involved with real estate and music all of his life.

      - This would be a haven for aspiring musicians and recording artists.

      - This would be the first time a school, rehearsal facility, hotel, and a music venue have ever been looped together.

      - Musicians can come from all over the city, the country and the world and have a place where they can flourish and pollinate each other.

      (-) David Brown

      - He is opposed to this idea.

      - He has lived in the area for 30 years.

      - The area is also a residential district with a senior home nearby. This is going to lead to more problems because of the early morning hours of operation.

      - He does not want the Commission to pass this because of the violence and prostitution in the area.

      (-) Jack Rummel

      - There are a lot of problems with prostitution and drug dealing in the area.

      - His concern is related to the residential hotel aspect of the project.

      - He does not agree with the late night hours.

      (-) Doug Backsberg

      - He lives on Sutter Street.

      - He opposes allowing any conditional use.

      - He is appalled that he has to be here since the area is filled with bars, homeless shelters, needle exchange, etc.

      - Fern Alley is only one way, this would cause a problem with the bar since there would be a need for a two way street.

      (-) Robert Pangburn

      - He owns property in the neighborhood.

      - He has been working against the crime and prostitution in the area. A lot of groups have been formed in order to control these problems.

      - There are crime maps put out by the police that state what kind of crimes are conducted in San Francisco neighborhoods.

      - There are 237 prostitution incidences, 109 larceny and theft incidences, etc.

      (-) Gus Holinsgworth

      - He has lived on Sutter Street for about 20 years.

      - He is opposed to this business because of the stated crime problems.

      - Even though the resources are there to fight the crimes, adding businesses that will help increase the crime is bad for the neighborhood.

      (-) David Overdurf

      - He would like to have a continuance of this project because there should be more public outreach.

      - The project sponsor should have more time to meet with the neighbors.

      - The bottom line is "what is important to the community"

      - If the Commission approves the project, there will be a lot of unhappy people.

      - If the Commission does not approve this, it might not be fair to the project sponsor.

      (-) Suzie Shimizu

      - She is an administrator at Redding School. Every day the children see prostitution, drug addicts, etc.

      - There should be some type of program for children passed instead.

      (-) Robert Hutchinson

      - He has lived for 43 years on Sutter Street.

      - He would like to have this project denied because there are too many bars in the area.

      - This neighborhood has grammar schools and two old folks homes .

      - The area should be rezoned since the community does not want any more bars.

      (-) Jenny Hansen

      - She is the executive director of a senior center.

      - She is opposed to the project.

      - There are already a lot of crimes going on in the area.

      - Many of her staff have been mugged.

      - A minimum should be to just continue the project if not deny the project all together.

      (-) Karla Rossi - Sutter House Apartments

      - She is a property manager.

      - There is a music studio on Fern Alley and there are already negative impacts going on now.

      - She is opposed to live entertainment.

      - More information should be sent to the residents of the neighborhood.

      (-) Robert Garcia - Save Our Streets

      - This is a bad idea. He is not against the school/training facility.

      - The bar aspects of the project will cause more problems.

      - Parking in the area is scarce.

      - On the same block can be found a senior center, a school, etc. This should be cause for denying this type of use.

      (-/+) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

      - They support the parking variance. He is isolating his comments to the variance only.

      - The project is located in an area where there is excellent transportation.

      - He is sympathetic to the issues of noise, problems with neighbors, etc.

      - He recommends to have strict good neighbor gesture conditions applied to the project so that within a period of time there could be an evaluation of these conditions to make sure they are being followed.

      (+) Jim Riddick

      - He lives on Fern Alley.

      - He understands the people that have lived in the neighborhood for a long time and their concerns with crime.

      - The live music will be on the Bush Street side.

      - A continuance would be acceptable so that they can give more information to their neighbors.

      - It is not all about the bar, it is more about the community of musicians coming together.

      (-) Bob Frane

      - He is opposed to the proposal even though what the project sponsor is doing is something good.

      - Parking is very bad in the area. Late at night is even worse.

      - He has not heard anyone address the square footage usage of the building.

      - If this is allowed as it stands, later down the line, the conditions should be revisited again.

      - There is a lot of noise on Bush Street.

