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

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

March 9, 2006

March 9, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, March 9, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:         S. Lee, M. Antonini, S. Bradford-Bell, C. Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:           D. Alexander, K. Hughes, and W. Lee

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:43 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Dan Sider; April Hesik; Ben Fu; Mary Woods; Elizabeth Watty; Craig Nikitas; Edgar Oropeza; Elaine Tope; Michael Li; Paul Maltzer; 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.

 

1.         2003.0410C                                                                        (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

3575 GEARY BOULEVARD - south side between Arguello Boulevard and Stanyan Street; Lot 2 in Assessor’s Block 1083 and Lot 4 in Assessor’s Block 1084  - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 121.1, 121.2, 134, 135, 140, 151, 152, 271, 303, 304, 712.11, 712.21 of the Planning Code to allow a Planned Unit Development (on the site of the Coronet Theater which is proposed to be demolished) on an approximately 45,920 square-foot lot for the construction of a 54- to 72-foot high, six-story mixed-use development consisting of up to 150 senior housing units, and approximately 55,500 square feet of senior program spaces for office, senior health services, and meeting rooms, and up to 67 underground parking spaces, in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) Zoning District and a 80-A Height and Bulk District. The Planned Unit Development would include exceptions to rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, usable open space, off-street parking, off-street loading, and bulk limit requirements of the Planning Code.

            (Proposed for Continuance to March 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS:       None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

AYES:                Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and S Lee

ABSENT:            Alexander, Hughes, and W Lee

                         

2.         2006.0090T                                                                       (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

Off-Street Parking in C-3 Zoning Districts - Ordinance (File 060036) introduced by Supervisor Alioto-Pier on January 10, 2006 and referred to the Planning Commission on January 18, 2006, amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Sections 123, 151.1, 151.2, 154.1, 155, 155.5, 157, 166, 167, 204.5, 303, 309, 790.10, and 890.10 to alter controls regarding required and allowed off-street parking for residential uses in C-3 zoning districts, Floor Area Ratio exemptions and incentives related to parking, bicycle parking, car sharing (including definitions and certification of car sharing organizations), separating housing costs from parking costs, urban design requirements for parking, and adopting findings.

            (Proposed for Continuance to March 16, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:       None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

AYES:                Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and S Lee

ABSENT:            Alexander, Hughes, and W Lee

 

3.         2002.1263U                                                                       (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

333 Fremont Street - Motion to Approve In-Kind Agreement to Satisfy Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Impact Fee Requirement per Section 318.3(e). The Planning Commission approved a project at 333 Fremont Street on June 16, 2005, that includes approximately 88 dwelling units. Planning Code Section 318.3(b)(i) requires payment of $11.00 per net occupiable square foot of residential development for the Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Fund prior to issuance of site permit. The project would require a payment of approximately $800,000. The project sponsor has entered into an In-Kind Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and City Attorney, to provide physical public improvements, equal to a portion of the value owed by the sponsor, and described in the Planning Code 318.6 and in the Rincon Hill Plan. The Sponsor will pay the balance of the fee obligation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to March 23, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:       None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

AYES:                Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and S Lee

ABSENT:            Alexander, Hughes, and W Lee

           

B.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

4.         Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 28, 2005.

SPEAKERS:      

Sue Hester

  1. First I want to note the extreme delay in adoption of the minutes
  2. I got one set of minutes about ten days ago and I looked over them and found them to be extraordinarily thin.
  3. We have a problem when there is a project that has a thin case report, as did this one because it wasn’t a conditional use.  It was a DR.
  4. The condition discussion isn’t in the minutes at all.  There is a bottom line bang, bang, motion and that’s it.
  5. There is no indication of recesses in the minutes.
  6. I think you deserve to have more thorough minutes on important cases.
  7. The back and forth discussion of the commission is not there.
  8. Anyone who pulls up these minutes to get the sense of what happened at this meeting would have almost no guidance.
  9. I think part of it was the factor that the meeting went on until 2:00 in the morning and I think people – I was brain dead.
  10. I think you deserve – the public deserves better than these minutes.
  11. I think you should note at the very bare minimum that you took recesses.  That would be a clue to the public what was going on.

