Source: http://sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1006
Timestamp: 2015-12-01 20:06:55
Document Index: 670023513

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 2002', 'Application No. 2002', 'Application No. 2002', 'Application No. 2002', 'Application No. 2002', 'Application No. 2002']

San Francisco Planning Department : January 09, 2003
/ January 09, 2003	January 09, 2003
Meeting MinutesCommission Chambers - Room 400City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett PlaceThursday, January 9, 20031:30 PMRegular MeetingCOMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Shelley Bradford Bell, Michael J. Antonini; Rev. Edgar E. Boyd,Lisa Feldstein; Kevin Hughes; Sue Lee; William L. LeeCOMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NoneTHE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:35 p.m.STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green – Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Judy Boyajian – Deputy City Attorney; Jonathan Purvis; Jamilla Vollmann; Dan Sider; Carol Roos; Joan Kugler; Paul Lord; Rick Crawford; Nora Priego – Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission SecretaryA. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCEThe 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. 2002.0872CR (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)505 SHOTWELL STREET - east side of Shotwell Street, between 19th Street and 20th Street, Lot 059, Assessor's Block 3594 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 234.2 of the Planning Code to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of six (6) panel antennas and related equipment at an existing three-story publicly-used structure (a fire station) as part of AT&T's wireless telecommunications network within a P (Public) Zoning District and a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation. The project would establish a new use on City-owned property and a General Plan Referral is required. A finding of consistency with the General Plan is necessary. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions(Proposed for Continuance to March 6, 2003)SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Continued to March 6, 2003AYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee 2. 2001.1174E (T. CHAN: (415) 558-5982) 436 CLEMENTINA STREET - Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. Assessor's Block 3732, Lot 62. The site is part of the major city block bounded by Howard Street to the north, Folsom Street to the south, 5th Street to the east, and 6th Street to the west within the South of Market neighborhood. Clementina and Tehama Streets are minor streets bisecting this city block. The proposed project would demolish the existing one-story, 5,000-square-foot warehouse on this 5,625-square-foot site and construct 28 residential condominium units over approximately 1,250 square feet (sq. ft.) of ground-floor commercial space, and eight off-street parking spaces within a new eight-story structure. The proposed structure would be approximately 37,975 sq. ft. and 85 feet in height, an increase of 32,348 sq. ft. and seven stories in height above the existing structure. The project site is located within the RSD (Residential Service Mixed-Use) zoning district and within the 40-X/85-B height and bulk district. Projects within the RSD zoning district require a conditional use authorization to determine the residential density for buildings over 40 feet in height. The project site is also within the South of Market Redevelopment Plan Area. Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration. (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 5, 2002) (Proposed for Continuance to February 13, 2003)SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Continued to February 13, 2003AYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeB. COMMISSION MATTERS3. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of December 5, 17, and 19, 2002.SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: ApprovedAYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee4. Commission Comments/QuestionsCommissioner William Lee: - He would like to know status and timeline of the Master Services Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency and the Planning Department. He would like to know when this agreement would be signed.- He would also like to know the work program/priorities of the Redevelopment Agency- Also, what is the status of 5 projects that relate to housing from the Mayor's Office of Housing: 10th and Mission Streets; 150 Broadway at Battery; 3575 Geary; 190 Polk; and Glide Pavilion?Commissioner Antonini:He has received a lot of correspondence and would like to let the public know that he will respond to all the correspondence he receives. However, because of the volume, it might take a while for him to respond.Commissioner Boyd:He is in a similar situation as Commissioner Antonini.If there is any correspondence related to community meetings, he would like to know right away.Commissioner Bradford Bell:- She welcomed everyone back from the holidays and expressed her hopes that this year (2003) will be a very productive year.Commissioner Feldstein:- She requested that the budget presentation be done on February 13, 2003.C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT5. Director's AnnouncementsRe: Community Planning Meeting- January 16, 2003 would have been the date to express opinions on various land use and zoning issues related to community planning. Because of noticing issues, this date is not feasible. February 6 or 13 would be more (realistic) target dates. The location will be a very neutral place.- On January 16, 2003, he will be providing an explanation of the presentation–now proposed to be scheduled on February 6 or 13.Re: Rashid Janbaz- He had an opportunity to meet Mr. Janbaz who is the Planning Director for the City of Kobul in Afganistan.- Mr. Janbaz introduced and expressed greetings.6. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of AppealsBOS – Election of OfficersBOA - NoneD. REGULAR CALENDAR 7. 