      - The neighbors are trying to make the area better. He would agree to a continuance so that everyone can get to know the project sponsor more.

      (-) Mr. Leonard - Noise Control

      - He has come up with a plan so that the project sponsor can have this project and have little impact on the neighbors.

      - He agrees that young musicians need a place to rehearse and that this place should be sound controlled so as not to disrupt neighbors.

      ACTION: Hearing held. Item continued to September 23, 2004 instructing the project sponsor to continue discussing issues with neighbors. Public comment remains open.

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

      10b. 2002.0130CV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

          1353 - 1355 BUSH STREET - south side between Larkin and Polk Streets, with additional frontage on Fern Street, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 669, in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District ("NCD") and a 65-A Height and Bulk District -- Off-Street Parking and Usable Open Space Variances sought in conjunction with the conversion of existing tourist hotel rooms to group housing (residential hotel rooms) and for a Full-service Restaurant and Bar and music training facility ("Music City") with no off-street parking and no outdoor open area.

      SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 10a.

      ACTION: Hearing held. The Acting Zoning Administrator continued this item to September 23, 2004. Public comment remains open.

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

      10c. 2002.0129C (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

          835 HYDE STREET - west side between Bush and Sutter Streets, Lot 3 in Assessor's Block 279, in an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District and a 130-E Height and Bulk District - Request for authorization of a Conditional Use for a Tourist Hotel (conversion of 31 "residential" hotel rooms, being consolidated at another location, to "tourist" rooms) with no off-street parking.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for 10a.

      ACTION: Hearing held. Item continued to September 23, 2004 instructing the project sponsor to continue discussing issues with neighbors. Public comment remains open.

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

      11. 2004.0421C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          4001 JUDAH STREET - at 45th Avenue, Assessor's Block 1808 Lot 001. Request for Conditional Use Authorization under, Planning Code Sections 710.44 for establishment of a Small Self Service Restaurant (Feel Real Vegan Café). The Project will occupy the existing 800 square foot building in an NC-1, Neighborhood Commercial Cluster District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Ahmad Larizadeh- Project Sponsor

      - The plan is to hire about 8 people for the restaurant.

      - The project will take about 7 to 8 months to complete.

      - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

      ACTION: Approved

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

      MOTION: 16840

      12. 2004.0506D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          464 30TH STREET - North side between Noe and Sanchez Streets. Assessor's Block 6639 Lot 020 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004 0310 8295, to construct horizontal and vertical additions to the existing one family dwelling including a full third story and a rear extension 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):

      Re: Continuance

      Christopher Moscone - Representing Project Sponsor

      - He requested a continuance because there are only four members of the Planning Commission.

      - If there were a continuance it would allow the [staff] recommendation and analysis to be looked at and corrected--there is a lot of information that is not correct.

      - A continuance would be in the best interest of both parties because it would allow them to meet and come to a decision.

      Joe O'Donaghue

      - He agrees to a continuance only if the project could be scheduled on August 5.

      - His clients had to come from Italy for this hearing.

      Name unclear

      - He agrees to a continuance.

      - He just recently hired an attorney. This would allow the attorney to familiarize himself with the case.

      Steven Johnston

      - He agrees with the continuance.

      - There were many meetings on this project in the past 2 ½ months.

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to August 12, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

      13. 2003.1254D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

          170 ST. GERMAIN AVENUE - north side at Glenbrook Avenue; Lot 009 in Block 2708 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.31.0905, proposing to construct a one story horizontal and a one story vertical addition to an existing two story over basement single family dwelling in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwelling) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take discretionary review and approve the permit with modifications.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 10, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S):

      (-) Walter Kaplan - Discretionary Review Requestor

      - The notice published for this project contains an incorrect statement of what the project proposes as well as the description of the project.

      - This is an awful project.

      - The issue here is not what could be built under the code but what should be built.

      - The project sponsor should be allowed to build but within the envelope of the structure.

      - There have not been any plans since May 21.

      - The neighbors would be happy with a house that is not larger than the neighbor's house.

      - He is willing to allow a house that is not unreasonable.

      (-) Doris Linnenbach

      - She has lived in the neighborhood for 25 years.

      - They are delighted to have the Popofs come to the neighborhood but are not in agreement with building a monster home.

      - All the neighbors work with each other.