**President Sue Lee asked Ms. Avery, Commission Secretary to respond.

Ms. Avery

  1. Ms. Hester is correct in that your minutes only include the action of the commission.
  2. As required by the Sunshine Ordinance, we also list the speakers.
  3. For many years, your minutes have not included the discussion of the commission.  More than 25 years ago, when Lynn Pio was the Commission Secretary, the minutes were verbatim.  He actually took shorthand notes that were transcribed into the minutes.  That has not happened since then.
  4. Although we do not ever include the discussion of the commission, we do include the action of the commission.  And where there is, or the Commission makes a modification or change or correction, we include that as part of the minutes.
  5. Unless you direct me otherwise, it [commission discussion or deliberation] is not required by law and I don’t include it.
  6. You need to tell me if that is something you want.

ACTION:              Approved as drafted

AYES:                Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and S Lee

ABSENT:            Alexander, Hughes, and W Lee

     

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 3, 2005.

SPEAKERS:       None

ACTION:              Continued to 3/16/06 for lack of quorum

AYES:                Antonini, Bradford-Bell, and Olague

EXCUSED:          S Lee

ABSENT:            Alexander, Hughes, and W Lee

     

5.         Commission Comments/Questions

 

Commission Secretary Avery

  1. Your Form 700 – Conflict of Interest Statements are due April 1st.  I actually need it before the first so I can get them ready to send on to the Ethics Commission.  They would need it early enough to send on to the Fair Political Practices Commission in Sacramento.
  2. Also Commissioners, the annual Sunshine and Ethics training is coming up.  This year it will be held on March 27th from 6 – 8 p.m. in the Herbst Theater of the War Memorial Building across the street from here.  Once again, the training is mandatory to everyone.  I would like to commend Commissioner Antonini who goes every year.  I would hope his fellow commissioners would do the same this year.
  3. And finally, I am passing among you my usual calendar for you to indicate any times that you know that you’re going to be out.  It would help me tremendously.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. It could be a case of not having anything else to do, but I will be there on the 27th.
  2. A couple of members of the public approached me in the last week and brought up an issue and I felt it would be good to raise it.
  3. This is in regard to condo mapping and the amount of time that it takes to happen.
  4. As most of the public is probably aware, most projects that are approved by us are condo mapped even if they intend to rent them because it allows them, from what I understand, to be able to sell them at some future date should they choose to.
  5. I know there is a certain amount of time that takes place after we approve a project to go through the permitting process, some of which might be the condo mapping.
  6. The people who approached me said this is taking a long time.
  7. Are some projects more difficult than other?  Is it something we should get a report on in the future?

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator responded

  1. It is his understanding that there is a huge backlog at DPW relative to this.  He will look into it and get back to you on what the status is.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I received a couple of phone calls from residents of an apartment complex that is located next to the proposed Hastings Law School parking lot.
  2. Are we going to be hearing that here?  Who has jurisdiction over that?
  3. They were concerned that they have health issues …

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator responded

  1. My recollection is because that is a State project, they sent the Director a letter requesting that we [turn over] jurisdiction for the environmental review to the State.
  2. I believe the Director decided ultimately we would not eliminate our jurisdiction.
  3. We may be joint leads.  In which case the EIR will be coming to you.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I wonder if we can request information on congestion pricing.  It was in the Examiner this week.  It is something they did in Stockholm.

Commissioner Bradford-Bell

  1. During the Budget and Finance Committee meeting of the Board regarding the Mills Act, Supervisor Elsbernd pointed out staff wasn’t there, but staff’s position was being represented and he felt that that should not happen.
  2. I just want to thank him for supporting a process in that if it is not in writing or if there is not a staff person there to verbalize staff’s position, then it shouldn’t be just accepted as gospel.

Commissioner Sue Lee

  1. April 18th is the centennial of the 1906 quake and there is going to be a huge civic commemoration of it.
  2. I thought it might be appropriate for the meeting that we’re holding that week [April 20th] to perhaps spend a little bit of time talking about quake preparedness and the role of the city—City Planning Department.
  3. I had a conversation with Commissioner Deborah Walker of the Building Inspection Commission.  They may have a much larger role in this area, but maybe it would be appropriate to hear what DBI does in terms of helping the public become prepared as well as its role in preparing the city at large.

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

6.         Director’s Announcements

  1. Director Macris and some senior staff are down in the Mayor’s office presenting what we call City Stat, which is presenting where we are and what we’re doing on permits and plans, et cetera.  It is a way that the Mayor’s Office keeps up to date and helps us improve our performance on that.  That is why Director Macris is not here.