2002.0940C (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354) 1780 OAKDALE AVENUE - north side between Phelps and Newhall Streets; Lot 021 in Assessor's Block 5312 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 185(e) to retain an existing nonconforming commercial use, doing business as DeChoix Specialty Foods Company, within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditionsSPEAKER(S):(+) Marianne Low – Representing Project Sponsor- The owners built this building in 1955.(+) Brett Gladstone – Project Attorney- He would like to keep this conditional use and have an extension of it.- They are happy with the Conditions of Approval and hopes that the Commission will approve this application.(+) Ralph House – BayView Hill Neighborhood Association- He asks that the Commission pursues due diligence on this project.- His association supports the Conditional Use.(+) Michael Shannon- He is in favor of this proposal.- He has owned property in this neighborhood for about 20 years.- There is a lot of community spirit and there are no problems. (+) Jim Salinas- He is in support of this project. There are a lot of concerned citizens regarding the industrial protection zones.- He asks the Commission to support this project.ACTION: Approval with Amendments: 1) Item 2 in Exhibit A should not state specific names of newspapers or number of churches; 2) recordation of an NSR (Notice of Special Restrictions) will be required.AYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeMOTION: 165038. 2002.1007C (J. VOLLMANN: (415) 558-6612)1193 OAK STREET - south side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets; Lot 023 in Assessor’s Block 1218 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 209.2(d) of the Planning Code to establish a 5-room bed and breakfast inn within an existing second floor dwelling unit in a building located in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditionsSPEAKER(S):(+) Sara Viezra- She is looking forward to opening up the hotel.- She hopes that the Commission will approve the project.(-) Patricia Vaughey- She is concerned that the owner of the hotel did not notify about four neighborhood associations about this project.- She would like to have this case continued for about 60 days so that the project sponsor can communicate properly with the neighborhood associations.- She has a question. Has the landowner signed off on the rental unit?(+) John Elvins- He found out about this hearing through the newspaper. This is not proper procedure. The project sponsor did not do the proper notification.- There is already a shortage of parking in the neighborhood.- He is concerned about the hot tub that will be located at this hotel. ACTION: Approval with the following amendments: 1) language change to read & within the existing second dwelling unit, which shall remain& ;2) prohibit the use of the rear deck after 10:00 p.m.AYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeNAYES: FeldsteinMOTION: 16504 9. 2002.0569C (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)423-435 VALENCIA STREET - east side between 15th Street and Sparrow Alley; Lots 025 and 058 in Assessor's Block 3554, through lots to Caledonia Street - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow [1] the expansion of an  other retail sales and services' use on the second story pursuant to Planning Code Sections 726.40 and 790.102 and [2] the establishment of a nonresidential use size in excess of 2,999 square feet pursuant to Planning Code Sections 726.21 and 790.130 and in excess of 2,000 square feet pursuant to the Mission District Interim Controls (as set forth in Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 500-02). The proposal is to construct horizontal and vertical additions to an existing plumbing supply store (DBA J.C. Plumbing) resulting in the increase of gross floor area from a total of 5,350 square feet to 8,900 square feet. The subject property is within the Valencia-NCD, the area subject to the Mission District Interim Controls, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditionsSPEAKER(S):(+) Jerry Lang – Representing Project Sponsor (JC Plumbing)- They will add a second floor to use as a show space for their products.(+) Jim Chang – Project Sponsor- He has been doing business at this location for about 20 years.- He hopes the Commission will approve this project.(+) Sue Hestor- This is the kind of project that people need in the Mission District.- This is a very critical street because it provides a lot of services for the residents.ACTION: ApprovedAYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeMOTION: 16505 10. 2001.0862E (C. ROOS: (415) 558-5981)50 OAK STREET, SAN FRANCISCO CONSERVATORY OF MUSIC - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) - The proposed project is the seismic upgrade and major alteration of the existing four- to five- story Category II, Significant Building at 50 Oak Street, and demolition of the adjacent three- to four- story building and new construction of a six-story structure at 70 Oak Street, for the San Francisco Conservatory of Music. The two structures would be integrated into one, structurally integrated facility. The two existing buildings total about 91,000 gsf. The Conservatory of Music would contain about 125,000 gsf, including about 19,200 gsf of performance space; 17,000 gsf of performing support space; 26,500 gsf of educational studios and spaces; 7,500 gsf of administrative office pace; 7,000 gsf of library space; 21,600 gsf of corridor and circulation space; and 26,200 gsf of service and storage space. Of the total area, about 98,500 gsf are applicable to the FAR under the Planning Code. No parking spaces or loading spaces are proposed. The site occupies the north side of Oak Street, between the 25 Van Ness Avenue building and a parking lot at Hickory and Franklin Street, encompassing most of the half block bounded by Oak, Hickory, and Franklin Streets and Van Ness Avenue. The site includes Lots 5 and 7, in Assessor's Block 834. While the project would function as one building, it would appear as two buildings from Oak Street. The project requires a lot line adjustment to merge the existing lots; a Permit to Alter for 50 Oak Street, a Category II, Significant Building, under Planning Code, Article 11; review of substantial alterations to existing buildings in the C-3 Districts under Section 309, including a request for exceptions to bulk limits (for maximum building length and maximum diagonal dimension), and a revocable encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works, to occupy sub sidewalk vaults. Preliminary Recommendation: Receive Comments. No Action Required. The DEIR public comment period ends at 5 pm, January 23, 2003.SPEAKER(S):James Haas – Chairman of Civic Pride- This is a terrific project.