      (-) Dr. Paul Negulescu

      - He lives across the street from the proposed project.

      - The latest revision shows a height that is still too large.

      (-) Christine Linnenbach

      - The project site has been deteriorating.

      - Their neighborhood has always stuck together.

      - The project keeps changing all the time.

      - Every person who has purchased a home in the neighborhood has made improvements.

      (-) David Snoek

      - He lives on St. Germain.

      - The project house has been gutted, papers placed on the window, etc.

      - Proposed project is too large.

      (-) Did not state name

      - He has two sets of buildings that are under construction across the street.

      - He is concerned with the project because it does not maintain the roofline.

      - He is not too concerned with the façade.

      - He made conditional changes to the plans of the houses he has under construction so never had to come before the Commission.

      (-) Chirs Deyo

      - He apologizes

      - He has been a resident since 1988.

      - He loves the neighborhood and would love to have a neighbor who keeps up with the property.

      - The project has been an extreme eyesore.

      - He wishes to rely on the wisdom of the Commission to decide on a solution best for the neighborhood.

      (+) Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor

      - He thanked staff for their hard work.

      - The original plan was of a more modern style.

      - The homes are of a very large nature.

      - He gave a PowerPoint presentation of the general aspects of the property and project location.

      (+) Mila

      - She is the homeowner.

      - She thanked staff for helping them revise their project.

      - Her life has been affected very much. She has a large family and would like for her entire family to live together.

      (+) John Ridenour

      - He is a friend of the Project Sponsor.

      - It seems that the neighbor next door does not want to deal with the issues of the project even though he is the Discretionary Review requestor.

      - The project sponsors have gone through a lot to revise the plans.

      - He is in support of the project.

      ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following modifications: require a maximum height of 23.6 inches for the new construction; file a notice of special restrictions to allow one dwelling unit so long as the property is zoned for single family housing; nothing in the future should extend beyond the approved height.

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

      14. 2004.0409D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

          2301 CHESTNUT STREET (AKA 3253 SCOTT STREET) - southwest corner of Chestnut and Scott Streets; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 0936 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.03.03.7615, proposing to convert retail storage space (associated with Lucky Brand) to a small self-service restaurant (Cold Stone Creamery Ice Cream Store, a formula retail use, as defined by Planning Code Section 703.3(b)) in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

      SPEAKER(S):

      (-) Linda Tsai - Discretionary Review Requestor

      - She is a merchant in the Marina District.

      - She is opposed to this project because the creamery will occupy storage space from Lucky Brand.

      - She is concerned with traffic problems.

      - Chestnut Street is not a major commercial street.

      - Many restaurants serve ice cream for desert.

      - She submitted signatures of residents who are opposed to the ice creamery.

      - She is concerned with the destruction of the family owned businesses on that street.

      (-) Grace Tscu - Santa Barbara Ice Creamery

      - Her and her family owns an ice creamery.

      - She realizes that Cold Stone Ice Creamery filed their application before the Formula Retail Legislation was passed.

      - Most all of the residents of the neighborhood are opposed to a chain store coming into the neighborhood.

      - Loss of family and small businesses would change the character of the neighborhood.

      (-) Charles Bain - Judy's Cafe

      - He owns a store on Chestnut Street.

      - Cold Stone wants to take a retail space and convert it into a business.

      - There are already too many ice cream stores on that street.

      - The street is unbalanced at this time in regards to businesses.

      - There is too much food on that street and not enough retail.

      (+) Jordan Sills - Project Applicant

      - He and his brother own property in the Marina District.

      - He and his brother decided to buy the Franchise rights of Cold Stone Ice Creamery.

      - His project complies with the codes. The project will enhance local employees including high school students.

      - Most people take the bus or walk to Chestnut so this will not impede the traffic situation.

      - The architectural façade will not be changed.

      - Cold Stone had nothing to do with deciding on the location of the project site. This decision is only his and his brothers.

      - The store is going to be independently owned and operated by residents of the Marina.

      (+) Ted Plant - Edward Plant Company

      - He has lived in the Marina for 21 years and is a real estate broker.

      - Zoning and planning laws allow the project.

      - This project should be approved.

