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

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

February 24, 2005

February 24, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, February 24, 2005

2:00 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dwight Alexander; Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell,
Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee; William L. Lee, Christina Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:42 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris - Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Art Aguilar; Joy Navarrete; Geoffrey Nelson; Craig Nikitas; Kelley Amdur; 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. 2004.0458E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

        566 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration - The proposed project would include demolition of an existing 4,344 gross-square-foot, one-story retail/commercial building and rear storage building and construction of a five-story, 50-foot-tall mixed-use building which would contain 32 residential units on the second through fifth floors and retail/commercial use on the ground floor. The residential use would be 27,491 gross square feet (gsf) in area, and the retail/commercial space would be 4,344 gsf in size. The ground floor and basement levels would include 32 parking spaces designated for the residential use with ingress and egress from South Van Ness Avenue. The ground floor would contain the commercial space and residential lobby. The 12,253-square-foot site is located within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) zoning district and within a 50-X height and bulk district. The proposed project requires a conditional use authorization for residential use in the C-M district.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration

              (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 17, 2005)

        (Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 3, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        2a. 2004.0458C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

              566 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - west side between 16th Street and 17th Street, Block 3570 in Assessor's Lot 005 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow 32 dwelling units in a C-M District, under Planning Code Sections 215. The subject property is within an C-M (Heavy Commercial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and a PDR/ Housing Overlay Zone as designated in the Eastern Neighborhoods Interim Policies (Planning Commission Resolution 16727).

              Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 17, 2005)

        (Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 3, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        2b. 2004.0458V (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

              566 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - west side between 16th Street and 17th Street, Block 3570 in Assessor's Lot 005 - Request for an Exposure Variance to allow eight of the proposed 32 dwelling units to face (or have exposure to) an open space that does not meet the specification requirements of Planning Code Section 140. The subject property is within an C-M (Heavy Commercial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and a PDR/ Housing Overlay Zone as designated in the Eastern Neighborhoods Interim Policies (Planning Commission Resolution 16727).

    (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 17, 2005)

        (Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 3, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

3a. 2003.0253D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        5126-5130 ANZA STREET - north side between 42nd and 43rd Avenues; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1502 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2001.03.07.3680 to demolish an existing two-story two-family dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of a new two-family dwelling) in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Pending.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 27, 2005)

        (Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005) March 17, 2005

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 17, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

    3b. 2004.0682D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        5126-5130 ANZA STREET - north side between 42nd and 43rd Avenues; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1502 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new construction to replace demolished housing, of Building Permit Application No. 2001.03.07.3684 for the new construction of a three-story, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed new building will contain two off-street parking spaces.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 27, 2005)

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005) March 17, 2005

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 17, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

4. 2004.1158D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

        877 CAROLINA STREET - east side between 20th and 22nd Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 4097 - Requested Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.16.9070 proposing to construct an one-story vertical addition to the existing one-story over garage single-family dwelling, within a RH-2 (Residential House, Two-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Proposed for Continuance to March 10, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 10, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

    5. Consideration of Adoption:

        · Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 14, 2004

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved

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

          EXCUSED: Alexander

        · Draft Minutes of Planning Director Subcommittee for October 14, 2004

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Sue Lee

        · Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 21, 2004

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

          EXCUSED: S. Lee

        · Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 28, 2004

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        · Draft Minutes of Planning Director Subcommittee for October 28, 2004

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee

      6. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commissioner Antonini:

        Re: Article in the Newspaper

        - The article raised a very interesting question about 88 Townsend.

        - How much of a building should be preserve and how should an adjacent property be treated?

        - This is a very good question.

        Commissioner W. Lee:

        Re: Fire Code

        - He asked what the status is of an ordinance regarding the fire code.

        - When does the ordinance go into effect because it will affect projects that the department is currently approving?

          Zoning Administrator responded:

          - He discussed this issue with the Building Department and was told that it is an adopted ordinance and it is being implemented right now.

