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

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

January 13, 2005

January 13, 2005

 

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, January 13, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:      Dwight Alexander

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:40 p.m.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:   Dean Macris – Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Adam Varat; Joshua Switzky; Dominic Argumedo; Carol Roos; Matt Snyder; Michael Li; Kelley Amdur; Nora Priego – Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery – Commission Secretary

 

  • CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date.  The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

 

1a.         2003.0253D                                                                          (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 October 7, 2004)

                        (Proposed for Continuance to January 27, 2005)

 

SPEAKER(S):    None

ACTION:            Without hearing, item continued to January 27, 2005

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

ABSENT:           Alexander

 

 

 

1b.         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 October 7, 2004)

                        (Proposed for Continuance to January 27, 2005)

 

SPEAKER(S):    None

ACTION:            Without hearing, item continued to January 27, 2005

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

ABSENT:           Alexander

 

2.          2004.1145C                                                                      (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

2609 Judah Street - (between 31st and 32nd Avenues Assessor's Block 1822 Lot 034) - Request under Planning Code Section 161.(j) for   Conditional Use Approval 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 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: Pending

(proposed for Continuance to February 24, 2005)

 

SPEAKER(S):    None

ACTION:            Without hearing, item continued to February 24, 2005

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

ABSENT:           Alexander

 

3.          1999.0414E                                                                             (C. ROOS: (415) 558-5981)

325 FREMONT STREET - Residential development with parking - Assessor’s Block       3747, Lots 012, 013, and 014 - Substitution of Mitigation Measure and Addendum to a Final Negative Declaration.  Re-evaluation of the revised project which is detailed in the following agenda items for the project (Case Nos. 2004.0636C and 2004.0636V), has led to an Addendum (December 20, 2004) to the prior Negative Declaration (CaseNo.1999.0414E, Final Negative Declaration, February 29, 2000). The revisions to the project would increase the number of units from 59 to 70, an increase of 11 units; increase the number of parking spaces from 57 to 70, with use of mechanical lifts; eliminate a proposed roof deck and solarium and reduce the floors of the building by one (from 22 stories to 21 stories); and widen and landscape a portion of the Fremont Street sidewalk as provision of open space.  The revised project would maintain the same height and mass of the building analyzed in the final Negative Declaration. The Addendum found that the conclusions of the prior Negative Declaration, with an updated mitigation measure, remain current and valid.  In the resource area of archaeology, a modified, more intensive archeological resources mitigation measure, based on more recent information regarding potential archeological resources in the project vicinity is being required.  The other mitigation measures remain unchanged and a revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, including the new mitigation measure, has been prepared for project adoption. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15074.1, states that a public hearing be held and findings made when one mitigation measure is deleted from a Negative Declaration for a project and another is substituted and a determination be made that the new mitigation measure is, “[Equivalent or more effective” in avoiding or reducing the potential adverse effect of the project.  This finding will be made during Commission consideration of the project for approval.

                         Preliminary Recommendation: Hold public hearing on substitution of mitigation measure. 

(Proposed for Continuance to January 27, 2005)

 

SPEAKER(S):    None

ACTION:            Without hearing, item continued to January 27, 2005

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

ABSENT:           Alexander

 

4a.         2004.0636CV                                                                                (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

325 Fremont Street -  northeast side of Fremont Street, Lots 012, 013, and 014 in Assessor's Block 3747 - Request for Conditional Use authorization for: (1) the amendment of previous approval of a residential use exceeding 40 feet in height pursuant to Planning Code Section 253(a); and (2) the amendment of previous approval of a building exceeding 80 percent of site coverage pursuant to Planning Code Section 249.1(b)(1)(B) within the Rincon Hill Special Use District in a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined High Density) District with a 200-R Height and Bulk designation.  The amendment would increase the number of units from the previously approved 51 to 70, an increase of 19 units; retain the number of previously provided parking spaces of 51, with additional parking spaces of up to 70 that may be incorporated with mechanical lifts; eliminate a proposed roof deck and solarium; reduce the floors of the building by one; and widen and landscape a portion of the Fremont Street sidewalk as provision of open space.  The revised project would maintain the same height and mass of the building analyzed in the previous approval. 