- This EIR has been written too narrow in its focus. It does not reference the fact that there are a few vacant buildings near and it does not state that the Asian Art Museum will be opening soon.- There is no reference that the central freeway will be demolished.- This is a terrific project and needs to be approved yet the EIR is a very important document and it needs to be done correctly.ACTION: Hearing to gather comments only. No Action Required. 11. 2002.0333E (J. KUGLER (415) 558-5983) 270 VALENCIA STREET - Lot 9 in Assessor’s Block 3533. The site is located on an irregular-shaped parcel surrounding the southwest corner lot of Valencia and Brosnan Streets with frontages on both Valencia and Brosnan Streets. Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project involves demolition a single-story un-reinforced masonry structure and the construction of one large building that would cover the entire project site with 28 dwelling units in two four-level structures separated by a raised second-level plaza/open space over a ground floor with parking and retail space. The 31 proposed parking spaces would be on two levels. A pedestrian entrance and 21 underground parking spaces would be accessed from Valencia Street. An additional pedestrian entrance and 10 parking spaces would be accessed from Bronson Street. The project site is located in the Mission Neighborhood, is zoned C-M (Heavy Commercial) and is within the 50-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold the Mitigated Negative Declaration. (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 5, 2002)SPEAKER(S):(-) David Ortega- The building has been a part of the community for many years.- Many blue-collar jobs are being lost.- There have been quite a few jobs, which have been lost because of this type of conversion.- The new building will be more than 50 feet in height and it will affect the sunlight and the public right-of-way.- The traffic on this street will be impacted as well.(+) John Goldman – Goldman Architects – Project Architect- He displayed architectural drawings of the project.ACTION: Negative Declaration UpheldAYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeMOTION: 16506 12a. 2002.0414TZ (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)FOURTH AND FREELON SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 249.23 to create the Fourth and Freelon Streets Special Use District encompassing the property zoned Service Light Industrial and bounded by Fourth Street, Freelon Street, Zoe Street and Welsh Street and by adding Section 263.16 to create special height and bulk exceptions for the Fourth and Freelon Streets Special Use District, which would allow previously approved but unbuilt live/work units to convert to market-rate residential units and additional market-rate residential units to be constructed with an allowable increase in height from 50’ to 85’ and a dwelling unit density governed by the permissible building envelope; provided that (i) the developer shall construct at the developer’s sole expense, on land owned or purchased by the developer in either the South of Market Area or the North of Market Residential Special Use District, off-site affordable rental housing with square footage equal to 15% of the total residential units to be constructed offset by the cost of land acquisition, with a minimum of 56 units constructed of no less than 400 square feet each, (ii) the units shall be rental units affordable to low-and-lower income households with income not exceeding 40% of San Francisco’s median income, which shall remain affordable for 55 years or for the life of the building whichever is longer, and (iii) upon completion, the affordable housing development shall be owned, managed and operated by a nonprofit housing organization with reversion to the City if the nonprofit housing organization is dissolved.Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with RecommendationsSPEAKER(S):(+) Bill Barnes – Representing Supervisor Daly- This project is extremely transparent. There have been many community meetings.- This is not the end of the process. There will be many additional opportunities for people to give their comments on this project.- He is available for questions from the Commission.(+) Joe LaTorre, Mayor's Office of Housing- He proposes to make changes to the housing aspect of this project.- Offsite units should be consistent with the inclusionary program.(+/-) Jay Bradshaw – Carpenter's Union- Senior organizer of the Carpenters Union.- The Union is in full support of housing. The issue they have with this project is that the owners are not paying the proper wages so people cannot afford any of these homes.(-) Alan Teague- This project will cause significant negative effects on the neighborhood and residents.- He requests that a subsequent EIR or an amendment to the EIR be proposed before making any decisions on this project.(-) Daryl Smith - - The issue he has with this project is the height because it is quite a bit larger than the other buildings surrounding it.- He hopes that the Commission will take this into consideration.(-) David Lupo – Carpenter' Union- Companies that drive down wages and steal work away from legitimate business should not be rewarded.(-) Robert Zurcher – Carpenter's Local 22- He understands what people go through to get affordable housing.- He is not going to sit by and watch how wages and benefits are driven down.(-) Zach Smith- He lives and works in a building that faces the site.- He is concerned with the view he will loose, the congestion and parking problems this project will cause.