          - The title of the ordinance states: Self-contained breathing replenishment systems on high rises where permits had been issued after March 30, 2004.

        Commissioner W. Lee:

        - During the permit process, when is one required to meet the fire code?

          Zoning Administrator responded:

          - The application should have been submitted after March 30, 2004.

          Interim Director Macris responded:

          - There will be a coordination meeting with DBI next Thursday so they will raise this question and report to the Commission afterward.

        Commissioner W. Lee:

        Re: Density Bonuses

        - If one builds for low income or very low income are there higher density bonuses?

        - He would like to receive information on this.

          Interim Director Macris responded:

          - He is inquiring with the City Attorney on the recently acquired state law.

        Commissioner Bradford Bell:

        Re: Eastern Neighborhoods

        - When this issue was before the Commission she had some concerns about PDR matters and she knows that these concerns are being address in a report being prepared.

        - She is concerned that projects are being delayed or that the viewpoint of Commissioners are not being considered.

        - The Commission gave comments and direction on what they wanted and what their concerns are. She feels that some of the concerns are not being addressed or the information is not getting a back to the Commission.

        - The Commission's opinions should be respected and both Commission and staff should work together.

          Interim Director Macris responded:

          - Staff is trying to respond to all the questions and concerns that the Commission has.

          - He welcomed Commissioner Bell to come to the department for a briefing on the status of projects.

          - It would be useful that on more than one occasion, any member of the Commission can speak with him a few minutes before the meeting starts to be briefed on any issue they would like to speak on.

        Commissioner Hughes:

        Re: Planning Director Search

        - He reminded staff to submit their questions regarding the hiring of the new director.

        Commissioner Olague:

        Re: Housing Element and Emporium/Capwell

        - She wants to know what the status of these issues are.

        Commissioner W. Lee:

        Re: Performance of the Commission

        - He requested that Interim Director Macris send to staff a questionnaire on how they feel the Commission has been working so far and any issue that might be of interest to them regarding the performance of the Commission.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        - He agrees with Commissioner W. Lee and encouraged staff to do that.

        Commissioner Bradford Bell:

        - She feels the same way as Commissioner W. Lee and Antonini.

        - It is important to work together and communicate.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

    7. Director's Announcements

        None

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

        BOS -

        - There was a categorical exemption on 847 Montgomery. Staff withdrew this and a new application will be applied for.

        BOA - None

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT - 15 MINUTES

    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. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

    John McMahan

    Re: Newspaper Article

    - He has lived in San Francisco for many years.

    - He read an article from John King of the San Francisco Chronicle called "Insulting Historic Preservation" related to a trend called "facadism" where, in the quest to hold on to the past, parts of the existing building is retained and a new contraction is done behind it.

    Jim Salinas

    Re: Affordable Housing

    - He is concerned about the current situation at the Commission.

    - He feels very strongly that the Commission has done positive things for San Francisco.

    - The greatest responsibility that the Commission has right now is to create housing.

    - All of the objectives and goals can be achieved.

    Azalia Merrill

    Re: Affordable Housing

    - She grows weary of San Franciscans being forced out of the City. There is no housing crisis. There is an affordable housing crisis.

    - There are truly remarkable buildings in San Francisco that could be preserved.

    - The Commission should look at buildings that could provide affordable housing.

    Marilyn Amini

    Re: Items on the Calendar

    - There are two items on the calendar that involve planning code amendments.

    - Both of these items should have an intent to initiate. The community needs to be advised and the public available to comment.

    - The current procedures in the administrative code have no provisions for general rule exclusion assignments.

E. 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.

    Re: 1517 Irving Street

    Jeremy Paul

    - He is looking forward to hearing the demolition policy.

    - He attempted to reach the neighbors involved in this case but was unsuccessful.

    - As much housing as possible on this site should be allowed.

    - He encourages the Commission to support a new building at this site.

    Pat Buscovich

    - Staff believes that mold should not be included in a demolition evaluation.

    - There was a fire in the building a few years ago.