      ACTION: Hearing Held. Item Continued to August 5, 2004 to allow the absent Commissioners to participate in the final decision. Public Hearing Closed.

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

      15. 2004.0299DDD (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

          2011 9TH AVENUE - west side between Pacheco Street and Mendosa Avenue, Lot 001P in Assessor's Block 2129 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2003.07.31.0919 to construct a one-story vertical addition to the existing single-family dwelling located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District, 40-X Height/Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 24, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S):

      (-) Bruce Bonacker - Representing the Discretionary Review requestor

      - The concerns that remain on this project are the scale, precedent, and presence of light and air.

      - The addition is more than 70 percent of the size of the house even though there has been reference to this being a modest addition.

      - He presented a few alternatives, which would be a one-bedroom addition.

      - The other alternative would change the size of the deck. This alternate responds to the needs of his clients.

      - These revisions were not acceptable to the project sponsor.

      - Everyone is concerned about the precedent this will have on the neighborhood.

      - He would be satisfied with either of the alternatives.

      (-) Kathy Kora

      - She is concerned with the lightwell, the noise, and the increased traffic.

      - The proposed project would darken her house. She was recently diagnosed with cancer.

      - She has tried to negotiate with the project sponsor with no compromise.

      - She is concerned with loosing her lightwell and therefore loosing light.

      (-) Ken Small

      - He is concerned with the character of the neighborhood.

      - With this project, the project sponsor will be getting a lot and the neighbors will be loosing a lot.

      - He is concerned with the privacy he will be loosing.

      - He will also be loosing morning light.

      - He is asking for an additional offset.

      - The rear deck should be eliminated because it will only encroach into his yard and his privacy.

      (-) Lisa Chin

      - Her house is on the south of the proposed project.

      - She is not here about views or property value. She is here about scale and neighborhood character.

      - She and her husband constructed an addition with the required permits.

      - All they are asking for is a skylight.

      - She hopes that the Commission will allow Discretionary Review.

      - The project sponsor promised a few things but then he retreated and mentioned that he over spoke.

      (-) Thomas Chan

      - They have been thrust into turmoil trying to reach a compromise.

      - The project will impact their privacy and they will lose a lot of light.

      - The rear of the proposed addition should be moved back and the rear deck removed.

      (-) Ivette Simpson

      - She is opposed to any exterior additions.

      - The quality of her life will be affected with this project.

      - Property owners need to seek adequate properties for their large families

      (-) Marsha Ruben

      - She lives on Pacheco Street.

      - She signed the petition against this project

      - She is concerned about the precedent being set.

      - She agrees that the project sponsor does need more space for his family.

      (-) Steve Reuben

      - This seems to be a balancing affect.

      - The footprint is in excess of what needs to be done.

      - Through a compromise solution adequate space will be allowed.

      (-) Lynn Synolski

      - After careful consideration of the plans, she decided to sign the petition for DR.

      - The homes on the street are a treasure of San Francisco.

      - She tried in good faith to not sign the petition but after seeing the plans she decided to sign it.

      (-) Janet Smaldone

      - They learned from the proposed construction early this year.

      - They have tried to reach a compromise and try to satisfy the needs of the neighbor.

      - Their children's well being is being compromised with this new construction.

      - An important factor when they purchased their home was light and that is going to be minimized with the construction.

      - She requested that the project sponsor set back the addition and remove the deck.

      (-) Buff Harding, Jr. - Golden Gate Heights Neighborhood Association

      - He has been in the neighborhood for 45 years.

      - He has watched the congestion grow over the years.

      - He would like to have some compromise where everyone is in agreement.

      (-) Sue Hestor

      - The Chan's will be looking at a wall if this project goes through.

      - All the DR requestors want is to have the emergency stairs not be enclosed.

      - Ms. Coto is a homebound person that wants light. This has nothing to do with views.

      - The neighbors have gone out of their way with the architect to find alternatives.

      (+) Arnie Lerner - Representing Project Sponsor

      - There are no special and extraordinary circumstances that warrant Discretionary Review.

      - The project should be constructed as proposed.

      - He displayed a diagram of the project explaining the relation of the light well to the property.

      - The petition that was passed around misleads people into thinking that the project sponsor was building a monster home.

      - The Urban Design Guidelines are being maintained.