(-) Kim Bowersox – JDL Real Estate- He recently found out about the proposed changes.- He is concerned that allowing this structure would change the character of the neighborhood and would block the skyline.- He would like to have this project reduced in density.(-) Robert Scott- He lives on Freelon Street.- He is opposed to the proposed amendments to this project.- He recently found out about these amendments.- This project will segregate the neighborhood.(-) Cristine Koncal – Fourth Street Neighborhood Association- Everyone is for development on this lot and everyone is for housing.- The issue of parking needs to be looked at more closely.- She does not understand why the parking cannot be below grade level. There are other buildings that have underground parking.- She is also concerned with the density of this project.(-) Cris Slattery – Fourth Street Neighborhood Association- He displayed an aerial photograph of the project site.- Many of the resident's input have not been taken into consideration and this could set a precedent if this project is approved.- He urges the Commission to vote against this proposal.(-) Jim Salinas, Sr.- He urges the Commission to really consider whether or not this is a project that can be supported. (+) Frederick Hobson – District 6 Democratic Club- This project will create market rate housing.- This is a good project. There are people who are living in the streets and this project would help to resolve this problem.- On this project, hosing comes first.(+) Tom Harrison – Assistant Business Manager of Local 261- His organization supports this project. This is an excellent project and it would provide union jobs.(-) Pat Lakey- This project should be mixed housing.- He is for housing and building but this is not the proper way to do it.- He does not support this project.(-) Nancy Watson- She agrees with having something to replace the sand lot.- She is concerned with the density of the project. It will cause a lot of problems especially on game days.- This building is going to contribute to graffiti and public urination.(-) Bruce Prescott- If this project is approved, the Commission will short circuit the process.- He agrees with stopping this process and building something that is in conformance with the General Plan.- This will caste shadows on the other buildings.(-) Madeleine Heinser- She is concerned with the spot zoning this project will cause.- The current proposal is not compatible with the buildings in the neighborhood.- No one wants to walk along a building that has three levels of parking and is not set back from the street.- This project will be extremely large.- She is in support of affordable housing but not of this project.(-) Tracy Sneed- She lives within one block of this project.- She opposes the permitted height increase and the spot zoning of this project.- This project does not make sense at this location.(-) Elizabeth Dodd- She is opposed with the way this deal was structured. She feels that not that many people from the neighborhood were present when this deal was structured.- She hopes that the Commission will stop this process.(-) Kenton McSween – Fourth Street Neighborhood Association- He displayed photographs of the proposed project and pointed out the problems this project will cause like a blank wall on the alley side. This blank wall will be an attraction for graffiti and loitering. The adjacent building is a lot smaller.- He would like the parking below grade and the design be more friendly.(-) Eileen Bernstein Tillman- She has lived in this neighborhood for about 33 years.- She is happy to see that something will be built on this lot. Yet, the building is too large.(-) Nathan Puhichi – Fourth Street Neighborhood Association- He is not opposed to affordable housing or to having something built on this site.- He is concerned with the height of the building.- The existing zoning height would allow this building to be built.(-) Blake Grenier- She lives near the proposed site.- She loves to walk in her neighborhood and is concerned about the crime in her neighborhood.- She would like to have the Commission look at the zoning laws for safety.- The original design had parking underground and windows on the street level, which made the area safer.(+) Antoinetta Staolman- She supports this project.- A way needs to be found to build affordable housing.(-) Edward Kaplan- He lives across the street from this proposed project.- He supports affordable housing but this is a bad idea for this neighborhood.- The developer should be allowed to do what the Planning Code allows.- Affordable housing should be built that will not hurt a neighborhood.(-) Terrie Frye – Central City SRO Collaborative- She is in support of affordable housing yet this project is not appropriate for this location.- She would like to have the parking underground.(-) Jerry Jarvis- He is in support of affordable housing but not of this project.(+) Michael Ilagan- He supports development on this site and the spot zoning.- The lot is an eye sore.- He supports affordable housing as well.(+) Sam Dodge - CCSROC- He is representing tenants in the SOMA district.- He is very excited about apartments being built.- This project needs to be looked at with the big citywide picture.(+) Bob Marr- He does not have any issues with the developer.- This project does not have to be killed.- He is in support of the growth this city needs.(+) Oscar McKinney- He wants to continue living in this city yet he has to jump through hoops and loops in order to do that.- He supports this project.(+) Emma Harris - FRO- She has lived in San Francisco for more than 40 years.- She needs something like this project.- This project is important for people to have a nice place to live.(-) Mel Lindstrom- He is a business owner.- He was never informed about this project.- This project is about following rules and regulations.- He knows what it's like to be a homeless person. Now he has his own building. He has worked hard to obtain this.- This project is telling him that the rules and regulations he knows are being broken.