    - Instead of taking out the walls, particleboards was glued to the walls. When these particleboards were removed, there were extreme levels of mold.

    - The mold at this house will affect the quality of living.

    Gabriel Ng - Project Architect

    - He presented a shadow study to the neighbors.

    - He displayed a sketch of the proposed new construction.

    - He has tried to keep everyone involved in this project happy.

    Re: 605 Kearny Street

    Erin Crucz - S. F. Architectural Heritage

    - She was concerned with the height, the setback, floor plates, etc.

    - They have meet with the project sponsor twice and were very pleased with the outcome of the meetings.

    - There has been a new proposal that should eliminate a setback.

    - She asked the Commission to approve the proposal that includes the setback and the masonry stucco materials.

    Re: 1234 Howard Street

    Cesar Moreno - San Francisco Housing Action Coalition

    - The Housing Coalition endorses this site because it will provide much needed housing.

    - The project also provides a very sensitive way to complement the surrounding neighborhood.

    - He submitted a letter of endorsement regarding the project.

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

    9a. 2004.0884D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        1517 IRVING STREET - south side between 16th and 17th Avenues; lot 047 in Assessor's Block 1771 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.04.13.1124, proposing to demolish a one-story (over uninhabitable ground floor), single-family dwelling in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The two-family dwelling is located at the front of the lot. There is a related proposal (2004.0855D) to construct a four-story, three-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces.

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

                  (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 3, 2005)

              NOTE: On February 3, 2005, following public testimony the Commission entertained a motion to disapprove by a vote +3 -2, the motion failed to carry. Commissioners Hughes and W. Lee were absent. The matter was continued to February 24, 2005, by a vote +5 -0, to allow absent commissioners the opportunity to participate in the final action.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition

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

        NAYES: Olague

        9b. 2004.0885D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

        1517 IRVING STREET - south side between 16th and 17th Avenues; lot 047 in Assessor's Block 1771 - 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. 2004.04.13.1125, proposing to construct a four-story, three-family residential structure with three off-street parking spaces in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There is a related proposal (2004.0884D) to demolish the single-family dwelling at the rear of the lot.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the new construction

                  (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 3, 2005)

              NOTE: On February 3, 2005, following public testimony the Commission entertained a motion to disapprove by a vote +3 -2, the motion failed to carry. Commissioners Hughes and W. Lee were absent. The matter was continued to February 24, 2005, by a vote +5 -0, to allow absent commissioners the opportunity to participate in the final action.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the new construction with the following modifications: The proposed stair penthouse shall be removed and replaced with an open stair requiring no more enclosure than a safety handrail at the roof level.

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

    10a. 2001.0249EKCV (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

              605 KEARNY STREET - west side between Sacramento and Commercial Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 0226 - Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Request for a Conditional Use authorization for a building exceeding 35 feet in height. 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 parking and a rear yard/site coverage variances would be required and will be considered concurrently by the Zoning Administrator. Required open space would be provided on a rooftop terrace. The site is in the Chinatown Community Business (CCB) Zoning District and a 50-N Height and Bulk District.

              Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval of Conditional Use authorization with Conditions

              (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 10, 2005)

        NOTE: On December 9, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to February 10, 2005 by a vote of +6 -0. Commissioner William Lee was absent.

        NOTE: On February 10, 2005, this item was continued to February 24, 2005.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved staff recommendation

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

        NAYES: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Olague

        MOTION: 16949

        10b. 2001.0249EKCV (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 Variances for rear yard/site coverage and parking for a building. 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 addition, like the existing commercial building, would entirely cover the small lot, where 75% maximum site coverage is permitted as of right. No parking is proposed, where one new space is required. The site is in the Chinatown Community Business (CCB) Zoning District and a 50-N Height and Bulk District.

              (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 10, 2005)

        NOTE: On December 9, 2004, following public testimony, the Zoning Administrator continued the matter to February 10, 2005.