                         Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

                         (Proposed for Continuance to January 27, 2005)

 

SPEAKER(S):    None

ACTION:            Without hearing, item continued to January 27, 2005

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

ABSENT:           Alexander

 

4b.         2004.0636CV                                                                                (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

325 Fremont Street - northeast side of Fremont Street, Lots 012, 013, and 014 in Assessor's Block 3747 - Request for a Variance to: (1) allow the reduction of the required amount of off-street parking spaces pursuant to Planning Code Section 151; and (2) exceed the percentage permitted for private open space per Planning Code Section 249.1 within the Rincon Hill Special Use District in a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined High Density) District with a 200-R Height and Bulk designation.  The amendment would increase the number of units from the previously approved 51 to 70, an increase of 19 units; retain the number of previously provided parking spaces of 51, with additional parking spaces of up to 70 that may be incorporated with mechanical lifts; eliminate a proposed roof deck and solarium; reduce the floors of the building by one; and widen and landscape a portion of the Fremont Street sidewalk as provision of open space.  The revised project would maintain the same height and mass of the building analyzed in the previous approval.

(Proposed for Continuance to January 27, 2005)

 

SPEAKER(S):    None

ACTION:            Without hearing, item continued to January 27, 2005

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

ABSENT:           Alexander

 

 

B.             COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

             5.         Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Antonini:

Re:   690 Market Street

- He is disappointed to hear that this project did not get the Mills exemption.

- He is hopeful that this project will go forward anyway.

 

Commissioner W. Lee:

Re: Planner II and V

- He is aware that these planner lists are certified.

- Can the Interim Director report on the number of vacancies and when these vacancies will be filled?

 

Interim Director Macris responded:

- There are about 20 vacancies.

- On January 27, there will be a work program workshop to talk about priories within the work program before presenting the formal budget.   Staffing situation will be discussed at that time as well.

 

Commissioner W. Lee:

Re:   Vacancies

- Since Jean Paul Samaha is gone, this is a key position between the Board of Supervisors and Planning.

- Has the department thought about filling this position?

 

Interim Director Macris responded:

- A formal recruiting has not been done.

- There has been interest within staff for this position.

- He understands the vital nature of this position.

 

Commissioner Bradford Bell:

Re:   690 Market Street

- She is also disappointed that this project did not get the Mills Act.

- She is curious to know about the question that Supervisor Amiano asked:   If the tax is not going to be given then what will be given for the project?  A vital question did not get answered.  She hopes that when it comes back, questions can be answered.

 

6.          Proposed adoption of Planning Commission hearing schedule for 2005.

 

SPEAKER(S):    None

ACTION:            Approved as Amended:  Add October 13, 2005 as a non-meeting date in observance of Yom Kippur and September 8, 2005 shall be a regular meeting date.

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

ABSENT:           Alexander

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

7.          Director’s Announcements

Interim Director Macris Reported:

Re:  Mid-Market Project Area Committee

- The committee met yesterday.   Planning staff made some suggestions regarding the Special Use District. 

- The decision made yesterday was to set some meetings in order to make a decision to vote on the Special Use District area.   The next meeting will be in February 2005.  The plan is to have the new rules set up in June 2005.

 

- He feels very good about the meeting last night and has all the optimism that the committee will vote in February.

- On January 20, there will be an informational item on this so that when it comes to the Commission in March, there will be better understanding.

 

Zoning Administrator Badiner Reported:

Re:   724-730 Van Ness Avenue

- This case was before the Commission in either 2000 or 2001.

- It was proposed as 141 residential units.

- He received a few letters on request for determination.

- He issued a letter of determination.

- The most important question here is whether this project is a for sale project or a rental project?

- The Conditions of Approval stated that the units shall be rented.

- The affordable units must be rented.   They could be sold to an individual but they must be rented.

 

Commissioner W. Lee:

- He had previously asked the Zoning Administrator to speak to the City Attorney to find out if the City is being misguided.

 

Zoning Administrator responded:

- If he consults with the City Attorney, and the Board of Appeals disagrees, the City Attorney needs to be able to defend the Board of Appeals final determination.

- He did consult with the City Attorney but he is not going to state whether he agrees or disagrees with the comments.

 

Commissioner W. Lee:

- He is just concerned about transparency with the City.