(+) Prince Bush- This project is about moving people to a decent place in order to have a decent way of live.- This project is about housing.- He would like the parking eliminated from the proposed project.(+) Wevdon Jackson – Central City- He supports this project. It is a very unique project and maybe it should receive special treatment.- This housing would provide permanent housing for people who live in S.R.O. hotels.(+) Otto Duffey- This project is not precedent setting, but it does have its unique aspects.(+) Manny Flores – Carpenters Local Union- It is important to keep housing in this city.(+) Dan Williams- He is in support of this project.- S.R.O. hotels are located in the worst areas of the city and have a lot of problems.- He would like this project to go forward and allow affordable housing.(+) Lucinda Douglas- If the project goes through, it is possible she might be able to afford it.(+) Glen Wilson- He supports this project and hopes that the Commission will approve it.(+/-) Elena De Castro- She is opposed to the height zoning and parking aspects of this project.- She supports the housing aspect of this project.(+) Adele Santos- She is an architect and designs affordable housing.- She supports this project.(+) John Bardis- It is important for the Planning Department to be strict about rational planning processes and the laws and regulations and not cause chaos.(+) Delphine Brody – Mental Health Association- People deserve to live in units that have a kitchen and a bathroom.- She supports this project.(+) Edward Karp – Webcor Builders- Webcor will be the union contractor to build this project.- This will be a union project.- He supports the project as it is currently being presented.(+) Randy Shaw- He supports this project as it is proposed.- Housing should be economically viable.(+) Mary Lou Beemer- The affordable component of this project should be off-site.(+) Gen Fugioka – Asian Law Caucus- He is in support of this project.- He sees a lot of people who are homeless.- He urges the Commission to approve this project.(+) Earl Brown- He is in support of this project.- Although this project goes outside of the Planning Code, it is a good project for this City.(+) John O'Connor- This project should be approved as it is being presented.(+) Grace Kieley- If this building is reduced, it will loose the ability to offer affordable units.- This project should be approved because it will provide housing to many people.(+) James NunemacherThis is an incredible creative solution that provides housing without any government subsidies.(+) Jim Lavesque – French Bros Carpets- He is not concerned with the height of this building.- This project is beneficial to working class people.(+) Orville Luster- This project would be a dream come true.- It will provide incentive to other developers to building housing for people who live in the area.(+) Did not state name- He would sacrifice his view to have this building built and provide housing for San Francisco.- We need to keep adding to the supply of housing.(+) Jim Reuben- This project is not before the Commission but he would like to speak about the Special Use District.- This project is completely appropriate to be treated special.(-) Calvin Welsh – San Francisco Information Clearing House- He will be speaking on the Special Use District language.- The Commission should not pass a Special Use District that weakens another portion of the Planning Code.- This is precisely what the Commission is being asked to do.(+) Mike Cassidy- This project should be approved since it will stop the escalating affordable housing crisis.(+) Deirdre Cassidy- This project needs to be adopted if there is any intent to stop the housing crisis.(+) Barbara Garret- She is here to support this Special Use District.- This is the most brilliant idea she has seen to date.- This project will create additional affordable market rate housing, it is below the medium price level and it will house at least 200 people.- This project will eliminate 1-bedroom lofts that no one can afford.- This is smart growth at its best.(+) Angus McCarthy – Residential Builders Association and SOMA PAC- Previously, a building not to far away from this project was approved.- This is a good project and it should be approved(+) Sean Keighren- The issue here is housing. This project will increase housing.- He is furious about the lies put forth by the Carpenters Union.- He sat in on a [meeting] with the Carpenters Union and the developer. At this meeting, the union members did not express any concerns.- Webcor will be building this project and they are 100% union.(+) Red McLines- He is here to support the rezoning of this project.- People need to understand the difference and the benefits this project will give to the people of San Francisco.(+) Bruce Bauman- He has listened for about three hours to testimony and the issues speakers have. One of these issues is the height. Yet there are a number of buildings in the area that have the same or even higher heights.- He is in support of this project.(+) Lou Blazej- He has been asked by the project sponsor to give a comparison of Section 315 and the proposed new Special Use District Zoning and provide a summary of this. He presented this summary to the Commission.(+) Richie Hart- He is in support of this project and the upcoming legislation.- The building is not out-of-scale. The affordable component is far grater than the Leno legislation.(+) Angeline O'Loughlin- The legislation before the Commission has been amended many times during the last year to reflect the needs and concerns expressed by the benefactors of the project. The amendments have been reviewed by the Board of Supervisors, the City Attorney's Office, and now by the Mayor's Office of Housing.- The Commission needs to act now. If it's yes, great. If it's no, great. This project just needs to move forward.(+) Joe Cassidy- They have been working on this project for many years.- They have made many modifications based on the issues everyone has had.- There have been endless negotiations.- He knew that the height would be an issue but to get what the Supervisor's want the height needs to remain as is.