 

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

            Board of Supervisors: -- reported by Dan Sider of Department staff

  1. There were two items at the full Board on Tuesday – Supervisor Maxwell’s 3rd Street Affordable Housing Special Use District was approved unanimously.  This legislation will allow an increase in height as well as density in this area of the Bayview.
  2. Also on Tuesday, the Hunters Point Shoreline Interim Controls sponsored jointly by Supervisors Maxwell, McGoldrick and Alioto-Pier was unanimously adopted.  Essentially, this holds the line and paves the way for a longer term planning process in this particular part of the Bayview.
  3. At the Land Use and Economic Development hearing on Wednesday 690 Market, the Chronicle building, was heard.  Supervisor Peskin had introduced an ordinance that would repeal the conditional landmarking of that structure.  The measure was passed to the full Board with recommendations 5 to 0.
  4. On Tuesday, Supervisor Peskin introduced the Jackson Square Special Use District.  This ordinance would impose an interim-zoning moratorium on institutional uses on the ground floor of properties within the Jackson Square Special Use District.  One of the components of this ordinance would expand the area under the jurisdiction of that special use district to include the Colombo Drexler building.  As with all moratoriums, this is to help develop zoning controls.  Should those controls be adopted, the interim moratorium would disappear.  If this were to be adopted now, it would be for 45 days and could be extended up to a total of two years.

 

Board of Appeals:

-     There was no Board of Appeals this week

 

                7a.        [THIS WAS THE ADDENDUM ITEM]                                   (L. BADINER: (415) 558-6350)

1980-1998 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, 800-808A LYON STREET   - Lot 1151 in Assessor’s Block 019.  Informational Report on Board of Appeals case regarding legalization/elimination of dwelling units and fire stairs.

 

SPEAKERS:

Joe O’Donaghue

  1. We have the project sponsor who claimed that the back stairs were illegal and ignored the fact that on his plans he showed that there was an easement for that back stair.   He ignored the fact also that the back stairs took permits with them that were issued in the ‘90’s.
  2. The project sponsor very smartly put all these other items into the issue of an illegal unit.
  3. Through the back stairs he would be able to evict the entire building.
  4. Theoretically we just have an issue of units and units.   You amend it so say there is no unit illegal in the bottom and there is none in the top.  You still have the issue of the fire escape that is now put in the front of the building.
  5. In fact the plans that were submitted by the project sponsor lied.   The plans showed the bedrooms were in the front of the building where they were not.
  6. What you have is all stirred.   The plans of the project sponsor show the present use is 12 units and the proposed use is 12 units.  There were 13 or 14 units.
  7. They lied because they didn’t want to alert the process and the over-the-counter permitting process.   They lied because they didn’t want this to come up to the Planning Department for review.
  8. We now have a new avenue for landlords to skirt the law.
  9. We should not have to appeal a defective permit. 
  10. It’s for you to bring it back to correct this—Commissioners and Zoning Director—you have the authority.
  11. Then if the project sponsor wants to appeal a proper set of permits, then let them do so.
  12. This matter fell through the cracks on an over-the-counter process.
  13. You have the authority to bring it back to correct it.

Michael McKnight

  1. I have lived at 804 Lime Street since 1999.
  2. I’m going to deal with the fire escape rear deck issue and the removal of this.
  3. The removal will not only affect my apartment but 7 or 8 others in the building
  4. It is more of a staircase than a deck and provides a safe access out of the back doors as well as access to the rear garden.
  5. Apparently the new owners were informed of our agreement and right to use the back garden and fire escape.   Now they want to remove the fire escape deck claiming that it encroaches on their adjacent property.
  6. There was never any problem with the fire escape and garden and the whole area was always treaded as one property used and shared amongst everybody.
  7. We have recently discovered that was a permanent easement granted in 1959 for fire escape purposes.
  8. The result of removing this fire escape deck is to block up our back doors, increasing our risk in case of fire.
  9. I believe this would be violating the Design Guidelines.
  10. It appears that are trying to squeeze this permit through using an equivalency section of the Fire Code.
  11. Please do what you can to stop this permit.
  12. We are asking you to order the Zoning Administrator to request DBI to revoke the permit and to send it back for review.