      - There will not be shadows cast on the neighbor's homes.

      (+) Thomas Swingle

      - There is letter from the Board of Director of the Golden Gate Heights Home Owner's Association, which states that they support the project.

      - He has been living in the subject home for about 10 years with his children and his wife's mother. Now his children are pre-teens and should be allowed their separate rooms.

      - He requested that the Commission deny Discretionary Review.

      (+) Toyoko Swingle

      - They have tried to do their best to talk to their neighbors and reach a compromise.

      - The bedroom sizes are too small from the alternates that the DR requestor suggested.

      - She believes it is very critical for the Planning Commission to support growing families.

      - They have tried to do their best to be good neighbors.

      (+) Eiko Shintake

      - She is the mother of the project sponsor's wife.

      - She is 74 years old and shares the room with her grandchildren.

      - She would like her grandchildren to have their own bedroom and for it to be a normal size.

      - She requested that the Discretionary Review be denied.

      (+) Seiji Swingle

      - He would like to have his own room since he gets embarrassed when he tells his friends that he sleeps in the same room with his grandmother and his brother.

      (+) Masashi Swingle

      - He would also like to have his own room with his own desk. He now does his homework on the dining room table.

      (+) Loren Connor

      - She is in support of this project

      - She lives on the same block.

      - The project sponsors have involved her in the project and have addressed her issues.

      (+) Mimi Jones

      - She has seen the plans.

      - This project would not adversely change the character of the neighborhood.

      (+) Myriam Chan

      - She supports this project since the project sponsor's family is growing. It is time for the children to have their own space as well as their grandmother.

      - The addition would be invisible from a pedestrian point of view.

      - The Planning Commission should support growing families.

      (+) Vickie Fan

      - She lives down the street from the Swingles.

      - Expansion of existing space seems to be the only way for families to stay in San Francisco.

      - After the project sponsor expands, they will still not have a very large house.

      - It is important to find a way for families to stay together.

      (+) Darvin Huang

      - When he walks through the area, the houses look very nice.

      - He does not feel that the expansion will detract from the architecture of the existing homes.

      (+) Mark Stoklosa - Project Architect

      - He took into consideration the zoning, building and planning restrictions when designing this addition.

      - They have been working continuously with the Planning Department.

      - He met with the Golden Gate Heights Association and they gave their consent for the project.

      - He has maintained the setbacks.

      - He does not think that there is an issue with privacy and views.

      (+) Michael Gevertz

      - He is representing the Project Sponsors.

      - They have done more outreach to their neighbors.

      - They have done many revisions to the plans trying to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors.

      ACTION: Took Discretionary Review with the following modifications: 1) set the entire front wall of the proposed vertical addition back by 15' from the existing front structural/building wall that meets grade; 2) Match the length of the lightwell on the proposed addition, from front to rear, with the neighbor's lightwell at 2007 9th Avenue; 3) the plans should indicate a 1-hour fire-rated roof, and that the parapet be no higher than required under the Building Code for such a roof.

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

Item 16 was taken out of order and followed item 11:

      16. 2004.0127D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          2654-58 WEBSTER STREET - east side between Green and Vallejo Streets; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 0565 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's Policy on Dwelling Unit Mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.12.18.2640, proposing to convert a three-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The work will not result in any dimensional change to the exterior of the building.

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

      SPEAKER(S):

      (-) Brett Gladstone - Representing Project Sponsor

      - This project will not be detrimental to the supply of housing.

      - The downstairs unit is not rented out and it was vacated voluntarily.

      - The second main floor characteristics make it clear that it used to be used as a dining room.

      - The façade is in very poor condition. The Project Sponsor will get a construction loan to upgrade the interior and exterior.

      - The other units have two tiny kitchens.

      - The building started its life from two units and now it is three.

      ACTION: Approved

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

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

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))

    Tomas Swingle

    Re: Discretionary Review Process

    - He lives on 9th Avenue.

    - He would encourage the Commissioners to revise the DR process.

    - For $140 anyone can DR a project.

    - There are so many opinions because there is such a diversity of people in San Francisco.

    - There should be a more efficient DR process--perhaps put more of a financial burden on requestors.

Adjournment: 7:30 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2004.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

EXCUSED: Bradford Bell and Hughes

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