        NOTE: On February 10, 2005, this item was continued to February 24, 2005.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variances.

        11. 2005.0128U (M. CORRETTE: (415) 558-6295)

        1886 MISSION STREET - west side between 14th and 15th Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 3547 - Appeal of Inner Mission North survey findings - Following the Landmarks Boards' Public Review Process for Cultural Resource Survey findings, the Planning Commission must review written objections to the Inner Mission North Cultural Resource Survey Phase II (California Department of Parks and Recreation Survey Forms - DPR 523A and 523B) survey findings as presented by property owner. The Commission is requested to evaluate the owner's objection to the proposed California Historic Resources Status Code (CHRSC) assigned to the property at 1886 Mission Street. It should consider and adopt a resolution to either: 1) endorse the evaluation and the CHRSC rating that found the property to be individually eligible for the California Register (3CS), or 2) determine, based on historical evidence and evaluation criteria, an alternate CHRSC status code.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a resolution upholding the evaluation and Status Code of 3CS as recommended by the Landmark's Board.

              NOTE: On February 17, 2005, following testimony, the Commission passed a motion of intent to not endorse the CHRSC rating of 3CS and determined an alternate rating of 6L by a vote +4-2. Commissioners Alexander and Sue Lee voted no. Commissioner Bradford-Bell was absent.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 3, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

G. REGULAR CALENDAR

    12. (D. MACRIS: (415 558-6411)

        PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR FY 2005-2006 - Consideration of approval of a draft resolution adopting the Planning Department's Proposed Work Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 2005-2006.

    (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 10, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 3, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

    13. 2005.0155U (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

        BRIEFING ON THE POLICY REQUIRING DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS - A presentation outlining the Planning Commission's current "Temporary Policy" for Mandatory Discretionary Review of Dwellings proposed for demolition, and the criteria it comprises, a discussion of the efficacy and effects of the policy, and preliminary recommendations for revised elements to be adopted in the future as a long term policy, following a two-month period of review and public comment.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Informational presentation - no action to be taken

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Pat Buscovich

        - He made some comments and submitted them to the Commission regarding this being a good idea to have Discretionary Reviews that involve demolitions and new constructions.

        - The different type of projects should be very distinct.

        - It is very important for the Commission to exercise their discretion on the quality of the house.

        - There are two different types of mold. Sometimes there is mold because of defective construction.

        - Retaining walls should be included since they are part of the building.

        - There should be a demolition impact fee because there are developers that are demolishing houses and replacing them with giant houses.

        - Staff should hire him as the consultant instead of individual project applicants.

        (+) Jeremy Paul

        - It is important for the Commission to study what this policy has done to the process.

        - He does not like it when clients come to him masquerading projects.

        - The impact on the housing stock is not a good one.

        - He congratulated staff on their work, but there are still some items that need to be analyzed.

        (+) Jim Salinas

        - He commended staff for this sound and solid report.

        - Many demolitions were approved previously.

        - He has seen soundness reports that are not very reliable.

        (+) Azalea Merrill

        - There should be safeguards that will state when or how a particular house should be demolished.

        - The Commission should keep hold of affordable housing.

        (+) Sue Hestor

        - She could tell from the demolition report if there will be a lot of problems

        - Eliminating the engineers/contractors that are being hired by developers is a good idea.

        - There are many projects that are overturned at the Board of Appeals.

        - The Board of Appeals should not undermine the policy.

        (+) Alice Barkley

        - The Board of Appeal has on staff two architects so the Board itself has its on expertise for evaluating buildings and reports related to demolition.

        - There are problems with the policy: it doesn't address facades. If the facade of a certain building is ugly and the project sponsor wants it replaced.

        - Older buildings should have the garage level raised.

        - There are various items that still need to be looked at related to defacto demolitions.

        - In the new policy there should be some leeway to look at these types of projects carefully.

        (+) Joe Butler

        - The City's smallest houses are the most vulnerable.

        - People with low or moderate incomes should be allowed to bid on small homes.