John Tynan

  1. I’m the appellant of the appeal
  2. I’ve been a tenant at 1998 Golden Gate Avenue since 1995.
  3. In 2003, the new owners of the property had me in court to evict me claiming that my unit was illegal.
  4. I fought them all the way because I believe my unit was and is legal, and it is my home.
  5. When I filed the appeal, I thought it only concerned me.   But when I saw the plans I noticed how this totally affected my neighbors.  Everyone was going to lose their fire escape and the fourth floor neighbors are going to have their unit split in two.  My unit would be turned into storage and the two units on the bottom would be demolished.
  6. I feel that there might be some elements of fraud in the permit application.
  7. I would like to request that you direct the Zoning Administrator to request DBI to revoke the permit as it stands and ask the Board of Appeals to send the permit back to Planning for review.

Mary Ann

  1. The landlord has grossly misrepresented the work they intend to do and the impact it will have on the tenants of the property.
  2. They describe the proposed work to our apartment as providing a new kitchen and bathroom for existing fourth floor apartments numbers 11 and 12.   The way the language is crafted in the permit they are remodeling the kitchens and bathrooms in two separate apartments.  However, when one looks at the architectural drawings, it shows that intend to reconfigure the space, changing our apartment into a studio an create one large one bedroom apartment.  Our apartment wouldn’t exist any more and they would evict us.
  3. They flat out lie and say there are two units when in fact there is one.
  4. For the 13 years we have lived here, that unit is considered on.   Beyond that, we have documentation going back as far as 1957 saying the space is only one apartment.
  5. They are making this up so they can obtain the extraordinary benefit of dividing the space and renting the two new spaces at market value, which could easily be up to four times the amount they are currently collecting from us.
  6. Please order the Zoning Administrator to send the request to DBI to revoke the permit and write a letter to the Board of Appeals asking them to send it back for review.

Jason Thrupp

  1. I’ve been a resident for 13 years
  2. The fire escape and back deck have always been there.
  3. The owners have not notified us of any of these changes
  4. Ceiling up the rear doors in all of the units must be a huge safety fire risk and fire hazard.
  5. Placing fire escapes at the front of the building will severely impact the neighborhood.
  6. I request that you instruct the Zoning Administrator to instruct DBI to revoke the permit and ask the Board of Appeals to send the permit back to Planning for further review.

Leonard Tramel

  1. I’ve been a resident since June of 1992
  2. The proposed fire exit from my unit would be accessed via a tiny bedroom over the main entrance.   The dimensions would require that one walk across the top of the bed to access the window.
  3. The permit makes mention of the removal of the defective bathroom on the first floor.   But no one seems able to definitively identify the location of this room—but there has been the suggestion that it may refer to one in my unit.  However, being that the permit refers to the apartment directly above mine as being on the fourth floor would seem to preclude this.
  4. But then again, given the routinely vague and inaccurate language with which they address the particulars of the building, it can’t be entirely ruled out.
  5. The existing fire exit is through this alcove via a door leading to the deck.   The fixtures are all functional.
  6. There is a stairway leading to both my third floor apartment and Phil and Mary Ann’s fourth floor apartment.
  7. The owner’s plans clearly note that there is a common access to two units, even though elsewhere they claim that the third floor alone has two units.
  8. The plans clearly show that there are only two units.
  9. These quite obviously ill though out plans show an agenda is being served.
  10. The proposed work is intended as a back door rationale for evicting long-standing tenants.
  11. The Zoning Administrator should be instructed to issue a letter requesting DBI to revoke the permit and ask the Board of Appeals to send the permit back to Planning.

Raquel Fox – Tenderloin Housing Clinic

  1. I think the bigger picture is that Prada, an investment group, is a group of real estate speculators.   They bought this property for a discounted price and are now proceeding with the plan to evict the tenants.
  2. They knew when they submitted their plans that the plans were replete with falsehoods.   They knew the downstairs unit was a legal residential unit.  They knew the forth floor unit where Mary Ann and her husband live is one unit—not two as they have said.  They knew that the bedrooms are not in front as they have said.  And they knew about the easement.
  3. I’m asking you to cancel the permit because it is based on falsehoods.

 

ACTION:      Informational only.  Although no action was required of the Commission, through discussion commissioners instructed the Zoning Administrator to make a recommendation or speak at the Board of Appeals to recommend that the permit be revoked now.  In complying, the Zoning Administrator said he would also inform the appellants that they have a right to put a block book notation on any permits [for this project site] so they get notified of any permit that comes in.  This allows them to request Discretionary Review or draw it to our attention.  And going further still, the Zoning Administrator assured the Commission that any elimination of dwelling units, dwelling unit mergers, or even reconfiguration of units would be brought before the Commission for review.    