- He does not understand why the Zoning Administrator cannot just say that he has received consultation from the City Attorney and to state where they stand.

 

City Attorney Boyajian responded:

- It is true that different parts of the City have their own City Attorney but most generally, the attorneys all speak with one voice.

- They don’t want to be in a position where they are conflicting with each other.

 

Zoning Administrator responded:

- He is ready to say right now that he has spoken with the City Attorney and this is their position.

 

Commissioner Antonini:

- It is his understanding that with the projects the Commission approves; the project sponsor has the flexibility to go whichever way they want.

 

Commissioner Hughes:

- The unusual thing about this project is the hope that the Commission will not rehear it.

 

Zoning Administrator:

- He agreed with he project sponsor that reducing the number of units was not in general conformity.

- The project was then re-modified and designed closer to the original.

 

Commissioner Hughes:

- At some point there was a request to rehear this project.

 

Zoning Administrator:

- The Board of Appeals may decide that it is not within the bounds of the original approval and request that another Conditional Use is applied for.

 

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

BOS -

Re:   690 Market Street

- The Board voted +9-2 not to grant the Mills Act.

 

BOA – None

 

9.          2000.1090C                                                                   (M. Snyder: (415)  575-6891)

300 SPEAR STREET - the northern half of the block bounded by Folsom Street to the north, Spear Street to the east, Harrison Street to the south, and Main Street to the west, Lot 1 in Assessor’s Block 3745 - Report on refinements to the project design for a proposed large scale mixed-use project (predominately residential) that would consist of two towers and two podium buildings, approved under Planning Commission Motion No. 16648.   Condition 15 of the Motion requires an informational presentation before the Commission prior to Building Permit approval.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Carl Shannon – Tishman Spier Properties

- He will give a brief introduction of the project.

- Arquitectonika has been working extensively with the department related to streetscape.

- They have increased the number of bedrooms in each unit.

- The structural engineer worked through a new performance based peer review.

- They removed the need to have a moment frame and removed the outer beams.

- They also have full support from Supervisor Daly.

(+) Clark Mannus – Project Architect -

- He gave an overview of the architectural aspects of the project.

(-) Reed Deement – Rincon Hill Residents Association

- The project is very different from he project that was described in the EIR and the project that the Commission approved.

- There is nothing to indicate that there have been new shadow or design studies as a result of the changes to the design.

(+) Andrew Brooks – Bay Crest and Rincon Hill Residents Association

- They are encouraged with the concept of family housing units.   This is over and above the affordable component that is required by the Commission.

- The project sponsor has told him that they are willing to work on creating family units in these units.

(-) Sue Hestor

- If this project were planned in any other neighborhood there would be many more studies done.   Since this project is in the Rincon Hill, it appears that this presentation is mostly run by the project sponsor.

- The towers are very, very large.

- This project needs to be looked at more closely.

- She does not see a lot of information here.

- This is a really dramatic change.   It is not the worse architectural solution but the Commission needs to understand it completely.

(-) Ed Bidard – Vice President of the Hayes Valley Association

- The Board decided on reducing the parking on this project.

- When this project is built there will be a lot of traffic congestion.

- Adding more cars to the neighborhood will cause problems.

- He hopes that the parking situation can be revisited.

 

ACTION:            Informational only.  No Action Required by the Commission.

 

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.

 

Marilyn Amini

Re:   724-730 Van Ness Avenue

- There is due process.   This project was talked about during Director’s Report.

- The public deserves the right to speak about this project because it is now a substantially different project.

- Original there were 141 affordable rental units with 51 parking spaces then the land was subsequently sold to a new owner.   The project then changed to 104 upscale condominiums with 81 stacked valet parking spaces.

- A Conditional Use was granted on one specific project and now it is arbitrarily transferred to a new owner.

- She feels that this is an important land use issue and the Commission should hear it again so the public can comment on it.