(+) Joe O'Donaghue- He supports this project as it is being presented to the Commission.- It will provide affordable housing, which is what the people of San Francisco need.(-) Sue Hestor- There are many inconsistencies with the General Plan or the Planning Code.- This street has heavy transit and heavy traffic.- There has not been an EIR so there is no information regarding the impacts of this project.- A legally consistent housing element should be implemented.(+) Alice Barkley- This ordinance is consistent with the General Plan policies.- This area is suitable for housing density because it's in a transit corridor.ACTION: Approval with amendments:· Require the project sponsor pay $10,000 plus time and material fees that exceed the base $10,000 fee associated with an application for Conditional Use authorization from the Planning Commission (language to this effect should be included in Ordinance Section 249.23(j)), and· Amend the ordinance (Page 10 Line 23) to include the language No more thanprior to One off-street parking space...,and· Amend the draft Ordinance throughout to strike 40%and replace with 50%in the discussions of affordability for the off-site units affordability level.· Amend the Page 11, Line 15 of the ordinance to include that the Planning Commission make design and compatibility Conditional Use findings for the final project that specifically address building scale, required setbacks and street frontage treatments by adding language as follows its review including but not limited to height, building scale, required setbacks and street frontage treatments of the project,and· Amend Page 6, Line 10 to insert a new recital to read: The increased cost of housing in the Tenderloin and South of Market neighborhoods has reduced access to studio and one-bedroom units for very low income individuals and households. Such individuals and households have often been able to find housing only in residential hotels, and have in turn reduced housing opportunities for persons seeking to transition from homelessness to permanent housing. Increasing the stock of affordable permanent housing for individuals and small households in the Tenderloin and South of Market will also allow the residential hotel stock to better serve the needs of persons seeking exits from homelessness.· Amend Page 9, Line 20 of Section 249.23(a) to read: & .(v) the initial marketing plan for the off-site affordable rental units shall be certified by the Mayor’s Office of Housing with marketed and monitored in accordance with the requirements of the Procedures Manual approved under Section 315.1 (33) of the Planning Code, except that the owner shall, to the extent permitted by law, give top priority given to current Single Room Occupancy tenants with low and very-low income, (vi) the affordable rental units shall remain affordable for 55 years or the life of the building, whichever is longer subject to the affordability requirements of the Procedures Manual for a period of 50 years from their date of initial occupancy, (vii) upon completion, the off-site affordable residential building and associated land shall be owned, managed and operated by a nonprofit housing organization, and (viii) the deed to the off-site affordable housing building and the associated land shall revert to the City be tranfered to a non-profit affordable housing organization which currently contracts with the City and County of San Francisco to provide quality affordable housing if the original nonprofit housing organization is dissolved. The off-site affordable housing building and the associated land shall not be sold or transferred without the consent of the Mayor's Office of Housing the City. The nonprofit housing organization shall be responsible for securing all required City approvals and permits for the affordable housing project, with the cost of securing such approvals and permits borne by the developer as its costs of development.· Amend the draft Ordinance on Page 6, Lines 15 and 16 to strike the sentence The Planning Commissioners expressed their support& affordable housing component.· Amend the draft Ordinance on Page 6, Lines 20 through 23 to strike the sentence The rental income accruing& affordable residential building.· Amend the draft ordiance on Page 7, Line 10 to add after affordable housing concept, and which currently contracts with the City and County of San Francisco to provide quality affordable housing.· Amend the draft Ordinance on Page 7, Line 18 to insert 24. The project sponsor has selected Webcor, a contractor that will pay prevailing wages and use union workers in the construction of the project. A contractor for the off-site portion of the project shall also be selected who will pay prevailing wages.· Amend the draft Ordinance on Page 9, Line 17 to insert after constructed, insert, of similar high quality construction to the market rate units.· Amend the draft Ordinance on Page 9, Line 22 after tenants, insert, and families.· Amend the draft Ordinance on Page 9, Line 25, after landinsert title shall be transferred, owned.· Amend the draft Ordinance on Page 10, Line 1 to strike shall revert to the Cityand insert be transferred to another nonprofit affordable housing organization selected by the Mayor's Office of Housing· Amend the draft Ordinance on Page 10, Line 2 to strike nonprofit housing organizationand insert project sponsor· Amend the draft Ordinance on Page 10 Lines 21-22 to replace subsection (f) with Sunlight and Dwelling Unit Exposure Requirements. The Planning Commission may grant an exception to Section 135(g)(2) and Section 140 of this Code pursuant to subsection Section 249.23(j) of this Ordinance.· Amend the draft Ordinance on Page 11, Line 4 to replace the words Setbacksand setbackwith Yards and yard respectively.