 

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.

 

SPEAKERS:

            Marilyn Amini

            RE:       The informational presentation on the Better Neighborhoods Planning and Implementation process that was made last week but not on your agenda.  That was very unfortunate because not only could you not ask questions, but the public was alerted that is would be on the agenda.

 

  1. CONSENT CALENDAR

 

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission.  There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

 

8.         2006.0147X                                                                          (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

145 Natoma Street - south side between 3rd and New Montgomery Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 3722 - Request under Planning Code Section 309 for a Determination of Compliance and Request for Exceptions including an exception to the rear yard requirements as permitted in Section 134(d).  The proposal is to convert approximately 780 square feet of office space on the sixth floor of the existing building to one dwelling unit.  There will be no physical expansion of the existing building.  The project site is within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office Special Development) District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKERS:       None

ACTION:              Approved

AYES:                Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and S Lee

ABSENT:            Alexander, Hughes, and W Lee

MOTION:             17204

           

F.                  REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

9a.         2005.0713D                                                                                 (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

710 SILLIMAN STREET -north side between Dartmouth and Bowdoin Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 5917 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No.2005.03.11.7350 to demolish an existing single-family dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of a new single-family dwelling) in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve project as proposed.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 9, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:       None

ACTION:              Without hearing, continued to April 13, 2006

AYES:                Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and S Lee

ABSENT:            Alexander, Hughes, and W Lee

           

9b.        2005.1070D                                                                                  (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

710 SILLIMAN STREET    - north side between Dartmouth and Bowdoin Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 5917 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of new construction as a result of housing demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.03.11.7348 for the new construction of a single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve project as proposed

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 9, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:       None

ACTION:              Without hearing, continued to April 13, 2006

AYES:                Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and S Lee

ABSENT:            Alexander, Hughes, and W Lee

     

10.              2005.0898D                                                                      (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6313)

2715 SACRAMENTO STREET  - south side between Pierce and Scott Streets; Lot 015 in Assessor’s Block 0633 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.08.12.0152S, proposing to convert the building’s authorized use from nine units to five units, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 23, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:      

Jay Van Dorn – Project Sponsor
  1. Gave a quick background of himself, how he came to have this site, the current situation on the site, and his proposal for the site.
  2. Hopes the Commission will give him the opportunity to breathe new life into this house and approve the project.

John Williams

  1. I’m a neighbor and friend.
  2. This house is long overdue for rehabilitation and updating.
  3. It was just chopped up and bastardized in the past.  It would be shame if he was not able to follow through with his project.
  4. I think it would be grossly unfair to keep this historic property in its current chopped up condition.

Margarita Gandia

  1. I have no vested interest in this project, but I’m speaking as a long-time resident.
  2. I’m a former tenant and friend of Jay Van Dorn
  3. I can attest to the chopped up and awkward condition of the kitchen in my unit.
  4. No matter what Jay did, even providing me with new appliances, the space was virtually unusable because it was just stuck into what must have been a closet.
  5. I am in support of his proposal.

David Westrup – speaking for Barry Genekow

  1. As a 15-year resident of 2715 Sacramento Street, I believe the building very much needs to be rehabilitated.
  2. The infrastructure is seriously strained since it was subdivided in the 1940’s.
  3. It seems that the past owners haven’t had the money or inclination to redo these major systems and address some of the inherent design and functional deficiencies.
  4. I have serious back and knee problems.
  5. As part of the renovation, he has included a small residential elevator that will allow me to go from the ground floor to my top floor apartment without having to climb flights of stairs.

 

ACTION:              Did not take discretionary review and approved

AYES:                Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and S Lee

ABSENT:            Alexander, Hughes, and W Lee

           

            11.        2006.0105D                                                                         (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

3821 NORIEGA STREET - south side between 45th and 46th Avenues, Lot 001K, in Assessor’s Block 2082 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.13.5494, proposing to include the sale of beer and wine at the established retail grocer and specialty food store (Noriega Produce), in an NC-1 (Neighborhood, Commercial, Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the application as proposed.