 

  REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

10.         2004.0605R                                                                          (A. VARAT: (415) 558-6405)

ANTENNAS ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY- GENERAL PLAN REFERRAL - Request for adoption of a resolution of General Plan Conformity finding, pursuant to Section 4.105 of the San Francisco Charter and Section 2A.53 of the Administrative Code, subject to the conditions of a Settlement and Public Rights-of-Way Use Agreement (Agreement), for siting certain types of micro-cellular equipment in public rights-of-way.  The Agreement would permit the NextG Networks of California, Inc. to install up to 300 wireless antennae and associated equipment of various configurations on third-party-owned power poles, telephone poles and utility poles in public rights-of-way, but not on private property, throughout the City.  Exact locations for antennae installations are not yet determined; however, installation locations will be limited by the Agreement, in consideration of urban design, historic resource, open space, visual resource and other factors.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt resolution of General Plan Conformity finding, subject to conditions of the Settlement and Public Rights-of-Way Use Agreement.

 

SPEAKEr(S):

(+) Suzanne Toller – Attorney - NextG Networks of California

- They have spent a lot of time working with various groups to try to reach an agreement with all the various concerns.

- They have limited the size of the facilities, the density, etc.

(+) Robert Delsman – NextG Networks of California

- They are co-locating on existing facilities.

- It seems like they are adding more antenna sites but they are really replacing them.

- They will provide revenue to the City.

- He displayed drawings that were submitted to the department for their review.

(-) Eileen Boken – SPEAK

- She knows that Supervisor Amiano is working on WTS Guidelines so she would like this item to be continued indefinitely.

- NextG Networks does not hold an FCC License and it is not a wireless carrier, etc.

- If the City signs off on this agreement there will be no conditional use permit process.   This means no public notification and no public hearings.

- Most of the photos and plans seem to be focused mostly in the Sunset District and the Richmond District.

(-) Diana Scott

- She is a resident of the Outer Sunset.

- She is opposed to this proposal even though there are certain restrictions.

- This proposal evades and magnifies the existing concerns regarding property values and human health.

- Even though the antennas are less visible it does not make them benign.

- This proposal should be put on hold until everything has been discussed.

 

ACTION:            Found that the project is not in conformity with the General Plan.

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

ABSENT:           Alexander

MOTION:            16925

 

11.          2004.0055Z                                                                                 (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

TRANSBAY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - Consideration of Amendments to the Planning Code - The Commission will consider a resolution to adopt proposed text and map amendments to the Planning Code (Sections 825, 825.1, 249.25, 263.18, 270, Zoning Maps 1,1H, and 1SU) under the provision of Sections 302 and 306.3(b)(2) of the Planning Code.  Proposed amendments will (a) establish the Transbay C-3 Special Use District, (b) establish the Transbay Downtown Residential District; (c) establish the "TB"

special height/bulk district, and (d) update Zoning Maps 1, 1H and 1SU to apply these designations pursuant to the Transbay Redevelopment Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Draft Motion

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Peter Hartman – Transbay CAC

- Everyone has been working long and hard on this project.

- This is a very good plan and he urged the Commission to approve it.

- He urged the Commission to approve the planning amendments and the recommended planning controls as they are presented.

(-) Norman Bouton – Carjo Properties

- He owns property on 2nd Street.

- He is one of several property owners that are challenging the EIR because of property values.

- He does not oppose the plan that will utilize underutilized lots in the area.

- He is just concerned that many buildings that might have historical significance will be affected.

(-) John Gasser – Adolph Gasser, Inc.

- He owns a business on 2nd Street.

- There is a challenge to the EIR.   The alternates for the Transbay Terminal were not correctly looked at.

(+) Norman Rolfe – San Francisco Tomorrow – Member of the Transbay CAC

- Most of the land is not being utilized.

- It is nice to see something removed and built with something that is useful.

- This project will set up a new neighborhood.

(+) Michael Kiesling – Transbay CAC

- They have gone through everything to get this project approved.

- This is something that everyone should be proud of.

- It will provide financing to improve a lot of the transportation systems of the area.

- Redevelopment and Planning are going in the right direction.

(+) Joel Yodowitz

- He would like to recommend a new code provision related to this project.

- The Department and the Commission should consider exempting BMR (Below Market Rate) units from FAR (Floor Area Ratio) in Zone 2 of the Transbay Plan Area.

- Such an exemption is already granted by code in C-3-G and C-3-S areas and is proposed for the Mid-Market SUD.

(+) Azalia Merrell

- There is no housing shortage.   There is an affordable housing shortage.

- To see any increase in below market rate units provides opportunities to stop gentrification.

(+) Robert McCarthy

- He agrees with what Mr. Yodowitz is proposing.