        - Promises are made to the Commission that are never set forward.

        ACTION: Informational only. No Action Required by the Commission

    14. 2004.0601C (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

        299 DOLORES STREET - northeast corner of Dolores and 16th Streets, Lot 25 in Assessor's Block 3556 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization by Holy Family Day Home pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.3 and 303 to amend a previously approved Conditional Use authorization. The previously approved Conditional Use authorization (Case No. 1997.823CE) was for the construction of a two-story childcare facility serving approximately 150 children. The new proposal is for the construction of a three-story childcare facility with the same number of children. The property is in the RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Donna Cahill

        - She is honored to work for an organization that provides early education.

        - They provide an array of services to the community.

        - The new building is important for the long-term success of their programs.

        - Early education requires enhancement of the environment. Having a new facility would contribute to this.

        (+) Kass Smith - Project Architect

        - He gave an architectural review of the site.

        (+/-) David Scott - Dolores Plaza Homeowners Association

        - They are adjacent to the proposed site.

        - They are pleased to be part of the neighborhood.

        - They are concerned that with an increased number of children, the playground area would be noisier. They would appreciate it if the project sponsor would find a way to reduce the noise.

        - There is a parking issue in the area already. The planning for this facility should take into account a system for dropping off children and picking them up.

        (+) Sister Gladys Guenther

        - They support the proposed project.

        - Allowing this permit would ensure a childcare heritage that has been at the site for over 90 years.

        (+) Sister Marianne Smith

        - She began working for the center in the 40s.

        - She hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

        (+) Pat Buscovich

        - He is a member of the Board of Directors.

        - This is the best quality childcare in the City.

        - Their early education is essential.

        - He is willing to get a white zone so that there is a flow of traffic and not traffic problems.

        (+) Les Wisebock - Architect

        - When the parking is moved around the corner, this will alleviate the traffic problems.

        ACTION: Approved the project with the following condition: Project Sponsor shall make best efforts to apply to the Department of Parking and Traffic to obtain a white zone for pick up and drop off periods with regular parking to be allowed for the remainder of the day.

        AYES: Antonini, Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        MOTION: 16950

    15. 2004.1268C (S.YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

        2118 118 UNION STREET - north side between Fillmore and Webster Streets; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 0533 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 745.45 and 303 of the Planning Code to convert approximately 1,800 square feet of vacant commercial retail space located at the basement level of an existing two-story over basement commercial building, to a retail wine and gift store ("Wine Styles") in the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. No exterior modifications will be made to the existing building envelope.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 10, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

                    16. 2004.0396E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

        30 DORE STREET - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration - The proposed project is the demolition of an existing one-story, approximately 8,000-gross-square-foot (gsf) industrial building, and the construction of a 50-foot-tall five-story building that would contain 42 residential units and a one-level basement garage with 42 parking spaces. Parking and pedestrian access would be from Dore Street. The approximately 36,400gsf building would cover about three-quarters of the 8,500 square-foot site with approximately 2,100 square feet of rear yard. The project site in on Lot 24A in Assessor's Block 3518, on the west side of Dore Street, which is a street that bisects north-south the block bounded by Howard, 9th, Folsom and 10th Streets. The proposed project site is zoned SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential Mixed Use) in the South of Market neighborhood and is in the 50-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Preliminary Negative Declaration upheld.

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        MOTION: 16951

    17. 2002.0954E (A. AGUILAR: (415) 558-5973)

        1234 HOWARD STREET - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report: The proposed project would involve the demolition of a vacant, light-industrial building totaling 8,250 gross square feet (gsf) and construction of a five-story residential building. The existing building proposed to be demolished is an historical resource for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is rated as a Category III (Contributory) building under Article 11 of the San Francisco Planning Code, an adopted local register. The proposed building would be 33,340 gsf in building floor area and would have 18 dwelling units. The proposed project would provide 18 off-street parking spaces for the residential units. The project site at 1234 Howard Street (Assessor's Block 3728, Lot 014) is approximately 8,250 square feet in size and located about mid-block on the northern side of Howard Street in the South of Market neighborhood in the block bounded by Howard, Eighth, Natoma, and Ninth Streets. The project site is zoned SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) and within a 50-X height/bulk district

        Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. Please note that the public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended at 5:00 pm, October 19, 2004.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Final Impact Report Certified

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

        ABSENT: Antonini

        MOTION: 16952

18. 2005.0076T (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SRO UNITS - Consideration of an Ordinance amending Planning Code Section 890.88 to define a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) unit as a unit that is affordable to very low income or extremely low income households and making findings of consistency with Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Bruce Allison

        - He lives in an SRO and was lucky to get a subsidized one.

        - He supports this legislation.

        (+) Steven Chester

        - He supports this legislation because it is very important.

        - This legislation would allow units for people who really need them.

        - Until a private-public partnership is developed, people should be allowed to live in SRO housing.

        (+) Juan Blanco Prado

        - He supports this legislation.

        - Affordability requirements should be established.

        - Housing is definitely needed and this is a very important plan for the City to end homelessness.

        (+/-) Anthony Faber

        - He has been looking at this for a long time.

        - He believes that there should be more of a mix of income levels.

        - He is not in favor of limiting SRO income units to low and very low income.

        - SOMA should not be restricted to affordable housing.

        (-) Charles Breniger

        - He is opposed to the legislation.

        - There is no housing being created for people of medium income.

        - He has some units that have rent restriction.

        - It is important to have a stepping-stone.

        (-) Alice Barkley

        - The question that should be asked by the Commission to the Supervisors is why haven't more SROs been built?

        - A range should be made to include affordable as well as middle income.

        - There are people that keep being ignored when conversations go on about affordable housing.

        - She urged the Commission to reject the legislation in order to refine it and add a range.

        (+/-) Jim Meko

        - There is a profound distrust with anything associated with the RBA.

        - The very existence of this Commission is signs that things have changed.

        - There should be refinements done to this. Otherwise, SOMA will be the looser.

        ACTION: Hearing held, Item continued to March 24, 2005. Public Hearing shall remain open.

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

        ABSENT: Alexander

    19. 2005.0058T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

              PROHIBITING DOWNTOWN PARK FUND MONIES FOR PARKING GARAGES - Consideration of an Ordinance amending Planning Code Section 139 to prohibit the use of Downtown Park Fund monies for construction or financing of parking garages; making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

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

        NAYES: Hughes

        ABSENT: Alexander

        RESOLUTION: 16953

    20. 2004.1145C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

        2609 JUDAH STREET - south side between 31st and 32nd Avenues Assessor's Block 1822 Lot 034 - Request Conditional Use Approval under Planning Code Section 161.(j) for a reduction of 6 off street parking spaces required for dwellings for a Project that will replace 6 of 10 existing off street parking spaces in a building containing 10 dwelling units, with ground floor commercial space. This project lies within an NC-2 Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

              Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

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

        NAYES: Hughes

        MOTION: 16954

        21. 2004.0904D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

        364 WINDING WAY - north side between Drake and Prague Streets, Assessor's Block 6479 Lot 012. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.0308.8029, to construct a three story addition to the rear of the existing two to three story dwelling, in an RH-1 (D) (Residential House, One Family, Detached) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

              Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Modify the Project.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 20, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Steve Currier - Outer Mission Residents Association - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

        - The project will block a window of an adjacent neighbor.

        - This would greatly compromise the light and air to that neighbor.

        - They met with the owner to try to come to a compromise but there was no agreement.

        - They are willing and able to try to modify the project by eliminating the third floor.

        (-) Gwendolyn Giblin

        - Her house will be affected by the construction.

        - Staff has come to a reasonable recommendation. The only issue here is the third floor.

        (-) Mary Tam

        - She is concerned with the impact the project will have on her light and air.

        - Her mother does her early morning prayers in an area that is very sunny and this would impact her.