 

SPEAKERS:      

Mark Lebeau – representing the DR applicant
  1. The application is based on representations that only organic beer and wine would be sold.
  2. There are six different licenses on the same block in this neighborhood.  We seek balance, discretion and limitations.
  3. We ask that you grant the DR and consider conditions that would limit the sale of beer and wine to only those organic products that fall within that category.
  4. This would create something new that isn’t there.

Serena Taylor

  1. Pointed out the various establishments in the neighborhood that sale hard alcohol, beer and wine. 
  2. There is a school in the area, so there are lots of young people around.
  3. It would be nice to have a store where that is not even an option.  Where it is not even a thought.
  4. I think the mere availability of the product condones the activity and in some subtle way encourages it.

Dublas Osorio

  1. I live at 3845 Noriega.
  2. I don’t know if you hear the news, but Oakland, San Francisco, everybody is having problems with liquor stores, any establishment that sells beer and wine or alcohol.
  3. I’m concerned about the high school in the area.
  4. I’m asking you to consider that there are too many in the area and not give this license.

Project Sponsor

  1. I run the store at Noriega.  My father started it 20 years ago.  As time progressed, we improved the store adding more higher quality items for our clientele.
  2. We want to give our clientele a selection of higher quality beer and wine products, more than something that a corner liquor store would offer.
  3. We don’t carry novelty items.  We don’t carry Pepsi.
  4. We’re an adult family, high quality organic-style produce market.  That’s what we offer to the community.
  5. The people that come to us don’t necessarily always go to the corners to buy their inventory or buy their beer and wind.
  6. A lot of people come in with kids.
  7. They don’t want to walk by a bar or café where people are drinking and go up to a corner and buy a bottle.
  8. They want to buy it and go home.
  9. We have someone [a consultant] to help us inventory our store better and to help bring a higher quality product.

Richard Fall

  1. I’m helping the project in terms of the selection of wines.
  2. To impose limitation would reduce the selection and wouldn’t allow the project to enhance the buying experience of the consumers who are patronizing Noriega Produce.
  3. I hope you’ll support the project sponsor.

 

ACTION:              Did not take discretionary review and approved

AYES:                Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and S Lee

ABSENT:            Alexander, Hughes, and W Lee

                                                           

            12.        2006.0079D                                                                           (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

626 RIVERA SREET - north side between 16th and 17th Avenues, Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 2201 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.09.07.2163, the proposal is to construct a one-story vertical addition at the rear of a single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

SPEAKERS:      

Claire Miller Mosley – the Discretionary Review applicant
  1. I am the daughter of Jane Miller who is behind me today.
  2. My mother is a born and raised native of San Francisco, as I am.
  3. She has lived in the same house for 83 years.
  4. My mother has severe muscular degeneration.  I thing that this is a misunderstood disease.
  5. [She submitted a letter from her mother’s ophthalmologist explaining the severity of her condition and how ambient light of any kind, when it is removed is going to affect her functionality.]
  6. My concern is that the over all size of the requested addition to Mr. Munson’s house is going to obscure additional ambient light that my mother has already had taken away from her on the west side of her house.
  7. My real difficulty with this is that the collateral damage of both houses shading my mother’s house.  She’s now had to move all of her activities over to the east side and to the front south side of the house in order to be able to do any kind of tasks.
  8. I think this is a situation that has more of a human component than any legality of footprint space.
  9. My mother, who is both aged and disabled, will not be protected like a tenant in San Francisco from being evicted.  But as a homeowner she is essentially going to be evicted from her home when she will not be able to function.
  10. Mr. Munson and his architect have been very helpful.  We’ve gone to mediation.  The suggestion was a skylight or two to ameliorate the light problem.  But unfortunately, that is not going to do the trick.  It is not going to secure my mother’s ability to continue to function in her house.

Kevin Mosley

  1. I am in support of Jean Miller and her well being.  

Fred Gibson – Project Architect

  1. Mrs. Miller and Mr. Munson are long-term residents.  They grew up together.  So we approached this project very sensitively from the beginning.
  2. We are not building out on the second floor, and we have brought it back as far as possible to allow light into the side area, which currently doesn’t receive anything but very dim direct light.
  3. Her house currently is very dim.  The lights aren’t turned on.
  4. My grandmother also has the same disease and we turn all the lights on.  That helps a lot.
  5. Mr. Munson has been very generous.  He has offered the skylights.  We’ve done everything possible.
  6. He wants this addition for his family.  They have children and they want to have rooms for their kids.