- He also urged the Commission to remove FAR requirements on residential.

(+/-) Ed Zach

- He owns property in the area.

- This announcement has generated some anxiety.

- Have specific properties been designated for demolition?

- Is there any opportunity to clarify information to property owners?

 

ACTION:            Approved as Modified: Add the following language to the ordinance:  “Section XX.  This is an uncodified section of this legislation.  The provisions of this Ordinance shall not apply to any project (including any subsequent non-material amendments to the approvals for the project) that has, on the effective date of this Ordinance, valid final approvals from the Planning Commission, provided that such approvals remain in full force and effect.  This Section does not confer on any such project development rights that are not otherwise granted under existing law.  For purposes of this Section, a project shall be deemed in "full force and effect" if the Planning Commission has not revoked the project's approvals and such approvals require revocation to terminate development rights.”

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

ABSENT:           Alexander

MOTION:            16926

 

12.         1994.0670E                                                                           (C. ROOS: (415) 558-5981)

SOUTH OF MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - Certification of the Final Supplement to the FEIR for the South of Market Redevelopment Plan Amendment - The South of Market Redevelopment Plan Amendment (“Redevelopment Plan Amendment”) proposes to convert the South of Market Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project Area to a redevelopment project area (“Project Area”) and will authorize the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (“Agency”) to use tax-increment financing to alleviate physical and economic conditions of blight and to use eminent domain to alleviate these blighting conditions.  The proposed amended Project Area is generally bounded by Stevenson, Mission and Natoma Streets on the north, Fifth Street on the east, Harrison and Folsom Streets on the south and Seventh Street on the west.  In order to finance projects and programs that would alleviate the conditions of blight, the Redevelopment Plan Amendment would also include:

                                     ·          An amended expiration date, which extends the redevelopment plan by 10 years (from June 11, 2010 to June 11, 2020);

                                                 ·          Extended deadlines for the Agency to incur and repay indebtedness secured by tax increment funds; and

                               ·          Increase the aggregate amount of tax increment the Agency may receive (from $102,000,000 to $200,000,000) and the maximum amount of bonded indebtedness the Agency may have outstanding at any one time (from $60,000,000 to $80,000,000).

 

The Agency proposes to carry out a comprehensive program to alleviate the adverse effect of blight in the Project Area. by implementing the five main elements of the Amendment’s program:1) Improve residential conditions and encourage residential activity;2) Improve economic conditions and encourage business activity;3) Promote area quality of life and social services;4) Address infrastructure and transportation needs;and 5) Assure appropriate neighborhood land uses and design.    Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment is expected to yield a total of 834 residential units (483 small residential units and 351 family units), 114,618 square feet of commercial development and 91,375 square feet of industrial development at buildout in 2020.  The implementation of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment is also expected to result in rehabilitation of 300 existing single room occupancy residential hotel units that are either vacant or have substandard living conditions.

Note:   The public hearing on the Draft Supplement is closed.  The public comment period for the Draft SEIR ended on October 14, 2004.  The Planning and Redevelopment Commissions do not conduct public review of Final SEIR’s.  Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the commission calendar.

 

SPEAKER(S):    None

ACTION:            Adopted

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

EXCUSED:         Olague

ABSENT:           Alexander

MOTION:            16927

 

13.         2004.1043U                                                                  (D. ARGUMEDO: (415) 558-6284)

SOUTH OF MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY PLAN - Amendment Of Preliminary Plan And Finding Of General Consistency With The General Plan - All, or portions of Assessor's Blocks 3703, 3725, 3726, 3731, 3732, 3753, and 3754; being generally the area bounded by Fifth Street to the East, Seventh Street to the west, Harrison Street to the South; and Mission Street, Natoma Street and Stevenson Street to the north. Amendment of a Preliminary Plan for the South of Market Redevelopment Project Area, as revised from a previous Preliminary Plan (January 9, 1997), and finding said revised Preliminary Plan to be generally consistent with the San Francisco General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Resolution formulating Preliminary Plan and finding said plan generally consistent with General Plan.