        - She does not oppose the construction, just the third level.

        (+) Peter Pham - Representing Project Sponsor

        - It is crucial for the project sponsor to add a bathroom as it has been designed.

        - Any modification would affect the neighbors yet the neighbors concerns do not rise to any extraordinary impacts.

        - The neighbor's house is blocked by existing trees, which block the views and the light.

        (+) Teresita de la Cruz

        - She and her husband have spent most of their lives working and living in San Francisco.

        - Her house needs upgrades and modifications.

        - As she and her husband get older, it would be difficult for them to climb up the stairs that is why they need to install a bathroom near their bedroom.

        (+) Eleanor de la Cruz

        - Her father is planning to retire.

        - Having a bathroom in her parent's bedroom would be a convenience to her elderly parents.

        - They have made various attempts to compromise with the neighbors.

        (+) Mariann Sullivan

        - She does not understand why there is a view concern since there are many tall trees that block the view anyway.

        - The building that is proposed is only 8 feet so there is enough space between the houses.

        - There have been concerns about the open space but there have been neighbors that have constructed additions. She does not believe that this is a valid argument.

        - Many other neighbors are not opposed to the project.

        (+) Barbara Driver

        - She has lived on Winding Way since 1983.

        - She is a member of the Association.

        - She does not believe that the Association conducted any voting on this project.

        - Many of the neighbors are not opposed to the project.

        - There are streets above her that can look down on us and we can look down on other houses.

        - Some of the homes in the neighborhood have telescopes.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following modifications: 1) remove top floor addition; 2) remove proposed bar sink on the second floor; 3) require the recordation of a Notice of Special Restriction limiting the use of the property to a single family home.

        AYES: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

        NAYES: Antonini and S. Lee

        MOTION TO RESCIND: Commissioner Bradford Bell requested to rescind the vote.

        AYES: Antonini, Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        MOTION: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the project with the following condition: 1) do not approve addition to the top floor; 2) remove proposed bar sink on the second floor; 3) the recordation of a Notice of Special Restriction limiting the use of the property to a single family home.

        AYES: Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

        NAYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee

        RESULT: Motion Failed

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following modifications: 1) remove proposed bar sink on the second floor; 2) require the recordation of a Notice of Special Restriction limiting the use of the property to a single family home.

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

        NAYES: Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

    22a. 2004.1115D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        1598 SHRADER STREET - east side between Carmel Street and Belgrave Avenue; lot 021 in Assessor's Block 1294 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.07.06.8059, proposing to demolish a two-story single-family dwelling in the RH-2 (Residential, Two-Familyl District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The dwelling is located at the rear of the lot. There is a related proposal (2004.1120D) to construct a three-story, single-family dwelling with two off-street parking spaces.

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

        SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

        ABSENT: Antonini

        22b. 2004.1120D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

        1598 SHRADER STREET - east side between Carmel Street and Belgrave Avenue; lot 021 in Assessor's Block 1294 - 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. 2004.07.06.8065, proposing to construct a three-story, single-family dwelling with two off-street parking spaces in the RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There is a related proposal (2004.1115D) to demolish the single-family dwelling at the rear of the lot.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the new construction

        SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

        ABSENT: Antonini

        23. 2004.1194 (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

              1056 - 1062 GREENWICH STREET - north side between Leavenworth and Jones Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 0072 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.09.20.4619, proposing to convert the number of residential units in the structure from five to four units by removing one dwelling at the basement level of the three-story over basement structure, within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review And Disapprove The Project.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor

        - The owner has been at the property for more than ten years.

        - One has to bend down to use the bathroom and or use the kitchen.

        - The home is listed as a five family dwelling.

        - The unit was legalized without the permits being approved.

        - In various city records there is proof that the unit was not properly presented.

        - There is a report of deficiency at the Building Department.

        - This is quite an uninhabitable unit and should never have been legalized.