 

ACTION:              Did not take discretionary review and approved the project with the understanding that the offered skylights [to Mrs. Miller’s property] are still part of the project.

AYES:                Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and S Lee

ABSENT:            Alexander, Hughes, and W Lee

           

13.        2006.0083D                                                                           (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

4334-36 20th SREET- north side between Diamond and Collingwood Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor’s Block 2697– Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.09.14.2857, the proposal is to construct a horizontal addition at the rear and a stair penthouse on the roof of a two-family dwelling, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

SPEAKERS:

Jerome Altman – representing Project Sponsor
  1. There is an existing porch on the rear of the house that is in very poor shape.
  2. The project would remove this unsafe structure and construct a new space by expanding it to provide a little bit more space in the dining room.
  3. We are also renewing a small portion of the existing dining room on the side and extending the rear two feet 8 inches.
  4. We are maintaining 6 feet 2 inches clear from the DR requestor’s house to the wall of the addition.
  5. We are also replacing existing stairs down to grade.
  6. It is a very modest addition.

 

ACTION:              Did not take discretionary review and approved

AYES:                Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and S Lee

ABSENT:            Alexander, Hughes, and W Lee

           

            14.        2005.0850C                                                                     (E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)

2200 INGALLS STREET -between Wallace and Yosemite Avenue; Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 4831 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to include an Auto Dismantling Operation within an existing auto repair shop within the M-1 (Light Industrial Zoning District), the Industrial Protection Zone, the Candlestick Park Special Sign District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  Planning Code Section 225(p) in this case, an automobile dismantling operation, requires Conditional Use Authorization.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 2, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:       None

ACTION:              Approved

AYES:                Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and S Lee

ABSENT:            Alexander, Hughes, and W Lee

MOTION:             17205

           

            15.        2005.1089C                                                                            (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

4041 GEARY BOULEVARD - entire south side of the block between 4th and 5th Avenues, Lots 001a, 003, 050, 051 in Assessor’s Block 1540 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 712.59, and 790.15 to allow operation of an automobile repair use (service center for San Francisco Toyota) in a Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District (NC-3) and to allow the continuation of an automobile parking lot (on lot 003) in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family), District.  The entire project is located in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  The proposal is to convert an approximately 22,300 square foot one-story with mezzanine, retail grocery store (formerly occupied by Cala Foods) with 30 outdoor parking spaces to an auto service and repair shop (including office space, a parts storage area, and an approximately 600 square foot retail space), with 24 outdoor parking spaces and approximately 26 new interior service bays. 

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:       None

ACTION:              Commissioner S. Lee disclosed that she lives within a 300 square foot radius of the project.  That resulted in a loss of a quorum to hear and consider this case.  As a result, the item was continued without hearing to March 16, 2006

AYES:                Antonini, Bradford-Bell, and Olague

EXCUSED:          S. Lee

ABSENT:            Alexander, Hughes, and W Lee

           

6:00 pm.

 

16.                                                                                                           M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

            INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION ON THE TRINITY PLAZA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT 1177 MARKET STREET - Trinity Properties, Inc. proposes to demolish an existing four to seven-story apartment building, which contains 377 residential rental units (including 360 rent-controlled units), a ground-floor restaurant, and surface and below-grade parking for approximately 450 vehicles, and replace it with three buildings ranging in height from 18 to 26 stories and containing up to 1,900 residential rental units, approximately 60,000 square feet of retail space, and a garage with up to 1,450 parking spaces.  The 360 rent-controlled units would be replaced on-site as part of this proposal.  The project would also include approximately 63,000 square feet of usable open space.

 

SPEAKERS:      

Jim Rubin – representing the Project Sponsor
  1. Gave a brief history of how the project has evolved over the past few years with the help of Supervisor Chris Daly.  He then introduced the architect, Bernardo.

Bernardo – Project Architect

  1. Gave a detailed description of the project and how the new project’s design will create a sense of place in what used to be a parking lot of a motel in the middle of a city.

Resident of the current building at Trinity Plaza [name was not clear]

  1. Although this is a very beautiful building, there is absolutely no mention of what lies under it, which as most of you know is Hayes Creek.
  2. Hayes Creek was filled in and was covered with buildings, including the old City Hall, which collapsed in 1906.  The replaced City Hall was severely affected by the Loma Prieta earthquake.
  3. Most of you know that land which has been filled in, even though it is not necessarily filled in over a bay, is also subject to liquefaction during an earthquake of say 6 on the Richter scale.
  4. I was informed that when the new Federal Building was built, it was impossible to reach bed rock, and that a mock foundation had to be created to hold the structure.
  5. I assume that this will probably be necessary for this project.