 

SPEAKER(S):    None

ACTION:            Adopted

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

EXCUSED:         Olague

ABSENT:           Alexander

MOTION:            16928

 

14          2004.1140C                                                                                      (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1600 Market Street - northwest corner at Franklin Street, Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 0854 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to establish a large fast-food/self-service restaurant (dba “Folk Look Buffet”) of approximately 10,000 square feet.  No expansion of the building or the existing commercial space is proposed.  The space was previously occupied by a restaurant and nightclub, but it has been vacant for approximately five years.  The site is within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and an 80-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKER(S):    None

ACTION:            Approved

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

ABSENT:           Alexander, Antonini, Olague

MOTION:            16929

 

15.          2004.1045D                                                                                           (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

363-365 Green Street - south side between Montgomery and Kearny Streets, Lot 037 in Assessor's Block 0133 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.09.13.3974 proposing to merge two units to create a single family home in a three-story over garage building, within an RM-1 (Residential Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                                Preliminary Recommendation:  Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Merger.

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Daria Jennice – Project Sponsor

- She and her partner purchased the property in 2004.

- They would like to restore the building to its original floor plan.

- The vacant units have not been rented for many, many years.

 

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

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

ABSENT:           Alexander, Antonini, Olague

 

             16.        2004.1223DD                                                                     (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

                         369 HARKNESS AVENUE - south side between Rutland and Goettingen, Lot 046 in Assessor’s Block 6177 - Staff Initiated Discretionary Review and Requested Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.06.07.5742 proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition at the rear, within a RH-1 (Residential House, One-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                         Preliminary Recommendation:  Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project with Modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 9, 2004)

 

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Carla Vaughn – Discretionary Review Requestor

- She lives next door to the project sponsor.

- She is an organic certified grower.

- When the project is completed, she will be looking at two walls. She does not object to the project but she would like to see some modifications in order for her garden to receive as less of an impact as possible.

(+) Gaynell Warr – Project Sponsor

- The proposed construction is to have a large room because she will eventually need a wheelchair.   She will also have a bathroom in her bedroom.

- The Discretionary Review requestor has the largest yard on the block.   She does not understand how her construction would affect her sun and air.

(+) Doris

- She lives in the neighborhood.

- She does not object to the project since the project sponsor needs the addition.

(+) Hilda Montesclaros

- She supports the project.   She does not feel that the project will block light to the Discretionary Review requestor.

- She read a statement from the project architect describing the project.

 

ACTION:            Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with staff recommendation:  Upper floor should be setback.

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

ABSENT:           Alexander

 

17.         2004.1331D                                                                     (M. Snyder: (415)  575-6891)

3305 JENNINGS STREET - Lot 025 in Assessor’s Block 4993, east side between Jamestown Avenue and Key Avenue -  Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.09.8430 proposing to construct a three-story single-family house on a vacant lot, within a RH-1 (House, one-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Emmett Neal – Project Sponsor

- He owns the property.  He and his family have lived in San Francisco for many decades.

- He displayed various photographs focusing on the steep hills of the area.

(+) John Neal

- The area is very steep and this has to be accounted for.

- If the project needs to be narrowed, it would actually be impossible.

- He hopes that the Commission will take this practical point into consideration.

MOTION:           To not take Discretionary Review and approved the project

 

AYES:              Bradford Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

NAYES:            S. Lee and Olague

ABSENT:          Antonini and Alexander

RESULT:           Motion Failed

 

ACTION:           Took Discretionary Review and approved the proposed project requiring two eight foot garage doors with a foot of separation rather than the proposed single garage, 16-foot wide door.

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

NAYES:            Olague

ABSENT:          Alexander and Antonini

 

18.         2004.1170D                                                                   (M. Snyder: (415)  575-6891)

3635 20th Street - south side between Guerrero Street and Valencia Street, Lot 069 in Assessor’s Block 3608  - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.09.15.4246, proposing to merge the existing two units back to a single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (House, Three-family) District, the Liberty Hill Historic District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

SPEAKER(S):    None

ACTION:            Without hearing, item continued to January 20, 2005

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

ABSENT:           Alexander

 

F.          PUBLIC COMMENT

 

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items.  With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception.  When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar.  Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

 

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment.  In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

 

(1) Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) Requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3) Directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.   (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

 

None

 

Adjournment:    5:59 p.m.

 

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2005.

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

ABSENT:           Alexander and S. Lee

 

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:18 PM