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

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

    24. 2005.0046D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        1935 PACIFIC AVENUE - south side between Gough and Octavia Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0592 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.28.9982 proposing a rear horizontal addition at the level of the existing partial third floor and within the footprint of the existing single-family residence 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.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Kurt Kunzel

        - He displayed a floor map showing how he will be impacted with the new construction.

        - All of the bedroom windows are two feet from the property line.

        - They have attempted to talk to the architect but there was no consideration for a setback.

        - They would just like to get a compromise so that the loss of light and air to his condominium would be minimal.

        (-) Jill Manten

        - She lives on Pacific Avenue with her husband and children.

        - She is here to voice her concern about the quality of light and air that will be affected with the new construction.

        - She tried to discuss her issues with the project sponsor but there was no agreement.

        (-) Elise Rattle

        - She displayed photographs of the bedroom windows that will be impacted by the new construction.

        - Already with the first floor construction there is already an impact.

        (+) Lauren Repeta - Project Architect

        - She did talk to several of the neighbors.

        - The project sponsor has been very ill so that is why she has not been at her home.

        - The first story had already been approved, but they reduced the dimension of it because they planed to do another addition.

        (+) Rob Liss - General Contractor

        - They have been working on the city confines of the codes.

        - They would like to get the project moving.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following modification: a 5-foot side setback from the eastern side property line for a depth of 6 feet from the rear wall (at the upper level of the southeast corner of the subject building).

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

        NAYES: Alexander and Hughes

        ABSENT: W. Lee

    25. 2004.1192DDDD (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

        455 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE - east side between 19th and 20th Streets; Lot 003B in Assessor's Block 4063 - Staff-Initiated Discretionary Review and three public requested Discretionary Reviews of Building Permit Application No. 2004.05.12.3718 proposing to construct a two-story vertical addition to the existing one-story over garage single-family dwelling, within a RH-2 (Residential House, Two-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project with Modifications

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Steven Helium - First Discretionary Review Requestor

        - Through conversation with the owner and the architect an adjusted proposal was presented to remove the top level with no setback.

        - Without the top level, it is still a massive structure.

        - There are taller buildings at the end of the block but are quite a distance away from the proposed project.

        - The project will interfere with privacy, block sunlight, etc from the adjacent neighbors.

        (-) Scott Durcanin - Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association

        - They are concerned about this project.

        - They oppose the addition of two floors. Any alteration plan should be noticed to the community.

        (-) Paul Clayman

        - He has lived next door to the proposed project for 25 years.

        - He read a letter from other adjacent neighbors who oppose the project but could not come to the hearing.

        (-) Matt Channey

        - He has lived across the street from the proposed project for 21 years.

        - He has renovated his house twice.

        - He has conducted a light study that doesn't discuss a 4th story addition but does discuss a 3rd story addition as well as a setback off the street.

        - There is an impact to the homes across the street as well, not just the adjacent homes.

        (-) Laura Spiegleman

        - She is the newest member of the neighborhood.

        - She shares the concerns of her neighbors about not being in support of the proposed project.

        (+) Vinney Steinberg - Project Sponsor

        - He is aware of the neighbor's concerns.

        - He does not believe that the project will impact his neighbors.

        - He had various conversations with the neighbors and the Discretionary Review requestors.

        - He has made many revisions to his design but there are a lot of differences between the homes.

        (+) Vera Kunda

        - The addition will allow her family to live together.

        - She does not know why her family is being put in a special situation since many neighbors have constructed additions to their properties.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with the following modifications: 1) add a 1 hour roof; 2) recess garage door; 3) eliminate parapet; 4) remove top floor; 5) 15 foot setback on 3rd floor.

        AYES: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

        NAYES: Antonini

        ABSENT: W. Lee

H. 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))

    Patrick (did not state last name)

    Re: Item 20 - 2609 Judah Street

    - He just walked out for a few minutes and his case had passed.

    - This area of the neighborhood is having parking problems already.

    - If more commercial space is added, there will be less parking.

Adjournment: 9:17 p.m.

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:15 PM