Ken Warner – Trinity Plaza Tenants Association

  1. I loved the presentation.
  2. I’m just simply thrilled with the open space of the buildings to let in natural light to the courtyard.

Jeffrey

  1. I moved to San Francisco about 12 years ago from Arizona and I live a block from Trinity Plaza
  2. This project with its beauty and serenity has what is needed to change the face of San Francisco’s mid-Market.

Jim Rubin – representing the Project Sponsor

  1. Mentioned the historic agreements that had been reached between the owners and the Board of Supervisors that called for the voluntary reproduction of 360 rent controlled units as part of our project.
  2. This is not part of the design that Bernardo takes part in, but I do want to make sure that that is on the record for the people that are viewing.

 

ACTION:              Informational only. No action.

           

17.        2002.1179E                                                                    (P. MALTZER: (415) 558-5977)

            1177 MARKET STREET MIXED-USE PROJECT (TRINITY PLAZA APARTMENTS) -  Public Hearing to receive comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report.  The project site is located at 1177 Market Street, bounded by Market Street to the north, Eighth Street to the west, and Mission Street to the south. The proposed project would replace an existing seven-story apartment building (Trinity Plaza Apartments), which contains 377 residential rental units with surface and below-grade parking for approximately 450 vehicles. The proposed project would include three apartment buildings, ranging in from 18 to 25 stories, or approximately 162 to 243 feet in height, with approximately 1,975,929 gross square feet). The proposed buildings would include up to 1,900 residential rental units (1,100 studios and 800 one-bedroom units), approximately 51,883 net square feet of retail uses at street level, and parking for approximately 1,450 vehicles. The parking would serve residential parking needs, and public short-term parking uses. The project would include five loading spaces. Twelve percent or 185 of the residential units would be affordable pursuant to the standards of Section 315 of the Planning Code. The project site is in the C-3-G (Downtown-General Commercial) Use District and in the 120-X (along Market Street), 150-X (in the middle portion), and 240-S (in the southern portion) Height and Bulk Districts.  A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the Planning Department in connection with this project.  This hearing is intended to receive public comment on the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the information contained in the Draft EIR.

NOTE:  Written comments on the Draft EIR will be accepted from February 4, 2006 to March 21, 2006, at 5:00 p.m. 

Written comments should be sent to Paul Maltzer, Environmental Review Officer, at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94103.

 

SPEAKERS:

Ken Warner – Trinity Plaza Tenants Association
  1. None of us at the Trinity Plaza Tenants Association have ever received a copy of the DEIR
  2. What’s going on?
  3. What do we do about this?
  4. We’ve got deadlines to meet and we’ve never seen a copy of the DEIR.
  5. Tonight I’m asking for some extensions of at least 30 days so that members of the Trinity Plaza Tenants Association can review the DEIR and make public comment at the next hearing.
  6. One of our members has left for the Philippines for about 30 days, so I would ask for at least a 45-day extension starting with today, including for written comments on the DEIR, as well as the next hearing on this so that we can offer more oral comments on the DEIR once we’ve had a chance to review it.

                         

ACTION:              Public hearing held to receive comments on the draft EIR only.  There was no action by the Commission

           

G.         PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

 

SPEAKERS:

Sharon Lobe

  1. I have a house on Central Avenue and they are doing construction next to my property.
  2. I had a notation on the property so that further damage wouldn’t be done to my house.  There was a suspension because I was worried about a cement pool right on the foundation of my retaining wall.  It was cracking and breaking.
  3. I went home to check on my house and poured the cement.
  4. I went to the Board of Appeals office and I couldn’t be in two places at the same time.
  5. They’ve been watching me.
  6. They poured the cement.
  7. I need help because the bureaucracy is letting me fall through the cracks and my house, which is happening because of these people doing this work.
  8. They’re very greedy and slimy.
  9. Please help me.

 

Adjournment:  7:13 p.m.

 

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2006.

 

SPEAKERS:                 None

ACTION:                       Approved

AYES:                          Antonini, B Radford-Bell, Olague and S. Lee

EXCUSED:                    Hughes and W. Lee

ABSENT:                       Alexander

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:20 PM