· Amend the draft Ordinance on Page 11, Line 13 to insert and maintenanceafter completion· Amend the draft Ordinance on Page 11, Lines 16-25 to replace subsection (k) with Timing of Construction: The project applicant shall insure that the off-site units are constructed, completed, and ready for occupancy no later than the market rate units in the principal project. The off-site inclusionary units requirements as specified in Section 249.23 (a) shall be met on-site in the event that no off-site projects is built by the project applicant.AYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeRESOLUTION: 16507 12b. 2002.0414TZ (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)FOURTH AND FREELON SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 249.23 to create the Fourth and Freelon Streets Special Use District encompassing the property zoned Service Light Industrial and bounded by Fourth Street, Freelon Street, Zoe Street and Welsh Street and by adding Section 263.16 to create special height and bulk exceptions for the Fourth and Freelon Streets Special Use District, which would allow previously approved but unbuilt live/work units to convert to market-rate residential units and additional market-rate residential units to be constructed with an allowable increase in height from 50’ to 85’ and a dwelling unit density governed by the permissible building envelope; provided that (i) the developer shall construct at the developer’s sole expense, on land owned or purchased by the developer in either the South of Market Area or the North of Market Residential Special Use District, off-site affordable rental housing with square footage equal to 15% of the total residential units to be constructed offset by the cost of land acquisition, with a minimum of 56 units constructed of no less than 400 square feet each, (ii) the units shall be rental units affordable to low-and-lower income households with income not exceeding 40% of San Francisco’s median income, which shall remain affordable for 55 years or for the life of the building whichever is longer, and (iii) upon completion, the affordable housing development shall be owned, managed and operated by a nonprofit housing organization with reversion to the City if the nonprofit housing organization is dissolved.Preliminary Recommendation: Approval SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 12a.ACTION: ApprovedRESOLUTION: 16508E. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING At approximately 9:15 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing. 13. 2002.0719D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)4423 25TH STREET - South side between Hoffman Avenue and Douglass Street. Assessor’s Block 6544 Lot 012 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.04.12.2804, to construct horizontal additions to the west side and rear and add a new third story. The Project will significantly change the facade of the building and change the roofline from a flat roof to a gabled roof for a single family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential House, 2 Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Modify the ProjectSPEAKER(S):(-) Linda Alperstein – Discretionary Review Requestor - Since the filing of this Discretionary Review. A lot of negotiations have been made between her and the project sponsor.- They are really close to coming to an agreement.- The only one issue she is still concerned about is the rear, flat portion of the roof of the project sponsor's home.- If the project sponsor follows the plans that they have, it will impact all her east facing windows. She has compromised quite a bit.- Even if the project sponsor keeps their flat room above her floor level, it would cause an impact.- She would just like the height of the roof not raised so much.(-) Tom Abels – Project Architect for DR Requestor - He displayed diagrams of the project.- The issues are focused on the height of the flat room at the rear of the house.- The project sponsor would be happy to keep the flat roof and build a deck, but this would be 2 feet higher than what the Discretionary Review requester could agree to.- Also, the Discretionary Review requester would agree to have the handrails on the proposed deck be of a light weight screen or Plexiglas to allow as much air and light to come through.(-) Claire Pilcher- She has one item she would like to have recognized, the deck appeared on top of the rear flat roof later in the plans. - She believes that a deck would defeat the purpose since anything could be put up on this deck.(+) Edward Mullins – Project Sponsor- He and his wife have lived in Noe Valley for many years.- They did not purchase their home to sell it later and make a profit. This is their home which they would like to live in it.- He displayed diagrams of how the project would look if approved by the Planning Department.- They have made many modifications to the plans to accommodate the Discretionary Review requestor.(+) Philip Whitehead – Project Designer and Engineer- He believes that the issues the Discretionary Review requestor has are mostly related to blockage of view.(+) Joseph Marchand- The project sponsors should be allowed to go through with their project.- This project has been held up for over a year now.- This renovation will improve the area.(+) John Rdelo- He has been a long time resident of Noe Valley.- The project sponsors are very good neighbors.- He would like to ask the Commission to allow the project sponsor to do what the code allows them to do.(+) Father Michael Healy – Pastor of St. Phillip the Apostle Catholic Church- The project sponsors are quite open to a compromise and want to be good neighbors.- The problem that he faces in his parish is that families have to move away because they cannot afford to purchase homes. - He supports these parishioners who want to invest in Noe Valley.(+) Eric Rupe- He described general architectural aspects of the project.ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with amendment by project sponsor: (which does not include a 2 foot height reduction in the rear).AYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee 14. 2002.0892D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)415 DIAMOND STREET - East side between 21st and 22nd Streets. Assessor’s Block 2769 Lot 029. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.14.6488, to construct 2 and 5 foot horizontal additions to the rear, and bays to the front and north side of the existing dwelling. The Project would also add a room on the top floor and increase the height of the building by changing the existing gable roof with a flat roof. The proposal includes a roof top deck in the front of the northerly half of the roof accessible by stairs enclosed in a roof top stair penthouse for a single family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential House, 2 Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the ProjectSPEAKER(S):(-) David Wiliamson – Discretionary Review Requestors- He would like to have three changes: (1) reduce the size of the wall by half; (2) ensure that the fence surrounding their home not be damaged; (3) reduce the parapet about one foot from the bay so they will be able to obtain more sunlight.(-) Mrs. Wiliamson- She displayed diagrams of the proposed project to emphasize how she would like the parapet reduced in height so she can receive more light.(-/+) Mike Masuko- This proposed project is next door to a house, which the Planning Department allowed to be built, that is tremendously high.- He is watching his neighbors discuss this issue, which the Commission created.- The Commission should really think of their decision on this case.(+) Colleen Bal – Project Sponsor- They are proposing a very modest project, they want to extend the kitchen in the back 2.5 feet and the back bedroom 5.5 feet – this respects the setbacks in the back. They are also adding a roof deck.- She feels that the Discretionary Review requestor is the only person in the neighborhood who is opposing the project. All other neighbors support their project, even the neighborhood association.- She feels that the Discretionary Review requestor is concerned more about view than about light and air.(+) Alex Terry – Project Sponsor and Architect- The parapet is needed because of fire safety and they have kept it at the utmost minimum.- He displayed diagrams of the proposed project.ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved as submitted.AYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee15a. 2002.1244DD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)660 28th STREET - north side of the street between Douglass and Diamond Streets, Lot 043 in Assessor’s Block 6605, Mandatory Staff initiated request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.03.20.1923, proposing to demolish the existing one-story over garage single-family dwelling. The proposal is also subject to a public initiated request for Discretionary Review. The applicant has also submitted an application to subdivide the lot into two lots and construct a single-family dwelling on each of the proposed lots. The subject property is 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 submitted.SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Without hearing, project continued to February 6, 2003.AYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee 15b. 2002.1245DDDDD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)662 28th STREET - north side of the street between Douglass and Diamond Streets, Lot 043 in Assessor's Block 6605 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.03.20.1926, proposing to construct a two-story over garage single-family dwelling on the proposed west lot. The applicant has also submitted an application to demolish the existing building, subdivide the lot into two lots, and construct a single family dwelling on the proposed east lot. The subject property is located in an 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 submitted.SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Without hearing, project continued to February 6, 2003.AYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee 15c. 2002.1246DDDDD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)660 28th STREET - north side of the street between Douglass and Diamond Streets, Lot 043 in Assessor's Block 6605 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.03.20.1928, proposing to construct a two-story over garage single-family dwelling on the proposed east lot. The applicant has also submitted an application to demolish the existing building, subdivide the lot into two lots, and construct a single family dwelling on the proposed west lot. The subject property is located in an 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 submitted.SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Without hearing, project continued to February 6, 2003.AYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee16. 2002.0650D (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367) 3358 CESAR CHAVEZ STREET - north side between Mission Street and South Van Ness Street; Lot 16 in Assessor's Block 6571 - Staff-Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.23.7284, for a change of use. The existing use is classified as a Bar; the proposed use is Other Institution, Large per Planning Code Section 712.81 for La Raza Centro Legal, an organization committed to promoting day labor leadership and self-sufficiency. The property is located in an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District, and in a 50-X Height and Bulk District. (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 21, 2002) Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditionsNOTE: On October 17, 2002, the Planning Director continued this matter to November 21, 2002 and requested that the Project Sponsor provide staff with a traffic analysis. NOTE: On November 21, 2002, the Planning Commission continued this matter to January 9, 2003. Public Hearing is open.SPEAKER(S):Monica Garcia – Representing Project SponsorRe: Continuance- She agrees with the request to continue this matter to next week.- She requested that this case be the first one on the Discretionary Review calendar.ACTION: Without hearing, project continued to January 16, 2003.AYES: Bradford Bell, Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeF. PUBLIC COMMENTAt this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest tothe 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)) NoneAdjournment: 10:29 p.m.THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2003.SPEAKERS: NoneACTION: ApprovedAYES: Antonini, Boyd, Bradford Bell, HughesABSENT: Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:04 PM